Hot planet – great free BBC documentary on what a 3 degree world may look like

Dear all, still busy at work. In the interim I highly recommend this great documentary as Video of the day:

It showcases: 

  • how scientists measure the historical concentration of CO2 using Antarctic ice cores
  • the changes to ecosystems such as coral reefs, Canadian forests and the Africa savanna
  • a complete loss of Arctic sea ice by 2040
  • the dramatic increase in the duration of the US wildfire season
  • what we can expect in a 3 degree world

Enjoy!

About these ads
Tagged , , , , ,

44 thoughts on “Hot planet – great free BBC documentary on what a 3 degree world may look like

  1. [...] 2013/02/27: WtD: Hot planet – great free BBC documentary on what a 3 degree world may look lik… [...]

  2. john byatt says:

    More Moncktosh

    “Sea-ice extent in the Arctic has reached a record high for this time of year, despite a record low last summer”
    has it? NO

      • john byatt says:

        The climate sceptics party blog NCTCSP
        he has quite a bit of garbage there but I chose that among many piles of excreta

    • Dr No says:

      Evem more typical Moncktosh. Re. the presentation by Chris at the Souths Leagues Club:
      “There were questions at the end, and Mr James asked Lord Monckton how much of his work was peer-reviewed. Things soured further, and the presenter loudly called Mr James, 27, ‘‘a child’’ and a ‘‘liar’’. ”

      Still, some people still think he is wonderful. Even Berlusconi manages to be both shameless and popular.

      http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1330957/topics-moncktons-match/?cs=308

      • john byatt says:

        too funny

      • john byatt says:

        Love it

        Lord Monckton began his Souths Leagues Club presentation by asking who in the audience thought climate change could be a problem.

        He welcomed the raised hands, for these were people who’d come to challenge themselves.

        As his slideshow began, Lord Monckton urged the audience to butt in and ask questions at any time. An hour in, someone did.

        Hannah Bowrey and Morgan James, a pair of Newcastle University PhD candidates in neuroscience, had concerns with how Lord Monckton had interpreted a graph.

        ‘‘It depends how you interpret it,’’ Ms Bowrey said.

        Lord Monckton: No it doesn’t.

        Ms Bowrey: No, it absolutely does.

        The viscount wasn’t budging.

        Lord Monckton: I imagine you are not yourself a statistician.

        Ms Bowrey: Yeah, we both teach statistics at the uni.

      • Nick says:

        So there we have Monckton implying strongly that he is a statistician. It’s a matter of the public record that he has never been employed as one. Monckton is also on record as pretending [strongly implying] that he was a scientist [" that is what we scientist call..."] before a credulous audience in Sydney. This is the man: he will claim anything if he judges his audience sufficiently gullible. Eric?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Yes, what kind of idiot would listen to say a patent clerk with a radical new theory of physics?

      • john byatt says:

        again from ignorance, go and read his history

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I listen to quite a lot of his stuff, don’t agree with everything, but on climate science he is pretty spot on.

      • Dr No says:

        Albert Einstein and Chris Monckton in the same breath!
        Hilarious!
        Tell us another one!

      • Dr No says:

        How about this. Apparently, in 1995, Monckton and his wife opened Monckton’s, a shirt shop in King’s Road, Chelsea.
        Can you picture him, beavering away at his latest climate science theory, amongst the shirt racks. I can also hear the good wife calling;
        “Chris, Chris…we have a customer. Come and attend to them and stop that scribbling!”

      • Nick says:

        Err-ic: “listen to quite a lot of his stuff…” Oh dear. “…don’t agree with everything” how could one? Monckton is an extremist “..but on climate science,Monckton is spot-on..” There is no evidence to support that assertion. There is ample evidence to the contrary: John Abraham’s analysis of one of M’s lectures is obviously a must-read for you Eric. You will be amazed at the audacity of Monckton’s distortions. He has put a lot of work into an elaborate deception. More elaborate than needed to fool you,though…

  3. john byatt says:

    An a word from leaping lord looney

    Lord Monckton says prosecuting ‘scientists’ is best way to stop hysteria.

    that would be his hysteria i presume

    • Eric Worrall says:

      If Monckton thinks someone has lied and misrepresented him, he has every right to chase them through the courts.

      • Debunker says:

        No Need. Monckton lies and misrepresents himself every time he opens his mouth. :-D

      • john byatt says:

        Or as the two Phd’s said at the newcastle leagues club

        “Sue us”

        what a clothhead he is

      • Nick says:

        Monckton has not chased anyone through the courts,though he has blown hard and often about doing that,Eric. The reason why is that it’s all posturing and feeding the chooks [i.e.you]. If he did follow through,he’d be revealed in court as the liar and misrepresenter that he has already been revealed as by John Abraham,amongst many. Do you remember Tim Lambert [of Deltoid] confronting him with an author whose paper he had misrepresented? She EXPLICITLY stated that Monckton’s application of her papers claims was not valid.

        You naivety concerning Monckton is damning,and is consistent with your being a dupe of Watts

      • Eric Worrall says:

        This reminds me of our debate over whether global temperatures have stalled for 16 years.

        The MET office tied itself into knots claiming that although its graph showed the same temperature 16 years ago as today, this didn’t mean temperatures had stalled, and anyone who said otherwise was misrepresenting them.

        But noone owns a fact – the statement “global surface temperatures are within 0.5c of what they were 16 years ago” is true, regardless of your interpretation of the meaning (if any) of this fact (unless you use jailbird Hansen’s figures of course).

        Monckton makes mistakes – but we all love the way he riles up the alarmists. His impersonation for a few minutes in Doha of a UN delegate was comedy gold. And at least he knows more science than Al “millions of degrees” Gore.

      • Nick says:

        Yes,the statement “GTs are within 0.5C of what they were 16 years ago ” is true….but tells you nothing about trend and sign.

        “the meaning [if any] of this fact..” has escaped you of course in every sense.

        “we all love Monckton..” but not as much as he loves himself. You profess ‘love’ for someone who wants to mislead you,that’s sad.

  4. Sou says:

    Looks like a terrific video – thanks. I’ll watch the rest of it tonight.

    OT but in line with watching deniers, I notice that Tony Watts is exultant that he pretended to be a dog and the Union of Concerned Scientists didn’t spot the difference! What a curious character (says Sou with a shameless plug).

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/02/the-curious-tale-of-watts-and-his-dog.html

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Your link totally misses the point – the hilarity is UCS never checked whether Kenji (Watts’ dog) was a scientist, which undermines their implied claim they are a group of scientists. So the very name “Union of Concerned Scientists” is misleading – they don’t check whether their members are scientists, or even whether their members are human. All you need is the membership fee.

      • Sou says:

        Too funny Eric. Perhaps you suffer from the same syndrome as Watts?

        You are the one who has totally missed all the several points (plural). One of the points being, not only would UCS accept a dog like Watts, they’d even accept an Eric Worrall if he chose to join. (Hint, no pre-requisites)

        Come on Eric, prove me wrong:
        prove me wrong

        If you want to learn something about UCS, click here. An excerpt:

        UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students. .

      • Sou says:

        (I put a couple of links in my reply for Eric, so my first reply is stuck in moderation.

        Since Watts’ dog didn’t even let onto his master that Watts could have joined in his own name (ie he didn’t have to fake his identity like an anonymous coward), it’s understandable that the dog didn’t tell Eric either. And Eric doesn’t know how to find out for himself that even he could join if he wanted to.)

        For Eric: You’ll have to wait for my other post to show up, Eric. Then what you do is get your mouse and hover it over one of the links, then put your index finger on the left mouse button (if you’re using a PC) and press down hard. You’ll be taken to the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists where you can read up about the organisation..

      • Sou says:

        Guys, do you think that was clear enough for Eric? I’m not a teacher and I don’t know Eric except for reading a few of his posts here. You might have had more dealings with him or people like him.

        Do you think my instructions were too complicated for him to follow?

      • john byatt says:

        You are an idiot, anyone can join the UOCS , you can donate and get email updates or newsletters

        watts gets you every time

        here join one of your children up.or one of your veggies . calvin the carrot

        https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/SPageNavigator/join_donate_lbox.html

      • Sou says:

        Like I said, I don’t know Eric well, but from what I’ve seen so far it seems to me he and Anthony have a lot in common.

      • john byatt says:

        Mike at Uknowispeaksense is using him to teach his students about science deniers

        He is not much different to many i come across on blogs each day

      • john byatt says:

        eg,

        jayembee from Cooloola Cove 9 hours ago
        Dear Mr Killerjools, your comment borders on the inane,

        The increased extreme events are already taking place,
        Why
        this paper presents more evidence and is only recent

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/

        .

        Reply
        killerjools from Sippy Downs 6 hours ago Report post
        originally posted by jayembee from Cooloola Cove 9 hours ago
        Dear Mr Killerjools, your comment borders on the inane,

        The increased extreme events are already taking place,
        Why
        this paper presents more evidence and is only recent

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/

        .

        Anything is taken as extreme…Easy to call ACC when you decide where the goalposts go…

      • john byatt says:

        duplicate in moderation

        eg
        jayembee from Cooloola Cove 9 hours ago
        Dear Mr Killerjools, your comment borders on the inane,

        The increased extreme events are already taking place,
        Why
        this paper presents more evidence and is only recent

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/

        .

        Reply
        killerjools from Sippy Downs 6 hours ago Report post
        originally posted by jayembee from Cooloola Cove 9 hours ago
        Dear Mr Killerjools, your comment borders on the inane,

        The increased extreme events are already taking place,
        Why
        this paper presents more evidence and is only recent

        sciencedaily.com/releases/…

        .

        Anything is taken as extreme…Easy to call ACC when you decide where the goalposts go…

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If “Union of Concerned Scientists” are not actually scientists, then why the misleading name? Surely they should call themselves “Union of Concerned People”, or “Union of Concerned Alarmists”, or possibly “Union of Concerned Morons”.

      • john byatt says:

        becoming a member does not mea. Oh WTF bother

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I see – so they call themselves scientists, even though many of them aren’t scientists.

        Cool.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Union of concerned canines… woof!

  5. john byatt says:

    Of course three degrees is purely a transient temperature, above two degrees we may set in motion the foundations for well over six degrees that would be unstoppable ,

    big monster, sharp stick = stop poking

  6. Eric Worrall says:

    From my original link:-

    The BBC is the only media organisation in Britain whose pension fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which has more than 50 members across Europe.

    Then evidence emerged the BBC deliberately violated its own charter of impartiality. When challenged, they claimed they felt justified to do so because of advice they received from a panel of 28 experts it met with in 2006.

    The BBC fought hard to conceal the identity of the panel of “experts”, spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on legal defence against a FOIA request, only to be stymied when a copy of their list turned up on wayback machine.

    http://eric.worrall.name/secret28.cgi

    Now we know why they fought so hard to conceal the names – turns out the panel of “experts” was actually a panel of activists and industry figures, with a couple of hardline alarmists thrown in – people who also stood to make a lot of money if alarmism gained widespread acceptance.

    It might be that senior management at the BBC believes so strongly they simply wanted to express their commitment by investing their own money to help make the future better.

    But Green investments have not done well lately – large scale collapses such as Solyndra, and many smaller disappointments such as the recurrent bailouts demanded by wind turbine manufacturer Vestas, must have taken their toll. Worse still, since Copenhagen and Climategate, and a successful campaign by Climate skeptics to throw sand in the gears of the alarmism machine, ordinary people don’t get as excited about climate change as they once did. There is also evidence of conflict at the highest levels of British government between green energy enthusiasts and people who see alternative energy as a drag on economic recovery.

    So it would be very surprising if the BBC fund was not sitting on substantial losses on the green component of their portfolio – much of which could be reversed if wavering political commitment to public investment in climate projects was firmed up.

    So it is not unreasonable to ask, when the BBC broadcasts yet another piece of radical green propaganda, are they doing it from the heart, or are they worried about their pensions?

  7. Eric Worrall says:

    Is that the same BBC which has £8 billion of their pension pot invested in alternative energy projects and suchlike?

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/156703/8bn-BBC-eco-bias

    But I’ll watch it – should be good for a laugh, if only to see how desperate well funded fatcats can be when their future nest egg is at stake.

    • Debunker says:

      one thing I do admire about you Eric is your thick skin and total lack of shame. One would think that someone who’s been smacked down as often as you have would pull his head in, but no; here you are again with a typical inane and irrelevant comment, just ready to be smacked down again… :-)

    • Jon says:

      Eric,

      Did you even read the article you linked? Quoting from it, “The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit.”.

      That reads to me as though the entire pension fund is £8 billion. Are you alleging that all of it is “invested in alternative energy projects and suchlike”? How can that be true unless “suchlike” means everything in the universe other than alternative energy projects?

      BTW, what does your argument imply about the motivations of fossil fuel companies and executives that fund organizations arguing against doing anything to mitigate climate change?

    • Yet another data point in support of: http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

      Gotta envy the social scientists — sometimes, they can just sit back and let the data come to them!

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 771 other followers

%d bloggers like this: