MERGED Great Climate Change Swindle, who is trying to swindle who?

Actually, it may have been in Protest. I duno cant remember

 

Thanks.

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223598&page=1&pp=10

I should have said: I believe man made 'global warming' is real.

I have bought into - Humans are to blame in some way.

I'm very boring and believe the recieved wisdom on all of this.

This programme just pointed out it may not be the case.
I did not want to alter my opinion based on one programme though.
I imagine it depends on how much you do or do not know. It had me thinking - wich may mean i know not much *cough*.

Anyhoo i think it is worth thinking about - nobody should close off a 'theory' just because it is not the recieved wisdom or is seemingly biased [i imagine vast swathes of eviro's are as well].

Unless you imagine the arguement is over ?.

On point i did not see covered [in the other thread] was the part on Al Gores assertions and his supposed error..
Was that a load of tosh as well ?.

I'm sure all of this will rattle on for a decades or more.
Who was right or wrong - is for history to decide imho.

 

Thanks for posting all this Smithy, there was much in the programme that was obviously wrong and very deceptively presented. Without being aware of the counter-arguments it would be easy to take this at face value.

I too was embarrassed for Channel 4...

 

Some real truths about global warming:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

 

The full George Monbiot column from which inquiring-mind quoted a part is worth reading:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

Specifically about the 800 year lag between CO2 increases and measured temperature increase in ice cores, which I don't think has been dealt with here, there's an interesting article at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

 

I don't think man can ever fully understand mother nature or predict what she will do.

 

I believe that there will be some at least who would like to know what David Miliband (the UK Environment Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) has to say about The Great Global Warming Swindle.

http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/default.aspx

(ie. the above link, and Defra is http://www.defra.gov.uk/)

and while I'm posting here is his 'point 9':

 

The 'evidence' is simply old-science and massaged data and graphs. Just try looking for the scientific justificantion of anything in the program..., it's that bad! I've posted plenty to get you started.

 

Just follow the money.

You know, once upon a time doctors accepted money to pose in cigarette ads.

 

The thing is there is money in global warmingif it is 'real' - the same if it is false. Infact because it seems that is the recieved wisdom there is more money in it being perpetuated as a real occurence. At the end of the day some MF is making money.

The climate scientists throw in 'climate change' and hey presto another boost to their grants. Not forgeting the companys profiting from energy saving devices and associated products. There is a whole industry geered towards saving us from ourselves and saving energy - or telling us to not to worry about it.

That was a good point made in the 'documentary'.

The good thing is - if we accept it is true is - we eventually get to save some money [through lower bills - greater effiency etc].

So i'll stick with it being for real - for now

I'm not sure if it was at a time when the effects were well know or not - but i did know some doctors did not appreciate the effects of smoking - so were happy to be seen with a cigarrete. Ignorance was bliss.

 

Ever thought of the technological advances it will bring, not to mention a reduction in Asthma, Cancer, Lung Disease, Eye and Throat disorders, about 500 other human ailments and diseases pollution of the landscape, pollution of the air, pollution of water, pollution of food, - Noise pollution, chemical spillage accidents

ALL FROM CAR EXHAUST PIPES AND POWER STATIONS !!!!

Ever think to yourself that no matter which way you look at it - all you keep bleating on about is how much its gonna cost - well it wont cost you a penny more than you were gonna spend on a load of crap anyway - maybe if you actually thought why people are pushing this so much is because whether you are right or wrong it dont make sense to do nothing about the issue of pollution ????? And thats whether it causes global warming or not !!!!

All you are doing, as you know very well, is pushing the ideas proffered by rich American oil-well owners and other interested corporates - theres no science whatsoever in anything you are saying and when there is a world consensus of 99/1 of all scientists who are studying the effects of pollution and global warming - whatever you say - youre fighting a losing battle the world is sweeping people like you aside in favour of the truth for once.

 

Here is a bit more science which might help answer 'Does a Global Temperature Exist?': http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

 

Disclaimer: I have NO opinion on this subject either way as of yet.

Some of the health problems you just mentioned (Asthma, Cancer, Eye/Throat Disorders) as well as MANY more human ailments are more likely caused by innoculations, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals in edible and health/hygiene products.

I agree with this statement.

America reached peak oil in the 70's, their are no longer enough American Oil wells left to even have a viable voice in this. The world consensus you speak of is what you hear about, their are alot of scientists who do not subscribe to the Global Warming theory however the media does not give them a *serious* voice in this, not to mention that some have been threatened with death for speaking out against the Global Warming Theory. The Oil companies stand to profit exponentially off of Global Warming, haven't you noticed that British Petroleum is now proffering itself as "Beyond Petroleum" ?? Fact is, fossil fuels can NEVER be replaced by any alternative energy source, in order for a source of energy to be viable it must be able to replicate the energy expended to produce it, photovoltaic panels do not produce enough energy to make another photovoltaic panel, windmills do not produce enough energy to create another windmill, and what about the sophisticated circuitry used in alternative energy systems, what are you going to use to power the equipment to mine the precious minerals out of the earth needed to create circuitry? What type of machinery are you going to use to harvest plants to make ethanol, ethanol cannot produce the power needed to EFFICIENTLY harvest large quantities of plant material. Where would the diesel part come from to make biodiesel? Their aren't enough grease traps for all of us. ALot of people talk about hydrogen but hydrogen has the same folly as the rest, not enough energy created to energy expended. The only two things that I know of (and if anyone knows of anything else tell me) that even have the SLIGHTEST potential of being useful on a mass scale are Nuclear Fusion (not Fission) which has yet to be perfected or even practiced on a large scale, and hydroelectric........and lets face it, theirs not enough water volume on the planet to even scratch the surface of the amount of energy needed right now. I don't doubt the possibility of Global Warming, in fact it makes alot of sense to me (i'm very eco-concious) but I don't KNOW for sure, and have yet to see any raw data to convince me, sure i've seen plenty of sensationalist media expose' but no hard proveable facts that this isn't a normal climate shift, that being said, I still think pollution is a terrible thing. I personally lean towards the theory that Global Warming is yet another diversion to reality, it doesn't get talked about much but we ARE reaching and may have already reached Peak oil, this is inevitable, oil is a fossil, it is finite, even the most generous estimates have us reaching peak production by 2050, and after peak is reached (has been reached?) it will begin going downhill, only a 5% drop in current production is all is needed to collapse international financial markets and raise price per barrel to well over the $100 range, and then, the end of the industrial revolution, post-modern society comes into play (already here?) and we are back in the 1800's. It will be more like rolling down a hill not jumping off a cliff, and most people won't notice it at first (not noticing now) until finally the truth becomes to blatant not to see. So PERSONALLY, I feel that the Global Warming debate is trite, too little, too late, nothing but a diversionary tactic to squeeze as much money as possible out of the last few decades of the oil boon, and a futile attempt to delay the inevitable.

 

Most scientists agree that water vapor is the greatest contributor to climate change. And that the CO2 factor is minimal.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Car exhaust like second hand smoke is a smoke screen. It may be politically expedient, but it is not scientifically sound.

 

Most plants and animal life give off CO2, not just automobiles and power plants.

 

Those houseplants in your appartments are giving off CO2. Why not outlaw and them? Frankly CO2 has a place in the living world, it's not wrong or right it's an effect of life.

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050317hutchison.htm

 

The JunkScience site is not 'most scientists', check it out!
JunkScience: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=95
and:
http://www.desmogblog.com/the-sound-science-coup-de-tat

Steven Milloy: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=881
and
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy

 

CO2 is good, but consider the 'runaway greenhouse effect' on Venus..., yes it's closer to the Sun but it's much hotter than it should be without those GHGs.

 

I am amazed on how many people DON'T believe that global warming is caused by man. It is a well established theory supported by many scientists in the world, believed by most of the people (apparently not in the US, as I am not from there)
Look for scientific documents on reliable sources, not just any random site. I did a quick search:

Understand GW
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globalwarming/primer/primer.html

Scientists talking about GW
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060713_global_warming.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1017_051017_warming_weather.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_060315_carbon_dioxide.html

11 year cycle: 2005 should be cool but it was the hottest ever according to NASA
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/solar_max_sidebar_000131.html

Paper on CO2 (Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University) This paper is quite conclusive.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html

Quote from NASA http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/
"In particular, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased by 30% since pre-industrial times (from about 270 molecules of CO2 per million molecules of air in 1850 to the present 360 parts per million), and continues to rise over time, due primarily to the burning of fossil fuel."

Get the real scientific facts, supported by most scientists. Don't get obscured by people that want you to remain ignorant.

 

Thanks for the post ginin, yes I think that's a very good point, it generally is America who lags behind the world in this debate, I think most of the rest of the world understood these issues a decade ago. I'm continually astonished by the way people just don't seem to understand the scientific process of peer reviewed academic publications. Any "scientist" or "expert" on Fox News is apparently as reliable a source for many as a body like the IPCC. A truly postmodern "truthless" society... Perhaps it's their lack of a free media?