Global Warming a fake?

[pmaust]

I don't know if it is acceptable to post links to documentaries so if not please forgive me admins and mods. This documentary appeared on the BBC and actually gives a lot of good information on climate science and contradicts a lot of global warming mythology.

 

UK Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle - Google Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=Global+warming+swindle

 

Enjoy!

 

Again, if I have broken some rule here I apologize in advance.

[Zythryn]

Great editorial and valid questions (if a bit misleading).

Many answers to the above program are addressed at The great channel four swindle

 

Personally I am very much looking forward to all the research being done this year at the poles. Should get some interesting answers, one way or the other.

[pmaust]

Great editorial and valid questions (if a bit misleading).

Many answers to the above program are addressed at The great channel four swindle

 

Personally I am very much looking forward to all the research being done this year at the poles. Should get some interesting answers, one way or the other.

 

Thanks for the link. Still much confusion and misleading information. It can be argued that money is being paid on both sides and that what we are left with is an "outcome based science". That is what is so frustrating. It has been said that if you torture the numbers or the data enough, they will confess to anything. One of the things that struck me in reading the links provided in the rebuttle is the "vast" amounts of Co2 that we humans put into the atmosphere.

 

"Vast amounts", compared to what? If simply injecting relatively moderate amounts of Co2 into the atmosphere is all that is required to heat the planet then every time a volcano goes off the planet should heat up. Or every time there is a huge forest fire, the planet should heat up. I am not at all convinced that Co2 alone will do it. And none of that is even taking into consideration the warming of the oceans themselves by purely natural causes such as under sea volcanos and or thermal vents.

 

It shouldn't be that difficult to demonstrate a cause and affect relationship yet that is what is lacking in a convincing way. I remain open minded on this topic. I am very concerned however that the rhetoric of human caused global warming is far too strong for the supposed scienctific data that supports it.

 

I also fail to see how simply studying the poles will provide a comprehensive picture of what is going on at a global level. Should we not also look at our immediate solar system to see what is going on? Politics and money appear to have a more profound affect on what we are lead to believe than is healthy for human kind.

 

My concern is that if we convince people that global climate change can be regulated by human activity, we set ourselves up for failure as a species. It seems to me that our long term survival depends largely on our ability to do the things we can, and know the things we cannot do, and prepare accordingly.

[sprunch]

Though I seem to be jumping on this thread's boat a bit late, I wanted to point out a few things.

 

1. Global warming is real. It isn't something that is biased politically, but the media thinks it is, since apparently generalized liberals want to stop it and generalized conservatives don't believe in it. Because of this, they feel the need to portray both sides of the subject "equally," even though approximately 95% of scientists say climate change is real. The new IPCC report that is coming out this year says that there is a 90% chance that climate change is caused by humans. Whoops.

 

2. Someone (MUCH earlier) tried to make a point about temperature changing? And something about mercury? Regardless, these charts

 

*****

 

is from the 2001 IPCC report (also used in Al Gore's An Incovenient Truth, if it looks familiar). The second chart shows the average temperatures over about, the last 1000 years. Please note how significant the difference in temperature is in the past few hundred and fifty or so years from the long pattern in the past (this is about when the industrial revolution began). I think if you can read data that you see for yourself the drastic increase in temperature resulting from emissions.

 

(Apparently, I can't post links until I've put up ten posts, at least... which I am not about to do this second. Google "IPCC temperature chart" and click on the first link, the information from Working Group One is there for you to see.)

[davie]

Though I seem to be jumping on this thread's boat a bit late, I wanted to point out a few things.

 

1. Global warming is real. It isn't something that is biased politically, but the media thinks it is, since apparently generalized liberals want to stop it and generalized conservatives don't believe in it. Because of this, they feel the need to portray both sides of the subject "equally," even though approximately 95% of scientists say climate change is real. The new IPCC report that is coming out this year says that there is a 90% chance that climate change is caused by humans. Whoops.

 

2. Someone (MUCH earlier) tried to make a point about temperature changing? And something about mercury? Regardless, these charts

 

*****

 

is from the 2001 IPCC report (also used in Al Gore's An Incovenient Truth, if it looks familiar). The second chart shows the average temperatures over about, the last 1000 years. Please note how significant the difference in temperature is in the past few hundred and fifty or so years from the long pattern in the past (this is about when the industrial revolution began). I think if you can read data that you see for yourself the drastic increase in temperature resulting from emissions.

 

(Apparently, I can't post links until I've put up ten posts, at least... which I am not about to do this second. Google "IPCC temperature chart" and click on the first link, the information from Working Group One is there for you to see.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay about the part where you say " I think you can read data that you see for yourself the drastic increase in temperature resulting from emissions," shows that you have not done enough research. If you actually analyze the IPCC temperature chart also seen in Al Gore's film, you can see that he correctly states there is a correlation between temperature and CO2; but he says that CO2 increase causes temperature increase, which is in fact not true as temperature increase actually causes CO2 increase. If you see the graph you can see temperature first increases and then following in some years CO2 increases, this is the same with temperature decrease. This shows temperature is actually causing CO2 increase, not the distorted man made global warming version where CO2 causes global warming. This analogy can help you visualize this better: If you put a soda bottle into the refrigerator the cold temperature makes it easier for the CO2 gas to dissolve into the soda (basic chemistry dissolving of gas). When you leave the soda bottle on a table the gas will release from the liquid. The oceans of the earth do the same thing on a massive scale, when the sun increases in activity (sunspots increase) the temperature rises which causes the ocean to release much CO2 gas, which explains this correlation seen in the IPCC graph. This relation is not actually because of CO2 emissions by humans, but by natural processes the earth goes through. This is not explained at all by the IPCC, as they try to fool many with this seemingly perfect evidence of man made CO2 causing temperature increase, when in reality temperature changes causes CO2 change. Google: The global warming swindle, and watch everything before you post any debate.

[freeztar]

in Al Gore's film, you can see that he correctly states there is a correlation between temperature and CO2; but he says that CO2 increase causes temperature increase, which is in fact not true as temperature increase actually causes CO2 increase.

 

It is true that temperature increase increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is also true, contrary to what you say, that CO2 in the atmosphere causes temp increase. This is well known by the best current science. Thus, a system such as temp and CO2 is considered a positive feedback loop. The warmer it gets, the more CO2 is released. The more CO2 released, the warmer it gets. This is one of the most important reasons to control CO2 emissions as soon as possible.

[InfiniteNow]

Google: The global warming swindle, and watch everything before you post any debate.

 

The only good that will do is to teach people how NOT to argue against human induced climate change. The Great Global Warming Swindle has been shown to have quite a few problems, and demonstrated that it is itself a swindle.

 

 

 

This link does a pretty good job of showing why:

 

The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle - Features - The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science

 

 

...and also here:

 

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

 

 

I particularly like this study published in Proceedings of The Royal Society in June 2007 which speaks specifically against the root of the claims being used by the GGW Swindle (emphasis mine):

 

Royal Society Publishing

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

.

 

 

 

Here is an additional bit of data against the swindle swindle:

 

Deltoid: I must be psychic

 

What's more, Bolt didn't base this on the decision itself, but on Steve McIntyre's spin.

Like me, Michael Tobis felt that McIntyre was blatantly spinning the decision...

 

 

 

Like I said, the only reason to watch the Great Global Warming Swindle is to learn how NOT to argue against human induced climate change, or perhaps to educate yourself about how the people who do argue against human induced climate change lack integrity and how they are completely willing to lie to try making their case.

[Theory5]

I was reading quite a few articles that human causing global warming is a fake? I wanted to post this after looking through this section and seeing all the global warming were all going to die, how i would solve global warming and other stuff like that.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

ARg cant find my original sources but there is one. I really personally hate the ending of that article though.

 

Yea of course there is no evidence of global warming...........except for the giant hole in the ozone, the ice caps melting, etc etc.

We arnt all going to die, just the ones in the places below sea level, I plan to move further inland :-p

The wierd thing is that even though certain places are getting hotter, there are places that are getting colder as well due to global warmin (dont ask me why). Certain places around the globe were reporting record lows.

 

 

Earth goes through natural cycles and there has been no direct relations with carbon dioxide emissions from industrial civ and temperature increase.

where did you get this information? There are tons of studies done every year monitering CO2 in the atmosphere, the melting of the ice caps, and lots of other stuff. Try googling it.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

[SidewalkCynic]

The wierd thing is that even though certain places are getting hotter, there are places that are getting colder as well due to global warmin (dont ask me why). Certain places around the globe were reporting record lows.

Is there a study you find particularly convincing?

I would like to see a graphical representation of Earth with the temperature statistics - could you Google that for me, please?

 

I found these for the GreenHouse gas emisions:

 

Greenhouse gas emissions for three sectors - Maps and Graphics at UNEP/GRID-Arendal

World Greenhouse gas emissions by sector - Maps and Graphics at UNEP/GRID-Arendal

[lawcat]

I don't know how strong the evidence is of global warming and its effects. I think there is pretty much a consensus in the scientific community that global warming is real, and that is enough for me for now.

But, if that was not convincing enough, consider that five nation that surround polar ice cap are already battling for division of future resources--namely petroleum and natural gas--as well as the rights of meritime north-west passage for commercial shipping.

 

Check out this Arctic Rush link

YouTube - Inside Story - Arctic rush - 29 May 08 - Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6cmqurqdqA

 

Also, at 6:00am, on July 21, the Investigation Discovery will air a special on Arctic Rush which is really informative; I watched it this morning.

Investigation Discovery :: TV Listings :: Arctic Rush

 

Some native tribal communities are bringing human rights violations issue in front if international tribuals to protect their community from global warming. They allege that they are already marginilized as people, and now the industrial nations are destroying their habitat in violation of their human rights.

 

http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/country/intl/inuit/2005Dec07/view

YouTube - Sheila Watt-Cloutier on Climate Change and Human Rights http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlSh4XeoLBA

[GAHD]

You guys might find this site of use: CO2 emissions, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time

[HydrogenBond]

Real old time science is not based on consensus. The laws of science are not up for a vote like an elected official running for office. Real science is suppose to be something solid, anyone can derive independently, since it is based on the natural laws of nature, independent of subjectivity.

 

Let us invent a new type of science, called elected (consensus) science. In this type of science, we need to campaign to get our science candidate elected for a term in office. Once elected, it will lead, but based on the philosophy of the political science party that is running the campaign.

 

We need polls and graphs. There will also be clever rhetoric using emotional appeal, with fear the best way to motivate and keep people irrational so you can get their vote. Next, special interest groups, who will benefit by their elected science, will give campaign contributions in terms of money and effort.

 

We will also need mudslinging to put down and undermine the opposition. In real science, as long as someone follows the rules of the scientific method, their results are valid science. But in elected science, we need to treat the opposing results, in a subjective way, using smear campaigns. We have to make promises we can't keep and pretend we have all the answers. We may also need to buy votes and public influence, by trading positions in the future science administration, for cooperative efforts during the campaign. We will also need to get the layman on board, even if they are not good at science. They will have an impact on other elected officials, who can help influence the science election.

 

Maybe, during the next science election cycle, we can run the BB theory for election. We will follow the political science campaign template that is being pioneered. In the real world of science, String Theory is following the rules of the science method and has a voice. But in elected science, we need to ignore this and try to smear it, and make it appear anyone who follows this science, look like a quack. Once this starts to stick other scientists trying to protect careers will find it necessary to follow the crowd. Once the new science is elected it will remembers its enemies and reward allies.

[Zythryn]

Hydrogen, true, science does not come to conclusions based on consensus.

However, just because there is consensus does not mean that the conclusion most agree on is wrong.

[lawcat]

Hydrogen, true, science does not come to conclusions based on consensus.

However, just because there is consensus does not mean that the conclusion most agree on is wrong.

 

Moreover, who should we rely on to tell us about global warming other than the scientists? Who is in the best position to provide consensus opinion?

[lemit]

I have a dumb question. What are the proposed solutions to global warming?

 

--lemit

[lawcat]

I have a dumb question. What are the proposed solutions to global warming?

 

--lemit

 

The solution, to my understanding, is: (1) reduction of emissions of hydrocarbons (we all know this), (2) mitigation of necessary emission through inovative emissions-processing (for example, some scientists are developing processing equipment for the proceesing of hydrocarbon disharge beased on chemical reactions of hydrocarbons with causetic soda or hydrogen, to produce less detrimental byproducts, see Turning emissions into baking soda), and (3) wait-and-see strategy to allow the environment to correct itself to new levels.

[freeztar]

I have a dumb question. What are the proposed solutions to global warming?

 

--lemit

 

Grab yourself a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the following feature presentation:

 

The solutions to Global Warming include. . . - Hypography Science Forums

 

:doh: