Great BBC video on Global Warm.

h20cooled · #1 04/15/2007, 01:26 PM

I just found this video and thought that others would enjoy watching it, there is a lot of interesting things brought up in it that should make everyone think about what we are hearing.

Video Link

Rich

virginiadiver69 · #2 04/15/2007, 06:38 PM

It looks like I just wasted a bunch of money on CF light bulbs

Thanks for posting this, very refreshing.

Get ready for the usual suspects to chime in with their humorless doom and gloom.

On your mark, get set, GO!

h20cooled · #3 04/15/2007, 06:47 PM

LOL, yeah I'm not to worried about it, its not like I made the video or anything. I guess when someone with the same qualification as the Professors, Doctors, and other professional in that video could possible argue with what they are saying, otherwise its just a bunch of made up BS.

scottras · #4 04/15/2007, 09:26 PM

Watched a little of it. Seems like some new faces and some old faces. But I can't watch it all at the moment. Might wait till I get home, otherwise my download limit will get a little thin.

As far as doubters of the video link go. If you want to see scientists arguing against it, do a search. There are many arguments for and against on the net.

h20cooled · #5 04/15/2007, 11:32 PM

Watch the whole video and then tell me about someone who can argue with what they have laid out. Everything that was said was based one Science not politics or some hidden agenda.

scottras · #6 04/16/2007, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by h20cooled
Watch the whole video and then tell me about someone who can argue with what they have laid out. Everything that was said was based one Science not politics or some hidden agenda.

Sure I will give it a shot. I only saw the first 5 mins. It looked like a comedy to me, but you can't judge a movie on 5 mins.

Rossini · #7 04/16/2007, 06:52 AM

One of the main scientists in this,complained to channel 4 because everything he had said had been used out of context and changed around. He claims he was duped. And was very angry about it. I will try and find the link about what he wrote.

HippieSmell · #8 04/16/2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rossini
One of the main scientists in this,complained to channel 4 because everything he had said had been used out of context and changed around. He claims he was duped. And was very angry about it. I will try and find the link about what he wrote.

Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about
your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally,
I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that
was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and
subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with
the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked
to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way
the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---
in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication
in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be
so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because
I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable
climate-change stories in the
British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf
Stream could disappear, among others.
When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a
technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we
are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious,
and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does
not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of
the science. The scientific subjects described in the email,
and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated,
worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the
public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or
"swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have
instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing
many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change,
and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get
exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially
truly catastrophic issues, such as
the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more
carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse
gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It
was used in the film, through its context, to imply
that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters
and do understand something of the ways in which one can be
misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some
of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of
complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had
an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming
Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation
has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly
with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to
its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be
taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

HippieSmell · #9 04/16/2007, 07:47 AM

This is a good summary of the movie's faults, and an excellent site in general. I'd like to see Savage try to pull the junk he does on his radio show with these guys (yes, I listen to Savage). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...7/03/swindled/

h20cooled · #10 04/16/2007, 08:12 AM

So, one scientist out of all of them on there and the whole video is junk? Seems to me that I would be able to use the same theory for the IPCC report then, because as you see in the video there are several scientist on there that say they were duped by the IPCC.

HippieSmell · #11 04/16/2007, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by h20cooled
So, one scientist out of all of them on there and the whole video is junk? Seems to me that I would be able to use the same theory for the IPCC report then, because as you see in the video there are several scientist on there that say they were duped by the IPCC.

The problem isn't with one scientist being "duped", the MAJORITY of scientists disagree with the conclusions of that movie.

samtheman · #12 04/22/2007, 06:42 AM

How does a majority of anything, become science. Where is the repeatable outcome. How can the hypothysis be tested? IT's not science but gossip.

Aquaticman74 · #13 04/22/2007, 08:29 AM

The whole idea of global warming is garbage. Can you say... The sky is falling!!!

This subject is worse then DSB vs. BB.

HippieSmell · #14 04/22/2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by samtheman
How does a majority of anything, become science. Where is the repeatable outcome. How can the hypothysis be tested? IT's not science but gossip.

Why don't you read about it? That will answer your questions. Bottom line is that it is science, and most scientists agree because the science is solid and it's logical. But, you'll never change your mind anyway.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aquaticman74
The whole idea of global warming is garbage. Can you say... The sky is falling!!!

This subject is worse then DSB vs. BB.

And yet you have no way of backing up that statement. Typical.

Aquaticman74 · #15 04/22/2007, 12:05 PM

And you have no way to back up global warming. It's a theory...

HippieSmell · #16 04/22/2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aquaticman74
And you have no way to back up global warming. It's a theory...

LOL! There really is no point arguing with you, because you don't even have knowledge to argue with.

Aquaticman74 · #17 04/22/2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HippieSmell
LOL! There really is no point arguing with you, because you don't even have knowledge to argue with.

HippieSmell · #18 04/22/2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aquaticman74

Oh, so you do have knowledge of the issues? Please share. You make blanket statements like GW is garbage, yet you don't even know WHY you think it's garbage. You're head is full of "talking points", not real information.

Aquaticman74 · #19 04/22/2007, 12:51 PM

Finally there is proof of global warming!!!!!

The ice is melting in my iced tea....

If the ice all melts, it won't be iced tea any longer. What will I do?

HippieSmell · #20 04/22/2007, 01:01 PM

Exactly, you don't know anything about this. Thanks for making that clear, now I know not to listen to you.

Aquaticman74 · #21 04/22/2007, 01:16 PM

What are you talking about? I agree there is global warming. I just showed sciectific proof.

HippieSmell · #22 04/22/2007, 01:24 PM

No you didn't, that's my point, you don't know what you're talking about.

Aquaticman74 · #23 04/22/2007, 01:29 PM

I'm sorry if I didn't quote Al Gore or any of the other global warming experts.

h20cooled · #24 04/22/2007, 01:34 PM

This always the problem, we will never agree one way or the other and thats fine. The big problem is that we will not know the truth one way or the other as long as there are HUGE political organizations pushing there agenda on all of us.

Thats why I liked this video so much, its great to see some real scientists with real knowledge talk about all of the fake science we are seeing from the political groups.

HippieSmell · #25 04/22/2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aquaticman74
I'm sorry if I didn't quote Al Gore or any of the other global warming experts.

That's not even necessary, simply educate yourself. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to have at least a basic understanding of the issue. You obviously don't, as you've illustrated. Is that a recent photo of you in your avatar?