"* October 2009: The Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research releases an updated prediction, suggesting a 4C temperature increase by 2060. "
This item listed by Jamail, even though not referenced directly to the report but rather to a The Guardian article, contains quotations from the author of the report. Furthermore what the Guardian says is an accurate picture of the report which is subsequently published by the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - A (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67.full). If only this item is correct in Jamails article, and all others inaccurate or inappropriate, by itself would be enough to justify looking at "the dark side of warming"
Item 3
It is true that Dahr Jamail did not refer to the PNAS article but he did refer to the next best thing - the author himself. And what the author says is a fair reflection of what Jamail reports: "We've shown unequivocally what happens when CO2 increases dramatically – as it is now, and as it did 55 million years ago," Wright said.
Item 4
“A study published in the prestigious journal Nature.." Jamail reports on the Nature article. As long as he reports it accurately/fairly, that is fair enough. What others have to say about the article (inappropriate, etc) is a secondary thing which Jamail is not obligated to also report (if he did, it's a bonus).
Jamail's article is long, some facts are bound to be wrong or inappropriate. I find it disheartening for it be labelled "skeptical". Only if more facts are shown to be wrong or inappropriate would it justify that label.
Evolution's mistake is to produce an "intelligent" species like Homo Sapiens, one that is greedy with a me-first attitude to boot. Intelligence with those properties does not sit well with survival of the ecosystem. So we perish because of our own intelligence. What is needed is intelligence with wisdom but I guess it's a bit too late now.
"* October 2009: The Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research releases an updated prediction, suggesting a 4C temperature increase by 2060. "
This item listed by Jamail, even though not referenced directly to the report but rather to a The Guardian article, contains quotations from the author of the report. Furthermore what the Guardian says is an accurate picture of the report which is subsequently published by the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - A (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67.full). If only this item is correct in Jamails article, and all others inaccurate or inappropriate, by itself would be enough to justify looking at "the dark side of warming"
Item 3
It is true that Dahr Jamail did not refer to the PNAS article but he did refer to the next best thing - the author himself. And what the author says is a fair reflection of what Jamail reports: "We've shown unequivocally what happens when CO2 increases dramatically – as it is now, and as it did 55 million years ago," Wright said.
Item 4
“A study published in the prestigious journal Nature.." Jamail reports on the Nature article. As long as he reports it accurately/fairly, that is fair enough. What others have to say about the article (inappropriate, etc) is a secondary thing which Jamail is not obligated to also report (if he did, it's a bonus).
Jamail's article is long, some facts are bound to be wrong or inappropriate. I find it disheartening for it be labelled "skeptical". Only if more facts are shown to be wrong or inappropriate would it justify that label.
Evolution's mistake is to produce an "intelligent" species like Homo Sapiens, one that is greedy with a me-first attitude to boot. Intelligence with those properties does not sit well with survival of the ecosystem. So we perish because of our own intelligence. What is needed is intelligence with wisdom but I guess it's a bit too late now.