Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


Atomic
 Share

How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Yes, it's true, from 90 minutes of presentation of complex climate modeling for TV audience, the judge found 9 facts that he considered were presented more strongly than the scientific consensus.

 

So now we can take our copies, edit out those 9 exact points, and know with confidence that the rest do meet the scientific consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's true, from 90 minutes of presentation of complex climate modeling for TV audience, the judge found 9 facts that he considered were presented more strongly than the scientific consensus.

 

So now we can take our copies, edit out those 9 exact points, and know with confidence that the rest do meet the scientific consensus.

 

When you are trying to get your point accross And get folk onside it is a good idea to be honest.

I may disagree with his point of view but if he told the truth in all things I would find it hard to argue with his reasoning.

Take these 9 inconveniant lies, he had all these scientific brains advising him yet made these pretty blatant errors,

What else did they get wrong?

And remember this was a court of law where unless it could be proved beyond all reasonable doubt they would have to find for him.

Remember he does not practice what he preaches so I guess he has some serious doubts about the accuracy of his little movie.

If he trully believed what he was saying he would give all the Nobel prize money to the fund and the 25 million he's made from the movie.

I know if I believed what he's telling us, I would because hey whats the point in money if we're all foot-sucked anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And remember this was a court of law where unless it could be proved beyond all reasonable doubt they would have to find for him.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof in a criminal case. This was a civil case, so the standard of proof is "on the balance of probabilities", which is somewhat less stringent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it seems to me that even a judge can have his particular view on things... On the spesific faults he pointed to they seem to be minor.

 

1.Gore claims that a rise in sea level up to seven meters will be the result of a melting of either West-Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future".

The judge disagreed with the in the near future bit, but agreed with the rest.

2.The movie claims that low, populated lagune islands in the Pacific are in the process of being flooded due to global warming caused by humans.

The judge said there was no proof of any evacuation thus far.

3.The movie claims global warming might stop the conveyor belt of the ocean (the Gulf Stream).

The judge quoted the IPCC on a complete stop being highly unlikely.

4. Gore claims that a graph showing CO2 in the atmosphere and one showing temperature development over 650 000 years fits togeather.

The judge did not say the graphs were wrong and even stated that there is scientific consensus that there is a connection. He did state that the two graphs didn't state what Gore said they did.

5. Gore claims that snow melting on Kilimanjaro is due to global warming.

Judge sttes that scientists have not established that the foremost cause is human enduced global warming.

6. Reduction of Lake Chad and 7. Hurricane Cathrina

In both the judge didn't believe there was suficient scientific evidence to prove a connection between these events and global warming. There could be other causes.

8. Gore claims Polar bears are drowning due to reduction of ice.

Judge felt that such things could happen in the future, but that so far the bears have drowned due to storms.

9. Corall reeves a bleaching due to global warming.

The judge agreed that if sea temperature rises by 1-3 degrees more corall will die, but that it is hard to differentiate between death due to rising temperatures and death due to fishing and pollution.

 

The judge did however accept four main points of the movie:

1.The hypothesis that the present climate changes are for the most part caused by humans through the emission of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide.

2.Global temperature is rising and will continue to do so.

3.Climate change will cause large damage if it is not dealt with.

4. It is possible for governments and individuals to reduce the effects of climate change.

 

In my view it is impossible to make an entire film like this without using some detail informtion that might be contested. And as one can see the judge found minor flaws in 9 details in the film some of which took the form of pure disagreement. He did however agree with the main points of the movie. Something that hasn't been widely publicised in the media. That is of course the reason why the movie is still alowed in education in the UK and why the guy who brought up the case only got part of his case costs covered.

 

But did anyone notice that a British court of law has officially ruled that the present climate changes are for the most part caused by humans through the emission of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide? :!:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/11/scigore111.xml

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freyr,

it is right to say that the judge agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).â€

 

BUT - we should also hear that he said:

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.â€

 

"Finding nine significant errors" might be acceptable within the political context of the film; they are not tolerable under the headline 'scientific documentation'.

 

The judge finally "agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided†views."

 

As to me the judge obviously remembered that it once was general scientific agreement the mother earth was a flat disc ... ;-)

 

(italics = qutes from the Times, bolds by me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure one might want the film to have been based solely on what is a general consensus among all scolars or even regular people. But if everybody agreed on this there would be no need for the movie. You will be hard pressed to find any new scientific work that isn't open for criticism from some other scientist or lay person. That doesn't make it wrong or a lie. However the Gore film isn't a scientific report. It is what is at least known in Norway as popular science. It is science presented in such a way that lay people will understand it and even find it interesting. In addition it presents a particular hypothesis and sets a goal of presenting evidence for it. Now the views on that particular hypothesis have been politicised beacuse its for the most part up to the politicians to do something substantial about it. So in that sence it might be fair to say Gore's movie is political. But it isn't a partypolitical commercial.

 

However when I look at the details the judge has pointed to I am surprised that people give them so much emphasis. He has not uncovered lies or fraud. He states that there might be other causes or that science isn't clear enough for him to make a ruling that it definately is so. OK so Polar bears might be drowning due to storms and not due to the fact that they have to swim larger streches of ocean to find ice.

 

But the main point is still that the main points of the movie were assessed by a UK judge and found to be true. A UK judge ruled that global warming is human caused. Why then are people not convinced by this and in stead want to hold on to the Polar bear thing? Is it because it is inconvenient?

 

The Nobel Commitee seems to a have put more emphasis on the main point at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freyr, do I hear some 'surprise, surprise ... ' ??? ;-)

 

That fact was well known right from the beginning with the first press reports over here (what includes a two days time lack compared with the first press publications in the UK).

 

The more interesting question is: What does it count as long as we don't have any reason to question the independence of the judge???

 

As to me: I do know that there are human impacts, I don't question them, but I take them so serious that I don't want to see them discussed in this Al-Gore-US-Soap-Opera-Style!

 

That film might have had its use within the US context waking up the sleeping US majority (and that's a lot of good work!!!).

 

You probably konw that the oceanographic and hydrographic services of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea neighbouring states are working closely together ... and what they did discuss and publish at their last conference about changing sea levels and its reasons just two weeks ago is absolutely not in accordance with the late 1990s theories promoted by Al Gore and his film.

 

Their message simply was: We are facing a natural global climate change outnumbering the 17th century effects fivetimes, sixtimes ... or more ... with a little human impact of some 10% or less on top of it.

 

That's exactly that what I was told by one of my academic teachers in the later 1970s. If he was and they will be right, it doesn't make any sence to discuss human impacts. Instead we should - now - concetrate on a debate which part of Europe we want to give up and which parts we want to keep whatever it might cost. Drowning coasts in northwest Europe will then be a minor problem; desertification of middle east and southern Europe will be the key problem.

 

My main critic of Al Gore and the film simply is - and I am well aware that no British or German or Norwegian judge can follow up this at the moment: They are misleading the public discussion, they are preaching "it's man made - and so man can change" ... and that's a wrong strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here here, as I've said before in this forum very few people doubt that the globe is warming up.

My gripe is with those that claim we are ultimately responsible.

The anti globalisation mob are using it as another stick to beat the industrialists with,for their own sellfish ends. We are supposed to give up our way of life because the world is going to end if we dont. A few years ago it was we have to give up our way of life because it isn't fair on the 3rd world.

Same concert differant tune

 

There really isn't a scientific consensus on the cause it just that the doomsayers shout the loudest.

 

Al gore is a failed politition and this is his ticket into the whitehouse or so he thinks.

 

I have yet to see him practice what he preaches so I find it impossible to believe his propaganda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But still an independent UK judge ruled that the present climate changes are for the most part caused by humans through the emission of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide.

 

Was he wrong about that part and right about all the other points?

 

There seems to me that there is a classic "cloud the issue" campaign running. As with the harmfull effects of tobacco. The tactic has been and still is to promote as many alternative hypothetical causes as possible, state that nothing has been definately proved and call for more research. I think we all know about the "science" labs funded by the tobacco companies. But lately a new twist has risen: "global warming is happening, but its out of our hands anyway so we should just go on as we have been."

 

So it is important to know that the oil and mining industry was supporting the court case. If you choose to disbelieve all info supporting global warming being caused by humans and believe all information to the contrary at least be aware that there are very strong lobbies working in the shaddows.

 

When we see the dramatic effects global warming can have why not do what we can to halt or minimize it? Many people are well in the process of creating profitable solutions to many of the problems. One small example is the wave power plant from Orkney. Well now you can say: some people are promoting global warming so they can profit from things like wave power. Well considering the low budgets they have compared to the oil industry I think they might then be running the most effective add campaign in history.

 

Is it in any case a bad thing to replace coal power with water or wind power? Most of the solutions I have seen proposed seem to be beneficial in any case. Most of the objections seem to stem from people not wanting their hand forced by a hippie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But still an independent UK judge ruled that the present climate changes are for the most part caused by humans through the emission of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide.

Sorry Fryer, that was not the key question. He did not judge on that, that only was the reason for his judgement.

 

The key question he had to judge was: Free for secondary schools or not? And he judged NO - not in this way, not without additional information provided along with the film to level the amount of political propaganda!!!

 

There is absolutely no " "cloud the issue" campaign running". The simple fact is that no judge can judge controversally discussed scientific issues, the only thing he can judge is whether it is - according to actual knowledge - suitable to present them in this way or not.

 

Very basic principle of justice: You are not guilty unless the opposite has been prooved ... and for his case Gore showed the wrong or at least doubtful whitnesses. That's all ... ;-)

 

Well now you can say: some people are promoting global warming so they can profit from things like wave power. Well considering the low budgets they have compared to the oil industry I think they might then be running the most effective add campaign in history.

I would never say so for different reasons:

i) I'm convinced that 'my Orcadian friends' are absolutely on the right way

ii) I do know that they are not suffering from insufficient fundings. They opted for a small step strategy and that was right.

iii) And Scottish Executive will according to all EU rulings support and fund the new wave power plant with the capacity to serve the minimum of 3000 Orcadian households as guarantied by the mighty Lord Alex 2 weeks ago

iv) And that along with that the research capacity of EMEC will be trippled within the next two years ...

&c &c &c

... and yes, I'm sorry, that my Shetland friends slept over the last decade and that their cooncillors are now engaged in that bloody no-future windfarm project ... with a by far smaller project refused by the Orcadian public last week (Yesnaby development &c)

 

[final edit due to technical probs]

there are very strong lobbies working in the shaddows.

Here you are absolutely right: Very strong lobbies are working on both sides! And I agree that Al Gore is one of the strongest lobbyists and as stated before, in some spects he has done an acceptable job. Nevertheless: Beware of Lobbyists! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But still an independent UK judge ruled that the present climate changes are for the most part caused by humans through the emission of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide.

Sorry Fryer, that was not the key question. He did not judge on that, that only was the reason for his judgement.

Come on, your nit picking here... He stated it to be a fact as part of the legal procedings.

 

The key question he had to judge was: Free for secondary schools or not? And he judged NO - not in this way, not without additional information provided along with the film to level the amount of political propaganda!!!

He ruled YES, but with an explanation from the teacher as well. Something tells me that any good teacher would give such information anyway. All teachers should teach kids to be critical of everything coming from the medias. :)

 

There is absolutely no " "cloud the issue" campaign running".

 

I take you mean that the court ruling isn't a cloud the issue campaign from the judge. I was referring to the bigger picture. I hope you don't profess to know for a fact that no-one is trying to cloud the issue of global warming. That would be a monumental task to prove, either way of course. There are indications of this in such things as the oil and mining industry being behind the "law suit". And for instance when most scientists see the melting of the sea ice as a sign of human induced global warming there are still some who emphasise there might be other causes. You have one main explanation and a host of other minor alternatives. That has all the hallmarks of a cloud the issue campaign. But of course anyone can choose to believe whatever they want. Some choose to believe the most convenient alternative...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic but in Norway folks are rewarded for being environmentally friendly, the most noticeable to a visitor being the machines in every supermarket that you place all your used cans and bottles into and get a receipt in return that you can then use against purchases or exchange for cash. You are rewarded for your effort so even the most sceptical can see the point in being environmental and if they don't then the kids will soon pick up and return the bottles.

Compare this with the UK, some areas depending on the local council will give you different bins for different types of rubbish and you will be fined if you put something in the wrong bin This tends too get peolples backs up. and from my experience of living in flats you will always get one that throws their crap in your bin.

 

In Aberdeen you get a plastic box for your glass bottles, cans and plastics a nylon bag for your paper/cardboard, a wheelie bin for your green waste (vegetable matter) and another wheelie bin for general waste.

 

While doing a spring clean I had too much paper for the bag so I filled a carboard box with the excess, I also put a stainless steel cutlery set in with the steel and alluminium cans. No problems with that I thought but no the bin men left it outside the flat and I recieved a letter from the council for inappropriate use of the facilities warning that I could be fined if it happened again.

 

My only crime trying to do the right thing.

my responce was to put the whole damned lot into the general waste wheelie bin.

where is the sense in this approach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He ruled YES, but ...

Sorry, Freyr, please read the sentence: He judged NO!

No teacher is authorized to show that film without ... very simple ... ;-)

That's to say the film itself is forbidden as far as additional information is not provided along with the film.

Every teacher counteracting and showing the film without additional information will act against this sentence and thus will be risking his job ... ;-)

You may like it or not but that's the fact. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...