Did any of our British members...

[Snee]

PLEASE WATCH "An Inconvenient Truth"....excellent documentary, best i've seen on this issue.

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 be a new phenomenon, I think, though I am sure science can explain it.

He has it half right, from what I understand.

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.

[Biggles]

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...

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.

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.

[popopot]

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.

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.

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.

One side does not make a "squabble", or so I've always been told.

Of course, maybe those rules have been changed, too.

The squabbling is between the pro- and anti-global warming parties - two parties/camps = a squabble.

And for those that think bioethanol is the cure, think again: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...043724,00.html

[bigboab]

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.

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.

One side does not make a "squabble", or so I've always been told.

Of course, maybe those rules have been changed, too.

The squabbling is between the pro- and anti-global warming parties - two parties/camps = a squabble.

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.

[GepperRankins]

/stealing now. i'll be back to tell you how you missed the point later

[lynx]

And for those that think bioethanol is the cure, think again: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...043724,00.html

Problem is, that quote isn't very accurate either.

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.

Biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.

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.

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.

[j2k4]

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.

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.

"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.

[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.

Then, taken individually or together, neither show has any merit?

I don't recall any "ramming" going on...

[popopot]

I don't recall any "ramming" going on...

Sorry, must have been the flashbacks form the weekend. I was wondering why I walking like John Wayne this morning...

[j2k4]

I don't recall any "ramming" going on...

Sorry, must have been the flashbacks form the weekend. I was wondering why I walking like John Wayne this morning...

Here are a pair of smilies you might find appropriate (I'm just guessing, here) to that sensation:



and

[napoleon]

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)