Plato would like to thank BishopsHill for drawing her attention to this programme on BBC Radio 4.
"Edward Stourton tries to make sense of a decade in which history has been put on fast forward. There has been a revolution in the way we communicate, widespread alarm about the planet's very survival and a challenge to the world order. What does it mean for the way we live as we head into 2010?
Back in the year 2000, the world's leaders didn't seem to be troubled by the notion of global warming, so what has changed?"
It is certainly less 'settled science' than some of their other output since Climategate broke. Worth listening to.
Here's the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00pcd3z
If someone knows how to stick this on YouTube, she'd be delighted.
You must have heard a different programme from the one I ended up switching off. Stourton is clearly a committed warmist and his other programmes will no doubt be just as bland and uncritical. We can hope.. but I'm certainly NOT holding my breath for this to become Pravda's conversion to reality.
ReplyDeleteBBC4 has always been reasonable. They even allowed me on once, criticising Saint Nicholas. Problem is, no one listens to BBC4.
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming isn't a matter of opinion, kids. It's extremely complex science, and unless you've actually studied the field then your opinion has the same chance of accuracy as a coin flip and brings about as much value to the debate.
ReplyDeletePeople who have made it their life's work generally agree that AGW exists. There is an extremely clear consensus about this among people whose opinions matter, and when faced with a serious attack on the idea of AGW (for example, the documentary that argued it was due to sunspots) they were able to come up with a refutation that the documentary makers were unable to counter.
After that documentary was broadcast I also saw a lot of idiots making arguments along the lines of "no AGW is real so just shut up". That's a terrible argument even if you're in the right, and those people were fools who actually harmed their own side by giving the scientific consensus the appearance of a dogmatic orthodoxy.
The people who go on about 'warmists' and crow over the leaked emails or the antics of the former group of fools are also fools. They think that because a liar or an idiot says something it must be a lie. But if the consensus of scientists says that copper sulphate dissolves in water, and a million liars and a million fools concur and make terrible, dishonest arguments in support of it, this does not make copper sulphate insoluble. Leaked emails do not affect the accuracy of the scientific consensus, although they may cast doubt on certain individual members of it.
Liars and fools disprove nothing, they're simply noise, and if you use them as evidence - for either side - then you're listening to the noise and not the signal. You may as well be flipping a coin.
This anon gets everywhere, perhaps it's a trollbot run by Real Climate - the real liars and cheats in all this. There is a huge amount of real (not fraudulent like the CRU's) science which shows AGW for the utter sham it is. These pathetic eco-jesuits think that people will change their views by being abused and vilified. We won't get fooled again, you're on the run and scared which is why the only arguments you can use are personal attacks. Go away, it won't work, you're finished sonny.
ReplyDeleteThe temperature gauge in the car read -8C this morning on the way to work. AGW my arse.
ReplyDeleteAnon - You're like that other idiot BBC blogger who asked why climate sceptics are all male.
ReplyDeleteVan Helsing rightly put the boot in and may I point out that science -that is real science - is built on scepticism. Questioning, seeking justification for outcomes; repeated experimentation, arguing outcomes, posing hypothesis, having them shot down in flames, picking up the pieces and working on the remanents.
Some of the greatest scientist that ever lived were sceptics - Newton went against all prevailing and accepted thinking with his theories and it was the ability of his peers to replicate his data, reconstruct his experimentation that led to acceptance. Unlike pro AGM supporters.
Van Helsing - have we worked together, as I too have worked in climate science for over 20 years, but not in the UK.
And - oh yes, I am a female and a sceptic.
I hear it was -16C in some parts of the UK today. And as Uncle Bob puts it so neatly - AGW my arse. Tell that also to the 50% of the US covered by snow, with many winter records already broken. Oh yeah, and don't start spouting that "weather isn't climate" cock either trollbot/Anon. We're learning fast how to deal with you bullies and liars.
ReplyDeleteHey i am fresh to this, I hit upon this site I have found It absolutely accommodating and it's helped me out a lot. I hope to contribute & assist other users like it has helped me.
ReplyDeleteThank You, See Ya Later
Greetings im fresh on here. I hit upon this chat board I have found It exceedingly accommodating & it has helped me out alot. I should be able to give something back and help other people like its helped me.
ReplyDeleteThanks Everyone, See Ya Around.