The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Terran]

Not wishing to sound facetious, but once upon a time 1% of scientists said we evolved from apes and 99% said we didn't... Opinions change, especially when to a certain degree these opinion are sort of 'pyramids of knowledge', ie: one opinion is based on someone elses which is based on someone else etc... etc... Now, please don't mis-understand my point here - I'm on the fence regarding global warming and regularly hop from one side of it to the other as the areas seems generally muddy and boggy with no clear place to stand... Christ!!! Neil!!!..... why do you have to bring reasonable disbelief into the situation.... I was addressing the majority of what I said on what I perceived as unreasonable disbelief.... As this issue relates to your non-intentional “facetious” point…. Isn’t the early human evolution acceptance comparison a bit unfair of a relationship to draw from global warming… When human evolution was developing analytical techniques were just developing…Hell genetics did not exist before evolution became a theory….hell….genetics wouldn’t exist as it is today if evolution wasn’t widely supported…. Hell back then aside from geologists people still thought the earth was only a couple of thousand of years old… The difference is we have way more firm “pyramid stones” to support and structure developing theories now than we ever did in the past. (additionally one could argue that human caused climate change is meeting similiar resistance that evolution encountered...and it is only growing in strength because of the accumulation of undeniable evidence...like evolution) But if you want to look back historically for a comparison I think it would be a fair assumption that most peoples objections to the human evolution theory was widely unscientific… Which is similar to the objection seen today…* notices that this is a point of argument but I didn’t want to make a post huge supporting this statement… There is nothing wrong with reasonable objection. That is how scientific theories are sculpted… Human caused global climate change so far covers and collaborates more of the evidence than any of the other hypothesis’s combined….as more information comes in the conclusion changes slightly…If anything significantly develops that disputes the basis for this idea than it will erode and become nonexistent…. Is this is not big news in itself…as more and more independent studies come in they continue to support the consensus theory?

[MinionZombie]

I'm with you pretty much, Neil. The whole 'opinion based on another's opinion' thing is a good point, I think that's happened a whole hell of a lot with the whole GW brigade. Yes, it's sensible that you have some of it, but the Al Gore side appears to be swamped in such a thing, and thus - the alarmist wank. As for the shape of the earth, that's a bit daft to compare to however many scientists apparently or perhaps more accurately suggested to be in favour of Gore & Co. We've seen the earth from outer spaced, and there's endless proof that it's a big sphere. Any numpty who suggests otherwise, when there's blatant unavoidable proof - i.e. video and photographic evidence on the simple issue of our planet's shape - is just looking for money for controversial garbage 'research'. The angle that scientists are hanging as much of their research as possible around global warming is also interesting, it's a well known fact that in the scientific community, the fudging of results to gain money is common practice - both my parents have seen this in the bio-chemistry field, in which they used to work - so you can quite easily suggest there's something to gain from going along with the 'GW is our fault' thing, namely - money. Seemingly there's little to gain from the 'it's natural climate change' side of things. Yes, there will be some who have been 'bought' by the big bad evil oil companies, but that is something you can easily check out, you can't hide that kinda sh*t, so the people who come forth and say without a quiver that they are not on the oil payroll, are gaining no personal profit from the debate - they're simply wanting to do the right thing. And to me, that suggests greater validity, reliability and trustworthiness. Yes, there'll be trustworthy people on the Gore side who just wanna be good, but the movement itself is intensely politicised and you cannot deny that it isn't a huge business, I mean HUGE. We need calm and rationality and for ALL opinions and evidence to be properly judged and researched, for it is to the detriment of the entire planet and mankind, to go running off down one single path due to a guilty conscience. Once again, I don't deny there are changes happening to our climate, but it is the number one cause we're all rabble-rabbling about. Mankind most certainly should seek to improve efficiency, recycle and use renewable energy, it's the natural progression of mankind's evolution - but bashing 'the new bible' ("An Inconvenient Truth" on DVD ... made out of plastic, paper and other such oil-derived substances ) like a blinkered sheep is pointless. Besides, if Gore isn't willing to cut his epic electricity bill and live by his own rules, that just puts a big stamp of "do as I say, not as I do" usual political wank all over the whole deal, and exposes the Gore & Co side to some of it's own inconvenient truths.

[Neil]

Christ!!! Neil!!!..... why do you have to bring reasonable disbelief into the situation.... I was addressing the majority of what I said on what I perceived as unreasonable disbelief.... As this issue relates to your non-intentional “facetious” point…. Isn’t the early human evolution acceptance comparison a bit unfair of a relationship to draw from global warming… When human evolution was developing analytical techniques were just developing…Hell genetics did not exist before evolution became a theory….hell….genetics wouldn’t exist as it is today if evolution wasn’t widely supported…. Hell back then aside from geologists people still thought the earth was only a couple of thousand of years old… The difference is we have way more firm “pyramid stones” to support and structure developing theories now than we ever did in the past. (additionally one could argue that human caused climate change is meeting similiar resistance that evolution encountered...and it is only growing in strength because of the accumulation of undeniable evidence...like evolution) But if you want to look back historically for a comparison I think it would be a fair assumption that most peoples objections to the human evolution theory was widely unscientific… Which is similar to the objection seen today…* notices that this is a point of argument but I didn’t want to make a post huge supporting this statement… There is nothing wrong with reasonable objection. That is how scientific theories are sculpted… Human caused global climate change so far covers and collaborates more of the evidence than any of the other hypothesis’s combined….as more information comes in the conclusion changes slightly…If anything significantly develops that disputes the basis for this idea than it will erode and become nonexistent…. Is this is not big news in itself…as more and more independent studies come in they continue to support the consensus theory? Yes, of course the example was rediculous, but I was trying to make a point... Just because the majority agree it doesn't automatically make it right, ESPECIALLY when a large proportion disagree.... If 80% of scientists suggest we are affecting the climate, why do 20% disagree? It's obviously not so obvious that it convinces them all... Again, I'm not against the suggestion we're to blame, but the arguments seem so many, on both sides, that's it hard to come to a conclusion.

[LouCipherr]

If 80% of scientists suggest we are affecting the climate, why do 20% disagree? It's obviously not so obvious that it convinces them all... Exaclty, Neil - there IS NO CONSENSUS ON HUMAN INFLUENCED GLOBAL WARMING. I think some may have missed the may posts that I stated I believe SOMETHING is going on with the planet, but I don't believe that humans are the main cause of this - at least not yet I don't because I don't have enough data to come to that conclusion. Terran - when I stated that regional temperatures should reflect an overall warming, you bring up mars. I'm not talking about Mars, i'm talking about EARTH. You mean to tell me, you honestly believe that the planet Earth can warm up but the thousands regional temperatures from data points from all over the planet will not show this warming trend? How can a planet that's supposedly warming up so quick possibly not reflect that around the planet? So, the ice caps will melt because the planet is warming, but at the same time, all of the datapoints around the world will say "oh, our temps are the same as they were 20 years ago" Doesn't make sense. Besides, if Gore isn't willing to cut his epic electricity bill and live by his own rules, that just puts a big stamp of "do as I say, not as I do" usual political wank all over the whole deal, and exposes the Gore & Co side to some of it's own inconvenient truths. This was my main point of bringing this thread back to life. If Gore himself, the so-called "champion" of the global warming brigade, the one who is saying "We're all gonna die if YOU don't do something about it" is the one who REFUSES to cut back his own energy use. Why is that? The leader and biggest proponent of global warming refuses to take a pledge to cut back his own energy use to the "average" american household usage. Seems to me, that right there is a big indicator that even the 'leader' of this movement doesn't believe in what he's saying. Either that or he's just a smug asshole. If he did believe in what he is preaching, you would think he would gladly cut back his energy use, don't you? Although, i'm sure the proponents of GW will come up with yet another excuse as to why he shouldn't be held to that standard, and that him refusing the pledge (that gore would want OTHERS to follow) was perfectly acceptable. How convienent. I don't want to hear "oh, but he's involved in this progam, and that program, and they're all about conserving energy and saving the planet" - from what Al has taught us from his movie, this saving the planet stuff starts at home, with the individual - something he is unwilling, apparently, to comply with. Again, doesn't make sense. Too many gaps. If you're gonna 'talk the talk' then 'walk the walk'. Simple as that. These people seem to have no problem, why does Al? Terran - I can honestly say you are much more educated on your stance of GW than most. Kudos. Some things your have mentioned has even made me tilt my head a bit and think "hmmmmm...." but, there is still unanswered questions that neither of us can probably answer. I only remain a skeptic because I just don't see enough proof for myself to believe it is true. It's obvious you do, and kudos to you for digging in sticking to your guns. I'll leave this discussion for others now. I've stated my opinion, good or bad, for better for worse, right or wrong - it is what it is.

[Terran]

Exaclty, Neil - there IS NO CONSENSUS ON HUMAN INFLUENCED GLOBAL WARMING. What in your opinion does a consensus look like? In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is likely to have been due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning. This statement has been explicitly endorsed by: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academié des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (United States of America) Australian Academy of Sciences Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts Caribbean Academy of Sciences Indonesian Academy of Sciences Royal Irish Academy Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences In addition, the following institutions specializing in Climate, Atmosphere, Ocean and/or Earth sciences have published the same conclusions: NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS) American Geophysical Union (AGU) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) American Meteorological Society (AMS) Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) If this is not consensus, then what in the world would consensus look like? You mean to tell me, you honestly believe that the planet Earth can warm up but the thousands regional temperatures from data points from all over the planet will not show this warming trend? How can a planet that's supposedly warming up so quick possibly not reflect that around the planet? So, the ice caps will melt because the planet is warming, but at the same time, all of the datapoints around the world will say "oh, our temps are the same as they were 20 years ago" Doesn't make sense. My point was not that regional temperatures will not show warming trends it was that all regions together do not have to show a warming trend. As long as the average temperature of the planet raises then it still supports global warming. So if Region A cools 5 degrees on average and Region B heats up 15 degrees on average then between the two of them you have a 10 degree increase. So not all the data points around the world have to show warming as long as all of them together still show warming..... You may ask yourself 2005 was a record year, one really warm year or two is not global warming? every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992 the ten hottest years on record occured in the last 15 every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976 the 20 hottest years on record occured in the last 25 every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956 every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917 The five year mean global temperature in 1910 was .8oC lower than the five year mean in 2002. This and all the above come from the analysis by NASA GISS here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ This trend doesnt particularly say much by itself but in conjunction with other information its an interesting thing to notice. So so far all the data points around the world are supporting a global warming trend....

[Mutineer]

Was this thread started for sake of controversy ? I cannot fathom someone disagreeing with the Global Warming phenomenon. The facts are there, the research is there, the statistics are there,the support is there. Is it entirely unrealistic to takes preventative steps to stop this phenomenon ? Or will irrational ignorance (and stubborness) prevail ? Do you think a bunch of guys are sitting around making this up ? - If anything; get us off Oil Dependancy. A by-product may be saving the planet.

[Neil]

What in your opinion does a consensus look like? If this is not consensus, then what in the world would consensus look like? Out of interest, got a list of who doesn't agree?

[Tricky]

Remember it wasnt actually that long ago (on the grand scheme of things) that the experts thought the earth was flat & you could sail off the end of it. Heres a quote from a book i recently read- "they didnt understand what they were doing" Im afraid that will be on the tombstone of the human race -taken from michael crichtons novel "prey" And that is exactly right,we dont understand what we're doing,we just think we do!regardless of which side of the fence you are on,or indeed hopping between,nobody truly knows without a shadow of a doubt why the climate is changing.

[erisi236]

Remember it wasn't actually that long ago (on the grand scheme of things) that the experts thought the earth was flat & you could sail off the end of it. Actually it was quite a long time ago, especially if you're talking about the "experts". Folks in the 1st Century were already pretty clued in to the fact that Earth was in fact round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

[coma]

Actually it was quite a long time ago, especially if you're talking about the "experts". Folks in the 1st Century were already pretty clued in to the fact that Earth was in fact round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Yeah? What about spontaneous generation" People STILL believe in that. When people focus on Al Gore's recent film like it's some kind of reason to slag the whole thing it leads me to believe the whole reason to say it a hoax is partisan. He's just one guy. How much proof is enough? What is the downside to cleaning up the planet and energy independence? I dont see any long term downside. A swindle is a conscious effort to forward an untruth as truth. That means that every scientist who believes this is a case is purposefully lying. There is a lot of motivation for individuals to say it's not happening (Like oil$< for example) bit what is the motivation to say it exists? I dont see anything substantial All that "the sun is causing climate change" is absolutely ridiculous to me. Thre could (though I dont believe there are) other reason for it, but the sun being a reason is preposterous.

[erisi236]

Yeah? What about "spontaneous generation" People STILL believe in that. Heh, and some people believe the 6 Lunar landings were a hoax and 9-11 was an "inside job". People are idiots. P.S. every one should switch to CFL Light Bulbs, today, they save so much energy compaired to the regular bulbs and they last for 8 years. You to can be friendly to the Environment.

[Tricky]

Actually it was quite a long time ago, especially if you're talking about the "experts". Folks in the 1st Century were already pretty clued in to the fact that Earth was in fact round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Aye but what i meant was it was only in the last few hundred years that they discovered this,when mans actually been here approximately 250,000 years And even more recent,most experts believed that if people travelled on the newly invented trains,they would suffocate if they went over 20 mph We were also all brought up to believe pluto was a planet as the experts told us,but now thats changed in the last few months and its not a planet after all.Im not saying scientists dont know anything,because they know a lot!but their conclusions are often a bit off the mark Heh, and some people believe the 6 Lunar landings were a hoax and 9-11 was an "inside job". People are idiots. P.S. every one should switch to CFL Light Bulbs, today, they save so much energy compaired to the regular bulbs and they last for 8 years. You to can be friendly to the Environment. Their actually making it illegal to have anything but those bulbs over here,i wouldnt mind but they give out a really awful wishy washy light

[MinionZombie]

Making a bulb illegal - pathetic facism. It should be a choice, not force. The problem with those lights is they take a while to warm up, and they're not quite as strong. Now, while I don't have trouble with them, some people do have trouble with them - they can feel sick and get headaches from them. Judy Finegan recently wrote about how she felt like a pile of sh*t after they installed those bulbs, then they got rid of them and she felt better - most likely something to do with the 'refresh rate' of the light itself, kind of like with a computer monitor. If you have it set at the wrong refresh rate, while you may not notice anything, you don't feel too hot sat there staring at the screen. Change the rate and you'll feel fine. So that's what I reckon the problem is that some people are having with those lights, my Mum is also suspicious of those lights, finding problems with headaches when around them too long. Change should be a matter of choice, not wanker facism forcing you to, where's the democracy in that? Also, what if people stock up on the old ones and just use those? How are you going to tell if they're using the new ones or not? Surely people will find a way to get the old ones if they want, how are they gonna know? Probably another household snoop sent from the gubment, like they're trying to do at the moment when it comes to consensus' or tax - like being taxed more if you've put a conservatory on your house, or you live in a good area - F*CKING SICKENING...penalised for achieving, so I guess we should all give up and live in squalor then, eh?

[Khardis]

P.S. every one should switch to CFL Light Bulbs, today, they save so much energy compaired to the regular bulbs and they last for 8 years. You to can be friendly to the Environment. No thanks, I dont buy into the hoax of "friendly to the environment".

[erisi236]

Strange, I never had a problem with my CFL bulbs, theres several different shapes, sizes, "warmths" and wattages, maybe you got some ones that don't work well for your particular space. They did need to "warm up" a bit before turning on awhile ago, but the ones I got a few months ago turn right on like regular ones, I think they fixed that problem. I don't know what to feel about making regular bulbs illegal, appearentaly they want to do it in California, seems a bit too extreme. Of course back in the early 90's they made it illegal to make toilets that used more then a certain amount of watter and that worked out for the better, even if at the time low flow toilets sucked. So I dunno. And Pluto is still a Planet dammit I don't care what they say.