Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle?

Graham P Davis wrote:
Gianna wrote:

Graham P Davis wrote:
Looks like the maker of the Channel-4 programme has "previous".

Would that not considered 'spent' under current legislation?

Sorry, but I don't quite understand that. Anyhow, it seems he has a history
of misleading contributors to his programmes.

While I was aware of your intended meaning, 'previous' derives from 'previous convictions' so I followed up with the view that given the amount of time which has elapsed since the incident to which you refer, such a 'conviction' would be considered 'spent'.



Interesting abuse of statistics in a related article:

"A recent survey of 928 published scientific papers found not one that
dissented over the reality of global warming."

1) No one in that programme dissented over the reality of global warming
either. 2) As the survey was inevitably of 928 papers on global warming,
how many could have dissented?

Reference:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece


As to your item (1), at least one of the contributors agrees that increasing
CO2 increases global temperatures. Also it's nice to see the anti-AGW group
are at last admitting that global warming is happening. It's only a few
years ago that they were denying it.

I am glad that you agree that no one in the programme dissented over the reality of global warming.


Re (2), surely those scientists who believe global warming is a fact but
disagree on its cause have published papers? And, if they have, they would
be classified as papers on global warming and should have appeared in the
survey?

Surely you are aware that scientific papers submitted for publication undergo peer review, and that they must overcome this hurdle before they are published.
No one disputes that AGW is a very large band-waggon, which represents quite a hurdle.

There seem to me to be two opinions, NCC and AGW, and there is nothing at all unreasonable in that situation. There are (at least) two opinions on virtually everything. Questioning something is not 'denial' or 'anti'; are the adherents to that which is questioned so lacking in confidence that they have to resort to that sort of tactic?

Someone did go so far as to mention the holocaust in the programme when referring to this 'denial' nonsense and it is a good example. If someone says five point nine million were murdered (rather than six) they are accused of holocaust denial ... like anything less than six million would not be a holocaust? Altogether much too precious!


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *
.

Relevant Pages