Looks like the maker of the Channel-4 programme has "previous".

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2347526.ece

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

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


Would that not considered 'spent' under current legislation?

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/enviro...cle2326210.ece


--
Gianna

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

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:03:23 +0000, Gianna wrote:

..."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/enviro...cle2326210.ece

All I know is that I am sick and tired of reading report after report
and article after article full of vague comparisons and with no
detailed figures or hard facts. Such as (from the above article):

"WE SAY: Variations in solar activity may have been responsible for past warm
periods, though it's hard to be entirely sure because we have been taking good
measurements of it only since 1978. But recent solar increases are too small
to have produced the present warming, and have been much less important
than greenhouse gases since about 1850."

Until both sides (and the media) start quoting the actual figures,
underlying assumptions, probabilities and margins of error, I shall
remain unconvinced albeit leaning *slightly* towards the AGW side.

--
Dave

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.



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/enviro...cle2326210.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.

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?

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

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/enviro...cle2326210.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
* * * * * * *

On Mar 11, 11:37 am, Graham P Davis wrote:
Looks like the maker of the Channel-4 programme has "previous".

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...e/article23475...

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

The proof of the pudding is in the way it effects weather law; I would
imagine.

No changes yet as far as I can see.

On Mar 12, 8:44 pm, "Weatherlawyer" wrote:
On Mar 11, 11:37 am, Graham P Davis wrote:

Looks like the maker of the Channel-4 programme has "previous".

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...e/article23475...

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

The proof of the pudding is in the way it effects weather law; I would
imagine.

No changes yet as far as I can see.

Misty weather forecasts still give notice of severe tropical storms.

This time there are two in the usual suspects:
http://tsr.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/

On Mar 12, 8:44 pm, "Weatherlawyer" wrote:
On Mar 11, 11:37 am, Graham P Davis wrote:

Looks like the maker of the Channel-4 programme has "previous".

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...e/article23475...

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

The proof of the pudding is in the way it effects weather law; I would
imagine.

No changes yet as far as I can see.

Misty weather forecasts still give notice of severe tropical storms.

This time there are two in the usual suspects:
http://tsr.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/