Global warming.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:01 am

My view entirely.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:34 pm

I just watched An Inconvenient Truth.

Compelling for a couple of reasons.

1- Although I think Gore concentrates too much on CO2 emissions and not enough on the sun when you look back over 650,000 years of ice cores and compare them to today the CO2 emissions do seem to be a hell of a lot worse now.

2- How much better off we'd all be with this guy in the White House instead of the dickhead we have.

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:41 pm

How much better off we'd all be with this guy in the White House instead of the dickhead we have.

Damn ... and all this time I thought he was a butthead!

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:41 pm

I won't quibble.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:20 am

There was a article on the net Min, I'll try and find it again later, that stated that AG fiddled some of his CO2 figures by some hundreds of percent and has been accused of doing damage to his case by overstating it.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:00 am

As promised Min.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yj ... EwZTFhM2E=

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:06 am

Um...Dig.....I know you are British so you may not quite understand what the National Review is all about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review

It's a conservative publication which, when it comes to anything related to liberal issues is about as reliable as Bush's Iraq policy. Do your Labour and Tory publications have anything good to say about each other?

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:17 am

I couldn't find anything in the article, Digit posted which stated AG 'fiddled' with his charts. I think he posted the wrong article or I simply missed it.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:34 am

The whole article is designed to give that impression. As Gore himself noted with a memo from the tobacco industry after the original surgeon general's finding, they wanted to "create doubt" about the scientific basis of the study in the mind of the public.

The oil industry has the same tactic about global warming.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:59 am

The answer to your question Min is yes, every time a well known personality dies! They're all wonderful once they're dead!
Monk, there's the reference, bottom line of 2nd para.

Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.

Unfortunately both sides of the argument seem to think that they improve their case by exagerating the figures, and when they don't do that they spend their time rubbishing their opponents.
All I want to see is a set of figures that takes into account CO2 rises, Methane rises, cloud cover at different altitudes, solar variation, aerosol distribution, sea temps, ice formation and loss, and volcanic activity all plotted on the same graph with a very long scale for time, preferably annual, along the bottom. Using a 40yr filter might smooth the curve but it hides the present situation beautifully.
Then I think the case will speak for itself and Al Gore and others can return to the oblivion that they rose from.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:59 pm

They're all wonderful once they're dead!

How about when they're alive.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:10 pm

Like the other thread they are deified in death and are all the same self serving money grabbing lying two faced ----------.
I think you'll get the general idea Min.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:45 pm

Digit wrote:Like the other thread they are deified in death and are all the same self serving money grabbing lying two faced ----------.
I think you'll get the general idea Min.

Yes, indeed. Some things transcend the ocean that divides us!

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:53 pm

if someone else has already mentioned this documentary I apologise

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsi ... index.html

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:32 pm

Hmmm..... starting to remind me of Jacobovici and Cameron!

http://globalisation-and-the-environmen ... tback.html

This expert in oceanography quoted in last week's debunking of the Gore green theory says he was 'seriously misrepresented'

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 11 March 2007

It was the television programme that set out to show that most of the world's climate scientists are misleading us when they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon dioxide. And 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.

A Channel 4 spokesman said: "The film was a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the contributors has concerns about his contribution we will look into that."

Any complaint would provoke a crisis at Channel 4, now recovering from the Jade Goody Big Brother storm. It had to make a rare public apology after the Independent Television Commission convicted previous programmes on environmental issues by the same film-maker, Martin Durkin, of similar offences - and is already facing questions on why it accepted another programme from him.

The commission found that the editing of interviews with four contributors to a series called Against Nature had "distorted or misrepresented their known views".

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."

When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".

He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument."

Mr Durkin last night said that Professor Wunsch was "most certainly not duped into appearing into the programme" and that it "had not in any way misrepresented what he said".

Before the programme was shown, the IoS asked Channel 4 why it had commissioned another film from Mr Durkin and, further, whether it was making any special checks on its accuracy.

A spokesman said the programme made by Mr Durkin for which it had had to apologise was a decade old, adding: "We treat Martin as any other film-maker."