Another global climate docu: CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
In this eye-opening documentary viewers will discover how the most respected researchers from all over the world explode the doom and gloom of global warming.

Humans stand accused of having set off a global climate catastrophe by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The prophecy of doom is clear and media pass on the message uncritically.

Now serious criticism has arisen from a number of heavyweight independent scientists. They argue that most of the climatic change we have seen is due to natural variations.

They also state that if CO 2 is to play a role at all -it will be minuscule and not catastrophic!

This story presents a series of unbiased scientists as our witnesses.
We will hear their eloquent criticism of the IPCC conclusions illustrated by coverage of their research work.
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doomsday.html


[/ QUOTE ]

CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5&hl=en-GB


Have a look. It's pleasant edutainment.

[Phil153]

I think you mean entertainment.

Forgetting everything else, this video is three years old. It addresses very little in the latest (and most damning) IPCC report.

BTW, check out the dhead at 28:20. LOL. Their "experts" leave a bit to be desired.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you mean entertainment.

Forgetting everything else, this video is three years old. It addresses very little in the latest (and most damning) IPCC report.

BTW, check out the dhead at 28:20. LOL. Their "experts" leave a bit to be desired.

[/ QUOTE ]


[x] Ad hominem
[x] Slander
[x] Circumvention of board filter
[ ] Exchange of information
[ ] Arguments



Thanks for stopping by

[Phil153]

Ad hominem - no. The credentials of the people making claims are of direct importance. The guy at 28:20 (I kid you not) points to an old tree on the beach on an island, and points out that if the sea was rising, the tree wouldn't be there any more!

Slander - where? Slander doesn't exist without a lie.

Circumvention of board filter - lol

Exchange of information - yes. I point out quite correctly that the video was made in 2004 and criticizes the 2001 report, whose predictions have largely been verified so far. The sophistication of analysis and evidence has also improved a great deal since 2001, all supporting the theory BTW.

Arguments - you posted a half hour video link. If you have specific claims in the video that you think are credible, it's up to you to bring them up for discussion.

You're welcome.

edit: Why are you posting a 3 year old video link anyway??

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Ad hominem - no

[/ QUOTE ]


[x] Liar
[x] On ignore

[Justin A]

Nielso,

Are you [censored] kidding me with your replies in this thread?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielso,

Are you [censored] kidding me with your replies in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Nielsio]

I spot an ad hominem in his post. I point it out, he lies about it. That's really all I need to know, and if you expect me to give someone like that a second more of my time then you are mistaken.


If you have any well thoughout ideas on the documentary then I would be interested.

[kerowo]

Wow, you are a "retard" if you are getting ad hominem out of some quotes. He then backs it up by point out that something the "expert" said was so "retarded" as to make the term expert "suspect."

He did make a pretty basic point about the documentary; that it is 3 years old and refutes data from 3 years before that, data which he claims has since turned out to be true.

So please give me some check boxes and call me names and ignore me instead of answering Phils point.

[CallMeIshmael]

I havent watched it. Nor do I care to. I dont really know where I stand on GW; probably somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. Its just not a subject I care much about.

However, if you think

"I point out quite correctly that the video was made in 2004 and criticizes the 2001 report, whose predictions have largely been verified so far. The sophistication of analysis and evidence has also improved a great deal since 2001, all supporting the theory BTW."

is a claim that you dont need to give a "second thought" then stay in poltics. If you want to talk about something from a scientific paradigm, you need to tell us why any new data that has come out since the video doesnt render the video irrelevant / or, at least, hurt its worth. He mentioned it in the first post, and extended it in the second.

(to note: I know nothing of the IPCC report, and phil could be totally in the wrong. But, you need to at least address a very obvious weakness)