Tonight 8.30 - ABC

Claims by a group of leading scientists that climate change is a natural phenomenon, and that global warming is not because of mankind's impact.

its a naturally occurring phenomenon which is being accelerated by mankinds use of fossil fuels

either way were f***ed

f*** off global warming. Last summer was the mildest i've ever seen and this has been one f***ing cold winter.

Hippies cry more.

They're currently talking about how the sun is causing climate change.

Yet I read a couple of days ago:

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm (with graphs!)

So in summary we have no idea what's going on and it's probably better to be safe and rule ourselves out as the cause of climate change by taking power consumption more seriously (more power friendly hardware, better mass public transport, research into more realistic alternatives to fossil fuels) ..

Anything that encourages early adoption of alternative fuels and reduces pollution is fine by me, regardless of its validity.

heh yeh
unless it incurs some other unforseen negative side effects we could do without

it is a load of crap all the humans on earth couldn't change a planets climate as drasticly as everyone says

I hope you guys are still watching. The interviews and background checks after the actual 'film' are very interesting.

Pretty dodgy stuff going on with the documentary.

unless it incurs some other unforseen negative side effects we could do without

Expect to see a rise in early alzheimer's due to mercury leaks from broken fluros.

On a more serious note, XandraX sums up my views on global warming and pollution output perfectly. We've been far too free with the planet the past few centuries, time to clean up some of our mess.

The biggest challenge will be convincing industry, (especially foreign industries in developing nations. ie: china) to adopt expensive but cleaner methods of production, weather that be power, fuel or more physical products.

interesting documentary, and so was the criticism and discussion afterwards

f*** off global warming. Last summer was the mildest i've ever seen and this has been one f***ing cold winter.

haha, yeah. One person's view on the comfortableness of Brisbane weather over the last 12 months sure does invalidate the decades of scientific study worldwide into climatology.

last edited by orbitor at 08:38:55 13/Jul/07

okay, firstly i dont believe that humans have contributed in any reasonable form to global warming

BUT that is not what i have a gripe with

in a panel for a discussion, there were only 3 skeptics, and 5 believers in global warming... and the host who should be IMPARTIAL was far from it! if you are going to have a decent debate, please make it balanced! i like the first skeptics comments who said 'why didnt you interrogate that guy the same way 3 months ago?'

there was one good point they didnt end up addressing at all, and that is, global warming would theoretically lead to a lesser margin of temperature change across the world, which would DECREASE the level of zomg crazy climate change...

i think its a great idea to reduce carbon emissions, and i love the people saying 'zomg, if big companies are finally saying so, it must be true!' its a huge money making venture for them! not to mention they will be forced to by policies and regulations...

f*** off global warming. Last summer was the mildest i've ever seen and this has been one f***ing cold winter.

I bet the Africans agree too.

there's so many vested interest groups from all side of the debate it's pretty much impossible to work out what the f*** is going on... all i got from that debate was a few good points showing that it's possible man-made carbon emissions aren't the huge evil everyone is making them out to be and that the ABC can't run an impartial debate.

also what tung said is true. afaik it's pretty much meteorology 101 that storm activity is a function of the difference between temperatures @ the equator and poles... so global warming will lead to less storm activity because it would reduce the differential. edit: which is completely the opposite to what global warming nay-sayers claim, you read all the time they blame Katrina on global warming etc.

last edited by taggs at 11:19:30 13/Jul/07

yah pretty dodgy 'documentary' ... even though it echo's my own feelings about the current 'global warming issue'. it is a pity that both sides of this argument see the need to go totally over-the-top in thier reaction to each other & use falsified data & bad science. i guess to try & remain objective you have to take some sort of middle ground... ie: humanity is contributing to global warming with thier pollutants... but the long term effects are currently unknowable. the head of nasa has come out & said that it is arrogant to the extreme to say that a particular time in the earths history or future is optimal for weather conditions for biological survival. does he have a vested interest in fossil feuls? i think not.

i am glad this show was made though... like a few scientists on the show.. i am sick of ignorant people making 'global warming' the new holy grail where it is heretical to speak out against it. it is still so imprecise a science that no-one should be claiming to know what is really happening.

i rekn that humanity as a whole should stop burning fossil feuls not coz of some possible threat in the future but because those petro-chemicals are going to run out one day & we need them & it will be more expensive to sythesise them.

last edited by demon at 11:48:43 13/Jul/07

totally agree
although, I reckon the head of nasa has a fairly vested interest in fossil fuels now that he has discovered the shuttle would be so much more awesome with a turbo diesel

that would be more interesting for spectators of shuttle launchs... it could like get halfway thru it's takeoff then snuff it & roll back down to earth & land on it's roof ;]

Anything that encourages early adoption of alternative fuels and reduces pollution is fine by me, regardless of its validity.

Frankly I think we should be paying a s***load more for petrol, not less. People are going to get hit hard when we've depleted the natural supplies of what's available.
Suddenly economies are going to fall to pieces, and first world countries are going to turn into the third world s***holes we see, with corruption, violence and crime rampant over societies depression.

Noone will be worrying about Global Warming at that point. Give it 30 years. Most of our grandparents will have grown up through a depression and recession era which is going to pale in comparison to what we're going to get when we're 50-60 years old.

totally agree
although, I reckon the head of nasa has a fairly vested interest in fossil fuels now that he has discovered the shuttle would be so much more awesome with a turbo diesel

Pft get with the times Jim, we all know Ethanol is the way forward for the space shuttle.

Disclaimer: Note the sarcasm. Ethanol is the single dumbest idea that's come about in the last 10 years. Seriously, using food, which needs energy to grow, to use as a fuel source rather than a food source? Lunacy.

last edited by Raven at 12:11:12 13/Jul/07

The organisation where most people get their global warming 'proof' data is the IPCC. That's the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. They're not going to say "Oh there's no global warming... let's all quit our jobs".
Infact it's the scientists that have done studies for the IPCC (note: scientists who couldn't get other work, so the IPCC thought they could easily use them) that end up getting pissed off and quiting.

Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying that he viewed the process "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound" because of Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to recent hurricane activity [36]. Roger A. Pielke who published Landsea's letter writes: "How anyone can deny that political factors were everpresent in the negotiations isn't paying attention"

(wikipedia)

last edited by Idol at 12:18:32 13/Jul/07

Even the people that say carbon isn't the issue admit that the average temperature is increasing. So even if you argue its nature! .. is this warming cycle possibly a bad thing ? Does our increased load on the environment play a part in this ? Does it increase the effect ? one or all of those questions probably gets a yes or at least a maybe.

Is our reliance on non-renewable energy, in particular Oil a bad thing ? yes.

So even if you think greenies are crack pots. Its a fact. We will run out of oil. When ? *shrug* does that really matter other then for creating a sense of urgency ? The impact will be devastating. Large cities like Brisbane/Sydney/Melbourne will come to a stand still. We rely almost completely on oil and to a lesser degree coal.

To take another angle. A large asteroid flying into earth would be a bad thing. But its natural. Should we just sit around and go "its natural get over it" or do something about it ?

There is no sane argument against investing in renewable energy sources when arguing from a global or societal point of view, in the medium to long term.

soilent oil.

I don't agree with you at all obes

I never pictured Obes as a greenie, I guess I was wrong. Soon he'll go from living in the trees as an elf in LOTRO to living in the trees IRL.

They're not going to say "Oh there's no global warming... let's all quit our jobs".

It's not like some oil companies are saying that it doesn't exist just so they can continue polluting without a care in the world.

It's those damn evil profit-driven scientists, right?


last edited by parabol at 14:50:22 13/Jul/07

To take another angle. A large asteroid flying into earth would be a bad thing. But its natural. Should we just sit around and go "its natural get over it" or do something about it ?

I personally think we should let it impact, but that's a whole other discussion.

I think people should ride bikes more and stop being lazy bastards, that's my contribution to this thread.

A large asteroid flying into earth would be a bad thing. But its natural. Should we just sit around and go "its natural get over it" or do something about it ?

no you silly, you sent bruce up to drill a hole in it and nuke the f***er

what's good for the goose is good for the gander parabol

I personally think we should let it impact, but that's a whole other discussion.

Okay lets be completely clear on something.

You can't knife the asteroid and hope it turns around or backs off, it just doesn't work like that.

I think people should ride bikes more and stop being lazy bastards, that's my contribution to this thread.

Hmmmmmmm.....

I don't care if I get hit by an asteroid, that's nature. Go do some geology/ecology and realise the importance of extraterrestial matter. Now if I get killed by some f***ed up company churning out poison so a bunch of noobs can get more money, that's when I will get angry.

2nd point still stands.

pussy c***s

I reckon we should try and heat up the planet as much as we can and see who's the last one standing

It would be very manly

how will you get angry if you're dead chub

Well I assume it will be a slow death.

The organisation where most people get their global warming 'proof' data is the IPCC. That's the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. They're not going to say "Oh there's no global warming... let's all quit our jobs".
Infact it's the scientists that have done studies for the IPCC (note: scientists who couldn't get other work, so the IPCC thought they could easily use them) that end up getting pissed off and quiting.

if you are interested in what the reviewers think the IPCC have the review comments online:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html

it was good to see some criticism of the documentary for its truncated graph. but what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

from the review comments of the IPCC AR4 report: Paleoclimate Second Order Draft

Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don't stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the "divergence problem" if you need to. Don't cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading and d... [Stephen McIntyre (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 309-18)]

Rejected – though note ‘divergence’ issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series

Peak Oil bitches!

get used to it.

When things get this political: Radicals hijack Swindle debate
I call shenanigans

i wouldn't be surprised if the ABC invited the larouche mob in. at a minimum they had to of known who the audience members were.