[Miyazaki]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008....climatechange

"The inaccuracies in the programme ran to 270 pages and the programme contained 131 specifically inaccurate points.

You can tell when a minority of people are fighting a losing battle when they have to resort to deception.

How does this do any favours to the denialist camp, already severely lacking in authenticity and reliable science and scientists?

[johntheexpat]

The trouble is partly that most people don't give a damn about the science, but are under the impression that they will have to give up their cars and central heating sooner rather than later and thats why there is such an ill-informed backlash. Very few people like change and the way CC is presented in the media, the impression is that we will all be living in caves by the end of the decade. Have you ever seen a programme or article on what the effect of diverting 1 or maybe 2% of GNP to 'fighting' GW would be? No, because its so relatively small as to be insignificant and the TV channels don't 'do' insignificant. What we need to see are Polar Bears, floating into oblivion on the last peice of iceberg for the next 10 million years, or dramatic images of what might possibly happen (in a tv producers dreams) like the Underground flooding during a rush hour as the Thames suddenly bursts its banks and 10's of thousands of poor innocent victims dying slow and protracted deaths. TV like that will get the viewers, but telling us about the benefits of insignificant amounts of investment will never make the grade.

[Miyazaki]

That's because most of the public don't understand science full stop.

Neither do the media, as evidenced in reports I see where the '2' in CO2 is represented in superscript rather than subscript.

[The Dude]

An excellent post by JohnTheExpat, followed up by an excellent example of why nobody pays any real attention to what science geeks have to say.

Originally Posted by Games Guru

That's because most of the public don't understand science full stop.

Neither do the media, as evidenced in reports I see where the '2' in CO2 is represented in superscript rather than subscript.

It appears the global warming partisans have a poor understanding of the word 'evidence'.

[Sonic67]

An Inconvenient Truth comes out and many debunk a lot of it. The Great Global Warming Swindle comes out and many debunk it. Honours even it seems to me.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

An Inconvenient Truth comes out and many debunk a lot of it. The Great Global Warming Swindle comes out and many debunk it. Honours even it seems to me.

How many scientists quoted in "An Inconvenient Truth" have claimed to have had their scientific views misrepresented?

And if i make a documentary claiming the earth is round and get pulled up because it's an Oblate Spheroid, that don't make the arguments of those who claim it's flat any more valid.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by andykn

How many scientists quoted in "An Inconvenient Truth" have claimed to have had their scientific views misrepresented?

I've no idea as I've not seen it as I find the whole thing rather hypocritical. Al Gore lives in a 20 room, eight bathroom, home and pool house. Surely far bigger than he needs. It also consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month.

The producer Laurie David uses private Gulfstream jets. As Eric Alterman writes, David, “reviles the owners of SUVs as terrorist enablers, yet gives herself a pass when it comes to chartering one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable.”

New Republic writer Gregg Easterbrook followed up, computing that “one cross-country flight in a Gulfstream is the same, in terms of Persian-Gulf dependence and greenhouse-gas emissions, as if she drove a Hummer for an entire year.”

So when MPs are banging on about green issues I wonder how many are going to now use public transport? Holiday at home? Cycle to work? Get rid of the limo? Live in a single small home?

(Personally I have been recycling etc for decades. I see no particular reason to mess the planet up for the sake of it but...)

[Corey USA]

Gore didn't get the nobel because he got the facts straight or wrong, he got it because he brought it to the front of most everybody's mind that we are having a major impact on earth, through our consumption For example the cutting of the forest at a base of a mountain which ice glacier is retreating due to the lack of moisture which would add to the glacier in the winter months. Where Gore claimed the glacier was retreating due to warming planet only, which in reality is a small factor in the equation for that specific glacier. Yet the underlying factor was the same WE changed those factors through our action which was cutting the forest down for consumption.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008....climatechange

"The inaccuracies in the programme ran to 270 pages and the programme contained 131 specifically inaccurate points.

Some selective quoting even from that article aren't you? Want me to quote some of it or shall we let people read it for theirself?

http://www.channel4.com/news/article...rules+/2351767

But Ofcom found that despite concerns over the presentation and omission of various facts and views, the audience watching the Channel 4 programme was not "materially misled".

[loz]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008....climatechange

"The inaccuracies in the programme ran to 270 pages and the programme contained 131 specifically inaccurate points.

You do realise that that quote is in regard to the complain that was made, not the programme itself?

i.e. a group of complainers produced a document 270 pages long and claimed that the programme contained 131 inaccuracies.

Wheras Ofcom pointed out that

Ofcom is not a fact-finding tribunal and its obligation in this case was to reach a fair and reasonable decision on whether The Great Global Warming Swindle breached the requirements of the Code. Given the ambit of Ofcom’s obligation as regards adjudicating on the complaints, however it was in Ofcom’s opinion impractical and inappropriate for it to examine in detail all of the multifarious alleged examples of factual inaccuracy set out in the complaints.

And their judgement was

in relation to the manner in which facts in the programme were presented, Ofcom is of the view that the audience of this programme was not materially misled in a manner that would have led to actual or potential harm

Originally Posted by Games Guru

You can tell when a minority of people are fighting a losing battle when they have to resort to deception.

Quite...

[eiren]

The biggest problem is that the scientists can't actually agree that it is a problem. They've been in fierce conflict with each other for some time now. There was a good article here on how ineffective Wikipedia is as a good reference, and the global warming issue was used to highlight it:


On climate change consider this extended quotation from a National Review article by Lawrence Solomon:

In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it - anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper, published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming.

Of course Oreskes’s conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface.

Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.

I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia editor who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics.

I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff them out.

Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia editor. Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of administrator is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party.

And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1190

[andykn]

Originally Posted by eiren

The biggest problem is that the scientists can't actually agree that it is a problem. They've been in fierce conflict with each other for some time now. There was a good article here on how ineffective Wikipedia is as a good reference, and the global warming issue was used to highlight it:


On climate change consider this extended quotation from a National Review article by Lawrence Solomon:


http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1190

The biggest problem is people who try and protray this as a valid debate with two equal and oppsoing sides. Instead of the majority of ther world's scientists backing man made climate change and a few others who have mutually contradictory other versions. Even our own Stephen Wilde's latest post agrees that Climate change is real and cause dby man.

I thought there was a complete Wikipedia article on all the many conflicting opposing theories on climate change?

Has Fred Singer never received any Oil Company money?

Try posting that the earth is flat and see how quickly Wikipedia will "snuff out dissention"

[ad47uk]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008....climatechange

"The inaccuracies in the programme ran to 270 pages and the programme contained 131 specifically inaccurate points.

You can tell when a minority of people are fighting a losing battle when they have to resort to deception.

How does this do any favours to the denialist camp, already severely lacking in authenticity and reliable science and scientists?

I think someone is very scared and paid a lot of money to get this censored.

Makes no difference, because they are still correct and global warming is one big swindle. the government can now come out with so called Green taxes.


Global warming ids happening, and there is nothing me, you or anyone else can do about, we just have to adapt.

Maybe they will censor that American nutter rubbish as well then

[Miyazaki]

There's some really delusional people on these forums.

Does it have anything to do with the amount of energy consumed by their hifi gear?

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by andykn

The biggest problem is people who try and protray this as a valid debate with two equal and oppsoing sides. Instead of the majority of ther world's scientists backing man made climate change and a few others who have mutually contradictory other versions. Even our own Stephen Wilde's latest post agrees that Climate change is real and cause dby man.

Er, no

We have people who used to be convinced that greenhouse gases caused all the recent warming now accepting that the oceanic oscillations played a substantial role and that , further, any human component can only be ascertained when we know more about natural influences.

You, sir are a denier.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

Does it have anything to do with the amount of energy consumed by their hifi gear?

Yes. That must be the reason.

It's funny but since I spent lots of money on my AV gear I hardly drive to the cinema anymore.

If we are going by Wikipedia there's always this to consider as well:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10...cut_and_paste/

and this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03...pedia_comment/

and this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02..._of_wikipedia/

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Er, no

We have people who used to be convinced that greenhouse gases caused all the recent warming now accepting that the oceanic oscillations played a substantial role and that , further, any human component can only be ascertained when we know more about natural influences.

Again you deliberately misrepresent the climate change argument. The case has never been that ALL recent warming is due to greenhouse gases.

You, sir are a denier.

Of what? Only of your continual misreprsentation of the case for climate change.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by ad47uk

I think someone is very scared and paid a lot of money to get this censored.

Do you think the people who complained that they'd been misrepresented by the programme were lying? Or that they paid money to complain?

...global warming is one big swindle...

Global warming ids happening...

Which do you think?

And don't forget that the "green taxes" we have (Fuel Duty, graduated Vehicle Excise Duty) were introduced at more or less their current levels in real terms by the Tories to combat pollution and congestion.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Yes. That must be the reason.

It's funny but since I spent lots of money on my AV gear I hardly drive to the cinema anymore.

If we are going by Wikipedia there's always this to consider as well:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10...cut_and_paste/

and this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03...pedia_comment/

and this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02..._of_wikipedia/

Who's going by Wikipedia?

On here we listen to the scientists themselves, not what the papers say and especially not what Stephen Wilde says they say.

Wikipedia does have a very good listing of all the different, conflicting opposing ideas to man made climate change, from which further research can be done.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by andykn

On here we listen to the scientists themselves, not what the papers say and especially not what Stephen Wilde says they say.

I listen to what they all have to say.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

I listen to what they all have to say.

My point is that the papers will report on what a scientist has said, but often incorrectly or misleadingly. Better to read what the scientist has actually said rather than what the papers say he said.

[ad47uk]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by andykn

Do you think the people who complained that they'd been misrepresented by the programme were lying? Or that they paid money to complain?

I reckon they been paid money to say they been misrepresented, I got this feeling that there are people around who don't want us to know the truth and that money have been paid out so we don't hear the truth. I think the Channel 4 programme was correct and no one have been misrepresented.

Which do you think?

I think people are being brainwashed. Global warming is happening, no I will change that. Climate change is happening, but very little of it is caused by us. just scare tactics, to get us to part with our money.

The climate have been changing on this earth since it was formed and it will keep changing with or without us. what we have to do is adapt, if we can't then we are history, but then, maybe that is the way it is meant to be.

And don't forget that the "green taxes" we have (Fuel Duty, graduated Vehicle Excise Duty) were introduced at more or less their current levels in real terms by the Tories to combat pollution and congestion.

Maybe so, but this government is still keeping these taxes, and now they are using this climate change rubbish to scare people.

I don't believe it one bit, cutting down on pollution is one thing, mainly to make it better for people, but I doubt for one minute that it affects the climate

[andykn]

Originally Posted by ad47uk

I reckon they been paid money to say they been misrepresented, I got this feeling that there are people around who don't want us to know the truth and that money have been paid out so we don't hear the truth. I think the Channel 4 programme was correct and no one have been misrepresented.

Even though the people that the programme misrepresented have always supported man made climate change (i.e. climate change that is much faster than has ever happened naturally).

If they've always supported climate change theories why would thet need paying to say they'd been misrepresented? That makes no sense at all.

[ad47uk]

Originally Posted by andykn

Even though the people that the programme misrepresented have always supported man made climate change (i.e. climate change that is much faster than has ever happened naturally).

If they've always supported climate change theories why would thet need paying to say they'd been misrepresented? That makes no sense at all.

As I said, someone is worried enough to get this programme censored and I bet that a lot of money have changed hands somewhere, lots of money in back pocket


No idea how they can censor it anyway, it have been broadcasted and people have seen it.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by ad47uk

As I said, someone is worried enough to get this programme censored and I bet that a lot of money have changed hands somewhere, lots of money in back pocket


No idea how they can censor it anyway, it have been broadcasted and people have seen it.

You don't prefer the obvious explanation of ignorant news workers misrepresenting the opinions of experts they don't understand to make a controversial TV programme?

I think you're the only one who has mentioned censoring.

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by ad47uk

As I said, someone is worried enough to get this programme censored and I bet that a lot of money have changed hands somewhere, lots of money in back pocket


No idea how they can censor it anyway, it have been broadcasted and people have seen it.

Censured and censorship are two totally different things

[Blu Ray]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

There's some really delusional people on these forums.

Is it just me, or does everyone see this as funny? I cannot understand how seemingly intelligent people swallow this hogwash of man made climate change on a global scale.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Blu Ray

Is it just me, or does everyone see this as funny? I cannot understand how seemingly intelligent people swallow this hogwash of man made climate change on a global scale.

Because we're not all conspiracy nutters thinking that the scientific link between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature is some scam that has been handed down across generations of scientists since it was first peer reviewed and published decades ago.

But it's certainly not just you, there are many people who have little or no scientific training at all who have a desperate emotional need to not face up to the fact that we should change the way we live a little before circumstances force us to.

They must be desperate to think that they know better than pretty much all the world's sceintific organisations.

If it was a conspiracy, I'd know which side I'd rather be on.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Blu Ray

Is it just me, or does everyone see this as funny? I cannot understand how seemingly intelligent people swallow this hogwash of man made climate change on a global scale.

Care to show us why it's hogwash? Nobody here claims that mankind alone is responsible for climate change, the arguments are a lot more subtle than that, as you will find when you read further into this forums wealth of information.
If you would care to show us that the science is bunkum, that would be most welcome, and you have my personal guarantee that if you successfully show it to be bunkum, you will win the Nobel Prize. That is guaranteed. Go for it.

[ash08]

Originally Posted by andykn

there are many people who have little or no scientific training at all who have a desperate emotional need to not face up to the fact that we should change the way we live a little before circumstances force us to.

They must be desperate to think that they know better than pretty much all the world's sceintific organisations.

Never fear, you could power the world with your own sense of arrogance and self satisfaction. When did you qualify as a scientist and when did you begin to specialise in your chosen field of Climate change?

I believe in climate change and I fully support the drive to preserve this planet for the benefit of future generations, I just disagree as to the extent that humans are affecting climate change. You are no more qualified than me to understand the tit bits of 'evidence' used to form your opinion.

Using the term 'scientists' is about as useful as 'they say', care to enlighten us with the names of these scientists that you base your opinion? Blanket claims such as 'pretty much all the world's sceintific organisations' is also pretty poor for someone who is using their opinion to attack others for failing to come to the same conclusions as you.

As I said, I support the preservation of the planet for future generations (and even future species) but deplore the complete pompous arrogance of people who believe in man made climate change. I am not a conspirator, I respect your opinion but you attack me and mine...