[Archived] "global Warming"

[cletus]

Hardly read anything on this thread (the usual argueing) but just noticed my clematis in my backgarden is starting to bud. Doesn`t normally do that until late March. Also a plant in my front garden has flowered for the 2nd time this year. It`s never done that before!

Global warming? Unusually mild? me being more observant than usual? who knows?

[blue phil]

I'll drag this thread back up to the top in order to alert those capable of judging the matter objectively without bowing hysterically before the latest , fashionable PC outpourings from the media , of an interesting programme on C4 tomorrow night called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (9pm) .

I'm sure the ex-poster Jack would have done this ; unfortunately the unwarranted abuse he has suffered (from administrative level downwards I'm afraid to say ) seems to have persuaded him to leave the messageboard ......

[Flopsy]

where has Jack gone btw?

[blue phil]

Thought you'd barred him , Flops :ph34r:

Edited March 8, 2007 by blue phil

[Jimbo]

B*gger - now I'm confused !

[BuckyRover]

That program has left me shocked.

I was always sceptical but I didn't expect so much evidence against global warming from carbon emissions.

More than I have ever heard from the manic pro-global warming camp

Edited March 8, 2007 by BuckyRover

[Flopsy]

Thought you'd barred him , Flops :ph34r:

Nowt to do with me if he has been (just checked - no he hasnt and he got no less or no more abuse than anyone else on this board that cant defend their arguments with any evidence)

Just as an aside, whats better, doing something to try and reduce carbon emissions and then find out we got it wrong, or not doing anything and then finding out we could have done something to prevent it?

Im for the latter

Edited March 9, 2007 by Flopsy

[Al]

After watching that programme I am convinced that the CO2 theory is a load of rubbish and that the latest round of stealth taxes cannot be justified.

It was shown that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is a consequence of rising temperature and not the cause of it. The fact that activity of the sun is the major cause of temperature change (up or down) is pretty logical is it not? It was also clearly demonstrated during the programme.

Excellently presented and very factual. We are being conned.

[Flopsy]

hmmm, and ive seen lots of programms stating the absolute opposite.

You will believe what you want to believe. I hope you're right, but I doubt you are

Edited March 9, 2007 by Flopsy

[BuckyRover]

hmmm, and ive seen lots of programms stating the absolute opposite.

You will believe what you want to believe. I hope you're right, but I doubt you are

It wasn't rhetoric, it was hard facts.

Something that the doom merchants could do with providing.

Try and catch the program on the Internet, you will be very surprised.

[Flopsy]

im sure i wont be.

[Ricky]

Although I didnt watch the programme it is interesting that the Director was one Martin Durkin. Durkin produced a series for Channel 4 called Against Nature. There were a number of complaints from his interviewees and the ITC found that the views of the interviewees had been distorted by selective editing. Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has ever had to make.

Also interesting to note that one of the interviewees on last nights programme was Paul Reiter, an "eminent scientist". His comments are interesting but it should probably be noted that Reiter is involved with no less than 4 organisations that receive funding from ExxonMobil.

Don't believe all you see on the little box in the corner of the living room.

[American]

What a joke defense (the second part). Most of the scientists who say the opposite get their funding from Greenpeace and other organizations who have a point to prove as well.

[BuckyRover]

What a joke defense (the second part). Most of the scientists who say the opposite get their funding from Greenpeace and other organizations who have a point to prove as well.

Also the co-founder of Greenpeace left because of their Global Warming agenda which he doesn't believe is true.

I have heard many people say "I didn't watch the program, but it can't be true".

At least bloody watch it, or are you afraid of what you might learn. It could be dressed up lies, but it didnt seem that way.

[Al]

If you have not watched the programme it's easy to poo poo it. The major items were facts not conjecture.

Do you know for instance that many of the scientists shown as supporting the CO2 theory have resigned because they no longer believe it. Some of them have protested because their names are still there but got nowhere.

It is also a fact that in the forties and fifties when the industrial boom meant that we were creating more CO2 than at any other time in history the world got COLDER and scientists were worried about the effects of another ice age. Facts.

The facts show that the sun controls the temperature not us and when the temperature rises the sea produces more CO2 than we ever could. Therefore the temperature rises ahead of the increase in CO2 not as a consequence of it.

Ignore it if you wish but I am convinced.

[benhben]

Im doing a course at university and an essay about other concepts of global warming as we speak. The earths history is riddled with climate shifts, during the medieval period a warm shift occured due to increased solar activity and is known as the medieval maximum. The Uk had a climate similar to northern spain. Then in the 18th and 19 century was the little ice age when the thames froze over. So the suns output is a major influence.

Also humans produce about 7 gigatons of CO2 per annum, 7,000,000,000,000 tons. I know it sounds alot but this is just 0.03% of the entire volume of the atmosphere ans the worlds oceans absorb about 150 gigatons of co2 a year along with vegetation. Also CO2's ability to trap heat becomes saturated at a certain level therefore its ability to cause global warming is limited. Mars has an atmosphere of 90% co2 and is freezing.

Also new studies show that carbon dioxide concentrations follow temperatures not vice versa. This is because as the earth heats up due to solar activity, natural cycles, humans or what not, the oceans which are the biggest influences on atmospheric co2 release much of their dissolved co2. So the hotter it gets the more co2 will be released by the oceans.

There is alot of global warming propoganda which is used to promote political issues, and the climatic models used to convince us are just based off scientists guesswork. Did you know in the 70's people were fearing another ice age! It shows how things change quickly. In my opinion humans have very little influence over climate change and most of it is natural. We may possibly be influencing it by a small amout however. This infomation should NOT be used as an excuse however for people and industry to carry on polluting and harming the environment. Cleaner fuels should be researched for the sake of the environments health if not global warming.

Edited March 9, 2007 by benhben

[den]

Did you know in the 70's people were fearing another ice age! It shows how things change quickly.

That will be the eventual effect of global warming, wont it? Rising sea levels, less salt in the water, loss of the gulf stream and GB will be at the same temperature as Norway.

[benhben]

There will be another ice age but if it is directly due to global warming is unknown. Its possible but they dont really know. It is true that if the gulf stream does stop however Britain will be alot colder. Alot of people think that changing sea currents are responsible for the melting ice in the arctic. One of the main things causing sea level rise is the expansion with heat rather that meltwater influx.

Edited March 9, 2007 by benhben

[blue phil]

What a joke defense (the second part). Most of the scientists who say the opposite get their funding from Greenpeace and other organizations who have a point to prove as well.

None of the scientists who took part were funded in any way by the multi nationals . Others with the prevailing fashionable view , on the other hand , are reliant on national government , EU , UN grants etc , for their very existence.....

I have to say that prior to this programme I did believe we were part of the problem of global warming but not to the extent to which the "hysterics" claimed - and I truly went into it all with an open mind .

However , this documentary provided the greatest debunking of a widely held theory that I have ever seen in my life . The facts are indisputable ; for example , global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions - in fact it's the very opposite !!

Another myth was that carbon fuels - coal , oil , etc - are due to run out anytime soon (even I believed this one and have quoted it on this very thread !) . 30 years is usually the figure seemingly plucked out of thin air by the scientists ........but the documentary producer on R5 today quoted "his" scientists that the true figure for coal deposits (at the current rate of use) was no less than 1,000 years ! !

And so we have the Greenpeace warriors (always looking for a cause to fight) and the politicians (always looking for new scources of taxation) in an unholy alliance to con us all in believing that we are on the edge of an abyss . Not only that but they are colluding in keeping the third world in a pre-industrial state - destined to live on the brink of famine and poverty because our elite have the crazy belief that the use of fossil fuels will drag them down with us . Combine this with the fact that we are forever stripping them of their human resources - doctors , engineers etc and we have a state of affairs that is worse than old style colonialism - all based on a false theory .

It was Goebbels who used to say that the bigger the lie you tell the people , the more they'll believe it . Well , we are being lied to on a scale that would put the Doctor to shame .......I hope that when the kids in our schools receive their free Al Gore video on global warming their parents realise they are being indoctrinated into a belief system that is as false and damaging than any that Mao or Stalin dished up . What chance that the kids get to see the C4 documantary in school time ...?

One last point . I still believe strongly that it is in our interest to get away from fossil fuels - for many reasons , not least that it would loosen our dependancy on the middle East . But first we have to get the facts straight and dispense with the lies and myths .

[colin]

I'm a bit confused by all of this.

If we are to beleive your average scientist, who presumably has the intelligence, training, experience & knowledge to comment on GW then why is that just about every article in the highly respected New Scientist Magazine accepts that GW is a fact.

here

Tap in "global warning" into the search engine and see what appears.

Now I don't know many scientists, so I can't really comment, but I do find it difficult to beleive that so many of them are in cahoots with some kind of international conspiracy to mislead the whole world about something that is not happening. Has Greenpeace got large enough coffers to bribe the lot of them?

I think we should be told about the details of this?

Of course there are some dissenting voices, there always are. But to my mind the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it's here.

[blue phil]

Colin . No-one disputes that there has been an increase in GW in recent decades .

What is in dispute are the causes of it , and whether or not the human contribution to it all is significant or is indeed a factor at all .

Also in question (on the documantary) are the reasons behind the GW bandwagon that seems to be rolling out of control for no logical or truly scientific reason whatsoever .

Did you watch the programme ? I suspect not .

[Ewood Spark]

It is also a fact that in the forties and fifties when the industrial boom meant that we were creating more CO2 than at any other time in history the world got COLDER and scientists were worried about the effects of another ice age. Facts.

This statement alone shows that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous when completely misunderstood.

1) Its not the rate of CO2 production that influences global warming ... it is the absolute amount of the stuff in the atmosphere that causes the problems .... ie the effect is cumulative.

2) In the 1940's and 50s there were a hell of a lot more pollutents in the atmosphere due to inefficient burning of dirty fuels (ie prior to pollution legislation). The effects of certain pollutents is to reflect solar radiation and hence cool the planet. This was demonstrated most recently in the USA the week following 9/11 when air traffic over the country was virtually non-existent. Scientists noted that the average temperature over the country rose by one degree ... a fact as attributed to the absence of aircraft vapour trails!

[colin]

Phil,

No I didn't watch the programme. But may I suggest that it screened as a "shocker" just to attract an audience. Hey viewing figures and all that.

But completely apart from that you have used words & phrases such as "bandwagon," "hysterics" " an unholy alliance" and you've even introduced Dr Goebbels into the discusion. Oh for goodness sake!

The point of my post was not whether or not GW exists but to simply ask: how so many scientists throughout the world have been duped or conned or bribed or threatened to say that GW is real and is a threat when they don't really beleive it.

I'm quite happy to admit that there are dissenting voices. Are you content to admit that the majority of the scientific community has an accord that GW is real?

[American]

I've suggested it before and will suggest it again: Read Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Not only does he talk about global warming and alternative views, but he also talks about how when many scientists go into a study with an outcome in mind, that outcome tends to happen. There have been cases where scientists have been given the same studies to conduct with different expected outcomes and the different expected outcomes were concluded in the studies.

First it was "Everything is going to get hotter and melt." Now that this hasn't happened, it's "There is going to be a deep freeze." Global warming scientists have been wrong well over 50% of the time in their studies, so they keep changing the rationales. My favorite was reading about the scientist who predicted something like 26 hurricanes hitting major landfalls in the carribean/atlantic area last year and kept revising his prediction down as the hurricane season went on until he wasn't far off from the 6 or so that actually did.

Is there stuff we can do to make this earth a better place? Sure. Mrs American and I recycle, we don't own a car (mostly because we live in the city) and other stuff (we'd even buy a Prius when we do get a car if I only fit in it).

I've read both sides of the debate, why haven't you, Colin? You're the one always accusing certain posters of not having an open mind, you're just as bad.

[pg]

Here is some more background information regarding the producer of 'The Great Climate Swindle'

It turns out that the film's director, Martin Durkin, has a somewhat dubious track record with Channel 4 documentaries. In 1999, he made one about breast implants which claimed that they actually reduced the risk of breast cancer (in the face of all the available science, the BBC already rejected the idea, unsurprisingly). One of the programme's researchers resigned in protest during pre-production at Durkin's ignorance. After transmission, two contributors Sally Kirkland and Ilena Rosenthal from the Humantics Foundation for Women Breast Implants, wrote to the Guardian "...it appears that the American silicone manufacturers' highly financed PR campaign to hide the real dangers of breast implants of all kinds has now been exported to Britain and broadcast by C4/Equinox."

In 2000 he made a documentary on genetic engineering (Modified Truth) for the Equinox strand - one of the participants (a geneticist called Dr Mae-Wan Ho) said “I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position.” Perhaps Perhaps Durkin's piece de resistance (well, until now, that is) was 1997's Against Nature - again for the ever-Durkin-tolerant Channel 4. The programme put forward the idea that environmentalists in general were bad for science. After an investigation by the Independent Television Commission, Channel 4 had to broadcast a prime-time apology, which stated: 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed]had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.'