Having watched your program on global warming I find myself disturbed by the fact the scientific comunity can be so twisted by goverment and policy. The facts brougt to light by the poeple on your program cannot be ignored. My views have taken a complete 180 degree turn thanks for wake up call C4. It all reminds me of when the world was flat and earth was at the center of the universe and to say any different ment that you were burnt at the stake. Holding back advancment is suicide for us all. Thanks to C4 and all speakers on the program
Originally posted by Conned: Having watched your program on global warming I find myself disturbed by the fact the scientific comunity can be so twisted by goverment and policy. The facts brougt to light by the poeple on your program cannot be ignored. My views have taken a complete 180 degree turn thanks for wake up call C4. It all reminds me of when the world was flat and earth was at the center of the universe and to say any different ment that you were burnt at the stake. Holding back advancment is suicide for us all. Thanks to C4 and all speakers on the program
Originally posted by TrueSceptic: Before you accept the programme's claims, I suggest that you find out a little more about its maker and contributors.
Let's eliminate the red herring, "contributors", unless we apply that fairly to both sides. There are valid concerns about some of the statements of fact but, on balance, it was fair and accurate. Compared Al Gore's and Hollywood's misleading shock video, TGGWS is professionally superior. The scientists in the movie are also published and regarded highly in their respected diciplines.
Let's eliminate the red herring, "contributors", unless we apply that fairly to both sides. There are valid concerns about some of the statements of fact but, on balance, it was fair and accurate. Compared Al Gore's and Hollywood's misleading shock video, TGGWS is professionally superior. The scientists in the movie are also published and regarded highly in their respected diciplines.
Hah! Can you list anything that was presented in the programme in a fair and accurate way. I will give credit where credit is due, but I don't expect to give much given that after only a few months of research that I did at the beginning of this year I was able to immediately identify a long list lies, half truths and misleading statements in it. On the other hand, when I asked for a list of errors in Inconvenient Truth (which I've not seen) there was, to my complete surprise, silence.
Many of the contributors in GGWS have not published for years and many (Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Piers Corbyn, Tim Ball, Patrick Moore are the names I remember) are definitely not viewed highly in their respected discliplines (unless you mean their PR/self publicist discipline).
Originally posted by phlipper: Let's eliminate the red herring, "contributors", unless we apply that fairly to both sides. There are valid concerns about some of the statements of fact but, on balance, it was fair and accurate. Compared Al Gore's and Hollywood's misleading shock video, TGGWS is professionally superior. The scientists in the movie are also published and regarded highly in their respected diciplines.
I don't see why you put quotation marks around 'contributors'. It is a neutral description.
Why is it a "red herring", and how would you "apply that fairly" to the other side? There is no mystery about who they are and who pays for their research. The "sceptics", OTOH, are somewhat more coy about this.
"Fair and accurate" is simply an absurd description. C4 themselves billed it as a polemic.
TruSceptic said: Before you accept the programme's claims, I suggest that you find out a little more about its maker and contributors. Are they really exposing climate science as mistaken or dishonest? Do they have their own agenda?
Everyone has an agenda. Often it is not the opinion that comes from the agenda, but the agenda that comes from the opinion.
Does the father of a murdered man who writes in favor of the death penalty have an agenda because his son was murdered? Does it make his opinion less valid, or MORE valid.
The link refers to Allegre, and he seems a bit confused. He bases his reasons on the fact that it is unreasonable to assume Kilimanjaro's ice is a key measure of GW (noone says it is), and that the fact that the Antarctica is gaining ice (current models suggest that Antarctica and Greenland will gain ice for much of this century due to extra precipitation overcoming ice melting at the edges, and won't start to seriously melt till later. Note, these assessments are before any possibility of change in ice dynamics is considered which might increase the melting rate).
