Discussion of the reality of global warming - true or false - is a good thing, and completely absent here.
The program resurrected old questions which have been dealt with as if they had found new terrible flaws int he argument.
The program was out dated, uninformed, poorly researched. The only climate modelling (a huge field) it mentions is Piers Corbyn who is a lone operator.
Are the program makers implying that the UK government Hadley climate centre etc. are all wrong? Incompetent? That they have wasted decades answering the specious points raised here?
The most depressing moment, possibly was "There's hardly any CO2 in the atmosphere so adding a bit makes no difference".
Imagine saying "An anti-reflection coat on a photographic lens is so thin compared to the glass that it makes no difference".
I am not a climaet scientist but channel 4 - get real and get someone to make a serious program attacking the global warming science if you can find any experts to do so. Not this rubbish.
Are the program makers implying that the UK government Hadley climate centre etc. are all wrong? Incompetent? That they have wasted decades answering the specious points raised here?
If the data on the CH4 show turns out to be true then yes they have wasted decades. But it's all down to opinions wether they are right or not. So in truth, who know?
If the data on the CH4 show turns out to be true then yes they have wasted decades. But it's all down to opinions wether they are right or not. So in truth, who know?
No it's not down to opinions. The truth is out there! The scientific method has a good record of moving us towards the "truth", hence our modern standard of living, our understanding of the cosmos etc. The guys on this programme can and do contribute to the scientific process, but as yet, they have not produced a sufficiently good hypothesis to replace the current theory.
But the current theory is also under fire from many angles as highlighted by the show. Just because it's the popular theory does not mean it any more accurate than what was proposed last night. If anything people should not follow the popular theory as blindly as they are doing. It's not 100% fact as last night's show was also not 100% fact. We need answers and the current answers are not conclusive enough for me to be swayed in any direction.
But the current theory is also under fire from many angles as highlighted by the show. Just because it's the popular theory does not mean it any more accurate than what was proposed last night. If anything people should not follow the popular theory as blindly as they are doing. It's not 100% fact as last night's show was also not 100% fact. We need answers and the current answers are not conclusive enough for me to be swayed in any direction.
Scientists do not "follow the popular theory blindly". They will continue to take more observations, improve the models, and discuss the results with each other. To be slightly flippant, if it is found tomorrow that the moon has been emitting more moonbeams than in the past, then scientists will study them, write papers, compare results, develop new experiments and quantify their effect on the atmosphere. Similarly with the cosmic ray theory last night, and climate scientists are interested in the result. It's almost certain that cosmic rays do have an effect, but up to now the studies would indicate that the effect is negligible. Unless and until there are other indications, they really shouldn't have the high profile that they do.
To go off on one, I could say that the "cosmic ray" argument is no different to the god argument. Namely, if you do not understand something you invoke something strange with unknown powers, and say "god did it". Similarly, these guys are saying "cosmic rays" did it.
Totex: Science is not about opinions. It's about "The apple fell down from the tree or not". Thr program didn't mention most of the work done in the field and is some years out of date.
And Totex again: The research field is complex but not "under fire from many angles as highlighted by the show".
Hence my point: The only experts in the field the channel 4 producers could find to pose questions were mavericks on ths sidelines who are recycling old concerns that have been dealt with.
Not mavericks with NEW criticisms - which would be welcome. It's just that there were none in this program.
Which - I repeat - was out of date, cheapened the debate, and brought it backwards by several years.
Are you dillusional or just angry that some folk had they say and I really mean that as I know this was a good piece of documentary.
Personally, having enjoyed the fact that Channel 4 have in the past put two-fingers up at Mary Whitehouse with their risque choice of programmes and the christians with the Jerry Springer opera, I won't complain if they put on something that goes against my moral code or beliefs.
My problem with the programme was that it was just too crass, and full of so many things I know to be untrue that I couldn't trust them with things I don't know anything about.
There are clearly a number of camps talked about in this programme, scientists ("pro" and "anti"), environmentalists, politicians and the media. This programme stacked up the anti-GW scientists camp against all the other camps put together and mish-mashed the different agenda's of all these camps into one idealogical alarmist super-agenda. Eg in one breath saying that the media are blaming hurricanes on GW and in the next implying that it's the scientific consensus (which it's not).
I was very pleased to see a coherent alternative to the global warming / climate change debate. I have always been convinced by the CO2-Temperature correlation, as this is how I have always seen it presented. A non-climatologist will always see this as indisputible evidence in my view. However, to acknowledge this scientific trend and explain it in terms of CO2 being an effect of global warming instead of the cause has scientific merit. The closer correlations portrayed with solar activity such as sunspots and cosmic magnetic phenomena provide a feasible scientific alternative to the IPCC consensus. The detailed analysis was impartial, informative, and well presented. I feel enlightened from the Gaia cult that has developed a consensus of spiritual environmentalism that disputes science and brands non-believers heretics. I no longer have to remain ignorant to the apocalyptic prophecies, but have reason to hold scepticism.
