Solar effect on global warming and ch4 "swindle" programme

I only saw a little of the middle of this show but the bit I saw
suggested the earth has warmed due to an increase in the Sun's
effective temperature. http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/
great_global_warming_swindle/index.html. A colleague mentioned that
polar caps on Mars are also receding as are those of earth. Is there
any truth in this?

BTW, the programme is to be repeated mid next week. Have set the video
to record it. Whether it is right or rubbish it would be good to hear
another point of view. Many 'experts' seem to agree that human
activity is throwing out enough carbon to affect the temperature and
there seems to be a scornful attitude to any who disagree. Reminders
of The Emperor's New Clothes???

"James Harris" wrote in message
ups.com...
I only saw a little of the middle of this show but the bit I saw
suggested the earth has warmed due to an increase in the Sun's
effective temperature. http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/
great_global_warming_swindle/index.html. A colleague mentioned that
polar caps on Mars are also receding as are those of earth. Is there
any truth in this?

BTW, the programme is to be repeated mid next week. Have set the video
to record it. Whether it is right or rubbish it would be good to hear
another point of view. Many 'experts' seem to agree that human
activity is throwing out enough carbon to affect the temperature and
there seems to be a scornful attitude to any who disagree. Reminders
of The Emperor's New Clothes???

The documentary was made by Martin Durkin - he has previous!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...184160,00.html

At least one person interviewed on the program has complained that his
contribution was edited to give weight to Durkin's thesis rather than to
fairly express the contributor's views.

On 13 Mar 2007 16:42:43 -0700, in uk.sci.astronomy , "James Harris"
wrote:

Whether it is right or rubbish it would be good to hear
another point of view.

Agreed, but not if its presented by the 'face on mars' brigade,
surely?

Many 'experts' seem to agree that human
activity is throwing out enough carbon to affect the temperature and
there seems to be a scornful attitude to any who disagree.

Which 'experts' disagree? And what is their pedigree and experience?

Reminders of The Emperor's New Clothes???

Amongst the nay-sayers methinks.
--
Mark McIntyre

On 13 Mar, 23:42, "James Harris"
wrote:
I only saw a little of the middle of this show but the bit I saw
suggested the earth has warmed due to an increase in the Sun's
effective temperature. http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/
great_global_warming_swindle/index.html. A colleague mentioned that
polar caps on Mars are also receding as are those of earth. Is there
any truth in this?

Yes, of course, although the real effect is in the interaction between
solar wind and cosmic particles. There is a secondary effect due to
the variability of the solar costant. And yes, mars temperature has
risen since the 70s, if I recall right. Indirect proof is the higher
incidence of glabal dust storms.


BTW, the programme is to be repeated mid next week. Have set the video
to record it. Whether it is right or rubbish it would be good to hear
another point of view. Many 'experts' seem to agree that human
activity is throwing out enough carbon to affect the temperature and
there seems to be a scornful attitude to any who disagree. Reminders
of The Emperor's New Clothes???

I'll seriusly doubt that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 would make the
world climate change overnight. But watch the program and get some
data first-hand.

Andrea T.

On Mar 15, 1:31 am, "
wrote:
On 13 Mar, 23:42, "James Harris"
wrote:

I only saw a little of the middle of this show but the bit I saw
suggested the earth has warmed due to an increase in the Sun's
effective temperature. http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/
great_global_warming_swindle/index.html. A colleague mentioned that
polar caps on Mars are also receding as are those of earth. Is there
any truth in this?

Yes, of course, although the real effect is in the interaction between
solar wind and cosmic particles. There is a secondary effect due to
the variability of the solar constant. And yes, Mars temperature has
risen since the 70s, if I recall right. Indirect proof is the higher
incidence of global dust storms.

If the programme mooted that - if any paper used Martian polar caps as
part of a meaningful argument, then throw the lot out.

Polar caps? Not "ice caps" or whatever the presumed material is.

I don't know! [Extraneous exclamation marks deleted!!!]

Say goodnight Sooty.
Say goodnight Sweep.
Bye bye, children.

On Mar 14, 11:23 pm, Mark McIntyre wrote:
On 13 Mar 2007 16:42:43 -0700, in uk.sci.astronomy , "James Harris"

wrote:
Whether it is right or rubbish it would be good to hear
another point of view.

Agreed, but not if its presented by the 'face on mars' brigade,
surely?

The worrying thing was that as well as the usual suspects it
interviewed various sceptical but otherwise credible scientists, but
by cunning editing and interspersing half truths and distorted graphs
gave the strong impression that everything could be blamed on the sun.
It relied on fallacious arguments and sophistry but to a layman it
looked perfectly convincing if reactions I have encountered are
anything to go by.

It was very cleverly done with the deliberate intention to deceive and
mislead the viewing public. This is beyond the pale for a public
service broadcaster like C4 and they should be obliged to transmit a
response programme dissecting this pack of lies. I would suggest
Martin Rees as president of the Royal Society and the few top flight
climate researchers from around the world who are excellent at
communicating complex issues clearly to a lay audience should be
interviewed for it. And each of the people interviewed in the original
program should be given the chance to say whether or not they believed
the original program presented a fair picture of the science or
thought they had been made to say something they did not intend by
clever editted cut and splice tricks. If you want to complain go to:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/

I think the scientific community deserves the right of reply to this
appalling piece of deceitful work.

Many 'experts' seem to agree that human
activity is throwing out enough carbon to affect the temperature and
there seems to be a scornful attitude to any who disagree.

Which 'experts' disagree? And what is their pedigree and experience?

There are a few credible ones. Lindzen for instance. I was very
disappointed to see him on the program making misleading statements
about the likely effects of a warmer planet. He knows better.

The program made a great show of waving every medal and award each of
its interviewees had ever recieved it was classic appeal to authority
stuff. They also used well known denialist arguments and graphs with
misleading axes.

Reminders of The Emperor's New Clothes???

Amongst the nay-sayers methinks.

Unfortunately, judging from responses and threads in uk.sci.weather
the program was well crafted to convince a lot of undecided folk in
the UK that it is all just a plot by government and "special interest"
groups to impose more taxes.

The timing to coincide with the Tories announcing their wacky tax on
air travel could not have been worse.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 15 Mar, 08:04, "Martin Brown"
wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:23 pm, Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 13 Mar 2007 16:42:43 -0700, in uk.sci.astronomy , "James Harris"

wrote:
Whether it is right or rubbish it would be good to hear
another point of view.

Agreed, but not if its presented by the 'face on mars' brigade,
surely?

The worrying thing was that as well as the usual suspects it
interviewed various sceptical but otherwise credible scientists, but
by cunning editing and interspersing half truths and distorted graphs
gave the strong impression that everything could be blamed on the sun.
It relied on fallacious arguments and sophistry ...

Such as?

Andrea T.

Martin Brown wrote:

It was very cleverly done with the deliberate intention to deceive and
mislead the viewing public. This is beyond the pale for a public
service broadcaster like C4 and they should be obliged to transmit a
response programme dissecting this pack of lies.

Fairy Nuff, if they also broadcast something admitting they've been
propagandising for the IPCC for the last several years.

Unfortunately, judging from responses and threads in uk.sci.weather
the program was well crafted to convince a lot of undecided folk in
the UK that it is all just a plot by government and "special interest"
groups to impose more taxes.

Hardly surprising. Raising taxes is what governments do. Hard to believe
that only a century ago a government minister opined that it would be
tragic if the government spend of national income exceedded 5%

The timing to coincide with the Tories announcing their wacky tax on
air travel could not have been worse.

Yeah, I'll take lectures from politicians on air travel when they
convince me they use it less than I do. Until then they can STFU.

Meanwhile the thing to do on the solar question regarding global warming
is to get some kit up and collect more data. It would be very very
stupid to hamstring the world economy, with all the attendant harm that
would cause, if it turned out that we're not the primary cause of the
problem.

FoFP

On 15 Mar 2007 02:50:51 -0700, in uk.sci.astronomy ,
" wrote:

On 15 Mar, 08:04, "Martin Brown"
wrote:
The worrying thing was that as well as the usual suspects it
interviewed various sceptical but otherwise credible scientists, but
by cunning editing and interspersing half truths and distorted graphs
gave the strong impression that everything could be blamed on the sun.
It relied on fallacious arguments and sophistry ...

Such as?

Such as quoting people out of context, asking questions but only
broadcasting half the answer, and other stuff that fitted the agenda
of the programme maker.

Think about it: if you asked any climatoligist "could the sun be
responsible?" he'd have to say "yes" since it could. So you simply
edit out the bit where he says ", but there is overwhelming evidence
that its not", and you have a lovely quote.


Read up on the programme maker's history if you're in any doubt. He's
been at this for years, and according to the Guardian got rejected by
the BBC some years ago for similar methods. C4 ought to know better.
--
Mark McIntyre

Mark McIntyre wrote:

Such as quoting people out of context, asking questions but only
broadcasting half the answer, and other stuff that fitted the agenda
of the programme maker.

I'm curious: What's the name of the TV channel you've been watching
which avoids journalistic bias and always covers the in-depth details of
every argument?

I'd just like to scan for it on my freeview box...

FoFP