It could not have been, because scientific facts about human influence on the climate did not exist in , as is revealed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC First Assessment Report in , which concluded that 'The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more. Principle 15 of the Rio declaration states: 'In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. So, with the benefit of hindsight, Stewart could lump various objections to the interpretation of controversial evidence which existed at the time into one 'sceptic' category. Not according to the scientific substance of the argument, but according to whether the argument was later vindicated; not by the consistency of the argument with reality, but whether or not it 'supported' the theory of anthropogenic global warming AGW.
In , the data simply wasn't available to conclude with any great confidence that global warming was happening. But by the logic of Stewart's argument, as long as you were right about global warming being a 'fact' at that time - even if that meant in reality you were wrongly interpreting the evidence available - you were a 'scientist'.
But, if you were right about the unreliability of data in , then you were wrong in , because you were a 'sceptic'. If this were just a debate within an academic discipline, such challenges would not have any major significance outside of it.
But Stewart, like many others, takes routine and isolated differences of scientific opinion, and groups them to imbue them with political significance.
What could have been an interesting film was instead a fiction. It attached fictional arguments to fictional interests to legitimise the politicisation of the debate - exactly what it accused the sceptics of.
Rather than concentrating on the arguments that have actually been made, Stewart invented the sceptic's argument to turn climate science into an arena for an exhausted political argument for 'change' that has failed to engage the public. Don't expect a documentary film about it any time soon. Details Edit.
Release date September 7, United Kingdom. United Kingdom. Technical specs Edit. The problem is that appending the unvalidated GCM predictions makes it appear that the future is known with the same assurance as the empirical data. Many believe that the RCP8.
Conflating actual data with model predictions is not good science. Thank you. It is something invented by ideological advocates. If the authors are pushing an unsanctioned term, how can we trust the rest of the things they are claiming? Thank you for the link. Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared. The Celsius scale, also known as the centigrade scale, is a temperature scale named after the Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius.
More on SciTechDaily. M James September 26, at pm Reply. William Wade September 11, at am Reply. Ric Werme September 11, at pm Reply. Paul Carriere November 26, at am Reply. Iain examines the scientific arguments that developed as the global warming sceptics took on the climate change consensus. The sceptics attacked almost everything that scientists held to be true.
They argued that the planet wasn't warming up, that even if it was it was nothing unusual, and certainly whatever was happening to the climate was nothing to do with human emissions of greenhouse gases.
Iain interviews some of the key global warming sceptics, and discovers how their positions have changed over time. Having explained the science behind global warming, and addressed the arguments of the climate change sceptics earlier in the series, Dr Iain Stewart concludes the series by looking at the biggest challenge now facing climate scientists - Just how can they predict exactly what changes global warming will bring?
It's a journey that takes him from early attempts to model the climate system with dishpans, to supercomputers, and to the frontline of climate research today: Greenland. Most worryingly he discovers that scientists are becoming increasingly concerned that their models are actually underestimating the speed of changes already underway. Add 6 links to eMule. Jump to: navigation , search.
Add 6 links to eMule BBC.
0コメント