the great global warming swindle

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in global warming, and also global cooling, as does apparently everyone in this particular video. Why should I be on the edge of my seat prepared to crap my pants, again?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I was saying and you know it. I was referring to "human caused" global warming, not the fact that the Earth warms and cools naturally over time.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
lol @ this video

Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

[/ QUOTE ]

unless we see the whole transcript, theres not way to know which side is telling the truth. I can see either side lying on this.

[AlexM]

Post deleted by AlexM

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a 5 page rebuttal to the program:

http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_...ng_Swindle.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

i hope people read this, cause it sucks.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Two of the Scientists in the Film actually agree with Global Warming, yet the film didnt mention this, it just misrepresented their views via editing.

LOL at the way they presented numerous scientists who didnt agree with man made global warming yet the only source they sited for the case for MMGW was "Al Gore's emotional film."

The documentary made no attempt at balanced debate. There are literally thousands of scientists that are pro MMGW and the film didnt reference 1 of them. Indeed it presented pro MMGW scientists as anti MMGW.

Anyone who is influenced by this film is a sucker. Not because they dont agree with MMGW but because they can be influenced by so totally overt biased media programming.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... it's just like Al Gore's film. Not surprising really, no one really tries to convince people with facts anymore. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully wacki will come in and address the points raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, cause having someone say that everyone who agrees with him is right and everyone who disagrees is stupid without providing actual evidence is really helpful. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Wacki is practically an expert on this stuff and has a site with information: http://www.logicalscience.com/

If you're talking about my comments in this thread, questioning the integrity of the filmmaker as well as actual points that he raised (i.e. the solar strength-temperature graph which he cut at 1975) were all valid commentary, especially when people are quickly jumping to conclusions after watching this.

[Metric]

My point is that one can believe in global warming and not that the consequences are too horrific to contemplate. Global temperature variation is a fact -- why is it okay if it's "natural" but it becomes some kind of doomsday scenario if humans happen to be one particular cog in the whole works?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a 5 page rebuttal to the program:

http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_...ng_Swindle.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

and this part of the rebuttal is kind of confusing

[ QUOTE ]
3. That carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round -TRUE.

The programme went on to state that this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC – NOT TRUE.

For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he agreeing that the temperatures are driving CO2 production? Does this mean that they are arguing that human CO2 production is far outweighing the natural causes of CO2 production? What is the amount of human CO2 production vs natural CO2 production during times of high temperatures? What is the amount of human CO2 production from the beginning of the industrial revolution to present? How long does it take for us to see the effects of CO2 show up in the temperatures?

I'm not saying you are wrong and this documentary closes the case. I believe that, regardless of its biases, the documentary brought up some interesting points. Including

[ QUOTE ]
9. Action on climate change by developed countries may have a negative influence on development of the world’s poorer countries – POSSIBLY TRUE.

A strong non scientific point made towards the end of the
programme concerned the possible effect of pressure from the developed world on developing countries to develop without use of fossil fuel sources of energy. There is something inherently unfair in such pressure that could
hamper growth of developing country economies especially when rather little is being done by developed countries to reduce their own fossil fuel emissions. Further, the greater proportion of the damage from climate change will tend to fall on developing countries. The responsibilities of developed countries therefore are clear, first to reduce their own emissions as rapidly as possible and secondly to assist developing countries with resources and skills to develop their energy and other requirements in
sustainable ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the points I would be most interested in discussing. I believe that discussing who is funding who, who is biased, etc adds very little to the conversation. I keep it in mind when I see stuff like this, but if someone brings up interesting points that require further investigation we should investigate them regardless of who it is bringing them up.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...on_director%29

This is the director of the film. He also made a documentary claiming that silcone breast implants are GOOD for a woman's health.

LOL. The guy has a history of ignoring large bodies of contrary evidence, and manipulating and editing informations and interviews unfairly. He is no doubt getting paid handsomely by corporate interests. You should take everything he says with a grain of salt.

Hopefully wacki will come in and address the points raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you aware that silicone breast implants have been approved again for use? And, that the bulk of the "science" and medical positions as to the dangers of silicone breast implants were found to be unsupportable?

It is interesting that you would use silicone breast implants to mailgn this person's character when silicone breast implants and man-caused global warming appear to have a lot in common. Could it be that he is now out in front of a second "Chicken Little" scenario and will be found right again?

NCAces

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that one can believe in global warming and not that the consequences are too horrific to contemplate. Global temperature variation is a fact -- why is it okay if it's "natural" but it becomes some kind of doomsday scenario if humans happen to be one particular cog in the whole works?

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue isn't simply "man-made" = good and "natural" = bad (although poorly educated environmentalists tend to fall for this fallacy) it's that rising temperatures will change our ecology, environment, and economies a lot. So much so that even if everything evens out overall (some areas do better and some worse) there will still be a massive cost associated with infrastructure adjustment to the new climate.

I can think of at least two significant differences between projected climates and similar climates in pre-history:

1) the rate at which temperatures are increasing.

Temperature changes we're expected to see over the next century typically took millenia to occur. Slow change gives plant and animals time to move and/or adapt. Rapid change does not.

2) human civilization wasn't around back then.

Having sea levels rise a few metres when we were living in caves is a lot different from having it happen now. It's a hell of a lot easier to move to a different cave than to move all the coastal cities and/or protect them from the water. This is just one example. There's also the effects on agriculture, water supply, hydropower, and flood protection. I'm sure there are others - these are just the ones I'm familiar with.