Reply to: Global Warming Nonsense

[dang65]

Oh man, how much damage did that programme ("The Great Global Warming Swindle") do? People still quote it every day as gospel, even though they repeatedly get told the actual truth in other documentaries and scientifically accurate newspaper articles.

The bizarre thing is that greater criticism has not been aimed at Channel 4 because "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007". So, they think that the link was completely established and therefore anything the programme said was irrelevant? That doesn't seem to tally at all with the actual effect it had.

But the main portion of the film, on climate science, did not breach these rules.

Ofcom's logic is that "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007".

This being so, it says, climate science was not "controversial" at the time of broadcast, so Channel 4 did not break regulations by broadcasting something that challenged the link.

"That's a very big inconsistency," said Sir John Houghton. "They said it's completely settled, so why worry - so they can just broadcast any old rubbish."

While some of the 265 complaints received by Ofcom were short and straightforward, one group assembled a 176-page document alleging 137 breaches of the Broadcasting Code.

Channel 4 will have to broadcast a summary of the Ofcom ruling, but it brings no sanctions.

[Diver]

Sorry my mistake, I didn't realise the CUK village idiots were having a day out.

[sasguru]

Old news monkey buoy

Mailman

Sorry my mistake, I didn't realise the CUK village idiots were having a day out.

[Mailman]

Ah, the irony.

Old news monkey buoy

Mailman

[sasguru]

Mark Twain is coming good lately

Don't confuse the nitwit.

[EternalOptimist]

Your argument would be helped if you could understand english

You know guru, you are better off leaving your mouth shut so that people are left wondering if you are an idiot instead of opening your mouth and confirming to everyone that you are in fact a moron

Mailman

Mark Twain is coming good lately

[Moscow Mule]

Ah, the irony.

Oh!

[sasguru]

Your arguement would be helped if you could understand english

You know guru, you are better off leaving your mouth shut so that people are left wondering if you are an idiot instead of opening your mouth and confirming to everyone that you are infact a moron

Mailman

Ah, the irony.

[Mailman]

Huh? People might take you more seriously if you spoke English.

HTH

Your argument would be helped if you could understand english

You know guru, you are better off leaving your mouth shut so that people are left wondering if you are an idiot instead of opening your mouth and confirming to everyone that you are in fact a moron

Mailman

[Moscow Mule]

It's "n" power...

Yes. Shame about the test match.

[sasguru]

Your theory on contradictory is also flawed. There are n amount of thoeries about climate change, the number of values n and the values of n items are irrelevant to which n is correct... given the fact you already admit none can be discounted as evidence is .... tricky.
?

Huh? People might take you more seriously if you spoke English.

HTH

[xoggoth]

Yes it is a blog but by those with actual expertise and it gives links to some proper articles. I should have been more specific but I more had in mind blogs by photographers with cut n' paste from hairdresser's blogs.

At least you did not add they can't even predict the weather in my garden the next day. Simulation is an entirely valid process, it is used for everything from product design to power station control to launching space probes. On climate, accuracy depends what you want to do, micro effects like weather in a given area are very complex as too many relevant variables, ocean currents etc. Accurate quantitative prediction of global temperature rise ditto.

Qualitative global trends are not. The extent of the greenhouse effect, additonal warming due to H2O/CO2, was calculated fairly accurately in the 19th century. Prediction of temperature without them can of course now be verified from observation of other bodies. Given that, how can you dismiss the whole modelling approach as too complex to be meaningful? Some of the feedback mechanisms, reducing polar ice reducing reflection, release of methane/CO2 from earth and subsea are also pretty basic physics/thermodynamics. The countering effect of solution in sea water ditto. Some effects are more difficult, eg increased plant growth but then mankind has a tendency to negate that counter effect anyway.

GW true or not, many counter measures are needed anyway due to price of oil and fact that much of that is in hands of despotic, hostile and corrupt regimes. We need to make sure they are sensible, eg not ill thought out fuel taxes that will just drive more production into hands of Chinese/Indians/third world and raise global fuel consumption due to their less efficient plants and the transport costs.

[tay]

As said on my blog item, we are not simply arguing about theory but even the basic facts. This makes it very difficult for us amateurs to make any decision. It becomes like a game of poker with each of us crying "there, trump that". So here you are, raise you 5 quid.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8

Personally, given all these "experts" trotting out contradictory facts and theories, I think any certainty should be impossible. I only know that every time I look into it I see ridiculous contradictions in the anti theories, eg a) global warming is not really happening b) Yes, it is happening but is not man made and is all due to solar activity or the cause is unknown. Sometimes you see these contradictory things quoted on sites that link to each other. Often when I check I also find that the experts quoted, as with your link, are not experts at all (although I concede that a mining expert could have relevant knowledge)

I simply find the pros to be generally the more convincing, they are more consistent, more expert and less hysterical. Also, as a chemical engineeer with a simulation background I find the physics makes sense.

You were doing ok until your last sentence which is a pile of turd. Simulation is a pointless experiment for climate change, to many variables we have no chance of plotting. Also if you dont see climate change proponents as hysterical you must be living in a bubble.

Your theory on contradictory is also flawed. There are n amount of thoeries about climate change, the number of values n and the values of n items are irrelevant to which n is correct... given the fact you already admit none can be discounted as evidence is .... tricky.

And that site you linked is just like a blog, I dont mind that, in fact they might even be right!! But werent you the one saying that blogs had no place in the discussion? Or was that just blogs of people who dont agree with your views?

[xoggoth]

As said on my blog item, we are not simply arguing about theory but even the basic facts. This makes it very difficult for us amateurs to make any decision. It becomes like a game of poker with each of us crying "there, trump that". So here you are, raise you 5 quid.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8

Personally, given all these "experts" trotting out contradictory facts and theories, I think any certainty should be impossible. I only know that every time I look into it I see ridiculous contradictions in the anti theories, eg a) global warming is not really happening b) Yes, it is happening but is not man made and is all due to solar activity or the cause is unknown. Sometimes you see these contradictory things quoted on sites that link to each other. Often when I check I also find that the experts quoted, as with your link, are not experts at all (although I concede that a mining expert could have relevant knowledge)

I simply find the pros to be generally the more convincing, they are more consistent, more expert and less hysterical. Also, as a chemical engineeer with a simulation background I find the physics makes sense.

[BrilloPad]

My apples and plums seem to like it as it is

My plums find it a bit hot. I think they need more air.