.:SonicBomb:.
    Login or Register
::  Home  ::  Videos  ::  Your Account  ::  Forums  ::  RSS Feed  ::
 
 
::Content::
  • Atomic
  • - Aviation
    - Aircraft
    - Military
    - Explosions
    - WW2
    - Various
    - Hi-Def
    - Photos

    - Wallpaper

    - Nuclear

    - WWI

    - WWII

    Advertisment
    Search
    Custom Search
    User Info
    Welcome, Anonymous
    Nickname
    Password
    (Register)
    Membership:
    Latest: jpuesan
    New Today: 1
    New Yesterday: 1
    Overall: 697

    People Online:
    Visitors: 0
    Members: 0
    Total: 0

    sonicbomb.com :: View topic - Ofcom tries to censure debate on AGW

    Forum FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    Post new topic Reply to topic  sonicbomb.com Forum Index » Political Arena
    Author Message
    sonicbomb
    Forum Admin
    Forum Admin


    Joined: Aug 06, 2006
    Posts: 1712
    Location: UK

    PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:25 pm Reply with quote




    Ofcom have ruled that Channel 4’s programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle" breached its guidelines by not being impartial and by failing to reflect a range of views on a controversial issue.

    As if it's not enough having the mock-science fakery of global warming rammed down our throats at every turn, now any disenters are being actively censured. Though it looks like the ruling was ultimately over-ruled in a rare show of good sense.

    Ofcom can't take the heat of climate debate - telegraph.co.uk

    Robert Watson, ex-head of the IPCC - Cries like a little girl with a skinned knee in his Guardian column.

    The BBC's take on the procedings


    Ofcom bulletin - (including its ruling on the Great Global Warming Swindle) [450KB .PDF]
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:54 pm Reply with quote

    No smoking hot spot

    David Evans | July 18, 2008 for The Australian

    I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

    FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

    When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

    The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

    But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

    There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

    1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

    Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

    If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

    When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

    Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

    2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

    3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

    4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

    None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

    The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

    Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

    So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

    In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

    If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

    The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

    What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

    The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

    Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

    --

    By the way, the red lettered warning on the APS essay came some time after the article was posted, in response to the vast media attention to the article.

    However, there are disturbing details about the faults of the essay that have been exposed.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink

    I am waiting to see if there is a recovery effort.
    View user's profile Send private message
    furryfeet1690
    Baker (23 kt)


    Joined: Sep 19, 2007
    Posts: 38
    Location: Scotland

    PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:18 am Reply with quote

    What can the ordinary citizen do against this political-science propaganda? What do i do if my local council is kicking in my front door because i have put a piece of paper in with all my glass refuse? or they decide to tax me to the hilt for washing a shirt at 40 degrees instead of 30?
    View user's profile Send private message
    Blake
    Tewa (5 mt)


    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Posts: 680
    Location: Florida

    PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:50 pm Reply with quote

    furryfeet1690 wrote:
    What can the ordinary citizen do against this political-science propaganda? What do i do if my local council is kicking in my front door because i have put a piece of paper in with all my glass refuse? or they decide to tax me to the hilt for washing a shirt at 40 degrees instead of 30?



    That's what the rest of us are trying to figure out as well. What the hell do we do about it? When faced against the idiot masses of people who beleive anything some fatass bloated pig (AG) tells them, what can you do? Education is the only thing I can think of that will eventually solve this problem. But how do you inject fact, and truth into classrooms when they're controlled by the same type of people who beleive this bullshit in the first place? Quite the vexing problem, indeed.
    View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:24 pm Reply with quote

    Two scientists from the docu weren't exactly happy with the way their statements were used. One of them, Carl Wunsch, has lodged a complaint with Ofcom. Which ultimately contributed to the censorship of the film. Wunsch even dismissed the docu as propaganda.

    "In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening." - Carl Wunsch

    It seems as if the makers of the docu tried everything to put GW-science etc in a bad light - even if this meant to "bend" some scientific facts or misquote some people. This ultimately led to the censorship, and not a big conspiracy from eeevil "MMGW-priests".

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic Reply to topic

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    | Privacy Policy || Contact us |

    Page Generation: 0.10 Seconds
    :: In the future we will all be robots ::