In Part 7/9 of this video @1:50 & 2:49 Global Warming Scientist ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES & the ICEAGE & WARM PERIOD CYCLE is CAUSED BY THE EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN. Then the sun's warmth releases additional planetary CO2 which exponentially adds atmospheric warmth. SO FIRST CAUSE of WARMING is SUN! Then@8:12 & 8:35 GW Scientist also admitted HIGHER CO2 levels DURING THE JURRASIC PERIOD 55 million yrs ago! So much for "MANMADE" global warming.
WATCH PART 7/9 starting@ 1:50 the lead GW scientist ADMITS the ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES, then @ 2:49 he confesses the ICEAGES & WARM PERIOD CYCLE IS CAUSED BY THE EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN! "But its certainly true that in those iceage interglacial periods that carbon dioxide DID NOT LEAD the temperatures. It was actually the temperatures starting first." Then sun's warmth releases additional CO2 which exponentially adds atmospheric warmth. FIRST CAUSE is the SUN!
He didn't say that ALL temperature increases start before the CO2 increase. He said that in that specific time period, that happened. But he also pointed out that without the CO2 increase, the warming would not have been what it was.
He SPECIFICALLY says that CO2 causes warming, and the ice core data shows that.
I dont smoke. None of my friends or immediate family members smoke but WTC! What is with this "he smoked three cigarettes during the, uh, twenty minutes" 5:14 and the other scientist is a "serial complainer". What feeble personal attacks. He didnt share any "errors". And then good move Michael Duffy! THE ACE UP THE SLEEVE IS...why do "man-made global warming" nuts get so hostile? Why do they get so angry when their belief is questioned? Why do they USUALLY, not always, shut down debate?
it was simple....the guy got a phone call that busted his balls from the "jewstablishment" hahhaha. this is just another rothschilds money grab...oh...and their newest wanna' be master, gore the whore.
Robyn Williams: has a general science degree so he does not know the specifics of global climate
Micheal Duffy: A journalist that writes a crime novel, yep no scientific background ¬_¬
David Karoly: Yup hes credible but the Fact he works for the IPCC puts a huge black mark against his name since the IPCC likes to distort its findings ¬_¬
"4 different versions of the documentary" says the interview and "let's move on" when he realises he's gonna lose the point. How about "32 significant errors" Mr Interviewer; as laid down by High Court Judges on Al Gore's death-u-mentary.
@bubbah Actually I don't care what errors there are or not but a British High Court found at least 9 serious errors and over 30 material errors - so you don't trust the High Court of Britain?
@bubbah i actually read the entire transcript and, while not as diaphanous as you lot, the judge finds "many serious concerns" in several aspects of the claims made by the film. I just wonder why Tony Jones didn't mention Al Gore's trial in the UK and no iota was made about those "serious concerns." Next on your reading list should be BBC and Climate Bias (a report by a Climate Thinktank on bias in government funded programs).
@bubbah So he didn't use the word "serious?" Ouch sorry! Maybe in an oh-so British way he used the word "reservations" which is a way (if you've ever watched Yes Minister) is a way of saying "serious." R u really saying the judgement contained no contention whatsoever bout Al Gore's film? If you r, then go figure; but I don't resort 2 name calling - I suppose that's all u've got left once the evidence deserts you? I work in satellite remote sensing - google it (i'm sure u don't know what it is)
@MikkkkyB your bellicose linguistic nature also tells me u r cozen, manipulative and will even "argue the man" rather than the argument; it is a fallacy called Ad Hominen....it's been around for a while. I simply refuse to argue with someone who resorts to the "C word" but I take great joy in the fact that I have won and you have lost the moral ground; a bit like Climategate. Thank you sincerely. God bless you child. (If I see a reply in my inbox I shall simply delete it rather than read it).
@MikkkkyB Linguistic? Are you insane?? You made a VERY specific claim. "32 significant errors" allegedly pointed out by a UK judge. You have FAILED to provide evidence of this, and have instead tried to modify your claims, and change the subject.
@MikkkkyB I can't find any reference to the word "reservations" from the judge in the ruling or the transcript either. Which document and page number are you looking at? Or are you lying again?
And either way, "reservations" is far from you initial lie about "serious concerns."
In fact, you started out making claims about "32 significant errors," which turned out to be pure BS. Now you are desperately trying to save face by changing your argument.
Derkin should of focused on how the global warming fear isn't proven yet rather than saying its entirely false, then everyone wouldn't be so pissed. He needed to tone down his doco down a bit.
The worlds best-qualified scientists agree that climate is changing and that the burning of fossil fuels is mostly to blame. Although there is no debate in peer reviewed science journals, the well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign has left the impression in mainstream media of a lively and continuing scientific controversy.
Didntsaythat, Prof. John Christy is a well known AGW Denier. Oil & coal companies help fund UAH.
However, in February last year Dr. Christy, said global temperatures are rising 0.14C per decade. That's 0.42C in 30 years.
JEEZ, that's almost EXACTLY the same as NASA figures.
BTW, if we're not warming, you'd better send a memo right away to the melting arctic ice, melting glaciers, and plants, animals and insects all moving north.
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"
February 5, 2010
"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
"most" of the warming is caused by CO2oh, slip... "im still a skeptic". Just proves we are far from cracking this one, they wont admit it and yet the media and the government are having us all believe its 100% real CO2 is warming our planet. They don't have a clue really I fear. Its like the bird flu/swine flu propaganda. They have the population thinking we are in desparate trouble from pandemic, when its far from true from uncertain "evidence"
Oh gosh that beginning part was painful! Martin talks about the fact that people who stand up against Global Warming (the "no holocaust" syndrome) get attacked... (as we are seeing right here before our eyes) and the inviewer totally ignores it and says "lets move on"... lets face it, people just won't exhange data with an open-mind... theres always a big fight on... this may be why we NEVER get to the bottom of global warming and whether it is true or false, only time will tell.
Bullshit, here this guy is, he has a perfect opportunity to make his case, defend his claims, and he comes off looking like a whiny excuse maker.
The exact same thing happens to people who think the moon landing was faked, or that the US government was behind 9/11. They spew a bunch of hot air, thinking that if they use some fancy rhetoric and disagree with the undeniable evidence, it'll make them look smart. And stupid people actually buy into it. Pathetic.
9 of last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record. 2009 = 2nd HOTTEST on record & solar irradiance is at 35 year low Search: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs See: Ranking (Top 10 Warmest Years) The latest on YouTube: It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming /watch?v=sAvqabAPIr4&feature=sub 50% of arctic sea ice & mountain glaciers have disappeared in just 30 years. Plants, animals & insects are all migrating north. Search: Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
Tony Jones at time looked quite the fool in his handling of questions in this. Havent watched lateline since. He used to interview well but is becoming quite one sided and aggressive on lateline.
I guy doesn't seem to really know what a skeptic is. I thought that was quite amusing. It's a shame the word skeptic has become to mean to deny something when I believe it originally ment something very different.
I find it interesting that by the end of this, the 2 deniers on the board both ignore the question and go offtopic to criticise other films and papers.
Now, its legitimate to put both sides up to scrutiny, but everything has a time and place.
This panel was to discuss the thoughts of each person on this specific docu.
Now, did they bring up others works to justify this docu?
So if one side creates flawed films, all sides can?
No matter what, there is still great debate about the science behind the global warming theory. Once again the ABC cannot remain impartial and look at both sides of the argument.
Theres not great debate among climatologists though.
ABC did ask Durkin bluntly to defend his position. Durkin was given ample time to defend each position.
His answers were that he doesnt believe any of the graphs of the last 25 years are legitimate.
Yet for some reason they are earlier then that.
He has no problem with the fact that hes had to make so many cuts after willingly using material thats false and just waiting for others to point it out before he cuts it.
He grasps at straws, used one scientists words against him, will not do proper research which makes him have to cut up his film later
He had a helper on the film making up data to suit their agenda
Durkins film was supposed to be the deniers side of the debate and it failed 100% to stand up to scrutiny
Every supposed signature set that deniers bring up is shown to be a fake representation, with fake names, names of people who dont want to be on it, and of those who arent in a related field
I can post 2 links for you if you really dont want to do the research yourself.
But basically, not only have they not found anything in the emails that are actually damaging, the fact that they didnt find any grand conspiracy or discussion of payoff is also telling.
To sum up, the fact that the deniers were in attack mode from day 1 without research and ignoring context and making bold faced lies is telling about how much worth their side has in the debate.
i love how durkin starts to talk about how people are given death threats if they stand up against global warming....usually when people are shunned for challenging a theory, they are telling the truth. during the middle ages the catholic church told greek scientists that challeged their theory of astronomy were shunned, death threated, told to shut up, and denounced as heretics....alarmists are doing the same thing...except the new religion is global warming
yea but the side getting death threats is usually telling the truth. history has shown it. because what do u do when you dont want to people to hear another side of an issue? you shun them
This first half of the article is nothing but him saying hes such an experienced person, hes one of the elders of climatology, how dare nobody believe him over other scientists who have also been doing this research for decades
Its even worse, he asks why nobody listens to him as if theres no counter to his arguments. If there were no counters to his arguments we might think his questions legitimate, but as things stand it just sounds like hes whining.
He thinks he has all the answers? Maybe hes right, but his ego needs to be lowered severely. Its a great turn-off.
He claimed Michael Crichton as a scientist, which is far from the case.
Crichton also believes all disease is a state of mind and seems to believe in the supernatural. Hes not even fully or partially devoted to the field, and in fact loves to comment on many fields which he is no expert in.
Richard Lindzen is cited by Ball and is a legitimate denier at least.
Pro-AGW Scientists seem to compliment him alot.
Though hes disagreed with on many of his specifcic beliefs.
He is known by some to be a contrarian based on his history even in fields outside climate.
you actually believe humans are causing GW. google the environmental effects of increased carbon dioxide. it debunks everything alrmists claim with numerous peer reviewed papers. while your at it, google new peer reviewed study chills global warming fears. also why has there not been a balanced debate. there is A LOT of room for debate, yet we are told the debate is over shut up! when you have the science on your side you argue the science, if not you attack the messenger. more co2 is beneficial
Net Solar Radiation has NOT INCREASED since 1975. There is excellent satellite data to prove it.
An 11 year solar cycle causes a 0.2C average oscillation every 5.5 years. However, with NO NET increase in solar radiation since 1975, arctic ice and mountain glaciers have lost 50% of their total mass.
Duhh!!!
Not one single Climate Change denier can explain it.
Search:
NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System
I only wish Durkins would stand up a little harder for himself. His points are fine. Al Gore won't talk about Carbon lag of hundreds of years. His doc won't stand up as well to scrutiny as well as this one.
He is in a bad spot though, it is like trying to attack Eugenics at the beginning of the the 20th century. The whole world was wrong then too. Hang in there Director man.
@ronwandell I have to agree with you.this film is a total hatchet job by the climate nazis, he should never have agreed to the interview, and the ABC reporter should have at least been neutral.
Durkins is the sort of scumbag who would have come out for the tobacco companies 20 years ago, arguing there was no link between smoking and cancer. Doing the same for the Oil companies now.
since he doesn't believe the climate change theory is accurate he would not be wondering if his home was going to be washed away... but having looked at previous work there is a pattern- to be on the other side of the a major contentious issue - great publicity- this is where his cynicism bears fruit- He could be a post modern nihilist unable to see the value in anything beyond his own horizon- or he could simple not believe the science is compelling and has the guts to say so...
You have to ask yourself: Why would Martin Durkins make a documentary about the planet being ok if it's not? Is he Satan coming down to deceive us through a documentary on Channel 4? NO!! But that's what they're making him out to be. Idiots
could it be that he is maximizing his own interests by saying exactly the opposite to the commonly held views of the day? He might be just cynical in the extreme and making a very healthy living doing it... doesn't have to be Evil to do this.
Hmmm.. I don't think making a film that will help kill the planet and would take out his house and possessions anyway (if it were actually true) would be maximizing anything for him.
These people are such snobs. You can tell that they are getting paid shed loads of money for doing this. I can't believe how pathetic this debate is. I hope all Australian tv isn't this biased..
This knuckle head dosent let him finish what what his saying ,,ABC interview BOB CARTER idiots or are you scared >>you wil all be charged with treason every one of you very soon ahhaha..
If you can't see this WHOLE programme is fabricated to make you BELIEVE the global warming PROPAGANDA...then I think some of you have drank a bit too much fluoridated water ;-)
THE MEDIA IS OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE IMPOSING CARBON TAXES ON THE AIR THEY 'let us' BREATHE...so be grateful to the media and the banks!!! ok?!
if public policy decisions depended on the probability that there exists intelligent life somewhere in the universe, then we would be in a similar situation as with the question of the likelyhood of rampant global climate chaos.
Nobody can even begin to estimate the odds off intelligent life on other planets.
The probability could be close to one or close to zero, but we wouldnt want to call it 50/50 either just because there are only two possibilities.
this aspect of trade-offs with the power of the butterfly effect and its usefulness, are what makes me laugh when I see the smokestacks causing a devastating hurricane on all gores film.
If it had been the case that there were fewer hurricanes coinciding with climate change, you would not hear about it, unless they could spin it as a negative.
If you can hunt for potential negative effects, then why not do the same for positive ones?
That same butterfly may have prevented a disaster.
that is why you are easily swayed by these shameful political tactics. Their whole game is to bluff their way through and suggest a consensus, in the hopes that others will fall in line with the herd and further create the impression of a consensus. Its just postmodern social engineering 101 - how to create a cult.
Its how they think, not what they think that counts.
Lol, I've mentioned not a single "who". it has been YOU that have mentioned and complain about "who".
IMPRESSION of consensus?? consensus is undeniable fact.
The VAST majority of climate scientists say AGW is real and that we are causing it - FACT!
If 19 doctors were to say I need an operation and 1 doctor said I didn't, I would, OF COURSE, be seriously thinking of getting the operation -- to say you wouldn't is PURE BS
It is perfectly plausible in other words, that if the industrial revolution had not happened, that the global mean temperature would be even higher.
The truth is that we are still not able to measure accurately/reliably, or otherwise bear witness to the real effects of human development on climate. For some people this is a convenient truth, and for others this is an inconvenient truth. But it is pretty hard to deny.
the question of to what degree and in what ways humans have had an effect on global climate, is the subject that is hotly debated.
It boils down to can our actions avert a potential catastrophy? How much action should we take? (and no action is an option). How concerned should we be (including not at all)?
We are basically faced with great uncertainty combined with great fear, and that is why the precautionary principle (pascals wager) carries so much weight.
If we do not properly diagnose the problem, or if there isnt one, then the cure can be worse than the disease. That is why it is so important to get it right, and to use sound principles. We dont want to begin with the assumption that there really is a problem, we want to go for accuracy and keep our wild and fantastic imaginations in check with a dose of skepticism, critical thinking, and a philosophical attitude that enphasizes argument and evidence over brute consensus.
To look at any evidence of climate change recorded over the past 40 years and say "we did that" as an automatic assumption, is irresponsible and loony.
To say something like "the evidence of AGW is all around us" has the same ring to it as "Evidence of a loving creator is all around us."
I reccomend Sir Karl Poppers essay "Science as falsification" to anyone who is annoyed by psuedoscience and reads this comment.
I agree with some of your points, but this one seems incomplete
"To look at any evidence of climate change recorded over the past 40 years and say "we did that" as an automatic assumption, is irresponsible and loony."
How about if scientists look at evidence of climate change recorded over the past 400,000 years, then look at the last 40 years which (re: temperature) are clearly outside of the 400,000 year rhythmic norm and say "we did that" as an hypothetical?
The annoying thing is that so many hysterical alarmists and politicians act as though they have science on thier side, and try to misrepresent the science.
They have borrowed the bad arguments like from evolution vs creationism like "there is no real debate in the scientific community", "the overwelming consensus is" But unlike with evolution vs creationism, this is as much bluffing as to say that God would agree with me.
It would take a lot of unessecary blood shed to regain freedom from a totalitarian world police state. Or perhaps it would be permanent. Collectivism always seems to be gaining ground.
Our basic freedoms may be doomed if the alarmists are right nature is on her death bed, or if the alarmists are wrong and its business as usual.
If the alarmists are driven by collectivist ideology, then it doesnt matter to them if they are right or wrong, since freedom is the biggest problem.
In the same way, some of those with their heads in the sand are motivated only by there own self interests - it doesn't matter to them if they are right or wrong either
It should be said, however, that the freedoms that we have currently granted ourselves (the free market among them) are somewhat based on an unfettered use of finite natural resources.
Isn't the inevitable conclusion of an unfettered use of anything finite 1st scarcity and then the eventual loss of the freedom to use it?
Gore is not a credible scientific source, nor is he peer-reviewed. I would never cite his work in a research paper, not when I could cite NASA, the IPCC, the 32 national academies of science that endorsed the IPCC, or a whole host of other credible scientific organizations.
Peer-review does not make a theory infallible, and science is not absolute truth, as you pointed out. But peer-review ensures that only the best science floats to the top.
"most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere."
that is not the point of contention.
that may well be true, its the nonsense over a "natural balance" and a "tipping point" and positive feedback, and simply the fact that we get almost nothing but paranoid exagerations from the media, and especially Al Gore.
The Great Global Warming Swindle doesnt represent the "scientific comunity" any more than the IPCC or An Inconvenient Truth did.
The reason that science succeeds where religion fails is because it uses evidence and argument which are made available for individuals to evaluate for themselves. It has tremendous power to transcend consensus in spite of the fact that it depends on the cumulative contributions of large numbers of people.
When a debater asks you to trust him that most scientists are on his side, rather than to use evidence and argument, this is very suspicious.
That all works very well for scientists. If you have a PhD in climatology, by all means form a personal opinion. But what about the rest of us? We likely hold so many misconceptions that our own analysis could lead us to the wrong conclusion.
It's impractical for everyone to learn the finer points of climate science. Peer-review exists for a reason.
We don't have a lot of time to solve this problem. So for right now, yes, it does make sense to trust the scientists.
First of all you have no idea what "the scientists" actually do agree on. You are merely trusting political organizations that were created for the explicit purpose of dealing with the potential threat of global warming.
Peer review does exist for a reason, but you must deeply imbibe this point if you want to make any sense. A conclusion like "this is how threatening global warming is" is not the sort of conclusion that would be subjected to peer review.
Check out my post "Scientific Agreement Quantified" for individual scientists' opinions on climate change.
The organizations of which I speak are not only the IPCC. I tend to look at the work of NASA and national academies of science more because, as you say, they exist for more than just climatology and thus have already solidified their reputation. If you don't trust the UN, you can leave IPCC totally out of the picture and still have many organizations left.
You may be interested in a blog of mine - link on my profile page or Google "climatesight" (one word). Look especially at the posts "Why They Don't Debate on TV" and "Making Up Your Own Science." They go into more detail about the points in my last comment, which was kind of compressed :) gotta love the Youtube word limit....
there is a lot of nonsense and bad argument presented on both sides of the debate.
that blog is a fairly comprehensive list of the nonsense that comes from the anti-alarmist side, but It does not address any of the alarmist nonsense.
Go to a university and read some climatology textbooks. Forget the media stuff and the controversy. Learn the hard science if you're interested in coming closer to truth.
I would rather be presented with relevant arguments, than intuitions or unsupportable claims, no matter who is making the claims.
Post modern political strategy is all about using academic authority to advance political agendas by means that were once considered backward or dishonest. Disinterest is balked at. Skepticism slows down progress or is "reactionary". Truth and objectivity are no longer considered to be noble goals.
I am sick of the pretentious obscurantism and filibustering.
I didn't realize you wanted the actual scientific side of the theory. If that is true I'm not the right person to ask - I'm not a climatologist, and no matter how much I read I can't pretend to be formally educated in this area.
Most of the reports are free to download online, IPCC and NASA are especially good about that. Another great resource is a climatology professor at any university. I've found that as long as you're polite they're more than happy to answer all of your questions.
-no kidding, clearly you are not the right person to ask?
but I am not asking, I am telling.
the pollitical feelings of the scientists who are paid to study "climate change" is no more interesting or relevent than thier thoughts on peach cobbler.
I focus mostly on ethical questions such as risk management and assessing credibility.
A great resource for climate science, put together in a more interesting way than the dry reports (really, nobody would care about that sort of thing in the popular media...) are greenman3610's videos. He's a journalist but mostly cites NASA and other organizations. Have fun.
Let me know if you are aware of a non ideological way to asses probabilities including the statistical accuracy of those probabilities in a scientific/falsifiable way.
but here is what I want to know from you rilennas. Do you think that it is intellectually honest/responsible to brainstorm or search for only the potential negatives of changes in climate, without also keeping track of the potential positives? Culture change good, Climate change bad?
is'nt it baseless to suppose that there is a sacred, or fragile, or important balance to earths climate patterns that could be disturbed by human activity through changes in the atmosphereic carbon dioxide levels by such a small degree when compared with their natural variability over the scale of millions of years.
When you only hear about the effects that we could have, the butterfly effect would cause people to want to round up all of the butterflies.
Keep watching the videos. The first, 10-minute video only skims the surface. Watch "Risk Management", which specifically addresses the Pascal's-wager point.
He does not talk about pascals wager in any of those videos.
He does draw a double false dichotomy of Action vs no action, and disasterous effects vs no effects in a matrix. It is hard to believe that he is satisfied with that.
It only makes sense to do an analysis if you can put a price tag on taking action, and a price tag on not taking action, and you have knowledge of the probabilities.
his entire argument was still based on his premise of "trust the experts."
yes I did watch all six parts, and he does not bring up pascals wager at all.
I have listened to his very dissapointing full argument, and when I say that he still insists on basing it entirely on his trust the experts idea without argument or evidence, you should notice that this makes the "risk management" pretense that much more useless.
His argument boils down to the alarmists are more likely to be right, and the cost of climate change will out weigh the cost of prevention.
"Objection: That grid is just Pascals Wager, which has more holes than Swiss cheese. You cant put lipstick on that pig. No, but can I put the pig and cheese on rye? Nah, it looks like Pascals Wager because they are both basic decision grids. What sunk his was the infinite payoffs, and assumptions without evidence. This one has finite payoffs, and assumptions based on evidence."
you have hopefully noticed the phenomenon that I am refering to.
We are exposed to a massive amount of white noise on the subject, but it is still highly selective. You dont expect to hear good news from the media, but still.
You hear about specific species that are threatened, but not those that will stand to thrive (unless they are the kinds that scare us like various pests).
We hear only about the potential threats,and obviously its not because there are no potential benefits.
There ARE in fact a few benefits to mass extinction. You mentioned one. An old species being able to thrive and prosper
Another is that it would open up environmental and evolutionary niches -- After the Precambrian there was an animal explosion. After the Permian, dinosaurs and mammals. And after the K-Triassic, big mammals and eventually us!
Of course if we caused a mass extinction we'd probably come close to killing off our own species off too. Life wouldn't be good for thousands of years
You are acting like I agree with your assumptions.
That is really annoying.
First of all, we rarely hear about the possibility of something coherent and comprehensive from the media, like mass extinction. What we usually get are much more specific risks.
But if you would rather talk about something less tangible, then we need to develope answers to the following questions.
How large and how massive will the mass extinction be, how likely is it, and how much of an impact can we have on it.
what is the probablility that we will lose 10% of species, 20%, 40% etc. And how will this probability function change depending on the peak levels of atmospheric carbon.
The next step is to make predictions that can be confirmed to support the theoretical and quantitative basis that produced those predictions.
there is still more to narrow down and commit to, so that doesnt sound like so much paranoia over a tipping point, or a proliferation of chaos and disaster.
What will be the direct cause or causes of the mass extinction, and what will be the mitigating or buffering factors?
I get the idea of a keystone species. It is of course possible that certain species are sacred and irreplacable. But you wouldnt expect them to all have equal importance. I dont think that the concept helps you to make the point that nature is fragile, that there is actually a sacred balance, or that ecosystems are like organisms.
"It is of course possible that certain species are sacred and irreplaceable."
No, not sacred -- deeming something sacred is the process of setting a spiritual value upon that something. likewise no species is irreplaceable. All species can, in fact, be replaced.
Your liver is neither sacred nor irreplaceable, but if it failed the other systems in you body would quickly follow, because it's so important to the whole system. This is a crude analogy, but fairly accurate one of keystone species
they have no lifespan, no interest, and no genetic code. Standards for thier "health" are more or less aesthetic standards, or based on human convenience and exploitation.
I dont agree that the analogy with a body and its functioning organ is apt.
ecosystems do, at the very least exist and not exist, correct?
"they have no lifespan"
They do, at the very least exist within measurable time frames, correct?
The ecosystem that supported plants and animals during the Triassic period for example no longer exists and the plants and animals that lived during that period would find it very hard to survive in current ecosystems.
"I dont agree that the analogy with a body and its functioning organ is apt."
But there are countless examples within the biological world that bolster this analogy. Symbiosis it every bit as common in the the biological world as predation and even competition.
This has, in fact, been an important addendum to Darwin's theory throughout the 20th century
but if ecosystems are more like clouds than species, then that would make it seem awefully wastefull to be worrying about their health or thier preservation.
"but if ecosystems are more like clouds than species"
No - that's not correct
A cloud is analogous to a single species (I suppose, but it's a stretch)
What I mean is that ecosystems are analogous to biological systems - which in many way is true
But yes, it WOULD be awfully wasteful to be worrying about the health or the preservation of an ecosystem, unless of course the ecosystem in question included humanity as one of it's parts.
you lost track of where we were in the discussion I think.
You had actually planned to use my concession that clouds exist, and that they exist for finite periods of time to prove some further point did you not?
Humanity is not part of an ecosystem.
We can pick and choose from millions of species to feed on.
the truth can be arrogant, or it can have any other personality flaw that you can imagine, but it is still the truth, and I think that this is important.
I personally agree with Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Jay Gould in thier dismissal of the Gaia Hypothesis. It is really just fantasy, speculation, and misconception.
"I already know for a fact that humans are not part of an ecosystem."
HOW do you know this for a fact? On what do you base this "fact", your own navel?
"The earth is NOT an ecosystem."
No, the Earth's biosphere is an interwoven collection of ecosystems.
There is an ecosystem of fauna and flora within your body at this very moment that allows you to stay alive. We depend on MANY other species for our very existence. THIS is fact
Your willful ignorance of biology is not logically sustainable.
I was not ignorant about the fact that you just told me.
You are the one who is confused, and also arrogant.
When you say that humanity is part of an ecosystem (as you might also say that the frogs in a pond are a part of an ecosystem) this is very different.
Yes our bodies are infested with many parasites, and many of them are benefitial.
But the claim that an individual human body is itself an ecosystem, is very different from the claim that humanity is a component in an ecosystem.
You need to pay close attention to what I do say, and what I dont say. Otherwise you will get it wrong very easily.
I also did not say that you were supporting the Gaia hypothesis, so no straw man. What I did actually say was that the only way to include humanity itself as a component in a larger "ecosystem" is to invoke the rather pervasive Gaia hypothesis. I fail to see how you could disagree with that.
I also think that it is unfair for you to jump to conclusions about my level of understanding on this subject, and try to put me on the defensive.
Should I really need to proove that I was already well aware of the billions of diverse microorganisms that live inside each of our bodies?
This fact does has absolutely no bearing on my argument which is that humanity is not limited to a particular ecological niche, or a particular ecosystem (singular, not plural).
"I also think that it is unfair for you to jump to conclusions about my level of understanding on this subject"
Unfounded statements (stated as fact when they are not) forced me to do so, Such statements are the very definition of willful ignorance.
If you were aware of the organisms that humans need to survive, then your statement of fact is even MORE absurd. What after all is the definition of "ecosystem"?
Ecosystem - a unit of interdependent organisms which share the same habitat.
"What I did actually say was that the only way to include humanity itself as a component in a larger "ecosystem" is to invoke the rather pervasive Gaia hypothesis."
No invocation is necessary -- how do you see it as necessary?
CASE CLOSED!!
In Part 7/9 of this video @1:50 & 2:49 Global Warming Scientist ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES & the ICEAGE & WARM PERIOD CYCLE is CAUSED BY THE EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN. Then the sun's warmth releases additional planetary CO2 which exponentially adds atmospheric warmth. SO FIRST CAUSE of WARMING is SUN! Then@8:12 & 8:35 GW Scientist also admitted HIGHER CO2 levels DURING THE JURRASIC PERIOD 55 million yrs ago! So much for "MANMADE" global warming.
shawso7 1 month ago
Not a really thought out response is it?
Just a bunch of name calling.
ronwandell 1 month ago
WATCH PART 7/9 starting@ 1:50 the lead GW scientist ADMITS the ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES, then @ 2:49 he confesses the ICEAGES & WARM PERIOD CYCLE IS CAUSED BY THE EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN! "But its certainly true that in those iceage interglacial periods that carbon dioxide DID NOT LEAD the temperatures. It was actually the temperatures starting first." Then sun's warmth releases additional CO2 which exponentially adds atmospheric warmth. FIRST CAUSE is the SUN!
shawso7 1 month ago
@shawso7 Stop being an ignorant little cunt.
He didn't say that ALL temperature increases start before the CO2 increase. He said that in that specific time period, that happened. But he also pointed out that without the CO2 increase, the warming would not have been what it was.
He SPECIFICALLY says that CO2 causes warming, and the ice core data shows that.
You are nothing but an ignorant little cunt.
bubbah 1 month ago
I dont smoke. None of my friends or immediate family members smoke but WTC! What is with this "he smoked three cigarettes during the, uh, twenty minutes" 5:14 and the other scientist is a "serial complainer". What feeble personal attacks. He didnt share any "errors". And then good move Michael Duffy! THE ACE UP THE SLEEVE IS...why do "man-made global warming" nuts get so hostile? Why do they get so angry when their belief is questioned? Why do they USUALLY, not always, shut down debate?
shawso7 1 month ago
"Look at the evidence"??? What the FUCK is wrong with that fucking retard? The evidence shows GLOBAL WARMING. That fucktard is IGNORING the evidence!
bubbah 2 months ago
the host is so annoying
JFKEQUALS911 4 months ago
wow, we get a shock jock and then left wing sheep bleating about what they hear in the media, how can this show be called impartial?
MrPurplefood 4 months ago
it was simple....the guy got a phone call that busted his balls from the "jewstablishment" hahhaha. this is just another rothschilds money grab...oh...and their newest wanna' be master, gore the whore.
sssssjjjj1 5 months ago
TONY JONES shameless shock jock
spirov 6 months ago
Robyn Williams: has a general science degree so he does not know the specifics of global climate
Micheal Duffy: A journalist that writes a crime novel, yep no scientific background ¬_¬
David Karoly: Yup hes credible but the Fact he works for the IPCC puts a huge black mark against his name since the IPCC likes to distort its findings ¬_¬
CaptainCrumple 7 months ago
tony jones aka bill o'rielly?
johnnytheprick 10 months ago
lol, cant answer questions huh :)
jubileeboy17 11 months ago
5:14 "He smoked three cigarettes during the 20 minute period.
Yay for ad hominem.
Qazic12 1 year ago
@Qazic12 Or maybe he was suggesting that Lindzen was nervous?
87Nathanial 6 months ago
00:07 "Ah, what a neat line."
Lol. Yay for sassy comebacks.
Qazic12 1 year ago
Yes Michael Duffy!
RustyShackleford340 1 year ago
"4 different versions of the documentary" says the interview and "let's move on" when he realises he's gonna lose the point. How about "32 significant errors" Mr Interviewer; as laid down by High Court Judges on Al Gore's death-u-mentary.
MikkkkyB 1 year ago
@MikkkkyB What 32 significant errors? Don't tell me you are mindlessly parroting Monckton's drivel again...
bubbah 2 months ago
@bubbah Actually I don't care what errors there are or not but a British High Court found at least 9 serious errors and over 30 material errors - so you don't trust the High Court of Britain?
MikkkkyB 2 months ago
@MikkkkyB You are wrong. British courts did not find 9 errors, much less 30. You fail again. Your ignorance is amazin.
(Hint: You might want to read the actual ruling from that trial instead of blindly accepting lies from denialist propaganda sites.)
bubbah 2 months ago
@bubbah i actually read the entire transcript and, while not as diaphanous as you lot, the judge finds "many serious concerns" in several aspects of the claims made by the film. I just wonder why Tony Jones didn't mention Al Gore's trial in the UK and no iota was made about those "serious concerns." Next on your reading list should be BBC and Climate Bias (a report by a Climate Thinktank on bias in government funded programs).
MikkkkyB 1 month ago
@MikkkkyB You are a lying bastard.
I can't find the phrase "serious concerns" ANYWHERE in the ruling or the transcript. What page of the transcript are you saying it is on?
And why would I read idiot propaganda by right-wing science deniers?
Stop being an idiot. Stop lying. Stop being ignorant.
Start educating yourself. Start looking at the science, you ignorant cunt.
bubbah 1 month ago
@bubbah So he didn't use the word "serious?" Ouch sorry! Maybe in an oh-so British way he used the word "reservations" which is a way (if you've ever watched Yes Minister) is a way of saying "serious." R u really saying the judgement contained no contention whatsoever bout Al Gore's film? If you r, then go figure; but I don't resort 2 name calling - I suppose that's all u've got left once the evidence deserts you? I work in satellite remote sensing - google it (i'm sure u don't know what it is)
MikkkkyB 1 month ago
@MikkkkyB your bellicose linguistic nature also tells me u r cozen, manipulative and will even "argue the man" rather than the argument; it is a fallacy called Ad Hominen....it's been around for a while. I simply refuse to argue with someone who resorts to the "C word" but I take great joy in the fact that I have won and you have lost the moral ground; a bit like Climategate. Thank you sincerely. God bless you child. (If I see a reply in my inbox I shall simply delete it rather than read it).
MikkkkyB 1 month ago
@MikkkkyB Linguistic? Are you insane?? You made a VERY specific claim. "32 significant errors" allegedly pointed out by a UK judge. You have FAILED to provide evidence of this, and have instead tried to modify your claims, and change the subject.
You are a lying bastard. Fuck you.
bubbah 1 month ago
@MikkkkyB I can't find any reference to the word "reservations" from the judge in the ruling or the transcript either. Which document and page number are you looking at? Or are you lying again?
And either way, "reservations" is far from you initial lie about "serious concerns."
In fact, you started out making claims about "32 significant errors," which turned out to be pure BS. Now you are desperately trying to save face by changing your argument.
Typical denialist cunt.
bubbah 1 month ago
This movie is bullshit. If they're such experts, where are the scientific arguments? All they say is rhetoric and character assassination.
aaroneous76 1 year ago 4
Derkin should of focused on how the global warming fear isn't proven yet rather than saying its entirely false, then everyone wouldn't be so pissed. He needed to tone down his doco down a bit.
steponmy92 1 year ago
@steponmy92 Proven? Man-made global warming has been proven. End of story.
bubbah 2 months ago
This can be boiled down to one point: Who is funding the scientists?
Follow the money and you'll find how the science skews...
arherna 1 year ago
Wow. How recent history (climategate et al) have proven that "journalist" ridiculous, and the scientist correct.
I highly recommend his documentary.
Freenetnow 1 year ago
The worlds best-qualified scientists agree that climate is changing and that the burning of fossil fuels is mostly to blame. Although there is no debate in peer reviewed science journals, the well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign has left the impression in mainstream media of a lively and continuing scientific controversy.
aerobique 1 year ago
Gotta love his opening plaintive
" there is this aggressiveness to anyone who comes up and says: "look the climate data doesn't necessarily stack up, look at the evidence here."
man you got brass bals
You lied with all the evidence you presented in favor of your "argument."
So what the hell is your self created fantasy worth.
nothing... it's bs
citizenschallengeYT 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Didntsaythat, Prof. John Christy is a well known AGW Denier. Oil & coal companies help fund UAH.
However, in February last year Dr. Christy, said global temperatures are rising 0.14C per decade. That's 0.42C in 30 years.
JEEZ, that's almost EXACTLY the same as NASA figures.
BTW, if we're not warming, you'd better send a memo right away to the melting arctic ice, melting glaciers, and plants, animals and insects all moving north.
Duhh???
You deniers are PATHETIC!
goog2k 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JUST FOUND THIS:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"
February 5, 2010
"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
Search:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
goog2k 2 years ago
"most" of the warming is caused by CO2oh, slip... "im still a skeptic". Just proves we are far from cracking this one, they wont admit it and yet the media and the government are having us all believe its 100% real CO2 is warming our planet. They don't have a clue really I fear. Its like the bird flu/swine flu propaganda. They have the population thinking we are in desparate trouble from pandemic, when its far from true from uncertain "evidence"
CotardDelusion 2 years ago
Oh gosh that beginning part was painful! Martin talks about the fact that people who stand up against Global Warming (the "no holocaust" syndrome) get attacked... (as we are seeing right here before our eyes) and the inviewer totally ignores it and says "lets move on"... lets face it, people just won't exhange data with an open-mind... theres always a big fight on... this may be why we NEVER get to the bottom of global warming and whether it is true or false, only time will tell.
CotardDelusion 2 years ago
Bullshit, here this guy is, he has a perfect opportunity to make his case, defend his claims, and he comes off looking like a whiny excuse maker.
The exact same thing happens to people who think the moon landing was faked, or that the US government was behind 9/11. They spew a bunch of hot air, thinking that if they use some fancy rhetoric and disagree with the undeniable evidence, it'll make them look smart. And stupid people actually buy into it. Pathetic.
spacecowboy95 2 years ago
goog2k 2 years ago
Tony Jones at time looked quite the fool in his handling of questions in this. Havent watched lateline since. He used to interview well but is becoming quite one sided and aggressive on lateline.
millionsofmyles 2 years ago
It is unquestionable that Richard Lindzen does not believe in man-made global warming
93msinclair 2 years ago
06:10
Question Evasion Skill +10 : |
seraphs123 2 years ago 18
"So you were a skeptic?"
"I still am!"
"About what"
I guy doesn't seem to really know what a skeptic is. I thought that was quite amusing. It's a shame the word skeptic has become to mean to deny something when I believe it originally ment something very different.
Chriscom28 2 years ago
I find it interesting that by the end of this, the 2 deniers on the board both ignore the question and go offtopic to criticise other films and papers.
Now, its legitimate to put both sides up to scrutiny, but everything has a time and place.
This panel was to discuss the thoughts of each person on this specific docu.
Now, did they bring up others works to justify this docu?
So if one side creates flawed films, all sides can?
2 wrongs make a right?
Unless thats the case, others are irrelevent
waltermh111 2 years ago
No matter what, there is still great debate about the science behind the global warming theory. Once again the ABC cannot remain impartial and look at both sides of the argument.
MrGreasybone 2 years ago
Theres not great debate among climatologists though.
ABC did ask Durkin bluntly to defend his position. Durkin was given ample time to defend each position.
His answers were that he doesnt believe any of the graphs of the last 25 years are legitimate.
Yet for some reason they are earlier then that.
He has no problem with the fact that hes had to make so many cuts after willingly using material thats false and just waiting for others to point it out before he cuts it.
waltermh111 2 years ago
He grasps at straws, used one scientists words against him, will not do proper research which makes him have to cut up his film later
He had a helper on the film making up data to suit their agenda
Durkins film was supposed to be the deniers side of the debate and it failed 100% to stand up to scrutiny
Every supposed signature set that deniers bring up is shown to be a fake representation, with fake names, names of people who dont want to be on it, and of those who arent in a related field
waltermh111 2 years ago
To point out more grasping at straws of the deniers is the emails.
These emails were illegally obtained. Private messages and copyritghted information.
But lets say it should be open and they should have no privacy or legal rights for the subject of GW because of its global importance.
The deniers from day 1 of the leaks had picked out emails, and without doing research, made many assumptions and accusations.
All ofthose assumptions and accusations have been debunked by now.
waltermh111 2 years ago
I can post 2 links for you if you really dont want to do the research yourself.
But basically, not only have they not found anything in the emails that are actually damaging, the fact that they didnt find any grand conspiracy or discussion of payoff is also telling.
To sum up, the fact that the deniers were in attack mode from day 1 without research and ignoring context and making bold faced lies is telling about how much worth their side has in the debate.
waltermh111 2 years ago
i love how durkin starts to talk about how people are given death threats if they stand up against global warming....usually when people are shunned for challenging a theory, they are telling the truth. during the middle ages the catholic church told greek scientists that challeged their theory of astronomy were shunned, death threated, told to shut up, and denounced as heretics....alarmists are doing the same thing...except the new religion is global warming
tippman2k01 2 years ago
Death threats are nothing unusual. climatologists get that often these days.
A large increase in them has apparently happened recently.
Theres no correlation between how right you are and how many death threats or other harsh words you get
waltermh111 2 years ago
yea but the side getting death threats is usually telling the truth. history has shown it. because what do u do when you dont want to people to hear another side of an issue? you shun them
tippman2k01 2 years ago
So you admit that the climatologists are right and AGW is real.
Glad we agree. After all, the proponents are getting death threats:
grist . org/article/james-hansen-faces-death-threats
abc . net . au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766508.htm ? section=justin
I did find a death threat against one denier though
Tim Ball, something on him in next post
Maybe that makes them right also, except that more seem to be hurled at the proponents of AGW, so, what to think based on this?
waltermh111 2 years ago
Tim Ball is an interesting character
You can at best say he has as big an ego as the rest of scientists, but I think hes worse because of this article by him:
canadafreepress . com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
This first half of the article is nothing but him saying hes such an experienced person, hes one of the elders of climatology, how dare nobody believe him over other scientists who have also been doing this research for decades
waltermh111 2 years ago
Its even worse, he asks why nobody listens to him as if theres no counter to his arguments. If there were no counters to his arguments we might think his questions legitimate, but as things stand it just sounds like hes whining.
He thinks he has all the answers? Maybe hes right, but his ego needs to be lowered severely. Its a great turn-off.
He claimed Michael Crichton as a scientist, which is far from the case.
Hes a non-practicing MD.
waltermh111 2 years ago
Crichton also believes all disease is a state of mind and seems to believe in the supernatural. Hes not even fully or partially devoted to the field, and in fact loves to comment on many fields which he is no expert in.
Richard Lindzen is cited by Ball and is a legitimate denier at least.
Pro-AGW Scientists seem to compliment him alot.
Though hes disagreed with on many of his specifcic beliefs.
He is known by some to be a contrarian based on his history even in fields outside climate.
waltermh111 2 years ago
you actually believe humans are causing GW. google the environmental effects of increased carbon dioxide. it debunks everything alrmists claim with numerous peer reviewed papers. while your at it, google new peer reviewed study chills global warming fears. also why has there not been a balanced debate. there is A LOT of room for debate, yet we are told the debate is over shut up! when you have the science on your side you argue the science, if not you attack the messenger. more co2 is beneficial
tippman2k01 2 years ago
One thing I really want to touch on is that Ball actually used global cooling idea to claim that scientific consensus doesnt mean anything.
Global Cooling is something deniers love to use against proponents
Global Cooling was never a consensus
The cooling period was attributed in one part to aerosols, they were banned, within a few years earth was brought back onto an expected temp path
Few thought the cooling would continue and was natural.
en.wikipedia . org/wiki/Global_cooling
waltermh111 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Net Solar Radiation has NOT INCREASED since 1975. There is excellent satellite data to prove it.
An 11 year solar cycle causes a 0.2C average oscillation every 5.5 years. However, with NO NET increase in solar radiation since 1975, arctic ice and mountain glaciers have lost 50% of their total mass.
Duhh!!!
Not one single Climate Change denier can explain it.
Search:
NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System
Also:
Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
goog2k 2 years ago
I only wish Durkins would stand up a little harder for himself. His points are fine. Al Gore won't talk about Carbon lag of hundreds of years. His doc won't stand up as well to scrutiny as well as this one.
He is in a bad spot though, it is like trying to attack Eugenics at the beginning of the the 20th century. The whole world was wrong then too. Hang in there Director man.
ronwandell 2 years ago 4
@ronwandell I have to agree with you.this film is a total hatchet job by the climate nazis, he should never have agreed to the interview, and the ABC reporter should have at least been neutral.
rgwholt 2 years ago
lol at 6:25 reporter got owned
tippman2k01 2 years ago
@ronwandell Good point. How come no one grilled Al Gore like this?
arherna 1 year ago 4
@ronwandell Durkin can't stand up for himself because he knows he's a lying cunt.
bubbah 1 month ago in playlist The ABC Great Global Warming Swindle Debate
@ronwandell
his points maybe fine, but his facts are wrong. that's why he can't stand up a little harder for himself.
mwhearn1 1 month ago
Durkins is the sort of scumbag who would have come out for the tobacco companies 20 years ago, arguing there was no link between smoking and cancer. Doing the same for the Oil companies now.
atheldeneict 2 years ago
but he isnt arguing for oil...only natural resources for developing countries so that they dont die. he is just fighting man-made global warming
zombiiination 2 years ago
since he doesn't believe the climate change theory is accurate he would not be wondering if his home was going to be washed away... but having looked at previous work there is a pattern- to be on the other side of the a major contentious issue - great publicity- this is where his cynicism bears fruit- He could be a post modern nihilist unable to see the value in anything beyond his own horizon- or he could simple not believe the science is compelling and has the guts to say so...
CandianBear 2 years ago
You have to ask yourself: Why would Martin Durkins make a documentary about the planet being ok if it's not? Is he Satan coming down to deceive us through a documentary on Channel 4? NO!! But that's what they're making him out to be. Idiots
6ar6od6 2 years ago
could it be that he is maximizing his own interests by saying exactly the opposite to the commonly held views of the day? He might be just cynical in the extreme and making a very healthy living doing it... doesn't have to be Evil to do this.
CandianBear 2 years ago
Hmmm.. I don't think making a film that will help kill the planet and would take out his house and possessions anyway (if it were actually true) would be maximizing anything for him.
6ar6od6 2 years ago
These people are such snobs. You can tell that they are getting paid shed loads of money for doing this. I can't believe how pathetic this debate is. I hope all Australian tv isn't this biased..
6ar6od6 2 years ago
This knuckle head dosent let him finish what what his saying ,,ABC interview BOB CARTER idiots or are you scared >>you wil all be charged with treason every one of you very soon ahhaha..
chotaboy66 2 years ago
durkins totally won that! whats wrong with this, this isn't a debate.. this is a character assasination!
pheynixll 2 years ago
Nitpicking. Thats all they're doing, nobody is refuting the main thesis of the film.
Timosaby 2 years ago 3
wow! Linsey smoked cigarettes during an interview? How can you believe a low life like that?
bluegsp 2 years ago
this channel is meant to be unbiased
Tony Adams is a eugenisist
gensoholicar 2 years ago
sh!t this film is ridiculous..
where'd they get all these guys from?....
ACTORS R' US..???
If you can't see this WHOLE programme is fabricated to make you BELIEVE the global warming PROPAGANDA...then I think some of you have drank a bit too much fluoridated water ;-)
THE MEDIA IS OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE IMPOSING CARBON TAXES ON THE AIR THEY 'let us' BREATHE...so be grateful to the media and the banks!!! ok?!
"I laugh until I cry.."
YOU THINK ONLY HITLER ENGAGED IN PROPAGANDA?!
freddiedread 2 years ago
if public policy decisions depended on the probability that there exists intelligent life somewhere in the universe, then we would be in a similar situation as with the question of the likelyhood of rampant global climate chaos.
Nobody can even begin to estimate the odds off intelligent life on other planets.
The probability could be close to one or close to zero, but we wouldnt want to call it 50/50 either just because there are only two possibilities.
St37One 2 years ago
this aspect of trade-offs with the power of the butterfly effect and its usefulness, are what makes me laugh when I see the smokestacks causing a devastating hurricane on all gores film.
If it had been the case that there were fewer hurricanes coinciding with climate change, you would not hear about it, unless they could spin it as a negative.
If you can hunt for potential negative effects, then why not do the same for positive ones?
That same butterfly may have prevented a disaster.
St37One 2 years ago
Again you bring up a media presentation rather than the SCIENCE.
Don't listen to Al Gore, Penn and Teller, or countless others who are non- scientists
Most scientists would undoubtedly agree that man's recent influence on his own environment has not been a net benefit.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
It's a completely faulty comparison. Apples and oranges really
You are comparing the search for ET life (about which we know nothing) to the study of climate (about which we know quite a bit)
BeondaPale 2 years ago
its all about who with you
that is why you are easily swayed by these shameful political tactics. Their whole game is to bluff their way through and suggest a consensus, in the hopes that others will fall in line with the herd and further create the impression of a consensus. Its just postmodern social engineering 101 - how to create a cult.
Its how they think, not what they think that counts.
St37One 2 years ago
Lol, I've mentioned not a single "who". it has been YOU that have mentioned and complain about "who".
IMPRESSION of consensus?? consensus is undeniable fact.
The VAST majority of climate scientists say AGW is real and that we are causing it - FACT!
If 19 doctors were to say I need an operation and 1 doctor said I didn't, I would, OF COURSE, be seriously thinking of getting the operation -- to say you wouldn't is PURE BS
It is YOU who are easily swayed
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"LOL, Ive mentioned not a single "who" it has been you that have mentioned and complain about "who"."
"dont listen to non-scientists"
"most scientists would undoubtably agree"
Did you notice the redundancy in "AGW is real and we are the ones causing it"?
The reality of climate change, or the question of whether or not we play a role is not even a serious question.
Instead, it is the meaning and significance of climate change, and the significance of our role that IS stirring debate.
St37One 2 years ago
Exactly. What we DO about the climate change we are causing is the most important thing.
We haven't even begun talking about THAT one yet
"Did you notice the redundancy in "AGW is real and we are the ones causing it"?"
Yes, it should have read Did you notice the redundancy in "GW is real and we are the ones causing it"
BeondaPale 2 years ago
no no no.
so far we can only estimate the overall average climate impact of human activity in the form of a global mean temperature.
Our best guess is a rather unalarming range of 0.5 to 1.0 degrees, but for all we know, the real value could be negative.
That the climate has changed is a fact.
That we have an effect on climate is another fact.
But of course it does not follow from this that any changes that we observe should be seen as anthropogenic.
St37One 2 years ago
It is perfectly plausible in other words, that if the industrial revolution had not happened, that the global mean temperature would be even higher.
The truth is that we are still not able to measure accurately/reliably, or otherwise bear witness to the real effects of human development on climate. For some people this is a convenient truth, and for others this is an inconvenient truth. But it is pretty hard to deny.
St37One 2 years ago
the question of to what degree and in what ways humans have had an effect on global climate, is the subject that is hotly debated.
It boils down to can our actions avert a potential catastrophy? How much action should we take? (and no action is an option). How concerned should we be (including not at all)?
We are basically faced with great uncertainty combined with great fear, and that is why the precautionary principle (pascals wager) carries so much weight.
St37One 2 years ago
If we do not properly diagnose the problem, or if there isnt one, then the cure can be worse than the disease. That is why it is so important to get it right, and to use sound principles. We dont want to begin with the assumption that there really is a problem, we want to go for accuracy and keep our wild and fantastic imaginations in check with a dose of skepticism, critical thinking, and a philosophical attitude that enphasizes argument and evidence over brute consensus.
St37One 2 years ago
To look at any evidence of climate change recorded over the past 40 years and say "we did that" as an automatic assumption, is irresponsible and loony.
To say something like "the evidence of AGW is all around us" has the same ring to it as "Evidence of a loving creator is all around us."
I reccomend Sir Karl Poppers essay "Science as falsification" to anyone who is annoyed by psuedoscience and reads this comment.
St37One 2 years ago
I agree with some of your points, but this one seems incomplete
"To look at any evidence of climate change recorded over the past 40 years and say "we did that" as an automatic assumption, is irresponsible and loony."
I agree, but who (in science) is doing this?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
How about if scientists look at evidence of climate change recorded over the past 400,000 years, then look at the last 40 years which (re: temperature) are clearly outside of the 400,000 year rhythmic norm and say "we did that" as an hypothetical?
Still irresponsible and loony?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
no
not at all.
but thats a big if.
The annoying thing is that so many hysterical alarmists and politicians act as though they have science on thier side, and try to misrepresent the science.
They have borrowed the bad arguments like from evolution vs creationism like "there is no real debate in the scientific community", "the overwelming consensus is" But unlike with evolution vs creationism, this is as much bluffing as to say that God would agree with me.
St37One 2 years ago
There will always be alarmists just as there will always be people with their heads in the sand.
The reason this particular issue creates such furor on both sides is because the stakes couldn't be much higher on either side.
If the people with their heads in the sand are wrong, then our species may be doomed
But..
If the "alarmists" are wrong, then our basic freedoms may be doomed
BeondaPale 2 years ago
It would take a lot of unessecary blood shed to regain freedom from a totalitarian world police state. Or perhaps it would be permanent. Collectivism always seems to be gaining ground.
Our basic freedoms may be doomed if the alarmists are right nature is on her death bed, or if the alarmists are wrong and its business as usual.
If the alarmists are driven by collectivist ideology, then it doesnt matter to them if they are right or wrong, since freedom is the biggest problem.
St37One 2 years ago
In the same way, some of those with their heads in the sand are motivated only by there own self interests - it doesn't matter to them if they are right or wrong either
It should be said, however, that the freedoms that we have currently granted ourselves (the free market among them) are somewhat based on an unfettered use of finite natural resources.
Isn't the inevitable conclusion of an unfettered use of anything finite 1st scarcity and then the eventual loss of the freedom to use it?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
The Earth is not a habitat.
But yet, the Earth is OUR habitat.
We are an exceptional species because we really have domesticated ourselves.
The same is also true of the plant and animal species that we have domesticated, they have also inherited the earth to a similar extent.
St37One 2 years ago
"We are an exceptional species because we really have domesticated ourselves."
True, but only to a very limited extent.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"Why doesn't the other side go under the microscope?" a journalist asks.
Has he heard of peer-review?
rileannas 2 years ago
Are you serious?
"An inconvenient truth" has many more errors
than this doco. Lindzen (M.I.T) is one of many
reputable Professors who refutes Gore. Science
is not absolute truth!!!
How many peer reviewed journals have
been proven wrong? Get real and be honest!
algorithm007 2 years ago
Gore is not a credible scientific source, nor is he peer-reviewed. I would never cite his work in a research paper, not when I could cite NASA, the IPCC, the 32 national academies of science that endorsed the IPCC, or a whole host of other credible scientific organizations.
Peer-review does not make a theory infallible, and science is not absolute truth, as you pointed out. But peer-review ensures that only the best science floats to the top.
rileannas 2 years ago
"most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere."
that is not the point of contention.
that may well be true, its the nonsense over a "natural balance" and a "tipping point" and positive feedback, and simply the fact that we get almost nothing but paranoid exagerations from the media, and especially Al Gore.
The Great Global Warming Swindle doesnt represent the "scientific comunity" any more than the IPCC or An Inconvenient Truth did.
St37One 2 years ago
its really to bad when everybody pretends to speak for and represent "the scientists"
wake up you pathetic collectivists and think for yourselves!!!
St37One 2 years ago
Since when is science a matter of personal opinion?
rileannas 2 years ago
The reason that science succeeds where religion fails is because it uses evidence and argument which are made available for individuals to evaluate for themselves. It has tremendous power to transcend consensus in spite of the fact that it depends on the cumulative contributions of large numbers of people.
When a debater asks you to trust him that most scientists are on his side, rather than to use evidence and argument, this is very suspicious.
We do not need to trust representatives.
St37One 2 years ago
That all works very well for scientists. If you have a PhD in climatology, by all means form a personal opinion. But what about the rest of us? We likely hold so many misconceptions that our own analysis could lead us to the wrong conclusion.
It's impractical for everyone to learn the finer points of climate science. Peer-review exists for a reason.
We don't have a lot of time to solve this problem. So for right now, yes, it does make sense to trust the scientists.
rileannas 2 years ago
You are way off on the wrong track.
First of all you have no idea what "the scientists" actually do agree on. You are merely trusting political organizations that were created for the explicit purpose of dealing with the potential threat of global warming.
Peer review does exist for a reason, but you must deeply imbibe this point if you want to make any sense. A conclusion like "this is how threatening global warming is" is not the sort of conclusion that would be subjected to peer review.
St37One 2 years ago
Check out my post "Scientific Agreement Quantified" for individual scientists' opinions on climate change.
The organizations of which I speak are not only the IPCC. I tend to look at the work of NASA and national academies of science more because, as you say, they exist for more than just climatology and thus have already solidified their reputation. If you don't trust the UN, you can leave IPCC totally out of the picture and still have many organizations left.
rileannas 2 years ago
You may be interested in a blog of mine - link on my profile page or Google "climatesight" (one word). Look especially at the posts "Why They Don't Debate on TV" and "Making Up Your Own Science." They go into more detail about the points in my last comment, which was kind of compressed :) gotta love the Youtube word limit....
rileannas 2 years ago
I did check out you blog spot
there is a lot of nonsense and bad argument presented on both sides of the debate.
that blog is a fairly comprehensive list of the nonsense that comes from the anti-alarmist side, but It does not address any of the alarmist nonsense.
It basically attacks straw men as I see it.
St37One 2 years ago
If you know of any sites that present the better alarmist and skeptical arguments and deals with the real arguments, then point me to it.
St37One 2 years ago
Go to a university and read some climatology textbooks. Forget the media stuff and the controversy. Learn the hard science if you're interested in coming closer to truth.
rileannas 2 years ago
I would rather be presented with relevant arguments, than intuitions or unsupportable claims, no matter who is making the claims.
Post modern political strategy is all about using academic authority to advance political agendas by means that were once considered backward or dishonest. Disinterest is balked at. Skepticism slows down progress or is "reactionary". Truth and objectivity are no longer considered to be noble goals.
I am sick of the pretentious obscurantism and filibustering.
St37One 2 years ago
I didn't realize you wanted the actual scientific side of the theory. If that is true I'm not the right person to ask - I'm not a climatologist, and no matter how much I read I can't pretend to be formally educated in this area.
Most of the reports are free to download online, IPCC and NASA are especially good about that. Another great resource is a climatology professor at any university. I've found that as long as you're polite they're more than happy to answer all of your questions.
rileannas 2 years ago
"the scientific side of the theory"
-no kidding, clearly you are not the right person to ask?
but I am not asking, I am telling.
the pollitical feelings of the scientists who are paid to study "climate change" is no more interesting or relevent than thier thoughts on peach cobbler.
St37One 2 years ago
I focus mostly on ethical questions such as risk management and assessing credibility.
A great resource for climate science, put together in a more interesting way than the dry reports (really, nobody would care about that sort of thing in the popular media...) are greenman3610's videos. He's a journalist but mostly cites NASA and other organizations. Have fun.
rileannas 2 years ago
okay
risk management?
Let me know if you are aware of a non ideological way to asses probabilities including the statistical accuracy of those probabilities in a scientific/falsifiable way.
but here is what I want to know from you rilennas. Do you think that it is intellectually honest/responsible to brainstorm or search for only the potential negatives of changes in climate, without also keeping track of the potential positives? Culture change good, Climate change bad?
St37One 2 years ago
also,
is'nt it baseless to suppose that there is a sacred, or fragile, or important balance to earths climate patterns that could be disturbed by human activity through changes in the atmosphereic carbon dioxide levels by such a small degree when compared with their natural variability over the scale of millions of years.
When you only hear about the effects that we could have, the butterfly effect would cause people to want to round up all of the butterflies.
St37One 2 years ago
Check out the "How it all Ends" videos by wonderingmind42, especially "Risk Management". They should answer your questions.
rileannas 2 years ago
I did watch "how it all ends" and he just relies on the most lazy argument. It is no better than pascals wager.
Time to round up all of the butterflies:P
St37One 2 years ago
check out "pascals wager debunked"
"risk management" - LOL
Do I need to explain why quick action against the threat of climate change is not a proper example of risk management in practice?
St37One 2 years ago
Keep watching the videos. The first, 10-minute video only skims the surface. Watch "Risk Management", which specifically addresses the Pascal's-wager point.
rileannas 2 years ago
He does not talk about pascals wager in any of those videos.
He does draw a double false dichotomy of Action vs no action, and disasterous effects vs no effects in a matrix. It is hard to believe that he is satisfied with that.
It only makes sense to do an analysis if you can put a price tag on taking action, and a price tag on not taking action, and you have knowledge of the probabilities.
his entire argument was still based on his premise of "trust the experts."
very disapointing.
St37One 2 years ago
He specifically explains why it is not Pascal's Wager in Risk Mangement (this is in 6 parts - you may only have watched the first one).
He explains why trusting the experts makes sense in Nature of Science.
You can't possibly have watched all 6 hours of his videos so quickly. Please hear his full argument before you continue to reject it.
rileannas 2 years ago
yes I did watch all six parts, and he does not bring up pascals wager at all.
I have listened to his very dissapointing full argument, and when I say that he still insists on basing it entirely on his trust the experts idea without argument or evidence, you should notice that this makes the "risk management" pretense that much more useless.
His argument boils down to the alarmists are more likely to be right, and the cost of climate change will out weigh the cost of prevention.
St37One 2 years ago
From the transcription for Risk Management:
"Objection: That grid is just Pascals Wager, which has more holes than Swiss cheese. You cant put lipstick on that pig. No, but can I put the pig and cheese on rye? Nah, it looks like Pascals Wager because they are both basic decision grids. What sunk his was the infinite payoffs, and assumptions without evidence. This one has finite payoffs, and assumptions based on evidence."
rileannas 2 years ago
Oooo I wanna play. Lets list all the positives and negatives of climate change. I'll take Negative
Negative - Mass extinction
Your turn...
Positive- ________
BeondaPale 2 years ago
that might also count as a positive also, if you are included in the extinction.
St37One 2 years ago
If I was included in an extinction -- you would be too
An extinction, you see, is the death of an entire species.
I listed a mass extinction as a negative of global warming. Would you care to list a positive.
You are after all the person that said people like me are dishonest for not seeing the positives of global warming. Well, what are they?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
well
you have hopefully noticed the phenomenon that I am refering to.
We are exposed to a massive amount of white noise on the subject, but it is still highly selective. You dont expect to hear good news from the media, but still.
You hear about specific species that are threatened, but not those that will stand to thrive (unless they are the kinds that scare us like various pests).
We hear only about the potential threats,and obviously its not because there are no potential benefits.
St37One 2 years ago
There ARE in fact a few benefits to mass extinction. You mentioned one. An old species being able to thrive and prosper
Another is that it would open up environmental and evolutionary niches -- After the Precambrian there was an animal explosion. After the Permian, dinosaurs and mammals. And after the K-Triassic, big mammals and eventually us!
Of course if we caused a mass extinction we'd probably come close to killing off our own species off too. Life wouldn't be good for thousands of years
BeondaPale 2 years ago
You are acting like I agree with your assumptions.
That is really annoying.
First of all, we rarely hear about the possibility of something coherent and comprehensive from the media, like mass extinction. What we usually get are much more specific risks.
But if you would rather talk about something less tangible, then we need to develope answers to the following questions.
How large and how massive will the mass extinction be, how likely is it, and how much of an impact can we have on it.
St37One 2 years ago
for example
what is the probablility that we will lose 10% of species, 20%, 40% etc. And how will this probability function change depending on the peak levels of atmospheric carbon.
The next step is to make predictions that can be confirmed to support the theoretical and quantitative basis that produced those predictions.
St37One 2 years ago
there is still more to narrow down and commit to, so that doesnt sound like so much paranoia over a tipping point, or a proliferation of chaos and disaster.
What will be the direct cause or causes of the mass extinction, and what will be the mitigating or buffering factors?
St37One 2 years ago
The tipping point comes from (in biology at least) from the concept of the "keystone species" do you know what that is?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
I get the idea of a keystone species. It is of course possible that certain species are sacred and irreplacable. But you wouldnt expect them to all have equal importance. I dont think that the concept helps you to make the point that nature is fragile, that there is actually a sacred balance, or that ecosystems are like organisms.
St37One 2 years ago
"It is of course possible that certain species are sacred and irreplaceable."
No, not sacred -- deeming something sacred is the process of setting a spiritual value upon that something. likewise no species is irreplaceable. All species can, in fact, be replaced.
Your liver is neither sacred nor irreplaceable, but if it failed the other systems in you body would quickly follow, because it's so important to the whole system. This is a crude analogy, but fairly accurate one of keystone species
BeondaPale 2 years ago
ecosystems do not die, and they do not live.
they have no lifespan, no interest, and no genetic code. Standards for thier "health" are more or less aesthetic standards, or based on human convenience and exploitation.
I dont agree that the analogy with a body and its functioning organ is apt.
St37One 2 years ago
"ecosystems do not die, and they do not live."
ecosystems do, at the very least exist and not exist, correct?
"they have no lifespan"
They do, at the very least exist within measurable time frames, correct?
The ecosystem that supported plants and animals during the Triassic period for example no longer exists and the plants and animals that lived during that period would find it very hard to survive in current ecosystems.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"I dont agree that the analogy with a body and its functioning organ is apt."
But there are countless examples within the biological world that bolster this analogy. Symbiosis it every bit as common in the the biological world as predation and even competition.
This has, in fact, been an important addendum to Darwin's theory throughout the 20th century
BeondaPale 2 years ago
yes they do exist, and they exist for measureable time frames...
but so do clouds.
LOL
so what is your point?
St37One 2 years ago
so a cloud exists for measureable time frame
isn't a definitive time frame analogous to a lifespan. If not why not?
....also clouds exist and are created within dynamic systems that change over time.
It's certainly different from a living system, but still analogous to them
BeondaPale 2 years ago
yes
but if ecosystems are more like clouds than species, then that would make it seem awefully wastefull to be worrying about their health or thier preservation.
St37One 2 years ago
"but if ecosystems are more like clouds than species"
No - that's not correct
A cloud is analogous to a single species (I suppose, but it's a stretch)
What I mean is that ecosystems are analogous to biological systems - which in many way is true
But yes, it WOULD be awfully wasteful to be worrying about the health or the preservation of an ecosystem, unless of course the ecosystem in question included humanity as one of it's parts.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
you lost track of where we were in the discussion I think.
You had actually planned to use my concession that clouds exist, and that they exist for finite periods of time to prove some further point did you not?
Humanity is not part of an ecosystem.
We can pick and choose from millions of species to feed on.
St37One 2 years ago
"Humanity is not part of an ecosystem."
Hilarious in its total arrogance
BeondaPale 2 years ago
the truth can be arrogant, or it can have any other personality flaw that you can imagine, but it is still the truth, and I think that this is important.
St37One 2 years ago
You said you were going to email a biology professor. Please do so.
I defy you to find ONE who will say that humans are not part of an ecosystem - JUST ONE.
I'll be waiting ...and waiting ...and waiting
BeondaPale 2 years ago
oh
thats what you wanted me to ask?
thats not what I had in mind.
I already know for a fact that humans are not part of an ecosystem.
The only way that you can suggest that we are is if you consider the gaia hypothesis to be accurate. The earth is NOT an ecosystem.
St37One 2 years ago
I personally agree with Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Jay Gould in thier dismissal of the Gaia Hypothesis. It is really just fantasy, speculation, and misconception.
St37One 2 years ago
near the begining of the previous video where he says
"it is one of the most absurd ideas, and it is propagated by a lot of people who really ought to know better"
He was bang on.
Couldnt have put it better.
It is like a cult mentality.
St37One 2 years ago
Cults make up facts -- as you just did
Scientists don't
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Exactly.
Cults make up facts like the existence of a sacred or natural balance.
And you will notice that I have not made up any facts.
St37One 2 years ago
I said nothing about the Gaia Hypothesis. So your objection is a straw man.
But Gould has never and would never make the statement that man is not part of an ecosystem -- you created this "fact" out of thin air
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"I already know for a fact that humans are not part of an ecosystem."
HOW do you know this for a fact? On what do you base this "fact", your own navel?
"The earth is NOT an ecosystem."
No, the Earth's biosphere is an interwoven collection of ecosystems.
There is an ecosystem of fauna and flora within your body at this very moment that allows you to stay alive. We depend on MANY other species for our very existence. THIS is fact
Your willful ignorance of biology is not logically sustainable.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
I was not ignorant about the fact that you just told me.
You are the one who is confused, and also arrogant.
When you say that humanity is part of an ecosystem (as you might also say that the frogs in a pond are a part of an ecosystem) this is very different.
Yes our bodies are infested with many parasites, and many of them are benefitial.
But the claim that an individual human body is itself an ecosystem, is very different from the claim that humanity is a component in an ecosystem.
St37One 2 years ago
You need to pay close attention to what I do say, and what I dont say. Otherwise you will get it wrong very easily.
I also did not say that you were supporting the Gaia hypothesis, so no straw man. What I did actually say was that the only way to include humanity itself as a component in a larger "ecosystem" is to invoke the rather pervasive Gaia hypothesis. I fail to see how you could disagree with that.
St37One 2 years ago
I also think that it is unfair for you to jump to conclusions about my level of understanding on this subject, and try to put me on the defensive.
Should I really need to proove that I was already well aware of the billions of diverse microorganisms that live inside each of our bodies?
This fact does has absolutely no bearing on my argument which is that humanity is not limited to a particular ecological niche, or a particular ecosystem (singular, not plural).
St37One 2 years ago
"I also think that it is unfair for you to jump to conclusions about my level of understanding on this subject"
Unfounded statements (stated as fact when they are not) forced me to do so, Such statements are the very definition of willful ignorance.
If you were aware of the organisms that humans need to survive, then your statement of fact is even MORE absurd. What after all is the definition of "ecosystem"?
Ecosystem - a unit of interdependent organisms which share the same habitat.
BeondaPale 2 years ago
"What I did actually say was that the only way to include humanity itself as a component in a larger "ecosystem" is to invoke the rather pervasive Gaia hypothesis."
No invocation is necessary -- how do you see it as necessary?
BeondaPale 2 years ago
But organisms OUTSIDE our bodies are ALSO integral to our survival as a species. - or do you deny this?
Define ecosystem
BeondaPale 2 years ago