Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Years ago"? It originally aired on BBC in March, 2007... For it to have become "a laughingstock years ago in Britain", the Brits would have had about three weeks to reach that conclusion. That one statement of yours tells me that you're willing to completely ignore the facts and do whatever lying it will take to shout down your opponent in a discussion. Should I just put you on ignore now, or are you interested in any form of genuine debate?
Anyway, I've read the Wikipedia page on the film, which gleefully outlines all the criticisms against the film, and frankly, I would have expected a LOT more than what's been levied against it. It's going against the most politically correct issue of our lifetime, and they really found very little in this 73 minute film to complain about.
Have fun in your bubble, my friend. Try not to be too surprised when someone comes by with a pin, though.
To be honest, there are some "mistakes" in the film, but like any good political machine, the AGW crowd focused directly on those mistakes, ignored everything else and then pretended that everything was debunked. All while using officially debunked data and methods to support their position that it was wrong. It really is amazing how Mann's work keeps poping up in the models. You would think that guy would give up and pick something more suitable to his work habits. Maybe a career in politics or the media would be better suited to his style? Oh wait... Thats all he pretty much does anyway. *chuckle*
The BBC's air on this issue was nothing short of a scene from 1984 where they program garbage for the idiots to lap up. It is too bad to be honest. There are a lot of honest climate science researchers out there that do solid work, but they are drowned out by those who are either devious or too dense to realize they are letting their bias drive their research. Either way, they have made climate science a joke to the the other hard sciences.
Following the money leads me to Hannity et al looking for ratings, hence better contracts for themselves.
Following the money for scientists - well, they present their findings and are judged by a peer review. In science, it is ok to dissent - you get money for that too - provided you can back it up. In fact, one would think the industries against global warming would be happy to fund studies that support them.
In science, money comes to you for a study. For Hannity et al, it comes to you via better ratings.
"The only problem is -- Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION and some change for skeptics – Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION - see below )"
"Years ago"? It originally aired on BBC in March, 2007... For it to have become "a laughingstock years ago in Britain", the Brits would have had about three weeks to reach that conclusion. That one statement of yours tells me that you're willing to completely ignore the facts and do whatever lying it will take to shout down your opponent in a discussion. Should I just put you on ignore now, or are you interested in any form of genuine debate?
Anyway, I've read the Wikipedia page on the film, which gleefully outlines all the criticisms against the film, and frankly, I would have expected a LOT more than what's been levied against it. It's going against the most politically correct issue of our lifetime, and they really found very little in this 73 minute film to complain about.
Have fun in your bubble, my friend. Try not to be too surprised when someone comes by with a pin, though.
As I said, "years ago" (this is 2009). I believe they made it in 2006, or started to.
"The only problem is -- Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION and some change for skeptics – Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION - see below )"
I heard of nothing in the spending package for those who don't drink the global warming kool aid, and I expect the budget will be the same.
... and that is fair and good use of resources. Funding should go towards real (proven) issues. If Inhofe - not a progressive as I can recall from my days in Tulsa - does not like the scientific findings, so be it.
To be honest, there are some "mistakes" in the film, but like any good political machine, the AGW crowd focused directly on those mistakes, ignored everything else and then pretended that everything was debunked. All while using officially debunked data and methods to support their position that it was wrong. It really is amazing how Mann's work keeps poping up in the models. You would think that guy would give up and pick something more suitable to his work habits. Maybe a career in politics or the media would be better suited to his style? Oh wait... Thats all he pretty much does anyway. *chuckle*
The BBC's air on this issue was nothing short of a scene from 1984 where they program garbage for the idiots to lap up. It is too bad to be honest. There are a lot of honest climate science researchers out there that do solid work, but they are drowned out by those who are either devious or too dense to realize they are letting their bias drive their research. Either way, they have made climate science a joke to the the other hard sciences.
Probably the most thoroughly debunked and discredited pack of propagandist rubbish of all the propagandist rubbish the Neocons crave and savor. This film became a laughingstock years ago in Britain, long before it was released in the USA and became a laughingstock here. I've posted countless times on here with things like the scientists that are cited in the film saying their work is being lied about and they never said anything so incredibly stupid. No I'm not going to dig up the links and post them again just because some monkey wants to see me do it. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
hardly the laughing stock. i was well on board with the whole global warming movement until i saw it. the thing is that the movie has only been debunked by pr, strawman arguments and wikipedia. i hardly consider that a scientific debunking.
in addition, there are still factors which we are not aware of taking place in our atmosphere so it would be hard to take any computer modelling seriously. when the weatherman can more accurately predict tomorrow's weather, perhaps i might start listening!
for me the most damning evidence is that nothing drastic is going on with our climate. the last 2 winters in london were colder than most and the summers were dissappointing to say the least!
probably the scariest thing to me is that fatchance and his ilk in govt are ONLY prepared to consider govt mandates, regulations, taxation and carbon capping as the solution to the perceived problem!
Where can we find some Global warming we need some here in New Hampshire.
Carrie
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Read this:
