Dispatches: Greenwash

[pat42]

So we need to build some massive, platform based, mid-atlantic nuclear or woodburning powerstations with great big heating elements that we can put into the sea to keep it warm!!!

[Phil]

no that wouldnt work it needs to cool to sink but the mixing with fresher water lessens the salinty that stops it sinking

the answer is alot simpler than that it just means reducing the amount of CO2 methan and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphear but hey some guy on chanel 4 says its nothing to do with that.

so i guess we should just carry on polluting the atmosphear i mean it doesnt cause acid rain that changes the PH of the soil killing off forests etc does it?

we may never be able to stop the gulf stream shuting down but we can delay the process

anyway how can anyone be 100% sure we arnt fleshin' the planet up? you cant, so surely its best to try and prevent some thing thats nothing, than do nothing and fleshin' it up even more.

cutting down CFC's and other atmospheric polution isnt going to do any harm is it? so whats the problem in trying its better than doing nothing

[libby]

To those who say they "dont believe in science"...

Better not use electricity, drive a car, take any kind of medication, go to the doctors, have an operation, use a computer etc etc



I'd like to say to most of the people on this thread: read ACTUAL scientific papers before judging, not just what you see on the news/ channel 4 documentarys/ in the paper.

Cheezee were you being serious?

[pat42]

I'm only joking Phil.

I'm a firm believer in the Gaia theory..........We havent been here too long in the grand scheme of things and when our time is up, thats it!!!

Human beings are resourceful and adaptable and I think well be here for many thousands of years more in some form or other.

We realise we have made mistakes and we're doing something about it.

I take it you've cancelled you Costa Rica trip, Phil, just to do your part.

Good lad

[libby]

The other point to bear in mind is that whatever is causing global warming, its very easy to say "fleshin' it i dont care i want a warmer/colder summer" but its not people in the developed world that are going to suffer. As usual the people most vulnerable are the poor and people living in developing nations.

It disappoints me so much when i see people just dismissing it and saying 'lets ignore it'.

[PapaW]

I didn't really want to get into this debate, mainly because there are so many factors that influence the subject at hand... some creating positive feedback and other negative feedback systems....

The one point I will chuck into the pot is that the time scale of change we are talking here with current events is WAY WAY WAY faster than any previous events in earths history.

[drowningbitbybit]

i never believe anything i see or read, especially things written by scientists. .

I'm gonna start with...

But then being slightly more of a grown-up, I'll make an appropriate response to that absurd statement. So you never believe anything you see or read that was written by scientists? Do you ever read anything written by scientists? No, you watch channel four, or read The Sun. That wasnt written by scientists, it was written by journalists who sell their story by making it as dramatic as possible.

The research, on the other hand, will generally be very conservative and moves forward in very small steps. And will involve a hypothesis - the point about a hypothesis is that it is there to be tested (not proved) and then modified depending on the results.

Yes, there will be instances where there is a conflict of interests (cigarette companies funding medical research is the best example) which is why there is a thing called 'peer review'. The research is sent, anonymously, to a group of other scientists who judge whether its been sufficiently accurate and analysed correctly. It is really really hard to get something past peer review if its biased, particularly as COI have to be stated.

It is sad that the media take some relatively trivial data and turn it into a big deal, to be followed later by the opposite - there's that hypothesis being tested again. End result is that noone believes anything any more.

Tell you what - you spend years studying something, oh hell it may as well even be surfing, and then have someone who knows nothing other than what they read in the paper or saw on channel four tell you how to do it. C'mon kooks, come on up here and tell Gowercharger how to surf. You'll know better than he does.

No? Well, put away your arrogance and let those evil mad scientists get on with the job.

[libby]

You just articulated everything i was thinking so much better than i could have done- thanks DBBB!

[Phil]

i never believe anything i see or read, especially things written by scientists. .

I'm gonna start with...

But then being slightly more of a grown-up, I'll make an appropriate response to that absurd statement. So you never believe anything you see or read that was written by scientists? Do you ever read anything written by scientists? No, you watch channel four, or read The Sun. That wasnt written by scientists, it was written by journalists who sell their story by making it as dramatic as possible.

The research, on the other hand, will generally be very conservative and moves forward in very small steps. And will involve a hypothesis - the point about a hypothesis is that it is there to be tested (not proved) and then modified depending on the results.

Yes, there will be instances where there is a conflict of interests (cigarette companies funding medical research is the best example) which is why there is a thing called 'peer review'. The research is sent, anonymously, to a group of other scientists who judge whether its been sufficiently accurate and analysed correctly. It is really really hard to get something past peer review if its biased, particularly as COI have to be stated.

It is sad that the media take some relatively trivial data and turn it into a big deal, to be followed later by the opposite - there's that hypothesis being tested again. End result is that noone believes anything any more.

Tell you what - you spend years studying something, oh hell it may as well even be surfing, and then have someone who knows nothing other than what they read in the paper or saw on channel four tell you how to do it. C'mon kooks, come on up here and tell Gowercharger how to surf. You'll know better than he does.

No? Well, put away your arrogance and let those evil mad scientists get on with the job.

spot on mate

[isaluteyou]

The problem with theory is that you can make enough arguments to back up your own beleifs. I could write an essay on how a "pencil is actually the master of the universe" i could even get some facts to support my arguments it does not means its correct. However i can do the exact same thing to disprove a "pencil is the master of the universe"

The thing that wins it in the end is the theory with the most rational and logical supported facts. Careful however f those facts contradict your own beleifs then you will not accept them.

"its better to be blindly ignorant than to be proven wrong" thats arrogance and small minds.

When you mix political agenda's with multi billion dollar business - do you really think that any amount of evidence will float

[GowerCharger]

But then being slightly more of a grown-up, I'll make an appropriate response to that absurd statement. So you never believe anything you see or read that was written by scientists? Do you ever read anything written by scientists? No, you watch channel four, or read The Sun. That wasnt written by scientists, it was written by journalists who sell their story by making it as dramatic as possible.

The research, on the other hand, will generally be very conservative and moves forward in very small steps. And will involve a hypothesis - the point about a hypothesis is that it is there to be tested (not proved) and then modified depending on the results.

ok whatever, your obviously amazingly clever etc. etc. I dont read the sun, and rarely watch tv, but you probably already knew that too right?
So a bunch of scientists have proven one thing and a bunch of others have proven opposite, they cant both be right so why should i believe any of them, or i could just pretend to understand all the "science" behind it and act all high and mighty about it, but i dont, so i wont.

[RJD]

Personaly I think we have a very very limited historic data set to show any abnormal global warming.

What definatly IS an issue is the pressuer mankind place on the Biosphere. Were reducing species right left & center, reducing habitat all over the place.

This males nature much less able to compensate & change for conditions. we've basicaly destroyed a lot of margin planet earth had.

[northswell]

Like most people i have looked and listend to all the details.

When I was in sixth form many moons ago my Geography Master told us that the earth was still coming out of an ice age, it seemed bizzare at the time but hey. I think i'm with the natural phenonomen on climate change, but save the worlds recources whereever possible,

[adrian]

Global warming = longer summers, warmer weather, warmer water.

How can you possibly complain?

[RJD]

Global warming = longer summers, warmer weather, warmer water.

How can you possibly complain?

Ahh if only that were so. Your in Aus, half your country is dying from drought & fire.

Half of Europe will drown in raised sea levels, the gulf stream will move, etc etc. Change isnt usualy a good thing on global scales.

[adrian]

"Your in Aus, half your country is dying from drought & fire"

Thats because more than half of my country is a desert.

And, did you know that the seeds of a number of native Australian trees will not sprout unless they get burnt in a fire. So bushfires are part of the cycle.

[RJD]

Which is fine untill you throw into the mix 100's of thousands of people.

Same thing for floods, typical, relativly normal thing untill you add in people, and for thinsg like the Bangladesh (1998 ~1million displaced) or Yangtze River (14 million displaced) - or 1931 china flood that killed 800k-4million.

When people (and animals) are already balanced on the edge any change can be devastating.

[Real Pol]

Just to get back on the original point, (the channel 4 program) some kind faceless person at my work scans all the news papers for environmental stuff and posts them on our intranet, this was in the Observer

Observer, 11/03/07 Leading US climate scientist says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. “Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'. He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.”


If I saw a post that long I wouldn't read it, so well done if you've got this far.

Oh, isaluteyou, everyone know He-man is the master of the universe, pencil indeed! (I'd like to have a read of that paper though).

[isaluteyou]

.Oh, isaluteyou, everyone know He-man is the master of the universe, pencil indeed! (I'd like to have a read of that paper though).

I'll send it to you some time or post it here when i get it from my friend. It comprises of around 3 solid pages of facts to support it

[Broosta]

Just to get back on the original point, (the channel 4 program) some kind faceless person at my work scans all the news papers for environmental stuff and posts them on our intranet, this was in the Observer

Observer, 11/03/07 Leading US climate scientist says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. “Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'. He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.”

This is a good example of what fks me off these days - all you get is spin, spin, spin from the media and government. How do you work out what the truth is?! I know there is a school of thought which says you see both sides of the argument then assume the truth is about half way, but that may well fall wide of the mark now and then and it could be a really significant miss. I suppose unless you actually work in a lab where you are doing the research yourself then you'll never really know what the hell is going on! How many papers have ended up being sued for lible(sp?)? How many papers get away with not being sued for lible due to a split hair technicallity?

Way too much bollox going on for my liking.