The Great Global Warming Swindle

[axlish]

I think its important to avoid looking at Al Gore and what he says as ammunition against Global Warming and its causes... He’s a politician....and his first number one concern is getting people fired up and behind him....So he will definitely use over powerful language and exaggerate the implications of it....because the more people that are scared the more they will support the candidate.... First its very important to toss out all the political verbal absolutism from people like Gore or anyone else. Toss out all the outrageous claims because reality is both more interesting and painfully more simplistic. The oceans wont boil. If the ozone remains intact the hottest the planet could get is dependent on the amount of carbon locked in our fossil fuel reserves once all this stuff was living material. All life on the planet will not die. Well put. So if camp “Human Caused” is correct mankind will have to develop technologies to reduce our damage while developing technologies or practices to repair damages because the current 100 year scenario will happen even if we stop emitting CO2. Also technologies to cope with agricultural reshuffling would have to be developed if humans cannot undo damage in a shorter 100 year timetable. We would have to do all that to avoid or reduce a global catastrophe. If camp “Natural Caused” is correct mankind will have to develop technologies to reverse a natural rapid global climate trend. Or they will have to develop technologies that produce food on a massive scale regardless of the outside conditions. (The fact that many in this camp feel humans overestimate their ability to make an impact on global environment is discouraging towards hoping to avoid a global catastrophe). Exactly what I've been saying. If these ecological changes are innevitable, then the Human race had better get busy doing something to counter act the effects, and it ain't selling your Hummer. Domes come to mind.

[Neil]

The Claims: Humans are the leading cause of this current rapid Global Climate Swing because of the massive amounts of CO2 emitted by Human related activity. This is exacerbated by human destruction of nature’s buffer systems (Swamp/Marshland, Rainforests, Ocean Ecosystems). A Global average Temperature will increase up to 15 degrees or more within a century . 15 degree global temperature increase would cause Glaciers and Pole Ice to either melt entirely or nearly entirely before freezing begins again in a more distant future. Glacier melting and pole ice melting will drastically effect ocean currents, temperature, and chemistry. Altering weather patterns. Altered weather patterns are directly linked to agriculture. Temperature by region will be entirely different than it is today. Practically all places on the globe will change in weather some will become polar opposites of what they are today. Any combination of precipitation soaked/humid/dry coupled with any combination of temperature cold/warm/hot. Agriculture globally will be hit extremely hard causing a global famine. Some places will be hit harder than others causing huge diplomatic tensions. Mass extinction comparable to all other mass extinctions in history caused by rapid global climate swings. Aren't these the same sort people who said we were causing another ice age 30yrs ago? By the way, from what you know, the amout of co2 humanity is producing is compariable to how much the planet is producing a year? This article really isn't happy the documentary! http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...7/03/swindled/ So volcanoes only produce 1% of what humans produce? This is why this debate is sooo painful... One group say for example volcanoes produce more than us... and then another group say infact they only produce 1% the amount humans do!?!! Why isn't there just one answer!

[MinionZombie]

DAMN STRAIGHT, Tricky. This is why this debate is sooo painful... One group say for example volcanoes produce more than us... and then another group say infact they only produce 1% the amount humans do!?!! Why isn't there just one answer! Because it's like talking to a brick wall, there's all these people out there who are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are the cause of the apocalypse, meanwhile they haven't even bothered to look at the OTHER side of the argument - and that is crucially important, you can never effectively understand and seek to resolve (if it needs resolving) an issue if you don't look at both sides. But with the amount of vested interests in the global warming "business" (which, when all taken into account, will be leaving behind a large "carbon footprint", as they like to call it, no doubt), it's a scary thought. I just hope those representing the non-politicised and non-doomsaying side of the issue come forth en masse quicksmart.

[Neil]

Another dig at that documentary! http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2...tructing_.html

[MinionZombie]

Sheer arrogance over and over, blind following an issue without questioning it's validity. It's strange isn't it, in a world where religion is constantly dissected and looked at with scepticism, there's all these people blinding believing and not questioning this whole global warming "business". You can "deconstruct" anything, but it doesn't make the fact that BOTH sides of the argument need airing any less prevalent, these numpties seem to completely forget that - BOTH SIDES of the argument as well as the simple answer: 1) Don't be wasteful 2) Improve efficiency 'nuff said, really.

[Tricky]

Look up the bloke who made the documentary in wikipedia,it tries to completely discredit him as a rabble rouser who just does these things to be controversial.While that may be true in respect to some of his past work,i think this documentary is a different kettle of fish and isnt about rabble rousing,more about trying to calm the mass hysteria surrounding "climate change"

[MinionZombie]

Look up the bloke who made the documentary in wikipedia,it tries to completely discredit him as a rabble rouser who just does these things to be controversial.While that may be true in respect to some of his past work,i think this documentary is a different kettle of fish and isnt about rabble rousing,more about trying to calm the mass hysteria surrounding "climate change" Spot on, Tricky. The chaotic panic about this whole global "warming" thing has gotten completely out of it, it's actually like in South Park when a crowd of people pissed off about something are actually all just bleetering "rabble rabble rabble", and in the 21st Century I'm ashamed to say the human race hasn't advanced past that retarded point. If this issue is as big as the doomsayers say it is (which it f*cking isn't), then surely if they were actually intelligent and calm, reasonable people, then they'd be looking at ALL the arguments, ALL the evidence, not just running off in one direction like a headless chicken. And the fact that people are leaping on anyone who is a naysayer on the issue, just proves beyond reasonable doubt exactly what was said in that documentary - if you're a naysayer, you're regarded as a holocaust denier ... and that's pretty retarded isn't it? That's the kind of thinking we last had when people believed others were witches and burnt them alive! I hope all the naysayers gather together and stand up, rather than give up, giving up is never an option when it's a situation like this, so I hope they start coming out of the woodwork to cool this situation down.

[Tricky]

Have you seen david camerons new plans to hammer people in tax who take more than one flight a year,and their one flight would only allow 2000 miles?The Tories will probably get my vote in the next election,purely to get rid of labour,but cameron is another one of these little green hitlers when it comes to the climate change issue.Why punish low to middle earners who might want a holiday once a year?the rich will still take as many flights as they like because they will just pay the extra with no problems

[MinionZombie]

Indeed, Cameron's most definitely got my vote, but you don't have to like everything your party of choice says - and I certainly don't like the green tax plane thing ... but on the other hand, if doing some of that bollocks helps get the Conservatives back in control of our out-of-control country, then I guess it's a means to an end. But exactly, all these taxes penalise those who can't afford to pay, but need to use their car of take a flight. I don't believe in all these nobs jetting off on holidays all the time, they're just greedy wankers who spend all their money - I've never been on a plane in my life thus far, seriously, NEVER. The rich are rich enough, they can live off the interest on their piles of cash as it is, but the middle classes just keep getting squeezed having to pay for everything. Green taxes are stupid, it's just a form of facism, forcing people to not use a service or useful tool, despite the fact many or the majority need to use the tool (e.g. the car - how many people do you know take car journeys for fun? I know none, it's a tool, all journeys are for a purpose). Forcing people out of something is not the answer, it just earns a quick buck and plays into the hands of the doomsaying weirdos. Clean-fuelled jets is what you need and so on and so forth and all the other points I've stated up till now in support of my approach to climate change - which is natural!! Speaking of which, was trading words with a friend of mine about this documentary the thread is on about, and he so staunchly believes in us being the cause it's gheay, and this is the same person who believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories... Question one thing but not the other? Blatant hypocrisy methinks.

[coma]

Have you seen david camerons new plans to hammer people in tax who take more than one flight a year,and their one flight would only allow 2000 miles?The Tories will probably get my vote in the next election,purely to get rid of labour,but cameron is another one of these little green hitlers when it comes to the climate change issue.Why punish low to middle earners who might want a holiday once a year?the rich will still take as many flights as they like because they will just pay the extra with no problems Who says America has a monopoly on stupid? Or fascism for that matter. I say to your gub "Get off the Englishmen's dicks, you retards!" To brotherhood Skoal! My prediction. You trade Labour for Tories, you end up with a different, but equally bad, level of control and oppression. Us reg'lar folks cant win and that sucks Anybody who beilieves that any politician does anything for any reason other than to accumulate funds is truly deluded and kinda stupid.

[MinionZombie]

Rememeber though, that our Conservatives aren't the same style as you guys' Republicans, not by any stretch of the imagination, especially these days.

[Neil]

Or they will have to develop technologies that produce food on a massive scale regardless of the outside conditions. Nice plate of fried Soylent Green anyone?

[Terran]

I hesitate to continue because I may start to sound more dismissive and maybe even a tinge condescending. Its just pure frustration. Its not that I particularly mind talking about global climate change or debating it. In fact for the most part I enjoy it. But that is the probably the problem. I have always been willing to throw my two cents into a global climate change discussion. Perhaps that is what I find so frustrating….since I have read and witnessed so many of these debates and discussions I keep seeing the same arguments. Whats most annoying is that there is a great deal of confusion on whats true and whats not. The main cause of this confusion is not from conflicting scientific research, its from the sometimes intentional but mostly unintentional propagation of myths, falsehoods, dated research, and misinterpreted conclusions. I cant recall a single argument in this thread countering human caused global warming that has not already been debunked, discredited, proven false, or otherwise dismissed for appropriate reasons. A couple people in this thread, who reject the claim that humans are the main cause of an apparent rapid global climate change, mention that the alternate theories are not being given serious attention or fair review….. And that statement really really confuses me in one sense. And makes me significantly angry in another sense. It confuses me because the people who say these other theories are not being given serious attention or fair review use these same theories to support their viewpoint. The arguments and studies that they use are inconsistent with contemporary research and are disputed by the overwhelming consensus of experts. Not just experts of a particular specialized field but experts in all disciplines of natural sciences. Sometimes these arguments use seriously dated research and other times is completely false or fabricated. So what confuses me is these people who say the other theories are not given serious and fair attention are themselves attributing a vastly disproportionate value in a minority theory. And if they even bothered to look they would discover that each of their arguments is disputed through many different avenues of science. So it just confuses me that a camp would request fair and serious consideration while they unexplainably assign greater value in weaker arguments that are systematically eroded or made obsolete by greater volumes of contemporary study What makes me significantly angry is what these alternative conclusions and alternative claims are being used for. Increasingly just the existence of these alternative claims are being used to discredit the consensus claim, with no regards to whether those alternative claims have any merit or plausibility to begin with. Don’t people realize how crazy that is….Consider the following example situation. 80% of the people support a research claim that the earth is round. 10% support a research claim that it is flat. 5% support a research claim it is cuboidal. And another 5% believe the earth is actually a giant turtle shell. Would these mutually exclusive alternative claims be a strong argument against the majority? Of course not….right? No one in there right mind would argue like this would they? “The overwhelming consensus of scientists and research indicates the earth is round” “Nah that’s total BS a good deal of experts think otherwise. They say that the earth is simultaneously flat, cuboidal , and a giant turtle shell. The planet cant be round with such drastically alternative and numerous claims out there in existence. Its BS total BS”…… This example seems overly ridiculous but people have acted out this exact scenario several times over in this thread already. Listing a handful of alternative viewpoints they feel is a strong argument for their stance It doesn’t seem to matter if these alternative viewpoints correlate together or not it just matters if they disagree with the majority. As an argument they will bring up claims that the Earth is actually cooling…or that humans have no effect but warming is happening anyway….or that the sun is doing it….all these are mutually exclusive claims…they don’t support each other and when used together they don’t provide good evidence to sway from a scientific consensus. In the round earth example its easy to see how silly an argument that tactic makes but somehow people don’t see it as silly for these purposes Im not sure how much room Ill have left but lets start demonstrating how the common minority arguments how so horribly weak. To save me time Im going to just cut n paste stuff. Instead of retrieving the source. Objection: The alarmists were predicting the onset of an Ice Age in the 70's, now it's warming! Why should we believe them? Answer: It is true that there were some predictions of an "emminent ice age" in the 1970's but what does this tell us about today's warnings? A very cursory comparison of then and now reveals a huge difference. Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions solidy behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the cause and the warming will worsen unless we reduce emissions. In the 1970's, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. No daily headlines. No avalanche of scientific articles. No United Nations treaties and commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers. Objection: Global Warming is just a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government. Answer: Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. Even some of the fossil fuel super companies themselves support it now…lol Objection: A few glaciers receding today is not proof of Global Warming, glaciers have grown and receded many times. Answer: No one claims that a few melting glaciers is proof of Global Warming. Proof is a mathematical concept. In climate science one needs to look at the balance of evidence and this is just more evidence on one side of that balance. Widespread and rapid retreat of glaciers is merely yet another observation consistent with all the other kinds of "melting" evidence. Objection: It was even warmer than today during the Holocene Climatic Optimum without any human influence. Answer: Actually, it turns out that though there may have indeed been some temperatures in the same range as today, this was regional to the northern hemisphere and confined to the summer months! What's more, the cause is understood (orbital forcing similar to what controlled the Ice Ages), just as today's cause is understood (CO2 emissions), and these causes are different. "In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years." Objection: It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period as today, in fact Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England. Answer: There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that did exhibit notable warmth but all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now and the temperature is rising faster than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years. Anecdotal evidence like that above can never tell you a global story. NOAA presents a whole selection of proxy studies together with the data they are based on and these can be found here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html Specifically, they have this to say about the MWP: "The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect." Objection: Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUV's on Mars, CO2 can't be causing Global Warming. Answer: There is very little evidence to go on when it comes to discerning a global climate change on Mars. A series of photographs of a single icey region in the southern hemisphere shows melting over a two year (~1 martian year) period. On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers world wide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting and stratosphere cooling which leads us to believe we have GHG driven global warming. On Mars we have one spot melting which leads us to believe...one spot is melting. Jeeze….screw this….All of them are listed on that site….just find your favorite anti argument its probably already addressed…… I posted it before but it must not have been looked at cause some of these same arguements came up again.... http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/20...g-sceptic.html .

[Danny]

Nice plate of fried Soylent Green anyone? were do you think macdonalds ne w"crispy strips" come from? "MACCY-D'S IS MADE OF PEOPLE!"

[coma]

were do you think macdonalds ne w"crispy strips" come from? "MACCY-D'S IS MADE OF PEOPLE!" It's McDonalds. Not MAC. How do you get Maccy from Mc? We call it Mickey D's. Huh?