Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[grooviechickie]

Did anyone watch it last night?

I found it very interesting, yet the uproar over the doco is so loud it makes me sick. Why can't someone have the opposite opinion? Why can't they be allowed to voice it?

The shit that the ABC came up with afterwards made me want to do an Elvis and shoot the TV. I turned it off in disgust after they hassled that Martin guy with silly links to his previous docos. And how they got one of the scientists because part of his title said something like "Former weather bureau guru" (can't remember the exact wording  ) and they pointed out that he was only that guy from 1962-1964 - and that makes his opinion irrelevant, does it? They really pulled at straws to discredit them. Absolutely shocking journalism.

I don't know if I agree but it showed some interesting stuff that made me question my thoughts, that's for sure. I did not know about the whole issue with Africa being told they can't access their oil and coal, but instead are being told to use solar and wind power... how the hell are they going to afford that, exactly? Jesus.

And then there's this in the SMH today...

[Lord Biscuit©]

Unfortunately the ABC newreader guy just ain't that smart. Watching him interview politicians is quite painful, but watching him interview a film-maker about a complex science subject was a case of dumb and dumber. Excruciating - I had to turn it off.

The only interesting point, from the Greenpeace co-founder, and intimated by a couple of others, was the wholesale hijacking of the climate change science by people with political agendas. This is what I believe is blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

Why did the ABC have to have a shooting match after the movie? Were they afraid people would think they're pushing some anti-climate change agenda? Is it really that politically dangerous to even seem like you might have doubts about climate change? I guarantee you there will be post-doco shooting match on docos supporting climate change theories.

[Darq Gus]

Durkin's data on sunspot activity ended in 1980. Nineteen fuckin' eighty! Not a period without it's growth in Western industry, and certainly relevent - if not integral - to any documentary with irrefutable proof that carbon emissions are not behind climate change. The post 1980 data reveals sunspot activity has decreased over this period. He ignored data available for the last two decades to distort the case, and used the few scientists he had out of context as they were horrified to later discover.

Why should the network with Australia's highest standards of journalism have to treat an obvious propaganda piece as 'fair and balanced'. Because Howard, sick of difficult truths emerging to tax the creativity of his PR department, stacks the ABC board with cronies.

And why do the public feel it is they who must decide on climate change? The little Paris Hilton disciples clearly don't have the doctorates, research facilities, or attention spans to give the matter the required analysis, as compared to... actual scientists.

Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading and Chief Executive of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, commented on the film in New Scientist. He wrote, "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role...Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence."

The overwhelming majority of scientists, publishing in peer reviewed journals - not Herald Sun opinion columns, are telling us we're rapidly approaching a point of no return due to man-made carbon emissions. And John "Sell More Coal" Howard disagrees.

[Nick 2]

From what I heard (I read it in the TV guide) the documentary maker likes to create Today Tonight style (my words not his) documentaries expounding shall we say 'alternative points of view' for the purpose of riling up people who don't like the normal 'accepted' opinion being challenged.

In other words, he's a shitstirrer. He admitted as much. There were examples of other documentaries he made in the guide and I don't remember what they were which is a shame because they were patently ridiculous.

It is very funny how lots of people are quick to say 'everyone is entitled to air their opinions' when it happens to coincide with what they believe in but are quick to silence people when they dare to question the status quo. Not an original thought I realise but one that's probably worth reiterating in this context.

[Lord Biscuit©]

Durkin's data on sunspot activity ended in 1980. Nineteen fuckin' eighty!

I hate to break it to you DG, but weather has been occurring on earth for a lot longer than 20 years. You do need to take the past into account. The last 30 years is the only period we have good data for - on a global scale. Unfortunately this is a very short period of time in the Earths history to be making any grand assumptions about it's future. Western industrialisation occurred a long time before 1970.

I agree his use of graphs and various statements were mis-representative, but I am not sure the fact the guy who made the film is a opportunistic naysayer proves that climate change is occurring significantly due to human influence.

Why should the network with Australia's highest standards of journalism have to treat an obvious propaganda piece as 'fair and balanced'. Because Howard, sick of difficult truths emerging to tax the creativity of his PR department, stacks the ABC board with cronies.

True, we can't trust the public to make up their own minds. Lets ensure all content is cleaned and politically correct before allowing it to air 

The overwhelming majority of scientists, publishing in peer reviewed journals - not Herald Sun opinion columns, are telling us we're rapidly approaching a point of no return due to man-made carbon emissions. And John "Sell More Coal" Howard disagrees.

The point here is not about discounting climatologists points of views. It's about trying to filter out the media noise, and the noise made by those with political agendas to push. It is very difficult to find a scientific review in a daily paper. The stories are getting all bent out of shape by sensationalism and the same kind of mis-representation of information as you talked about in the Swindle doco.

You yourself appear to be a bit evangelistic about your own view. Maybe you can point me to the "peer reviewed journal" where you read the "we're rapidly approaching a point of no return due to man-made carbon emissions" statement.

[a passing lunatic]

Agreed on the last point Bicky made. Still, if it really is a big issue, I suppose laziness shouldn't really be an excuse...........


But anyway, I thought cosmic rays (particles) were kinda mysterious because they didn't come from the sun - they've got too much energy. Of course, what I thought doesn't really affect anything.

[gmakepiece]

Run for the Hills! It’s the end! Again!

Perhaps it would be a neato idea during the current Tulip Mania of Global Warming, to consider that the natural world, the planets and the known universe are violent and vast rushes of naturally unstable, never static and competing energy. The earth’s climate over 4 billion years has gone from the absolute earthbound extremes of freeze to heat, perhaps through many thousands of cycles.

The sea and land has changed places countless times. I'm just glad I wasn't there as I can't tolerate sitting in a draught and too much humidity gives me hives. Regards the natural instability of things, over less than an eighteen month period, I've changed the kitchen wallpaper twice. Perhaps everything will one day all be gone and without a trace after the world simply shrugs us off. In 20 tiny years, Global Warming will most likely be forgotten and unmentioned even to say 'Er, sorry about that again, Chief'.

Just like the alleged Western population explosion prediction of the 1960's, now mostly Western population collapse, the alleged running out of all major resources by the 1980's and the alleged food stocks collapse by the 1970's, production that has since more than quadrupled.

Then there is the, I kid you not, the Global Cooling scare of the 1970's! Y2K, the collapse of Capitalist Democracies  that are now triumphantly effective and the violent Revolutions that were gonna happen any day now, rejected by the mass of people, etc, etc. In the future, everyone who makes predictions will be wrong.

Why be distracted for too long by what may be junk? Why make macramé? Bruce Lee said all failure is a lack of concentration. Reality is often far more interesting than baloney and well, more unreal in a way. Unless it's that very good baloney from a Jewish delicatessen.

Simply use an understanding of 'Logical Fallacy's', the scientific method of scepticism and multiple testing, 'Ockham’s Razor', 'Plato's Dictum' and ‘How to argue'. Also, try to keep a sense of humour. Why is it that to many people, ridiculous predictions of Manhattan under water are more real than any daily Islamic bomb blast?

When I hear such folks a talkin' ‘bout GW, I always like to remember to ask, ‘What are you selling and what am I buying?’ Remember, our minds can be saved even after University.

[a passing lunatic]

Climate change is perfectly natural/normal, yes, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be mildly annoying.

Mark Shuttleworth said pretty is a feature.

[Thaluikhain]

While yes, climate change does occur naturally, humans do have an effect on it.

Though, of course, if it was determined that we were heading into an ice age...it might be wise to burn every forest and mine all the coal we can...

[Lord Biscuit©]

While yes, climate change does occur naturally, humans do have an effect on it.

Though, of course, if it was determined that we were heading into an ice age...it might be wise to burn every forest and mine all the coal we can...

Not at all. We simply need to increase production of baked beans to help increase carbon emissions.

[grooviechickie]

I like your style, gmake. I had to physically restrain myself from using a red pen to correct your spelling and other mistakes, but I managed (just a hint - the plural form of democracy is democracies, not democracy's  ).

Anyhow, I think that you have made some interesting points and I especially appreciated the Bruce Lee quote.

[DiddlySquat]

I watched the last half of the doco and all of the panel bit. If you thought the interviewing and panel stuff was woeful then you missed some really bullshit stuff from the audience.

One audience dude made a real hash of a question about H14? being found in carbon which completely debunks all the carbon dating that we've been doing. They dismissed his question as gobblygook, which it pretty much was, but I was keen learn something about this.

Overall I thought it a good job. It showed another side to the great global warming debate and then Tony Jones did a good job of demolishing the director. I loved the sceptical scientist dude who afterwards suggested that TJ should have been that aggressive towards Sir Nicholas Stern when he was here! Touche!

One of the key things that came from the scientific debate that followed was that scientists cannot agree on the data, especially temperature.

You would think that it's a simple question: is the temperature rising? But it isn't a simple question.

Now we can measure the temperature almost everywhere, including sea temperature, and temperature at different levels in the atmosphere. There's an enormous amount of confusing and conflicting data available. Also, scientists "adjust" their readings to compensate for the urban heat sink effect.

Over time the temp readings at Parramatta (geo centre of Sydney) would have increased alarmingly, but not so the readings back o' Bourke. Who says that the compensation formula on the Parramatta readings is correct? How can we distinguish the increase in temp attributed to urbanisation from the increase due to carbonisation?

This isn't an issue of warming or sea levels or any other scientific mumbo jumbo. The global warming issue is now an industry. We'd be better off putting all this debating energy into developing a more sustainable way of life, especially now when there are about 3 billion Indians and Chinese who are adopting our way of life at a great rate of knots.

[Mr. Blonde]

We'd be better off putting all this debating energy into developing a more sustainable way of life, especially now when there are about 3 billion Indians and Chinese who are adopting our way of life at a great rate of knots.

Exactly. If nothing else, the whole global warming debate should push us towards finding alternative sources of energy. Even if it isn't a problem, it's still a good idea to look outside the square before it's too late, ie. before we run out of fossil fuels. It's just like someone saying that they don't believe in God and so can sin as much as they like - but isn't it still good to live a decent and righteous life, even if God doesn't exist?

[Thaluikhain]

It's a funny thing that people think 'scientist' means 'Your Guarantee of Quality!' That it's a certain standard and without any prejudice, either intellectually, training wise, re: experience, personality or ideological.

Actually, it is...for scientists.  It's just that anybody can call themselves or be called a scientist or an expert these days, without any particular knowledge of science or being expert on anything.

[DiddlySquat]

To put China into perspective, they build 2 power stations every week. There are approx 7,000 new trucks and buses hitting the streets every week. India must be up there too. Then there are all the other developing nations jumping on the energy bandwagon. And who can blame them for wanting all that is good!

So there are a few billion more people aspiring to a modern life. If what we have been doing for the last few decades is having such a devastating effect, then we've got just moments to spare before the earth self-immolates.