...(or anybody else) watch Channel 4's showing of The Great Global Warming Swindle?
Feel free...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...35300469846467
Printable View
...(or anybody else) watch Channel 4's showing of The Great Global Warming Swindle?
Feel free...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...35300469846467
:huh:
That's what I thought.
Well, then.
I did not watch it because it would only confirm my views that the whole Global Warming thing is a load of hype. No one seems to answer my question;
What melted the 'Ice Age', was it global Warming?:whistling
I think that depends on patents. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Seriously, though...it's got lots of good understandable scientific info, presented by real scientists, and it clarifies the political dynamic magnificently.
It thoroughly debunks the idea man is responsible, and makes a comfortingly convincing case things are proceeding normally and well-within historical bounds.
I am no longer concerned at all about any warming, only the chicken-little crowd who would have us empty our pockets "just in case".
that's not such a big lie
my theory: to stop global warming people stop polluting, that means people stop spending precious energy, global energy crysis is retarded or eliminated
if they are making our mind, they are making it for a good cause
Quite a leap, there.Quote:
Originally Posted by jokzor
The likelihood...oh, forget it.
Watch the show.
That's an order.
PLEASE WATCH "An Inconvenient Truth"....excellent documentary, best i've seen on this issue.
As for the ice age comment, with other factors, it was caused, if i remember rightly, by a water current (excuse my terminology) that is part of the global flow of hot/cold, saw the cold sink and the part of the stream closed, and it no longer heated, and eventally froz. The worry with global warming, if the current that circulates nearest to the North pole stops, due to masses of ice melting quickly and dropping to the sea floor, this would stop the current in the Atlantic (between Europe and US) and cause a rapid ice-age (in comparison with non-man-assisted past events) across this region. I may have got a bit wrong their, but watch the doc and it explains it properly. With pictures too.
This would be a new phenomenon, I think, though I am sure science can explain it. :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo12345
Tbh, I think anyone that believes global warming isn't happening is an idiot.
With that said, whether man caused it, sped it up, or had absolutely nothing to do with it, I think either way we are past the point of no return and the glaciers in the arctic and antarctic (including southern South America) will continue to melt and the sea levels will rise which will also change the weather patterns.
Now I have seen stuff on TV where ice cores are captured even miles down and studied. It is said that scientists find man-made pollutants in those cores and that it can be traced back to humans industrial revolution. On that note, I am not entirely convinced but it sounds compelling. It hard for me to believe that humans are the sole cause and well, I don't believe it. That is also why I don't think we can reverse it.
However, it doesn't take a scientist to figure out that cleaner burning cars and machinery are better for the atmosphere and environent.
Also it smart for us to get off of foreign oil and find other energy alternatives.
The bad part for America is that we are going down the wrong road with this E85 fuel crap. It takes so much energy to make it that it isn't worth it (and we have to use foreign oil to run the machinery:wacko: ). E85 costs the same or more than gasoline, gets worse mileage, and drive up the cost of corn.
The folks in South America have the right idea for their ethanol. I was thinking of buying an E85 truck last year but research showed it was a suck ass idea.:dry:
I haven't seen the movie but I imagine glaciers melt faster simply because they have been getting smaller.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4This would be a new phenomenon, I think, though I am sure science can explain it. :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo12345
6 small ice cubes vs. 1 big block of ice
Would that be the same documentary with the guy who says we need to cut down energy usage but who's very own house uses more energy in a month that the average household uses in a year?Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo12345
And would that be the same documentary with the guy who would not answer the question of whether he would be willing to cut his own energy usage?
Rather nice bit of misleading spin on gore's usage, but it's not the amount of energy used, it's the amount of pollution the energy usage creates that gore is trying to reduce. You can use all the non polluting energy you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLotWould that be the same documentary with the guy who says we need to cut down energy usage but who's very own house uses more energy in a month that the average household uses in a year?Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo12345
And would that be the same documentary with the guy who would not answer the question of whether he would be willing to cut his own energy usage?
Gore purchases "green energy" in his residence (which also contains his offices so you are comparing the average domestic residence against a commercial residence) solar and wind power which do not pollute and he pays a premium to do this.
Now admittedly the grid is set up in a way that shares the energy produced by both wind and traditional polluting generators so the deal is far from perfect, Gore is also hindered with solar power because of local bylaws prohibiting the panels being put on roofs, so he has work and hurdles still to overcome, but he is putting his money where his mouth is.
Which would you rather have pumped into your home.....the pollution created generating power from a coal fired power station of the average american home or the pollution created generating the power using wind and solar that gore purchases?
I watched it, and as Bigboab says, it simply confirmed my opinion that Global Warming thing is a load of hype. Well, not Global Warming as such, just the bit that we are causing it.
Those of you who are hooked on Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" should realise that the images he produced could have been taken at any time in the last thousand years, had the technology been available, since these events (known as calving) happen each spring. In fact a thousand years ago he could have got some even more dramatic pictures, since the temperatures then were higher than they are today. Now that is an inconvenient truth.
I see no problem with the idea of reducing our carbon dependency, we only need to look at the way Western Europe's gas prices were hiked by the Russians last year to see the effects of failing to be self sufficient, and since oil and gas deposits can't be conjured up out of thin air then other energy sources are a must.
Funny, when challenged by Inhofe to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge”, he claimed city law prevented him from doing so. By the way he refused to the pledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccRather nice bit of misleading spin on gore's usage, but it's not the amount of energy used, it's the amount of pollution the energy usage creates that gore is trying to reduce. You can use all the non polluting energy you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
Gore purchases "green energy" in his residence (which also contains his offices so you are comparing the average domestic residence against a commercial residence) solar and wind power which do not pollute and he pays a premium to do this.
Funny how you cut this bit off.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
Inhofe's challenge was a complete crock anyway. If the challenge was that gore use less than any comparable set up (private house used commercially) then gore already does it by a long way. However the challenge also misrepresents what gore is campaigning about.Quote:
Now admittedly the grid is set up in a way that shares the energy produced by both wind and traditional polluting generators so the deal is far from perfect, Gore is also hindered with solar power because of local bylaws prohibiting the panels being put on roofs, so he has work and hurdles still to overcome, but he is putting his money where his mouth is.
All Inhofe has is a great mis representative soundbite and a distraction from the issue. He like so many are not addressing the issue but trying to discredit the messenger.Quote:
it's not the amount of energy used, it's the amount of pollution the energy usage creates that gore is trying to reduce. You can use all the non polluting energy you like.
They are trying to make the issue a political thing instead of a scientific thing.
I could attack Inhofe's credibility on the issue because he said we don't have to worry about pollution "because god is still up there and he will protect us" :dry:
All that aside, trying to say that gores message should be ignored because his life requires more energy usage than "the average american" is like trying to say that the advice to give up smoking when you have respiratory problems given by a doctor should be ignored because that doctor smokes.
I didn't watch it - it clashed with a footie match. However, the chap who made it is not new to British TV. He has done a programme on why breast implants are good for women and one on why GM food is good for you. He is a bit of a "gun for hire" and doesn't have a lot of street credibility. That is not to say that some of his contributers are of the same mould but his programmes do come with a health warning.
It will be repeated on one of the documentary channels and I will see it then.
There is no doubt that the Earth is getting warmer but there is not enough scientific fact to back up either theory (Gore vs Swindle).
Gore presented data where the pattern of cause and effect were separated by 800 years. A lot can happen in 800 years and the results are derived from only one source - ice cores. Plus, there was no significant human generated pollution in ages past, so what caused the previous ice ages and changes in climate?
The swindle presented data that was more consistent with the time frame of cause and effect, i.e. the solar activity and global warming. However, bugger all is known about how the sun works, let alone how its activity influences global warming. I also read an article in the Guardian which reported that the scientists involved in the swindle program were not portrayed properly and only their comments about why global warming might not be caused by humans were aired.
Both features showed biased views from both camps on either side of the fence. There has yet to be a serious debate that includes scientists from both sides of the argument in a uncensored and unedited format. Only then can any significant conclusions and future plans of action be taken without squabbling.
There is no question that cutting carbon emissions is a good thing in order to reduce pollution and severe our reliance on fossil fuels. And those that believe that global warming (man-made or otherwise) is not happening are fools, especially if you think it is now okay to go out and buy a hummer to drive down the street!
I did watch it, I think. Before I watched it, I didn't swing either way on the issue. After I watched it, I still didn't believe it nor disbelieve it. there's just too much differing evidence either way, both believable and not.
One thing though, is saving energy and recycling and all that shit is always good whether Global Warming is happening or not. Two is that I'm fine with the Government promoting it, but NOT if they're raising taxes on the issue. They can go fuck themselves and solve the problem another way, plus if it's happening, it's their fault if they've let it happen, they can find alternative solutions.
The thing with the Ice melting and the sea level rising is interesting. Undoubtedly it is rising, but remember that Ice expands when it's created. Also that there's always gonna be pretty much the same amount of water on earth, the only problem with Ice melting is the changing of the current of the water, which would slow, sink, and the heat carried around would be changed.
However if life survived before, it can survive now.
A final interesting fact - Cows produce waaay more methane than humans combined do. Yeah...
Funny as well that you object to the tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
What "camps" were represented in Swindle?Quote:
Originally Posted by popopot
In the entire feature, I think I counted one guy who was not a scientist, which fact alone should be cause for an international investigation, since (according to the do-gooder global warming crowd) no such scientists exist.
One side does not make a "squabble", or so I've always been told.
Of course, maybe those rules have been changed, too.
:cry1:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Funny as well that you object to the tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
you know there are groups out there that offer victim support, obviously they are trying to support real victims but I'm sure they will offer you a comforting ear:rolleyes:
Now are you going to continue or grow up and get over whatever it is you feel is victimising you?:rolleyes:
You've lost me.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc:cry1:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
you know there are groups out there that offer victim support, obviously they are trying to support real victims but I'm sure they will offer you a comforting ear:rolleyes:
Now are you going to continue or grow up and get over whatever it is you feel is victimising you?:rolleyes:
Are you impersonating a doctor at all (at all).
He has it half right, from what I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4This would be a new phenomenon, I think, though I am sure science can explain it. :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo12345
As overall temperature heats up, colder water finds its way into the gulf stream. Which may eventually result in a redirection or cessation of the stream. It's thermodynamics in action, like.
And if that happens things further from the equator will cool down considerably, on account of the stream acting as some sort of conduit for warmth.
Whether or not we have had a significant impact on the process thus far is debateable, I wouldn't buy this documentary you are citing wholesale any more than I'd trust Gore's completely.
What I think is pretty much certain is that our polluting only can have a negative effect, it's the scope of it people can argue about (might be microscopic, might be considerable), and I really think we should take heed of the warnings for that alone.
EDit: And for the record, I've watched neither of the documentaries in full, but they both seem like propaganda, and somewhat weak in the facts-department.
I have no problem with reducing my carbon footprint. I have, whenever there has been a promotion obviousment, bought low energy light bulbs and I have almost replaced all light bulbs in my house with them. The fact that this reduces my energy bills gives me a warm happy glow. Equally, I try to recycle as I have no desire to live next to a landfill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Confluence
My biggest concern with warming is the impact on warm air/sea flows and the possibility that Scotland could get a tad chilly as a result - this does not appeal at all.
J2
I thought there were two camps of scientists. Those that consider global warming (either natural, man made or a combo of the two) as the most likely explanation for current climatic trends and those who either think there is no upward fluctuation (a somewhat smaller number these days) and those who do agree that there is an increase but that it is wholly outwith man's control and will self regulate. My understanding is that the majority of scientists consider that some input from man is at least partly responsible and that we should cut it out if we can.
Swindle gave voice to those scientists that disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by popopot
Both programs, Inconvenient Truth and Swindle, were completely biased since neither had anybody from the opposing 'camp'. There was no counter arguments or balanced views for any of the claims, just coincidence and flimsy evidence rammed down your throat.Quote:
What "camps" were represented in Swindle?
In the entire feature, I think I counted one guy who was not a scientist, which fact alone should be cause for an international investigation, since (according to the do-gooder global warming crowd) no such scientists exist.
The squabbling is between the pro- and anti-global warming parties - two parties/camps = a squabble.Quote:
One side does not make a "squabble", or so I've always been told.
Of course, maybe those rules have been changed, too.
And for those that think bioethanol is the cure, think again: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...043724,00.html
Some of us are not talking about putting it in vehicles. We are talking about drinking it.:wacko:Quote:
Originally Posted by popopot
/stealing now. i'll be back to tell you how you missed the point later
Problem is, that quote isn't very accurate either.Quote:
Originally Posted by popopot
Admittedly, bioethanol isn't all that good as a substitute since it's stock origin is in direct competition to the food chain. Using maize as the stock means an increase in cattle feed, which in turn means an increase in the cost of all the products we get from cattle, even the MOO. Some of the left over protein residue can be used as cattle feed, but not much.
If the stock product was changed to oilseed rape, the oil can be squeezed from the seed and used to make biodiesel, and what's left can be used for cattle feed. It's a far more efficient use of the land and as a consequence it takes more CO2 out of the atmosphere at the same time. Trouble is, in the one place where a significant proportion of the maize production could be converted to oilseed rape there's comparatively little call for biodiesel.
This results in a better use of existing farmland rather than stripping forests to create new farmland. However, lets look at that little bit of misinformation too.
Whoops, does he really mean CO2 emissions? Yes, that's right, he's deliberately introducing emotive phrases to try to convince you his argument is correct. Well, it's very true, in the first year yields will be very low, so the result of forest clearance will vastly outweigh any benefits from palm oil production.Quote:
Biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.
But now consider the same land in the second year. CO2 output from forest clearance - zero (it's all been accounted for in the first year). Net CO2 emission from palm oil - about 0.1 tonne. Equivalent CO2 emission from petroleum - 3.3 tonnes. That's 33 times the CO2 emissions from petroleum compared to palm oil. Still, I'm hardly surprised that a Dutch oil company didn't bother to supply those facts too.
If looked at sensibly the break even point is about 11 years, after which the palm oil forges ahead. However, I'm not advocating forest clearance as a solution, there are too many other bad side effects.
I wonder why, then, the global warming crowd has seen fit to state so firmly that there is no longer any counterargument to man's responsibility for global warming at all (at all), and there exist no scientists to even make such an argument, for they have all been convinced it is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
"Swindle" is cast entirely of scientists who, in addition to refuting most of the global warming crowd's claims, complain they were co-opted into the cause illegitimately.
Such tactics are frequently used by those backing false or questionable claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by popopot
Then, taken individually or together, neither show has any merit?
I don't recall any "ramming" going on...:huh:
Sorry, must have been the flashbacks form the weekend. I was wondering why I walking like John Wayne this morning...:whistlingQuote:
I don't recall any "ramming" going on...:huh:
Here are a pair of smilies you might find appropriate (I'm just guessing, here) to that sensation:Quote:
Originally Posted by popopot
:blink:
and
:O
I think that the Swindle program (although with its flaws) was a good summary of the opposing case. I think that they could have got more of a variety of scientists involved; but I think that they main focus was the political drive and influence of global warming. Government controls a lot of funding for scientific research, so it pays to research whatever you will get a grant for! I think most sensible people realise that the environment is important, but would question the role of CO2 (I think that CO2 is just the 'poster boy' for the whole campaign)
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I certainly was not aware that it was a closed case. There are, it is true, more scientists on the "there is global warming" side than the "there is not" but I don't think there has been any doubt that there are still two (probably more come to think of it) points of view.
Mayhap the "case-closed" sentiment exists only in vidcc's mind, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigglesI certainly was not aware that it was a closed case. There are, it is true, more scientists on the "there is global warming" side than the "there is not" but I don't think there has been any doubt that there are still two (probably more come to think of it) points of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
He represents the American media, you see.
Perhaps because I look at what the scientist say, not what you and rush limbaugh say the scientist say.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You represent the right wing noise machine you see which requires you to consider political arguments as a rebuttal for scientific findings.
So you haven't (won't) watch Swindle, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccPerhaps because I look at what the scientist say, not what you and rush limbaugh say the scientist say.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You represent the right wing noise machine you see which requires you to consider political arguments as a rebuttal for scientific findings.
I'm pretty sure those are scientists, speaking for themselves.
No I haven't and just like the gore documentary have no intention of doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
quite an interesting peice shame i missed it first time around.
These scientists did make a convincing argument especially the fact we produce 6 gigatons of co2 while volcanoes produce 114 gigatons and animals and plants produce even more each year. take into account c02 is a minor green house gas and it sort of makes the whole global warming look a bit ropey at best.
Plants produce oxygen unless we are talking dead plants I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4play
Again for those that believe humans caused global warming, use the noggin'.
I believe we should curb pollution but not go through drastic measures to do it.
We could start by following and enforcing the pollution laws on the books.
America needs to drop ethanol since it creates more crap air than gasoline.
This is one of the things that has been lost in much of the spin cycle. Caused global warming (or that it's entirely man made) is not something I have heard from a scientific study but something that has often been stated as the position scientist are taking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Accelerating, contributing (to whatever degree) or partly the cause is what is usually said in non political speak.
There are many factors beyond our control, it's the ones we can control that should be.
nature has amazing balancing abilities, but it can be overpowered.
We are in total agreement then.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccThis is one of the things that has been lost in much of the spin cycle. Caused global warming (or that it's entirely man made) is not something I have heard from a scientific study but something that has often been stated as the position scientist are taking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Accelerating, contributing (to whatever degree) or partly the cause is what is usually said in non political speak.
There are many factors beyond our control, it's the ones we can control that should be.
nature has amazing balancing abilities, but it can be overpowered.
I heard someone say that since volcanos produce so much pollution that we couldn't possibly affect anything. I think that's crazy.
Well, I think everyone agrees that global warming is happening and know its official. As if we didn't know this already. Its good to see that money is being well spent on reports that tell us what we already know.:dabs: