The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Don't get me wrong, there might be some truth in the warming theory, what I can't fathom is the leap to the catastrophic concequences causing the worst death tolls in history, worse than any of the other threats I've mentioned, requiring it to be made number one priority for every man and his dog.

 

Christ, if we're talking a human extinction threat, how much is being spent on trajectory prediction of asteroids?

[Fop 1]

Don't get me wrong, there might be some truth in the warming theory, what I can't fathom is the leap to the catastrophic concequences causing the worst death tolls in history, worse than any of the other threats I've mentioned, requiring it to be made number one priority for every man and his dog.

 

Christ, if we're talking a human extinction threat, how much is being spent on trajectory prediction of asteroids?

 

 

It could kill an awful lot of people, but it'll do it in fairly "mundane" ways.

 

There's no Hollywood doomsday day scenario, although at the end of the day for those that die I guess there's not a lot of comfort in semantics.

 

 

 

People are actually beginning to take asteroids seriously now, although again much like the ozone layer that is something we probably could do something about.

[Renton 22032]

Don't get me wrong, there might be some truth in the warming theory, what I can't fathom is the leap to the catastrophic concequences causing the worst death tolls in history, worse than any of the other threats I've mentioned, requiring it to be made number one priority for every man and his dog.

 

Christ, if we're talking a human extinction threat, how much is being spent on trajectory prediction of asteroids?

 

 

It could kill an awful lot of people, but it'll do it in fairly "mundane" ways.

 

There's no Hollywood doomsday day scenario, although at the end of the day for those that die I guess there's not a lot of comfort in semantics.

 

 

 

People are actually beginning to take asteroids seriously now, although again much like the ozone layer that is something we probably could do something about.

 

I think extreme weather events are far from mundane although I agree mass extinction is unlikely.

 

Regarding the effect if a large asteroid/comet hitting us, that's extremely unlikely to happen in a historic time frame and there's really fuck all we can do about it if it does. Similarily for the Yellowstone going pear shaped. Global warming, if man-made, should be reversible if we get our arses into gear. Pretty sure energy efficient light bulbs aren't the answer though.

[Fop 1]

Don't get me wrong, there might be some truth in the warming theory, what I can't fathom is the leap to the catastrophic concequences causing the worst death tolls in history, worse than any of the other threats I've mentioned, requiring it to be made number one priority for every man and his dog.

 

Christ, if we're talking a human extinction threat, how much is being spent on trajectory prediction of asteroids?

 

 

It could kill an awful lot of people, but it'll do it in fairly "mundane" ways.

 

There's no Hollywood doomsday day scenario, although at the end of the day for those that die I guess there's not a lot of comfort in semantics.

 

 

 

People are actually beginning to take asteroids seriously now, although again much like the ozone layer that is something we probably could do something about.

 

I think extreme weather events are far from mundane although I agree mass extinction is unlikely.

 

Regarding the effect if a large asteroid/comet hitting us, that's extremely unlikely to happen in a historic time frame and there's really fuck all we can do about it if it does. Similarily for the Yellowstone going pear shaped. Global warming, if man-made, should be reversible if we get our arses into gear. Pretty sure energy efficient light bulbs aren't the answer though.

 

 

Aye I don't really mundane in that context, more in the not of Hollywood you crash a car and it explodes like it was full to the brim of naplam mundane.... you still die, of course, but it ain't really that.... "exciting" I suppose.

 

I was looking at that carbon offseting data.... it's very difficult, you'd need to plant at least 550 trees every few years to do it, for every person in the UK, for all of their lives for it to work. Which just isn't going to happen with 6 billion people on the planet, never mind the soon to be 9 billion.

 

 

Actually we are well over due for a medium big asteroid strike statistically, and by medium big I mean something that could easily flatten most of say London. That was what drove the asteroid paranoid and those 1998 films about them.

[Renton 22032]

Don't get me wrong, there might be some truth in the warming theory, what I can't fathom is the leap to the catastrophic concequences causing the worst death tolls in history, worse than any of the other threats I've mentioned, requiring it to be made number one priority for every man and his dog.

 

Christ, if we're talking a human extinction threat, how much is being spent on trajectory prediction of asteroids?

 

 

It could kill an awful lot of people, but it'll do it in fairly "mundane" ways.

 

There's no Hollywood doomsday day scenario, although at the end of the day for those that die I guess there's not a lot of comfort in semantics.

 

 

 

People are actually beginning to take asteroids seriously now, although again much like the ozone layer that is something we probably could do something about.

 

I think extreme weather events are far from mundane although I agree mass extinction is unlikely.

 

Regarding the effect if a large asteroid/comet hitting us, that's extremely unlikely to happen in a historic time frame and there's really fuck all we can do about it if it does. Similarily for the Yellowstone going pear shaped. Global warming, if man-made, should be reversible if we get our arses into gear. Pretty sure energy efficient light bulbs aren't the answer though.

 

 

Aye I don't really mundane in that context, more in the not of Hollywood you crash a car and it explodes like it was full to the brim of naplam mundane.... you still die, of course, but it ain't really that.... "exciting" I suppose.

 

I was looking at that carbon offseting data.... it's very difficult, you'd need to plant at least 550 trees every few years to do it, for every person in the UK, for all of their lives for it to work. Which just isn't going to happen with 6 billion people on the planet, never mind the soon to be 9 billion.

 

 

Actually we are well over due for a medium big asteroid strike statistically, and by medium big I mean something that could easily flatten most of say London. That was what drove the asteroid paranoid and those 1998 films about them.

 

Statistics don't really work like that in the case of chance collisions though. We're no more likely to get hit by an asteroid tomorrow than the day after the last one hit. Having said that, statistically speaking, each of us does have a fair chance of dying because "an asteroid hits us on the head" - more say than some rarer cancers - because if one does hit the deaths caused will be immense.

 

Volcanic activity is a bit different. Yellowstone is visibly bulging and I don't want to be in North America when that thing blows.

[Fop 1]

Don't get me wrong, there might be some truth in the warming theory, what I can't fathom is the leap to the catastrophic concequences causing the worst death tolls in history, worse than any of the other threats I've mentioned, requiring it to be made number one priority for every man and his dog.

 

Christ, if we're talking a human extinction threat, how much is being spent on trajectory prediction of asteroids?

 

 

It could kill an awful lot of people, but it'll do it in fairly "mundane" ways.

 

There's no Hollywood doomsday day scenario, although at the end of the day for those that die I guess there's not a lot of comfort in semantics.

 

 

 

People are actually beginning to take asteroids seriously now, although again much like the ozone layer that is something we probably could do something about.

 

I think extreme weather events are far from mundane although I agree mass extinction is unlikely.

 

Regarding the effect if a large asteroid/comet hitting us, that's extremely unlikely to happen in a historic time frame and there's really fuck all we can do about it if it does. Similarily for the Yellowstone going pear shaped. Global warming, if man-made, should be reversible if we get our arses into gear. Pretty sure energy efficient light bulbs aren't the answer though.

 

 

Aye I don't really mundane in that context, more in the not of Hollywood you crash a car and it explodes like it was full to the brim of naplam mundane.... you still die, of course, but it ain't really that.... "exciting" I suppose.

 

I was looking at that carbon offseting data.... it's very difficult, you'd need to plant at least 550 trees every few years to do it, for every person in the UK, for all of their lives for it to work. Which just isn't going to happen with 6 billion people on the planet, never mind the soon to be 9 billion.

 

 

Actually we are well over due for a medium big asteroid strike statistically, and by medium big I mean something that could easily flatten most of say London. That was what drove the asteroid paranoid and those 1998 films about them.

 

Statistics don't really work like that in the case of chance collisions though. We're no more likely to get hit by an asteroid tomorrow than the day after the last one hit. Having said that, statistically speaking, each of us does have a fair chance of dying because "an asteroid hits us on the head" - more say than some rarer cancers - because if one does hit the deaths caused will be immense.

 

Volcanic activity is a bit different. Yellowstone is visibly bulging and I don't want to be in North America when that thing blows.

 

Aye the chance is always the same, and of course it gets no worse or better the longer we're not hit. But looking at data of old strikes we are still statistically over due. And the one certainty is sooner or later we will be hit again with an impact of that magnitude, as the ones of a size that hit Russia are relatively common events, geologically as least.

 

Actually I'm pretty sure we're statically over due (with all the above reservations) for a really big volcanic event as well.

 

Maybe global warming isn't the thing to worry about.

[Fop 1]

Kinda like this I suppose:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm

[Happy Face 29]

Move to block emissions 'swindle' DVD

 

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...2064925,00.html

 

Dozens of climate scientists are trying to block the DVD release of a controversial Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming is nothing to do with human greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office, and Bob May, former president of the Royal Society, are among 37 experts who have called for the DVD to be heavily edited or removed from sale. The film, the Great Global Warming Swindle, was first shown on March 8, and was criticised by scientists as distorted and misleading.

 

In an open letter to Martin Durkin, head of Wag TV, the independent production company that made the film, the scientists say: "We believe that the misrepresentation of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest ... In fact, so serious and fundamental are the misrepresentations that the distribution of the DVD of the programme without their removal amounts to nothing more than an exercise in misleading the public."

Myles Allen, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford who signed the letter, said the programme "took a very cavalier attitude to science. There are important issues around climate change that the public should be discussing, but all this programme did was rehash debates that were had and finished in the scientific community 15 years ago."

 

The programme featured scientists known as climate sceptics, such as Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Phillip Stott, emeritus professor at the University of London. It argued that mainstream researchers ignore evidence that counters the consensus that most recent warming is down to human activity. It said there were problems with the computer models that predict future climate change and that solar activity, not greenhouse gas emissions, is to blame for recent warming. Wag TV called the programme a "definitive response to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth". Scientists complained that the programme makers distorted evidence, and made elementary mistakes such as claiming that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human activities, when in fact they produce less than 2% of that caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

Dr Allen said: "What Martin Durkin and Channel 4 don't understand is the way science works. Science is about the arguments, not the people who make them."

 

Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at MIT, and another signatory to the letter, was featured in the film and subsequently said his views had been misrepresented. He called the programme "as close to pure propaganda as anything since world war two" and has complained to Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, about his treatment.

 

Ofcom said it had received 246 complaints, and was investigating. The letter was coordinated by Bob Ward, a former press officer with the Royal Society. He said: "This isn't about censorship, it's a question of quality control. We have no objection to the DVD being distributed if all the errors are corrected, but if they correct all the errors then the whole premise of the program will fall to pieces."

 

Mr Durkin said: "This contemptible attempt at gagging won't work. The reason they want to suppress The Great Global Warming Swindle is because the science has stung them. By comparison look at the mountains of absurd nonsense pedalled in the name of 'manmade climate change'. Too many scientists have staked their reputations and built their careers on global warming. There's a lot riding on this ridiculous theory. The DVD will be on sale shortly at a shop near you."

 

[Meenzer 15742]

[Fop 1]

Dr Allen said: "What Martin Durkin and Channel 4 don't understand is the way science works. Science is about the arguments, not the people who make them."

 

That got lost in the whole Global Warming thing about a decade ago, too much money to be made by both sides now.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Fop