Did the GGWS Change Your Mind? It did for me. I watched the programme the first time expecting it to be a load of rubbish, but I could deny the facts presented to me.
I watched it again last night and it only confirmed to me even further.
Originally posted by Pandamania: Did the GGWS Change Your Mind? It did for me. I watched the programme the first time expecting it to be a load of rubbish, but I could deny the facts presented to me.
I watched it again last night and it only confirmed to me even further.
Excellent idea - let's see what impact this programme has had.
Calm down, calm down!!Hey Bamber are you a member of Greenpeace or something?
We all know there is a large portion of the scientific community with a vested interest in this debacle, isn't that why we don't trust much of what is being said and why it is snowballing like this. People aren't as willing to trust what is said cus the BBC is impotent and politically biased as are some newspapers.
You shouldn't give people a hard time for doubting when the political stance is pro GW...for why?? what are they getting out of it?? We ask ourselves this becaue we don't trust or respect them!
One or two on these threads have accused the programme makers of producing film that is polemic. I watched it again and came to the conclusion that it was more balanced that I originally thought. Although there was no representation of the opposing view there were quotations of that view to which answers were given.
I also viewed on the History Channel Are we changing Planet Earth Fronted By David Attenborough I have to say to my shock it was even more polemic than swindle, it was outrageous lets have some balance please or how do we make our minds up
Originally posted by rickyjk: One or two on these threads have accused the programme makers of producing film that is polemic.
Yes that's what Channel 4 said.
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: I watched it again and came to the conclusion that it was more balanced that I originally thought.
But how much have you actually studied any of the science yourself?
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: Although there was no representation of the opposing view there were quotations of that view to which answers were given.
Like by Fred Singer (he was the last one to speak on the programme, and the UK's Chief Scientist should be after him for slander): "There will still be people that believe that this is the end of the world. Particularly when you have for example the chief scientists of the UK telling people that by the end of the century the only habitable place on Earth will be the Antarctic. And it may ... humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples that move to the Antarctic. It's hilarious (chuckle) it would be hilarious actually if it weren't so sad." Roll credits ...
Oh dear, Sir David King is the UK's Chief Scientist and he has never said any such thing. It was Professor James Lovelock who said it in 'The Revenge Of Gaia'. I'm sure they know the difference, lies but it sounded impressive, so they put it in the programme...
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: I also viewed on the History Channel 'Are we changing Planet Earth' Fronted By David Attenborough I have to say to my shock it was even more polemic than swindle, it was outrageous lets have some balance please or how do we make our minds up
The balance is there, just not where you believe it should be.
It is the first time Sir David has voiced his concerns in public about the impacts of global warming.
quote:
"Now... when we look at the graphs of rising ocean temperatures, rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and so on, we know that they are climbing far more steeply than can be accounted for by the natural oscillation of the weather."
Sir David, whose distinguished broadcasting career spans more than half a century, says everyone has a responsibility to act: "What people (must) do is to change their behaviour and their attitudes.
"If we do care about our grandchildren then we have to do something, and we have to demand that our governments do something.
Wordsmithy... I have attempted to view the alternate views on both sides and unlike your self I am not prepared to accept one view over another until there is a proper public debate.
The scientists should be trustworthy unbiased and under no political pressure. The IPCC have censored or edited scientific reports. There is governmental billions going into Co2 global warming and the references to Al gore are bogus he has vested interests.
My mind did not need changing; I have always believed that we are not responsible for GW and, am heartily sick of being shouted down for my belief. GW is beyond human control; we're too puny and insignificant. C4 should release this excellent programme on DVD. Too much to hope that the lunatics running the asylum would allow the film to be shown to schools.
Originally posted by martinb: My mind did not need changing; I have always believed that we are not responsible for GW and, am heartily sick of being shouted down for my belief. GW is beyond human control; we're too puny and insignificant. C4 should release this excellent programme on DVD. Too much to hope that the lunatics running the asylum would allow the film to be shown to schools.
Martin - I'm still waiting to be convinced... and the four or five regular AGW advocates who appear to do shift-work on these boards has only increased my scepticism. It's a pity, they put people off.
Im beginning to agree with you two I have just read an entry by Bertyf on a thread by Robert1234 he states his area of experience is computer models..with the right input you could make black seem white...
Originally posted by rickyjk: Wordsmithy... I have attempted to view the alternate views on both sides and unlike your self I am not prepared to accept one view over another until there is a proper public debate.
Exactly what form would you like that to take?
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: The scientists should be trustworthy
Trustworthy sounds good. So what do we do about any that already have a bad reputation?
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: unbiased
Everyone is biased to one degree or another but what they have previously discovered to be true/false.
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: and under no political pressure.
How can we prove that?
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: The IPCC have censored or edited scientific reports.
The SPM was edited such that everyone could agree with it and sign up to it. That meant that both weaker and stronger positions were excluded. What they wanted was to come to a position that no one would dispute. That there are still a few vocal skeptics outside of the main group is simply to be expected.
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: There is governmental billions going into Co2 global warming
Since most scientists seem to believe that we need to deal with green house gases then I'm all for moving forward. More research to become more precise in the preditions, and to find alternative solutions.
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: and the references to Al gore are bogus he has vested interests.
The book does a much better job of explaining how he came to devote his life to this. I was amazed the other day to hear that Al Gore had invented global warming!
Originally posted by rickyjk: Im beginning to agree with you two I have just read an entry by Bertyf on a thread by Robert1234 he states his area of experience is computer models..with the right input you could make black seem white...
Just for the record I'm not any kind of climate scientist. However I have done a fair bit of reading on this, and don't mind spending some time in this debate.
The SPM was edited such that everyone could agree with it and sign up to it. That meant that both weaker and stronger positions were excluded. What they wanted was to come to a position that no one would dispute. That there are still a few vocal skeptics outside of the main group is simply to be expected.
Ahhhh - so the IPCC report is a compromise then? Let me get this straight - you want governments to start spending billions on the information contained within a scientific report that even its most vocal supporters admit has been compromised??
The SPM was edited such that everyone could agree with it and sign up to it. That meant that both weaker and stronger positions were excluded. What they wanted was to come to a position that no one would dispute. That there are still a few vocal skeptics outside of the main group is simply to be expected.
Ahhhh - so the IPCC report is a compromise then? Let me get this straight - you want governments to start spending billions on the information contained within a scientific report that even its most vocal supporters admit has been compromised??
Yes it is a compromise. And will you just look at your response? It is a middle position that everyone could sign up to. Some would liked it to have said more, others less. But they all signed it. Some will now be wishing it was stronger, others than it had been weaker. I've no idea what the numbers are, but that's my understanding. Regarding those billions, the Stern report suggested saving by spending a smaller amount...
Wordsmithy your not convincing me not that it matters. You cannot produce a report like this that is so politicised it makes for bad science and the more I read on these threads the more I am convinced of the political interferenc...Why because there has been no proper public debate any one with an opposong view is slapped down and that concerns me..
Originally posted by rickyjk: Wordsmithy your not convincing me not that it matters. You cannot produce a report like this that is so politicised it makes for bad science and the more I read on these threads the more I am convinced of the political interferenc...Why because there has been no proper public debate any one with an opposong view is slapped down and that concerns me..
l am also concerned but have my own solution. l am selling up and will no longer live here in the UK. l will of course visit and it will be by plane ....but l won't be paying GW taxes ... or congestion charges ... or impending road charges ... or whatever other GW taxes they will come up with. CO2 credit cards??? ;-)
lf it were just scientists who were debating GW, l would have no problem with it but it isn't. Politicians are heavily involved and l have never trusted them or their agenda. There has been more debate here than anything the current government has done. Opposition parties are no different.
Originally posted by rickyjk: I think your right when you say that they didn't want any disagreement how can you publish a report when weaker or stronger views are missing.
It is just a summary for policy makers. The science is already published. However they will be publishing other documents as well. Just visit http://www.ipcc.ch to see the plan for the next few months.
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: Wordsmithy your not convincing me not that it matters.
That is a pity.
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: You cannot produce a report like this that is so politicised
I guess it's fairly unique that the scientific community throughout the world are having to gather their thoughts together and make a statement for policy makers (it's not many pages http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf).
quote:
Originally posted by rickyjk: it makes for bad science and the more I read on these threads the more I am convinced of the political interferenc...Why because there has been no proper public debate any one with an opposong view is slapped down and that concerns me..
Bearing in mind that the vast majority of people are not interested in discussing science, or do not have a good enough basic understanding, how should it be done? The truth is that those people who have wanted to debate climate science have been doing it well before the programme. There are many forums, and most of them allow previews and images I might add... To be honest I have emailed my MP 3 times now to say that they cannot expect people to accept change when the science has not been presented to them. And then again it is all over the TV and news-papers, and people are fed up already. So how to win? Tongue in cheek I could suggest that TGGWS has done us all a favour in forcing a fresh debate, but I see it as Custer's Last Stand for TGGWS... Just look into the truth or otherwise of what they presented... It's easy enough, just try looking for my post on Solar Cycle Lengths for a start.
Originally posted by WordSmithy: Yes it is a compromise. And will you just look at your response? It is a middle position that everyone could sign up to. Some would liked it to have said more, others less. But they all signed it. Some will now be wishing it was stronger, others than it had been weaker. I've no idea what the numbers are, but that's my understanding. Regarding those billions, the Stern report suggested saving by spending a smaller amount...
So everyone signed up to a document they did not wholly agree with? The contributors surrendered to having their expert research material changed, manipulated, censored or otherwise compromised by the IPCC so that it could achieve the desired quota of signatures it believed it needed to give the document authority? An authority IPCC intended to use to influence and shape the policies of democratic government?
This changed, manipulated, censored or otherwise compromised material - which does not wholly reflect the original views of some or all of its authors - is now presented to the world as authentic scientific research which should be trusted and invested in?
Originally posted by WordSmithy: Yes it is a compromise. And will you just look at your response? It is a middle position that everyone could sign up to. Some would liked it to have said more, others less. But they all signed it. Some will now be wishing it was stronger, others than it had been weaker. I've no idea what the numbers are, but that's my understanding. Regarding those billions, the Stern report suggested saving by spending a smaller amount...
So everyone signed up to a document they did not wholly agree with? The contributors surrendered to having their expert research material changed, manipulated, censored or otherwise compromised by the IPCC so that it could achieve the desired quota of signatures it believed it needed to give the document authority? An authority IPCC intended to use to influence and shape the policies of democratic government?
This changed, manipulated, censored or otherwise compromised material - which does not wholly reflect the original views of some or all of its authors - is now presented to the world as authentic scientific research which should be trusted and invested in?
The compromise is not in whether global warming is occurring, or whether it is due to greenhouse gases. It is in what to present concerning the interpretation of how bad and how fast. The original science is still out there for all to read.
