On BBC 2 I am currently watching a very good Horizon documentary (started 2100) narrated by the Nobel Prize Winning scientist Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, on basically the credibility of scientists generally and the issue of Climate Change in particular.

I highly recommend anyone who is genuinely interested in the science of Climate Change, Nickbat, Banjax, and others like me, to watch the whole  documentary once available on BBC-i player.

Interesting comments from Sir Paul, a chief NASA scientist, the journalist who launched "Climategate" as a story, amongst others, that should be noted well by both sides of the argument!

I will comment no further at this stage so you can after you have watched it

Now on BBC iplayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y4yql/Horizon_20102011_Science_Under_Att...




Does the link work for you Cem?

And another link Cem -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/y4yql/

cem wrote on 24. Jan 2011 at 22:15:



or this one Cem?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/y4yql/

Excellent Lizzie.......I'm not convinced my good friend Nickbat will agree with certain views on climate change though...

i thought the NASA stuff was particularly impressive - that floating globe they had was amazing 

but the question as to why, in the face of near universal consensus, theres still 50% of americans and 30% of brits who are sceptical about AGW was definitely perplexing, my guess would be that for some reason its become political (his hypothetical "cancer" example to Delingpole perfectly demonstrated it)

now if you had a well that was examined by 100 scientists and 99 of them told you the water wasn't safe to drink why would you believe the guy saying "go ahead - they're all idiots" 

Banjax wrote on 25. Jan 2011 at 07:37:



I doubt very much that you would get 99 out of 100 scientists to agree with any theory BJ.

(Unless they were being funded in research grants by 'concerned' parties or were working to a specific agenda)

Desperate Den wrote on 25. Jan 2011 at 08:35:




That seems to be a problem with all academic disciplines ZL.

In historian circles it is often said that if there are 12 in one room discussing a certain historical issue you will hear 13 versions of view point!!

In regards to the documentary, I rather liked the point made by Sir Paul that maybe scientists do not know how to handle PR and the media.  Their expertise is not in that area.  I thought that is true as they have no Max Gifford to handle their PR, and when issues become complicated and controversial the public so often do not generally understand, and they begin by going to the default mode of "it is all rubbish!!"

I also agree that the NASA scientist, with their magnificent high tech 'tools' and floating globe, was fascinating with the facts.  He, they NASA., seem to have no doubt that the Earth is in a period of significant Climate Change that is far more rapid then at anytime in ancient or modern history.  It also has nothing to do with the Sun!  His factual statement about man extracting and using 7 gigaton per year of carbon that ends up going into the atmosphere, compared to all the volcanic and other natural discharges of just 1 gigaton per year certainly made me think!!   His underlying message was one of climate change is being fueled by mans activity.

I am also normally sceptical about computer "models", but the huge screen demonstration by this NASA scientist of the "model" of that days Earth's weather compared to the actual situation was stunning due to the virtually identical picture seen.

The piece involving the scientist at the University of East Anglia who was at the centre of the leaked e-mails row, and the jounalist who ran with the "Climategate" story, highlighted to me at least that it was a case of the truthful intelectual falling foul of the street wise news hack after a story.  The underlying reasons behind the doubts over the figures though, for me, was the REAL and fascinating story.  This was since 1960 the reading of tree rings to give historic climatic information has not been possible, due to a significant change in those rings for a reason as yet unknown!  Ask yourself why?  Forget the journalistic "Climategate", as the real story is why 1960 and since has witnessed that change in tree growth and recordings!

All in all I believe this documentary should give food for thought to both the believers and sceptics of Climatic Change.  I personnaly believe it is happening, and now, after watching and considering the facts from this documentary along with other sources, I am really starting to believe it is at least being assisted by mans activity on Earth.

   

Nickbat wrote on 25. Jan 2011 at 09:52:



So that is the limit of your argument against this documentary Nickbat! Involving the Mail, your biased against the BBC, and the upset Sissons!

And you complain so often about Banjax's postings!!