Republicans accused of witch-hunt against climate change sci

by **gnosticheresy** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:25 am

Maybe relevent "I like to keep an open mind, but not so open my brains fall out" excerpted from <a href="http://www.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/clark.htm" target="top">this</a> (his book, "The Physics of Star Trek" is well worth reading btw). Richard Dawkins says it so much better than I ever could (in relation to ID, but you could just substitute man-made climate change denial), that sometimes you can just be plain <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html" target="top">wrong</a> about things, it doesn't always have to be a conspiracy (heretical thought on this board I know <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p"> )

by **proldic** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:49 pm

" For the record the BBC has won umpteen international awards for the quality of its documentaries, especially its investigative scientifical broadcasting. As a UK publicly-funded body backed by a renowned professional ethics charter it is not in the back pocket of any commercial interests and remains stoically neutral in the commissioning, production and broadcasting of its material." ...tell me you're joking. I bet you'd love NPR.

by **Sokolova** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 11:51 am

I have to agree with Proldic, the BBC is not impartial or anything like it. It is basically the broadcasting arm of New Labour. We have no free or impartial news service in this country - any more than in the US. Emad I am sorry to have upset you, I really did not intend to do so. If you believed I was attacking you then I withdraw any such comment. But I can't escape from the fact that the experiments you cite seem meaningless. The absence of some planes from the skies for seven days - or even for seven months or seven years - would have virtually no discernible effect on the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere (which is the supposed basis of man-made climate change). Nor do I see how the 7-day time period could be long enough to properly assess any possible correlation between lower level pollutants and weather patterns. Given the immense variability in natural weather, you'd need studies over years before any data could be established. But even if you could do the latter and assess low-level pollutant effects on weather, this is an entirely different question than the role of CO2 in longterm climate, so I can't see any good scientific reason for connecting them as the program you quote seems to do. That looks quite bogus to me. But like I said, I don't feel it's the time right now to develop this. When (or if) NO begins healing, I will start that thread and try to develop the whole scientific issue on climate change. Ellie

by **emad** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:09 pm

was the first time in over 40 years that any such study was undertaken. The findings are significant because it is the only accurate snapshot ever taken of atmospheric conditions over the Atlantic in the absence of the usual vast pollution emissions from aircraft. The documentary made some salient observations on the behavior of the hole in the ozone layer during that one week. Last month the BBC said it was going to put the documentary onto the internet. Definitely worth having a look and judging oneself, given no other comparable evidence has ever been collated and broadcast.

by **emad** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:16 pm

Boost to CO2 mass extinction idea By Helen Briggs BBC News science reporter A computer simulation of the Earth's climate 250 million years ago suggests that global warming triggered the so-called "great dying". A dramatic rise in carbon dioxide caused temperatures to soar to 10 to 30 degrees Celsius higher than today, say US researchers. The warming had a profound impact on the oceans, cutting off oxygen to the lower depths and extinguishing most lifeforms, they write in the latest issue of Geology. The research adds to the growing body of evidence that higher temperatures, rather than a giant space rock hitting the planet, led to the greatest mass extinction in history. Prehistoric extinction The extinction, at the end of the Permian Period and the beginning of the Triassic, has puzzled scientists for many years. Trilobites were one of the groups wiped out in the extinction Some 95% of lifeforms in the oceans became extinct, along with about three-quarters of land species. Many possible reasons for this catastrophic event have been proposed - including impacts, volcanism, climate change and glaciation. Hard evidence, however, has been difficult to find. The latest data from scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, supports the view that extensive volcanic activity over the course of hundreds of thousands of years released large amounts of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the air, gradually warming up the planet. Deep impact The NCAR team used a research tool known as the Community Climate System Model (CSSM) which looks at the combined effects of atmospheric temperatures, ocean temperatures and currents. About 95% of marine species and three-quarters of all families on the Pangean (above) landmass perished. Rocks from the end of the Permian period can be seen today in places such as China, Italy and Pakistan Chief suspects include sea-level fluctuations, volcanic activity, space impacts and melting methane-ice in sea sediments Their work indicates that temperatures in higher latitudes rose so much that the oceans warmed to a depth of about 3,000m (10,000ft). This interfered with the circulation process that takes colder water, carrying oxygen and nutrients, into lower levels. The water became depleted of oxygen and was unable to support marine life. "The implication of our study is that elevated CO2 is sufficient to lead to inhospitable conditions for marine life and excessively high temperatures over land would contribute to the demise of terrestrial life," Jeffrey Kiehl and colleagues write in Geology. Until recently, computer models of past climate have been hampered by the difficulty of accounting for complex interactions between the various components of the Earth's climate system Professor Paul Wignall, of the University of Leeds, UK, who studies the Permian-Triassic boundary, says the models have not been sophisticated enough to recreate such "lethal super-greenhouse climates". "I suspect many in the modelling community have been sceptical about just how bad conditions were 250 million years ago, even though the evidence is in the rocks; but now the latest climate system modelling is able to replicate climatic conditions that came close to destroying life on Earth," he told the BBC News website. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4184110.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...184110.stm</a>

by **emad** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:44 pm

BBC is governed by a Royal Charter and about as impartial as you can get from a non-commercial organisation. The Labour bias slur is a farce: don't tell me you have already forgotten the furore over the Gilligan reporting of Dr David Kelly's death and the subsequent public outrage when their criticism of Labour's WMD intelligence fantasy was echoed throughout the UK press. The BBC's news coverage is unprecedented in its editorial excellence as 60+ years of broadcasting awards has shown. Their science reporting is unrivalled and has also won countless awards. The documentary I have referred to has been nominated by several international organisations for an excellence reporting award.

Republicans accused of witch-hunt against climate change sci

Re: Republicans accused of witch-hunt against climate change

Please

Re: Please

World Meteorological Organisation data analysis

Boost to CO2 mass extinction idea: BBC

BBC Labour bias: humbug.

Who is online