Quote from wien :

Ehm. They said right there in the clip they tried to get an interview, but that he would "never be available". (Yeah, yeah, I'm sure that's part of cover up of the big GW conspiracy too. :rolleyes

Who would never be able? Hansen? He doesn't need to be interviewed on TV to say what he wants, I just put a link in a previous comment to a video he's in where he talks about what he believes and there's no NASA censoring anywhere. But it is sponsored by this roundtable on climate change "group". So that's more b.s. right there...

Quote from wien :

But let me get this straight. James Hansen is lying about being censored by the White House, he went to 60 minutes with this lie, the tops at CBS thought "that'll help our cause, so let's put him on", the CBS then lies about the talking to the White House and makes up a story instead, and they do all this without the White House going public to debunk their reportage. Yep, that's the most likely scenario.

Ehm, the White House would be the main one behind the push for this global warming issue, just like every other government. So they would never step in and try to debunk anything. They are pushing this agenda and using Hansen to go on TV and say that NASA are consoring what he's trying to publish...

He doesn't look a enough possibilities to the global warming issue, only carbon emissions or human affects. Nowhere do I see him mention sun cycles or sun spots effecting the atmosphere and that's just one point he doesn't look at, which has a great effect on our atmosphere and planet temperatures.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Misinfo you say? Coming from someone who gets his info from someone who is supported by NASA and this roundtable group? Sorry mate but I have looked at enough of what this James Hansen has to offer now and nothing will change my views on him. He is supported by people who have alot to gain from this global warming issue.

I wonder did you even watch the full hour video.

i did but unlike you i looked further into their sources
any programme that misrepresents its interviewees this much is tosh ... imple as that

even channel 4 openly admits that it was pure polemics and not a documentary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T ... e#Carl_Wunsch_controversy

Quote :

Anyway, what does a CV prove?

that hes been working in the field for several decades now ... a whole bunch of that time funded by universities ie independent from any lobbies

Quote :

There's nothing in there that proves to me that global warming is caused by humans, sorry...

i wont even begin to point out how stupid that statement is

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Who would never be able? Hansen?

Never be available (for an interview). And no, not Hansen. The lawyer at the White House editing Hansen's press-releases.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Ehm, the White House would be the main one behind the push for this global warming issue, just like every other government.

If that's the White House agenda, they're doing a damn fine job of covering it up. The US government is the one most critical of GW in the entire world. (But I guess that's just what they want us to believe, right?)

Here, I think you dropped this:

Quote from Shotglass :

i did but unlike you i looked further into their sources
any programme that misrepresents its interviewees this much is tosh ... imple as that

even channel 4 openly admits that it was pure polemics and not a documentary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T ... e#Carl_Wunsch_controversy

There's 2 sides to every story -

Quote from Filmmaker Durkin :

"Carl Wunsch was most certainly not 'duped' into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said."

...taken from that link.

Quote from Shotglass :

that hes been working in the field for several decades now ... a whole bunch of that time funded by universities ie independent from any lobbies

That still doesn't take away from the fact that he can be used to get an agenda onto TV. Ok, show me where he explains that sun spots and sun cycles have no effect on our atmosphere and no effect on planet temps because I would like to see what he thinks of that.

Quote from Shotglass :

i wont even begin to point out how stupid that statement is

Come on enlighten me.

Quote from wien :

Never be available (for an interview). And no, not Hansen. The lawyer at the White House editing Hansen's press-releases. If that's the White House agenda, they're doing a damn fine job of covering it up. The US government is the one most critical of GW in the entire world. (But I guess that's just what they want us to believe, right?)

Here, I think you dropped this:

Listen, you need to wake up, just because the White House says something doesn't mean they are doing it. I could, if I could be bothered to look for you since you don't want to find out for yourself, go find 100's of things that the White House have said and actually done or said the opposite previously. So don't always count on them to be honest, no matter who the president is.

Yeah it's easy to call people who actually look to an alternative for information crazy but hey, you will soon find out the truth.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Listen, you need to wake up, just because the White House says something doesn't mean they are doing it. I could, if I could be bothered to look for you since you don't want to find out for yourself, go find 100's of things that the White House have said and actually done or said the opposite previously.

Now that I can believe. I take anything coming out of there with mountains of salt. That does not mean, however, that I think the White House would purposely make themselves look bad on 60 minutes to promote some giant global warming conspiracy. Just just plain crazy talk. The simplest explanation is most often the correct one, and that one sure as hell ain't it.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

There's 2 sides to every story - ...taken from that link.

Quote :

Leroi sent Durkin an e-mail saying, "To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were wrong -- and may have been deliberately faked . . . what abundant experience has already taught me -- that, left to their own devices, TV producers simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth. I am very disappointed. I am copying this to Lou Bolch. And to Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, and Olivia Judson -- fellow connoisseurs of this sort of thing."[48]

He copied the e-mail to scientific author Simon Singh. Durkin responded to Leroi saying "You’re a big daft cock". Singh sent an email to Durkin urging him to engage in serious debate. Durkin responded stating, "Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing", and concluded with, "Go and **** yourself".[48]

obviously durkin is a very reasonable fellow who can be trusted with everything he said

Quote :

That still doesn't take away from the fact that he can be used to get an agenda onto TV.

ah yes its all a big conspiracy
like anyone else comming up with conspiracy theories you give the distinct impression that you dont even begin to understand the science behind the matter youre trying to debate

Quote :

Ok, show me where he explains that sun spots and sun cycles have no effect on our atmosphere and no effect on planet temps because I would like to see what he thinks of that.

what does that have to do with anything ?
more importantly whats the point of saying something as preposterous as that
you claim that he thinks the sun has no effect on us just because he points out that we are having an effect on out climate ?

id love to live in that crazy little happy place of yours where everything is either black or white

Quote :

Come on enlighten me.

venus

Quote from wien :

Now that I can believe. I take anything coming out of there with mountains of salt. That does not mean, however, that I think the White House would purposely make themselves look bad on 60 minutes to promote some giant global warming conspiracy. Just just plain crazy talk. The simplest explanation is most often the correct one, and that one sure as hell ain't it.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

I guess we will.

Quote from Shotglass :

obviously durkin is a very reasonable fellow who can be trusted with everything he said

The same could be said for the White House and NASA...

Quote from Shotglass :

ah yes its all a big conspiracy
like anyone else comming up with conspiracy theories you give the distinct impression that you dont even begin to understand the science behind the matter youre trying to debate

Of course I can understand what I am "trying to debate" or I wouldn't be here having this debate. You may or may not be more intelligent than I but that doesn't mean you are more learned on this specific issue.

Quote from Shotglass :

what does that have to do with anything ?
more importantly whats the point of saying something as preposterous as that
you claim that he thinks the sun has no effect on us just because he points out that we are having an effect on out climate ?

id love to live in that crazy little happy place of yours where everything is either black or white

Where did I say that I think he thinks the sun has no effect on us? I merely asked you to show me where he states that the sun spots or sun cycle effects our planet.

I can assure you I do not live in a "crazy little happy place" because I can see what the major heads of state and corporations are trying to push on us. Maybe you will someday, maybe not...

Quote from Shotglass :

venus

I think, just like wien, we will just have to agree to disagree because you obviously think you are superior in knowledge and will never change your views.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Come on lads, don't drag this topic down by posting crap. It's a very seriuos issue and needs to be sorted because we are getting more controlled by this shit when it's not even caused by us... It's a cycle which the Earth goes through. The first line in that video, the global warming swindle, sums it up for me. "Greenland isn't called Greenland because it's white...", which means at some stage, obviously when it was discovered, Greenland was green, ie it wasn't cold enough there for snow...

It's a myth put around by the beaver traders in Afghanistan to keep the value of beavers up.

Seriously though, it's not a very serious issue really. The world will get hotter (or colder, but it's called global WARMING so let's keep it simple). We'll just have to cope. And look after beavers.

Quote from Shotglass :

you give the distinct impression that you dont even begin to understand the science behind the matter youre trying to debate

But therein lies the fundamental problem:
Nobody has a really good idea of precisely what the net effect of human activity on global warming really is, but the ones that propagate the theory that we're responsible for enough of global warming to even matter get very red faced when you talk about even the possibility that there are much larger, more important, and unchangeable factors that are influencing the planet.

Quote :

what does that have to do with anything ?

It has to do with the fact that those who promote this agenda never ever address the seemingly larger influences on climate. One side of this debate looks at one thing: human initiated CO2 emission. The other side of this debate is looking at a multitude of other factors that the former side refuses to even mention 99% of the time.

There's no question that we are theoretically influencing climate, since we do emit CO2 as a civilization. The problem lies in the FACT that we really do not know just how much it really matters, or if it's enough to be concerned with (to the extent that we are) in comparison to other things.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

The same could be said for the White House and NASA...

i havent seen either one firing insults at anyone who criticizes them yet ... much less at anyone with reasonable criticism

btw i want that hour of my life back

Quote :

Of course I can understand what I am "trying to debate" or I wouldn't be here having this debate. You may or may not be more intelligent than I but that doesn't mean you are more learned on this specific issue.

you started off with this:

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

If you still believe that humans are the cause of global warming after watching this well... you might aswell go pray to your god to save the planet because, imho, that's just as crazy.

which quite clearly claims that we have no effect on gw showing that you completely fail to understand the science behind it

(not to mention the fact that the post also includes a whole other bunch of conspiracy theories which are every bit as stupid as the gw conspiracy ... honest advice ... take off the tinfoil hat and get out of the house ... theres a whole world out there and most people there arent out to get you)

Quote :

Where did I say that I think he thinks the sun has no effect on us? I merely asked you to show me where he states that the sun spots or sun cycle effects our planet.

no you asked the exact opposite:

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Ok, show me where he explains that sun spots and sun cycles have no effect on our atmosphere and no effect on planet temps because I would like to see what he thinks of that.

implying that hes ignoring the effects entirely

Quote :

I can assure you I do not live in a "crazy little happy place" because I can see what the major heads of state and corporations are trying to push on us. Maybe you will someday, maybe not...

tyvm i do see that very clearly
however unlike you i am in touch with the scientific community and know that the entire point of science is to be agenda free

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

The problem lies in the FACT that we really do not know just how much it really matters, or if it's enough to be concerned with (to the extent that we are) in comparison to other things.

food for thought:
isnt the fact that we might have an impact reason enough to reduce that impact as much as possible until we know with certainty if we do or dont have one ?

Quote from Shotglass :

food for thought:
isnt the fact that we might have an impact reason enough to reduce that impact as much as possible until we know with certainty if we do or dont have one ?

Absolutely, I never said otherwise

Once again, I do think that we should clean up our horribly pollutive act as much as possible, but I'm deadset against the "ZOMG!!111 WE'RE GOING TO DIE!!! DON'T FART!111" attitude that the general public is being forced to swallow, based on unproven fact driven by political scaremongering (IMO).

Your average lemming in human society is now brimming with fear about something that may not even be true but is being portrayed as proven fact. THAT is what bugs me. That being said, everyone knows that fear is the primary motivator of man. Perhaps its just a convenient scapegoat to begin to get stubborn people to actually think about what we're doing to the environment, CO2 emmissions notwithstanding. In a way I could almost call it a good thing in that regard, but the premise is still quite silly in my own opinion.

Quote from Shotglass :

i havent seen either one firing insults at anyone who criticizes them yet ... much less at anyone with reasonable criticism

You haven't seen doesn't mean it hasn't happened...

Quote from Shotglass :

which quite clearly claims that we have no effect on gw showing that you completely fail to understand the science behind it

Well, to you we are the single cause, of course we have some effect on the planet but not to the extent that we are led to believe...

Quote from Shotglass :

implying that hes ignoring the effects entirely

I can't understand how me asking for info on what his take on sun spots and sun cycles is, implies he is ignoring these effects...

Quote from Shotglass :

tyvm i do see that very clearly
however unlike you i am in touch with the scientific community and know that the entire point of science is to be agenda free

So, if it is agenda free, why are there some vastly different views, in the scientific community, on this topic? It is obvious some people are trying to push a certain agenda, otherwise we would see just as much of both sides of this topic on public display, but we don't.

Also that average lemming is being used as some ameba, get new car you will save world, pay more taxes from fuel because that is heating planet, etc etc...

It looks like a bubble.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

In a way I could almost call it a good thing in that regard, but the premise is still quite silly in my own opinion.

well considering that seeing the earth against the vast blackness and seeing how thin the atmosphere actually is pretty much set the green movement off in the first place im afraid we just dont have the money to shoot every single idiot into space so fear might actually be the best option to educate them

like you im also annoyed by the way its portraied and if this house ever turned out to be standing on a beach id absolutely love it

(btw in fact shooting idiots into space sounds more and more appealing now that america and australia refuse to continue to be a people skip for europe )

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

You haven't seen doesn't mean it hasn't happened...

at least they werent stupid enough to do it publicly ... and proof of stupidity of the maker is probably the most conclusive way to put any documentary at rest

Quote :

Well, to you we are the single cause

where did i say that ?

Quote :

of course we have some effect on the planet but not to the extent that we are led to believe...

you wont be able to conclusively pove or dispove that which is entirely the point of my response to bbt

Quote :

I can't understand how me asking for info on what his take on sun spots and sun cycles is, implies he is ignoring these effects...

oh please your question was pure polemics

Quote :

So, if it is agenda free, why are there some vastly different views, in the scientific community, on this topic?

a) there arent ... at least not on the underlying science and on the fact that humans do have an effect thats potentially dangerous which the channel 4 polemics programme you linked to claims otherwise
b) exactly BECAUSE it is agenda free ?

Quote :

It is obvious some people are trying to push a certain agenda, otherwise we would see just as much of both sides of this topic on public display, but we don't.

a) any agendas being pushed arent pushed by the science community but by those leeching on their findings
b) name a set of companies that have even remotely the same amount of money available to push their pro gw agenda as the oil companies have to defend their interests in bringing the whole gw "myth" down
i doubt you can and the point is that if the oil companies had any actual leverage against gw they would have more than enough disposable money to use it ... much like the way tobacco companies havent got anything in support of smoking against the health risks

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Your average lemming in human society is now brimming with fear about something that may not even be true but is being portrayed as proven fact.

You know what? Everyone always says that. That people are falling over themselves with fear and FUD and believe the world will go under in 2 years unless we go back to the caves.

What I see though is masses and masses of people, in fact the wast majority of people, just scoffing GW off as bullshite without even looking into the issues. Most people I've met wouldn't know research if it bit them in the ass, but still they feel they know better than those damn scientist eggheads.

I just don't get why this myth that people are running around like headless chickens gets repeated all the time, when what I see is the exact opposite; People sitting on their ass, not giving a shit.

Maybe it's Norway

Seriously, here it's a big thing. People are always talking about it. Although; as you say no one is doing anything, but they sure talk a lot - at least in the places I frequent, but I rarely leave my City. Calgary is a very foward thinking city too, so maybe that's part of it.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Maybe it's Norway

Seriously, here it's a big thing. People are always talking about it. Although; as you say noone is doing anything, but they sure talk a lot - at least in the places I frequent, but I rarely leave my City. Calgary is a very foward thinking city too, so maybe that's part of it.

As you say, everyone is talking about it, but no-one are doing anything about it.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Maybe it's Norway

Heh, could be. Most likely the truth is somewhere in between. Most of us are colored by the people we associate with.

Here I get the feeling you're either hellbent against the idea of humans contributing to GW, or you're fanatically defending the idea. "Most people" being in the against camp, and the "government" (or at least or current cabinet) being in the defending camp (which is ironic since our entire economy is based on the oil we pump out of the Northern sea ... stones and glass houses and all that). There's just no room for reasoned discussion or well thought out arguments anymore. It's black or white, for or against. It's like living inside some cheesy reality show.

God it's depressing.

TBO I think a lot of the 2 sidedness of the GW debate comes down to where you line up in politics. People against Bush and his ties to oil control in the Middle East would very much like to see that kind of aggressive dominance and reliance on those resources lessened. I think the early days of the GW debate were more about that kind of thing than any kind of rigorous scientific inquiry (atleast among the people I was hanging out with). Oil control, pollution, war, the mass migration into cities and concerns of the effects of industrial civilization, mass consumption, losing touch with nature... as a 20 something those things impressed on my mind more than the real science of global warming, but I believed in GW anyway, probably because it spoke as a kind of gestalt poetic warning and justice against the culture. I think many people originally used GW as a kind of threat card- in the same way the American right-wing politics used terrorism to focus political loyalties. I still see that two sidedness operating today, but I look back on my own experience a guy in his 20's believing in GW because it seemed 'right' (or left ) , as a lesson in how not to think. What would someone like me really know about the science of global warming? Pretty much nothing. That's not the right way to go about things, imo.

I hope we can get to a proper consensus about all this, without all the politics getting in the way. If humans are causing an acceleration of natural warming, then hopefully we can learn to offer a solution rather than simply being the cause of the problem. If we've got nothing to do with it, then that means we'll probably also have no effect on future warming anyway, it will simply be out of our hands. We'll be guilt relieved, but the outcome may be worse than if we could actually do something about it. ?

What I find most depressing about these sort of discussions about climate change is that so many people are quite happy to spend an hour watching something like 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' but aren't willing to spend the same amount of time reading primary source material such as the IPCC working group reports. Short summaries are available for those who don't have the time or inclination to read the full reports.

If people would just take the time to read the actual reports or even the summaries, much of the misinformation and misconceptions that are floating around - some of which have been voiced in this thread, in fact - would be dis-spelled.

For those interested, here are some links to the most recent IPCC working group reports. If you can only find the time to read one report, I suggest starting with the summary from WG1, since it addresses the areas that crop up most often in these sort of discussions.

Working Group I: The Science of Climate Change
Full Report
Summary
Technical Summary
FAQ

Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
Full Report
Summary
Technical Summary

Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change
Full Report
Summary
Technical Summary

Note that these are for the IPCC's fourth assessment report (AR4) and are currently being compiled and edited into their final form.

The final reports from AR3 (Climate Change 2001) are available here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm

I just had a quick glance through WGI and WGIII summaries and what I saw wasn't very convincing, I have to say. The time span they looked at in WGI is very small compared to the time span of records which are available. And in WGIII - Of course there would be more carbon in the atmosphere from the industrial age but there's still no conclusive evidence that this is what's causing global warming.

Also, when I opened WGI full report I immediatley was disappointed to see the heading - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I realise now that that's what IPCC stands for but didn't hear of this before.

After looking through these I decided to look for some graphs of Earths temperatures and carbon dioxide levels over a larger time span. Wiki is where I started and these are some graphs I found -
*Today is on the left*









Ok, I am obviously no scientist and I have no qualifications in this field but it is clear to me, from some of these graphs, that the Earths temperature has been higher and glacial ice volumes have been lower than they are today. Obviously the carbon level is higher because of the industrial age but the temperatures and glacial ice volumes don't seem, to me anyway, much different compared to previous times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Ok, I am obviously no scientist and I have no qualifications in this field but it is clear to me, from some of these graphs, that the Earths temperature has been higher and glacial ice volumes have been lower than they are today. Obviously the carbon level is higher because of the industrial age but the temperatures and glacial ice volumes don't seem, to me anyway, much different compared to previous times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

I think there is no scientist working on global warming ever doubt that the temperature in earth history was hotter then today or there was more CO2 in the atmosphere. It certainly was.

Speaking about Global Warming we have to ask ourselves where exactly lays the problem?

The degree of temperature change we experience at the moment is NOT natural (speaking we have no extraordinary events for example, big volcano eruptions, meteroitic impact...) and can hardly be found in earth history without those extraordinary events.

Whats the problem and the result if we get higher temperature?

Just some of a long list of examples:
Rise of the ocean
less glacier
higher temperature
more extreme weather phenomens
desertification

In countries which are affected by those things you will probably have high migration (in humans history always led to wars, cultural, racist conflicts) or the agricultural sector will have big problems and more and more people will not have something to eat at the end of the day.
Finally those effects that will cost us more if we dont do anything to slow down the degree of global warming.

Not speaking about the effect on all the plants and animals. Dieseases, political problems, detailed economic problems. Water problems....

For detailed analyses my writing knowledge of english language is not good enough.

But the main thing is not of we have global warming (everyone can see it at the glaciers in the alps) or not. The question is what will be the effects if we get a high temperature change over a short period. People should just start learning out of humans history.

Quote from Nobo :

The degree of temperature change we experience at the moment is NOT natural (speaking we have no extraordinary events for example, big volcano eruptions, meteroitic impact...) and can hardly be found in earth history without those extraordinary events.

But do these graphs not show a cycle of natural events in our Earths atmosphere? Obviously caused by something other than humans.

Quote from Nobo :

Whats the problem and the result if we get higher temperature?

Just some of a long list of examples:
Rise of the ocean
less glacier
higher temperature
more extreme weather phenomens
desertification

I agree that these are effects of global warming but judging by these graphs it is not entirely caused by humans, which we are led to believe. We are just at the peak of one of these cycles.

Quote from Nobo :

In countries which are affected by those things you will probably have high migration (in humans history always led to wars, cultural, racist conflicts) or the agricultural sector will have big problems and more and more people will not have something to eat at the end of the day.
Finally those effects that will cost us more if we dont do anything to slow down the degree of global warming.

We will have all of these events happen in the countries which are effected by global warming but I doubt that anything humans do will stop or even slow down the effects of global warming.

Quote from Nobo :

But the main thing is not of we have global warming (everyone can see it at the glaciers in the alps) or not. The question is what will be the effects if we get a high temperature change over a short period. People should just start learning out of humans history.

I agree, people should start to learn about the history and not just take what the major media puts out as truth...

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

I agree, people should start to learn about the history and not just take what the major media puts out as truth...

The big businesses (cars, oil, etc.) have to protect their interests. In order to do so they are denying the human impact on global warming, and are using the media to get their message across. (Similar to how the tobacco industry kept denying the links to lung disease despite over-whelming evidence).
So, the media is covering both sides of the story.

Most respectable scientists will admit that the effect humans are having on the environment is an unknown quantity. However, we are having an effect. With the future of the entire planet at stake, surely it makes sense to do something to reduce that impact? Otherwise it's one hell of an experiment we're undertaking, and gambling on our very existence!

The Earth's ecosystem is delicately balanced, and how anyone can deny that the removal of one acre of rainforest per second won't have a detrimental effect is beyond me. And that's only one of the things we are doing to upset the balance.

Meteorologists, with an awful lot of computing power at their disposal, have difficulty predicting tomorrow's weather. What chance do we have of predicting the outcome of our input to the environment? With that in mind, surely it is the utmost folly to just take an attitude of 'sit back and hope everything turns out ok'?