The Great Global Warming Swindle (quote)

jibber · 03-14-2007, 01:02 AM

rise, i understand that you, like a lot of people, believe the rising earth temperature to be a natural escalation. BUT, there are many viable arguments, i agree, there are very few concrete facts yet, but it is VERY plausable to look at the data, and conclude that human activity could VERY POSSIBLY be accountable for the short time frame in which these changes have been happening. unless you're completely ignorant, you can't deny that human beings HAVE made an impact on the environment (and not a possitive one) in the past few centuries. Many natural wonders have been almost entirely destroyed (and not from natural causes), the great barrier reef probably the most easily recognizable example. You completely missed the point of my argument. Despite what you're trying to get across, it is IN NO WAY CONCRETE FACT that global warming is a natural fluctuation that humans have no effect on. There is a very strong possibility that, on top of the natural warming of the planet, we have been making the matter worse with our actions. The natural warming isnt something we should be worried about, it's what we're doing to it that we can be concerned about. And your argument about advancing environmental agendas stopping economic growth, that's the whole issue. First world countries aren't willing at the moment to sacrifice their comforts in order to assist third world countries in making it possible to develop while using environmentally friendly alternatives. Bottom line though, DON'T try to make it out like you know for a fact that global warming isnt caused by human activity, no one knows that for sure, and it's complete bullsh*t to imply that you do.

DontRunMeOver · 03-14-2007, 06:16 AM

Actually, just to point out a slight logical glitch in what might have been the reasoning I saw on the program.

They say that human carbon dioxide emissions have only a small impact on the overall warming of the planet and that sunspots, water vapour and vocanoes have a bigger impact. This is true.

But they don't mention the issue of scale. The earth's average temperature may be about 15 degrees celsius, so it may seem to the ignorant that a 'small change' in the warming capacity would be a fraction of this 15 degrees and that 1 degree would represent a big change.

However, on the ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE scale (ie, the actual measure of temperature in which 0 means no heat energy) the average temperature of the earth is about 288K. A increase of 1% of the earth's ability to warm up would represent a change of 2.8 K (1 K change = 1 degree change).

Using this scale, it becomes more apparent how the variation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can lead to global warming, particularly when you consider that the original slight warming which may happen due to extra carbon dioxide could lead to increased evaporation from the oceans which leads to increased water vapour content in the atmosphere which lead to increased greenhouse effect and so on.

The sun, water vapour and vocanic emissions keep the earth at the liveable temperature it has been for millions of years (ok, ice ages might not be that liveable but you get by), without their warming effects the earth would be somewhere around 0 K and humans wouldn't have existed in the first place. EXTRA emissions of greenhouse gases could add to their combined effects and knock the heat up beyond what humans are used to in terms of air temperature, land quality and land availability. The emphasis here is on COULD, I don't believe the effect is great enough to be noticeable compared to natural fluctuations but it is still theoretically possible... depending on your theory.

Having said that, if the scientific data as they presented it in this documentary is correct then I think that they have a better argument than the anti-CO2 production camp at the moment and that, once again, the pertinent question isn't so much how to stop global temperature changes but rather how to cope with the changes which are going to occur.

Barnard17 · 03-15-2007, 06:31 PM

I lol @ grafz - that's a link btw.

I'll see if I can get the original article scanned in. It has comparisons of the graphs shown on the show, and the graphs that would have been shown if they were interested in the truth.

Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment
Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming' | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment
Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

I didn't even bother to try and find a variety of source because the Guardian articles pretty much speak for themselves. Go do a google search before you start accepting the croc of **** in the programme you're pumping.

655321 · 03-15-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

You are wrong for several reasons (please watch the whole video, as it will expand on the points I am about to make)

1. It's not global warming that's the issue. I believe and all scientist do, that the earth is heating up. The point to contigentcy is whether or not humans have any direct impact/can do anything about it. And the answer is we can't.

2. Greenhouse gases make up roughly .4-1% of the gases in our enviroment. CO2 makes up roughly .02 of the gases in our atmosphere. Water vapor is a much more prevalent and "dangerous" greenhouse gas, and yet you don't see an uproar on that.

3. Dying vegitation and the ocean produce 12 times the amount of CO2 that humans do. So if we can't drive cars or fly planes anymore, let's evaporate the oceans and destroy all the forest too. Better safe than sorry right?

4. As the video goes to explain, enviromental journalists have a very political agenda. Telling the press that the worst that could happen is that the seas rise by 1-2 feet won't get you news attention, so you increase it to 10-20 feet, and your name is in print and you're in demand as a journalist.

5. And the solution that is proposed by all these "activists" who use pseudo-science to get their political agenda across is too drastically cut back on industry. This has 2 major ramifications: 1. This means that the 3rd world can't develop. No electricity, not power plants, no modern essentials (cars, trains, planes), nothing. 2. Cutting back industry reduces capital. Less money results in less research. The solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions isn't in cutting back buisness, but to allow them to invest funds in finding out ways to control it.

6. The reason given for the heating a cooling of the earth (by the way in the 70's the scare was that the world was headed toward another Ice Age) in the video is that of sunspot activity on the sun. Sunspots are periods of intense magnetic energy, and as a result the energy output is greatly increased. As far back as the records show (mid 1600's) there is a very intimate relationship (+.76) between Sunspot activity and Global temperature. During the "Little Ice Age" of the 1700's, sunspot activity was very low, and the river Thames froze over in England!

7. All in all, this is a media driven big buisness. Look behind the "facts".

And TUTG, this isn't a conspiracy theory, if anything, the pro-humans cause GW are conspiracy theorist.

the dieing vegitation and such are the amount of green house gasses put of naturally into the atmosphere but when we add extra its like when you have a nice warm room perfect temp for you and you turn an oven on in the corner the room heats up more than it should(if someones already said this im sorry i didnt read all the bullitens)

riseagainstrocks · 03-15-2007, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fal

I lol @ grafz - that's a link btw.

I'll see if I can get the original article scanned in. It has comparisons of the graphs shown on the show, and the graphs that would have been shown if they were interested in the truth.

Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment
Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming' | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment
Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

I didn't even bother to try and find a variety of source because the Guardian articles pretty much speak for themselves. Go do a google search before you start accepting the croc of **** in the programme you're pumping.

Your first link raises some concerns, however, they provide no links themselves to these graphs that are "readily available online"

The second link wouldn't load for me.

The third, the only thing I can think of is that the scientist is trying to retract his statements because anti-human caused climate change is a minority stance and there are those who would seek to surpress it.

And the fourth, are you serious with that link? There was 0 science behind it. It made no sense.

I'm not saying that the answers presented in the video are the be all to end all. But there has been no concrete evidence given to support the theory that we are directly causing this phenomenon. In any other realm, no one would act on such wishy-washy information, yet in today's world people want to rally behind something and Global Warming seems to be "it".

I think it's rather humerous how you insult me for believing the video when you are just as blind in following the Guardian and Al Gore.

and to 655321, there is not doubt in my mind that humans aren't doing the world a favor by emitting noxious gases into the atmosphere, however, the alternative is to shut everything down, to revert to the "noble savage" way of life. I for one would prefer not too.

My point in posting this thread was to present a scientifically oriented counterarguement to the Climate Change 'whistleblowers'. Very few people have any idea of what they're talking about and it clouds the debate.

Barnard17 · 03-15-2007, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

Your first link raises some concerns, however, they provide no links themselves to these graphs that are "readily available online"

Like I say, I'll try and get them scanned in and loaded up from the original, printed article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

The second link wouldn't load for me.

Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

The third, the only thing I can think of is that the scientist is trying to retract his statements because anti-human caused climate change is a minority stance and there are those who would seek to surpress it.

olol. Ironic when I've seen one of the scientists who were on the programme on the news and mentioning death threats to not retract the statements (to maintain an anti-GW stance).

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

I think it's rather humerous how you insult me for believing the video when you are just as blind in following the Guardian and Al Gore.

Well, seeing as I couldn't care less as to what Gores up to ...

The BBC have had news spots about how defunct the programme was, as have the Independent, the Guardian, the Observer. Pretty much every scientist that isn't in love with capitalism and the payments from the oil companies have denounced the theories put forward in the programme, including the people used IN the programme. The Great Global Warming Swindle was nothing more than a propaganda piece. Yes, the articles against it are dated later than your opening post so I'm not saying you're an idiot for not including them. My point is that waiting for more sources to arise as a result of the nonsense that was put forward in the programme would be wiser than simply taking up the same banned as an act of counter-rebellion.

riseagainstrocks · 03-15-2007, 10:18 PM

It's not counter rebellion.

The link still won't load for me, I'll try at my school. I'd be interested in reading the graph, but I'm very skeptical of any movement that garners such widespread and ignorant support (not calling you ignorant at all, you've researched the matter) so rapidly. Many of these same scientist were pointing to infallible signs that the earth was moving towards the end of the Interglacial period and we could expect drops of 5-10 degrees celcius within decades. Now the opposite is happening.

And again, I raise the point, pushing the cut back on industry effectly prevents the 3rd world from building any of their own. I maybe be a heartless ******* online, but my stomach turns at the thought of villagers suffering due to the self-righteousness of some college students and washed up politicians.

Barnard17 · 03-16-2007, 06:07 AM

I don't agree with hindering 3rd world countries unless we also give them a viable alternative such as nuclear power. On the other hand 1st world countries who can afford to make the changes have no excuse not to.

nikhil · 06-12-2007, 12:03 AM

If global warming causes temperatures to raise then the polar ice caps would melt.

If the polar ice caps melt, the ocean levels would rise.

…and if the oceans rise that means….that they will rise so far that we will all drown!

But let’s think logically…

Assuming increased CO2 emissions really do cause raised global temperatures:

If C02 emissions rise

which cause global temperatures to rise…

And rising global temperatures cause polar ice caps to melt….

Then raised global temperatures would cause more evaporation of water from our oceans…

And more evaporated water would lower the ocean levels back down and would result in more clouds in the atmosphere…

And more clouds in the atmosphere would reflect back more ultraviolet rays from the earth back into space…

And more UV rays reflected away from the earth would result in…….

…Cooler global temperatures!

In other words, the earth is a balanced ecosystem that goes through cycles and rhythms with checks and balances that act as a huge global “eco-safety valve”. Any warming of the earth would trigger the very mechanism that would cool it back down again! As ocean levels might rise due to melting ice caps, so too, evaporation would increase thus lowering the oceans, keeping the right balance.

Once the water in the clouds returns back to the ground, it would allow more UV penetration and thus increase the temperature, keeping and maintaining the earth in a temperature range that sustains life. Think of it as a huge global, geo-biological thermostat!

Is this overly simplified? Sure. But so is the theory of global warming.

just for kicks · 06-12-2007, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikhil

If global warming causes temperatures to raise then the polar ice caps would melt.

If the polar ice caps melt, the ocean levels would rise.

…and if the oceans rise that means….that they will rise so far that we will all drown!

But let’s think logically…

Assuming increased CO2 emissions really do cause raised global temperatures:

If C02 emissions rise

which cause global temperatures to rise…

And rising global temperatures cause polar ice caps to melt….

Then raised global temperatures would cause more evaporation of water from our oceans…

And more evaporated water would lower the ocean levels back down and would result in more clouds in the atmosphere…

And more clouds in the atmosphere would reflect back more ultraviolet rays from the earth back into space…

And more UV rays reflected away from the earth would result in…….

…Cooler global temperatures!

In other words, the earth is a balanced ecosystem that goes through cycles and rhythms with checks and balances that act as a huge global “eco-safety valve”. Any warming of the earth would trigger the very mechanism that would cool it back down again! As ocean levels might rise due to melting ice caps, so too, evaporation would increase thus lowering the oceans, keeping the right balance.

Once the water in the clouds returns back to the ground, it would allow more UV penetration and thus increase the temperature, keeping and maintaining the earth in a temperature range that sustains life. Think of it as a huge global, geo-biological thermostat!

Is this overly simplified? Sure. But so is the theory of global warming.

thats so wrong its not funny. when water evaporates it doesnt turn into clouds and thats the end of it, it rains back down again. we havent gained or lost any water since the earth began. and the earth doesnt evaporate enough water to lower the levels, that would be a s*hit load of evaporation. plus if we keep going like this temperatures will be too high to sustain life

03-14-2007, 01:02 AM	#11 (permalink)
jibber Freeskier Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Istanbul was Constantinople now it's Istanbul not Constantinople... Posts: 1,536	rise, i understand that you, like a lot of people, believe the rising earth temperature to be a natural escalation. BUT, there are many viable arguments, i agree, there are very few concrete facts yet, but it is VERY plausable to look at the data, and conclude that human activity could VERY POSSIBLY be accountable for the short time frame in which these changes have been happening. unless you're completely ignorant, you can't deny that human beings HAVE made an impact on the environment (and not a possitive one) in the past few centuries. Many natural wonders have been almost entirely destroyed (and not from natural causes), the great barrier reef probably the most easily recognizable example. You completely missed the point of my argument. Despite what you're trying to get across, it is IN NO WAY CONCRETE FACT that global warming is a natural fluctuation that humans have no effect on. There is a very strong possibility that, on top of the natural warming of the planet, we have been making the matter worse with our actions. The natural warming isnt something we should be worried about, it's what we're doing to it that we can be concerned about. And your argument about advancing environmental agendas stopping economic growth, that's the whole issue. First world countries aren't willing at the moment to sacrifice their comforts in order to assist third world countries in making it possible to develop while using environmentally friendly alternatives. Bottom line though, DON'T try to make it out like you know for a fact that global warming isnt caused by human activity, no one knows that for sure, and it's complete bullsh*t to imply that you do. __________________ What you've done becomes the judge of what you're going to do -- especially in other people's minds. When you're traveling, you are what you are right there and then. People don't have your past to hold against you. No yesterdays on the road. William Least Heat Moon, Blue Highways Your toughest competitor lives in your head. Some days his name is fear, or pain, or gravity. Stomp his ass. HOOKED ON THE WHITE POWDER

03-15-2007, 06:31 PM	#13 (permalink)
Barnard17 My home? Discabled, Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 204	I lol @ grafz - that's a link btw. I'll see if I can get the original article scanned in. It has comparisons of the graphs shown on the show, and the graphs that would have been shown if they were interested in the truth. Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change \| Climate change \| Guardian Unlimited Environment Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming' \| Climate change \| Guardian Unlimited Environment Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change \| Climate change \| Guardian Unlimited Environment I didn't even bother to try and find a variety of source because the Guardian articles pretty much speak for themselves. Go do a google search before you start accepting the croc of **** in the programme you're pumping. __________________ Vita brevis, Occasio praeceps Last edited by Barnard17; 03-15-2007 at 06:36 PM.

03-15-2007, 10:18 PM	#17 (permalink)
riseagainstrocks Music Addict Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: DC Posts: 3,320	It's not counter rebellion. The link still won't load for me, I'll try at my school. I'd be interested in reading the graph, but I'm very skeptical of any movement that garners such widespread and ignorant support (not calling you ignorant at all, you've researched the matter) so rapidly. Many of these same scientist were pointing to infallible signs that the earth was moving towards the end of the Interglacial period and we could expect drops of 5-10 degrees celcius within decades. Now the opposite is happening. And again, I raise the point, pushing the cut back on industry effectly prevents the 3rd world from building any of their own. I maybe be a heartless ******* online, but my stomach turns at the thought of villagers suffering due to the self-righteousness of some college students and washed up politicians. __________________ One note timeless, came out of nowhere...

03-16-2007, 06:07 AM	#18 (permalink)
Barnard17 My home? Discabled, Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 204	I don't agree with hindering 3rd world countries unless we also give them a viable alternative such as nuclear power. On the other hand 1st world countries who can afford to make the changes have no excuse not to. __________________ Vita brevis, Occasio praeceps

06-12-2007, 12:03 AM	#19 (permalink)
nikhil Groupie Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: bangalore Posts: 48	Global warming is a farce If global warming causes temperatures to raise then the polar ice caps would melt. If the polar ice caps melt, the ocean levels would rise. …and if the oceans rise that means….that they will rise so far that we will all drown! But let’s think logically… Assuming increased CO2 emissions really do cause raised global temperatures: If C02 emissions rise which cause global temperatures to rise… And rising global temperatures cause polar ice caps to melt…. Then raised global temperatures would cause more evaporation of water from our oceans… And more evaporated water would lower the ocean levels back down and would result in more clouds in the atmosphere… And more clouds in the atmosphere would reflect back more ultraviolet rays from the earth back into space… And more UV rays reflected away from the earth would result in……. …Cooler global temperatures! In other words, the earth is a balanced ecosystem that goes through cycles and rhythms with checks and balances that act as a huge global “eco-safety valve”. Any warming of the earth would trigger the very mechanism that would cool it back down again! As ocean levels might rise due to melting ice caps, so too, evaporation would increase thus lowering the oceans, keeping the right balance. Once the water in the clouds returns back to the ground, it would allow more UV penetration and thus increase the temperature, keeping and maintaining the earth in a temperature range that sustains life. Think of it as a huge global, geo-biological thermostat! Is this overly simplified? Sure. But so is the theory of global warming.