The time is coming when a lot of people are finally... [Archive]

View Full Version : The time is coming when a lot of people are finally...

Karmashock

Mar 5, 2007, @ 02:00 AM

... going to get their own underwear pulled over their head...

there is a new docu coming out about how the GW debate is being manipulated by politically motivated hacks. It features professors and experts from "MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia." among others...

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

this is what you get when you let people like Al Gore and michael moore control the debate... rabid, foaming at the mouth - bias.

Polaris

Mar 5, 2007, @ 02:13 AM

Where can I see it?

Karmashock

Mar 5, 2007, @ 03:49 AM

We'll have to download it. It will be on Channel 4 on the BBC on march 8th. Which of course is in the UK...

I'll get it through a torrent or perhaps through google video/youtube since they seem to have some kind of deal with the BBC.

RazielDemon

Mar 5, 2007, @ 02:23 PM

channel 4 isn't the BBC, it's the terestrial pop entertainment channel pretty much

Karmashock

Mar 5, 2007, @ 02:27 PM

my mistake... I thought all the conventional channels in the UK were the BBC... unfortunately that does mean that I'll almost certainly have to get it through a torrent

MVB

Mar 5, 2007, @ 03:37 PM

I want to see this as well.

Polaris

Mar 5, 2007, @ 11:29 PM

Are TV recordings legal to distro? I would think so..

Karmashock

Mar 6, 2007, @ 05:39 PM

not on commercial channels... so I would think it would be illegal for me to copy it... but I don't really care.

Polaris

Mar 7, 2007, @ 03:36 PM

"Commercial channels" as in channels that come over subscribed services, ie cable and satellite? It sounded like it was on a broadcast channel, since it was < 50

Karmashock

Mar 7, 2007, @ 09:54 PM

as in not state owned... I don't think channel four is owned by the british government which the BBC is...

if channel 4 is owned by the british government then it is very likely part of the bbc even if not labeled as such.

Lucid Angel

Mar 9, 2007, @ 02:28 PM

Channel 4 is not BBC. Final word.

Anyway, I missed it. I'm away on clinical placement at the moment so haven't had much opportunity to watch TV or get online. Was it any good? Has anyone found a torrent of it?

Karmashock

Mar 9, 2007, @ 06:13 PM

Who owns channel 4? If it's owned by the British government... I'm going to smack you on the nose with my newspaper!

And yes, there are torrents of it up already and I'm downloading it right now. I found several copies of it on ISOhunt... I'd provide a link but I don't remember this forums' policy on that sort of thing...

Karmashock

Mar 10, 2007, @ 03:53 AM

I am currently watching the docu downloaded from ISOhunt.

Just finished watching it... I found it compelling, but then I already agreed with it.

It basically restates everything I've been saying for... ever.

The sun
Clouds
Historical changes in temp
CO2 being minor
human beings being minor

it's all there and said more clearly then I'm able with fucking graphs and everything.

What's more, its full of interviews with scientists... several of them say that they disagreed with the IPCC... that's the UN climate study... and yet were listed as contributors to it. One of them had to threaten legal action to get his name removed because the UN refused to take his name off of it.

It also makes the financial argument. That before GW climate science was funded roughly 1 percent as much as it is now. Afterwards it's funding increased dramatically... which means lots of people are around who ONLY get paid because people are afraid of GW.

Then there was a contribution by a founder of Green Peace whom i've referenced before... and he cites the obvious political corruption of the environmental movement. Which at this point is really so obvious that I don't think any honest person can deny it.

It's worth a look... I'm going to cite the link and if the mods here think it's against forum policy then please remove it and let me know it isn't ok. I apologize in advance if I'm breaking forum policy... it's just too good.

http://search.utorrent.com/search.php?q=the%20great%20global%20warming%20swin dle&e=http%3a%2f%2fisohunt%2ecom%2ftorrents%2ephp%3fex t%3d%26op%3dand%26ihq%3d&u=1

The link I downloaded was titled:
Channel 4 - The Great Global Warming Swindle.avi

Worth a look... I was starting to waver under the ENDLESS propaganda machine out there... but this was like coming up for air... This whole movement is going to get smashed. I only hope that the political opportunists that are currently using it don't survive it.

They need to be disgraced... finally... and completely.

Lucid Angel

Mar 10, 2007, @ 06:13 AM

Channel 4 is its own company. It's not owned by the government, that's for sure. All the television channels "owned" by the government derive their revenue from the television license fee. This means that those channels do not have commerical breaks. Whereas, Channel 4 does, because that's its source of revenue.

Thanks for the links tho ;)

It's interesting to read what is said about the man who made this programme, on the offical channel 4 forums. Martin Durkin's credibility is more than questionable. I wouldn't hold such faith in this programme after all. Many of his previous productions have been shown to be nonsense.

Somewhere else in the forums I read that he edited the interviews with scientists to twist the facts and he often would mislead those scientists as to the nature of the interview.

Lucid Angel

Mar 10, 2007, @ 06:17 AM

Just in case I lose it tomoz when I come back to look for it...

The following are extracts from an article in the Guardian dated 16 March 2000 about the producer of this programme, Martin Durkin.
The whole article can be read at
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/

"Channel 4 has hired a charlatan to make its science programmes"

"In October 1998 a television producer named Martin Durkin took a proposal to the BBC’s science series, Horizon. Silicone breast implants, he claimed, far from harming women, were in fact beneficial, reducing the risk of breast cancer. Horizon commissioned a researcher to find out whether or not his assertion was true. After a thorough review, the researcher reported that Mr Durkin had ignored a powerful body of evidence contradicting his claims. Martin Durkin withdrew his proposal. Instead of dropping it, however, he took it to Channel 4 and, astonishingly, sold it to their science series, Equinox."

"Mr Durkin has often been accused of taking liberties with the facts. In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with Nazis, conspiring against the world’s poor. No one would suggest that green claims should not be subjected to critical examination, but the people he interviewed were lied to about the contents of the programmes and given no chance to respond to the accusations the series made.

The Independent Television Commission handed down one of the most damning verdicts it has ever reached: the programme makers “distorted by selective editing” the views of the interviewees and “misled” them about the “content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.” Channel 4 was forced to make a humiliating prime time apology. After the series was broadcast, I discovered that the assistant producer and several of its interviewees worked for the right-wing libertarian magazine masquerading as “Living Marxism”, which has just been successfully sued by ITN. All the arguments Against Nature made had been rehearsed in LM."

"So what do you do with a director with a record like this, who has brought your channel into disrepute, who has misled both his contributors and his audience? If you are Michael Jackson, the head of Channel 4, you commission him to make more programmes."

"Neither Martin Durkin nor, extraordinarily, Charles Furneaux, the commissioning editor of the science series Equinox, has a science background. They don’t need one, for science on Channel 4 has been reduced to a crude manifesto for corporate libertarianism."

Psy

Mar 10, 2007, @ 09:09 AM

Liberties with facts indeed - he is ignoring, no, he is outright contradicting experimentally proven physics facts, facts that are simple facts and say nothing about the causes or effects just the actual physics mechanism of heat exchange in atmosphere.

This doc = about as much credibility as a Roswell conspiracy theory proof.

Laughable - but what is sad - retards will take it as "proof", the same retards that incidentally believe in the majestic 12. I wonder if his next doc will "prove" that one also.

Karmashock

Mar 10, 2007, @ 07:23 PM

Don't watch it if you're not willing to see what the other side has to say. I provided a link to get the video... so it's easy for you to get it if you're willing to watch it.

I don't see how comparing environmentalists to nazis all by itself invalidates his whole body of work. The claim can be made that western environmental policy harms the developing world which in effect kills millions of people. Several books have been written on the topic of how effectively pushing expensive energy sources on VERY VERY poor people basically kills black people. Now, I don't think either say that this is pushed because they are black people... but that the policy IS killing them. By denying them electricity... they have to use fires in their homes... which of course raises risks of lung cancer... and things like refrigeration for food or even vaccines is hard or impossible under such circumstances.

Morally, I wouldn't make the claim that they are like nazis... but it is possible that the net effect of their actions could harm nearly as many people. Which is probably the argument that WAS made and the guardian is just distorting it as usual.

Furthermore, the guardian is not a fair news source... it's extremely biased as we ALL know. So please at least watch it first. The scientists being quoted could NOT have been that misquoted because their statements were too complete. They each made the whole argument in ONE sitting... ONE camera take. You couldn't have edited the film to make them say what they said.

If you just dismiss anything and everything that might argue against the orthodoxy of your beliefs then you're validating the movie. Because it effectively makes the argument that environmentalism is a new religion in which anyone that disagrees is a heretic. Their science dismissed before it is even examined.

Prove that you're not of the converted by at least looking at it. I speak to Lucid Angel of course... psy as we both know is the converted and isn't expected to do anything but foam at the mouth... sorry psy... just your record.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Karmashock

Mar 10, 2007, @ 07:39 PM

found it on google video too

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q

Lucid Angel

Mar 10, 2007, @ 11:36 PM

Right, finally got time to watch it on Google. It certainly answers many of the points raised in the GW debate very well. For now then, I certainly have a lot to reflect upon. Despite the concerns I raised above, about the relaibility of the author of this programme, it certainly has swayed me.

One thing I particularly like about the programme is the way it approaches not only the scientific debate of GW, but also the political, social and economic implications. It's just a shame it was made by Martin Durkin, as it elicits some trepidation when accepting the conclusions.

Karmashock

Mar 11, 2007, @ 12:08 AM

if the political argument against GW is correct then it might be that his name was never bad to begin with... that it might have been slandered in the past. RD's argument against him seemed to be almost entirely based on his previous environmental movies.

The only one that wasn't was the silicon breast implant docu... but then you can't say that he was wrong there either unless you know quiet a bit about it.

Consider, that he might just be a victim of a propaganda machine.

This man is clearly an iconoclast... someone that makes a point of confronting/contradicting/shattering commonly held beliefs and notions of his time. Such people have throughout history often been burned at the stake, nailed to crosses, etc. And each generation that did so felt completely justified at the time... and in time their ancestors were ashamed of the practice.

An open mind would be appropriate.

RazielDemon

Mar 11, 2007, @ 01:49 AM

what's this about 'RD's argument' ? I haven't argued in here yet. I just noted that Channel 4 wasn't connected to the BBC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4#Funding

Anyway, I have not done rigorous research into GW, I fear its consequences if it's true, and i'm inclined to be extremely cautious. The documentary mainly deals with CO2, but it's methane (CH4), not CO2 that many 'believers' in GW think is much greater of a problem. But for that we'll mostly have to have a look at farming output growth charts, which i'm still looking for.

The documentary is extremely convincing, i'll see if I can find anything to falsify it's claims though :)

Psy

Mar 11, 2007, @ 06:21 AM

I am not converted one bit, just not stupid enough not to listen. I especially found interesting the data showing CO2 levels trailing rise in temperature where logically it should be other way around.

One possible explanation is a cumulative effect where rising CO2 OR - again O-R, temperature causes the CO2 rise which in turns rises temps further and so on as one feeds the other.

We don't know what the initial cause is and I give it that. It could be agriculture, it could be our emissions, it could be completely natural - altho it is absolutely insane that an educated individual can think our unnatural contribution no matter how small doesn't affect nature - question is not whether it does, and evidence shows it does in a significant way - question is how and what can be done about it. And simple math on a grade 4 level can show you that in such a system (co2 feeding heat feeding co2), an external influence such as humans - contributing to EITHER of the two elements in that system whether by deforestation which started with the advent of agriculture, or present day modern industrial emissions, - can only accelerate the system. Again this doc fails to mention an extremely simple concept. And if the system accelerates, any breaking mechanism earth may naturally have is compromised - it may or may not work.

Unlike some tho, i give other side the benefit of the doubt, in this case twice, Alas, my knowledge of physics, the actual data from NASA with initial trickles of research stemming from figuring out why venus was hot etc, in combination with the pathetic 1950's hard sell style of reporting in this doc doesn't make me foam at the mouth as you say but grin from ear to ear then burst in uncontrollable laughter concluding with shaking head in disbelief.

And again my stance is very simple and very logical and very much on middle ground and it is this:

1. There is an obvious correlation between human activity timeline and the temperature timelin, and while correlation is NOT proof of causality, strong enough correlation merits further investigation. The little ice age actually supports the GW if one is educated sufficiently as gw doesn't predict insane temperatures alone but wild swings in weather, both on a day to day bases as well as over time. Something this dude conveniently forgets because it happens to be an inconvenient scientific in this case truth. Pun on purpose.

2. Body of scientific knowledge paints the aforementioned correlation very badly, and no appealing to my defense mechanisms by saying GW 'converted" blame ME - won't work. I think on a higher level and if indeed it is us that caused this I am above blaming our idiot grandfathers and such, and will damn well take responsibility for MY actions..

So, to me, the solution is simple and debate is moot. Slow down what we are doing so we don't have a "oh shit" moment when the time we FULLY understand the climate comes. Which is more logical, and far saner than simply dismissing it and going about our business hoping we are right. To sit back in arrogance laughing at the people imploring caution and slight changes in attitude until we know 100% is the mark of the ignorant and the fool.

Karmashock

Mar 11, 2007, @ 06:28 AM

what's this about 'RD's argument' ? I haven't argued in here yet.
Sorry, I meant psy. I apologize for the confusion... I have no excuse. :)

Anyway, I have not done rigorous research into GW, I fear its consequences if it's true, and i'm inclined to be extremely cautious. The documentary mainly deals with CO2, but it's methane (CH4), not CO2 that many 'believers' in GW think is much greater of a problem.
Ok, but did you see what being causious costs people?

I've talked long and hard about the REAL cost of cutting back economic development. But I think this film put pictures to those words. I've said again and again that money at a certain point equal LIFE. That poverty kills.

So it is not responsible to cut back when you don't know if you even need to... because cutting back causes people to DIE.

But for that we'll mostly have to have a look at farming output growth charts, which i'm still looking for.
The charts on temperatures in there should have been compelling. Especially in that increased temperature brought on increased CO2, not the other way around.

And especially, that the SUN was most clearly linked to temperature changes.

The documentary is extremely convincing, i'll see if I can find anything to falsify it's claims though :)
Please do, I have a strong interest in the real real truth here. I don't want to just hammer one side because it suits my ideology. But for YEARS I've seen GW as looking weak. Everything in this video I've seen before. And more troubling still is the vilification of people that disagree with GW.

Answer this, is it wrong to vilify people that question a scientific theory?

The only answer to that is not if they do so honestly and scientifically. Thus far I don't think the people painting themselves green/blue and dancing in the street have given both sides a fair hearing. And therefore it's not a good idea to allow them to drive our debate.

The religious aspect of that argument also have to be examined.

Karmashock

Mar 11, 2007, @ 07:08 AM

We don't know what the initial cause is and I give it that. It could be agriculture, it could be our emissions, it could be completely natural - altho it is absolutely insane that an educated individual can think our unnatural contribution no matter how small doesn't affect nature - question is not whether it does, and evidence shows it does in a significant way - question is how and what can be done about it.
The evidence does not show that it does in a significant way. In fact, the evidence in the film showed that there was no noticeable effect what so ever.

Did you miss that during the industrial boom of the 1940-1970's temperatures FELL?

And that scientists in the 60's and 70's therefore declared "GLOBAL COOLING"?

Did you also see that temperatures in the upper atmosphere are warming more SLOWLY then on the surface of the planet? According to the global warming models that should be THE REVERSE!

Did you miss that solar radiation and sun spot activity were linked DIRECTLY to world temperatures?

No sir, you are leaping to conclusions.

A more prudent course of action would be to suspend judgment and simply examine situation until it is properly understood.

the problem is that it seems many people refuse to wait... they want action without understanding. That is both stupid and dangerous.

Unlike some tho, i give other side the benefit of the doubt, in this case twice, Alas, my knowledge of physics, the actual data from NASA with initial trickles of research stemming from figuring out why venus was hot etc, in combination with the pathetic 1950's hard sell style of reporting in this doc doesn't make me foam at the mouth as you say but grin from ear to ear then burst in uncontrollable laughter concluding with shaking head in disbelief.
Venus has a very different atmosphere when compared with our own.

I believe CO2 makes up something like .03 percent of the earth's atmosphere. And of that percentage roughly 84 percent of it is NATURAL. Beyond that CO2 only accounts for about 10 percent of the green house effect on our planet all by itself first because it's not a very good greenhouse gas and second because it's so diffuse. To say that such a tiny contribution to such a large system is doing so much is illogical on the face of it. Especially when organized with other information.

As to the 1950's style of the docu... I frankly liked it... Look, the people that have made the GW argument HAVE BEEN HEARD. So don't begrudge these guys from doing a hard sell in probably the ONLY docu that will come out for years making this point. It has to be hard sell... how else is it going to even begin to compete?

1. There is an obvious correlation between human activity timeline and the temperature timelin, and while correlation is NOT proof of causality, strong enough correlation merits further investigation.
I agree that investigation is good. However, I do not agree with hysteria, calling people evil for disagreeing with a scientific theory that has yet to be proven. Or any of the political hijinks that have gone along with the GW debate.

The little ice age actually supports the GW if one is educated sufficiently as gw doesn't predict insane temperatures alone but wild swings in weather, both on a day to day bases as well as over time. Something this dude conveniently forgets because it happens to be an inconvenient scientific in this case truth. Pun on purpose.
That is actually completely false.

The metorologist... the that is a weather scientist made the point that GW actually would cause CALM weather as weather is generally generated by the temperature differential between the equator and the poles. In GW the planet is warmed UNIFORMLY. So the differential is REDUCED. That means LESS energy in the weather system.

You cited venus. LOOK THIS UP! What is the weather like on Venus?

If you are right then because of it's extreme GW it should have wild temperature swings and intense hurricans.

If I am right it will be very hot but will have almost no winds and no real storms.

I already know I'm right... Because I inform myself on these things. You obviously never made the connection.

You cite venus in one part and then don't reference it to the rest. Think in full terms. Think objectively. You could pilot tanker ships through the holes in your logic.

2. Body of scientific knowledge paints the aforementioned correlation very badly
If by badly you mean with no scientific conviction or decisive judgment, then we agree. If you mean it supports the notion that we're cooking the planet, then I don't know what you're referring to.

So, to me, the solution is simple and debate is moot.
As it was to the people that nailed men to crosses and set others on fire.

How are you not saying those against your position are Heretics?

Slow down what we are doing so we don't have a "oh shit" moment when the time we FULLY understand the climate comes. Which is more logical, and far saner than simply dismissing it and going about our business hoping we are right. To sit back in arrogance laughing at the people imploring caution and slight changes in attitude until we know 100% is the mark of the ignorant and the fool.
You must have missed the bit about africa in the docu... Did you actually watch it at all? Honestly?

Psy

Mar 12, 2007, @ 06:42 AM

Karmashock

Mar 12, 2007, @ 08:21 AM

I stopped reading at the venus stab and simply scanned the rest. Uneducated as always. The reason for venus example is that venus atmosphere, as different as it is, has led to THE DISCOVERY OF THE EXTENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE MECHANISM BY WHICH GREENHOUSE GASSES WARM THE PLANET. One of the primary benefits of studying different atmospheres is that such studies help better know our own.
I stopped reading after you dodged this point... or should have...

Answer the gambit or you only admit your bias.

If GW should increase the violence of storms then why does Venus have dead calm weather?

Why is it that weather scientists have made a point over and over again of saying that GW will NOT increase the violence of storms?

Al Gore and friends made this pitch:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/downloads/images/Desktop-1.jpg

Extra large so you can't miss it... See how the smoke makes a hurricane? He released it after a bad hurricane season and it was a point he made in his movie.

It's also entirely baseless.

You will never be worthy of intellectual respect until you use your INTELLECT to examine such statements and positions.

I am simply saying to GW opponents - present evidence in a verifiable form, and GW proponents should do the same. Then whichever bares out as more accurate and with testable predictions, is the more correct.
Rather hard to do when the fanatics make a point of saying that anyone that disagrees with them is a climate criminal, evil, in the pay of oil companies, or insane.

Consider that the weather channel recently had their programming director say that anyone that disputed man made global warming had no place there.

Consider that people such as Al Gore say that no one that disagrees with man made global warming should be taken scientifically seriously... That is don't even listen to what htey have to say... don't even examine it. Judge them before htey've had their case.

The sad thing is that these people are controlling the debate at this point:
http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/education/ecologic/img/BennyZable.jpg

and until they're driven out how can you possibly expect a dissenting voice to get a word in edgewise?

You should repudiate these people if you mean what you say. They do NOTHING to further debate and as they might likely be wrong on most of their fundamentals they're actually hyping a LIE.

So far GW "heretics" have been winning with far more predictions bearing out from actual level of temperature rise, to the rate of desert expansions to the various effects on the biosphere. Even with such proofs, one is welcome to offer an alternative, testable, explanation. Thus far none is given, yet the theory that made such predictions with those predictions being manifested is continually under attack for completely irrelevant reasons, such as cost to a particular industrial sector if one is to curtail their emissions. Please.... ridiculous.
Completely false.

You didn't watch the movie at all. That much is obvious now.

I'm done with you until you stop lying. You said you watched it or gave that impression and now your complete ignorance of the points made in the film only proves conclusively that you either didn't watch it or weren't paying attention while you were.

Absolutely, pathetic. Your incredible ignorance matched with your frankly laughable arrogance makes you a clown.

All you had to do was watch the film to gain full respect. But your insistence on claiming to "know everything"... or at least far more then anyone here... while at the same time making no effort to educate yourself as to dissenting views... simply pathetic.

At any rate, you have proven time and again your primary approach to understanding is more concerned with the socio-economic and political perspective than with the actual science.
Not at all. However, I'm not blind either. When a group of communists effectively takes over the environmental movement as a means to push their marxist political agenda I'm not going to miss that.

And there is nothing wrong with that, you are concerned with your standard of living and your country's economic performance and factors affecting it - except that for that same reason you always assume right and wrong. There is no right and wrong, All there is in the case of Global Warming or lack of it thereof - is what is - and in this case only one picture will emerge as the reality. A reality which is not contingent on any one desire regardless of motives.
That sword cuts both ways. And I am not blind to the science either. We've had enough of these discussions for you know full well that I have educated myself to a significant extent on these matters. What's more, I am not stupid.

So my opinions cannot be dismissed because I lack a degree in climate science.

For my part I continually digest old and new literature completely oblivious to the economic and social impacts since in my view, and this is a personal stance nobody is required to share, human desire is irrelevant to science.
Then you would agree that the GW debate is being ruined by leftist fanatics.

there is no other honest stand point if you mean what you say.

Thus I am not influenced by any propensity to believe one or the other which happens to cater to my economic preferences, papers and reports on the subject.
I know you to have very passionate political views... and frankly, I think you're no less prone to being swayed by them as anyone else. You are, so far as I can tell a socialist. As such the very nature of GW and it's response will help world socialism.

I am thus forced to reserve some doubt as to your imparciality concerning which way things go. Your political doctrine draws strength from GW and mine is harmed.

Thus the debate has been tainted by the old Capitalism/individual freedom/economic expansion VS Communism/Socialism/Collectivism/Neo-Ludditism.

I admit that my values impact the way I would like things to be... I do not think you are any more immune to such persuasions as I am.

I equally strongly dismiss "scientific' documentaries by rabid tree huggers who, just as this documentary, present their views as means to their own, albeit opposite, end. Again, reality - cares little what one may or may not want. And so far, everything I know points to reality of detrimental human impact on environment.
I strongly disagree with your characterization of this docu as being the product of people who are the same as the tree huggers only reversed.

This docu so far as I could tell made no overwhelming political statement of any kind. It even attacked Margret thatcher at one point. So it's not a right wing docu. It's if anything a skeptic's docu. It's a voice for if anything... reason and debate.

It did not say "there is nothing to talk about" it said "there is a lot to talk about".

Al gore and associated tree huggers make a point of saying THERE IS NO DEBATE or the DEBATE IS OVER!... So no, this is not the same as them.

They want to silence people... this docu wanted people to speak up.

This was a far more honorable venture.

Disagree if you wish, but disagree on basis of simple scientific fact, not on base of economic factors or scientific "fact" catering to those factors, because, in this case, if you happen to be wrong, economy wont matter.
As the docu said, the earth has been hotter and colder... and when it was hotter the seas didn't rise and swallow cities.

So I really don't have much respect for the typical "doom and gloom"... It's no more frighting to me then a scare crow is... and unlike many, I'm not a bird brain.

Lucid Angel

Mar 12, 2007, @ 09:56 AM

To reinforce Karma's final point. The docu showed the general temperature pattern over the last centuries and although there had been significant cooler and warmer periods - little ice age and medieval warm period, respectively - they had not caused "doom and gloom" to the extent that we are assured by pro GW.

Karmashock

Mar 12, 2007, @ 10:10 AM

And again... because I think this is a huge point.

GW will not create violent storms. That is the most illogical an crazy statement from the GW crowd.

"Weather" largely gets it's "energy" from temperature differentials. Much as an electrical current is only powerful because you have a significant electrical differential. If you had a massive yet consistent concentration of electrons you wouldn't have "power" because there would be no potential energy. Much as a hot air balloon cannot rise in an area where the air is as hot out side the balloon as inside. You need that temperature differential to create the difference in air density that causes the balloon to rise.

That is science fact.

On our planet nearly all winds are generated by the temperature differential between the earth's poles... which are very cold... and the earth's equator which is very warm. It is the exchange between those two general zones that causes the majority of our weather.

GW however is an over all increase in temperature. It boosts the temperature EVERYWHERE. As a result, not only would storm systems NOT be strengthened by such a an event but they would be WEAKENED. Strong GW means weaker storms.

To further back this point up I cited Venus... which is the only example we have of global warming in our solar system taken to extremes. The atmosphere of venus is very calm compared to our own. There are no winds. There are no storms. There is a LOT of lightning for reasons beyond my knowledge... but there are no great storms.

Al Gore and friends made a point of saying that GW would cause stronger storms and in fact blamed CURRENT storms on GW. That was not only scientifically irresponsible but it demonstrated a crass intention of pointing to ANY current issue and blaming it on global warming. We've been spared much of the GW nonsense lately because it's been the winter. Now that the seasons are changing again... we can expect these people to start screaming GW when the air conditioners click on.

Look, the simple fact that I, a non scientist can poke holes in this thing so easily demonstrates the degree to which decent has been silenced. Any scientist worth his salt could do a MUCH better job of poking holes in this then I have with that simple example. And yet Al Gore and friends get away with pulling this kind of crap because to disagree is HERESY!

It needs to stop.

Lucid Angel

Mar 12, 2007, @ 10:23 AM

The doldrums are a good example an area that is already being evenly heated (and has been, naturally for millenia) and therefore has a lack of wind (wind: created by pressure differentials, created by uneven heating).

I have to say, ever since watching that docu I have been looking further into this and their seems to be a lot more hype than science behind the pro GW arguements. Those who are pro GW are almost brainwashing their followers with statements about storms increasing in number and severity, for example. But I still want to sit on the fence with this issue until I'm sure.

MVB

Mar 12, 2007, @ 12:14 PM

Good intentions gone awry, Lucid. Rather than address individual environmental issues, politically weak on their own but perfectly valid scientifically, the left has created a climate "meta issue" that encompasses and explains all others in an attempt to garner votes, even if bad science and political mega-spin are required to get the less intelligent masses to buy into it. There are all kinds of environmental problems, some of them directly climatological or atmospheric in nature, but they aren't concise and jointed enough to work well individually.

Good discussion here, with a lot of the logical points being ignored, dodged, or treated as something other than what they are.

Karmashock

Mar 12, 2007, @ 12:18 PM

I sinserely would like to deal with a REAL environmental issue... please cite one. I'd like your opinion one what is really important here.

For my own part issues such as deforestation and drag net fishing are real problems. But neither one is really climate based.

What is a climate level problem that is real?

Psy

Mar 18, 2007, @ 06:03 AM

Karma pay attention in school plz. Venus SURFACE wind speeds are low for various reasons ranging from its 90 times greater atmospheric pressure to its cloud cover thickness, to its temperature.

Actual average wind speed on venus is 180meters/second. By contrast average on Earth is 0-100m/sec. One can not directly compare the wind speeds at the surface of the two planets due to the aformentioned factors so spare me the 1-1.2m/s at the surface level fact - I am educated enough to know it. Saying venus is dead calm thus, is plain false.

Source?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982CRASM.294..257B

Incidentaly I get my info from scientific papers, not fucktards like gore and this guy who are only concerned with the buck a controversy can bring in. It still does not prevent me from using my own body of knowledge to conclude ony one of the two has a point based on reality - and you allready know who that is.

A point lost on people who think when university is over one stops reading textbooks.

As for the huricane image - it's called a METAPHORE - You know, one that does not concern itself with the actual chemistry equations and climate models one can not even fit on a dvd cover but aim to produce an image showing a relationship between the topic of climate (recognizible image of it in form of a hurricane) and human influence on it (factory). another concept you have an impossible time grasping when it suits you but understand very well when googling an image or two for a trolling inflamatory point..

Keep playing your little semantics games thinking they constitute a valid argument. Can you fit a climate model, all of the necessary body of knowledge it is based on, the equations relevant to it and a conclusion onto a dvd cover? A poster? A billboard? Can you even hope anyone but an actual climate expert will understand what the fuck you just shown them? You have no problem showing a picture of a lunatic in need of a bath thinking he represents someone like me who spends his days in polished shoes and a suit.

Please. Hypocricy.

And finally. On the lattitude temperature differential.

1. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas - granted
2. Temperatures at higher altitudes should be higher - granted on basis of physics in a vacuum but completely false on the basis of actual atmospheric science and actual model predictions .

3. Did anyone bother to check the actual latitudinal distribution or rather layers of atmospheric composition? The documentary certainly didn't. It simply assumed.

Also the documentary is a laughable distortion of science like this:

http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html

Notably:

Thus current interpretation of the geologic record suggests that greenhouse gases both respond and contribute to climate change. Atmospheric CO2 is viewed as one of many components of the climate system that interact in complex ways over a wide range of timescales. A change in one of these interactive components is likely to affect other aspects of the global climate system. This interactive relationship between CO2 and climate implies that the geologic record is not likely to reveal analogs of simple climate forcing by anthropogenic CO2 emissions [Crowley, 1997; Hay et al., 1997; Sundquist, 1986]. There is no known geologic precedent for large increases of atmospheric CO2 without simultaneous changes in other components of the carbon cycle and climate system.

Predicted Climate Change from Increased Greenhouse Gases

Some of the predicted responses to increases in greenhouse gases include increases in mean surface air temperature, increases in global mean rates of precipitation and evaporation, rising sea level, and changes in the biosphere. Many of these predictions are based largely on computer models that simulate fundamental geophysical processes.

Most model simulations of Earth’s climate indicate that an increase in the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas will lead to an increase in the average surface air temperature of the Earth [Kattenberg et al., 1996, table 6.3]. For example, the 18 model runs (using 7 independent models) quoted by Kattenberg et al. predict an equilibrium temperature increase of 2.0 ± 0.6° C for simulations using double the current level of atmospheric CO2.

An increase in surface air temperature would cause an increase in evaporation and generally higher levels of atmospheric water vapor. The positive feedback associated with this leads to the expectation that an increase in surface air temperatures would lead to a more intense hydrological cycle, with more frequent heavy precipitation events [Houghton et al., 1992; Kattenberg et al., 1996]. However, because of the coarse spatial resolution of present general circulation models, simulations of the regional and seasonal distribution of precipitation are poor [Kattenberg et al., 1996].

Just the fact that documentary states 2. higher altitude warming is predicted by the models is contrary to what the models actualy predict.

Thus - false.

Karmashock

Mar 18, 2007, @ 08:21 AM

inconsistent...

On one hand you're distancing yourself from gore and on the other you're defending him.

Pick a side.

The hurricane image was not just a metaphor. He explicitly stated that hurricanes are going to get stronger because of GW. What's more that's been aped by the environmental propaganda machine.

As to the sensible science... I have no problem going through all of that SENSIBLY. However, a major point in this thread is that the issue has become too politicized and the debate is being controlled by political groups more then anything else.

That's extremely relevant and does need to stop.

As to the models, you didn't read that very carefully. In the docu it said that the models show that the upper atmosphere should warm faster then the surface air temperature. NOT that the surface would not warm in the models but that the rate of warming would be faster in one place then another.

Your citation makes no reference to relative warming between these two zones. So... your citation is meaningless.

Please try to curb your hostility and frankly arrogance before me... you make these sorts of errors frequently and tend to do so while dancing around thinking you're a genius... It's just annoying. And it takes more effort then I'm happy to admit to keep from just calling you a retard and putting you on the block list.

That isn't an insult... I'm just being honest with you. You made what I think is an honest mistake, and I'm not going to hold it against you... just try to tone it down a bit... it's very hard to talk to you when you get uppity.

Furthermore, your even when it's talking about "Greenhouse gases" it isn't talking about CO2 specifically. Which my Docu WAS talking about. CO2 makes up as I said earlier a tiny part of our atmosphere where as water vapor makes up a relatively large part of our atmosphere.

Water vapor is a green house gas.

Make sure that when you read these articles that you do so with a critical mind. If you're just scanning to mine a quote to post in a forum you're not going to read them properly. Please just have an open mind and engage in the discussion HONESTLY. That means looking at both sides seriously. If your mind is closed on this matter then you have no business in this thread. I don't want to talk to you and you don't want to talk to me.

I'm curious... I'm interested in seeing what is really going on. I don't trust political sources for science whatever their side is... and the whole field has been politicized.

Please... just chill out and try again.

Psy

Mar 18, 2007, @ 11:02 PM

I am not distancing self from gore - I have explicitly stated he is correct and the documentary incorrect. I am distancing self from any politically or financially motivated blurbs.

Secondly:

As to the models, you didn't read that very carefully. In the docu it said that the models show that the upper atmosphere should warm faster then the surface air temperature. NOT that the surface would not warm in the models but that the rate of warming would be faster in one place then another.

My citation explicitly states SURFACE temperatures. The documentary explicitly states "if GW were real higher temperature rise will occur at altitude" which is simply not the case except in their own interpretation of facts. But lets go through it again shall we?

Documentary premise:

GW is false because models predict higher altitude temperature rise which simpl does not exist, in fact contrary to models the SURFACE temperature has risen.

Where? At the point where they show the bearded idiot pretending to be a scientist going by the name of Richard Lindzen followed by a dumb cartoon revealing the fact you are treated as a child. Shortly after that the specirfic quote:

"all the models, every one of them calculates that the warming should increase the higher you go in the atmosphere"

In any case - I'll assume YOU actually watched it and have the ability to listen.

I challenge that as outright bull-fucking-shit, because i KNOW the models, and i KNOW they do not predict any such thing. I reiterate the documentary states an outright blatant LIE.

I do not know where you found the higher altitude should warm faster in that article as it is not stated in it but Ill assume I misread and you did not mean my citation states the same.

At any rate lets analyze;

The principal greenhouse gas concentrations that have increased over the industrial period are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11 (CCl3F) and CFC-12 (CCl2F2) [Hansen et al., 1998; Schimel et al., 1996]. The observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 280 ppm in the preindustrial era to about 364 ppm in 1997 (Figure 1) [Friedli et al., 1986; Hansen et al., 1998; Keeling and Whorf, 1998] has come largely from fossil fuel combustion and cement production.

Documentary states that the relative temperatures for this period have fell. This is in actuality, consistent with the rise in greenhouse gasses as the effect is neither immediate nor singular, rather it occurs over time (hence the trailing of the co2 vs temperatures easily explained with the interconnected mechanism where each part affects the other such as the resulting increase in water vapor). Thus the documentary states the simple truth, yes the temperatures and CO2 have been trailing, but ignores the scientific context as to the likely explanation why they have been trailing.

Second, same quote. A rise from 280ppm to 364ppm is a 30% increase. That is far from coincidental considering that particular period has seen a low solar activity which the doc assignes blame to.

Next. Why CO2 and not other greenhouse gasses. Is it convenient because humans also produce it? Your dosumentary would have you believe its a yes. however scientific facts are:

Of the several anthropogenic greenhouse gases, CO2 is the most important agent of potential future climate warming because of its large current greenhouse forcing, its substantial projected future forcing [Houghton et al., 1996], and its long persistence in the atmosphere (see above).

Thus it is the most relevant at the moment - this is not to say this can not change.

Next. Documentary would like us to believe this warming period is nothing unusual, yet direct contradiction is found here:

Although temperature is usually the first variable considered in assessments of global climate change, it is important to consider other data that integrate the state of the climate system over space and time. These include temperature proxy data (such as tree ring records), borehole temperature measurements in soil, permafrost, and ice sheets, and measurements of the mass balance of valley glaciers and ice caps. Several recent proxy temperature reconstructions have suggested that the warming during the twentieth century is greater than any seen in the last 400 to 600 years and perhaps the last 1200 to 1500 years (Figure 2) [Overpeck, 1998; Thompson et al., 1993]. A completely independent estimate [Pollack et al., 1998], based on analysis of subsurface (borehole) temperature measurements, supports the unusual character of the recent global warming in the context of the last 5 centuries.

One of the two is an outright lie thus. Which one?

I would bet on these guys who do not ignore scientificaly observed data that contradicts the thesis and acknowledge exceptions:

There is also evidence of large and abrupt climate changes that exceed recent experience (Bond et al., 1997; Denton and Karlen, 1973; Gasse and Vancampo, 1994; Laird et al., 1996; Petitmaire and Guo, 1996; von Grafenstein et al., 1998]. These climatic variations occurred during a time when variations in atmospheric CO2 were minimal (Barnola et al., 1995; Indermuhle et al., 1999).

It is clear from these records, and from many other studies of paleoclimate evidence throughout the geologic record, that the global climate system has been influenced by many factors in addition to greenhouse gases (see, for example, Berger and Crowell, 1982). To evaluate geologic evidence for the influence of greenhouse gases, one must focus on records from periods when changes in atmospheric CO2 were much larger than those that occurred during the millennia immediately preceding the recent increase in anthropogenic CO2 production.

Unlike the documentary which uses the exceptions to discredit the thory, true science presented here acknowledges these exceptions while not global - do necessitate further study and evaluation of the theory. Scientific method 101 which the documentary could use lessons on.

Finally we get to your challenge on the scanning part, the essay does not claim higher or faster atmospheric TEMPERATURES anywhere, but it does claim higher atmospheric CO2 CONCENTRATIONS. I do not see how you can confuse the two and attack my credibility when it is written plain as day :

Still larger past variations in atmospheric CO2, including increases to concentrations several times higher than recent levels, have been estimated using geochemical models constrained by the sediment record [Berner, 1994, 1997; Berner et al., 1983; Budyko and Ronov, 1979; France-Lanord and Derry, 1997; Francois and Godderis, 1998; Raymo et al., 1988]. During the last several hundred million years, these larger and slower CO2 changes can be correlated with general features of climate change [Berner, 1990; Crowley and North, 1991; Fischer, 1981].

And here are all of the predictions again, please point out where higher altitudes warm faster?

Some of the predicted responses to increases in greenhouse gases include [B]increases in mean surface air temperature, increases in global mean rates of precipitation and evaporation, rising sea level, and changes in the biosphere. Many of these predictions are based largely on computer models that simulate fundamental geophysical processes.

Most model simulations of Earth’s climate indicate that an increase in the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas will lead to an increase in the average surface air temperature of the Earth [Kattenberg et al., 1996, table 6.3]. For example, the 18 model runs (using 7 independent models) quoted by Kattenberg et al. predict an equilibrium temperature increase of 2.0 ± 0.6° C for simulations using double the current level of atmospheric CO2.

An increase in surface air temperature would cause an increase in evaporation and generally higher levels of atmospheric water vapor. The positive feedback associated with this leads to the expectation that an increase in surface air temperatures would lead to a more intense hydrological cycle, with more frequent heavy precipitation events [Houghton et al., 1992; Kattenberg et al., 1996]. However, because of the coarse spatial resolution of present general circulation models, simulations of the regional and seasonal distribution of precipitation are poor [Kattenberg et al., 1996].

Another possible consequence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change is elevated sea level. The main factors that contribute to sea level rise are thermal expansion of ocean water and the melting of glaciers, both of which are in response to higher air temperatures. Although it has been well established that meltwater from the world’s small glaciers has contributed to sea level rise during the last century [Dyurgerov and Meier, 1997; Meier, 1984], the mass balance of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica is unknown. However, recent geodetic airborne laser altimeter measurements indicate that between 1993 and 1998 the southeastern part of the Greenland ice sheet thinned overall, with a thickening at a rate of 0.5 ± 0.7 cm/yr at elevations above 2000 m (not corrected for crustal motion) and a thinning at the low elevations at rates up to 1 m/yr [Krabill et al., 1999].

Worldwide measurements from tidal gauges during the last 100 years indicate that mean sea level has risen between 10 and 25 cm (18 cm mean) [Douglas, 1991, 1992; Gornitz, 1995; Warrick et al., 1996]. This rate is greater than would be expected from the archaeological and geological record of sea level from the last two millennia [Warrick et al., 1996]. Most modeling studies, including simulations of the combined effects of increasing greenhouse gases and aerosols, predict that the trend in rising sea level will continue in the future [Titus and Narrayanan, 1995; Warrick and Oerlemans, 1990; Warrick et al., 1996; Wigley and Raper, 1992, 1993].

A possible biological effect may be seen in evidence that there has been an increase in the active growing season at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere [Keeling et al., 1996; Myneni et al., 1997].

So they talk about higher altitudes too, lets see

Uncertainties regarding clouds and the hydrological cycle and their representation in climate models also introduce uncertainty into present understanding of the response of the climate system to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases. It has been indicated in model calculations that warming in the lower atmosphere as a result of greenhouse gases would increase the abundance of water vapor in the atmosphere and intensify the hydrologic cycle [Gates et al., 1992; Kattenberg et al., 1996].

These changes might be expected to lead to an enhancement of cloudiness. Clouds reduce the net absorbed short wave radiation in the climate system because of their high reflectivity (a cooling influence); however, they also radiate energy back down to the surface and lower atmosphere (a warming influence). The overall effect of these opposing influences is a net cooling [Ramanathan et al., 1989] although this varies regionally, with cloud type, and with geography. The question of whether average cloudiness would be increased or decreased in a greenhouse-enhanced world is not yet established. Issues such as these contribute to the present uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

Again, where is it stated that the higher altitudes are warming faster. Your documentary states it, you claim my citation does so also. I say your claim is plain false.

As evident in the conclusion

Summary

In summary, the atmospheric concentrations of the principal anthropogenic greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, CFC-11, and CFC-12) have increased significantly during the industrial period. Elevated concentrations are predicted to persist in the atmosphere for times ranging to thousands of years. The increased atmospheric levels of these gases, especially CO2, increase the IR energy absorbed by the atmosphere, thereby producing a warming influence at the Earth’s surface.

This is also, yet another example of a scientific method at work:

It is clear that atmospheric CO2 is not the only influence on global climate. However, there have been large natural variations of CO2 in the geologic past, and these changes are correlated with general features of climate change. There is no known geologic precedent for large increases of atmospheric CO2 without simultaneous changes in other components of the carbon cycle and climate system........

Substantial uncertainties remain in the magnitudes and geographical distribution of these changes and in the rates at which they may be expected to occur. The significant recent progress in the scientific understanding of climate change and the uncertainties in predictions of climate change are documented in the peer-reviewed literature. Peer-reviewed scientific research provides the scientific basis for the AGU position statement on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases and must continue to be utilized in informed decision making on this issue.

Second paragraph is a shocker. What a surprise. A GW lunatic dressed in placards wrote that level headed scientific research is being conducted and will continue to be conducted, while at the same time proving within predictive and testable hypothesis that a mechanism, involving in part CO2 and by extension our dumping of it into the atmosphere, is a contributing factor. Further proving the factor is relevant due to the longetivity of the gas. Funny tho, it is in complete disagreement with the documentary, probably due to all the liberties the doc takes, and all the self imposed constraints on conclusions a scientist may take.

Now on to the final point and yes i dare say it because I know the processes.

Why GW will cause, or more correctly allready "CAUSES" stronger huricanes.

Clarification, global warming does not CAUSE the actual hurricane but it does cause the STRENGTH OF THAT HURRICANE to go UP. Likewise, while not a straight upwards line, in other words a year with zero hurricanes is not disalowed but a general upwards TREND is predicted, GW will also POTENTIALLY cause increased FREQUENCY of hurricanes (altho this is not likely due to other conditions which also have to fall in place which are not affected by GW in the same way) - and other such violent weather which is closely linked to and contingent on favorable temperature. In hurricane case this is the water and water level temperature.

This also explains why GW predicts - based on absolutely correct physics - wild weather swings and fluctuations which people ignorant of the science use to dismiss the theory or acuse the messenger of idiocy - but I'll ignore that for the moment and assume lesson will be learned on hurricane example.

And here's the 101:

Huricanes are formed in areas of low pressure and require a warm surface temperature at water level, 26 degrees to be precise.

Now reread what science tells you about the increased greenhouse effect. Rising temperature noticed? Good.

Next. Formation of huricanes 101.

Source- Nasa Hurricane Formation and Decay

Hurricanes form over tropical waters (between 8 and 20 degrees latitude) in areas of high humidity, light winds, and warm sea surface temperatures [typically 26.5 degrees Celsius (80 Fahrenheit) or greater]. These conditions usually prevail in the summer and early fall months of the tropical North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans, and for this reason, hurricane “season” in the northern hemisphere runs from June through November.

More detailed here http://eob.gsfc.nasa.gov/Library/Hurricanes/

What do hurricanes need to grow, meaning what is it that determines just how strong a hurricane get? Simple - warm water, the warmer the water the stronger the hurricane

same source

A chain reaction (or feedback mechanism) is now in progress, as the rising temperatures in the center of the storm cause surface pressures to drop even more. The lower the surface pressure, the more rapidly air flows into the storm at the surface, increasing the winds and causing more thunderstorms. More thunderstorms release more heat, forcing air at higher altitudes outward. The air pressure at the surface drops even more, triggering stronger winds, and so on.

And by extension how a hurricane weakens is by colder water. Simple really.

And another source giving testable predictions as to HOW strong they will get as a result of increased CO2 increasing surface air temperatures and thus by extension those over water, evaporation and precipitation all of which also contribute to favorable pressure changes that will feed the storms initially.

Hurricanes & global warming

This also raises the question whether people living in vulnerable areas should prepare for more violent hurricanes in the event of a warming climate.

In three articles (ref. 1, 2 and 3) the conclusion is reached that in case of a higher CO2 world the Sea Surface Temp.'s in the NW Pacific would rise by some 2°C and the intensity on the hurricanes would increase by 5 - 11% in terms of maximum wind velocity. Their central pressure would decrease by 7 - 24 mbar, their radius with hurricane force winds would increase by 2 - 3% and, probably most important in many cases, their near storm precipitation would increase with some 30% according to the model studies of ref. 2. On a qualitative basis these conclusions would also hold for other hurricane areas in the world like in the Atlantic and Caribbean.

Another result (from ref. 3) is that the occurrence of hurricanes will probably not increase. The availability of warm surface water with a temperature of over 26°C is a prerequisite for the formation of hurricanes. But also the amount of wind shear has to be low. They can only form under barotropic conditions. If warm water masses expand further North or South, they will reach areas with strong winds aloft. In these areas the formation of hurricanes is prevented. This point is illustrated by the Caribbean: Water temperatures are sufficient for the formation of hurricanes all year, but only in late summer and autumn low shear conditions prevail enabling the formation of hurricanes.

The fact all gore didn't decide to include all of this information on the DVD cover needs no explanation as it would frankly be ridiculously insane to do so.

The same information, which I know in my haste I did not do justice to as I simply do not have the patience to argue without irritation at the opposition (Karma in this case) because of their lack of education to which they have access to but chose to ignore should also not detract one from sifting through the research and arriving at logical conclusions as to which is more likely.

Thus a question is posed to all involved in this debate, do you actually give a fuck about what happens to the planet, or are you going to excersise the fast food conditioning to derive fast conclusions that happen to cater to your idology and insist your stance is right simply because you have chosen it?

The extensively quoted essay above choses the hard road and argues for but with a measure of caution about the unknowns and promotes a scientific endavour to trully understand both the climate and GW as well as our impact on it. It does not negate any of the 'inconveniences" but addresses them head on with known facts, likely outcomes, and continued attempts at addressing the gaps. That is a mark of an educated, scientificaly minded "camp" that will help our planet. They are not concerned with being right or wrong, but what they do know, they present and ask for change. In GW case it is CO2 emissions and their undeniable current corelation.

As for the opposition, the very fact I had to answer how GW will deliver stronger storms, and have managed to do so in seconds of research as I did not want to use my own knowledge which is frequentkly challenged here, shows just how ignorant the party accusine others of ignorance actually is. As this information is as widely accessible as a neighborhood convenience store.

Educate yourself impartially, before you jump the bandwagon and blow someones...trumpet.

As for further study - specific to documentary - it has allready been answered here, can you guess why it is not strange at all that during the industrial revolution when the CO2 content jumped the temperatures fell? It is a very simple mechanism. You have a choice, be a swallowing bitch and believe the doc, or find out for yourself why, yet again the doc uses a fact OUT OF CONTEXT and ignores the science behind it.

My final say on this matter is again reiteration of "educate yourself fools" we have one planet, and while I respect your choice to remain ignorant, I disrespect your choice to influence mine and wellbeing of things I care about though such ignorance.

And as for the documentary - I believe any person with an ounce of intelligence will have realized the 3 most important premises of the doc have been outlined here and proven to be absolute, and worse yet, at best hypocritical, an in actual fact blatant lies.

Karmashock

Mar 19, 2007, @ 01:31 AM

Psy,
You're not debating with me... you're quote mineing and not even thinking about things...

I've read your whole post... I started to write one of my long replies but I just can't do this with you... it's a mutual waste of our time.

Your statement that all a hurricane needs is warm water was really the point where I knew I couldn't do this with you... it let me know that you're not thinking at all.

The article you cited stated "they tend to form in"... NOT that that is all they need. But YOU DIDN"T CARE!!! You're looking for quotes to back up your side without OPENLY and HONESTLY examining your own thoughts.

120 mile and hour winds are not caused by warm water. You don't get swireling vortex of air from hot water.

Think in terms of thermodynamics... WHERE is the energy coming from?

For you to have potiental energy you have to have a differential to exploit.
THIS IS FUCKING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE
THIS IS FUCKING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE
THIS IS FUCKING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE
THIS IS FUCKING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE
THIS IS FUCKING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE

ALL winds on earth are driven by pressure differences between various regions on our planet. These pressure differences are caused by differing temperatures that cause the air to expand or contract at given points.

Savvy? Warm water means NOTHING all by itself. It's about as useful as the negative lead on a battery all by itself.

Thus again... and this seriously is the last time I'm going to explain this to you... If the poles heat faster then the equator then you have LESS energy in the weather system. The weather system gets its energy from the DIFFERENTIAL.

You can't call yourself an educated person and not know this... Enough.

Psy

Mar 19, 2007, @ 04:40 AM

The exact quote is "typicaly" not "tend to". Second all of the ingredients have been highlighted for your digestion, not just the one I found "supportive of my argument". And to make it worse you pretend as if I said 26 degrees water = hurricane - which is absolutely idiotic considering I mention pressure, winds and the pressure differential via the nasa quote which they explain as a chain effect.

Your entire response is basicaly to condense my overlaying argument about lack of actual understanding argument and somehow throw it back at me thinking a semantics game will work. In fact all you managed to do is prove it.

Nowhere have I disputed the need for wind and pressure, I have in fact pointed out the temperature of the water governs the strength of the hurricane as it moves over it. I have even outlined other factors that can work for or against the said hurricane and in fact i have listed the warm water in conjunction with the winds and atmospheric pressure- even highlighted them ALL - not just water or temperature. Thus you pretending its not there is a joke at best.

As usual you have no fucking clue as to the actual content of the sentence nor its meaning. Nothing I have posted is in contradiction to any science, high school level or otherwise.

Your argument is however contrary to sanity.

1. Every single of your counterarguments is a desperate attempt to state I have ommited something when the pressure and the winds necessary for hurricane creation have been outlined in the same sentence with temperature isolated as on of the factors contributing to the STRENGTH of the hurricane - learn the distinction between a system and an aspect of that system..

2. I have also pulled a source that explains how warm water feeds the system (huricane) to clarify the above point.

3. Your inability to grasp a simple concept that if that warm water gets warmer the rest of the system gets imbalanced is not my problem, and you can copy-pate "high school science" all you want you will still have portrayed only your own inability to read and your own propensity to outright assume, and lie about what the other person has actually written.

Your words:

The article you cited stated "they tend to form in"... NOT that that is all they need. But YOU DIDN"T CARE!!! You're looking for quotes to back up your side without OPENLY and HONESTLY examining your own thoughts.

My words;

What do hurricanes need to grow, meaning what is it that determines just how strong a hurricane get? Simple - warm water, the warmer the water the stronger the hurricane

As to the actual FORMATION of the hurricane I have pulled quotes stating that:

Source- Nasa
Quote:
Hurricane Formation and Decay

Hurricanes form over tropical waters (between 8 and 20 degrees latitude) in areas of high humidity, light winds, and warm sea surface temperatures [typically 26.5 degrees Celsius (80 Fahrenheit) or greater]. These conditions usually prevail in the summer and early fall months of the tropical North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans, and for this reason, hurricane “season” in the northern hemisphere runs from June through November.

More detailed here http://eob.gsfc.nasa.gov/Library/Hurricanes/

And most damning to your ass is this

The availability of warm surface water with a temperature of over 26°C is a prerequisite for the formation of hurricanes. But also the amount of wind shear has to be low. They can only form under barotropic conditions. If warm water masses expand further North or South, they will reach areas with strong winds aloft. In these areas the formation of hurricanes is prevented. This point is illustrated by the Caribbean: Water temperatures are sufficient for the formation of hurricanes all year, but only in late summer and autumn low shear conditions prevail enabling the formation of hurricanes.

Further proving you either can't read, chose not to or are plain stupid.

So a recap:

1. Hurricanes a (as a system explained by pressure and wind and temperature interactions all of which I HAVE mentioned) are fed by warmer water. Notice I said FED, not created by warm water.

2. Concluded that since hurricanes gain strength over warm water they are only likely to strengthen over warmer water more still. I have also pointed out that even then hurricane strengthening can be retarded by a sufficient change in other contributing elements.

Since warmer surface temperatures mean warmer waters this means, that if our emissions are indeed warming shit up, then by extension we are feeding hurricanes when they form.
'
(and please don't quote me currents I am well aware temperatures of water depend in a major way on those too- unlike you I don't ignore things despite you believeing I am guilty of your own bias)

3. Finally You got upset you look like an idiot now because you are presented with a direct contradiction to your baseless assumption there is no connection between CO2 and the hurricane. You go so far to acuse me of saying something I never did, and in fact stating I haven't said what I did say.

You wanted a line between the factory and the hurricane - I drew you one.

Live with it.

(and yes i know its paste not "pate" but not worth even the further spell check time)

kthnxbai

Karmashock

Mar 19, 2007, @ 05:14 AM

BRAAAAAAINNNSSS
So you're a zombie now?

Listen... I'm not explaining it again... GW = Weaker storms.

I've laid that point out very clearly such that practically anyone can understand it. There isn't a single fact you've cited that I wasn't aware of prior to this thread's creation. You are saying NOTHING that backs up the GW angle in this... In case you don't already know, your flaw is in about the middle of part 2... read it again.

So you're either so much of an ideologue that you'll shut your brain off if it ever encounters a counter point. Or you know full well you're wrong and are willfully trying to obscure the point.

Either way, I have no patience for it.

You still aren't questioning where the energy comes from... until you do you'll just be slinking down the street with your arms out in front of you... drooling... moaning "brrraaainns"...

*loads shotgun*, Karmashock.

Karmashock

Mar 22, 2007, @ 05:22 AM

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-03-21T193920Z_01_N21299875_RTRUKOC_0_US-HURRICANES-FORECAST-TSR.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Remember how 2006 was going to be the worst hurricane season EVER!!!! SQUIRM IN TERROR PUNY MORTALS *EVIL LAUGH*...

yeah... well that didn't happen did it... putz...

Well, they're saying 2007 will be pretty much the same thing... come on... be scared... *yawn*...

Someone just needs to raise their hand and admit that that was 90 percent GW hype driving that... and this is the same.

I want a time machine just so I can do a clear before and after test with a few of these... Seriously... wouldn't it be pathetic if weather forecasts changed because a certain political documentary wasn't made?...

Psy

Mar 31, 2007, @ 07:12 PM

isten... I'm not explaining it again... GW = Weaker storms.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/

Excrept:

his is dishonest in at least two different ways. First of all, Broad conveniently forgets to mention that the 2006 Hurricane season was accompanied by a moderate El Nino event. It is well known that El Nino events, such as the 2006 El Nino, tend to be associated with stronger westerly winds aloft in the tropical Atlantic, which is unfavorable for tropical cyclone development. The season nonetheless produced a greater than average number of named storms in the tropical Atlantic (10), 3 more than the typical El Nino year. But El Ninos come and go--more or less randomly--from year to year. The overall trend in named tropical Atlantic storms in recent decades is undeniably positive. We can have honest debates about the long-term data quality, but not if we start out by misrepresenting the data we do have, as Broad chooses to. Additionally, this is a clear misrepresentation of what Gore actually stated in his book. Gore indicated that it is primarily Hurricane intensities which scientists largely agree should be expected to increase in association with warming surface temperatures, and specifically notes that

There is less agreement among scientists about the relationship between the total number of hurricanes each year and global warming.

So here we have it, again, scientists say GW= stronger storms not weaker, and only the frequency is up for debate.

Read the whole thing. It addresses precisely what you chose not to.

It also addresses your Remember how 2006 was going to be the worst hurricane season EVER!!!! SQUIRM IN TERROR PUNY MORTALS *EVIL LAUGH*...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

At continental, regional, and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been
observed. These include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation
amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy
precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones10. {3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 5.2}

This is exactly the problem with Karma who will never in a million years accept the fact someone actually knows more - notice I said more, not better, since I don't blame Karma for falling victim to quazi scientists, but I do blame him for not accepting the need to evaluate the opposing arguments scientific merit.

The article is sourced here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

a link accidentaly followed from here

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=what_the_hex_going_on_at_saturn_s_ pole&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

I am posting it because it is a convenient summary, but more so than that it actualy provides links within the doc for background information.

Now please, unless you intend to seriously educate self on climate models, not the actual physics and numbers but what they mean, as well as the various theories and data interpretations down to less mainstream (awareness wise) theories such as man made global warming kickstarted by agricultural revolution published some 8 or so years ago which clearly and intelligently however unconvincingly still sets the start of the trend.

When you have heard as many theories, arguments, and seen their predictions prove or disprove the science as they happen, only than can you make a valid argument for or against. Until then you are simply in one camp or another for the sake of being in a camp and with little actual merit as a responsible individual actually concerned with the planet we live on.

Whot I wrote is clear, you can try to misinterpret my text, or outright take it out of context, or continue to blurt out such completely false premises such as "GW+Weaker stomrs" which is absolute rubbish. But until you know as much as an average joe such as myself knows, you will only appear as a kid that understands lego trying to explain engine weight distribution physics to a porche engineer team.

I am not telling you what to think, only what you should do before you formulate your opinions. And its very simple - gather knowledge, for an informed decision. It will at the very least prevent embarrasing statements held to be true when in fact such statements only clarify the depth of ignorance.

Go buy Gore's book or fuck steal it if you don't want to pay him, then once you have read it, go and either rent or buy all the works he has credited in his book, then repeat the same for those. And accumulate knowledge so that neither a retard director, or myself are relevant, only the science.

Or alternatively, you could find out if Gore's book was printed on recycled paper, and if not, attack his credibility from that angle..that is if you are really really petty.

Karmashock

Apr 1, 2007, @ 02:12 AM

I'm not accepting info from a blog or the IPCC.

A large point of that docu was that the IPCC was crediting people for making the report that in fact disagreed with it.

So here we have it, again, scientists say GW= stronger storms not weaker, and only the frequency is up for debate.
Where is the science saying that?

Don't give me another talking head. Explain the SCIENCE!

How does a general global warming lead to stronger storm activity?

This is exactly the problem with Karma who will never in a million years accept the fact someone actually knows more - notice I said more, not better, since I don't blame Karma for falling victim to quazi scientists, but I do blame him for not accepting the need to evaluate the opposing arguments scientific merit.
Ah, but this is exactly what you have not done.

You have cited "scientists" saying "psy is right, GW makes storms stronger"

That is not science. An evaluation of the opposing argument would be an evaluation of the science itself.

Show me the science. And please... from a university or something. Citing realclimate isn't reasonable because I can cite just as many websites that disagree with your position.

You won't respect any of those websites because they'll be run by a small group of people with scientific training and very little else to back them up.

effectively the same credibility as realclimate.

When you have heard as many theories, arguments, and seen their predictions prove or disprove the science as they happen, only than can you make a valid argument for or against. Until then you are simply in one camp or another for the sake of being in a camp and with little actual merit as a responsible individual actually concerned with the planet we live on.
I heard the vast majority of arguments... I do not close my ears or my eyes... I open my mind.

Go buy Gore's book or fuck steal it if you don't want to pay him
Gore is not a scientist and belongs no more in this debate then George Bush Senor.

That's half of my problem with him. He's a politician with a political axe to grind.

We both know that. His influence on this topic on an international level is inappropriate.

Psy

Apr 1, 2007, @ 06:51 AM

How does a general global warming lead to stronger storm activity?

For the last time stronger storms, not stronger activity - that is up for debate, stronger storms are explained time and again and are simple physics of how the storm works and what it needs to grow (warm water). If you actually read anything you managed to attack you would have understood that:

GW = stronger hurricanes - FACT - the warmer the water given other condidions remaining favorable such as wind and pressure - the stronger the hurricane - GW results in warmer water among other things thus... 1+1=2.

GW = more hurricanes - DEBATABLE

You have no problem quoting this documentary completely oblivious to the hypocrisy behind your own stance.

Gore is not a scientist and belongs no more in this debate then George Bush Senor.

Really? Well you seem to accept the documentary bullshit since you have consistently thrown its "proofs" as a challenge to my actually informed and versed in the topic arguments, yet both the documentary creator and Gore have done exactly the same thing - talked to the actual scientists, with the small exception of Gore having talked to BOTH camps.

Gore of course actually having a brain to understand simple concepts, and as a side note having an infinitely broader and deeper understanding of the science on the topic than you.

If you do not accept Gores information - which is what I.T. essentialy is, accompanied with his 'lets do something about it these are the reccomendations", then neither should you accept the retard directors documentary which goes the extra mile to outright misrepresent facts. Something you can not accuse gore of - especially in light of current issue with GW leading to stronger storms which Gore outlines as is and even acknowledges those parts that are up for debate.

As for the blog - if you actualy bothered to read past the "blog" word, it was written by Micheal Mann and Gavin Schmidt. Again proving you are not well versed in the topic or the climate science in the slightest .

Gavin Schmidt http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=46 and http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/gschmidt.html

Michael Mann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann_(scientist) and http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/Mann/

So you dismiss valid input from people with credentials as scientists on the topic - so much for you dismissing politicians only.

Enough of a scientific merit for you, you obviously don't deserve the slightest effort in providing data or valid opinions from well known scientists since you are not looking to find the answer you are only looking to invalidate anything that disagrees with your own stance which of course is (understatement) poorly infromed.. Obviously I am asking a blind man to read and I had enough especially answering again and again how gw affects hurricanes. Anyone with the most basic level of comprehension would have understood it by now.

Karmashock

Apr 1, 2007, @ 08:54 AM

For the last time stronger storms, not stronger activity - that is up for debate, stronger storms are explained time and again and are simple physics of how the storm works and what it needs to grow (warm water).
warm water does not create 100 mile and hour force winds.

You're just sounding stupid now.

The potential energy comes from a differential.

DIFFERENTIAL RETARD.

That means that the warm water or air warmed by the water etc has to MIX with something cold. The temperature differential drives the air pressure differentials that drive the storms.

If the differential is lessened... then the air pressure differential has to be lessened as well which means you're dealing with WEAKER storms.

Your "science" thus far which you seem so convinced of has been no more sophisticated then "warm water = stronger storms"... which is typically stupid.

Potential energy comes from the production of entropy. This is again basic high school physics.

Which you apparently failed.

GW = stronger hurricanes - FACT
*laughs*

Unicorns + Faries x magic beans / dragons = the mean population of mermaids.

:lol:

GW= stronger hurricanes is not a fact... Fact.

- the warmer the water given other condidions remaining favorable such as wind and pressure - the stronger the hurricane - GW results in warmer water among other things thus... 1+1=2.
That's just it. You're assuming that the only thing that is changing is the water temperature at the equator. When in fact we're talking about GLOBAL FUCKING WARMING

Global means the whole fucking planet moron. So other conditions do not remain favorable.

Really? Well you seem to accept the documentary bullshit since you have consistently thrown its "proofs" as a challenge to my actually informed and versed in the topic arguments, yet both the documentary creator and Gore have done exactly the same thing - talked to the actual scientists, with the small exception of Gore having talked to BOTH camps.
I've cited no politicians. You have.

would you be happier if I just cited them by name? I'll just say in the future, "professor Philip Stott of the University of London said X"...

:lol:

Stop quoting gore... it's pathetic.

Gore of course actually having a brain to understand simple concepts, and as a side note having an infinitely broader and deeper understanding of the science on the topic than you.

Gore's a political hack, moron. The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll be able to have a comprehensible discussion on the topic. :lol:

As for the blog - if you actualy bothered to read past the "blog" word, it was written by Micheal Mann and Gavin Schmidt. Again proving you are not well versed in the topic or the climate science in the slightest .

I know who put the blog up, it's still a blog.

If I cited a blog backed up by similarly well known scientists you wouldn't accept it any more readily... stop being such a hypocrite.

If I cited books by George Bush senor and various blogs in this discussion you'd laugh at me to... :lol:

Go foam at the mouth somewhere else... I'm all out of rabies shots.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Psy

Apr 2, 2007, @ 06:37 AM

You are so fucking stupid its unbelievable.

I have explained TWICE how warmer water means stronger hurricane, including data/info from NASA.

If you think you know better then NASA go and continue being a retarded parrot repeating the "differential" bullshit you probably read somewhere and likely don't really understand anyway as evident by downright idiotic refusal to acknowledge a simple mechanical fact of warmer water feeding the damn storm.

One last fucking time:

This time I am using NASA again but I am using their "grade school level' page. Hopefully THAT sinks in.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/F_How_Strong_Is_That_Hurricane.html

Note its 'winds that meet' not some "differential" someone like you keeps repeating. The "differential" as you call it is created and fueled by warm water and evaporation genius.

NASA FACT?
The birth of a hurricane requires at least three conditions. First, the ocean waters must be warm enough at the surface to put enough heat and moisture into the overlying atmosphere to provide the potential fuel for the thermodynamic engine that a hurricane becomes. Second, atmospheric moisture from sea water evaporation must combine with that heat and energy to form the powerful engine needed to propel a hurricane. Third, a wind pattern must be near the ocean surface to spirals air inward. Bands of thunderstorms form, allowing the air to warm further and rise higher into the atmosphere. If the winds at these higher levels are relatively light, this structure can remain intact and grow stronger: the beginnings of a hurricane!

and finally

Hurricanes and Global Warming

Since warm ocean waters and warm, moist air fuel storms, theory predicts that global warming should increase the number and intensity of tropical cyclones. As the oceans soak up extra heat from the atmosphere, ocean surface temperatures rise, increasing the extent of warm water that can support a hurricane. Not only should this mean that more hurricanes can form, but increased ocean surface temperatures could also increase a storm’s maximum potential intensity, the strongest a storm can get in ideal conditions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/3218_orleans.html

For students, which is appropriate since you haven't graduated to a responsible individual yet:

now that you have hopefully read the three things hurricane needs lets upgrade you to general college level:

A hurricane forms when warm, moist air rises from the ocean surface and begins to condense into storm clouds and rain. As the water condenses it releases heat, which warms the air around it. This warm air begins to rise; as it does so it is replaced by more warm, moist air from the ocean below. This cycle starts the hurricane's spinning motion. As a hurricane travels over the warm water it can gain more energy and increase in strength (a hurricane starts as a tropical depression before developing into a tropical storm and then a hurricane). A hurricane's strength diminishes as it moves over land and is robbed of its warm water energy source. Dense wetlands can help weaken a hurricane by breaking the connection between the hurricane and warm ocean water.

So...DOH - more warm water and warmer water will do exactly what to this system Einstein?

It certainly gets more complicated, as Gore pointed out btw and got attacked for it, when one considers more factors such as elnino or amount of dust in the air mainly from africa when discussing Atlantic hurricanes, but hey the very basics are obviously too complex for you so... lets just forget about the whole thing, shut our ears and hum real loud, hopefully louder than the hurricane roaring about a "differential" in intelligence..

Go back to school please or at the very least Google shit before you spew shit, information on this is so widely accessible only a retard can miss it, or argue against it.

If you found an offsetting factor, such as even something as obscure but logicaly relevant as a fucking air traffic prior to storm formation - FINE you can say GW != stronger storms on basis of that. But trying to change the laws of physics and mechanics and say its not so! is plain retarded.

It is beyond me how one can simply chose to ignore a simple fact regardless of its implications, and just pretends its not there. I'd call it a delusion but its beyond even that as delusion is a condition and not a choice.

I'm done here, and save those shots for yourself, you'll need them.

Karmashock

Apr 2, 2007, @ 05:46 PM

psy, warm water while required is not the limiting factor in hurricane formation. The Caribbean ocean is warm most of the time and has always been so in recorded history. Go there in the winter... it's like bath water all year round.

Lets get specific. What temperature does the water need to be? From that we can see what the average seasonal temperature is through time and make a real judgment.

as to warm water being an energy source, I know that... but it has to MIX to work. If the planet is warming GLOBALLY then that should mean that whatever it is mixing with should also be warming.

THE RELATIVE DIFFERENCE in temperature is where the energy comes from. If I heat the ocean up ten degrees but cook whatever it's mixing with... air streams whatever... by the same margin then the next exchange won't change. Because the relative difference between the two systems will remain the same.

Psy, you're ignoring something very fundemental. If you know anything about science then you know the energy has to come from somewhere.

Look, even boiling water can only be used to power turbines if it's being released into an environment with lower air pressure/lower temperature.

Please think about this... If I BOIL water for a turbine what makes that turbine spin is the equalization of air pressure between the boiler and the environment. I might also get some energy from a temperature DIFFERENTIAL between the two.

Now think about this... if the generator were put in a place were water boiled already at room temperature and the average air pressure was very high, my turbine WOULD NOT WORK. Because my boiler could not generate a strong enough differential to cause the turbine to spin.

This is very simple physics. Likewise, if we heat the WHOLE PLANET. Then you've heated BOTH parts of the system. The relative difference should be nil at worst. In fact, from what I've read the warming is more profound at the poles. Which means if anything the cold element which MIXES with the hot must warm faster then the warm element is warming. If that is true then there should actually be LESS energy in the system.

IT"S SIMPLE... please... I'm tired of arguing with you... if you want to just end this with us calling each other retards we can do that. But it's rather sad.

RazielDemon

Apr 13, 2007, @ 10:52 PM

Wow, what a surprise:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.'

On that sunspot theory, by the way, i've taken a bit more of a look at it, and if it's right, the earth should right now be cooling, which, tbh, it doesn't seem to be.

Changes in solar output together with the absence of large volcanoes (that tend to cool the climate) are likely to have been causes for the rise in temperature between 1900 and 1940. However, the much more complete observations of the sun from space instruments over the past 40 years demonstrate that such influences cannot have contributed significantly to the temperature increase over this period. Other possibilities such as cosmic rays affecting cloud formation have been very carefully considered by the IPCC (see the 3rd Assessment Report on www.ipcc.ch) and there is no evidence that they are significant compared with the much larger and well understood effects of increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

And I realy think that's all that's needed to be said about this documentary, misrepresenting facts is not acceptable from either side, and I think i'll stick with IPPC's views thank you.

Karmashock

Apr 14, 2007, @ 01:28 PM

I saw that already... but if you look at what he said in the docu none of it was out of context.

He said that scientists have an incentive to make wild models and that you can make a computer model say anything you want.

No where did he say in the piece that GW is wrong or bad. Furthermore, practically everyone else couldn't have been taken out of context as they said things to the effect of "this is a myth" or "I had to file legal charges to get the UN to take my name off the report"

so there is one guy who is upset and really he has no case as he wasn't misrepresented.

MVB

Apr 14, 2007, @ 08:42 PM

Did that guy just refer to World War Two as pure propaganda?
Is he a buddy of mr. "HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED" over in Iran?

/gagme

Karmashock

Apr 14, 2007, @ 10:12 PM

Did that guy just refer to World War Two as pure propaganda?
Is he a buddy of mr. "HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED" over in Iran?

/gagme
no, I think he was simply referring to the powerful propaganda during WW2 itself... Go team! Buy War bonds! Loose lips sink ships!... etc.

regardless you have to see what his contribution to the docu was... he was no misrepresented expect for being in a docu that trashed GW. His contribution however only made the point that scientists have an incentive to make wild models and you cna get a model to say anything.

that was literally his ONLY contribution to the whole docu. Is any of htat wrong? No it isn't.

sooo... he has no case.

Apocalypse

Apr 17, 2007, @ 04:30 PM

Karmashock

Apr 17, 2007, @ 06:46 PM

Slightly off topic but a quick tip for you. If it's a BBC channel then it will BBC as part of it's title [not including radio stations], i'e BBC1 BBC4 BBC news, whatever also BBC isn't goverment owned either [although it has very strong government ties] but it does get it's revenue from the licence fee which is a legal requirement for some very odd reason. It's obvious to us Brits but for those Americans it's not quite so obvious so just a tip for you.
it is absolutely government owned and controlled.

it might have a lot of free range but it's effectively the same organization as the American PBS (Public Broadcasting Service). PBS is government owned and opperated with a great deal of free range. The only major difference is that it gets most of it's funds from donations where as the BBC gets their money through hoaky "license" fees...

Apocalypse

Apr 17, 2007, @ 07:16 PM

it is absolutely government owned and controlled.

it might have a lot of free range but it's effectively the same organization as the American PBS (Public Broadcasting Service). PBS is government owned and opperated with a great deal of free range. The only major difference is that it gets most of it's funds from donations where as the BBC gets their money through hoaky "license" fees...

I'll check on that but I'm pretty sure it isn't.

Karmashock

Apr 18, 2007, @ 04:40 AM

I'll check on that but I'm pretty sure it isn't.
If the government doesn't own it, then who does?

And the fact that it's funded through taxes should probably be a pretty good HINT to you as to who does run it.

Apocalypse

Apr 18, 2007, @ 03:14 PM

If the government doesn't own it, then who does?

And the fact that it's funded through taxes should probably be a pretty good HINT to you as to who does run it.

The BBC is funded by the license fee, as far as I know it isn't funded by taxes, although you could consider the license fee a a kind of tax I suppose. I'm not arguing the point hard because I'm only so sure of the answer not 100%

Karmashock

Apr 18, 2007, @ 04:37 PM

The BBC is funded by the license fee, as far as I know it isn't funded by taxes, although you could consider the license fee a a kind of tax I suppose. I'm not arguing the point hard because I'm only so sure of the answer not 100%
of course it's a tax. If it were a license fee then they'd only make you pay if you watched the BBC. They don't give you a choice. They charge you per tv... period. It would be very easy to scramble the BBC channel and then sell a de-scrambler which was changed every year or so... That's what they would do if they were a private entity. But they're not. They're a government entity which therefore can and will start dictating things...

And who collects this fee? I mean... if you don't pay who comes looking for you? Who pays their wages? Who's union are they in?

It's absolutely a government entity. No chance that it's anything else.

BBC = State media. It's "free" state media... well... License fee state media... but state media nonetheless.

As I said, it's just like the American PBS... only we've always had commerical stations so PBS was never able to really compete. Actually, the only thing of interest on PBS typically is some British mysteries made by the BBC... typically about 10 years before they air on PBS... and as I said, it gets most of it's money from donations.

Lucid Angel

Apr 20, 2007, @ 12:03 AM

No one here can comment on the exact relationship between the government and the BBC... We simply do not know, beyond that it is funded through the licence fee. In what way would you say, Karma, that the government controls the BBC? Frequently, the BBC takes a stance against government policy etc etc. The BBC's journalistic independence is fiercely protected.

Karmashock

Apr 20, 2007, @ 01:44 AM

Polaris

Apr 20, 2007, @ 08:16 AM

government orgs can criticize other government orgs... it doesn't mean they're not government orgs.
Sounds like the definition of today's American democracy... gov't orgs vying for power...

Karmashock

Apr 20, 2007, @ 08:47 AM

Sounds like the definition of today's American democracy... gov't orgs vying for power...
uh... no... the BBC isn't vying for power and I don't see what power the british government would take from the BBC.

as to American democracy that's the separation of powers.

Lucid Angel

Apr 20, 2007, @ 01:47 PM

Polaris

Apr 20, 2007, @ 10:52 PM

uh... no... the BBC isn't vying for power and I don't see what power the british government would take from the BBC.

as to American democracy that's the separation of powers.
I wasn't referring to the BBC... I was referring to the statement in and of itself. Separation of powers means two things: it is difficult for a unilateral decision and it is difficult for a unilateral decision. By that I mean, There is not enough power in the hands of the few to make anything terrible happen (i.e. Nazi Germany), but there isn't enough power in the hands of the few to make anything extraordinary happen (like one of the czars that 'westernized' Russia). Statistically and historically, the latter is less likely to happen, which is why I approve of our system. It just means one idealist isn't enough to exact change on the system.

This, however, is not what this thread is talking about. If we want to debate whether the BBC is controlled or not, we should start a new thread.

Psy

Apr 21, 2007, @ 04:31 AM

BBC is a TRUST or rather a member of BBC trust. The 2007 charter explicitely states and protects BBC indipendence in all editorial decisions.

Why such things are even debated on account of Karma not understanding other countries employ different media business models is beyond me, especially when one only needs to go into "about us" section on www.bbc.com. Even the said charter is there.

I'll save you the digging:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/index.html

And the specific:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/bbc_trust.shtml

And about the licence:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/faqs/index.html

This is nothing new to me, most Euro countires have employed this model in addition to the standard rights managment, the advertisment but not as common in NA shedding of the cost of delivery to cable companies as a more open concept.

Karmashock

Apr 21, 2007, @ 05:27 AM

It depends how you want to define a "gov't org". Is every group or organisation receiving money from the government "controlled" by the government?

No.

The BBC is impartial and not controlled by the state.
it was set up by the government, run by government employees, and funded by government taxes.

it's a government org unless you close your eyes and chant.

Go ahead... close your eyes and chant...

Lucid Angel

Apr 21, 2007, @ 11:13 AM

It may have been set up by the government, but then so was the playscheme for toddlers down the road, so don't give me that. The only thing an organisation funded by the governent would need to do is justify its finances, but the BBC doesn't even have to do that particularly. It's free to spend the licence fee as it sees fit, free from government internvention.

So, the BBC relies on a licence fee from the government, but aside from that there are no other ties. It hires and fires it's own people, ergo not government employees.

Answer this point first:
"It depends how you want to define a "gov't org". Is every group or organisation receiving money from the government "controlled" by the government?"

Also, I assume you haven't read the links posted by Psy?

Not sure why you're being so belligerent about this BBC point? If you're jealous just say so...

Karmashock

Apr 21, 2007, @ 02:39 PM

It may have been set up by the government, but then so was the playscheme for toddlers down the road, so don't give me that.
Who owns the playscheme down the road?

Who maintains it?

The government?

I'm not criticizing the BBC... I'm just stating the FACT that it is STATE media.

It's very very very good state media, but it's state media.

The only thing an organisation funded by the governent would need to do is justify its finances, but the BBC doesn't even have to do that particularly. It's free to spend the licence fee as it sees fit, free from government internvention.
Oh, then why is the culture secretary talking about the future of that funding?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2025866.stm

So, the BBC relies on a licence fee from the government, but aside from that there are no other ties. It hires and fires it's own people, ergo not government employees.

Answer this point first:
"It depends how you want to define a "gov't org". Is every group or organisation receiving money from the government "controlled" by the government?"
If it was set up and remains funded by the government then I'd consider it to be a government org... yes.

Consider the US postal service. It's almost entirely self funded, competes rather well with private business, and by and large has a great deal of autonomy. Could congress shut them down tomorrow? Yep.

So could parliament shut down the BBC.

Also, I assume you haven't read the links posted by Psy?
Have any of his links refuted my core points? No. What's more psy doesn't join discussions to talk about things he comes here to be an ass. So I generally ignore him unless he's behaving himself.

Not sure why you're being so belligerent about this BBC point? If you're jealous just say so...
Jealous of the BBC? :lol:

No offense... seriously no offense... but americans have always felt a little sorry for the british television business. It's a little like going to a small town and seeing that they only have ONE store... it might be a great store... but it's only one store.

Lucid Angel

Apr 22, 2007, @ 01:37 AM

I'm not criticizing the BBC... I'm just stating the FACT that it is STATE media.

It's very very very good state media, but it's state media.

No, what you stated was that you said that the BBC was CONTROLLED by the government. Aside from the fact (on which we both agree) that the government could shut down the BBC by stopping its funds, the government has no control over the BBC.

If when you used the word "controlled" it was a slip of the tongue, then fine, no problem. Because I can agree that the BBC is state media simply from the standpoint that it is financially supported by the government. What I dispute is simply that it is controlled by the state.

Oh, then why is the culture secretary talking about the future of that funding?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2025866.stm

Nothing in that news report contradicts what I originally said. Fine, so the government is looking to the future of funding for the BBC, but as I said the BBC does not need to justify how it spends that money to the government. And this is yet a further point demonstrating how the government exerts no control over the BBC.

Anyway, only jesting with the jealous statement. You can't really compare the television broadcaster of a small nation like Britain with the huge corporations of the US. The BBC does a fine job and I'm sure you're satisfied with the services in your country. No further comment neccesary.

Karmashock

Apr 22, 2007, @ 04:36 AM

No, what you stated was that you said that the BBC was CONTROLLED by the government. Aside from the fact (on which we both agree) that the government could shut down the BBC by stopping its funds, the government has no control over the BBC.
Direct authority? No... but powerful influence? Yes. When you have a culture minister that decides their funding you can bet your ass there is back room negotiation.

If when you used the word "controlled" it was a slip of the tongue, then fine, no problem. Because I can agree that the BBC is state media simply from the standpoint that it is financially supported by the government. What I dispute is simply that it is controlled by the state.
It would be more accurate that it is PART of the state.

As a PART of the state, being as you have just admitted - STATE media... it is of course controlled and run by the state even if all of its' people are independent BBC personnel.

Nothing in that news report contradicts what I originally said. Fine, so the government is looking to the future of funding for the BBC, but as I said the BBC does not need to justify how it spends that money to the government. And this is yet a further point demonstrating how the government exerts no control over the BBC.
If there is talk of defunding it then it absolutely has to justify itself.

Anyway, only jesting with the jealous statement. You can't really compare the television broadcaster of a small nation like Britain with the huge corporations of the US. The BBC does a fine job and I'm sure you're satisfied with the services in your country. No further comment neccesary.
Indeed, and you should know that I like a lot of british programs... I don't know how many of them are put on by the BBC but I like british television a lot.

Lucid Angel

Apr 22, 2007, @ 11:40 PM

I'm curious then... Are you saying that the BBC's journalistic independence is false and that the programmes and reports we watch are controlled by the government, in a fashion akin to propoganda?

Karmashock

Apr 23, 2007, @ 11:03 AM

I'm curious then... Are you saying that the BBC's journalistic independence is false and that the programmes and reports we watch are controlled by the government, in a fashion akin to propoganda?
probably not... I don't know enough to be sure... I know it was designed to be free of such things... getting entirely free is hard... what's more they might be in the pocket of one political faction or another that is in fact opposed to the current government and thus be a mouth piece for that faction...

it's hard to know... On balance I'm sure they're pretty free... but they're still state media.

Lucid Angel

Apr 23, 2007, @ 09:37 PM

In that case, we're agreed.