The Great Global Warming Swindle

[PsychoI3oy]

A 1+ hour BBC produced documentary about how human CO2 emissions have little/nothing to do with current trends in temperature worldwide.

Google Video

Not that most of you didn't disagree with the theory before, I'm sure.

[PsychoI3oy]

My Comments:


It's nice to see something speaking out about the subject. It's even nicer to see not only scientists from around the world but even one of the co-founders of Greenpeace speak about the subject.

Now. I'm all for not polluting. I currently drive a 16+ year old car that gets 30-35MPG and wouldn't mind riding a bike to work if it didn't mean arriving all sweaty. One of my ideal cars is a VW Golf TDi that gets 40+MPG on diesel (and I'd love to brew my own biodiesel, but that's more for the cost savings than anything else).

My Christian upbringing tells me that we [humans] are stewards of this Earth and everything on it. My moral compass says that the less we do to damage it, the better. I would mind nothing less than not depending (as a nation [the US]) on foreign oil for energy.

BUT MY GOODNESS THE GLOBAL WARMING CRAP HAS TO STOP!

I watched (in the theater, paying $8/ticket, no less) "The Day After Tomorrow" and regret every second of it. I should send Art Bell a bill for the 2 hours of my time and $16. As much as I loved listening to Coast-to-Coast last year, Art (nor anyone else on that show, ever) is not and should not be taken seriously as a scientist. The single most annoying line in the movie had to do with air coming down from the stratosphere and not warming up due to increase in pressure because "it's coming down too fast". I haven't watched "An Inconvenient Truth" for the same reasons I haven't watched "Fahrenheit 911" and regret watching "Bowling for Columbine": I don't like wasting my time with inaccurate hippie-s4 reactionary emotional appeals for things I otherwise disagree with.

The parts in this documentary about developing countries in Africa are perhaps the saddest of all. I can't think of a continent that needs some form of modernization and development more than sub-Saharan Africa. The audacity of these 'environmentalists' to tell them that they need solar/wind or nothing instead of using the resources they have (oil/coal) is just... mind boggling.

I just hope that more people realize that 'global warming' is just cheap sensationalist fodder for the media.

[Pistol Packing Preacher]

PsychoI3oy

My Christian upbringing tells me that we [humans] are stewards of this Earth and everything on it. My moral compass says that the less we do to damage it, the better. I would mind nothing less than not depending (as a nation [the US]) on foreign oil for energy.

BUT MY GOODNESS THE GLOBAL WARMING CRAP HAS TO STOP!

and

I just hope that more people realize that 'global warming' is just cheap sensationalist fodder for the media

I could not have said it better...

[Recon]

Central to the film was the testimony of the MIT oceanographer Carl Wunsch. Wunsch’s own account of how his material was edited and presented so as to give a misleading account of his actual views is here: http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...cle2359057.ece

Smokers like to rely on tobacco industry scientists for their science. It makes them feel better. They should ask the 99% of peer-reviewed experts who have devoted their lives to the study of the issue, but they don't.

Regardless of which science is right, the real question is, who should have the burden of proof? With smokers, it’s their body. With global warming, it’s everyone’s body.

My 2 cents.

[Marlin]

DAMN The ENVIORMENT, FULL SPEED AHEAD!
[pirate] [pirate] [pirate]















Sorry, I just had too.
:mrgreen:

[WETWRKS]

Take a look at what Al Gore spends each month in utilities. This is more than I pay in a year.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...338709247.html

[Gman]

It's those damn Americans in their SUVs!!! It's the industrialized nations that must screw up their economies to solve the problem!!!

The anti-capitalist pinkos have found a new home in the environmental movement. There are coal seam fires that have been burning out of control in China for decades that emit more noxious gasses than all of the cars in the US, but you don't hear a peep from the likes of Algore. A single large volcanic eruption puts out more noxious gasses than all of the industrialization in recorded history. The Exxon Valdez was "an environmental catastrophe", yet more oil leaks directly through the earth's crust into the oceans...and has been doing so since before man knew how to make implements from stone.

This human caused global warming crap stems from a belief in humanism. When one realizes how insignificant we beings are in the grand scheme, you realize how powerless you are to solve the problem...and how powerless you were to create the problem in the first place. It's the sun's fault, the earth will respond accordingly as it always has, and life will go on.

Now why in grade school in southern California in 1972 was I being taught in my ecology class that there was an impending ice age and that we'd be out of fossil fuels in 15 years? Do you mean somebody lied to me? :mrgreen:

NY Times: From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Pardon me, Mr. Gore, but true "science" is not based on "consensus".

[Recon]

Regardless of which science is right, the real question is, who should have the burden of proof? With smokers, it’s their body. With global warming, it’s everyone’s body.

Don't you think its convienient that the "global warming is caused by CO2" debate is hosted by those who hate things that "emit" CO2? And Al Gore, he has absolutly no political motivations for scaring thousands of people on the coastlines, hes just an all around great guy, that selflessly cares about the world warming up less than two degrees before he is six feet under.

Look up the dictionary definition of "bias" please, and be careful where you get your conspiracy theories. While the earth may well be on a warming trend, the "link to man made CO2" emissions and "greenhouse gasses" is nothing more then a political parasite, would make a great episode on "scare" tactics.

Remember, PETA claims via their accredited scientific research that COWS account for more then 30% of global warming, more then all cars combined just by crapping so often. Its scientific research done by scientists, so it must be correct right?

Science is not science when its funded by a commercial or political entitiy - they are paid to find research that supports that specific entity, ignoring anything that contradicts it.. and yes, this applies to the "global warming" debate as well.

Not to mention, pro-Global scientists have only looked at two variables. Temperature and "greenhouse" gas levels. At what point did they consider the other millions of variables affecting the equation? How the hell did they get a control sample? Sun, Clouds, Wind, Water, pavement/concrete coverage, cows farting, air conditioners, fish with fevers, really hot women, etc all have the potential to "warm" up the earth [pirate] I think you get my drift.

Also remember, "scientists" in the 70's claimed the world was going into the next ice age after a slight global cooling trend if we didnt take drastic steps to save it.

Another point is please use your logic process. The "Scientists" that support global warming use grossly exaggerated temperature charts dating back over 3000 years. Now I dont know about you, but I'm pretty damn sure the NOAA didnt have 30,000 weather stations around the globe in 800 B.C, and even if a monk in France recorded the daily temperature in 1100 A.D, how does that qualify for accuracy on a global scale?

Dont fall into the myth that they can record temperature from ice cores by the way. They *can* get a few ideas, such as *general* gas composition, but temperature is impossible to determine, regardless of if you use density, gas measurements, ice crystals or anything.

So, the basis of their report that CO2 is the cause of global warming is based on about 100 years of accurate temperature recording, on a semi global scale and based on "gas deposits" in ice cores that do not have the ability to show temperature correlations, matched up against "inferred temperatures" that correspond to the global warming theory, and on a side note, the ice cores themselves could be open to debate. Where are their control samples? Sounds like a foolproof theory to me [roll]

Dont believe me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming Notice the scale on the right covers a single degree (exaggerated by more then a factor of 100), and assumes they had perfect global accuracy (and the capability to measure global temperature) in before 1860. Scroll down, and you see their temperature "reconstructions" from the middle ages, from "before man" and over 500 thousand years ago.

Doesnt take a genious to realize the scope of scientific "bias" and fact invention first hand.

Lastly, how does the earth warming 2 degrees fahrenheit over your lifetime (assuming you live until your over 100) affect your life? There are probably far more people killed each year on snow and ice then heat exhaustion, and the vast majority of people cannot even feel a two degree change in temperature (it takes three minimum, four to five for most)

Always remember who funds the mass media "experiments" you get suckered into.

My .02

Don't you think it's convenient that those who deny global warming are hosted by those most interested in convenience? i.e. us? You look up the dictionary definition of "bias" please, and be careful where you get your science. Try using scientists first.

Also, if you are going to follow the money on science, then I'm afraid you just trashed your own argument. The money lies in petroleum hydrocarbons and the same pocketbooks that fund the house of Saud: yours and mine.

You begin to argue you science yourself, but unless you can demonstrate your bona fides, I suspect you are just parroting what you've heard in the press, blogs, and what have you. I choose to rely upon the BTDT, Real Deal scientists, the vast, overwhelming majority of which agree that global warming is real, man contributes to it, the earth is round and cigarettes cause cancer. If you read their science, you will find they do consider many more variables than you suggest. But since I do get your drift, I bring you back to the question of burdens of proof. If you want to smoke, that’s your business, but if you blow your smoke in my face, that is my business, the business of my children and everyone else. If you can prove it won’t hurt, then fine, but that is your burden and on global warming, you’ve failed miserably and no credible (peer-reviewed) scientist agrees with you.

The scientists in the 70s argued global cooling because they analogized to volcanoes and particulate reflection, rather than green house holding of heat. But the process of peer reviewed science is one of progress, not regress, unless you get selfish, greedy protection of vested interests involved. Science is a process of learning, not staying the same. You’re argument comparing the 70’s to today is proof of that. Your argument is not unlike saying “Hey, we used to drag things so there can be no such thing as a wheel.”

I am using logic, and you are not. The science does not use grossly exaggerated temperature charts. Further, when you become a scientist and quit relying on Limbaugh logic, you will find there are other ways to determine temperature without NOAA stations. Do a little research. When you get your science peer reviewed, come back and tell me your expert opinion on ice gas readings, etc. It will be a myth when you can prove it’s a myth. But you can’t. That’s what I love about science.

Another thing you forget about science, when you sarcastically mention full-proof, is that science does not claim to be full-proof. It is a process that is under way. At this point in time, science is using that process, impeded only by those who don’t understand or participate in it. Right now, the vast, overwhelming majority of science has shifted the burden of proof to those who would deny global warming or it’s cause by man.

Did you just cite wikipedia?
[roll]

If you don’t think a small change in temperature matters, then just move north to the perma frost country and watch your house sink. Try hunting polar bears in 50 years.

Always remember who funds the mass media “experiments” you got suckered into.

[Recon]

The actual electric bill (cant whine about conservative reporting)
http://www.news2wkrn.com/goreelectricbill.pdf

Regardless of where the power is drawn, 1KWH of "green power" used at house A is 1KWH of "green power" that cannot be used at house B.

He seems so genuinly worried, and again - $30,000 in utility bills and a 10,000 sf house has no motivation in raising thousands of dollars for yourself in a scare campaign. Hes just such a nice guy that hes doing you a favor to pay him to tell you why hes doing you a favor.

The lazy greed, selfishness and fear of inconvenience of many Americans is manifest in the this argument about Gore’s electric bill.

Gore is a hypocrite for using too much power. Carter is a laughing stock for turning down the heat in the White House and wearing sweaters. I guess no matter what one does, they will be dragged down by small minds, interested in their own convenience.

The simple fact of the matter is this: The Tragedy of the Commons dictates group action or tragedy. One man can do nothing good if his slack will be taken up by another bad man. All men must agree to protect the limited resource together. It’s the social contract. It’s the “enlightenment” in enlightened self interest. It’s the “properly understood” in self-interest properly understood.

[Recon]

Pardon me, Mr. Gore, but true "science" is not based on "consensus".

That is the most intelligent thing said on this thread. The problem is, true science demonstrates global warming and man's contribution to it. It's those SUV drivers who want to vote on it. They know they will win because it would be inconenient to do anything about it. They have no faith in the ability of their vaunted economy to grow in response to a problem. They are more inclined the "sky is falling" argument if they have to actually grow, change, and progress.