The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Street Gerbil]

The Nuclear Winter!
Bring It On!!!

[Winston001]

I think you lead a very sheltered life.

China has been doing forced abortions for a long time. Some very late in their pregnancy.

See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9766870
or http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...5/112856.shtml or http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05052706.html

No shortage of information.

Fair call, bling awarded. I didn't say it was a pleasant system or welcomed by individual Chinese, and forced abortions is appalling.

[madbikeboy]

I think you lead a very sheltered life.

China has been doing forced abortions for a long time. Some very late in their pregnancy.

See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9766870
or http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...5/112856.shtml or http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05052706.html

No shortage of information.

Try bringing that sort of thing in here and expect armed insurrection. I know which side I'll be on. It'd guarantee a thinning out of the population, though not perhaps in ways the politicians intended

I lived in South East Asia - forced late term abortions are where, when the baby crowns (the top of the babies head is exposed during birth), formaldahyde is directly injected into their brain causing death. This is particularly cruel, and bought to you by the same people as our next Olympics, cheaply made consumer crap, and a significant proportion of GHG/CO2 emissions...

If someone tried enforcing a law like that and it was my kid at stake - there would be an bloodbath...

[Hitcher]

The Nuclear Winter!
Bring It On!!!

If Israel takes a poke at Iran, this may be here sooner than you imagine.

[Street Gerbil]

If Israel takes a poke at Iran...

I am sure you meant to say "unless Israel takes a poke at Iran and does so as neatly as they did in Syria and in Iraq".

[Hitcher]

I am sure you meant to say "unless Israel takes a poke at Iran and does so as neatly as they did in Syria and in Iraq".

If you think that that makes a difference.

[Street Gerbil]

If you think that that makes a difference.

Well, it worked miracles in Osirac.

[Swoop]

Good point. The flight ban over the USA for 3 days post 911 led to temperatures that were measurably warmer than expected.

I think we can devise some form of "research", that proves that the warming was caused by three burning buildings...

[Jantar]

Good point. The flight ban over the USA for 3 days post 911 led to temperatures that were measurably warmer than expected.

Are you sure that the warmer temperatures weren't caused by a large high pressure zone just off the eastern seaboard and a trough of low pressure off the west coast, dragging warm air right up the eastern side of thr rockies. Coupled with the foen effect over the rockies and with a consequntial heating from the high?

Maybe another case of not seperating weather from climate?

[Waxxa]

As much as thats a good theory Id like to see a political party try to implement that...thed never work again

It would take an unprecedented and extraordinary decision and a world body to impose this kind of 'solution' but by 2020 the population will be approx. 9 billion. By 2032, 14-15 billion people.

Even if all the people on the planet did conservation measures, we will never compensate for the rubbish produced, forests felled for farming, more cattle farting (methane gas), you require more food, water, power, transport to accommodate the growing population, hence more destruction!

Do we really have the technology to save us?

Bio-fuels is a disaster! What other short-sighted solutions are to be unleashed on us without proper research? Are we willing (the west) to hand over such technology? For what return (or cost to us)?

[davereid]

...forests felled for farming...
.... more cattle farting (methane gas)...
...you require more food, water, power, transport to accommodate the growing population, hence more destruction!

Forests are carbon sinks, but ONLY if they are felled. When a tree grows, it sucks up carbon. When it dies, and rots on the forest floor, it releases it. The only way for a tree or a forest to be a carbon sink, is to cut it down as soon as it is mature, and make sure it does not rot. ie Don't use it to build a leaky home.

Cattle farting ? Don't worry about it. At least in NZ. Our cattle eat grass. It grows, gobbling up carbon. Cows eat it, we eat them, we die, releasing the carbon. Exactly 1:1.
(For some reason Kyoto doesn't count grasslands as a carbon sink. But don't worry, they are.)

You can't make or destroy carbon biologically unless you are in the green party.

Your trees won't help, unless you use them to make houses.

[Mort]

The problem I have with the points in the Global Warming Swindle program is the clearly apparent lack of evidence to support their position which refutes the evidence found by scientists and respected institutions which support the climate change theory.

I also think that this sort of mis-information is doing us tremendous harm by delaying action on global climate change.

The evidence may be un-convincing still to some (On KB and elsewhere) but I suggest they take a look at the risks we are taking by not acting on climate change.

The question is not "Are humans changing the climate ?"

The question should be "What is the wisest thing to do given the uncertainties and the risks ?"

Either climate change will happen or not. Either we do something about it or not. How do we decide on the best way forward ?

I recently found a very convincing argument in a video (which I dont think has been covered here but forgive me if it is a repost - I did do a search)



The guy on the video goes on to quite a lot of detail about his argument - If you have several hours and plenty of download capacity I recommend you take the time to watch them all - I did - its worth it.

Video Index here

It convinced me that the risk of doing nothing far exceeds the risk of effectively addressing climate change. We should all do our bit.

But don't take my word for it -

BE CRITICAL - WATCH THE VIDEOS - DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.

[davereid]

The question should be "What is the wisest thing to do given the uncertainties and the risks ?"

The answer to that question is easy.

It's do nothing. At most, cautiously work on reducing our use of fossil fuels, but don't panic.

Climate change hasn't even come close to killing anyone.

But according to the UN, about 1 billion people are facing food shortages largely attributable to the price of food being put out of their reach.

Two reasons for that. The first is the normal cycle of drought, that has occurred since the greeks started keeping records 2500 years ago.

But even with drought, we can still (easily!) make much more food than we need.

The most important bit is that the 3rd world can't afford it.

We have diverted cheap food production to make sustainable petrol.

Replacing plentiful but finite oil and gas, with scarce and finite arable land IS NOT a solution !

[Mikkel]

But according to the UN, about 1 billion people are facing food shortages largely attributable to the price of food being put out of their reach.

Sounds like a way to get around the over-population issue then

[Badjelly]

We have diverted cheap food production to make sustainable petrol.

I don't believe that has made a significant contribution to the recent rise in food prices. Sure, there's the (crazy) US corn ethanol scheme, but otherwise? However I'm open to any facts you can offer on this question.