Having doubts about global warming? Check out this video from British
Broadcasting Corporation
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4Po...arming-Swindle

wrote:

Having doubts about global warming? Check out this video from British
Broadcasting Corporation
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4Po...arming-Swindle

Looks like a swindle itself. It doesn't appear to be from the BBC at all.

Meanwhile, you're entitled to bury your head in the sand as long as you can.
--
derek

Derek Broughton wrote:
wrote:


Having doubts about global warming? Check out this video from British
Broadcasting Corporation
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4Po...arming-Swindle


Looks like a swindle itself. It doesn't appear to be from the BBC at all.

Meanwhile, you're entitled to bury your head in the sand as long as you can.

Haven't checked the link myself but if it is from the BBC you should be
able to find it somewhere on www.bbc.co.uk - if there is no such video
on that site I very much doubt it originated with the BBC....but I do
challenge the OP to provide the BBC link

Gill

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:14:04 CST, Derek Broughton
wrote:

wrote:

Having doubts about global warming? Check out this video from British
Broadcasting Corporation
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4Po...arming-Swindle

Looks like a swindle itself. It doesn't appear to be from the BBC at all.

Really? Probably no more then Gore's, as in looking like not giving the
full info, how would the layperson know? (Speaking for myself.)

Keep in mind, I'm one of those who has a hard time believing humans aren't
impacting the earth in some way. Personally I like this video, as a counter
claim, I found much of the info very interesting. Especially how politics
plays into all of this. I liked the comment regarding how to get grant
money to study squirrel nut hoarding, etc. ;-) I still have half the video
to watch, I'm surprised anyone got thru it so fast.... but then... I'm in
charge of dinner.. and geeze, I even had to run to the store! ;-) ~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us

~ jan wrote:

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:14:04 CST, Derek Broughton
wrote:

wrote:

Having doubts about global warming? Check out this video from British
Broadcasting Corporation
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4Po...arming-Swindle

Looks like a swindle itself. It doesn't appear to be from the BBC at all.

Really? Probably no more then Gore's, as in looking like not giving the
full info, how would the layperson know? (Speaking for myself.)

Keep in mind, I'm one of those who has a hard time believing humans aren't
impacting the earth in some way. Personally I like this video, as a
counter claim, I found much of the info very interesting.

It's not a "counter claim" - it has no valid arguments. Gore's movie is
sensationalized, but I challenge anyone to disprove a word of it.
--
derek

In a "debate" there are two sides to a question. In journalism there may be two
sides to an "argument" or two sides to a story which journalists are required to
present (not that they do). Science is not like that.

Science is the linear forward progression in understanding the rules of the universe.
Science is a verb, not a noun. It is the process of the search, not the fact, that
is essential. The process of science is open ended or ongoing, there is no
conclusion. So when a scientist speaks he/she says (or implies) "at the present
state of knowledge" and then presents the current stage of understanding of some
aspect of science. In well understood science, where the mechanism is clear and the
proof abundant, there is no point in rehashing discredited or discarded stages of the
science.

So, for example, I get up and lecture about the movement of the moon around the
earth, the earth around the sun, about doppler shift of galaxies moving away or
towards us. I am under no obligation to say "well in the olden days they used to
believe everything revolved around the earth". I MIGHT use that idea as an example
of "pre-scientific" philosophy, but I am certainly not obligated, and it most
certainly isnt considered "one sided" or "unscientific" when I dont include in my
lecture discarded or even half baked ideas that might appear in the popular
literature.

When I talk about the structure of earth, plate tectonics, but I have no obligation
to include the idea of the "flat earthers". I do have an obligation to present the
most current thinking of anything I do include, so, for example I discuss the current
thinking on the origins of the earth, moon and the origins of our magnetic field.
Even tho I teach at a Jesuit university I am not obligated to teach, for balance,
biblical creation. I teach science, not theology.

I teach a wide range of science most of which is well outside my area of expertise so
I must rely on the consensus of the experts in that specific area of science. One of
the most important lessons we learn as scientists is how to identify bias, in others,
in ourselves. By sticking with what the experts in the field are saying I have a
high degree of confidence that what I present has a very high probability of being
correct and unbiased at our present state of understanding.

A word about referred journals, what qualifies as a real science journal AKA the
primary literature and experts. Scientists MUST publish their original research in a
referred journal. The research article is submitted to the appropriate journal, the
panel at that journal selects those most expert to review the submitted article for
valid methodology, for bias, for mistakes, even for bogus data. 99.9% (high
probability) of the time this "vetting" works. After a scientists has published,
presented material at conferences, found a tenured position at a university and has
funding the editors of a journal might ask the scientist to "vet" other scientist's
research articles. At this point they are moving into the "expert" category. Even
within scientific journals there are more prestigious ones, culminating in "SCIENCE"
and "NATURE" (the most prestigious) and it is very difficult to get published in
those without already being a recognized expert AND having discovered something quite
momentous or interesting.

It is the high level experts who are often asked to write/edit BOOKS dealing with a
specific topic and those books are published under the auspices of a particular
scientific journal. Experts may take it upon themselves to write a book,or a
textbook, and get it published by a "scientific book" house. The manuscripts for
books like this are sent out to experts to "vet" because if the book were to be
published with inaccuracies it would bring disrepute on both author(s) and publishing
house, perhaps even ruining their reputation.

I found a good explanation in wikepedia of the flow of scientific information:

"Main article: Scientific literature
Most scientific research is initially published in scientific journals and considered
to be a primary source; see that article for details. Technical reports, for minor
research results and engineering and design work (including computer software) round
out the primary literature. Secondary sources in the sciences include articles in
review journals (which provide a synthesis of research articles on a topic to
highlight advances and new lines of research), and books for large projects, broad
arguments, or compilations of articles. Tertiary sources might include encyclopedias
and similar works intended for broad public consumption."

What isnt included above is what happens to science information when it is digested
by non-scientists and published in newspapers, magazines, and, of course, the
internet. Even the well meaning can mangle and mutilate scientific information.
Those with an agenda can mutilate it beyond recognition and prove ANYTHING THEY WANT.
So (as I teach my students) it is important to know WHERE, WHO, BIAS
1. where is this being published. Is this at a .edu site for example
2. who are these people saying these things:
what are their credentials, where do they work, who do they work for, where is the
funding coming from
3. are these people established experts in the field they are talking about
4. is there any obvious bias, like the oil engineer who is funded by oil companies
who wanders outside his field of expertise to try to poo-poo global warming
5. is the terminology or the words used neutral or highly emotionally charged, are
illogical arguments used like that in pseudoscience.

Scientists who wander outside their area of expertise risk losing their reputation or
worse. Like Dr. Kary Mullis, the father of PCR, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for
Chemistry who insists that AIDS is not caused by a virus. "Unfortunately for Mr.
Mullis, he has a reputation as something of a flake. He lives on the beach in
California, surfs, and takes LSD. His grand VISION of what PCR could be used for was
to clone the DNA of dead celebrities and put it into things like bracelets, which
could be sold to star struck teenagers. Also known as one of the few proponents of
the "HIV is not the AIDS virus" theory, which has pretty much been shot down beyond
all reasonable doubt. Makes most of his money from guest lectures these days, living
off his Nobel Prize, as no company or university will hire him."

and, sorry as it is, even great minds decline with age and/or drug use so we have
Watson (of Watson and Crick- DNA discoverers) getting involved in making racists
comments.

Journalists are not experts at reading the primary literature. It is pointless to go
to newspapers for facts. Try the science journals. type in pubmed or go here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
type in ice core Antarctica CO2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...RVAbstractPlus


The only worthwhile debate on global warming is at scientific conferences on global
warming. Only those who do research in the area and are experts in that field can
debate the issue. Scientists in this field are not saying there is NO global
warming, they are arguing about the precise mechanisms involved and how fast it is
happening, etc. Too often non-scientists see debate within the scientific field as
an indication that science is "wrong". An example is in evolution. All scientists
agree with the mechanism of evolution, speciation and selective advantage, they just
disagree on how fast or slow it occurs, under what conditions, or maybe whether
dinosaurs hot blooded or cold. Scientists can get quite heated over DETAILS, not to
be confused with agreeing on the general theory.

Science is about rigorously following the scientific methodology and presenting your
results to your peers.

"Belief" is having a conclusion in hand and going looking for any bit of information
that can be gleaned or made up to support that belief or just out and out lying to
confuse people.

Al Gore teaches the mainstream science findings on global warming as discovered by
the scientists who do research in the field. If you want to hear a debate about
global warming go to scientific conferences on global warming.

And if you want a discussion on how many angels dance on the head of a pin, then go
to the appropriate theology conference.

Ingrid

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:43:14 CST, ~ jan wrote:
Really? Probably no more then Gore's, as in looking like not giving the
full info, how would the layperson know? (Speaking for myself.)

Keep in mind, I'm one of those who has a hard time believing humans aren't
impacting the earth in some way. Personally I like this video, as a counter
claim, I found much of the info very interesting. Especially how politics
plays into all of this. I liked the comment regarding how to get grant
money to study squirrel nut hoarding, etc. ;-) I still have half the video
to watch, I'm surprised anyone got thru it so fast.... but then... I'm in
charge of dinner.. and geeze, I even had to run to the store! ;-) ~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us

wrote, On 25/11/2007 20:56:

What a nicely written explanation of publishing in science. I'm going to
keep a copy of that to help explain things next time I'm asked tricky
questions about what I do.

ps - that program was shown on Channel 4, not the BBC.

--
DavidM
www.djmorgan.org.uk