Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should we give climate change any thought?
Yes
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
A bit
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
It's a joke
100%
 100%  [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 4

Author Message
BHundo





Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 56
Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5
Location: SW Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:50 pm    Post subject: A climate science video liberals and conservatives agree on Reply with quote

This video contains only things that are not discredited, it is in my opinion the most balanced piece of media outside of realclimate.org on the subject. It is slightly technical, but can be understood by the average person.

Part One - The scientific debate

Link


Part Two - The objections

Link


Part Three - Anatomy of a Myth

Link


Part Four - Gore vs Durkin

Link


Part Five - Isn't it natural?

Link
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
...the most balanced piece of media outside of realclimate.org on the subject.

You damn the videos with faint praise ... realclimate.org was revealed by the leaked CRU emails to be complicit in censoring skeptics and criticisms of the AGW theory of climate change, and working directly with the CRU scientists to present their highly politicized spin on the issue.

I'll look at the videos later, though.
BHundo





Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 56
Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5
Location: SW Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
realclimate.org was revealed by the leaked CRU emails to be complicit in censoring skeptics and criticisms of the AGW theory of climate change


I heard about the email scandal, and read a bit. I know that some of the emails involve some people at realclimate, but I didn't get the impression that they were part of the censoring etc. Where did you read this?
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BHundo wrote:
I heard about the email scandal, and read a bit. I know that some of the emails involve some people at realclimate, but I didn't get the impression that they were part of the censoring etc. Where did you read this?

Gavin Schmidt wrote:

From: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt>
To: mprather@xxxxxxxxx.xxx [...]
Subject: RealClimate.org
Date: 10 Dec 2004 08:56:42 -0500
Cc: Mike Mann <mann>, Eric Steig <steig>, ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aclement@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Colleagues,

No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of
media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see
agenda-driven "commentary" on the Internet and in the opinion columns of
newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on
educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and
letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task.

In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below)
have recently got together to build a new 'climate blog' website:
RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at:

http://www.realclimate.org

The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly 'bombshell' papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.

Some examples that we have already posted relate to combatting
dis-information regarding certain proxy reconstructions and supposed
'refutations' of the science used in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
We have also posted more educational pieces relating to the
interpretation of the ice core GHG records or the reason why the
stratosphere is cooling. We are keeping the content strictly scientific,
though at an accessible level.

The blog format allows us to update postings frequently and clearly as
new studies come along as well as maintaining a library of useful
information (tutorials, FAQs, a glossary etc.) and past discussions. The
site will be moderated to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio...

Michael E. Mann wrote:
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann>
To: Tim Osborn <t>, Keith Briffa <k>
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt>

<x>
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go
there personally, but so I'm informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through
, and we'll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not
, and if so, any comments you'd
like us to include.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal
to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone...


mike


Those are just the two most clearly referenced emails. There are tons of references to and discussions with the people who run RC about how to spin various errors and studies and whether or not to release certain studies there ... etc. Realclimate.org is as tainted by this as much as the folks at CRU.
BHundo





Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 56
Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5
Location: SW Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

what a burn, have you read any skeptic books/seen any films that are good?
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, while 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' has problems, on the balance it is quite a bit more accurate than 'An Inconvenient Truth'. This whole issue really isn't something that should be decided by a battle of documentaries, IMO.

The best treatment I've read has been Taken By Storm (Essex and McKitrick). It touches on a lot of the larger theoretical problems with AGW, not least the problem with their reliance on models, or the irrelevance of a 'global average temperature'.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


A climate science video liberals and conservatives agree on

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB