Time for a smarter approach to global warming

Turtwig

Well to be fair Gore had only four errors that I can recall. Whereas Durkin has had at least 5 film versions that I know of to fix at least...one..two..three...four...five...six...seven...eight..nine...
(I think there was even more errors than that)

Everytime I think of Durkin's film I want to bang him on the head with a stick. Gore on the other hand; his toe will do.

Mahatma coat

So if Durkin gets something wrong its LIES
but if Gore gets Se\mething wrong its ERRORS

even tho his entire argument was built on one of these 'Errors'

and what parts of Durkins GGWS Docco can you prove to be wrong, and not just Wrong according to your worldview or the Wrong type of thought, or Wrong minded, or whatever other adjective you give it to validate your point???
Factual Error, like the Glaring FACTUAL ERRORS in Gores piece

Turtwig

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So if Durkin gets something wrong its LIES
but if Gore gets Se\mething wrong its ERRORS

Well, I didn't say that at all. If you want to say it by all means do, but please don't say I'm saying it.

and what parts of Durkins GGWS Docco can you prove to be wrong

Quite alot of it, but as science is ever changing, I think discussion of such an outdated film is unnecessary.

not just Wrong according to your worldview

My view on reality so far though is utterly depressing. I'm not sure if that constitutes my worldview?

or the Wrong type of thought, or Wrong minded, or whatever other adjective you give it to validate your point???
Factual Error, like the Glaring FACTUAL ERRORS in Gores piece

Do you really want to go down this road, if so present what you regard as fact in the film. I still think it's unnecessary.

Note : Only interested in the science, you can discuss the politics with someone else.

Mahatma coat

Well then nah, if you want to 'Cherrypick Data' to suit yer argument and deny the relevance of anything that dosent then I can already see that there is no point

censuspro

probe wrote: »

"According to Oxfam, if rich nations diverted $50 billion to climate change, at least 4.5 million children could die and 8.6 million fewer people could have access to HIV/AIDS treatment. And what would we get for that $50 billion? Well, spending that much on Kyoto-style carbon-emissions cuts would reduce temperatures by all of one-thousandth of one degree Fahrenheit over the next hundred years."

Wall Street Journal 16.12.2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704517504574589952331068322.html

It's not called Global Warming anymore, it's now called "Climate Change". Turns out there has been no global warming over the past 15 years and tempratures have actually dropped.

Mahatma coat

me wrote:

and what parts of Durkins GGWS Docco can you prove to be wrong

Malty_T wrote:

Quite alot of it, but as science is ever changing, I think discussion of such an outdated film is unnecessary.

Leavin the film aside for a sec,

Science is not Ever changing, the scientific method is what it is, the aplication of it is unchanging, THEORIES Change, new evidence presents constantly and thinking adjusts, but the application of the scientific method remains unchanged, sorta

gizmo555

censuspro wrote: »

It's not called Global Warming anymore, it's now called "Climate Change". Turns out there has been no global warming over the past 15 years and tempratures have actually dropped.

Yeah, this one always gets me. We are exhorted to "stop" climate change, as though the climate hasn't always been changing and always will change. There was a cover headline on the Economist in November or December last, "Stopping Climate Change" - it made as much sense as "Stopping Time".

Turtwig

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well then nah, if you want to 'Cherrypick Data' to suit yer argument and deny the relevance of anything that dosent then I can already see that there is no point

How am I "cherry picking", if I'm allowing you to pick the actual facts to discuss??

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Leavin the film aside for a sec,

Science is not Ever changing, the scientific method is what it is, the aplication of it is unchanging, THEORIES Change, new evidence presents constantly and thinking adjusts, but the application of the scientific method remains unchanged, sorta

You're right, the scientific method is more or less the same. Actual science however changes quite regularly.:)

Capt'n Midnight

If we stop INCREASING the amount of CO2 we pump into the air then of course the temperature isn't going to go down because the level of CO2 won't go down.



Yes it would be better if we spent the money on ways to alievate poverty and increase standard of living in the poorer countries, but that is not going to happen, half of the US + UK military budgets could have done that yonks ago.



There are several mechanisms that can cause the temperature to go up by several degrees , these we can't recover from in the short term and they have a knock on effect on each other. The rest of the Amazon forest become grassland like is already happening in the west. Release of methane hydrates form ocean floor. Release of methane from melting tundra.

Those would really upset things.


Or we could just do more research on climate , the basic necessity to make an area habitable is to have rainfall and not have too short a growing season because of cold.

Húrin

censuspro wrote: »

It's not called Global Warming anymore, it's now called "Climate Change". Turns out there has been no global warming over the past 15 years and tempratures have actually dropped.

This is not true. The last decade was the warmest on record. It is still called global warming in science. In the media, where most sceptics seem to think that the serious debate resides, it is widely referred to as climate change.

Húrin

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well then nah, if you want to 'Cherrypick Data' to suit yer argument and deny the relevance of anything that dosent then I can already see that there is no point

Like say, cutting off the end of a graph at 1980 like Durkin did?

djpbarry

Unfortunately, I don’t see this thread producing anything constructive (in the context of the OP).