Earth: The Climate Wars.... BBCi player.... SHOCKING Evidence

Sorry guys this is my first post really . I am in the UK and last night I watched a programme on BBC 1, mainstream watching/ prime time TV.

If ever those in the know wanted to scare the hell out of the blithely believing majorities, then this is a stark warning of momentous proportions........... Even Dr.Ian Stewart was viably shocked


Go watch for yourselves and see what it makes you feel like...................


Mods, sorry if I have stepped over the mark with this post but I just had to make sure others would see this too......Climate Disaster impending



If this is evidence then it's scary...

Could you go into more detail as to what the video claims? When I click on the link it says that it is for UK users only.

Thanks,

STM

Yeah I watched it last night, Im kinda freaked that through the worlds history, whenever climate change happened it happened very fast within 1-3 years. I think this is the first time I am actually thinking about storing food! I really get the feeling we're in for a tough time very soon.

reply to post by seentoomuch


UK users only!!!!.......... no way...... no fair even!!!


Basically this is the third programme in a series about global climate change, This one states with evidence from ice cores that 11000 yrs ago the climate changed abruptly from warm to ice-age. What was so shocking was that this abrupt change happened over two seasons........................... not years, or decades. but 2 seasons!!!!


Can't say much more now, I have free tickets to Alton Towers theme park.... hehe 2 x 37 yr olds....no kids.... will have a blast....a last one even looking at the current lines of thinking.....


Here is the write up for the programme....

In the 1970s the world seemed to be falling apart. From acid rain to overpopulation, ecological concerns were at the fore. And it was at this time that climate change first became a hot political issue. But it wasn't global warming that frightened scientists, it was the complete opposite; a new ice age.

Dr Iain Stewart traces the history of climate change from its very beginning and examines just how the scientific community managed to get it so very wrong back in the Seventies. Along the way he uncovers some of the great unsung heroes of climate change science, and introduces us to a secret organisation of American government scientists, known as Jason, who wrote the first official report on global warming as far back as 1979.

He shows how - by the late 1980s - global warming had already become a serious political issue. It looked as if the world was uniting to take action. But it turned out to be a false dawn. Because in the 1990s global warming would be transformed into one of the biggest scientific controversies of our age.


Other UK residents may be able to elaborate on this through-out the day...

Cant believe this didnt get more replies.

Maybe people are sick of hearing about it. At least someone has done some proper research into the whole subject of climate change. And his findings do not bode well. Especially the jaw dropping speed of the climate changes throughout its history and thats without the serious polution that is currently being produced. Maybe this explains all the underground bunkers being built on the hush hush.

I didn't watch the video (am in Canada) but I can tell that it's probably just more ridiculous propaganda that just keeps being laid down thicker and thicker as it becomes more and more obvious that it's not as big of a deal as "they" tell us it is.

I hope that along with showing the abruptness of the past climate changes that they also pointed out the lack of damage they caused, and how the biosphere in general, us included, is generally richer in warmer periods, as the fossil record and archaeological research tends to indicate. Somehow, though, I doubt it.

Now if only they'd lay down "save the rainforest" propaganda this thick...

Dr Iain Stewart...


HHHmmm this must be the guy who in the first five minutes of the programme says that when you take the highest recorded daily temperature from a temp monitoring station and then the lowest daily temperature from the same station the point midway between these two is the average temperature for that day.

This is of course TOTAL RUBBISH. What you get in those circumstances is the median (middle) temperature for the day. The average or mean (X bar if you wish) temperature for a DAY cannot be determined from two simple maximum and minimum temperature data points.

The average of the two numbers is determined this way, but temperatures are not simple numbers but numerical values representing physical characteristics, which vary with time.

This programme was biased from the first few sentences as is typical these days of BBC drivel.

Anyone who is familiar with the work of MILTON (Psychotherapy Psychobabble guy) and the theories (very effecticve IF you don't know it's being done btw) on influencing an audience (NLP etc) can count the number of instances of:
1. Mind Reading
2. Lost performative
3. Cause and effect (used that one a lot)
4. Complex equivalence (this one a lot too)
5. Extended quotation
6. Presupposition

Used in this programme. Simply outstanding work and totally aimed at gulling you into believing what was said, by the way in which it is said and not what was said becuase it happens to be true.

DENY IGNORANCE people.........

Below are some examples of these things and how to counter them.


Mind reading –
claiming you know someone’s internal state
‘I know you believe…’
‘I can see you believe…’

Countered with ‘How’ questions

Lost performative –
value judgements where the person doing the judging is left out
‘It’s good to…’
‘It’s important to…’

Countered with ‘Who specifically…’

Cause – effect -
Where X is claimed to cause Y
‘If you pay close attention, you will learn faster’

Countered with ‘How does…’

Complex equivalence -
Where two things are equated – as in their meanings being equivalent
‘Your question means that you know the answer already’

Countered with ‘What specifically lets you know that…’

Presuppositions –
The linguistic equivalent of an assumption
‘You’re seeing things differently now’

Countered with ‘How’ questions again


Sorry to hijack the thread but this programme was awful in that it used quite blatant propaganda techniques that should not be necessary in the face of such "compelling evidence".