Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Climate Wars BBC2

Options
  • 08-09-2008 4:05pm
    #1
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭


    Anyone catch this last night? Parts 2 and 3 follow on Sundays, Dr Ian Stewart who is best know for leaping about the place looking at rocks gives his own interpretation of the climate change debate since the 70s. In part one he looked at how various conclusions (right and wrong) were arrived at, a notable lack of finger wagging was appricated by this viewer.

    Mike.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    troutbum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭troutbum


    Mike,

    Yes, I thought it was a very balanced & open analysis of the history of climate change science. Certainly better than the efforts of other TV channels in the past!

    Paul


  • Options
    #3
    ulysses1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭ulysses1


    I disagree wholeheartedly.

    While the progam is visiually well concocted and Dr. Stewart is a likeable sort of guy, the slant and direction of the program is plain as day.

    Two examples struck me: Why show a graph of Greenland mean temperature of the last 50k years when quite distinctly, he talks of records dating back 100k years. Why show the now infamous hockey-stick CO2 graph and not comment on the levels of CO2 that pre-dated this?

    Channel 4's Global Warming Swindle was the other side of the coin. I wish we could have a middle-ground on this debate without preconceived influence and biass.


  • Options
    #4
    troutbum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭troutbum


    I still believe that what was presented gave the essential elements of the debate from both sides and whilst proponents of one view or another may be able to point to elements of the program and suspect a particular bias it certainly didn't make flagrant editing cuts or misrepresent the views of those concerned. Neither did it attempt to use discredited misinformation and pseudo-science to prefer one argument over another.

    The points that you raised won't be valid until after parts 2 and 3 have been seen to discover whether the program returns to the CO2 record and the hockey-stick graph. They then only become relevant if you believe that they have some significant influence on the overall conclusions to be drawn from the series.


  • Options
    #5
    barnicles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭barnicles


    Is it repeated?


  • Options
    #6
    troutbum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭troutbum


    Yes, on BBC2 on Sunday 14th at 16:45 to 17:45 and then Episode 2 is screened on BBC2 later that evening at 21:00.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    barnicles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭barnicles


    What about this weeks?


  • Options
    #8
    troutbum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭troutbum


    Episode 2 not repeated as far as I can see but Episode 1 is rescreened 01:30 - 02:30 on BBC1 on 27th September and Episode 3 is shown for the first time on BBC2 at 21:00 to 22:00 on 21st September.


  • Options
    #9
    barnicles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭barnicles


    Ta i missed ep1 due to power cut


  • Options
    #10
    20goto10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    Now the series is finished its clear to see that his balanced view was simply a history lesson in the climate change debate. He did it in a respectful way but in the end he was calling the doubters wrong. I particularly liked in ep2 when he showed the Global Warming Swindle graph which stops in 1980. Continue it on and CO2 goes off the graph exponentially. Ep3 was very startling showing evidence in the ice cores that the climate can change within a lifetime :eek: Technology must be the way out. Waiting for the politicians to sort it out is a waste of time imo.


  • Options
    #11
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    20goto10 wrote: »
    Technology must be the way out. Waiting for the politicians to sort it out is a waste of time imo.
    Or, we could, you know, take responsibility for our own actions?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Pff djpbarry - that's crazy talk


  • Options
    #13
    20goto10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Or, we could, you know, take responsibility for our own actions?
    I'm pro green and all for it. but at the end of the day I have to drive to work...and work on a computer....and heat my home with gas...and get my electricity from a coal burner...etc etc etc Its hard. I could get a new job planting trees or something I suppose. I think the way forward is technology. Hydrogen fuel powered by renewable means. LUAS trams EVERYWHERE. Nuclear power plants. That sort of thing.


  • Options
    #14
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    20goto10 wrote: »
    I'm pro green and all for it. but at the end of the day I have to drive to work...and work on a computer....and heat my home with gas...and get my electricity from a coal burner...etc etc etc Its hard.
    You don’t HAVE to do any of those things – that is the lifestyle you have chosen. We, as a society, are responsible for the choices that we make. It’s all too easy to blame the government for not doing this, that and the other, but who elects the government?
    20goto10 wrote: »
    I think the way forward is technology.
    In other words, we don’t have to change the way we live, we’ll just wait for technology to come along and sort out all our problems for us, thus absolving us of all responsibility.
    20goto10 wrote: »
    Nuclear power plants.
    I’m not going to drag this thread off-topic, but suffice to say that nuclear power is not the way forward; uranium is a finite resource, remember? And unless you’re using high-grade ore (of which there is not nearly enough to meet a global demand for an extended period of time), it is extremely energy-intensive to refine.


  • Options
    #15
    20goto10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You don’t HAVE to do any of those things – that is the lifestyle you have chosen. We, as a society, are responsible for the choices that we make. It’s all too easy to blame the government for not doing this, that and the other, but who elects the government?
    In other words, we don’t have to change the way we live, we’ll just wait for technology to come along and sort out all our problems for us, thus absolving us of all responsibility.
    I’m not going to drag this thread off-topic, but suffice to say that nuclear power is not the way forward; uranium is a finite resource, remember? And unless you’re using high-grade ore (of which there is not nearly enough to meet a global demand for an extended period of time), it is extremely energy-intensive to refine.
    I agree on the nuclear power plant....didn't think that one through. I should have said renewable energy - wind, wave and solar.

    I know I don't have to do those things but what is the alternative? We can do our best to encourage companies to develop green technologies by buying into them in their primative stages. An uptake of hybrid cars has lead to investing in greener technologies for example. Same with solar panels which even after 20 years or so on the market is still a very primative and unaffective technology....which is to change if what I have read is correct.


Advertisement