No TV is 'must see'.

Actually I'm just dirty that I missed the whole Jennifer Hawkins thing...

"Thursday 10th July you say?"

My god!! They've invented a time machine that swaps days around havent they!

The thing that gets me is - Im not an environmental expert - but I know from basic observation that things are changing very rapidly - weather patterns and rainfall have changed within my half lifetime - it annoys the **** out of me when some cretin calling themselves an expert puts a label such as the El Nino effect to give some sort of credence to things that we dont like to face up to. I think even a blind man senses that our planet is ill - in more ways than one - and in the face of this there will always be apologists with their own agenda trying to convince people that everything is OK. You dont need confirmation from so called scientists - look around you. I for one wont even be watching this program - through history there have always been those that fought the facts before their faces - and these people might as well be arguing that the world is still flat!

I do agree with always trying to consider both sides of any argument.

But with regards to global warming/weather change my concern is that in our heart none of us really want to hear that the earth is terminally ill, it is confronting and would require all of us to make drastic changes. If someone offers us a cogent argument that it isn't terminal at all - its just a natural cyclic event or whatever - then quite often it makes people feel OK - as it is what they want to believe; and it now gives them permission to do nothing.
Its akin to Neville Chamberlains signed accord with Hitler in 1939 - "Peace in our time" said Chamberlain - it was what people wanted to hear; and as a result it set them on a course of indifference/inaction that they were to later rue.
My bit of philosophy for the day!

So what did every body think???

Some of the questions to the panel were a bit strange.

quote:

---

Originally posted by decrepit

So what did every body think???

Some of the questions to the panel were a bit strange.

---

Well I thought the most credible thing about it all was the panel afterwards, and that David Kurl(whatever) sounded the most researched and most credible. The documentary itself was interesting at some level in that it created debate, but the arguments and credibility of it were so easily shown as flawed, so has some potential to do harm, if people didn't stay around to see it scientifically scrutinised. As fot the questions and comments from the audience..... bored me so much I switched off.

quote:

---

Originally posted by big-gazza


But with regards to global warming/weather change my concern is that in our heart none of us really want to hear that the earth is terminally ill, it is confronting and would require all of us to make drastic changes.

---

I don't quite agree with that Gazza, check out this site:
www.abhota.info/end1.htm

It seems that there's something in our psychology that makes us want to feel as if the end of the world is nigh. Maybe it's to do with confronting our own mortality, I don't know.

A while ago a new organism appeared on the earth's surface. This organism used energy in a different way to what had gone on before. As a by-product of this process, the organisms pumped out a toxic gas into the atmosphere. The phenomenal success of these organisms meant that the atmosphere of the earth quickly changed. In fact, the legacy of this cataclysm is with us today.
The name of these organisms, and the toxic gas they pumped out?

Plants and oxygen.

I think the point about The "Procrastination Penalty", is a critical one, and it is a moarl/ethical dilemna for us now, about what we leave our future generations to cope with.

We can't do anything about solar activity, but we can do something about CO2. Shall we procrastinate a bit longer, and penalise the future a bit more?

I am not biased either way as to whether the current climatic warming trend is human induced or not. After watching the Great Global Warming Swindle and the debate last night, I am still not biased to either side. I am no expert. I do believe there is only so long we can crap in our own nest...

I found Martin Durkin's documentary interesting, it did seem to lack evidence, and used a lot of strong language to support points… A little like A Current Affair, or similar. However, there is no point bagging this as it copped an absolute flogging by those in the know!

In my opinion, Tony Jones presented a very biased view. Tony Jones is a journalist, not a scientist, particularly a scientist that is working on global climate (a point he made himself). I thought the position adopted by Tony Jones – human driven climate change – detracted from what could have been a much more balanced debate. The debate really came down to two, Bob Carter and David Karoly. Tony Jones always gave Karoly last say. Karoly is certainly well researched and very knowledgeable on the topic. However, by being the last to speak on all points, he appeared smug and arrogant.

One of the salient points for me was that there is more than one way to manipulate the recent climate data (particularly satellite data) to support ones story...

Personally,
I think these 'experts' (on both sides) are still biased by their own interpretation of what they've read, researched, and dwelled on over their careers.

I don't believe it's in our nature as people to put decades of research into something that we believe to be true, then upon realising that it could all be "just nature doing it's job", change our opinions completely.....and vice-versa.

In my expert opinion, (as a person that has breathed air for 34 years, and taken up valuable space that could've been better utilised by a more knowledgable person!!), I believe that we do 'pump' too much crap into the atmosphere, it can't be a good thing! But that said, the future (past our lifetimes), we, as the human race will either 'fix-it' or evolve to live in the conditions the planet provides us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Grinch


And the POO program ????

---

Started hilariously was LMAO......then, took on the same features as every other crappy 'reality-TV' show....then at the end showed a clip of him in the spa with the 20yo's, everyone silent, looking bored and then his voice-over..."bring back the 40 year olds!" (Classic Stuff!)

Heard an interesting tid bit from the bloke who was the author of the "gaya hypothesis", James Lovelock. He said solar radiation can be mitigated fairly easily and cheaply so the overheating crisis isn't the end of the world as we know it.

He cited 2 methods - 1) placing reflective film shields in space and 2) (the very easy one) get commercial air liners to spray the appropriate aerosol as they go. I've heard this before so it must be common knowledge.

It seems to be a matter of fine tuning. If your data are good and your climate model is good, its easy to work out how much of what is required.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NotWal

2) (the very easy one) get commercial air liners to spray the appropriate aerosol as they go. I've heard this before so it must be common knowledge.

---

It sure is:
educate-yourself.org/ct/

Consumerism is the culprit.