What is Digg?42 Comments
- Railer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17First Rules of the Greens: You can't attack the Science, so attack the scientist.
- iching, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20Oh great a scientist that gets his funding from major energy companies.
http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/07/what_does_tim_ball_mean_by_to.php - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"It is confidently anticipated that the environment industry will be apoplectic that such a factually accurate programme could be screened in the current socially engineered atmosphere, where disagreement and dissent are described as heresy and denial, where those who prefer data to mythology and so disagree with the politically correct view are vilified, and where influential political and scientific institutions plus sections of the media outrageously seek to stifle debate and impose a counter-science culture by diktat."
- ..eD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I am all for cutting down on the use of natural resources but if you are blaming the warming of the Earth on humans and the industrial revolution, then how do you explain warming trends of the past?
Whether you believe the program or not, kurttrail's name calling has proven right at least some part of it. - JusticeAK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If CO2 is the problem I guess we should plug up all of the volcanoes, and then stop all degradation of plant matter. Two of the worst offenders in the War On CO2.
Join us, Together will will fight The War on C02
btw, great movie. - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@cyberdork
You have no intention of looking at any papers which put forth alternative theories on warming so why ask? You thought nobody would actually give you the references? Not everyone is as ignorant of science as you. - texdrill44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In searching for the complete picture on global warming, I have not seen any proof that it is caused by man, and I believe any warming is part of a natural fluctuation. Firstly, CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas- we know this from junior high earth science courses. If you want greenhouse effect, you need water vapor in the air, however we don't hear anything about the levels of water vapor in the atmosphere...? This, coupled with the current and more scientifically robust theory that increased solar activity is responsible for temperature fluctuations, makes me suspect that those pushing us toward Kyoto are politically motivated. Recently I sought out the current research from NASA, showing that we are at about the same temperature range now as in the 1930s, we cooled from 1950 to 1970(when there was a "global cooling" scare), and then we warmed back to approximately the same level as before in the 90s. The satellite temperature data had been adjusted for sattelite orbit decay and heat island effect accounted for on land-based readings. Although, we have experienced warming, currently we are entering a cooling trend according to current NASA research. Also, computer models that long term global warming (and increased hurricane activity) have not been very accurate. For example: Antartic ice thickening doesn't work within the model, and is occuring.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well, the farts coming out of your ass are a greenhouse gas. No, really, they are. We could cut you in half but the decomposing body would release greenhouse gases. Again, seriously. The question becomes how relevant each of the greenhouse gases are and what control we have over each.
The more I look at the topic the more it would seem to me that a "hatchet job" is being done on CO2 in order to make a political point. For starters, the ice core record shows clearly that CO2 changes come AFTER temperature changes. This is not a cood start when you are trying to prove that CO2 is causing global warming. Also, if you simply look at the percentages of sunlight trapped by certain gases you find CO2 is pretty low and H2O is WAY higher. But who could make a political case against water in the atmosphere?
I'm not saying I am certain here but I think the evidence remains inconclusive and i'm VERY troubled that every damn graph i see only correlates temp with CO2 and none of the other gases and there is little talk about the relative strength of each greenhouse gas. - noliberalbull, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Thats the official site of the documentary, as far as I can tell. - JusticeAK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2thank you, a sane voice of reasoning
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@cornswaled
http://whyfiles.org/211warm_arctic/images/1000yr_change.jpg -- this graph shows it all - kgrandia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here'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/commentisfree/story/0,,2026124,00.html - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/
- FatherGandalf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When you reference wikipedia you reference thin air. It is whatever a bunch of clowns put into it. Garbage in - garbage out.
CO2 cannot both lead and lag temperature - one is dependent one independent - that is the law.
Every complex model I have ever worked with has been all tied up in its own shorts. Putting all the variables together just makes the darned things to big to run in a lifetime so the modelers simplify and guess usually resulting in garbage. Every technical report I have ever seen written up by a reporter or politician as a story presents with nothing in common with the underlying science.
So looking at raw or basic data sets as presented in Great Global Warming Swindle and making some simple observations - something a six year old can do - it is easy to see that temperature rises before CO2 increases. Therefore CO2 does not increase temperature. Maybe cosmic rays do not either but cosmic activity modified by solar flare activity seems to at least present a possible cause and even leads temperature. We may well be in a period of global warming but I seriously doubt it is caused by human activity. - kurttrail, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
Yes, and no real scientist would dispute this.
Has CO2 in the atmosphere increased during the industrial revolution?
Yes, and again, no real scientist would dispute this.
So given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its been increasing in the atmosphere over the last few centuries that man has been pumping CO2 into it as a byproduct of fossil fuel buring, then why do some *****' idiots still deny the human component to global warming?
Can some *****' idiot denier please explain this to me? - Railer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@cyberdork
Peer-Reviewed Science Journal Articles
-Essex, Christopher, Andresen, Bjarne and Ross McKitrick. Does a Global Temperature Exist? Accepted, Journal of Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics
-McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005) Reply to Comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance" Geophysical Research Letters 32(20) L20714 10.1029/2005GL023089 21 October 2005
-McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005) Reply to Comment by Huybers on "Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance" Geophysical Research Letters 32(20) L20714 10.1029/2005GL023586 21 October 2005
-McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005) The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications Energy and Environment 16(1) pp. 69-100.
-McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005) Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance Geophysical Research LettersVol. 32, No. 3, L03710 10.1029/2004GL021750 12 February 2005.
-McKitrick, Ross and Patrick J. Michaels (2004). "Are Temperature Trends Affected by Economic Activity? Reply to Benestad (2004)" Climate Research 27(2) pp. 175-176.
-McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick (2004). "Materials Complaint Concerning 'Global Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing over the Past Six Centuries'" Nature 430 July 1, 2004, p. 105.
-McKitrick, Ross and Patrick J. Michaels (2004). "A Test of Corrections for Extraneous Signals in Gridded Surface Temperature Data" Climate Research 26 pp. 159-173.
-McIntyre, Steven and Ross McKitrick, (2003). "Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series." Environment and Energy 14(6) pp. 751-771.
-McKitrick, Ross R. (2002). "Inference About Trends in Temperature Data After Controlling for Serial Correlation and Heteroskedastic Variance." Invited Paper, Proceedings of the Russian Geographical Society 164(3) pp. 16-24. (English version)
-Theodore L. Anderson, Robert J. Charlson, Stephen E. Schwartz, Reto Knutti, Olivier Boucher, Henning Rodhe, Jost Heintzenberg. "Climate Forcing by Aerosols--a Hazy Picture" Science 16 May 2003
-Friis-Christensen, E., and Lassen, K. (1991) Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate. Science 254, 698-700.
-Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate by Henrik Svensmark, Physical Review Letters - November 30, 1998 - Volume 81, Issue 22, pp. 5027-5030
-Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage - a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 59 (11) (1997) 1225-1232.
- Low Cloud Properties influenced by Cosmic Rays.
by Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark Physical Review Letter, December 4, 2000 - Volume 85, Issue 23, pp. 5004-5007. A preprint of the paper can be found here
- Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate by Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, Space Science Review, (In press)
Here's a start of the published science papers, I have about a hundred more. Feel free to now start attacking all the authors - Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3There 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. - FatherGandalf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Great Global Warming Swindle is the most credible presentation of data that I have seem on the global warming subject to date. It is far less hyped than the carbon dioxide scare mongered non-science recently presented in other media and frankly the information it brings makes sense. Most importantly it provides a key data set that blows away the carbon dioxide driver. It shows it is in the back seat - lagging temperature. It also shows that solar system radiation is a far more rational driver as it is leading temperature change.
From a common sense standpoint - I always try that for kicks - what caused GW and GC in past eons, wasn't man made. Enjoy the natural warming and hope it stays for a while. - kurttrail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@cornholed
Yes. Ice cores are just speculation, if you are a denier.
Please show us verifiable data that shows that human-produced greenhouse gases are minuscule. - JusticeAK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1no, Forget about hundreds of thousands of africans without electricity, we can't spare the carbon emissions, polar bears might loss their iceberg. Mean while turn up my AC it's getting hot in here.
DO you see the hypocrisy? - Stark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I watched An Inconvenient Truth, and now I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle on Google (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831).
My thoughts afterwards:
Al Gore is still really bitter about losing the election and got his friends in Hollywood to help him win an Oscar based on a nice Keynote presentation.
Global warming might be caused by CO2, but then again it might be the sun. We might be to blame, but then again, maybe not. However, the best form of birth control for 3rd world countires is ELECTRICITY and modernization. To get electricity in poor countries, you need to burn fossil fuels and make CO2. In the over scope of things, raising the standard of living in developing nations (where poverty=higher birth rates and famine) to stop the population J-curve is more important than the plight of the polar bears in the arctic. - jabailo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3
Yeah, unlike those who get their funding from the biofuels industry....LOL! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Temperatures started to increase pretty sharply even before man began to add significant quantities of greenhouse gases.
- cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"...which disproves the existence of God!"
Wow, this is the most idiotic reason I have ever heard. Let me guess, you failed in science class...
Ok, but how about giving me then some DOIs or links to publications casting doubt on anthropogenic global warming? - blueglow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow. 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. - KingKlam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, 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/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece - kurttrail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Horrible analogy.
If you don't have an elevated white cell count, it's not likely that any doctor would diagnose appendicitis on a mere complaint of stomach pain. - koolchg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am continually amazed at the vitriolic exchanges on this topic and how quickly discussions deteriorate to generalities and platitudes. I have a sincere interest in the theories presented in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and am interested in some of the dissenting opinions.
a) HitMeWithIt states "...the fact that those graphs ... that the program used as the main piece of evidence, were untrue. They were fake."
a.1) Specifically which graphs were not accurate? All the graphs? Graphs correlating solar activity to global temperature change?
a.2) What about the offending graphs was not accurate? Are there alternate graphs which are more accurate and where can they be found?
b) HitMeWithIt states "...pseudo-documentary with faked evidence."
b.1) What evidence was inaccurate?
c) HitMeWithIt was "...almost duped by it but decided to do some hard reading."
c.1) What reading? I'd be interested in similar reading and would appreciate the references. - cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -13/+13No this is the first rule of 'the Greens': SHOW US THE SCIENCE!
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. - koolchg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0blueglow,
Thanks, I look forward to checking out the links... - scottquint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OK, look, how about some rational calm. This debate isn't going to be settled by invective or by referencing media reports and certainly not by quoting politicos. The reality is it doesn't matter how many scientists lend an opinion, all that matters is the weight and credibility of the data. The may show an increase in CO2 and it may show an increase in temperature. The conclusion may be that CO2 is the cause or maybe that it's the result or maybe that it's both as in a feedback pattern. Conclusions from data are little more than informed opinions. They can be wrong, they can be right or they can be close enough. Much of science and engineering is a superstructure of modeled relationships that describe behavior but seldom do a good job finding real cause. Let me enumerate some basic facts:
1. the earth changes
2. the climate changes
3. many of those changes are from large systems and cycles that function with or without the myriad of organisms on the planet
4. All the life on earth influences it and each other. Human activity on earth WILL influence it. It is not possible to live here and have no influence.
Human influence may have large scale effects, or perhaps those that believe we have any significant impact are simply hoping we have greater control over the future than we really do. I doesn't particularly matter. Human survival is and always will be the priority activity. The very discussion of climate change is only possible because people in advanced economies have the luxury of being able to consider it. If there was an immediate threat to survival then no one would bother to even consider this. The very conditions that may (or may not) be causing the changes are DEFINITELY the reason they are even recognized. Inhibiting advanced economies will never be accepted no matter how much people complain.
The fact is that things change. Now, I am not against mitigating certain changes if possible if they will occur so quickly that lives are in immediate danger, However, making crippling changes are absurd. The better solution is to manage the change. the real problem here is that so many people want no change at all. They are the same people that would eradicate the natural expansion of the Barred Owl to save the Spotted Owl. (Yes, I anticipate someone complaining that human activity empowered the success of the barred Owl.)
The climate will change no matter what we do. It may change differently or not, but it will change nonetheless. Some species will die, some coastlines will change and many people will always cry about it.
The greatest human attribute is adaptability. Instead of trying to stifle things that are beyond our control we should focus on exploiting our assets to survive. That is to anticipate the possible changes and prepare to thrive as they occur.
To all of those who will call me names, understand that if you had anything intelligent to say you overshadow it with your infantile displays. - uoftdrone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Some comments specifically on the part of the show that addressed climate charge and the Third World: I thought portrayed an extreme environmentalist view point on climate change and inaccurately applied it to developing nations. It poorly addressed how the reducing the impact of climate change practically pertains to developing countries and completely ignored the effects - current and potential - of climate change on people there... Or maybe they were just being tongue-in-cheek; I never really understood British humour, smiley faces are as sophisticated as I get :)
But anyways, as someone working in renewable energy in Nigeria, I found many of the assertions and arguments to ring particularly false to the reality on the ground. These four points in particular:
- "The polices being pushed to prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the world poorest people." The only part of the Kyoto Protocol's climate change policy that directly affects developing countries is the opportunity for partial sponsorship of clean energy projects in developing nations through carbon trading schemes such as the Clean Development Mechanism. CDM has been estimated to free up around $10 billion for clean energy projects in developing nations. The issue with CDM is that Africa is currently getting a meager share as governments like China and India's were more able to organize to access this funding. I don't think that's quite the "disastrous effect" Paul Driessen alleges. Since there are no proposed policies that I'm aware of requiring Africans to limit their CO2 emissions, I'm not quite clear what policy he's referring to...
- The implication that all renewable energy, particularly solar, is too expensive and inadequate. (via one improperly sized photovoltaic system!) The claim that renewable energy is three times more expensive than conventional grossly oversimplifies energy costs in Africa - where cost per unit energy can be many times that of North America. For instance, the convention in Nigeria is that anyone who can afford it buys a generator as a backup power source since the grid is only up about a third of the time. The office I'm working estimates they spent the equivalent of 10 bucks a day on fuel alone or about $50/week. Since we installed a $6000 solar system 2 months ago, we've only had to use the gen once (when the grid was off for a week straight). So our PV system will pay for itself in a little more than two years while most of the components (excluding the batteries) are supposed to last for 15-20 years. However, the majority of people don't have that much cash to put up at the onset and interest rates are 18-30% here... assuming one could get a (very scarce) loan approved for something as uncommon as a PV system. So solar is too expensive much the same way buying a house is too expensive compare to renting - it actually can be cheaper in the long term but only if people can access loans. Granted, there are quite a few other issues with solar, but it's deceptive to claim nobody in Africa can afford it.
- Africa is being told by climate change activists "Don't touch your resources" Well yes, they're right that Africa has oil. But no one, not even environmentalists, would or could argue that Africa shouldn't benefit from it. Let's just be practical about who is currently benefiting from those resources. In Nigeria, only one thousandth of the oil produced here is used by Nigerians. And the profits from the exports mainly go to the international oil companies and very rich politicians. The current climate change movement is not playing an even incremental role in keeping Africans from benefiting from their resources, especially compare to the (incredibly complex) economic and political systems that have evolved over the past two centuries. Please, let's be realistic - if this is seriously a concern then climate change is the wrong scapegoat.
- Energy infrastructure in developing nations is being [though I'm assuming they meant 'should be'] restricted to wind and solar as part of the global warming campaign. No one is actually advocating this. There are certainly people encouraging alternative energies to be included in a diverse energy mix and for very good reasons: Africa is still expanding its energy infrastructure which making both grid connected and decentralized alternative energy option cost-competitive in some situations. However, since these technologies aren't as well-established they may not otherwise be considered. Diversification of non-fossil fuel energy also makes nations less vulnerable to fossil fuels' unpredictable costs. Most developed nations planned their infrastructure in an era when fossil fuels were assumed to be endless and benign. Now they have a host of issues because of it. Shouldn't developing countries learn from this and use it as an opportunity to develop better than the West? Due to the vastly different situations pertaining to North American and African electricity development the 'We're slow at adopting alternative energies and it's even more difficult for them to' line doesn't necessarily hold. But that's not to say that renewables, especially solar, don't have some major challenges in order to be effectively utilized. (Detailed post on that here: http://my.ewb.ca/home/ShowPost/14177 ) Some of those challenges do require large scale action, but not one simple solution (that would make the topic too easy and uninteresting :) - blueglow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hi koolchg, good questions...
My answers where I can give them are:
a.1) Specifically which graphs were not accurate? All the graphs? Graphs correlating solar activity to global temperature change?
-> Some of the historical temperature charts were mislabelled or used outdated. Some had no also scales on the axes. Some charts were also fine as far as I'm aware. More here: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
a.2) What about the offending graphs was not accurate? Are there alternate graphs which are more accurate and where can they be found?
-> See the above link. I would suggest Wikipedia if you are happy with that site. If not, try places like the NewScientist or Scientific American websites.
b.1) What evidence was inaccurate?
-> See the above link, but also see George Monboit's response to the film: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/
c.1) What reading? I'd be interested in similar reading and would appreciate the references.
-> The Wikipedia links on global cooling, greenhouse gasses and ocean acidification I put in my comment above for starters, plus this one as a good introduction to the major points: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming - you can also follow any of the references at the foot of the page to get more.
Hope this helps - blueglow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0[FatherGandalf] "When you reference wikipedia you reference thin air."
Oh dear... I referenced Wikipedia because, despite the odd politically charged or media-hyped bias or factual error, it's mostly good stuff. And I referenced it because my education in physics and chemistry tells me that certain molecules absorb certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. They also release that energy at specific frequencies. That is not in doubt, nor is there doubt that CO2 behaves as a greenhouse gas because of its absorption and emission properties. Finally, though CO2 is a small component of the atmosphere, that does not alter the fact that a) there are a LOT, a ***** LOT of atoms between here and space, b) there is also an unimaginably large number of photons of various frequencies that the greenhouse gasses interact with, c) the earth and it's atmosphere are very, very big.
I see little benefits answering your other points given that you don't want to accept basic science, why should you accept what I or the Wikipedia say? After all, we're "a bunch of clowns".
Get an education or some humility, you immature, angry little man. - scottquint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A point about trying to discredit those scientists, few though they may be, by citing their funding:
You can no more claim that their views are influenced by their supporters than can be claimed that their support followed the announcement of their views. Just as special interest support politicos with friendly views so would they support scientists. Do you really think that those interests pick just any scientist and pay them to publish friendly views?
Also, let it be known that just as special interests support the skeptics, so do other special interests support the believers. Global political advocacy groups pour millions into this issue, so there is politics all around. If monetary support was a disqualifier, then all the scientists that ever accepted a grant would be disqualified.
Citing the funding by itself is specious. It is like the cheap courtroom stunt that tries to discredit a state's witness because the prosecution made a deal. The questioning of motives is an unending and futile exercise that casts the shadow of doubt on everyone about everything. There is some personal agenda at the heart of every action, and not everyone shares the same agendas though many may share the goal. One allies motive does not necessarily indict the other's. - jpc55416, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I read the entire Guardian article "Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change" with interest. The author of the article made no case i(or even mentioned a reason) n support of the headline. The article consisted largely of personal attacks on individuals.
- kanju, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0So something as complex as the earth's climate is only affected by the amount of C02 in the atmosphere? Are you kidding me? What about solar radiation. If the earth's temperature rises, and scientists notice that the ice caps are mars are shrinking as well, do you think that maybe the Sun may have something to do with that?
What about if you where to take all the city temperatures out of the equation, that the world is actually cooling. How much of the city's temperature reading is affected by radiant heat from people's bodies, engines, furnaces, etc.
But none of this has an effect and the only thing causing global warming is CO2 emissions. Right..
Take a look at the company that Al Gore is getting his "carbon credits" from. Could be that he is a founder, and on the board, and is actually buying credits from his company. - HitMeWithIt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Maybe you should pay attention to the fact that those graphs that even a kid could understand, (and in your case it seems this is quite an accurate representation based on your level of deep thinking here), that the program used as the main piece of evidence, were untrue. They were fake. Lies. Wikipedia, in this instance, is correct. You are wrong.
Stop reading only on digg and try checking out your own facts moron.
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. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@kurttrail
You moron.
Humans have added such a minuscule amount of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere it's laughable.
It's like blaming all the raw sewage in the ocean on a little kid who pees at the beach. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@ICSU
There's a small problem with the "data" in that graph.
The pre 1950's numbers are little more than speculation. There's no real proof that there were fewer greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the past. - 10scott10, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2well i don't believe in god because there is no proff. show me some concrete proof and i might. and don't just point arround aimlessly and say "god! god!"
and its press-release spam - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5"I still have to see even one SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION which disproves global warming!"
I still have to see even one SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION which disproves the existence of God! Doesn't mean God exists. Also, nobody is claiming global warming doesn't exist. No one is "denying" global warming, they are questioning the cause of it. Simmer down, take a deep breath, and realize global warming isn't going to kill you today OR tomorrow.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 