C4’s debate on global warming boils over

Times Online ^ | March 15, 2007 | Sam Coates, Mark Henderson

[cogitator]

Apparently the show also erroneously said that volcanoes emit a lot more CO2 than human activities. See point 1 in my profile about that. Regarding the first point in how Channel 4 got it wrong, I'm working on that point in my profile. There is no good reference to this anywhere on the Web (even such that posters to RealClimate are appealing to the managers of the site to make one!)

[cogitator]

ping

[P-40]

telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.

From a scientific standpoint, isn't that pretty much impossible? :)

[JZelle]

Not if you're Gumby, dammit!

[Scotswife]

"From a scientific standpoint, isn't that pretty much impossible? :)"


well it does show that global warming alarmism is based on solid scientific evidence and not pure emotion.

[lovecraft]

Well you can get yourself f***ed, but not necessarily go and f*** yourself. If you could, you'd be pretty well f***ed anyway.

[Chi-townChief]

bttt

[facedown]

Claim: Ice core data shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after temperatures go up, not before

Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect – initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on

Only a child would believe this.

[TheBattman]

Only a child would believe this.

Which Part?

[GreenAccord]

Apparently the show also erroneously said that volcanoes emit a lot more CO2 than human activities

Actually, the show contends that volcanoes result in more CO2 emissions than industrial emissions, not human activity. And they didn't use the words a lot, they claimed it was simply more.

[spinestein]

[He said that the global warming film had glossed over flaws in data that it used to make its case, and that it was critical that a documentary about a subject as controversial as race and biology did not make similar mistakes.]


It's always a traumatic moment when a person first realizes that most journalists are full of crap.

[avacado]

"Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing."

Is this true about the last decade? All I ever hear is that each year broke another record for warmest. Can someone point me to the data for this? Thanks.

[r-q-tek86]

Might want to check this one out.

[cogitator]

Only a child would believe this.

Check my profile next week for (hopefully) a comprehensive explanation of why that point is correct and is widely misunderstood. It has taken me awhile to comprehend it sufficiently, and I had to discard some of my convenient misconceptions, too.

[agooga]

Apparently the show's claim that cosmic rays play a role in the creation of the cloud layer was also based on older science which has subsequently been shown to be faulty.

I'm still a GW skeptic, but I recognize that this film is not an iron-clad refutation of the science promoting the belief in anthropogenic GW.

My hope is that the overall science is STILL too new, poorly understood and misinterpreted to be definitive.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

" > telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.

From a scientific standpoint, isn't that pretty much impossible? :)"

Well, I would certainly want to see any such data peer reviewed, and Ch 4 appears be an ideal venue...

[cogitator]

the show contends that volcanoes result in more CO2 emissions than industrial emissions,

the point is still very, very wrong. See point #1 of my profile.

[cogitator]

See point #4 in my profile.

[jps098]

Hardly. You will note that where they contend to have Explanations for the Claims, they say they are Facts. So much of science today is just this. Saying an Explanation (hypothesis) is actually fact. This is not to be mistaken for Fact.

It never seems to occur to the media, etc. their explanation could be wrong. They usually are. Almost all of the "Humans cause Global Warming" science is pure emotion.

The best correlation I've seen to warming is sunspot activity. Ten years from now, when temps are down, one of two things will happen. Everyone in the GW crowd will claim victory, though nothing substantial was done worldwide, or everyone will quietly forget what they claimed about Global Warming and move on. What should happen is to expose these people as frauds and have them repay all of the government research dollars they will have spent on this foolishness.

[Hostage]

I noted that those that are criticizing are not climate scientists.

I also noted in the so-called responses to the claims that 'explanations have been found'. Finding 'explanations' to defend against other explanations is not science. That is argument.

Science is about experiment and reproducibility of results. In much of this global warming debate, science is often trampled on by politics.

Science is not easy. It is in fact quite hard. It takes work, focus, patience and funds to get it right, and even then there may be 'explanations=opinions' without conclusive results. Normally when results are inconclusive, the experimental design is changed and a new study is undertaken. It can take decades to get a result. In the meantime, opportunistic politicians such as Gore come along to demagogue the science into law and policy, and that means a claim on taxpayer funds.

I can't stress enough how hard science can be. Years without adequate sleep can be spent trying to meet a deadline, or trying to sift through data to get real results that will be accepted in peer reviewed journals. It's hard work whereas I find politicians to be extremely fat and lazy, mouthing off whatever sounds good for the moment. Hence, the level of vitriol launched by Murkin against non-climate scientists is entirely understandable.