Kritik af filmen "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Filmen påstår der er igen kausal sammenhæng mellem CO2 og temperatur...

Kosmos skrev:
Læs nærmere her - ved nogen, hvornår den sendes??

Nu får alle danskere således mulighed for at se en af de mest propagandistiske dokumentarfilm, der længe er set!

Solaktiviteten toppede ifølge nye målinger mellem 1985 og 1987 og kan derfor ikke have indflydelse på den globale opvarmning i dag, sådan som den danske fysiker Henrik Svensmark hævder.

Den danske fysiker Henriks Svensmarks hypotese om, at intensiteten af den kosmiske stråling styrer Jordens klima og derved er helt eller delvist ansvarlig for den globale opvarmning, er igen udsat for seriøs beskydning i verdens mest kendte, videnskabelige tidsskrifter. (Nature - red. rick)

De har fundet, at sol-aktiviteten toppede mellem 1985 og 1987. Siden da har antallet af solpletter og intensiteten af kosmiske stråling været modsat rettet den effekt, der ifølge Henrik Svenskmarks teori skal til for at forklare den globale opvarmning.

så har Kåre Fog i øvrigt et indlæg i dag, der kritiserer DR2's beslutning om at vise den!

Boe Carslund-Sørensen skrev:
Er den mere propagandistisk en Al Gore's film - den er ren slagsgas for at kunne sælge CO2-kvoter og til højere og højere priser.

For de flestes vedkommende tror jeg dog, at danskerne er kloge nok til at kunne se igennem propaganda-slørene...

Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

Al Gore svarer:
I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

Boe Carslund-Sørensen skrev:
Tja, men en gang imellem må andre hjælpe til med at løfte sløret - hvor mange er mon klar over, at både Al Gore og EU er med i dette, fordi det er en ny måde til at tjene penge.

"Det er svært at spå,
Især om fremtiden"
PH

Nogen, som kan følge mig i det ?

om det simpelthen drejer sig om, at flertallet af mennesker har et indbygget dommedagsgen.

Allerede kort efter denne debatsides start, skrev jeg et indlæg...

Nyligen gav brittiska Channel 4 ut en dokumentärfilm som angriper uppfattningen om att vi människor påverkar klimatet genom våra utsläpp av växthusgaser. Filmen, 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', har fått en del medial uppmärksamhet i många länder. Som ansvariga för klimatsajten har vi sett filmen och vill därför lyfta fram en del synpunkter. Även Erland Källén, professor i dynamisk meteorologi vid Stockholms universitet, har sett filmen och är kritisk till delar av innehållet

As a climate change scientist, I must thank Martin Durkin for making The Great Global Warming Swindle. Thanks, also, to the ABC for screening it last night. Both actions unwittingly make it far more likely that my colleagues and I will be better funded.

Let me explain... It's all about one of the film's central assertions, that scientists have conspired en masse to say global warming is occurring and the principal cause is human activity - to selfishly garner more research funding. Propagating scientific uncertainty leads to more funding towards diagnosing a problem rather than developing cures...

All over the world, climate science funding is correlated to how sceptical governments are.

When the notable climate change sceptic George Bush took office in the US, he quickly formed the Climate Change Research Initiative. This new initiative specifically aimed to "reduce the uncertainties of climate change science". The Bush Administration has spent nearly $US1billion on this initiative, which instead could have gone towards funding greenhouse solutions.

The lesson climate scientists could take from this if they wanted to act in their interests is that exaggerating uncertainties will be far more fruitful for their careers - and yet they are urging that funding be found for climate solutions

Remember the debate about the ozone hole? Scientists in the 1980s crystallised world attention by measuring a widening hole in the ozone layer. Through more diagnostic research it was found that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in refrigerators were the cause.

At the peak of that debate, sceptics rallied around the conspiracy flag, suggesting ozone scientists were out to boost their research coffers. Yet those same scientists were urging support for the Montreal Protocol banning the use of CFCs as refrigerants. As a result, CFCs were phased out. The refrigerant industry evolved with little economic effect by using an alternative compound. Those hurt the most were the ozone scientists - no more government funding for them because the problem was solved.

For me, the real swindle of the documentary screened last night was Durkin's resort to playing the man, not the ball, by demonising scientists themselves.

du bør vel i nogen grad tage højde for, at ikke alle debattørere har 'været med fra begyndelsen'

http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=42521&a=799055&lid=puff_616845&lpos=lasMer

Jeg læser tit et indlæg hvor der dukke noget op i hovedet som jeg har lyst til at komme med, men har ikke tid til at formulerer det eller skriver det

Kosmos skrev:

Men et alternativ kunne da bestå i, at du 'anderswo' reklamerer lidt for dette forum!