Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

The Great Global Warming Swindle: ABC 8:30pm Thursday, 12 Ju

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by pro-pilot, Jul 12, 2007.

  1. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200707/programs/ZY9076A001D12072007T203200.htm

    Have seen this program on Google video some time ago, and agree with comments made that it has some less than professional approaches in dealing with this topic.

    What is interesting is that they do ask some questions about the science behind the IPCC material, which are real gaps in their models and conclusions. Not easily separated from some of the political ranting though that gets put forward.

    Also funny to see that the ABC is immediately having a show after the program to counter it and suppress any further debate (will definitely have to watch that!).

    We will see how balanced an approach the ABC has post this program!!



    BTW I have a science background in earth sciences (including climate science), so interesting so look at the post program line up!
     
     Top
  2. Good to see they are showing this, even though apparently it is all rubbish (The "facts" in it)
     
     Top
  3. Yep, apparently much of the material presented as fact has been overturned some years ago. So the doco makers are claiming a controversy where none exists.

    They supposedly also do things like showing only the part of graphs that supports their case, rather than the entire graph. All sounds a bit dishonest really.
     
     Top
  4. I've long been of the opinion that "Climate Change" is the new "Terrorism" as far as media fear-mongering goes.

    Planet's getting hotter?
    Sure, it's done that a few times before... it's also gotten a lot colder a few times before.

    We've accelerated the process by which this happens?
    Not by much... certainly none of us individually.

    We need to take drastic measures to put a stop to it?
    No, f*&% off. Fund industry modernisation in poorer countries, provide grants or at least tax-breaks for R&D in efficiency advancements, and introduce savage jail-time for arsonists and commercial polluters before you try and make me feel too guilty to tell you to stick 'Carbon Credits/Tax' right up your ingorant, vote-grabbing arse.
     
     Top
  5. :applause: :applause:
     
     Top
  6. Here is a link to the U.N. report 'proving' that human activity is causing global warming (its a very slow download pdf).

    I draw your attention to the summary table on page seven. In most categories the strongest statement made on human contribution is a weak "more likely than not". On what planet does this constitute 'proof' of sufficient substance to justify the kind of precipitous actions now being sold as critical to our survival? This report represents the only substantive scientific consensus on the subject, and that consensus is very far from unequivocal.

    Carbon Trading is an entirely new global industry, with all that entails for both private enterprise and tax revenues for governments, forgive me if I am more than a little cynical.

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf
     
     Top
  7. Thanks Woodsy, but I fear my miss-spelling if the word "ignorant" has severely reduced the credibility of my rant on this topic :p
     
     Top
  8. this may be the hottest it has been in 500 years, and could be the hottest in 1300 years? what happened 1300 years ago? how did it get so hot? what did the arctic regions do?

    so little certainty. so many stupid decisions being made.
    i agree with the idea that we shouldn't just be pumping junk into the atmosphere, but at least some solid understanding of what is going on should be required before wild proclamations of "seas rising 6 metres " are allowable
     
     Top
  9. THATS IT!!!

    This threads inspired me to throw a massive global rock concert for the world. I will swan about in my Lear Jet, country to country, signing some bands up to help raise awareness for this terrible plight. I will book all the Rolls Royces of the world to ship the spoilt bands to and from their 6 star hotels. We will commision a new nuclear power plant to run the fancy digital 55 670 000 million watt sound and light system. And I'll write off all this effort with some Carbon Credits.

    Oh hold on a minute. I've just been told it's already been done.

    Back to drinking a beer...
     
     Top
  10. We are a cynical lot aren't we. :LOL:

    I suspect it's because governments bullshit motorcyclists so much that we become so cynical but I remain sceptical - I can see good reasons for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels (they will eventually run out after all) and emissions in general are not particularly good. Ktulu makes some very good points but I'm still sceptical about this documentary as well - I can see as many vested interests lining up on one side as the other.
     
     Top
  11. Never Tony. By the way, I have scheduled you to open at Wembley stadium, so I would put new strings on that acoustic guitar of yours. Your being followed up by Rage Against The Machine or RATM to their friends.

    Good Luck and rock on Brother!!
     
     Top
  12. What the hell is "Carbon Trading" anyway?

    bottle or your carbon waste and find a buyer??? i think not :roll:

    or is it just some fancy marketing term meant to say "Pay more tax to make you feel better about all the pollution you're making?"
     
     Top
  13. From the Wikipedia definition (which is as good as any)

    A central authority (usually a government agency) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups that emit the pollutant are given credits or allowances which represent the right to emit a specific amount.

    The total amount of credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that pollute beyond their allowances must buy credits from those who pollute less than their allowances or face heavy penalties. This transfer is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is being fined for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions. Thus companies that can easily reduce emissions will do so and those for which it is harder will buy credits which reduces greenhouse gasses at the lowest possible cost to society.
     
     Top
  14. Are you saying this ABC tv station is more credible than the UN?

    Thanks for letting me know that. I'll upgdade to a fuel-guzzling 2000cc motorcycle now.
     
     Top

  15. So either fined for too much or get a bonus for less? yup sounds liike marketing hype.

    Next they'll have carbon Share prices to work out who owns it and who gets the money from this"trading". :LOL:
     
     Top
  16. Problem with carbon trading at the moment though is that a lot of the carbon credits being sold don't actually represent things that currently exist. Been a bit of controversy lately with companies supposedly offsetting peoples car emissions for example either not having actually planted any trees yet, planting them so close together that more than half die within a few years, or selling them for timber long before they've had time to "absorb" the carbon they're supposed to be offsetting.
    It also overlooks the fact that the vast majority of carbon is actually absorbed into the oceans - and there's very little regulation/enforcement on the sort of crap people can dump into that whenever they feel like it (or what people can take out of it).
     
     Top
  17. Zimbabwe was recently elected to lead the UN's Commission on Sustainable Economic Development which is the UN's main environment body. Now this a country that has destroyed a once-thriving farming industry, has a failing economy, an appalling human rights record and a poor record of looking after its wildlife and national parks. And yet as pathetic as it sounds, the UN managed to elect Zimbabwe to fill this position, credible?

    I won't/can't comment on the ABC, but read the U.N. report and tell me just how credible the hype surrounding that U.N. report is then, I linked it a few posts above.
     
     Top
  18. Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle: ABC 8:30pm Thursday, 1

    good on 'em i say. they've copped a lot of flack for showing it at all.

    personally i've got bugger all capacity to know whether global warming is our fault or not, but frankly it appeals to me to live as sustainably as possible anyway. i think i'm just stingy - i'm just not a bit fan of wasting anything, including resources.
     
     Top
  19. From 'Science Magazine' July 2007;

    "...a group of mainstream atmospheric scientists is disputing a rising icon of global warming, and researchers are giving some ground." ...

    "Robert Charlson of the University of Washington, Seattle, (is) one of three authors of a commentary published online last week in Nature Reports: Climate Change. ... he and his co-authors argue that the simulation by 14 different climate models of the warming in the 20th century is not the reassuring success IPCC claims it to be."

    (IPCC is the supposed UN international scientific consensus document on global warming I linked to above. :Incitatus).


    "... In the run-up to the IPCC climate science report released last February ... 14 groups ran their models under 20th-century conditions of rising greenhouse gases. ... But the group of three atmospheric scientists ... says the close match between models and the actual warming is deceptive. The match "conveys a lot more confidence [in the models] than can be supported in actuality," says Schwartz. [....]

    "Greenhouse gas changes are well known, they note, but not so the counteracting cooling of pollutant hazes, called aerosols. Aerosols cool the planet by reflecting away sunlight and increasing the reflectivity of clouds. Somehow, the three researchers say, modelers failed to draw on all the uncertainty inherent in aerosols so that the 20th-century simulations look more certain than they should."

    What? "Somehow" they missed the biggest unknown factor in climate prediction? and even then could only come up with, "more likely than not". Jesus, people are so bloody gullible it makes my head ache.
     
     Top
  20. (best homer voice) Mmmm Global warming Mmmmmmm.

    Does that mean i should hold of buying the heated vest??? Bring it on i say, Victorias way too bloody cold in the winter :p
     
     Top