The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Ocean1]

it's not a matter of IF we run out of fossil fuels, just WHEN

Get yer despicable oiliarchic propaganda here folks...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=59991

[Jantar]

Skyrider presented a statement without supporting references - you address this issue and offer an anti-thesis... without supporting references. Surely you can do better mate!

I certainly hope so. Shortly after that post I received a link to a published paper that appears to validate my claim with data. (Yes, I am still receiving climate data at home, I can't imagine how much is waiting for me to analyse when I get back to work). There are 67 pages, and so far I've only taken in 29 of them. there are 27 pages of references, and I have no intention of checking every single one of them. However one staetment already backs up much of my claim: http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/132.pdf

Furthermore, thermometer warming of the 20th century across the world seems neither unusual nor unprecedented within the more extended view of the last 1000 years. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest or most extreme anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records.

[Jantar]

I can on the thread subject.

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/...-four-swindle/


I've posted a number of links in support of my arguments.


Skyryder

I have read that link previously. It is a classic case of attack the messenger, not the message as it tries to attack the scientists who appear in the documentary and the producer, but doesn't present any evidence that the claims are wrong.

[Jantar]

...Changing a variable - no matter how minute - can have drastic consequences down the line.

Note your use of the word "can". That doesn't always mean 'does". I would still ask for an answer to my question "How can polluting an underground waterway with wood treatment chemicals change the climate?"

- don't forget that there are real scientists out there who have clues and are concerned about the matter.

Too true, and I am in regular contact with many of them.

[Skyryder]

I have read that link previously. It is a classic case of attack the messenger, not the message as it tries to attack the scientists who appear in the documentary and the producer, but doesn't present any evidence that the claims are wrong.

Yes that is correct but it seriously questions the 'integrity' of those that 'performed' for the Swindle documetary. I posted a U Tube link that debunked some of the claims made in the same doco in another post.

Skyryder

[Jantar]

.... I posted a U Tube link that debunked some of the claims made in the same doco in another post.

Yes you did. Unfortunately I'm on dial up here so U Tube links are out of the question as far as I'm concerned.

It may be one I have seen before through the Climate Science Coalition. Is it of a lecturer giving a lecture to his students?

[Skyryder]

Yes you did. Unfortunately I'm on dial up here so U Tube links are out of the question as far as I'm concerned.

It may be one I have seen before through the Climate Science Coalition. Is it of a lecturer giving a lecture to his students?

Try this guy.

4. In 13th March edition of the Guardian, George Monbiot takes out the claims of the programme one by one. Link… On his website full scientific references are given for his article which, unlike the Swindle, was checked by professional climate scientists before publication.

Its in the last link I posted. The bit after the charactor 'assassinations.' Seems to have a credible reputation and as he say his article was checked by professional climate scientists before publication.

Skyryder


Skyryder

[davereid]

Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.

The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-say-MPs.html

[Winston001]

As a scientist myself I read all the information from the "believers" and it is all in the order of "look at the graph, its going up, see I am right!!!" For any self respecting scientist that sets of a big warning light. A physicist with a new theory will put it to the test by devising experiments to prove the theory WRONG.

Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that we need to tidy up the way in which we live and the current rate in which we are contaminating the planet but I just don't agree with global warming at all until I see some decent evidence I will continue to do so.

My 2c anyway

The vast majority of research scientists do not have agendas. The idea of assuming results and jumping to conclusions is completely contrary to the scientific method. Test hypotheses, try to replicate the data, peer review, face criticism from journals, other researchers, on it goes.

What drives scientists is their curiosity and wonder at what is discovered - and what remains to be discovered.

So I cannot and do not accept that the climate change debate is captured by immoral or deluded scientists on both sides. There are simply too many people of integrity with no axe to grind who would shout alarm - not to mention the journals.

Where the arguments go askew is when people go outside their fields and comment on things they have no specialisation in. Metorologists (weather) trying to argue with climatologists (global trends). On top of that, oil companies promote disinformation and wheel out pseudo scientists. Sad but it happens.

So - the lesson is to look hard at who is doing the research and what their experience is.

[Skyryder]

The vast majority of research scientists do not have agendas. The idea of assuming results and jumping to conclusions is completely contrary to the scientific method. Test hypotheses, try to replicate the data, peer review, face criticism from journals, other researchers, on it goes.

What drives scientists is their curiosity and wonder at what is discovered - and what remains to be discovered.

So I cannot and do not accept that the climate change debate is captured by immoral or deluded scientists on both sides. There are simply too many people of integrity with no axe to grind who would shout alarm - not to mention the journals.

Where the arguments go askew is when people go outside their fields and comment on things they have no specialisation in. Metorologists (weather) trying to argue with climatologists (global trends). On top of that, oil companies promote disinformation and wheel out pseudo scientists. Sad but it happens.

So - the lesson is to look hard at who is doing the research and what their experience is.

Absolutly. If some looked as hard at the evidence of climate change as hard as they look at bike before buying, this thread would have died way back.


skyryder

[skeeter]

Right - Up until now its been big business denyiing that there is climate change - just listen to Bush. The tide is changing however. To change behaviour you need to hit people in the wallet. In NZ Autocar there is talk of higher taxes next year on big cars, less tax on small cars. I wonder where the litre plus bikes fit in?

To me,you can't have 5 billion people using energy, food and water and not have an affect on the climate after the last couple of centuries. Anyone seen pictures of Beijing?

[Patar]

As a scientist myself I read all the information from the "believers" and it is all in the order of "look at the graph, its going up, see I am right!!!" For any self respecting scientist that sets of a big warning light. Have you ever heard of a term called Pseudo Science? Well for those that don't know, this is the difference between, for instance Physics (me) and Astrology. A physicist with a new theory will put it to the test by devising experiments to prove the theory WRONG. An astrologist will read their tarot cards or look at the stars and say something to whoever is listening. A few days/weeks later when their prediction was "correct" in their eyes, they will come out saying "See I was right!!!".

I have to admit, looking at many of the graphs that have been slapped together to make a point (abundant in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" but found on both sides of the fence) can make me curdle.

Can anyone point out a single problem with the message that the global warming believers spout? The idea that we should be developing and implementing more efficient technologies, trying to minimise our impact on the environment.

Doco's like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" might turn out to be more scientifically accurate but the only thing that Joe Public will take away from it is that there is no need for change. Even if this message isn't stated explicitly, it is implied.

So tell me, what is the worst case scenario if we accept the global warming phenom? We clean up our act?
And my god how aweful that would be!




p.s Jantar, anything we do to the environment can have an effect on climate. Urban Heat Island effect affects micro climates and enough of these could potentially have a global effect.

How can polluting an underground waterway with wood treatment chemicals change the climate?

Let me illustrate.
Pollutant adds suspended solids -> water will eventually reach the ocean (and it does) -> additional suspended solids increase energy absorbed by the water -> more evaporation etc.
Conversely you could use it as a toxin killing animals, promoting algae/microbial growth, thus possibly affecting climate. Not to mention deforestation which definitely has tangible effects on climate i.e desertification etc. etc.

[Jantar]

Try this guy.

4. In 13th March edition of the Guardian, George Monbiot takes out the claims of the programme one by one. Link… On his website full scientific references are given for his article which, unlike the Swindle, was checked by professional climate scientists before publication.

Its in the last link I posted. The bit after the charactor 'assassinations.' Seems to have a credible reputation and as he say his article was checked by professional climate scientists before publication.

Skyryder


Skyryder

There is no data on that link that refutes anything in the documentary. There are some claims that are correct in what they say, but what they do say does not refute any thesis presented.

[Jantar]

...Can anyone point out a single problem with the message that the global warming believers spout? The idea that we should be developing and implementing more efficient technologies, trying to minimise our impact on the environment.

Yes, there are two problems with that message. First is that there has been no warming for the past decade and the earth is currently cooling. Second, more efficient technologies has nothing to do with AGW.

Doco's like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" might turn out to be more scientifically accurate but the only thing that Joe Public will take away from it is that there is no need for change. Even if this message isn't stated explicitly, it is implied.

Just the opposite in fact. It is saying that we should be doing things for factual reasons, not for religious like beliefs.

So tell me, what is the worst case scenario if we accept the global warming phenom? We clean up our act?
And my god how aweful that would be!

We bankrupt our country, hold back developement in emerging economies, and cause massive starvation.

p.s Jantar, anything we do to the environment can have an effect on climate. Urban Heat Island effect affects micro climates and enough of these could potentially have a global effect.
Let me illustrate.
Pollutant adds suspended solids -> water will eventually reach the ocean (and it does) -> additional suspended solids increase energy absorbed by the water -> more evaporation etc.
Conversely you could use it as a toxin killing animals, promoting algae/microbial growth, thus possibly affecting climate. Not to mention deforestation which definitely has tangible effects on climate i.e desertification etc. etc.

I look forward to seeing your data supporting this claim.

[Skyryder]

There is no data on that link that refutes anything in the documentary. There are some claims that are correct in what they say, but what they do say does not refute any thesis presented.

Yes but these very scientists give their 'opinions' based on the data that they have seen. This is how the general public learn. Unless you have been trained for a specific dicsapline most would not understand data from a scientific paper or be able to come to any reliable conclusion.

The data that has been presented in the Swindle 'has' been discredited by the very people who understand climate science. I don't have access to raw data and even if I did I don't have the training to interpret it. I have to rely on 'credibility' as a yardstick as do most of us in one way or another. The anti global warming people don't seem to have any credibility. Their theories seem to suit big buisness politics in as much that their emissions are not cause of riseing Co2 levels

I'm still waiting for you to show me some credible alternative data that can can explain the speed of global warming. and I confess it is the speed of warming that is occuring that leads me to believe that Co2 emissions are the primary cause of riseing temperture.

Skyryder