here's my most recent post on that thread I linked. This movie was discussed as well.
here's the more Digg entry.
link
some of the interesting Digg comments:
-----------------------------
http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2355956.ece
-----------------------------
George Monboit's response to the film:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007...-with-science/
-----------------------------
I am stunned that the majority of reactions here are in support of a sensationalist/tabloid polemic pseudo-documentary with faked evidence and quotes from either disreputable scientists or in the case of Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (as the program loved to say), quoted and edited completely out of context to the point of reversing the point of what he actually said!
At least check his own comments on the matter. Someone who was involved with the documentary and isn't too happy with the result.
http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
I am not a believer or a denier. I was completely open-minded when I watched this and I am ashamed to say now, I was almost duped by it but decided to do some hard reading.
there is no debate or dispute.
As little as the CO2 is in the atmosphere, that doesn't make it nothing to think about.
Man is doing harm.
Think otherwise then you are just stupid, uneducated or maybe lazy and refusing to take the time to study the real facts.
-----------------------------
"Oh great a scientist that gets his funding from major energy companies.
http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-compan...nds-of-science
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/07 ... _by_to.php"
-----------------------------
I still have to see even one SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION which disproves global warming!
So infact we can't attack the global warming deniers science, because it has never been published! And don't refer me to blogs and newspaper articles.
-----------------------------
The Denial machine
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/
-----------------------------
There are so many fun analogies we use to make sense of what is a mind bogglingly complex science. Instead of contributing another analogy for the science, let me add an analogy of the scientists.
The science and controversy behind global warming is as if you had a stomachache. 12,000 Doctors say you have an appendicitis and need an operation immediately, 100 say it is just gas.
-----------------------------
Here's the Gaurdian article today with a thorough thrashing of the Channel 4 misinformation special.
"Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...026124,00.html
-----------------------------
Well, well, well this latest news on the programme comes as no real suprise that controversial film maker Martin Durkin once again has been up to his old tricks!
" The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.
But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.
Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint."
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."
- The Independent
Full article here :
http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2347526.ece
---------------------------------------
Misrepresentations of the facts and lack of joined-up thinking abound here!
If I may, I'll try to clear a few points up and remind the climate change sceptics of the current situation:
1. The basic physics and chemistry connecting 'greenhouse gasses' (e.g. water vapour, CO2, methane etc.) to warming of the atmosphere is rock solid and had been known about since 1824. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gas
2. We (industrial humans) have been putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the biosphere can dispose of since just before the Industrial Revolution started in England. We have been emitting more of other greenhouse gasses from industry, agriculture and construction too.
3. No one is saying there haven't been significantly hotter or cooler periods; plenty of research is ongoing into how the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere were set up during these periods and how that relates to the various orbital and solar cycles.
4. The recent IPCC report says YES there is a large effect due to solar activity. They also say they are 95% certain that there is an effect that they cannot account for without human-created atmospheric changes.
5. YES, models can and are wrong. NO, that doesn't mean you can't actually learn from and use them to make broad predictions. (I'd argue that if complex interrelated models can't be trusted, then most of economics beyond the basics is similarly flawed)
6. CO2 is both the cause _and_ the effect of warming: Cause as a greenhouse gas (see above) and effect because warming can cause the release of greenhouse gasses due to many factors including decreasing glaciation and increased microbial action in once frozen areas.
7. CO2 does both follow and precede warming because of factors mentioned in 7 above and also because, in the example given in the film, the increase in CO2 came from volcanic activity which added lots of dust and sulphur particulates into the atmosphere. These particulates reflect heat back into space, hence causing what is called Global Cooling. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
8. EVEN if you can argue (wrongly) CO2 doesn't cause climate change, or man hasn't changed the atmosphere (he has), we do know CO2 DOES cause ocean acidification which has the potential to destroy the base of the food chain in the oceans. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Given the Sun is the primary cause of the recent warming - and obviously as the primary heat source in the solar system, it must be - then to mitigate the damage to human economies, lives and wildlife we get two choices:
1. Reduce the greenhouse effect by reducing the proportion of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere;
2. Reduce the output from the Sun.
We clearly have a degree of control over the former, whereas the latter is basically sci-fi for now.
In summary: CO2 matters. So does other stuff. We don't get to control the other stuff.
--------------------------------------
more here...
Again, given uncertainty and risk, isn't the most logical course of action the safest option available?
_________________
joint rolling