Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Lanny_MacDonald · 03-11-2007, 11:51 AM

Just finished wading through the video and completing a cursory review of the production and the people involved. I must say, it was a slick presentation with a pre-packaged message ready for consumption by those who are not willing to take things with a grain of salt and conduct their own research. Here's my findings and opinons on the documentary (many comments jotted down during viewing and prior to researching the individuals in the film).

First of all, there are a lot of comments made that are obvious as hell, but made so as to attempt to cast the Global Warming theory as not being aware of these matters.

This film will prove that earth’s climate is always changing…

No kidding. As obvious as this is, I have a feeling that most people do not recognize this fact. We live in a dynamic system that is ever changing, but that does not preclude our ability as a species to have a negative impact on those changes and modify the changes for the worse. This film does not need to prove the earth's climate is alway's changing, one need only step out the front door to figure that out.

Everywhere you are told that man made climate change has been proved beyond a doubt…

Really? I have not seen this "everywhere", nor have I seen that presented in Global Warming theory. For a second there, I thought this was produced by FoxNews. The use of this obvious "appeal to the crowd" is a way of cohersing the viewer to one side or the other.

I don’t like to call it the environmental movement anymore, because its become a political activist movement (Patrick Moore – Greenpeace)…

Pot, meet kettle. Patrick Moore, himself, took the “environmentalist movement and turned it into a political activist movement”. This is the last guy who should be presenting any sort of "earth friendly" information. He succumbed to the power of politics and the money associated with corporate support.

We have to create a panic, because then money will flow to climate science…

Finally, an interesting theory as to WHY anyone would make the claim of global warming if no such thing existed. Not sure I buy the theory. I’m pretty sure that more money is spent by big oil in one hour of marketing than is spent on climate research. This doesn’t make much sense when you compare the scales of magnitude. The potential gain from scientific funding increases are a drop in the barrel to the potential losses of big oil. Fiscally,and politically, this is inconsistent.

Fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend upon global warming right now…

Fact of the matter is that there are more jobs in the carbon based economy than any other. Those jobs that rely on global warming theory are surpassed by scales of magnitude by those which rely on the carbon economy, one of the largest contributors to CO2 creation.

These are just a few lines early that left me shaking my head and wondering what type of production this was. As things started to roll, and the "experts" started to state their case there wer some things that really got to me. The science was interesting, but there were some very obvious holes in the argument. Take the following examples.

Warming and CO2 Production Disconnect

There is a time lag between warming and CO2 production (evidence in the ocean temperature)…

Okay, this is where this documentary completely loses its credibility IMO. They have nattered on and on about how there is no link between temperature and CO2, or that it is backwards, but here they say that the oceans must warm to create more CO2. Hello! Ocean temperatures are indeed rising, and having catastrophic effects on both the ice caps and the strength of storms berthing in the oceans. This contradiction really blows apart what they are trying to argue, especially when there is a lot of empirical evidence to support this argument.

What also really has me shaking my head is these “scientists” that sit there on camera and have the audacity to say that what we are doing is having no impact, because we see no direct impact today. What they are saying is that because they drive to work they should see an immediate increase in CO2 and global temperatures. They go to great lengths to point out that the post-WWII industrial boom had no significant impact, yet they fail to connect the dots that the build up of gases takes time, and then the effects take time to precipitate. It’s like when you go into the kitchen and turn on the oven. Your immediate action does not precipitate enough heat to start baking your cookies. Your initial action sets off a series of actions that heats the oven so you may bake your cookies. The failure to connect this basic principle has me wondering if these “scientists” are teaching for obvious reasons, they suck at what they do.

I really have to stay on this point as this is the crux of their argument. They point to a steady increase in temperatures during the early 1900’s, then a small period of decreases in temperature, shortly after 1940, then a dramatic rise to where we are today. They point to no link between CO2 emissions and temperature change because of this drop. I think they don’t know their history very well and did not bother to consider world conditions, especially from the industrial giants. This minor drop off in temperatures is “unexplainable” and “not linked to CO2 emissions” according to the film. If we follow the belief that what we do today will show up as a response in the atmosphere 20-30 years later, then the drop in temperatures can be linked directly to CO2 emissions and explained quite easily. That period of decline could very well be the atmospheric reaction to the Great Depression, when the industrial might of the world shutdown for almost a decade. This reaction may be just the opposite of what these “scientists” are hoping for, and not be the proof that Global Warming is a load of bull, but may instead be the proof that we are indeed the direct cause, and that our actions can reverse the trend.

The Sun Spot and Cosmic Ray Theory

Here are two different theories that are passed off to mean the same thing.

What I really did not like about this documentary is that is took these scientists, who all have dramatically different ideas of what is causing the environmental changes on earth, and positions them to be presenting the same case. That is completely false and highly inaccurate. The only thing they are in agreement on is that they are not SURE CO2 emissions are responsible for the impacts we see today. Each scientist presents a conflicting theory to the next. In other words, they can’t agree on what is causing anything, but they are certain that their data is right and not the other guy’s. So what is missing from this film to provide some balance? The science supporting the CO2 theory. This is never shown, and neither is anyone to question the claims of each of these scientists. Yes, this documentary looks damning on the surface, as all these scientists “agree” that CO2 emission theory is false, but the reality is that none of them can agree on anything either, so support for their claims is loose at best.

What is also lost in this is the fact that increases in greenhouse gases in conjunction with increases in solar activity are going to have a much greater impact on the environment than one or the other. Greenhouse gases trap solar radiation and increased solar activity increases solar radiation, so if there is an unnatural increase in one (CO2 emissions, as there has been over the past 100 years) the potential for the other (solar radiation increases) to have greater and potentially dire consequences increases dramatically. Gretzky and Lemieux were great hockey players and tore up the league apart. Put them together and they became an unstoppable force and ripped up the world. The combination of increased solar radiation AND increased CO2 emissions could have dire consequences.

03-11-2007, 11:51 AM	#17
Lanny_MacDonald Lifetime Suspension Join Date: Oct 2001 Exp:	Just finished wading through the video and completing a cursory review of the production and the people involved. I must say, it was a slick presentation with a pre-packaged message ready for consumption by those who are not willing to take things with a grain of salt and conduct their own research. Here's my findings and opinons on the documentary (many comments jotted down during viewing and prior to researching the individuals in the film). First of all, there are a lot of comments made that are obvious as hell, but made so as to attempt to cast the Global Warming theory as not being aware of these matters. This film will prove* that earth’s climate is always changing…* No kidding. As obvious as this is, I have a feeling that most people do not recognize this fact. We live in a dynamic system that is ever changing, but that does not preclude our ability as a species to have a negative impact on those changes and modify the changes for the worse. This film does not need to prove the earth's climate is alway's changing, one need only step out the front door to figure that out. Everywhere you are told that man made climate change has been proved beyond a doubt… Really? I have not seen this "everywhere", nor have I seen that presented in Global Warming theory. For a second there, I thought this was produced by FoxNews. The use of this obvious "appeal to the crowd" is a way of cohersing the viewer to one side or the other. I don’t like to call it the environmental movement anymore, because its become a political activist movement (Patrick Moore – Greenpeace)… Pot, meet kettle. Patrick Moore, himself, took the “environmentalist movement and turned it into a political activist movement”. This is the last guy who should be presenting any sort of "earth friendly" information. He succumbed to the power of politics and the money associated with corporate support. We have to create a panic, because then money will flow to climate science… Finally, an interesting theory as to WHY anyone would make the claim of global warming if no such thing existed. Not sure I buy the theory. I’m pretty sure that more money is spent by big oil in one hour of marketing than is spent on climate research. This doesn’t make much sense when you compare the scales of magnitude. The potential gain from scientific funding increases are a drop in the barrel to the potential losses of big oil. Fiscally,and politically, this is inconsistent. Fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend upon global warming right now… Fact of the matter is that there are more jobs in the carbon based economy than any other. Those jobs that rely on global warming theory are surpassed by scales of magnitude by those which rely on the carbon economy, one of the largest contributors to CO2 creation. These are just a few lines early that left me shaking my head and wondering what type of production this was. As things started to roll, and the "experts" started to state their case there wer some things that really got to me. The science was interesting, but there were some very obvious holes in the argument. Take the following examples. Warming and CO2 Production Disconnect There is a time lag between warming and CO2 production (evidence in the ocean temperature)… Okay, this is where this documentary completely loses its credibility IMO. They have nattered on and on about how there is no link between temperature and CO2, or that it is backwards, but here they say that the oceans must warm to create more CO2. Hello! Ocean temperatures are indeed rising, and having catastrophic effects on both the ice caps and the strength of storms berthing in the oceans. This contradiction really blows apart what they are trying to argue, especially when there is a lot of empirical evidence to support this argument. What also really has me shaking my head is these “scientists” that sit there on camera and have the audacity to say that what we are doing is having no impact, because we see no direct impact today. What they are saying is that because they drive to work they should see an immediate increase in CO2 and global temperatures. They go to great lengths to point out that the post-WWII industrial boom had no significant impact, yet they fail to connect the dots that the build up of gases takes time, and then the effects take time to precipitate. It’s like when you go into the kitchen and turn on the oven. Your immediate action does not precipitate enough heat to start baking your cookies. Your initial action sets off a series of actions that heats the oven so you may bake your cookies. The failure to connect this basic principle has me wondering if these “scientists” are teaching for obvious reasons, they suck at what they do. I really have to stay on this point as this is the crux of their argument. They point to a steady increase in temperatures during the early 1900’s, then a small period of decreases in temperature, shortly after 1940, then a dramatic rise to where we are today. They point to no link between CO2 emissions and temperature change because of this drop. I think they don’t know their history very well and did not bother to consider world conditions, especially from the industrial giants. This minor drop off in temperatures is “unexplainable” and “not linked to CO2 emissions” according to the film. If we follow the belief that what we do today will show up as a response in the atmosphere 20-30 years later, then the drop in temperatures can be linked directly to CO2 emissions and explained quite easily. That period of decline could very well be the atmospheric reaction to the Great Depression, when the industrial might of the world shutdown for almost a decade. This reaction may be just the opposite of what these “scientists” are hoping for, and not be the proof that Global Warming is a load of bull, but may instead be the proof that we are indeed the direct cause, and that our actions can reverse the trend. *The Sun Spot and Cosmic Ray Theory* Here are two different theories that are passed off to mean the same thing. What I really did not like about this documentary is that is took these scientists, who all have dramatically different ideas of what is causing the environmental changes on earth, and positions them to be presenting the same case. That is completely false and highly inaccurate. The only thing they are in agreement on is that they are not SURE CO2 emissions are responsible for the impacts we see today. Each scientist presents a conflicting theory to the next. In other words, they can’t agree on what is causing anything, but they are certain that their data is right and not the other guy’s. So what is missing from this film to provide some balance? The science supporting the CO2 theory. This is never shown, and neither is anyone to question the claims of each of these scientists. Yes, this documentary looks damning on the surface, as all these scientists “agree” that CO2 emission theory is false, but the reality is that none of them can agree on anything either, so support for their claims is loose at best. What is also lost in this is the fact that increases in greenhouse gases in conjunction with increases in solar activity are going to have a much greater impact on the environment than one or the other. Greenhouse gases trap solar radiation and increased solar activity increases solar radiation, so if there is an unnatural increase in one (CO2 emissions, as there has been over the past 100 years) the potential for the other (solar radiation increases) to have greater and potentially dire consequences increases dramatically. Gretzky and Lemieux were great hockey players and tore up the league apart. Put them together and they became an unstoppable force and ripped up the world. The combination of increased solar radiation AND increased CO2 emissions could have dire consequences.