If You Had A Twin, But Didn't Realise...
Family Life7 mins ago
Climate change programme on BBC4.
Did anyone watch the climate change programme that was on BBC4 on monday night and what did you think of it. I don't think it made many valid points either way. Sometimes it made out that sceptics were radicals but I don't think that was an agenda of the programme. All in all I don't think it was all that useful in the climate change debate and the end message was basically, look there are more people saying climate change is man made, than people who disagree that it is man made, therefore believe the majority. It neglected to mention any vested interests of the scientists promoting climate change theory.
What are your views on this issue? Did you see the programme and if so what did you think of it's message, if anything?
What are your views on this issue? Did you see the programme and if so what did you think of it's message, if anything?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jake though, I'm not claiming to know anything of climate change from ground level just what I've read so I won't really argue any points when I don't know the facts. Where I get my standpoint is more that I cannot believe that mankind can defeat nature and feel that nature will take care of itself.
My vested interest remark was in relation to the immense funding the climate change scientists receive to keep their results coming that way.
My vested interest remark was in relation to the immense funding the climate change scientists receive to keep their results coming that way.
What you are suggesting is that there is an international conspiracy between thousands of the worlds most qualified scientists to trick the world into wasting billions in order to keep them working on a particular project.
Moreover that they have been so sucessful in this that not one serious research institution has been able to sucessfully challenge them - which would raise their profile and guarantee them fame and fortune.
As conspiracy theories go that ranks with Elvis fixing the moon landings!
Not only that but you go with this whilst simultaneously saying that you know nothing about climate change!
Why do you think the Earth can heal itself? - is it a religious conviction?
The Earth was not doing a particularly good at healing itself when we were putting CFCs into the atmosphere and opening up a whopping great hole in the ozone layer!
That's only started to close since we took action.
If you wen't to a doctor with persistant headches and he said "I don't know much about brains but I feel sure you'll heal yourself"
What would you think?
Moreover that they have been so sucessful in this that not one serious research institution has been able to sucessfully challenge them - which would raise their profile and guarantee them fame and fortune.
As conspiracy theories go that ranks with Elvis fixing the moon landings!
Not only that but you go with this whilst simultaneously saying that you know nothing about climate change!
Why do you think the Earth can heal itself? - is it a religious conviction?
The Earth was not doing a particularly good at healing itself when we were putting CFCs into the atmosphere and opening up a whopping great hole in the ozone layer!
That's only started to close since we took action.
If you wen't to a doctor with persistant headches and he said "I don't know much about brains but I feel sure you'll heal yourself"
What would you think?
I must have been watching a different documentary to you Flob. In my view, in pretty conclusively exposed Monktons "scientific" interpretation of the data as being fatally f flawed. The charitable view of Monktons interpretation of the data is that he simply does not understand the science.
Nor did the documentary do any favours for the credibility of either Monkton or Delingpole.I cannot take either of them seriously having watched that performance. (especially Delingpoles, after the Horizon show a few nights before)Their disagreement with the concept of AGW has less to do with scientific facts and much more to their own, pretty extremist political agenda.
Whilst agreeing with you that Nature is very good at adapting, that is not really the argument. The argument is whether we can adapt to the natural conditions that Climate Change will bring. It beggars belief that anyone can think that humans do not affect the climate! 6 billion of us and counting, and all the infrastructure, manufacturing and agriculture that this involves? Of course we contribute, and in a significant fashion.
Nor did the documentary do any favours for the credibility of either Monkton or Delingpole.I cannot take either of them seriously having watched that performance. (especially Delingpoles, after the Horizon show a few nights before)Their disagreement with the concept of AGW has less to do with scientific facts and much more to their own, pretty extremist political agenda.
Whilst agreeing with you that Nature is very good at adapting, that is not really the argument. The argument is whether we can adapt to the natural conditions that Climate Change will bring. It beggars belief that anyone can think that humans do not affect the climate! 6 billion of us and counting, and all the infrastructure, manufacturing and agriculture that this involves? Of course we contribute, and in a significant fashion.
The BBC is pro-climate change, as Christopher Booker, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, points out...
http://www.telegraph....buse-the-science.html
http://www.telegraph....buse-the-science.html
As is the naitional science acadamies of:
Australia,
Belgium,
Brazil,
Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
the Caribbean,
China,
Institut de France,
Ghana,
Germany,
Indonesia,
Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
India,
Japan,
Kenya,
Madagascar,
Malaysia,
Mexico,
Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
the United States,
Zambia,
Zimbabwe.
As does:
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Meteorology and oceanography
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
Biology and life sciences
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Soci
Australia,
Belgium,
Brazil,
Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
the Caribbean,
China,
Institut de France,
Ghana,
Germany,
Indonesia,
Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
India,
Japan,
Kenya,
Madagascar,
Malaysia,
Mexico,
Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
the United States,
Zambia,
Zimbabwe.
As does:
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Meteorology and oceanography
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
Biology and life sciences
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Soci
Hmm too many for AB
But apparently there's no scientific consensus
Even though with the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming
But apparently there's no scientific consensus
Even though with the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming
Hi Jake,
Booker does not dismiss evolution. He objects to those who treat ‘The Origin of Species’ as gospel and won’t consider a re-think on the subject. Darwin’s ‘gradualism’ explanation of evolution through ‘survival of the fittest’ is faulty. Bats evolved from mice. Gradualism would say that some mice increased the skin area and the bone length on the forearms until they became wings. But if this were so the creatures in the middle stages of this evolution could neither fly, nor would they be able to use their forearms effectively. Hardly the ‘fittest’ of creatures for whatever ecological niche they might be trying to occupy. Darwin was well aware of this paradox, but chose to ignore it in his final thesis. Booker says we need to think outside the box.
Nor is it true to say he believes that asbestos does not cause cancer. He simply objects to the classing of white asbestos under the same heading as blue and brown asbestos. White asbestos isn't asbestos, it's Chrysotile, a manganese silicate having a similar makeup to talc. [Chrysotile = Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4 Talc = Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 ] As with any pollutant, it may have its dangers, but nothing like those caused by true asbestos. He is states that its removal under the strict regulations governing the safe handling of asbestos is way over the top and that the alarmingly high expense involved is un-necessary.
Booker does not dismiss evolution. He objects to those who treat ‘The Origin of Species’ as gospel and won’t consider a re-think on the subject. Darwin’s ‘gradualism’ explanation of evolution through ‘survival of the fittest’ is faulty. Bats evolved from mice. Gradualism would say that some mice increased the skin area and the bone length on the forearms until they became wings. But if this were so the creatures in the middle stages of this evolution could neither fly, nor would they be able to use their forearms effectively. Hardly the ‘fittest’ of creatures for whatever ecological niche they might be trying to occupy. Darwin was well aware of this paradox, but chose to ignore it in his final thesis. Booker says we need to think outside the box.
Nor is it true to say he believes that asbestos does not cause cancer. He simply objects to the classing of white asbestos under the same heading as blue and brown asbestos. White asbestos isn't asbestos, it's Chrysotile, a manganese silicate having a similar makeup to talc. [Chrysotile = Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4 Talc = Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 ] As with any pollutant, it may have its dangers, but nothing like those caused by true asbestos. He is states that its removal under the strict regulations governing the safe handling of asbestos is way over the top and that the alarmingly high expense involved is un-necessary.
"Gradualism would say that some mice increased the skin area and the bone length on the forearms until they became wings. But if this were so the creatures in the middle stages of this evolution could neither fly, nor would they be able to use their forearms effectively"
This just misunderstands the process of evolution, and is akin to the argument that a patch of light sensitive cells does not represent an evolutionary advantage over blind competitors. A mouse that had a half-stage wing would be able to glide, which might very well confer an evolutionary advantage.There is a complete canon of work which supports gradualism since Darwins work. It just betrays his lack of any scientific understanding. And to disparage something he doesn't understand whilst supporting such science lite constructs like Intelligent Design offers further proof of his profound scientific illiteracy.
Booker is an exemplar of a rhetorical polemicist. His views on white asbestos appear to be derived from a paper by Hodgson and Darnton - views that the authors themselves refuted, and the HSE have called "seriously misleading". His other source comes from a John Bridie, someone who has claimed variously to be the chief asbestos consultant for an asbestos centre in Lisbon, a consultant to the Vale of Glamorgan trading standards department, to have an honorary professorship from the Russian Academy of Sciences... oh, and "The worlds foremost authority on asbestos". None of these claims are true, although he has been successfully prosecuted for claiming a qualification he doesnt possess. Despite the dubiousness of the sources, Booker resolutely holds fast to his misunderstandings and rubbish sources.
The fact that Christopher Booker supports something should give any thoughtful person good reason to take the opposite view.
This just misunderstands the process of evolution, and is akin to the argument that a patch of light sensitive cells does not represent an evolutionary advantage over blind competitors. A mouse that had a half-stage wing would be able to glide, which might very well confer an evolutionary advantage.There is a complete canon of work which supports gradualism since Darwins work. It just betrays his lack of any scientific understanding. And to disparage something he doesn't understand whilst supporting such science lite constructs like Intelligent Design offers further proof of his profound scientific illiteracy.
Booker is an exemplar of a rhetorical polemicist. His views on white asbestos appear to be derived from a paper by Hodgson and Darnton - views that the authors themselves refuted, and the HSE have called "seriously misleading". His other source comes from a John Bridie, someone who has claimed variously to be the chief asbestos consultant for an asbestos centre in Lisbon, a consultant to the Vale of Glamorgan trading standards department, to have an honorary professorship from the Russian Academy of Sciences... oh, and "The worlds foremost authority on asbestos". None of these claims are true, although he has been successfully prosecuted for claiming a qualification he doesnt possess. Despite the dubiousness of the sources, Booker resolutely holds fast to his misunderstandings and rubbish sources.
The fact that Christopher Booker supports something should give any thoughtful person good reason to take the opposite view.
Hi Mr Flobby, dont know if this'll help but next time you open a discussion try an sound a little nuetral, it can make folk slip up sometimes when they cant tell which way you are leaning. But I guess you definately lean to the skeptic side. Myself, I decided to cut the crap, and read some stuff - you know get informed. What I got is that yes there have been climate changes before, but always lead by temperature with CO2 rises a result. Here and now climate change is being led by CO2 - with temp following. The CO2 required to mae this change coming from......you got it...all the fraking coal oil and whatever we been burning. Lets for one minute take you point of view and say hey, it aint us and we cant do nothing - so we try and fail - so what a few billion quid (oh and equaity, efficiency and better standards of life), but if you are wrong thats it we dead and we did nothing to sort it out. I would er toward lets make sure.....
Hi Flobadob,
The issue seems to have polarised into two opposing camps. One camp is convinced of climate change caused by human activity while the other says any changes seen are all part of the natural cycle of change and humans are having little effect. Both sides draw upon a wealth of data and different scientific studies to prove their points (almost like the old game of playing with numbers). I came to realise a while ago that you can't take on board too much of what both camps say as they both have valid arguments and you only end up getting confused.
I think it all boils down to your own thoughts on the subject. I think the climate must have been altered by human activity and we are responsible for this mass extinction taking place. However, the planet has survived far greater disasters than humans such as asteroid impact, volcanism and the plate tectonics that wiped out 96% of life 248 million years ago at the end of the Permian period.
The process of climate change has always happened on Earth and the planet will survive the human disaster. Life will recover over the next five to ten million years. Humans will be long gone but new species will evolve to fill the niches we have created today by extinction. The Earth will once again be healthy and abound with life.
That's just my personal view of course. Others will have their own.
The issue seems to have polarised into two opposing camps. One camp is convinced of climate change caused by human activity while the other says any changes seen are all part of the natural cycle of change and humans are having little effect. Both sides draw upon a wealth of data and different scientific studies to prove their points (almost like the old game of playing with numbers). I came to realise a while ago that you can't take on board too much of what both camps say as they both have valid arguments and you only end up getting confused.
I think it all boils down to your own thoughts on the subject. I think the climate must have been altered by human activity and we are responsible for this mass extinction taking place. However, the planet has survived far greater disasters than humans such as asteroid impact, volcanism and the plate tectonics that wiped out 96% of life 248 million years ago at the end of the Permian period.
The process of climate change has always happened on Earth and the planet will survive the human disaster. Life will recover over the next five to ten million years. Humans will be long gone but new species will evolve to fill the niches we have created today by extinction. The Earth will once again be healthy and abound with life.
That's just my personal view of course. Others will have their own.
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Body & Soul28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles35 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles36 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.