Man-made global warming.... biggest myth of this century

DJ VTX · Mar 21, 2007

The Chinese government appeared to recognize the linkage by allowing families in rural areas (where anti-female bias is stronger) a second child if the first was a girl. Nonetheless, in September 1997, the World Health Organization's Regional Committee for the Western Pacific issued a report claiming that "more than 50 million women were estimated to be 'missing' in China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls due to Beijing's population control program that limits parents to one child." (See Joseph Farah, "Cover-up of China's gender-cide", Western Journalism Center/FreeRepublic, September 29, 1997.) Farah referred to the gendercide as "the biggest single holocaust in human history."

Yosef Ha'Kohain · Mar 21, 2007

Originally posted by DJ VTX
As John-Thor Dahlburg points out, "in rural India, the centuries-old practice of female infanticide can still be considered a wise course of action." (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'," The Los Angeles Times [in The Toronto Star, February 28, 1994.]) According to census statistics, "From 972 females for every 1,000 males in 1901 ... the gender imbalance has tilted to 929 females per 1,000 males. ... In the nearly 300 poor hamlets of the Usilampatti area of Tamil Nadu [state], as many as 196 girls died under suspicious circumstances [in 1993] ... Some were fed dry, unhulled rice that punctured their windpipes, or were made to swallow poisonous powdered fertilizer. Others were smothered with a wet towel, strangled or allowed to starve to death." Dahlburg profiles one disturbing case from Tamil Nadu
Click to expand...

You're talking about tiny thirdworld tribes... not governmental policies....

Thats like saying because the UK has a few paedophile rings... the government endorses child sex.

Yosef Ha'Kohain · Mar 21, 2007

Originally posted by DJ VTX
The Chinese government appeared to recognize the linkage by allowing families in rural areas (where anti-female bias is stronger) a second child if the first was a girl. Nonetheless, in September 1997, the World Health Organization's Regional Committee for the Western Pacific issued a report claiming that "more than 50 million women were estimated to be 'missing' in China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls due to Beijing's population control program that limits parents to one child." (See Joseph Farah, "Cover-up of China's gender-cide", Western Journalism Center/FreeRepublic, September 29, 1997.) Farah referred to the gendercide as "the biggest single holocaust in human history."
Click to expand...

China allow a second child in rural areas because the overcrowding occurs in the city...

Rossy · Mar 21, 2007

Watched a recent documentary on said subject on channel 4 recently by any chance?

scruf · Mar 21, 2007

Originally posted by Rossy
Watched a recent documentary on said subject on channel 4 recently by any chance?
Click to expand...

Haha, nail on the head..

I was thinking yesterday this whole debate seemed as though Joe had not long since read a feature article in a paper (or documentary) as his argument was going in fallible copy and paste circles, but then with wiki_rocks as his opposition it's fair game

Yosef Ha'Kohain · Mar 21, 2007

Originally posted by scruf
Haha, nail on the head..

I was thinking yesterday this whole debate seemed as though Joe had not long since read a feature article in a paper (or documentary) as his argument was going in fallible copy and paste circles, but then with wiki_rocks as his opposition it's fair game
Click to expand...

I've a history of questioning the carbon issue on this site (even when askig about eco-cars).... I also hadn't watched the documentary... however after googling carbon cycles on google about 900 times for this debate I stumbled across it and was suitably impressed.

andy watch the great cabon swindle on google.... the directors credentials are dubious but it says what I've been saying in a more elegant manner.

Rossy · Mar 21, 2007

Originally posted by scruf
Haha, nail on the head..

I was thinking yesterday this whole debate seemed as though Joe had not long since read a feature article in a paper (or documentary) as his argument was going in fallible copy and paste circles, but then with wiki_rocks as his opposition it's fair game
Click to expand...

hahahahaha "wiki_rocks"

Yeah, quite the swindle afterall, even their scientific sources are saying it's a dangerous manipulated lie.

Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Sure it was fun viewing, mind.

Yosef Ha'Kohain · Mar 21, 2007

Originally posted by Rossy
hahahahaha "wiki_rocks"

Yeah, quite the swindle afterall, even their scientific sources are saying it's a dangerous manipulated lie.

Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Sure it was fun viewing, mind.
Click to expand...

doesn't the above email just say that the film was biased? in the same way that the media is biased against those opposed.

He wanted to appear in an unbiased documentary which explored both sides of the debate.... at least thats what i got from reading the letter.

Rossy · Mar 21, 2007

This is the media.

Well if you want to watch a manipulated documentary I suppose it will keep you entertained for an hour or so, I'm sure it was fun viewing.

Yosef Ha'Kohain · Mar 21, 2007

Originally posted by andy_rocks
wiki_rocks

Joe:

You're still peddling this rubbish about the ocean being responsible for the carbon emissions, but have yet to provide any sort of credible evidence against the NASA diagram that shows that it is absorbing carbon, and that man made carbon is the unbalanced source leading to the rise in carbon levels.

If you want to try and be 'I've beaten the scientists' cool and challenge carbon climate change theory, then may I suggest you abandon that aspect of it as it is demonstrably incorrect.

Instead, focus on the 10% or so uncertainty that remains statistically as to whether carbon is causally linked with climate - that's the angle I'd take and it's a much better one, though you could never call it a good, obviously.
Click to expand...

wiki_rocks, lets presume your theory is correct (and a nasa diagram aimed at school kids isn't really the most credible source)... what happens when the next volcano errupts emitting twice as much carebon into the atmosphere as man.... what happens to this carbon where does it go?

confuzzled · Mar 22, 2007

Originally posted by Yosef Ha'Kohain
wiki_rocks, lets presume your theory is correct (and a nasa diagram aimed at school kids isn't really the most credible source)... what happens when the next volcano errupts emitting twice as much carebon into the atmosphere as man.... what happens to this carbon where does it go?
Click to expand...

don't worry too much, i'm sure Brown will find a way to tax that too, and then we can all sleep safe again.

Yosef Ha'Kohain · Mar 22, 2007

Originally posted by confuzzled
don't worry too much, i'm sure Brown will find a way to tax that too, and then we can all sleep safe again.
Click to expand...

Yosef Ha'Kohain · Mar 22, 2007

Originally posted by andy_rocks
I agree volcanic eruptions are a sizeable source of carbon in the atmosphere and have been for tens of thousands of years. There has been an fairly steady equilibrium which had lead to fairly steady temperatures, though both obviously have fluctuations.

Emissions there might be offset by plant growth elsewhere - the point is that both of these have remained pretty much constant over the past few millenia, and a fairly stable climate resulted.

It wouldn't matter if volcanoes were emitting 20000 times what man was provided it was adequately balanced.

The point is that the huge carbon stores in fossil fuels are now getting released, whilst no balancing factor is increasing - thus we end up with more carbon in the atmosphere as a a result of human activity.

The is so widely accepted that I'm surprised you're arguing it, give it up and concentrate on the statistical uncertainty.
Click to expand...

where does the balance come form andy... you're stating that the system is perfectly balanced now.... at a time of little volcanic activity.

but you state that the carbon emissions of man (which are a fraction of volcanic activity) are going to bring about devastating effects.... If the balance is so finely tuned that such minute emissions could spell the end of the world as we know it... what happens when we enter an era of volcanic activity which dwarfs the emissions made by man.

If nature balances itself as you claim, I'd like you to suggest how and why it wouldn't balance man made emissions

Yosef Ha'Kohain · Mar 22, 2007

Originally posted by andy_rocks
This is basic carbon cycle, the predominant absorbance is from photosynthetic life (ie plants).

atmospheric carbon = carbon released - carbon absorbed.

Past 10000 years, carbon release fairly constant, absorption fairly constant, atmospheric levels fairly constant. The absolute numbers don't matter.

Last 200 years, increasing carbon release from fossil fuel burning, no more carbon absorbed, atmospheric carbon up.

Give it up Joe, I don't think even General Motors would support you on this.
Click to expand...

of course they matter andy if man adds another 1.5% to the total carbon emissions and a volcano adds 15% to the total carbon emissions, common sense tells us that because we're in an era where there is little volcanic activity... whatever natural source that absorded such large quantities of carbon from volcanic activity... would be able to absord the minutes quantities of carbon created by man.

French William · Mar 22, 2007

Andy's new favourite word: demonstrably?

Yosef Ha'Kohain · Mar 22, 2007

Originally posted by andy_rocks
The volcano isn't contributing anything to carbon rise though which is the relevant point, because it's been roughly constant at this level for thousands of years. You would have to demonstrate that volcanoes are emitting significantly more carbon since the industrial revolution than they did before if you want to suggest they're contributing to carbon rise. Wheras fossil fuel burning demosntrably is significantly higher than prior to the industrial revolution.
Click to expand...

????

andy you're getting confused again

if a volcano emits 15% of the planets carbon dioxide once every 1000 years - there is a mechanism within the planet which can absorb these large levels of carbon.

As we have been in a period of low volcanic activity for a long time, its safe to assume that the element that usually absorbs this carbon is not running to its full capacity.

As man made CO2 levels are so low, it would be safe to assume that this sleeping carbon sink would be able to manage such tiny carbon levels.

If it weren't able to the next time we saw any heavy volcanic activity ben nevis would become an island and london would be on the sea bed.

forks · Mar 22, 2007

there must be a fuck of a lot of carbon locked up in human bodies. half the people who ever lived are alive today.
6000000000 x 150 lbs average is 900000000000 lbs of human beings. lets hope the new resistant bubonic plague doesn't wipe a load of us out

Gav Freaky Dancing · Apr 3, 2007

large volcanic eruptions actually usually result in a 1-3 year period of global cooling due to the dimming effect from the vast amount of ash spewed into the upper atmosphere which not only reflects sunlight back itself, but also leads to an increase in high altitude cloud cover as water vapour condenses around the dust particles.

This usually more than compensates from any temporary increase in co2 levels resulting from the eruption.

Phil Mitchell · Apr 4, 2007

These threads make me laugh

'I know loads about Volcanos me'

Why not just post a link to www.wikipedia.org/everythingyouneedtoknowaboutvolcanos rather then pretending you know what you are talking about

Phil Mitchell · Apr 4, 2007

Originally posted by andy_rocks
I happen to be a semi-professional geologist. I just need wikipedia to put it in terms the rest of you will understand.
Click to expand...

aswell as

Political Journalist
Humanitarian Expert
Social Commentator
Medical Guru
War Monger
Religious Fantatic

to the Nucastle board

Im not convinced you exist in real life. As far as Im concerned you are The One

Log in or Sign up

Man-made global warming.... biggest myth of this century

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)

DJ VTX

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

Rossy . Staff

scruf Registered User

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

Rossy . Staff

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

Rossy . Staff

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

confuzzled Registered User

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

French William _________________

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

forks still not dead

Gav Freaky Dancing Registered User

Phil Mitchell check me a dollar brer?

Phil Mitchell check me a dollar brer?

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Man-made global warming.... biggest myth of this century

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)

DJ VTX

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

Rossy . Staff

scruf Registered User

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

Rossy . Staff

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

Rossy . Staff

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

confuzzled Registered User

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

French William _________________

Yosef Ha'Kohain Registered User

forks still not dead

Gav Freaky Dancing Registered User

Phil Mitchell check me a dollar brer?

Phil Mitchell check me a dollar brer?

Share This Page

Useful Searches