[Doofy]

Piecing together from YouTube snippets as and when they're uploaded...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-LPN9PkLK4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri4ZsyF2dDI

Enjoy.

[TETENAL]

Doofy, stop with this stuff. That's not important.

What is important:

a) Fossil energy sources are unlasting. We will run out of it, and at the latest then we need suitable alternatives. The sooner we begin the transition, the smoother it will be.

b) and more important: Have a look at who controls fossil fuels. Rogue states in the middle east. Most of Europe's fossil energy comes from Russia. Doesn't it make you feel uneasy that Russia can exercise power over the EU with their control over our energy? Look at how they forced Belorussia into submission. So when the EU now decides to have a minimum of 20 % renewable energy sources, effectively they decided to reduce Russia's influence by 20 %. How can you think this is a bad thing?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Doofy, stop with this stuff.

Ahhh... ...standard tactic of trying to shut those up who don't agree. This was covered in that programme last night.

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

That's not important.

It's not important that your government is bullshitting you? Merkel hosting an emissions summit on the back of dodgy science and lies isn't important to you?

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

and more important: Have a look at who controls fossile fuels. Rogue states in the middle east. Most of Europe's fossile energy comes from Russia. Doesn't it make you feel uneasy that Russia can exercise power over the EU with their control over our energy?

The UK is self-sufficent in fossil fuels. I don't really care about the rest of the EU.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Have a look at who controls fossil fuels. Rogue states in the middle east.

Rogue states

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's not important that your government is bullshitting you?

Merkel is not bullshitting me. She is bullshitting Putin. For now we need their gas.

The UK is self-sufficent in fossil fuels. I don't really care about the rest of the EU.

I know you don't really care about anybody but yourself, but you're pretty shortsighted if you believe fossil fuels will last forever.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The UK is self-sufficent in fossil fuels. I don't really care about the rest of the EU.

Except it won't have the money to afford it. Bigger and richer countries will buy all of it, and it will be left crying. Unless of course it prohibits the oil companies to sell to whoever they wish. Then here comes WW III. :-)

[Doofy]

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread concerns the programme last night about how CO2 and MMGW is BS. So I'll assume if you want to delve into fuel supplies then you're avoiding the issue, thus confirming what the programme had to say. That goes for all of you.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread concerns the programme last night about how CO2 and MMGW is BS. So I'll assume if you want to delve into fuel supplies then you're avoiding the issue, thus confirming what the programme had to say. That goes for all of you.

Yeah I guess we learned from the best.

[OreoCookie]

By any chance, that isn't the piece that was shown on British television, yesterday?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

By any chance, that isn't the piece that was shown on British television, yesterday?

Bits of it. The whole thing was 90 minutes long.

[Doofy]

More:

YouTube - The Great Climate Swindle Part 4

[yakkiebah]

Better yet, get the whole thing. It's already out there on several bittorrent sites.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Oh, how lovely. For a few seconds I was hoping for a new study or new evidence or new theory. Then I see it's another TV exposé.

Sigh. I hope this is worth the download. When will people understand, it's the evidence that counts? I just hope this thing provides something concrete....

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Realclimate.org comes through for me again. I still haven't got it downloaded, but it's starting to sound pretty much like what I suspected: a bunch of "rebuttals" of our current scientific understand based largely on taking issues out of context, followed by the solar theory with little to no proof whatsoever.

Yay.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I still haven't got it downloaded, but it's starting to sound pretty much like what I suspected

How very scientific of you - come to the conclusion before you've observed the subject.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Oh, don't worry, I'll watch it and I'll keep an open mind. I think I've got a good history of that around here; I've had lots of rebuttals on this place, and almost every one I've at least looked into the literature and seen what the experts say on the subject before deciding.

But your comment is irrelevant in any case. Whether it's "scientific" of me or not, I am able to come to tentative conclusions before seeing it, because I've already done some research. And that research was presented by scientists in the field, who produce papers on climate change, not documentary-makers who probably studied film instead of science in school. And those scientists have already noted some obvious mistakes and/or omissions that undermine the film, and backed up their points with primary data and/or literature.

That's something you've consistently been completely unable to do. If you had, we might be having an entirely different conversation right now.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Whether it's "scientific" of me or not, I am able to come to tentative conclusions before seeing it, because I've already done some research.

Ahhahahahahahahahaha.

One of the main thrusts of the film is that the scientists in "the consensus" are doing exactly what you're doing now - reaching a conclusion before they even start their observations. You've just proven them correct on that part of their argument.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ahhahahahahahahahaha.

One of the main thrusts of the film is that the scientists in "the consensus" are doing exactly what you're doing now - reaching a conclusion before they even start their observations. You've just proven them correct on that part of their argument.

This doesn't make sense. I haven't "reached a conclusion" because I haven't yet seen it (I lost my hard drive yesterday ), but I have read the work of others who are experts in the field and have logical rebuttals against the arguments presented. In effect, I've already "started my observations."

greg

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ahhahahahahahahahaha.

One of the main thrusts of the film is that the scientists in "the consensus" are doing exactly what you're doing now - reaching a conclusion before they even start their observations. You've just proven them correct on that part of their argument.

That's just meaningless blabla.

The part of his post that you SNIPPED was the relevant part - the bit that contained the salient parts you could have actually scored some points responding to.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This doesn't make sense.

It will when you watch the show.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Realclimate.org comes through for me again.

Link quoted for emphasis.

[Doofy]

Analog, have you actually watched the programme yet?

If the answer's no then I suggest you shut up until you've watched it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Analog, have you actually watched the programme yet?

If the answer's no then I suggest you shut up until you've watched it.

You seem a little touchy now that your pet project isn't quite so shiny anymore, huh?

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well, 1/3 of the way through, and thus far my thoughts are:

1. Way too many shill scientists. I saw Fred Singer in there. That guy's shilled against the ozone hole and smoking causing cancer. And Tim Ball was in there, and it said he's from the University of Winnipeg, but unless he's recently come back I'm pretty sure he's been gone from there for years and doing Canadian shilling.

2. British people have some ugly fµcking teeth. There's simply no way around it.

greg

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I saw Fred Singer in there. That guy's shilled against the ozone hole and smoking causing cancer.

Class acts all around.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia[/quote

Accusations of conflict of interest
Singer has been accused of conflicts of interest, most notably involving financial ties to oil and tobacco companies. [16] [17] In 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris to vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."[18]

The 1994 AdTI report was part of an attack on EPA regulation of environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [19] Singer was also involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, [20] a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Singer is also a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute,[21] another recipient of Philip Morris and ExxonMobil funds.[22]

A nonsmoker himself, Singer serves on the Science Advisory Board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)[23]. The ACSH strongly opposes smoking but otherwise tends to support industry positions on health issues, for example downplaying risks associated with dioxin, asbestos, and other carcinogenic materials.[24]

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. While funds were not directed to Singer in his name, publicly available documents show that Singer's non-profit corporation SEPP received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including in 1998 and 2000.[17]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And Tim Ball was in there, and it said he's from the University of Winnipeg, but unless he's recently come back I'm pretty sure he's been gone from there for years and doing Canadian shilling.

Indeed:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Academic background
Ball taught geography at the University of Winnipeg until 1996.
He has a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Manitoba and a Ph.D.[2] from the University of London, England.
He has been cited [3] as the first Canadian to hold a Ph.D. in climatology. This claim has been disputed in a letter to the editor of the Calgary Herald, and is currently the subject of a lawsuit undertaken by Ball against the writer, the Herald and its publishers. (See the Lawsuit section below)

Having these on their side only damages any other claim they might have. Sigh.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Analog, have you actually watched the programme yet?

If the answer's no then I suggest you shut up until you've watched it.

I'm not entirely sure I have the time to waste on a Channel-4 sensationalized pseudo-documentary 3 quarters of which have already been debunked or proven pure misinterpretation, and which puts the rest of its material alongside unquestioned use of...interesting...guests.

[Doofy]

:guffaw:

Usual leftie trick of attacking the messenger, with no comment whatsoever about the information presented.

[- - e r i k - -]

Well, having rightly seen this for what it is: A sensationalistic propaganda-piece with lousy no-credential shills and junk-science we might wonder what you had so much against those Michael Moore "documentaries".

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Well, having rightly seen this for what it is: A sensationalistic propaganda-piece with lousy no-credential shills and junk-science we might wonder what you had so much against those Michael Moore "documentaries".

Wait, is this about the British piece or are we back on Al Gore's again?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Wait, is this about the British piece or are we back on Al Gore's again?

Funny comment, but entirely misplaced. Whatever you want to say about Gore's credentials or the man himself, I don't think there was anything in there where you could say "oh there's no scientific evidence to say that," or "that guy he's talking about gets paid by ExxonMobil!"

Big difference.

I got half through last night before going to bed...I've come down with some sort of flu bug at the moment. But I'm starting again right now. As for

Usual leftie trick of attacking the messenger, with no comment whatsoever about the information presented.

I howl in disbelief at your hypocrisy. Considering the multiple threads on Al Gore's personal failings which are on the first page of this forum, it seems you've stooped to new and pathetic lows, Doof. I guess it's a good indication that you can't respond to the dismantling of your beloved little documentary with valid rebuttals.

And...on I watch.

greg

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Well, having rightly seen this for what it is: A sensationalistic propaganda-piece with lousy no-credential shills and junk-science we might wonder what you had so much against those Michael Moore "documentaries".

Atleast those that attacked Moore, attacked his message.

Not so here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I guess it's a good indication that you can't respond to the dismantling of your beloved little documentary with valid rebuttals.

How can you give a valid rebuttal of something you haven't watched?

[Kevin]

Yeah I haven't seen a valid rebuttal in this thread yet.

[besson3c]

repeat post:


Do you guys ever get tired of psychoanalyzing the personalities of people? None of us know whether Gore or anybody else is moral and sincere, this applies to any politician, or anybody in a position of power for that matter.

I'm sick of so much attention being put into this sort of character analysis. How about we focus on what people say, the merits of what they are saying, and in the case of politicians, their political capability, intellect, etc.?

Sure, making moral and ethical decisions is important, but we are basically rolling the dice with anybody in power. If we are going to psychoanalyze this sort of crap, maybe we should focus on stuff that actually matters - whether people are affected, whether it affects the ability of the person being analyzed to do their jobs capably, etc.?

I don't care about who people sleep with, whether they smoke cigarettes, whether they did drugs in the past, what church they go to (so long as they separate their religious beliefs from their job), the status of their marriage, how they dress, how phony they are, how hypocritical they are, etc. IT DOES NOT MATTER!! If they can do their job and do it well (and ethically), great... if they can't, they can't. It's as simple as that.

Going back to Gore, how about we just focus on what he is saying?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yeah I haven't seen a valid rebuttal in this thread yet.

That's because I posted a link to it, and apparently you're willing to bend reality and semantics enough to think that because it isn't in the thread it doesn't count.

Almost done, the Raptors game has diverted my attention somewhat. Should be able to give my thoughts this afternoon.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well, I'm done.

1. Sadly, it had to end on the horrendously weak point of "global warming advocates are holding back developing countries." One question: how does this jive with the well-established argument that international climate treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol give developing countries an unfair edge over developed countries, and is merely a socialist scheme to redistribute wealth to poor countries? I mean, developing countries are exempt from climate treaties! I don't see any evidence presented: I see claims that some environmentalists are discouraging them from using higher-emissions energy sources, which I'm sure is certainly true, but I don't see a mention of how this translates into actually prohibiting this use. Africa as a whole has a minute carbon footprint when compared to any of the large developed countries.

The shots of poor people without electricity, and "you can't talk in the dark, you have to go to bed," and solar panels not powering lights and a fridge...so?!? There's no argument there. Are they trying to say that with a coal plant they'd have the infrastructure to hook up electricity to dirt shacks in the countryside?! What about the cost of adding one more solar panel, instead of building a coal plant and transmitting its electricity to the hospital? Again, there may be valid points against these, but nothing of substance is presented.

2. Their graphs are weak. I don't know if anyone else here caught this: when it presented the graph about the cooling period after WWII I paused the movie to take a look at it. I then noticed an error: the graph's "1940" and "1975" markers weren't placed at 1940 and 1975! I just Googled this and looked on the brief Realclimate page again, and it seems their entire set of (impressive-looking) graphs were suspect and unreferenced.

Furthermore, it seems that the graphs were manipulated to suit their points. For example, Doofy, the "solar vs. temperature" graph, you might notice, is cut off at 1980. 1980? Of course, since they don't match nearly as well after that time – when, it might be noted, our measurements are also the most precise. How exactly are they measuring solar radiation over the last 600 years again? Anyone know? (Also, Doofy, some information about the "mars is warming" view may be found here.)

Furthermore, the post-WWII "global cooling" trend has been amply explained by the sharp rise in particulate matter that coincided with the enormous industrial and chemical-industrial output WWII produced. I think one scientist says that "there's no explanation for this," which is hilariously inaccurate. It's interesting to note that this "global dimming" seemed to lose its steam around the mid-1970s – just shortly after most industrial developed nations began to implement pollution-restriction programmes. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I don't really have time for this at the moment, I'm completely snowed under with work and this is my break. More later.

greg

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Atleast those that attacked Moore, attacked his message.

Yeah. Always.



Thing is, on a serious subject such as this, an hour (or so) TV-doc isn't really going to cut it, no matter how you slant it.

FYI, I have the same opinion on "An inconvenient truth".

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yeah I haven't seen a valid rebuttal in this thread yet.

And you haven't posted anything in it either, other than your typical snip. Why don't you share some of your vast knowledge on this subject, and rebut what those with whom you disagree are saying?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

And you haven't posted anything in it either, other than your typical snip. Why don't you share some of your vast knowledge on this subject, and rebut what those with whom you disagree are saying?

Because he doesn't do anything like that. Just like that skinny little guy in the back of the group who chimes in with the "YEAHS" and "TAKE THAT! and "NU UH YOU'RE WRONG!" That would be Kevin' involvement in 90% of the threads I've witnessed.

Moving on to the part about volcanoes having far more CO2 emissions that humans: completely wrong. There's no rise in atmospheric CO2 levels after volcanic emissions. In fact the current knowledge is that volcanic CO2 emissions are about 1/100 of anthropogenic emissions. Furthermore, as I've already stated on here many times, volcanoes emit an equally large number of sulphate aerosols, which work towards global dimming by blocking incoming solar radiation. While it might not have increased CO2, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1992 certainly had an increase on temperature: it went down slightly, and almost certainly because of these aerosols.

So...yeah. Completely wrong.

greg

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

:guffaw:

Usual leftie trick of attacking the messenger, with no comment whatsoever about the information presented.

If the messenger is caught lying and mis-quoting the message, who is to blame BUT the messenger?

Duh.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Because he doesn't do anything like that. Just like that skinny little guy in the back of the group who chimes in with the "YEAHS" and "TAKE THAT! and "NU UH YOU'RE WRONG!" That would be Kevin' involvement in 90% of the threads I've witnessed.

A notable, and wonderful exception: http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...xteenth+chapel

Probably my favorite MacNN thread ever.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Probably my favorite MacNN thread ever.

You've probably completely missed the hot babes thread then.

[Buckaroo]

Never Mind

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

repeat post:


Do you guys ever get tired of psychoanalyzing the personalities of people? None of us know whether Gore or anybody else is moral and sincere, this applies to any politician, or anybody in a position of power for that matter.

I'm sick of so much attention being put into this sort of character analysis. How about we focus on what people say, the merits of what they are saying, and in the case of politicians, their political capability, intellect, etc.?

Sure, making moral and ethical decisions is important, but we are basically rolling the dice with anybody in power. If we are going to psychoanalyze this sort of crap, maybe we should focus on stuff that actually matters - whether people are affected, whether it affects the ability of the person being analyzed to do their jobs capably, etc.?

I don't care about who people sleep with, whether they smoke cigarettes, whether they did drugs in the past, what church they go to (so long as they separate their religious beliefs from their job), the status of their marriage, how they dress, how phony they are, how hypocritical they are, etc. IT DOES NOT MATTER!! If they can do their job and do it well (and ethically), great... if they can't, they can't. It's as simple as that.

Going back to Gore, how about we just focus on what he is saying?

qft

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

A notable, and wonderful exception: http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...xteenth+chapel

Probably my favorite MacNN thread ever.

my favorite all-time MacNN thread

[Kevin]

The earth is doomed anyhow. Save the people.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The earth is doomed anyhow. Save the people.

Earth.

On the brink of destruction for 6,000 years.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

How exactly are they measuring solar radiation over the last 600 years again? Anyone know?

Reliable sunspot records go back to 1610. (though sporadic naked eye records go back to 800 BC)

Also, it was my understanding that sunspot activity has been gleaned from measuring the presence of Carbon 14 in tree rings, for whatever that's worth.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The earth is doomed anyhow. Save the people.

In a shocking turn of events, Kevin reverts back to the tried-and-true "teh jesus will come soon" scenario rather than actually admit he was wrong. Stunning, really.

In other, more important news, the most respected scientist on the program, who had previously said through email that he was misled by the film crew, has now put forth a public statement which says that his views were misrepresented and taken out of context, and that the film crew were deliberately misleading, and did not indicate they were actually making an anti-global-warming film. Wunsch was one of the surprise additions to the film, and is a relatively well-known and well-respected scientist – unlike the majority of the "scientists" presented in the movie.

Is this the kind of evidence you hold so dear in this debate, Doofy? Lies, more lies, distortions, and misleading its very cast? I find it amusing that something you latch onto so tightly when it agrees with your views is so quickly exposed as the fraud it is. There were some interesting points that I'll have to research further, mind you – I've heard it said by "disease experts" that malaria won't spread to Canada because those mosquitos can't live here – but for the most part it just seems that the information presented was either wrong, out of context, misleading, or concerned science which is indeed incomplete but which has already been debated ad nauseum within the scientific community.


The following letter from Carl Wunsch is intended to clarify his views on global warming in general, and the The Great Global Warming Swindle which misrepresented them.

Partial Response to the London Channel 4 Film "The Global Warming Swindle"

Carl Wunsch 11 March 2007

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.

The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,...). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.

I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality [i.e. see this previous RC post]. They also are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats. I've paid more attention to the extreme claims in the literature warning of coming catastrophe, both because I regard the scientists there as more serious, and because I am very sympathetic to the goals of my colleagues who sometimes seem, however, to be confusing their specific scientific knowledge with their worries about the future.

When approached by WAGTV, on behalf of Channel 4, known to me as one of the main UK independent broadcasters, I was led to believe that I would be given an opportunity to explain why I, like some others, find the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful. I am, after all a teacher, and this seemed like a good opportunity to explain why, for example, I thought more attention should be paid to sea level rise, which is ongoing and unstoppable and carries a real threat of acceleration, than to the unsupportable claims that the ocean circulation was undergoing shutdown (Nature, December 2005).

I wanted to explain why observing the ocean was so difficult, and why it is so tricky to predict with any degree of confidence such important climate elements as its heat and carbon storage and transports in 10 or 100 years. I am distrustful of prediction scenarios for details of the ocean circulation that rely on extremely complicated coupled models that run out for decades to thousands of years. The science is not sufficiently mature to say which of the many complex elements of such forecasts are skillful. Nonetheless, and contrary to the impression given in the film, I firmly believe there is a great deal to be learned from models. With effort, all of this is explicable in terms the public can understand.

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.

Many of us feel an obligation to talk to the media---it's part of our role as scientists, citizens, and educators. The subjects are complicated, and it is easy to be misquoted or quoted out context. My experience in the past is that these things do happen, but usually inadvertently --- most reporters really do want to get it right.

Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics". There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.

The letter I sent them as soon as I heard about the actual program is below. [available here]

As a society, we need to take out insurance against catastrophe in the same way we take out homeowner's protection against fire. I buy fire insurance, but I also take the precaution of having the wiring in the house checked, keeping the heating system up to date, etc., all the while hoping that I won't need the insurance. Will any of these precautions work? Unexpected things still happen (lightning strike? plumber's torch igniting the woodwork?). How large a fire insurance premium is it worth paying? How much is it worth paying for rewiring the house? $10,000 but perhaps not $100,000? There are no simple answers even at this mundane level.

How much is it worth to society to restrain CO2 emissions --- will that guarantee protection against global warming? Is it sensible to subsidize insurance for people who wish to build in regions strongly susceptible to coastal flooding? These and others are truly complicated questions where often the science is not mature enough give definitive answers, much as we would like to be able to provide them. Scientifically, we can recognize the reality of the threat, and much of what society needs to insure against. Statements of concern do not need to imply that we have all the answers. Channel 4 had an opportunity to elucidate some of this. The outcome is sad.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Reliable sunspot records go back to 1610. (though sporadic naked eye records go back to 800 BC)

Also, it was my understanding that sunspot activity has been gleaned from measuring the presence of Carbon 14 in tree rings, for whatever that's worth.

Cool; I don't know much about the methodology, although I assumed there must've been some proxy method(s). I should look into it at some point.

greg