The Great Global Warming Swindle

[air_bn]

This guy has it about right don't you think?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ince_of_Wales/

[babybumasylum]

I'm going to write a letter to my council, in it I'm going to complain about the lack of global warming in my town.

Lets see if they can bring global warming to my cold. clouded miserable existence.

[thebluejay]

Originally Posted by tzlr_17

You realise that BP and other oil companies are amongst the largest/most significant supporters of the global warming myth, right?

Oh, that must be why they spend so much money on recruting people to decry it as nonsense!

[koagula]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...v_episode_page

Global warming swindle my arse.

[anthonyml]

Originally Posted by koagula

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...v_episode_page

Global warming swindle my arse.

All these programs ever do is show charts and graphs about how temperatures have risen over blah blah blahs amount of years like its some kind of proof.
yes the climate is changing and is this part of the cycle it is getting warmer but is it man made ?? ..... no

[rolf harris]

Originally Posted by bigbibbs

If one man p***es in the swimming pool its Ok, If 10 men do it we can handle it. But if the pool is full of swimmers and they all take a p*** then that pool is going to turn yellow and basically become just P***.

Not if the pool is chlorinated. Shock chlorination is a process used in many swimming pools, water wells, springs, and other water sources to reduce the bacterial and algal residue in the water. Shock chlorination is performed by mixing a large amount of sodium hypochlorite, which can be in the form of a powder or a liquid such as chlorine bleach, into the water. Water that is being shock chlorinated should not be swum in or drunk until the sodium hypochlorite count in the water goes down to three ppm or less.

[koagula]

Originally Posted by anthonyml

All these programs ever do is show charts and graphs about how temperatures have risen over blah blah blahs amount of years like its some kind of proof.
yes the climate is changing and is this part of the cycle it is getting warmer but is it man made ?? ..... no

LOL, get a grip, that bellend gor owned so badly it was cringeworthy, although, you wouldn;t agree as you're adamant in your idiocracy

[dreamweaver]

Originally Posted by koagula

LOL, get a grip, that bellend gor owned so badly it was cringeworthy, although, you wouldn;t agree as you're adamant in your idiocracy

This is Prof Mike Hulme's critique of the BBC documentary that you linked to:

I am Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA). My work explores the idea of climate change using historical, cultural and scientific analyses, seeking to illuminate the numerous ways in which climate change is deployed in public and political discourse. I believe it is important to understand and describe the varied ideological, political and ethical work that the idea of climate change is currently performing across different social worlds.

My research interests are therefore concerned with representations of climate change in history, culture and the media; with how knowledge of climate change is constructed (especially through the IPCC) and the interactions between climate change knowledge and policy; and with the construction, application and evaluation of climate scenarios for impacts, adaptation and integrated assessments. I welcome approaches from graduate students seeking to study for a PhD in any of these areas.

In this programme from BBC’s Horizon team, the incoming President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, offers a vigorous defence of the trustworthiness of science. He also reveals an exalted view of the normative authority of science: both in the world of political decision-making (e.g. the cases of climate change and GM crops which the programme selects) and in the private lives of citizens. I suggest that he betrays an underlying adherence both to the linear view that science should drive policy-making and, to a lesser extent, to the deficit model of science communication.

With regard to the relationship between science and policy he regrets that “science is not the only voice that is listened to” when making decisions about climate change. Yet contrary to what Nurse implies it takes much more than trust in science to “make those choices [about climate change] wisely”. Wise choices in an open democracy require scientific evidence and reasoning to work alongside other forms of evidence and reasoning - political preferences, public ethics, cultural biases, etc. – and in the processes scientific knowledge will lose ‘purity’. Trustworthy science alone is not sufficient for making democracies work well: there are multiple forms of scientific and political representation that a stable society needs, not a simple unmediated speaking of truth to power. I therefore wonder what exactly Nurse means when he seeks to safeguard the “the proper impact of science on society”?

His position on the relationship between science and public understanding is perhaps slightly more nuanced. On the one hand he recognises a failure of scientists to listen carefully to, and seek to understand, public attitudes to science – i.e., a failure by scientists to take public risk perception seriously. Yet on the other hand he bemoans the “unreasonableness” of the blogs and regrets that we live in a society in which “point of view not peer review holds sway”. And taking the public seriously means recognising that there are a range of legitimate positions in which the risks of GM crops (or climate change) are weighed differently, each of which may lead to different forms of action and policy. As Nurse agrees in the case of the HIV-AIDS contrarian, “you can have a conversation” with sceptical publics. In fact with a careful framing and public representation of what Professor Andy Stirling has called ‘plural and conditional’ science, you can have constructive conversations with all members of the public.

In relation to knowledge production and science communication Nurse says “we need to focus on science, keeping politics out of the way”. Such a pure separation between science and politics is unobtainable. He should instead be calling for a more mature reflection by scientists about the forms and effects of these entanglements and a more honest disclosure by scientists of their value positions when communicating publicly about tricky issues like climate change and GM. Trust is crucial to science as he correctly points out, but he does not explore sufficiently the different ways trust in science and scientists is gained and lost. There are lots of sociologists of science who study and understand this for him to call upon.

A final point is that I do not recognise his claim that “climate science is reducing uncertainty all the time”. There remain intractable uncertainties about future predictions of climate change. Whilst Nurse distinguishes between uncertainty arising from incomplete understanding and that arising from irreducible stochastic uncertainty, he gives the impression that all probabilistic knowledge is of the latter kind (e.g. his quote of average rates of success for cancer treatments). In fact with climate change, most of the uncertainty about the future that is expressed in probabilistic terms (e.g. the IPCC) is Bayesian in nature. Bayesian probabilities are of a fundamentally different kind to those quoted in his example. And when defending consensus in climate science – which he clearly does - he should have explained clearly the role of Bayesian (subjective) expert knowledge in forming such consensus.

Mike Hulme, 24 January 2011
Source Link: mikehulme.org

You see, with people who know what they're talking about, it's nuanced and shades of grey, not black-and-white. It's only the thickos on either side of the argument who are 100% certain.

When it comes to climate science, I think this Bertrand Russell quote is very apt: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

[don coyote]

Originally Posted by accuracy

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Um,......... I disagree.




Forgive me if I just jump in here, unannounced..... and may never return.....

....But Global Warming is REAL!!!

And it's been going on for the last ten thousand years!!!

(Sorry,..... I haven't read anything past the first page, and likely won't).

..... I was taught in GRADE SCHOOL that these melting Arctic Glaciers that everyone is freaking out over, USED TO extend all the way down into Florida, ..... and the Earth has been on a warming trend for many many millenia since then.

So why is it "new" news, today?

.....Hasn't anyone been paying attention for the last 10,000 years?



I just don't get it.



(Pay attention,..... people!!! )

[melissamyartist]

Today the 'wonderfully unbiased' news on AOL is reporting on the new potential of another Mini Ice Age. Just to make sure you don't stop believing in climate change they include the most incredible rider from the Met office ....

... "the Met Office claims that the consequences would be minimal because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide".

So this institution which exist on heaps of taxpayer money actually believes that the sun has less effect on the temperature of the Earth than the things we little ants do. Heaven help us all !!!

M x

[secret66mechanism]

What is wrong with STERN

The failings of the stern review of the economics of climate change

Peter Lilley MP


http://www.thegwpf.org/wp-content/up...n_Rebuttal.pdf



http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10170