New visitors to this Science Forum may take for granted that the issue of global warming is at the core of a large percentage of the threads on it, and may assume that it has always been so. This however is not the case. Looking back at the threads from a year ago we find subjects such as:
Wild Thing – water voles Will Men In White Be Repeated Any non-DNA life?
One or two attempts to bring up the subject of global warming can be located:
Climate Change – CO2 vs. Cosmic Rays Let’s get rid of green house gasses
However these fall upon entirely deaf ears, with not one response in either case. Visitors to the Science Forum then could have been forgiven for believing that the “science is settled”, or that the “debate is over”.
So what was it that turned things around, opened up the debate and created the Science Forums as they are today?
Surprisingly, it wasn’t something which just happened gradually – it happened suddenly, within the space of one evening in early March 2007.
The evening that Channel 4 first screened Martin Durkin’s ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’.
The inrush of threads and comments, (both from those who believed the IPCC theory of anthropogenic global warming, and from those who didn’t), is immense.
It is the enduring legacy of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ that some of the people who felt moved to join the forum then are still involved, contributing to threads about global warming, a full nine months later! (Do any of the AGW posters see contributing here as damage control?).
Clearly, whilst the debate is apparently ignored by the mainstream TV and media outlets, it is alive, albeit in smaller arenas than it is entitled to – internet forums such as this.
Is ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ the only TV programme ever aired that does not slavishly adhere to the AGW theory, and which dares to say that there are people, scientists even, who do not agree with that theory? I believe so, and cannot think of any others. (Channel 4 did later screen ‘The Great Green Debate’, a discussion programme with an audience of sceptics and a panel of AGW believers. However it was in a half hour slot, which is 24 minutes without the adverts, so it was hardly an in depth discussion).
Can anyone think of any others?
Given the interest in TGGWS, there is clearly an audience out there of people who would like the opportunity of being informed of BOTH sides and who would then like to make up their own mind, rather than just being told what to believe.
Why is there such a lack of programmes about global warming that question the AGW point of view or that even acknowledge that there are people who do not share this view?
Supporters of the AGW theory may say it’s because there is no need for them, as there is no doubt that global warming IS anthropogenic. However, even if this were the case, there would still be a market for programmes investigating why a large number of people do not believe that it is so, and internet forums such as this would not be so popular. Also TGGWS would not have had the massive impact that it did.
Considering that global warming is one of the largest issues affecting people’s lives around the world, I believe it is inexcusable that it is treated in this way by television companies and news organisations.
Possible reasons I can think of why such programmes are not made are:
People who are in a position to give the go ahead to such programmes believe in the AGW theory, and they feel it is dangerous for the general public to become aware that its veracity is in doubt, so they won’t go out of their way to publicise such doubts, (not totally convincing as surely there would be ONE somewhere who would buck the trend).
People who are in a position to give the go ahead to such programmes believe there would be no audience for such programmes.
People who are in a position to give the go ahead to such programmes have been TOLD not to make such programmes.
People who are in a position to give the go ahead to such programmes fear a backlash from environmental organisations.
Does anyone agree or disagree with any of the above, or can they come up with any other possible reasons?
Assuming that people who work behind the scenes of Channel 4 science programmes occasionally look at this Science Forum, (or even TV science people from other channels), can you fill us in on why, until now, TGGWS is a one-off?
I find myself 'mostly' in concurrence with your post. However, C4 received a lot of 'stick' over TGGWS and somehow I don't expect a TGGWS2 to materialise in the near future.
Why? Because of Nobel Prize awards, International agreements and National pre dispositions. It's a 'hot potato' that no organisation in its right mind would even consider challenging. Right or wrong, the way foreword seems 'set in stone' (please excuse any assumed reference to Moses). However, CO2 now seems to be the eleventh commandment as set by IPCC decree (even though the CO2 scenario may be a 'mimic' of 'other', true, rationale)!
How has this come to be? Well it must be something to do with modern materialism, because in the past societies prohibited their engineers and scientists from making policy decisions! In past history engineers and scientists only 'did' what they were asked of by 'policy makers'. We currently see the inversion of this sociological norm for human society. That is why it's so hard for a 'voice' against the engineering and scientific community. The IPCC set the agenda for 'policy makers' and any engineer or scientist in dissent of that agenda remains unheard.
We need 'democracy' in the science community (including 'engineering science') before any realistic rationalisation can surface from the 'pea soup' of ideas that are out there.
If C4 wants an alternative agenda for global warming, I've got it. If C4 wants to say why the IPCC shouldn't set the agenda, I'll tell 'em. If C4 wants to rerun TGGWS with new format, I'll help 'em. If C4 wants the bouncers to wear pink, 'you' tell 'em! OK!
Best regards, suricat.
BTW. I've viewed your 'first post' several times, both 'on' and 'off' login. At this posting time it still shows 'no views'. Expect the unexpected (Capt. Ninestine)!
Originally posted by Leo Nithic: New visitors to this Science Forum may take for granted that the issue of global warming is at the core of a large percentage of the threads on it, and may assume that it has always been so. This however is not the case. Looking back at the threads from a year ago we find subjects such as:
Wild Thing – water voles Will Men In White Be Repeated Any non-DNA life?
One or two attempts to bring up the subject of global warming can be located:
Climate Change – CO2 vs. Cosmic Rays Let’s get rid of green house gasses
However these fall upon entirely deaf ears, with not one response in either case. Visitors to the Science Forum then could have been forgiven for believing that the “science is settled”, or that the “debate is over”.
So what was it that turned things around, opened up the debate and created the Science Forums as they are today?
Surprisingly, it wasn’t something which just happened gradually – it happened suddenly, within the space of one evening in early March 2007.
The evening that Channel 4 first screened Martin Durkin’s ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’.
The inrush of threads and comments, (both from those who believed the IPCC theory of anthropogenic global warming, and from those who didn’t), is immense.
It is the enduring legacy of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ that some of the people who felt moved to join the forum then are still involved, contributing to threads about global warming, a full nine months later! (Do any of the AGW posters see contributing here as damage control?).
I have to say that I became aware of this forum and joined it because of TGGWS, and in particular because I was disgusted by the programme's disgraceful dishonesty (C4 themselves said it was a polemic and not a balanced view).
I'll respond to your other points later when I have more time.
Firstly you have to remember that GGWS was broadcast at the same time as the release of the first, and most high profile, IPCC reports (the summary for policy makers of the physical basis of climate change).
Relating to the planned IPCC release I'd previously been reading around the subject, so thought I'd test my knowledge by watching the programme, and this seemed the obvious place to start.
Since then the quality of contributions from at least some people on all sides has been very good such that I've learnt, or been prompted by good questions, to learn a lot about science and human nature. I have more faith in the former and less in the latter as a result.
Leo Lithic, The following conference will be a good test and might give you an answer.
Taken from the Heartland Institute Webpage, quote "Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis." end quote
How this event is reported, addressed, covered by the various media (including Channel 4), and those on this thread will be informative.
My own view is the media will ignore the conference.
Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis."
Ha ha! Very carefully written. Hundreds of scientists, economists and policy experts could mean 2 scientists. Widespread dissent means one scientist from america and one scientist a long way from america.
If they can muster enough scientists with at least 200 climate-change related papers published between them in the main peer reviewed literature in the last 10 years then the media should report it.
Ha ha! Very carefully written. Hundreds of scientists, economists and policy experts could mean 2 scientists. Widespread dissent means one scientist from america and one scientist a long way from america.
If they can muster enough scientists with at least 200 climate-change related papers published between them in the main peer reviewed literature in the last 10 years then the media should report it.
Same comment Steve on the "2,500 scientists" in the IPCC Reports, and those who keep peer reviewing each others work. Why are the AGW proponents so afraid of someone who dares to challenge the AGW orthodoxy?
So by that logic, you must be wrong because there is only one of you!
Well there's only one of me too and I'm always wrong as well. It's just as well there is only one of everybody else, isn't it. But then again, I like open ended discussions and this forum seems a good place for them. Perhaps that's another legacy of TGGWS?
The unoriginal Galileo/Einstein remark shows either a lack of thought or a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Leaving aside the fact that you have completely misrepresented the Galileo and Einstein situations we can state the following: nothing in science prevents one person from being right and everyone else being wrong, and if someone comes along with an alternative and much better explanation for current warming then that will be accepted, after much grumbling possibly, by the scientists. Currently none of the alternative explanations for current warming are well tested.
Secondly, the only "consensus" worth talking about is the fact that most climate scientists think that CO2 emissions are a threat. Beyond that they disagree about very many things including size of carbon feedbacks, sea-level rises, stability of ice sheets, hurricane frequency and intensity, sensitivity to warming, abilities of models, etc. etc. You can equally ask how so many disagreeing people can be prepared to agree on one central point.
engineerer:
Please provide evidence from the past when CO2 levels have increased or decreased dramatically and had no provable effect on the climate. Please provide an example from the past when a large change in some important influence has caused only small change in the climate. Please provide evidence of a feedback in the current climate system that is working to balance out the warming that we know adding CO2 must cause due to its physical properties.
Same comment Steve on the "2,500 scientists" in the IPCC Reports, and those who keep peer reviewing each others work. Why are the AGW proponents so afraid of someone who dares to challenge the AGW orthodoxy?
Who's "afraid"?
I wonder, have you ever considered that some decades ago, the idea that we could never alter climate was the orthodoxy and it took a while for the "establishment" to be convinced?
Let me put it another way. AGW "sceptics" aren't the Galileos in this: they are the ones pointing at the sun and shouting "see, it moves, it moves, it moves!".
Yes that is correct. Science works like that. The more scientists you have saying the same thing, the more correct it must be.
So, really, Gallileo and Einstein must have been wrong, because there was only one of each of them.
Just because someone occasionally overturns the orthodoxy doesn't mean that the dissenters are always right. We only get to hear about the ones who were correct and accepted, rarely about the many who were wrong.
Are you claiming that the smaller the number of scientists supporting a particular idea, the more likely it is to be true?
Originally posted by Steve_M Please provide evidence of a feedback in the current climate system that is working to balance out the warming that we know adding CO2 must cause due to its physical properties.
This is a good question Steve_M.
I do not think AGW is the whole story either but I do believe we have a responsibility to cut CO2 emissions because we know about its warming physical properties in the atmosphere. Are you adverse to this idea…and if so why when this course of action encourages steps towards better, cleaner and improved technologies?
I get the feeling you are apposed to AGW partly because of the mind boggling science involved with the topic of GW of which it is unclear just how much CO2 is a factor and then partly because you feel the powers that be are somehow duping the public and behaving like "bogey men"...
This forces me to re-evaluate your prior assertion that you have more faith in science than in human nature - clearly there are signs of sentience here if you feel untoward about dictatorships \ oppression but the decisions being made by the IPCC and most governments is hardly akin to some communistic authoritarian dictatorship…these decisions are taken out of concern and the intention to try and make a plausible difference with science we already know the inns and outs of…i.e. CO2 warms the atmosphere...
Funny how my 'How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic' list keeps getting quoted, isn't it
Yes. And this particular quote is merely a rhetorical flourish used by those who don't have better arguments. Unfortunately, "winning" an argument doesn't make you right because nature can't be fooled (There! Even I can nick other people's rhetorical flourishes) so it would be better to come up with more cogent and relevant reasons.
Originally posted by Steve_M: The unoriginal Galileo/Einstein remark shows either a lack of thought or a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Leaving aside the fact that you have completely misrepresented the Galileo and Einstein situations we can state the following: nothing in science prevents one person from being right and everyone else being wrong, and if someone comes along with an alternative and much better explanation for current warming then that will be accepted, after much grumbling possibly, by the scientists. Currently none of the alternative explanations for current warming are well tested.
It is so hard to make real and rapid reductions in CO2 output that anything that demotes CO2 from its current position as current top "climate changer" would be welcome indeed. Wanting this to be so won't change the reality, though.
I think you misunderstood me as I worship at the shrine of the IPCC . I expect increased CO2 will increase warming because we know its physical properties.
I was asking engineerer for proof of a balancing mechanism that would prevent CO2 from causing the warming one would expect it to, because s/he seems to think CO2 can't affect climate
Originally posted by Geoman: Leo Lithic, The following conference will be a good test and might give you an answer.
Taken from the Heartland Institute Webpage, quote "Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis." end quote
How this event is reported, addressed, covered by the various media (including Channel 4), and those on this thread will be informative.
My own view is the media will ignore the conference.
Thanks Geoman - this will be a good test. I'm inclined to agree that it will probably be ignored.
I am saddened by the responses to "Engineer"'s question - which I find fundamantal to the issue. From what I have seen the linkage between CO2 and climate change is unproven; and the issue I feel needs to be addressed is what are (we) scientists who do not accept the IPCC findings going to do about it? The climate change indiustry is a $mega billion lobby - ( governments included (who are on a tax raising jamboree through climate change).
Who is organising the March Jamboree in NY? It doeswnyt seem to have attracted much publicity at all.......
So, really, Gallileo and Einstein must have been wrong, because there was only one of each of them.
Einstein published scientific papers. He made testable predictions and his predictions were confirmed by experiment. The majority of climatologists also work in this way, publishing peer-reviewed papers and making testable predictions.
Rather than publishing papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals the global warming deniers seem
