pyko wrote:Though i'll grant you some think the BBC have a pro-climate change agenda.
Well, actually...
BBC gives too much weight to fringe views on issues such as climate change
A review of the BBC's science coverage has concluded that its drive for impartiality lends too much credence to maverick views on MMR, climate change and GM
In addition, they also pulled the climate episode of Frozen Planet in the USA, which I think you originally pointed-out. Climate deniers will say anyone who has a rational, balanced view on the issues is "bias", and failing that, that it's all some kind of international mega-plot by "the socialists and greens".
For my 2c, it's much simpler and less crazy to simply accept that mainstream science - which is not dissented upon by a single reputed scientific institution on the planet - is probably right.
pyko wrote:Hi Boris,
You'll have heard Will sighing...
For good reason, we've been here before, (read from the beginning of this thread).
And anyone with a keyboard can find contrary evidence to this argument.
That's why my point was about a reasonably credible source being censored.
Any peer reviewed, intelligent info, for or against is what we've been looking at since.
Though i'll grant you some think the BBC have a pro-climate change agenda.
They've just never been able to explain why...
So, that your best shot? An ex science editor with a blog & no peer reviews?
Hi Pyko,
I'm not sure why I posted on this thread.... :glare: I've got plenty of urgent stuff to do without this shit...
Ok, I'm not into "best shots" much and I think it's silly to discount things out of hand that are not "peer reviewed". Can you concede that good understanding and criticism can be posted to blogs or webpages that aren't peer reviewed? Or have peer reviewed papers got a monopoly on valid thinking?!
I recall Nigel Calder was involved in lectures at CERN in 1996 regarding Svensmark's solar activity & cosmic ray influence on cloud seeding so I wouldn't discount Calder as an old hasbeen hack! He obviously knows his stuff.
Anyway, I recokon Calder has a good point regarding falsifying AGW hypothesis.
I grant you the GISP2 record is not a global record. However, although not exactly the same as the Antarctic cores there are some overlapping periods where there is some correlation indicating that warming was going on in both poles at similar times. The variations are smaller in Antarctica compared to Greenland since Antarctica is usually colder but to say GISP2 ice cores have no indicative value is a bit rich. http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/Bender.html
Just a side note; aren't ice core co2 values used to indicate global co2 levels?
If someone is not convinced of the science of global warming by now, they're never, ever going to be. We're at a stage where there's not a single reputable scientific organisation on the face of the planet that dissents on the science. Not one.
That includes The IPCC, NASA, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy and every Academy of Sciences for every major nation on earth (including the Austrailan, U.S. and British science academies)... just to name a few. In a recent study of the scientific consensus vs. the portrayal of doubt in the media (Doran, 2009) it was found that amongst publishing atmospheric scientists, over 97% agreed that man-made pollution was unnaturally warming the planet. Out of the past twelve years, eleven have been the warmest in recorded human history. There is undisputed photographic evidence of the ice sheets melting over the poles.
As far as the claim that "the scientists" (pretty much all of them, apparently) are lying to everyone in order to "make money", that's beyond ridiculous. That's not how science works. This conspiracy theory would have us believe that far from the multi-national, multi-trillion-dollar fossil-fuel industry, that run the global oil and coal supplies, having an unscrupulous money-grabbing agenda, it's actually the world's environmentalists and atmospheric scientists, who have apparently all, at the same time, decided to completely abandon all honesty and scientific integrity in order to make a mad grab at the alleged riches to be made in environmental protection (jackpot!). It's only those honest scientists, currently funded by big-oil companies, like Fred Seitz and Richard Lindzen (both of who also worked for Big Tobacco, arguing that smoking is not bad for your health) that are telling us the truth: It's all a huge Communist hoax.
With all due respect to those who have been duped by that line of reasoning, that is the stupidest and most unthinking thing I've ever heard. I'm sticking with NASA on this one.
