Jump to content
Science Forums

The Great Global Warming Swindle


Darnok

Recommended Posts

Interesting video. Thanks for sharing. However, significant energy is wasted debating the warming/cooling.

 

 

It's global climate change people.

 

 

Also, it's about more than just temperature. It's about air and water quality, and the impact we are having, through the lifestyles we lead, on other life forms. Even in ourselves there is increased incidence of illness and cancers.

 

Stick your mouth on the tailpipe of your car, you get sick. Well, those tailpipes are aggregating in the atmosphere and air we breath, so... we get sick. Do you really feel healthier when you step out into smog ridden air? Mmmm... Yummy.

 

However, per the global climate change issue which has gripped everyone's attention.

 

Part of it is natural cycles, part of it is human induced. Whether the net impact be the result of CO2 or something else...

We ARE NOT the only impact on global climate, but we ARE impacting it. Simple really...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I often change my views on scientific reports based on commedians, I have seen the light;)

 

Seriously, some people have a GW bias, some have an anti GW bias. While the media will regurgitate all sorts of information, stick to the scientific reports. Don't follow blindly, observe and apply the same god given logic you do to any other argument.

 

There are quite a few discussions regarding GW and many aspects of it in this very forum. The channel 4 documentary (which I believe is what you posted??) is very interesting, but is not based on much science, more marketing. I put little weight behind its conclusions just as I put little weight behind An Inconvenient Truth.

However, I do study the references to see what the original scientific reports had to say. THOSE I put more weight behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle

 

A documentary that attempts to explain how the current ideas about global warming, have no scientific basis.

just a warning It is rather long.

 

:)

 

Turns out it's completely bunk.

 

 

 

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'No Sun link' to climate change

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

 

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

 

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

 

 

 

 

Also, thanks to our buddy Michaelangelica, another link below to a detailed and well researched analysis:

 

The Great Global Warming Swindle is itself a Fraud and a Swindle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Turtle,

 

I am confident it's not your intention to be vague, so can you please 1) fix your link to the thread you posted, and 2) explain how this article you posted from the "Financial Post" section of the "National Post" in Canada (which forces subscription to view) counters the information being published this week in the Procedings of the Royal Society?

 

 

The Royal Society - Article

 

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turtle,

 

I am confident it's not your intention to be vague, so can you please 1) fix your link to the thread you posted, and 2) explain how this article you posted from the "Financial Post" section of the "National Post" in Canada (which forces subscription to view) counters the information being published this week in the Procedings of the Royal Society?

 

 

The Royal Society - Article

 

No, I can't fix it. Something under control of the Admins as far as I can tell.:cup:

 

The Canadian article explains well enough how the Sun drives Earth's climate, as well as why Canadians don't mind the warming. :cup: :clock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I can't fix it. Something under control of the Admins as far as I can tell.:cup:

 

The Canadian article explains well enough how the Sun drives Earth's climate, as well as why Canadians don't mind the warming. :cup: :cup:

 

Hmmm... I'm no longer confident that it is not your attempt to be vague. :hihi:

 

Here's the link to the 2004 article you referenced (but which you couldn't get to work). It was posted here by Tormod, and indicates a *potential* link between solar activity and climate change, itself based on inference from ice core samples and their calcium, nitrate, and sodium content resulting from stronger winds, the strength of which might potentially be influenced by solar radiation.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/1047-link-found-between-solar-activity-global.html

 

 

In my mind, this article based on inference indicating that their *might* be a link between the two does not counter the evidence I shared above. Not sure if that was your point, though... A bit too vague you were. :clock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and this ...

kinda interestin'

 

Penn & Teller Global warming:

 

dihydrogen monoxide

 

(maybe this should go into the linguistics part of the forum haha)

 

I saw a filler piece on one of the cable channels that Penn & Teller did on recycling. They used the Borat approach and went & interviewed government & industry officials as if making a documentary. All in all, the officials admited that recycling costs more than it saves in many instances. Very informative, well researched, and humorous ta boot. Teller is still talking about it. :cup: :clock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a filler piece on one of the cable channels that Penn & Teller did on recycling. They used the Borat approach and went & interviewed government & industry officials as if making a documentary. All in all, the officials admited that recycling costs more than it saves in many instances. Very informative, well researched, and humorous ta boot. Teller is still talking about it. :hihi: :clock:

 

found it on Youtube! :cup: >> YouTube - Truth of Recycling Part 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oloM_dSoW4 :cup:

 

PS Caution! The above video contains vulgar language and harsh facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All in all, the officials admited that recycling costs more than it saves in many instances.

 

This isn't really new, is it? There is a reason that governments subsidize recycling- it costs money. The idea is that, on the whole, society has decided that reusing metal/paper, etc rather than chopping new trees, mining new metal is a worthwhile thing.

 

Now, as to global warming, the scientific consensus is that solar output isn't the culprit, and that man made CO2 and methane are largely responsible. Unfortunately, the media hasn't at all been responsible on this issue, so while there is virtually no debate in scientific journals, there is tons of debate in politics/media. The debate over global warming has as much substance as the evolution/intelligent design circus.

-Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't really new, is it? There is a reason that governments subsidize recycling- it costs money. The idea is that, on the whole, society has decided that reusing metal/paper, etc rather than chopping new trees, mining new metal is a worthwhile thing.

 

Now, as to global warming, the scientific consensus is that solar output isn't the culprit, and that man made CO2 and methane are largely responsible. Unfortunately, the media hasn't at all been responsible on this issue, so while there is virtually no debate in scientific journals, there is tons of debate in politics/media. The debate over global warming has as much substance as the evolution/intelligent design circus.

-Will

 

 

it was new to me, and it p'ed me off.:clock: thank the great spaghetti monster that Penn & Teller were there to talk me down. :cup:

 

Now as to the concensus on the Sun's roll, I find there is a lot from the scientific community affirming the Sun's roll. I have been posting links to support it for quite a while here in a lot of different threads and the best you or I could do to find them would be to use the 'Find All Posts By Turtle' function. It is a contentious issue, in all the arenas because there is money and property at stake for all.

 

Because the evidence I have examined leads me to conclude the human effect is negligible, I also conclude that our resources are better spent dealing with the consequences of warming rather than trying to change it. The Earth warms; the Earth cools. When it's hot out & you turn on the fan, do you point it at the hot air or at yourself ? :cup: :hihi: :cup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

found it on Youtube! :cup: >> YouTube - Truth of Recycling Part 1 of 3 :clock:

 

PS Caution! The above video contains vulgar language and harsh facts.

 

Turtle, the video you shared states that recycling costs more than dumping waste into our landfills, and that some people are easily swayed to “do more” to try to protect the environment and might make better choices than they do. So?

 

Penn & Teller aren’t exactly supporting their claims with data or anything more than clever derogatory comments in the video you shared. Well, they're not supporting the environmental facts, just the economic ones.

 

I’d suggest that the monetary cost is NOTHING compared to the cost of 1) pillaging resources to create brand new products (because we obviously waste many more resources than just the trees we use for paper), and 2) dumping the waste into bigger and bigger piles, or even into the ocean. Clearly, with increasing population, more trash, and more housing/business development, it’s rather silly to waste this decreasing space dumping… our waste.

 

Point: Economics is a retarded approach to this equation, but I agree that the program is mismanaged and money could be more efficiently spent. The points in the video do a poor job of properly framing the issue.

 

However, I have a question for you. How is this relevant to this thread on a false attempt to debunk global warming research?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, for someone who so frequently states that science is amenable, you sure are holding tightly to debunked ideas.

 

 

the word is 'amendable', not 'amenable'. 'Science is always amendable." is what I frequently state; a quote from Roger Thelonious George if I recall.

 

The great swindle of global warming is people are being misinformed on both sides and having to pay for the privilege. No one needs any more than common sense & a bottom up waste-not-want-not sensibility.

 

PS last few posts of this thread are on the latest scientific evidence for Sun's influence on global warming. >> http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/10648-global-warming-i-am-more-worried-7.html#post179422

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...