Jump to content

The Great Global Warming Swindle


Aeros

Recommended Posts

I watched this, and I'm not particularly convinced.

There are so many scientists on either side of the issue that I'm just going to leave it up to them to figure things out.

I'm just for doing what I can for the environment in general so personally I'm for cutting emissions / etc... to help the cause, "Swindle" though it may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are so many scientists on either side of the issue that I'm just going to leave it up to them to figure things out.

Excellent point. There's way too much politics invested in what, for right now at least, should be a purely scientific debate. Al Gore isn't a scientist, so what he has to say shouldn't make any difference at all.

While we let the scientists figure this out, I would recommend that people turn their energy to controlling malaria or curbing ethnic conflict, both of which kill a lot more people than global warming does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether human activity is responsible for increased global temperatures, specifically whether CO2 drives climate change (evidence suggests that it never has in the past), and the politics behind the global warming alarmism.

Watch the film if you get a chance. It's worth your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether human activity is responsible for increased global temperatures, specifically whether CO2 drives climate change (evidence suggests that it never has in the past),

What evidence is that?!?

Read the report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf

And if you're too lazy, scroll down to page 3 and read the 2nd half of the page.

And so it's clear:

Anthropogenic effects, processes, objects, or materials are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the dastardly (jew)nited nations

wtf? If anything the UN is anti Israel. Nobody except you is accussing the UN of being overly pro jewish.

btw OP, its what I`ve been telling people for years, dont believe the hype.

Scientists, same as journalists lean left politically on average and legitamately want a cleaner world but are willing to exagerate their statistics to create panic & get their way.

Also scientists want to keep working and no "crisis" = no govt funding for their research.

I`ve always been sceptical and I`ve known for years that its a giant scam because I dont rely on the left bias mainstream media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wtf? If anything the UN is anti Israel. Nobody except you is accussing the UN of being overly pro jewish.

btw OP, its what I`ve been telling people for years, dont believe the hype.

Scientists, same as journalists lean left politically on average and legitamately want a cleaner world but are willing to exagerate their statistics to create panic & get their way.

Also scientists want to keep working and no "crisis" = no govt funding for their research.

I`ve always been sceptical and I`ve known for years that its a giant scam because I dont rely on the left bias mainstream media.

Did you just read the report?

Or you just like the sound of your own opinion bouncing off of other people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recently in the news:

GLOBAL WARMING'S HUMAN SACRIFICE

The Cascade Mountain snowpack in Washington and Oregon has supposedly declined 50 percent since 1950. That alarming statistic has taken on a life of it's own in the Northwest. The problem is Northwest scientists say it's not accurate, in fact the snowpack has increased. But when a leading researcher tried to set the record straight, he lost a prestigious appointment.

Read more

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=14314

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never been predictors of climate change in the history of the Earth. There's no historical evidence that CO2 is even a "greenhouse gas". Al Gore shows that there's a (weak) correlation between CO2 and warming. The reason for this: CO2 levels in the atmosphere lag behind warming by about 800 years because oceans release CO2 as they warm. A much stronger correlation has been found between solar activity and a rise in global temperatures. Based on correlational evidence, I find a solar activity theory to be much more compelling than "greenhouse gas" emissions in explaining global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing before bed: for reasons that I don't understand (I took Atmospheric Sciences 101 as a freshman, but it didn't get into this really..did learn a lot about clouds, though :)), if a greenhouse effect was causing global warming, temperatures would be rising fastest in the troposphere, but they're not.

I don't believe that there's as much of a consensus about this issue as many would have us believe. The amount of knowledge we have about how the Earth's climate changes is miniscule compared to most other domains in science. I think it's a shame that people and resources can be so mobilized for the possibility of temperatures increasing 1 degree Celsius on average in a century when thousands die in silence everyday of tropical diseases that are relatively easy to control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now you're drawing your arguement from a college 101 class? I'm just reading from the IPCC, which Aeros said made the film legit. And from their study it's alot more scientific than all the arguements you are presenting.

Edit: and Bill Gates is on the job for your malaria concern.

Edit 2:To take the personal out of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAHAA! You are quoting articles from an obvious bias organization.

Look at their articles...

Look at their board members. republicans, petroleom people, business etc....

Pete du Pont, Former Governor of Delaware

John C. Goodman, President, NCPA

W. Mike Baggett, Esq., Chairman & CEO, Winstead Sechrest & Minick PC

Don A. Buchholz, Chairman of the Board, SWS Group, Inc.

Harlan Crow, Chairman, Crow Holdings

John Victor Lattimore, Jr., President and Chairman of the Board, Lattimore Properties, Inc.

Fred Meyer, Investments

Henry J. "Bud" Smith, Chairman Bud Smith Organization

James Cleo Thompson, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Thompson Petroleum Corporation

Jere W. Thompson, President, The Williamsburg Corporation

Michael L. Whalen, President & CEO, Heart of America Restaurants & Inns

Raymond E. Wooldridge, Private Investor

Robert J. Wright, President, TWG, Inc.

Doesnt change the fact that the scientists involved cherry picked data to get the 50% reduction in snowpack figure.

They deliberately chose a record snowfall (1950) and a record warm winter (1996) to make the comparison.

The truth is that since 1950 the average annual snowpack had increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesnt change the fact that the scientists involved cherry picked data to get the 50% reduction in snowpack figure.

They deliberately chose a record snowfall (1950) and a record warm winter (1996) to make the comparison.

The truth is that since 1950 the average annual snowpack had increased.

You throw around words like "fact" and "truth" pretty liberally for a conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You throw around words like "fact" and "truth" pretty liberally for a conservative.

sorry all out of rep. The Inconvenient Truth 2? :D

Similarly, isn't it a better idea to spend the money/time/energy/outrage that's currently devoted to climate change on something that could actually make a difference, like potable water in Africa?

I actually laughed at this. not the idea itself, spending money on aid like this is reasonable. but the thing is, its just not in the interest of countries like the US. *if* the government is spending anything on global warming, its because they are scared for their own ass. that money would never end up in a poor country.

I didn't watch the movie, maybe I will at some point, but personally I think that even if it would be so fucking twisted that man made emissions have nothing to do with climate change, I cant see any harm in reducing the shit thats blamed for it. just because something doesn't absolutely destroy the world in a minute doesn't mean its not having bad effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

very interesting !

but, how can digging up old carbon that had been taken out of environmental systems by, y'know, being trapped underrock and ground, have no affect when it comes up and is burned (this negates the trivialization of anthropogenic CO2 contributions)? perhaps it's not related to "global warming/climate change", but either way, intuitively, it seems to me that old industrialization is bad for human beings due to pollution, waste, and unsustainablity....it shits up the health of the ppl who live around the factories, dumps, or cities (e.g. rates in asthma, quality of life, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am not saying that global warming is not occuring, I don t think that studies have carried on for long enough to generate enough data to make it "an inconvienent truth".

If you look at the big (read, how long the earth has been around for) picture, humans have only been shitting up the environment for a very limited amount of time.

The data that many scientists have been generating COULD just be a product of random fluctation in the temperature, however it also COULD be the product of a genuine phenom.

I think that more data needs to be generated before any solid conclusion can to be made for or against it.

That said, we all know that it s stupid to use fossil fuels. We don t need studies to tell us it s bad for the environment and the cause for many wars. Even if you don t believe in global warming, it s still a non-renewable resource.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is quite dishearting to see how easy it is to make people think global warming is some sort of false truth. You are an idiot...and laughable. There are always going to be people putting out banterous shit like this. Uninformed, uneducated dare I say, people like yourself are the very reason why they do it. How about instead of developing your scientific knowledge through blockbuster movies and youtube videos you pick up a book. Global Warming by John Houghton (Cambridge Press) would be a good start.

Stop feeding the monkey...

Then I suggest you read this by Zbigniew Jaworowski, who is the scientist upon whose work An Inconvenient Truth and much of the IPCC's reports are based.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf

I never believed in this scam and never will. This thing is going to bust verrrrrry soon, simply because there is no substance in the claims and no scientific evidence whatsoever.

You should also know that the latest "report" that the IPCC released is in fact not a report but, as it's title says, "A Summary For Decision Makers" - politicians.

It also says explicitly that the scientific report that it is supposedly based on, is now being edited to "be consistant with the summary".

If you actually need to change the source on which your work is based to make the two consistent, then your work isn't actually based on that source, but the source is based on the your work. Then what is your work based on? Nothing.

And yeah.. during week 6-8th of April, 150 new cold records were made in the US.

www.accuweather.com

How's that for a global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What evidence is that?!?

Read the report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf

And if you're too lazy, scroll down to page 3 and read the 2nd half of the page.

And so it's clear:

Anthropogenic effects, processes, objects, or materials are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influences.

that isn't a scientific report. read my other post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yeah.. during week 6-8th of April, 150 new cold records were made in the US.

www.accuweather.com

How's that for a global warming.

... and a supposed byproduct of "global warming/climate change" is supposed to be erratic weather. So how is amazingly cold weather in Spring supposed to prove that climate change is a bunch of bullshit? It's so annoying when ppl go "huk-huk-huk it's so cold outside you globalwarming nutters are full of shit huk-huk".

anyway, i agree that global warming is probably mostly hype, but a lot of the contrarian views for global warming are then accompanied, at least popularly, with the "everything is great, we're correct in all ways so fuck you green/nature ppl!"

waste, unsustainble production methods, and pollution's direct affects on human beings and the immediate areas that we or most folks live in are very real and suck. we need to stop shitting up where we live and our health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ooo good thread. love the conflict it produced and all from second hand information, you would think you are all scientists with years of study behind you.

im gonna side with the bbc programme i think.. its the sun. however i would like industry and lifestyle to create healthier methods for living. they didnt mention the ozone at all, i wonder if that contributes to earths heating/cooling or is that just a uv screen.

graham hancock came up with that 2012 world ending based on mayan prophecies.. gotta love his work.

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.



×
×
  • Create New...