The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by HOZ

When did I do this? I said I was skeptical of the hysteria not ideas.

When proponents of Global Warming threaten and verbally abuse anyone with slight contradictory views I am skeptical of their views.

Well the way you have conducted yourself in this thread seems to tell me otherwise. Most of your posts are exaggerating the hysteria to a point of doomsday type of event.

The article just says that scientists are being harassed by people, not other scientists. That shouldn't discredit other scientists who have no control over other people.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I think the US should nuke all volcanoes, that should equal out what mankind currently outputs in CO2 emissions and solve our Al Gore Carbon footprint if what the video says is correct.

MYK

WTF???

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery

If anyone bothers to look they will see the difference between an individual who pursues science for science, and not for a buck. You'll notice no links to think tanks, or agencies that have paid this guy to do his research to make them look good. Science must remain independent, with a focus on the better good of the many, not the few.

So Lanny if any guy has no links to think tanks or agencies and produces contradictory evidence.......would you quote them too?

Maybe they these scientist cannot get funding because of the enforced thought policing on this issue?

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

Just a thought.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Its about time someone wrote that down.

So in 2007 if we dont see a Katrina, Tsunami etc than Global Warming science is junk? Thank you Dr Flannery - its about time one of the GHG fanboys gave something that can actually be proved or disproved.

Accroding to this guy, 2007 should be one hella interesting year - I will be glued to my TV to watch the impending carnage - gooooo hurrrricane, goooooo tssssunami!

"primary responsible – us, especially via careless management, crass consumerism, corporate greed, political corruption and media indifference"

I think the US should nuke all volcanoes, that should equal out what mankind currently outputs in CO2 emissions and solve our Al Gore Carbon footprint if what the video says is correct.

MYK

I'm sorry where did you get that information? In no way did does he state that every year the climate will worsen in the book. Perhaps you should read the book instead of jumping to wild conclusions from a synopsis. It is actually a very well thought out look at global warming.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Environmentally friendly doesn't have to be ugly either.

It is about damned time. I mean the Honda Insight is one of the biggest eyesores I've ever seen. Covered wheel wells? I mean the car designer should be shot. The car looks like a giant piece of garbage.

Make a normal looking car which is environmentally friendly and I'd be sold.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

There are homes all over California and Arizona that produce a SURPLUS of electricity and sell it back to the grid, just from solar panels alone. If communities could invest in, or be built around, a biogas plant, that would make the community become self sufficent and be able to sell their own energy surplus to other customers. The idea is possible today, there just aren't enough breaks for consumers to make them attractive or worth the effort.

Interesting.

I expected that installations like this could produce a surplus when it was sunny, I would just wonder what to do to store that energy for use at times when there wasn't enough juice being produced (I realize there are ways to do it at the grid level, but is it practical for a home?)

My thought was, similar to Cowperson's way of thinking, if you are trying to convince people to all invest in a biogas plant they won't do anything, even though in the long run it would be to their benefit. They will look at the short-run costs and decide it isn't feasible. But if you could get lots of people to put one or two solar panels on their roof (by offering tax breaks, or long term financing applied to their tax bills so it doesn't slam them all upfront), that would put an initial dent in energy demand. If you do things so that there isn't as much sticker-shock it is my belief there will be much more buy-in. This is especially since the results on the environment may not been seen for decades. It is tough to try and get people to pay/suffer upfront when the results of their sacrifice won't be seen for years.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Well the way you have conducted yourself in this thread seems to tell me otherwise. Most of your posts are exaggerating the hysteria to a point of doomsday type of event.

The article just says that scientists are being harassed by people, not other scientists. That shouldn't discredit other scientists who have no control over other people.

No the hysteria is very much very over the top. 24/7 the Earth is doomed unless we put in flourecent lighting. Polar Bears are dying out. Death disease, etc....

This is something that will run it's course. Much like the Global Ice Age of the 70's.


As for the article say alot more than that.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges

They just don't identify the people and certianly it could be e-mail from a few nuts. But then who would know a very unfamous University Professor from Winnipeg's e-mail address? Ummmmm other scientists?

[Sparks]

Posted by HOZ:
When proponents of Global Warming threaten and verbally abuse anyone with slight contradictory views I am skeptical of their views.

Ever watched Bill O'Reilly's show? He seems to sum up the majority of your views and arguing style, interspersed with threats and verbal abuse.

No the hysteria is very much very over the top. 24/7 the Earth is doomed unless we put in flourecent lighting. Polar Bears are dying out. Death disease, etc....

This is something that will run it's course. Much like the Global Ice Age of the 70's.

It's a fad - a conspiracy, probably - so we should just continue pouring hundreds of tonnes of polution into the atmosphere.

I remember being told as a kid countless times that there won't be any non-renewable resources by the time I was an adult. So, I see where you're coming from - sort of. The important point in this case, is that it is imporant to develop renewable energy, regardless of the fact that we've still got plenty of gas. Likewise, we need to reduce our CO2 emmissions, and lead more eco-friendly lifestyles, put the onus on governments and buisness to use more eco-friendly methods. The fact that this is in the news and being talked about is fantastic.

Canada could be a world leader in developing these new technologies, which would be immensely profitable in the long run. But, we know that already. Supporting those who would deflect the argument and intentionally manufacture "lack of consensus" can have little purpose other than to increase "how much money I have in my pocket right now" at the expense of everything, quite frankly.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Environmentally friendly doesn't have to be ugly either.

But at $100,000 + that isn't the answer...yet...

Originally Posted by Bingo

The Kyoto math being flawed but then the flaws themselves basically ignored gave me great conern to the whole thing and that hsn't disipated. I'm more than sure that man has a role in polluting the atmosphere, logic dictates that for sure, but I'd like to see a greater effort to slow down and get the math right and not race to solutions and finding supporting data to keep the train rolling.

Now that just seems rational...

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The supporters of both sides often (but not always) tend to be persons who have chosen their positions well before even viewing or reading any materials on the subject. It's not likely even a slick easy-to-digest film such as this will change the minds of many (one way or the other), as anyone who wishes to be educated on the matter has probably sought out education in the past.

Bingo! That there is a HUGE part of the problem.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Ok,

Watched it, yah there are some cooky things going on there (the whole Africa thing etc)

But there are a few points which I assume would be true (they wouldnt run it if it was absolutely false and easily disproved?):
.
.
.

Thanks

MYK

You're not trying to actually bring science into the debate are you??? Everyone knows politics run this debate...

Originally Posted by Cowperson

For environmentalists, the trick they have a hard time with is working towards a goal within the confines of human nature . . . .

Assuming the common human, yes, the selfish, self-absorbed human who loves more and not less, regardless of culture, will gladly live like a monk, versus their previous lifestyle, simply because he/she is educated on a particular environmental issue is a loser strategy most of the time.

Further more there are billions of people in developing countries that we want to share our same quality of life. So not only do we have to give up some of our "freedoms" we have to ensure that those that have long strived for what the western world has will never have that chance???


I haven't watched the movie yet but I look forward to approaching it with an open mind.

On a some what related tangent that makes you think a little...
Have any of you read Peter Tertzakian's "A Thousand Barrels a Second"? One of the things he discusses is in history for change to be made things had to be compellingly better. He discussed man's change from wood to coal and coal to oil relating it to the fact that each new technology was compellingly better than it's predecesor. His point being that if electric cars were to ever replace gasoline vehicles they would not only have to be equivalent but they would have to be above and beyond otherwise there would be no means for change.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Interesting.

I expected that installations like this could produce a surplus when it was sunny, I would just wonder what to do to store that energy for use at times when there wasn't enough juice being produced (I realize there are ways to do it at the grid level, but is it practical for a home?)

My thought was, similar to Cowperson's way of thinking, if you are trying to convince people to all invest in a biogas plant they won't do anything, even though in the long run it would be to their benefit. They will look at the short-run costs and decide it isn't feasible. But if you could get lots of people to put one or two solar panels on their roof (by offering tax breaks, or long term financing applied to their tax bills so it doesn't slam them all upfront), that would put an initial dent in energy demand. If you do things so that there isn't as much sticker-shock it is my belief there will be much more buy-in. This is especially since the results on the environment may not been seen for decades. It is tough to try and get people to pay/suffer upfront when the results of their sacrifice won't be seen for years.

That's kind of my point. If the government would offer dollar-for-dollar tax breaks for investment in these technologies, in the hope of developing clean, self sufficient communities, people would jump on board. It would also push real estate developers to consider these design issues and make them a reality. Seriously, if I could take the money I blow on taxes each year, and turn that into developing the infrastructure for a self supporting electric plant in my home, I would be all over that. Especially if that same self supporting infrastructure could also fuel my car, reduce my garbage that goes into landfills, and produces clean water suitable for consumption or watering of the local parks/golf courses. This is the type of forward thinking that America and the world needs.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by HOZ

No the hysteria is very much very over the top. 24/7 the Earth is doomed unless we put in flourecent lighting. Polar Bears are dying out. Death disease, etc....

This is something that will run it's course. Much like the Global Ice Age of the 70's.


As for the article say alot more than that.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges

They just don't identify the people and certianly it could be e-mail from a few nuts. But then who would know a very unfamous University Professor from Winnipeg's e-mail address? Ummmmm other scientists?

Well I mustn't be getting the same doomsday newsletter that you are. Most of the reactionary/doomsday talk I hear is coming from people that are on the side of discrediting global warming that put those words in the mouths of people that are in belief of global warming.

It is a shame that their funding is getting cut. But perhaps it is getting cut because their research is being looked at as erroneous. If a scientist started researching that the theory of gravity is false. There is a good chance his funding will disappear and his colleagues will stop talking to him. Not saying that this is the case, but it is a possibility.

Well if a scientist, such as the one at U of M, puts out a paper that discredits global warming and a newspaper writes about it. His name will appear in the article as a source. It wouldn't be hard for anyone to find his email address after that.

[FireFly]

The government would be better off politically, and the environment would also be better off if instead of buying pollution credits from other countries, the government would use the same amount of money towards tax breaks for 'green purchases' by Canadians. They're already giving tax breaks on energy efficient appliances and such, grow the program! Do it for hybrids and solar panels and wind turbines, etc. Don't stop there, give tax breaks to the oil companies for cleaning up their refineries as well. If you're willign to spend the money anyways, why not actually help the environment at the same time?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

This is something that will run it's course. Much like the Global Ice Age of the 70's.

I know this is a favorite line of the "global warming is a myth" set, but I think it's a myth in itself. I was preoccupied with other things (learning how to walk, Muppet Show) in the 70s, but I am pretty sure that the "ice age panic" or whatever you want to call it wasn't quite as big a deal as "global warming".

For one thing, we've been hearing about global warming for a long time. As a scientific theory, it's been around the block. It's not a fad or some article in Time magazine.

Also, it's fairly well accepted by the majority of the scientific community, while the "ice age in the 70's" was not.

The two things are not comparable.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Anyway, do you think we should not curb our consumption some amount, or do you think excessive pollution is okay?

I know the answer to that. Of course excessive pollution is not okay. I think we should curb it no matter what. Obviously burning 80 million barrels (I bring it up every time cuz it's really quite staggering) of oil every day is doing something bad, global warming or not. We all know it. We all should know that we ought to pollute less. These arguments, while always fun, are kind of pointless. We should consume less for lots of reasons. We just don't do it.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The government would be better off politically, and the environment would also be better off if instead of buying pollution credits from other countries, the government would use the same amount of money towards tax breaks for 'green purchases' by Canadians. They're already giving tax breaks on energy efficient appliances and such, grow the program! Do it for hybrids and solar panels and wind turbines, etc. Don't stop there, give tax breaks to the oil companies for cleaning up their refineries as well. If you're willign to spend the money anyways, why not actually help the environment at the same time?

That's a good idea. There is zero monetary incentive for someone to buy a hybrid car. The only benefit is of course it is better on the environment. But last time I checked a hybrid car is about ten thousand dollars more than the non-hybrid version. In no way will that car save you that much money in gas over the course of it's life.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by fotze

I know a guy that had the energy audit thing did on their house, After Harper cancelled the program he had a short window to complete the audit to get the rebate. I guess the inspectors are pissed that the program was cancelled and therefore were extremely liberal in granting the rebates. Got back an extra $1000 because of it. Just an aside for the thread.

I had the audit done to my place. i was hoping they would say my windows needed to be replaced and I would get a rebate for doing it. No such luck. Instead there were only a few things I could do, and because my place wasn't that bad I would only get a small percentage back.
It was good to know where I stood, but I couldn't "score" any crazy rebates.

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Ah the Ole Lanny ad hominem attack.

Any affiliation with big oil will discount any facts of figures or thoughts you may have. As we know big oil his all hell bent on the distruction of the earth. No one in big oil would ever choose this option;

Produce oil in a way that is enviromentally sound.

Nope. Nada. NOT.


Only rational enviromentalists please. i.e. Only those that adhere to dogma!

YOU ARE DOOMED!!!

Lanny was not engaging in ad hominem; he was calling the guy a liar, because in the past he has lied on many occasions. Saying he takes funding from Oil companies is not ad hominem, if the professor is indeed taking his grant money from Oil companies.

It would be ad hominem if the scientist has never been shown to be a liar; it would be ad hominem if Lanny simply called the professor an idiot, and in no way rebutted any of his arguments (which Lanny does in his previous posts).

Lanny sometimes gets on my nerves when it comes to his Hockey Related posts, but his review of this particular show is poignent and well thought out.

[troutman]

Groups like Friends of Science throw around terms like ad hominem as standard practice. Must be part of the guide-book for debating greens.

[Magnum PEI]

I don't see what the big deal is about the environment. The earth's eventually gonna become Coruscant from Star Wars, look at how much cities have grown in the past 100 years. Greater Los Angeles is larger than many countries, and in places like Holland and Western Germany or the Eastern Seaboard, you can't tell were one city begins or ends. Look at a sattelite photo of Southern Ontario, and its completely gray with highways and urban sprawl.. So we may as well have fun with SUVs and litter and not give a damn, because nobody, not Al Gore or David Suzuki is gonna stop human growth. We're like a bacteria culture in one huge petri dish, and when our petri dish is full we'll become airborne and find new petri dishes. Besides, it won't be long before scientists have control over the weather anyways (if not already).

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Well I mustn't be getting the same doomsday newsletter that you are. Most of the reactionary/doomsday talk I hear is coming from people that are on the side of discrediting global warming that put those words in the mouths of people that are in belief of global warming.

ipcc is putting out a report apparently in april
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science....ap/index.html

not exactly doomsday i guess. they use a lot of 'coulds' or 'mights'

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

I don't see what the big deal is about the environment. The earth's eventually gonna become Coruscant from Star Wars, look at how much cities have grown in the past 100 years. Greater Los Angeles is larger than many countries, and in places like Holland and Western Germany or the Eastern Seaboard, you can't tell were one city begins or ends. Look at a sattelite photo of Southern Ontario, and its completely gray with highways and urban sprawl.. So we may as well have fun with SUVs and litter and not give a damn, because nobody, not Al Gore or David Suzuki is gonna stop human growth. We're like a bacteria culture in one huge petri dish, and when our petri dish is full we'll become airborne and find new petri dishes. Besides, it won't be long before scientists have control over the weather anyways (if not already).

To me this is one of the major problems when it comes to what way we look at the environment, the most ignorant thing about us humans is we seem to think that we are somehow above nature and that with all our great technologies we have the ability to control it which IMO is far from the truth

Nature could destroy all the things we have created in matter of days humans are not above nature, look at New Orleans an age old city destroyed overnight the planet is a fine balance and IMO there will be a point where it can’t support us anymore and it will find a way to destroy us