dhogaza
Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
| Quote | | There was also an issue with one of the scientists interviewed in the Swindle claiming to be taken out of context. Actually, from what I remember in the film, all the people interviewed seemed to speak at length enough to where any context was pretty obvious. I could be mistaken about this one guy. |
He was describing how warming of the sea as an ice age begins to end releases CO2 to the atmosphere. That additional CO2 then leads to further warming (this info was not in the snippet C4 used). The driving force behind the beginning and ending of ice ages is minor oscillations in the earths orbits, cycles with periods of tens of thousands of years.
Today's situation doesn't fit that scenario. CO2 is not in (rough) equilibrium, we're pumping large amounts of it that has been sequestered in oil, coal and natural gas for millions of years. Sea warming lags atmospheric warming and the sea is, at the moment, still a CO2 *SINK*.
As the scientist knows full well and says he pointed out in his interview (which lasted hours).
The producers QUOTE-MINED the man, snipping out his discussion about the processes which have occurred in past ice ages to make it appear as though he is saying that oceans today are a major source of CO2 (as opposed to mankind's activities).
| Quote | | I was surprised at some of the names and positions of the people that were global warming skeptics. I mean, the co-founder of Greenpeace? |
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, has never been an environmentalist. Greenpeace began as an anti-nuclear weapon proliferation organization, protesting french tests in the pacific IIRC.
When the organization began addressing environmental issues, Patrick Moore left.
And has been making his anti-environmental feelings clear now for sheesh, 20? 30? years. They're not simply directed against the AGW hypothesis.
| Quote | | I wish someone would also address the 800 year lag between the rise of CO2 and the rise in temperature from ice core data. I don't think I've heard an adequate explanation of the mechanism behind that. |
Well, I just provided a very thumbnail sketch above. To add to the point, it only lags the first 1/6th of the warming periods seen in the ice-core data. Orbital cycles trigger ice ages and our emergence from them, this warming adds CO2 to the atmosphere as described above and over time CO2 then adds to the last 5/6 of the warming period.
As for the rest, geez.
You folks here see stupid arguments by IDers and know that they lie, quote-mine, misrepresent science, etc. It's the tool of their trade.
Why would you fall for some argument like "oh, the 800 year lag in CO2 vs. warming proves AGW to be false" when it's derived from climate science (a broad field including physicists, paleoclimatologists, chemists, modelers, etc) in the first place? Doesn't occur to you that they think about stuff like this, that thousands of climate scientists do this for their living just like evolutionary biologists do science for a living????
Turn on your bullsh*t filter!!!
Doesn't it occur to you to be as suspicious of claims by fringe denialists just as you are with the IDers?
For expert fisking of C4's documentary (which trots out the same old shit denialists depend upon just as IDers trot out the same old shit creationists have depended on since Paley) visit Real Climate which is run by some of the leading climatologists in the world (Michael Mann, for instance, is a regular contributor).
Meanwhile I'm sighing ... if people here are taken in by C4's tripe, no wonder so many people are taken in by ID tripe!
|
