Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamou  Still... since you obviously have above average information on the subject and the fact that you also have a good education... it would be interesting to have "your" views on the subject... I know I would...
. |
Speaking of education....and seeing your from Canada, I was thinking of applying to Toronto and McGill (I think it was) as a freshman applicant in the 2009 year, as they appear to be the top universities in Canada. Sham, how hard are these universities to get into by any chance? Are they as hard as Oxford and Cambridge are over in England here because while I attain high grades. I'm not quite a straight A grade student. Whats you opinion of the Canadian Education system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamou S it would be interesting to have "your" views on the subject... I know I would...
. |
After watching the documentary about 'This Swindle' it appears there are a few things that are apparent, firstly the way the models and graphs fits together is highly dubious. Different data from external sources doesn't tend to fit
quite as well as it does in the documentary. Secondly what they comment on about the IPCC appears to be correct, many of them are non-scientists and don't have an ounce of experience in the field and were only attracted to the field due to the money it brings. However some of the scientists on the documentary that present the case 'that man made C02 production shouldn't be the cause for concern' don't actually have viable histories themselves. The only with creditable standing and history in my mind are: Carl Wunsch (Oceanography - MIT) Richard Lindzen (Meteorology - MIT) Patrick Moore (Co-founder Greenpeace) Nigel Calder (Former New Scientist editor) Paul Reiter (medical entomology - Pasteur Institute) as well as some bloke from the Arctic Research centre but his name eludes me at present
.
Which isn't a huge amount compared to how many were interviewed. It's also worth noting that 'Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used.'
While the documentary stresses that we are not the cause, it is wrong or naive of us to think we have no effect on the environment or that we are the only thing that affects the environment.
The documentary is trying to divulge that we are not responsible for the C02 we produce, I feel that this is the wrong approach as to the average brain dead person on this planet, they are going to take this as 'It simply doesn't matter'. While the IPCC reports are completely the opposite, basically what they say is that if you leave the light on while unused, your going to cause an ice break the size of Wales.
It's trying to find the middle ground between two extreme views, It's certainly not as bad as the IPCC makes out, but not as
good as the documentary states.
All you can do is form your own opinions, act accordingly and ignore the journalism as they really do throw a load of propaganda at you.
'Ah but now it's much much worse; there's going to be 10 feet of sea level rise by next Tuesday' - Nigel Calder (Former New Scientist editor) - Sums it up