Climate Change Still Denied?

http://www.hipforums.com/forum/gallery/image/151437-1796590-484921531612932-1428637772-n/

 

Bilby

Wow LOL well you clearly don’t like Monbiot

Oh I watched it and its clear Pilmer was evading and dodging.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs

 

Balbus, did you ever see that episode of Yes Prime Minister where Sir Humphrey says,
"Newspapers pander to readers' prejudices."
George Moonbat is a regurgitater of dogma and much of what he writes is just speculation. He is clearly treated with some derision on the left of politics, so I think it would fair to say he has put a foot wrong. The fact he was so outraged by the Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth only helped to boost sales. Similarly, he was outraged by the TV doco Global Warming Swindle and it was the highest rating program on ABC TV for that year.

 

highest rated by families that are specifically chosen, because nobody asked me my thoughts about it. Such stats may help when selling beer, but seriously.....LOL

 

I am not sure what the point you are trying to make. Are saying stats are meaningless?

 

Bilby

Are you honestly saying books or films or opinions shouldn’t be criticised because then people might read, watch or look into them?

Can you supply the information on the ABC TV ratings?

To be honest I’ve never seen The Great Global Warming Swindle but then I’ve not seen An Inconvenient Truth either.

 

Of course people should be allowed to criticise films and books. Remember what Voltaire said during a public book burning in the French Revolution. The point I was making was that George Moonbat's denouncement of Heaven and Earth only served to push up the sales of the book and the ratings of Global Warming Swindle. He is just an irrelevant nobody. I occasionally look in his column in The Guardian to find out what his latest misapprehensions are. I also do the same for Jane Brody in The New York Times. Unlike George Moonbat she is an accomplished wordsmith but equally clueless. For this reason she is dangerous.
Have you looked at any of the work of John Pildger or Beatrix Campbell?
The ratings is what I heard on the news. It is not something I take a great deal of notice of.

 

Bilby

Can you supply the evidence for this?

You don’t know, it’s just something you think you once heard on the ‘news’.

*

I’m sorry but I’m a bit of a loose as to your point?

 

yes, the ones you cited

"Nielsen television ratings are gathered in one of two ways:

1. Viewer "diaries", in which a target audience self-records its viewing or listening habits. By targeting various demographics, the assembled statistical models provide a rendering of the audiences of any given show, network, and programming hour.
2. A more technologically sophisticated system uses Set Meters, which are small devices connected to televisions in selected homes. These devices gather the viewing habits of the home and transmit the information nightly to Nielsen through a "Home Unit" connected to a phone line. The technology-based home unit system is meant to allow market researchers to study television viewing habits on a minute to minute basis, seeing the exact moment viewers change channels or turn off their TV. In addition to set meters, individual viewer reporting devices, such as people meters, have allowed the company to separate household viewing information into various demographic groups, but so far Nielsen has refused to change its distribution of data of ethnic groups into subgroups[clarification needed], which could give more targeted information to networks and advertisers."

The problem is you are trying to use a very small group and extrapolate it out as people who think global warming is a hoax.

Those rating systems were designed to sell shit, not gather stats on how well received a scientific theory is.
seriously, how lame to even try to make the connection.
Plus did you ever consider that maybe the majority of people who watched wanted to laugh at how asinine the theories presented are.
Just because someone watches a show does not give you any indication whatsoever what their views are.

 

Just my perceptions. News is often mus-reported even on the ABC.

 

There maybe some people who want to laugh at what they perceive to be asinine theories. The ABC is the public broadcaster so there is no commercial imperative to sell advertising , at least not to date. Channel 4 in the UK is actually a commercial broadcaster but its brief is to cater to minority audiences. Ironically it is run more like a public broadcaster than BBC1 is these days.

Ever heard of the Bandwagon fallacy? It is my understanding that there is a decrease in the number of people who believe in anthropogenic global warming at least in Australia. I would not take any one scientific study as gospel. Look at Ancel Keys' 6 Counties Study. If the science of global warming is so sound, why are there so many anomalies and intellectual dishonesty associated with it?
What about historical evidence of grapes and citrus trees being grown in England when it was part of the Roman Empire? Historical records show Roman soldiers with bare arms and legs. The weather in the UK is far too cold these days for such a uniform.

 

Have a look at this link of a broadcast radio program.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/climate2c-science-and-denial/4163970

Note there are supposed to be 26 comments but I can only count 17. Some of my comments and associated discussion comments were censored.

 

Comment sections are frequently moderated, the deleted comments could have been removed not for content but for foul language... your post doesn't prove anything.

 

*please bring back the "rolleyes" smilie*

If that is what you consider serious evidence in light of the enormous scientific, historical and geological evidence that spans eons, not centuries, then there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise.
you either lack the intelligence and discernment to understand the evidence, or willingly choose ignorance.



roman soldiers had bare arms.........*sigh*......just fucking shoot me now.

 

I am more interested in science than I am in dogma. Michael Mann with his hockey stick graph would have us believe that the planet only started to heat up in the 20th Century. When it was first produced, some people pointed out that it was not consistent with the Little Ice Age, so he had to amend it.
Show me historical and geological evidence that spans eons.

 

Bilby

You made an unequivocal statement then you admit that you don’t have any evidence for that statement that is just your perception – in other words because you think something is true it therefore is true to you.

Don’t you see the flaw in your methodology that would seem to undermine your whole world view?

LOL – go read the Vindolanda letters the actual correspondence of Roman legionaries stationed in the UK asking for and receiving warm clothing – such as “subuclae" – or vests - and "abollae", thick heavy cloaks as well as soaks and underpants.

Thing is that past fluctuations in the earth’s weather has been taken into account in the calculations of present climate change.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Sorry but you sound like a creationist talking about evolution, because I’ve heard the same argument from them.

They jump on what they see as gaps or inconsistencies and shout very loudly that these ‘prove’ the whole theory is wrong.

Like your thing about Roman soldiers, [1] its wrong and [2] the thing it supposedly ‘proves’ [past fluctuations in weather] has already been taken account of.

 

This can not even be that remotely true. Maybe you mean Hydrocarbons. They couldnt be CFC's because none are used as propellant, and CFC are highly restricted for the use in Air conditioning and there are only 4 commercial gases out there. 3 of them under lock and key. The other is being phased out.
You may have some HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon, but these have less an impact on the atmosphere than CFC.. Their molecular structure is different. As is their lifetime in the atmosphere. They are classified as
ODP, ozone depleting potential
GWP, global warming potential

CFC/ chlorofluorocarbon are usually the highest ODP
HCFC/ hydrochlorofluorocarbon the 2nd highest ODP
PFC perfluorocarbons/ almost no ODP but higher GWP
HFC hydrofluorocarbon/ same as PFC.

 

I could go on for donkey's quoting facts as it was my degree to which I just completed, however what’s the point only foolish people think it’s not real and choose to believe the men making money from it at our expense. The increase in sea levels and increase in strength and frequency of severe extreme weather such as the recent Philippines and floods in the U.K is the icing on this foul tasting cake. Im sure many of you have mentioned the basic facts of climate change throughout this and I don't care to look I see the odd post on this subject and it’s been to death on forums and news articles or foolish comments on facebook. Its really is happening and we are the cause get over it, it’s no longer the debate it once was. And starting a thread with the title "Climate Change Still Denied?" makes out that is a big debate and a consensus far from it the majority of the world is of consensus its real backed by the public and science. You may want to look up a study called the Six Americas study carried out by Yale, they found out the closer climate change became to affecting their lives the more they would claim it won't affect them personally. In essence it’s like an ostrich effect as an odd way to somehow psychologically protect yourself from it via positive reinforcement of what back up your own belief.

 

I have just come across this article on FB.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-the-sun-has-controlled-climate-over-the-past-11-000-years-not-co2.html