So I'm assuming that you were in the editing suite then...

I'm not dismissing the views of those interviewed, just the way in which it was put together.

No, but then I didn't comment apparently knowledgeably about the editing process.

I am an editor!

A good one?

What do you edit?

Why were you taken in upon first watching?

In what ways was it 'cleverly done'?

Sorry, but it is not in any way believable that, 'an editor from the AGW side could use exactly the same material that Durkin did, and come up with exactly the opposite message'.

OK - try watching it again, but this time, listen to the experts and not to the commentary...

quote:

Originally posted by Ben Hams:

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:

No argue the science with the scientists silly !!

Why can you make posts that don't argue the science, but I can't?

If you go back far enough you'll see that I did try to argue various aspects of the science and science in general with the likes of Steve_M. Got proper shrill with it as I rejoiced in Durkins apparent exposure of AGW as a SWINDLE.

Unlike some I eventually had to admit that Durkin couldn't infact argue the science properly even through his "sub-contractors" but was instead engaged in some crude campaign to muddy the waters.

I now watch for properly reasoned arguments from various sources as to why AGW is not real. All I get on this forum is conspiracy theories from the BAUers but no real attempts to show why CO2 does not threaten us even in terms of the "probabilities". From my limited reading Bjorn Lomborg is the best bet so far (I'll read the entire book before passing final judgement).

So, if you want to convince me and others in my camp (Joe Public) back up your alternative agenda theories by blowing away the science. I don;t think you can but I'll hand it to you if you do. I;ve already shown myself to be open minded after all.

The sheer size and adaptability of the AGW industry makes your change of opinion unsurprising. I will remain steadfast and wait for that televised debate between scientists.

quote:

Does their mortgage depend on the continued believability of global warming as a threat to the planet?

No. Over 90% of the investment is related to weather forecasting, not climate. Much of the other 10% will be relevant even if CO2 is irrelevant (which it isn't).

quote:

Do they appreciate all of the hysterical reporting of AGW by the media, as it helps to keep “their field” in the headlines, (and those grants flowing through the door)? Or are they embarrassed about it, hence why they don’t rush out and say, ‘well, actually, that is a bit of an exaggeration.’?

The politicians who control the purse strings aren't taken in by the hysteria, so the headlines don't make a difference.

Most of them are too busy getting on with trying to do a good job and don't have time (or inclination) to engage in the media side of things. Clever people do science because they're interested in it. The ones that just want to secure their mortgage join merchant banks and software companies.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

Do they appreciate all of the hysterical reporting of AGW by the media, as it helps to keep “their field” in the headlines, (and those grants flowing through the door)? Or are they embarrassed about it, hence why they don’t rush out and say, ‘well, actually, that is a bit of an exaggeration.’?

The politicians who control the purse strings aren't taken in by the hysteria, so the headlines don't make a difference.

Most of them are too busy getting on with trying to do a good job and don't have time (or inclination) to engage in the media side of things. Clever people do science because they're interested in it. The ones that just want to secure their mortgage join merchant banks and software companies.

Errr - which planet exactly are you trying to save Steve?? I'm racking my brains to think of one where "politicians who control the purse strings aren't taken in by hysteria, so headlines don't make a difference", or, better still, where the only clever people (like you, of course) work in science, and the rest of the population - being too stupid to do science - shuffle of to merchant banks and software companies.

Is that Planet Grandiose?, Planet Naive? - or maybe Planet I-Need-To-Get-Out-More-Often?

Roger58

quote:

Clever people do science because they're interested in it.

That should read:

The clever people who do science do so because they are interested in it. Clever people who are more interested in making money have better opportunities elsewhere to do so.

I wasn't a good scientist because I'm not patient enough (either to do science or to proof read my own posts). I like to get results quickly. So I just hang on to the scientists coat-tails and, hopefully, help them to do their jobs more efficiently.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
Roger58

quote:

Clever people do science because they're interested in it.

That should read:

The clever people who do science do so because they are interested in it. Clever people who are more interested in making money have better opportunities elsewhere to do so.

I wasn't a good scientist because I'm not patient enough (either to do science or to proof read my own posts). I like to get results quickly. So I just hang on to the scientists coat-tails and, hopefully, help them to do their jobs more efficiently.

Or perhaps?:

People who are equally clever at other things (including the making of money) have better opportunities elsewhere to pursue their interests.

BTW Steve, having gained your PhD in physics, I'd be interested to hear your views on the Freeman Dyson comments I posted yesterday.

quote:

BTW Steve, having gained your PhD in physics, I'd be interested to hear your views on the Freeman Dyson comments I posted yesterday.

Here are two comments from carbon cycle experts. I won't name them because I haven't asked them. I hope they don't mind.

quote:

don't pay too much attention to his understanding of the
biosphere.

quote:

I wouldn't pay too much to his understanding of anything - particularly when
he proposes "growing soils" to stop climate change..

"To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow
the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good topsoil
contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a hundredth of
an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil."

Considered the most optimistic global soil carbon sequestration estimates
(which consider only biological potential, not economic constraints etc)
could only offset 11% of 1990s anthropogenic emissions annually, it seems
his abacus has got a bit mixed up.

I presume this "growing soil" will help keep our heads above rising sea
levels too?

In my own brief skim of his web page he seemed to be saying, "yes CO2 is a problem, but there are other big problems that are more important, and anyway the CO2 problem can be solved easily by land-management changes".

Now I'm sure his article may have brought together some useful thoughts, but he clearly doesn't understand the subject, so his opening comments about "the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens" are unwelcome. So I'll just leave it with his final quote:

quote:

Even a smart twenty-two-year-old is not a reliable guide to the future of science. And the twenty-two-year-old has become even less reliable now that he is eighty-two.