The Great Global Warming Swindle

[PsYcNeT]

Unfortunately documentaries such as this (I watched about 60% of it before I had to go out last night) are so slick and blatant that any question of integrity flies over the head of the average Joe.

In the global warming/not argument world though, more often than not, as we can see in the forum even, there are few people on the fence who even give a damn whether or not global warming exists, and they just wish to go about with their lives and live freely without the burden of knowing what their potential impact/non-impact is on the earth.

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.

Point of the argument:

Global warming or not, does anyone alive truly believe it's a good idea to constantly release chemicals and emmissions into the atmosphere? For those that do, maybe we should ship them off to a nice package tour of LA during a muggy summer day. The question here should never be about economics or political posturing, but whether or not we want to see the earths air quality slowly decline.

Afterthought:

It's blatantly obvious corporations and big oil are in it for the money, duh, they're a business. But groups like Greenpeace and Suzuki are alot more interested than hearing themselves speak rather than results. I think (as in any situation) the extremists blind and confuse the general public and just turn people off the issue without reaching any decisive point,

[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?):

The amount of total CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 0.0542%? Is that true?

The total amount of man made CO2 is less than volcanoes which appear to be far less than decaying leaves, animals and the ocean.

If the 0.0542% of CO2 in the atmosphere is correct, what is the % of humans? From the video I would assume it to be much less than 0.009% total?

If CO2 was causing global warming why is the Troposphere not significantly warmer than the surface (I wasnt able to follow that science exactly but it seemed logical that if GHG emissions are what is causing the increase in Earth's temp than shouldnt the atmosphere where they collect be warmer than the ground?)?

The 1940 temperature drop after WW2 when indisutrialization kicked into high gear?

Does anyone have a chart on the temperature from say 1820 to present (1820 because that is likely when the Industrial Revolution kicked in)?

I dont know enough about the science and am too lazy to look it up on wiki so I assume since so many of the first thread posters who called it junk science than should be able to answer those questions.

Also, the whole 800 years difference between CO2 and climate, does that not sound probably given the vastness of the oceans?

I agree, producing CO2 cant be great for the planet and should be decreased but when people blame the Stanley Park Storm, Tsunami, Hurrican Katrina, Rideau Canal not frozen till after Christmas then they need to back it up. I am assuming if we dont have those same events next year than those were junk assumptions?

Thanks

MYK

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Unfortunately documentaries such as this (I watched about 60% of it before I had to go out last night) are so slick and blatant that any question of integrity flies over the head of the average Joe.

In the global warming/not argument world though, more often than not, as we can see in the forum even, there are few people on the fence who even give a damn whether or not global warming exists, and they just wish to go about with their lives and live freely without the burden of knowing what their potential impact/non-impact is on the earth.

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.

Point of the argument:

Global warming or not, does anyone alive truly believe it's a good idea to constantly release chemicals and emmissions into the atmosphere? For those that do, maybe we should ship them off to a nice package tour of LA during a muggy summer day. The question here should never be about economics or political posturing, but whether or not we want to see the earths air quality slowly decline.

Afterthought:

It's blatantly obvious corporations and big oil are in it for the money, duh, they're a business. But groups like Greenpeace and Suzuki are alot more interested than hearing themselves speak rather than results. I think (as in any situation) the extremists blind and confuse the general public and just turn people off the issue without reaching any decisive point,

Great post ...

I agree with almost everything you say.

I tend to shake my head at the Gore's etc, but I'd never characterize myself as anti-environment or pro pollution, which sadly is where people tend to put you if you don't go along with the current global warming fad.

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.

When you see enviromentalists and meteorologists suggesting that anti-Global warming people are to be compared to the holocaust deniers, or that meteoroligists that don't fall in line should lose their license you know there is an effort to avoid argument and contratry thought and that is big time dangerous.

Haven't watched this yet, but I assume it's got it's good and it's bias, but either way it's great to see some contrary thought.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Is there a chance that you will grow up at any time in the future? Is there a chance you will ever answer the content of the post rather that run into a stream of rhetoric that is close to incomprehensible? Focus on the content of the post and do your best to ATTEMPT to poke holes in it. Seriously, if these "experts" are so credible you should have no problem in lining up a plethora of supporting documents that would prove they have not been tainted through a relationship and do not create biased opinion for profit.

I think the fact that you refuse to try is more than enough proof that you know deep down that these guys are dirty and their opinions are indeed biased and invalid. If not, I'm looking forward to a well thought out and supported rebutal. Something tells me you'll disappear from this thread completely now, or come back with more rhetoric or an ad hominem attack (your normal modus operandi).

Lanny I did attack the gist of your post. The one I responded to. You list their affiliation with big oil and concluded that their ideas are false by association. Ad hominem - the attack on the person and not his ideas. Pure Lanny. You do it all the time. I just pointed it out....again.

As for the Global Warming hysteria produced by our friends the eviromentalists and spread by the media addicted to Global Warming porn. It is way over the top. They are SO SO sure about their theory and that against everything that science is. There are no guarantees in science, just possibilities. Anyone and everyone who produces slightly contradictory evidence or opinion is driven from the town as big oil witches or burnt at the stake as heretics!


So........do you know where I can get a good set of hipwaders and a canoe? BBC just had another episode on Global Warming. Aparently all the Polar Bears are dying out. Maybe I could use their carcasses as a floatation devise?

[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.

Figure out a way to give the common self-absorbed human more in an environmentally friendly way - including a big honking SUV - at the same or lesser cost than a destructive lifestyle and environmentalists will have something they can push.

Otherwise, all we know about human nature suggests we'll all just continue to march towards the abyss, doing the easy work of procrastinating while letting the guy next door do the worrying.

It will also be interesting to see what happens in 2009 when China, not America, will be the largest CO2 emmitter on the planet.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Exactly what I suspected, HOZ brought nothing to the party again. Weak soup.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Lanny I did attack the gist of your post. The one I responded to. You list their affiliation with big oil and concluded that their ideas are false by association. Ad hominem - the attack on the person and not his ideas. Pure Lanny. You do it all the time. I just pointed it out....again.

Two points:

1. Exactly how is that different from your attack on Gore? You were the only one in this thread interested in even talking about Gore. He's not relevant in any way--and in any case, you attacked his character rather than his movie, which you give no evidence of having even seen.

2. Lanny did more than merely list affiliations with big oil--he listed affiliations with think tanks whose stated agenda is to create analysis paralysis by producing contrary views to the accepted science. There's a difference between ad hominem (which is what you did with Gore) and considering the credibility of a source (which is what Lanny did).

Look, it's really not that hard. Credibility is important when people have a reason to mislead us--such as the American Enterprise Institute, who notoriously offered 10,000 dollar bounties to scientists who could produce data that contradict the IPCC's findings on global warming. Cato isn't much better. These are think tanks devoted to an ideology, not scientists after the truth. You shouldn't take Greenpeace's word for stuff either--and I'm sure you don't--because they also present their material with a stated ideological agenda.

But there is a lot of honest science out there, people who are trying to learn the truth. They don't all agree with each other on the details--but they do agree on the salient points. It's not that hard to inform yourself properly, and I encourage you to do so.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

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.

Figure out a way to give the common self-absorbed human more in an environmentally friendly way - including a big honking SUV - at the same or lesser cost than a destructive lifestyle and environmentalists will have something they can push.

Otherwise, all we know about human nature suggests we'll all just continue to march towards the abyss, doing the easy work of procrastinating while letting the guy next door do the worrying.

It will also be interesting to see what happens in 2009 when China, not America, will be the largest CO2 emmitter on the planet.

Cowperson

Good post. I worry about that too--it's hard not to be pessimistic when we can't even change circumstances in the present, let alone the future. China is going to become a global problem for everyone in the future, both environmentally and politically--a gigantic and potent world power with a huge industrial base that isn't a democracy (and lacks even basic democratic values)--that's a problem we haven't seen for nearly two decades.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Exactly what I suspected, HOZ brought nothing to the party again. Weak soup.

Sure Lanny, you go girl!

I'll be content with being a skeptic of the hysteria.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Exactly what I suspected, HOZ brought nothing to the party again. Weak soup.

My suspicion is that this was his/her intent all along. Sort of the political-debate version of a troll. Coming into a thread, making some comment that doesn't even attempt to be basically relevant to the topic, designed to lure rational people into a debate with someone who never intended to honestly participate in the first place. How many times have we seen it? The ad hominem attacks, irrelevant political cartoons from random internet rags, citations of easily-debunked sources, etc. Surely he can't think he's winning these debates? The only explanation is that winning isn't his intention--that his goal is to stir things up and make people angry. Well, life's too short: I vote we stop taking the bait.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

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.

Figure out a way to give the common self-absorbed human more in an environmentally friendly way - including a big honking SUV - at the same or lesser cost than a destructive lifestyle and environmentalists will have something they can push.

Otherwise, all we know about human nature suggests we'll all just continue to march towards the abyss, doing the easy work of procrastinating while letting the guy next door do the worrying.

It will also be interesting to see what happens in 2009 when China, not America, will be the largest CO2 emmitter on the planet.

Cowperson

What we need is another John F. Kennedy, someone that will challenge America and have them end the dependency on fossil fuels and the carbon economy. Where America goes, the world follows (for now). If America could kick the oil habit, the rest of the world would certainly attempt to do the same. There are all sorts of solutions that could be implemented.

With the right leadership, roof top high efficiency solar panels could become a main staple in homes across America. Household waste plants could generate the energy required to heat and light the dwellings. Electric cars are a very viable solution for most people today. If America were serious about getting off of fossil fuels they would offer dollar for dollar tax credits for implementation of solutions just like this. If the American government were to do just this, I would jump right on board and invest in these technologies today and I know many other people that would do the same. Costs and government regulations prevent the people from doing many of these things right now. The tide must turn and make it not only possible, but advantageous for people to make investments.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Two points:

1. Exactly how is that different from your attack on Gore? You were the only one in this thread interested in even talking about Gore. He's not relevant in any way--and in any case, you attacked his character rather than his movie, which you give no evidence of having even seen.

2. Lanny did more than merely list affiliations with big oil--he listed affiliations with think tanks whose stated agenda is to create analysis paralysis by producing contrary views to the accepted science. There's a difference between ad hominem (which is what you did with Gore) and considering the credibility of a source (which is what Lanny did).

Look, it's really not that hard. Credibility is important when people have a reason to mislead us--such as the American Enterprise Institute, who notoriously offered 10,000 dollar bounties to scientists who could produce data that contradict the IPCC's findings on global warming. Cato isn't much better. These are think tanks devoted to an ideology, not scientists after the truth. You shouldn't take Greenpeace's word for stuff either--and I'm sure you don't--because they also present their material with a stated ideological agenda.

But there is a lot of honest science out there, people who are trying to learn the truth. They don't all agree with each other on the details--but they do agree on the salient points. It's not that hard to inform yourself properly, and I encourage you to do so.

You are realy upset about Al Gore aren't ya?

The difference, you snooty little twit.

Lanny when faced with opposition pulls out the ad hominem attack to defend whatever position he stands on. Those people's work and thoughts are wrong by their association with this or that group. I quoted the message where he blatantly does so.


I make fun of Al Gore and Saint Suzuki, 2 leaders, mouth pieces, flag bearers, etc...of the Global Warming Cult because they are HYPOCRITS! Period.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Sure Lanny, you go girl!

I'll be content with being a skeptic of the hysteria.

Part of being a skeptic is the willingness to learn more about the subject. Not rejecting new ideas and being a cynic.

For example. You buy this great book about Global warming, The Weather Makers, at the Skeptic Magazine's website...

Sometime this century the day will arrive when the human influence on the climate will overwhelm all other natural factors. Over the past decade, the world has seen the most powerful El Niño ever recorded, the most devastating hurricane in 200 years, the hottest European summer on record, and one of the worst storm seasons ever experienced in Florida. Dr. Flannery outlines the history of climate change, how it will unfold over the next century, and what we can do to prevent a cataclysmic future, including what every one of us can do right now to reduce deadly CO2 emissions by as much as 70 percent.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

you snooty little twit.

Nice. You just completely proved my point.

I believe that's check and mate. And I didn't have to do any of the work myself.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Environmentally friendly doesn't have to be ugly either.

[Bobblehead]

I'm all for things like solar panels on the roof or a small wind generator. I doubt it would be practical for all a homes enerygy needs, but sure could make a dent.

Where I worry is when people jump on the band wagon without thinking long term. For example, ethanol. It is a great idea but there are already rumblings of corn shortages (link). This will raise the cost of corn, increasing the cost of feed, which means more land will be shifted to corn production and away from other crops. I know there is reasearch into other sources of ethanol (like other oil seeds) but those aren't as efficient.

It is these unexpected consequences that morry me. I think we need to do something, but we don't want to throw all our eggs in one basket.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Part of being a skeptic is the willingness to learn more about the subject. Not rejecting new ideas and being a cynic.

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.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Part of being a skeptic is the willingness to learn more about the subject. Not rejecting new ideas and being a cynic.

For example. You buy this great book about Global warming, The Weather Makers, at the Skeptic Magazine's website...

Sometime this century the day will arrive when the human influence on the climate will overwhelm all other natural factors. Over the past decade, the world has seen the most powerful El Niño ever recorded, the most devastating hurricane in 200 years, the hottest European summer on record, and one of the worst storm seasons ever experienced in Florida. Dr. Flannery outlines the history of climate change, how it will unfold over the next century, and what we can do to prevent a cataclysmic future, including what every one of us can do right now to reduce deadly CO2 emissions by as much as 70 percent.

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.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Part of being a skeptic is the willingness to learn more about the subject. Not rejecting new ideas and being a cynic.

For example. You buy this great book about Global warming, The Weather Makers, at the Skeptic Magazine's website...

Sometime this century the day will arrive when the human influence on the climate will overwhelm all other natural factors. Over the past decade, the world has seen the most powerful El Niño ever recorded, the most devastating hurricane in 200 years, the hottest European summer on record, and one of the worst storm seasons ever experienced in Florida. Dr. Flannery outlines the history of climate change, how it will unfold over the next century, and what we can do to prevent a cataclysmic future, including what every one of us can do right now to reduce deadly CO2 emissions by as much as 70 percent.

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

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm all for things like solar panels on the roof or a small wind generator. I doubt it would be practical for all a homes enerygy needs, but sure could make a dent.

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.