The Great Global Warming Swindle

[BIGgourami]

BB, do you believe in evolution?

trust me there is a point to this

 

[Big Business]

I don;t disagree, but when a minority of scientists are opposed to the theory and when you examine their sponsors ( exxon etc) then it seems that they have ulterior motives....not that anyone is innocent of that.
As has been said, there is only a better concensus of scientists about gravity, and not all of them agree about that.

It certainly is more reasonable to accept that ll the CO2 emissions are having an effect, given the math of the situation, than to refuse to accept the possibilities

opposed to which theory? many scientist agree that large amount of CO2 may raise the Earth's average temperature; some scientist agree that there will be minor changes, moderate warming, and some say major warming. can you find some accurate statistic that shows the majority of scientist in this field believe that there is going to be catastrophic warming? the numbers are different in every report.

Not all Scientist that disagree with catastrophic warming are funded by oil companies. many work for the government, universities and news channels(and not just Fox. a year ago on Earthday a meteorologist who worked for CNN mentioned that the warming to the Earth was probably caused by the sun emitting larger amounts of radiation rather than CO2).

And on the same token many of the catastrophic global warming alarmist are funded by agencies who rely directly on the fact that if they say the Earth is going to hell in a hand basket they will receive more money... it goes both ways

 

[Big Business]

BB, do you believe in evolution?

trust me there is a point to this

I believe that evolution is a good theory. But if a better theory comes along I will not be opposed to hearing it through. And I certainly won't call anyone naive or ignorant for not sharing my view when it comes to this matter.

 

[pophead]

I'm gonna but in on the arguement here...

opposed to which theory? many scientist agree that large amount of CO2 may raise the Earth's average temperature; some scientist agree that there will be minor changes, moderate warming, and some say major warming. can you find some accurate statistic that shows the majority of scientist in this field believe that there is going to be catastrophic warming? the numbers are different in every report.

any scientific idea that does not have hard proof is a theory. a lot of things that people take for granted are theories. one of them being that global warming is caused by human-created C02, another being evolution, and I'm sure there are many more.

 

[pophead]

BB, do you believe in evolution?

trust me there is a point to this

personally, I don't think evolution should be brought up in this thread.
even though it seems like this arguement is being carried out respectfully, things can get out of hand extreemly quickly in a debate of origins. I know this from experience in another forum.

carry on...

 

[mothernature]

Uummm... my two cents -------->


Why on earth are we taking oil from deep inside the ground , spilling it in the worlds oceans and burning it into our atmosphere .
How do we need to hear from a scientist to KNOW that we are doing irreversible and significant damage to the only known habitable planet!

Had to get that off my chest!

 

[RyanS]

isn't everything interconnected?

We are putting approx 7 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, it stays there for at least 100 years....so please tell me what you think happens to it, because the fact that it is a major greenhouse gas is not disputed by anyone I think

You do realize that the amount of CO2 that humans generate is completely insignificant compared to every other contributer. Volcanoes cause more CO2, dead vegetation causes more, animals cause more, the ocean etc.....

Ice core samples have shown that the temp leads to the amount of CO2, not the other way around like the so called "environmentalists" claim.
If CO2 levels lead temps, then during the post war economic boom, the temp would have gone up. It actually went down.
When the recession hit in the 70's, the temp should have gone down since industry slowed down so much. The temps went up.

The sea level is not an indicator of melting ice or global warming. Changes in the sea level has more to do with the earths crust rising and falling.

It's also known that with more solar activity the higher the temp goes. More sun spots, more heat. Many scientists have already provided evidence of this.

Like I said in a different thread. This is no longer a environmental movement. It's a revolutionary minority hell bent on dismantling democracy. The proof is in their demands and stances, anti car, anti industry, anti capatalism, anti globalization, anti development, anti the great satan America. It's blatant Neo Marxism. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, has openly stated this.

Also, please explain why the troposphere isn't heating up. It should be if the cause is CO2.

I don;t disagree, but when a minority of scientists are opposed to the theory and when you examine their sponsors ( exxon etc) then it seems that they have ulterior motives....not that anyone is innocent of that.

If you aren't a member of my religion you are a heretic.

Silencing the opposition is hardly the scientific way. No to mention that it's a rather shady tactic. And thats exactly whats being done when you accuse someone of having an agenda based on who they may or may not be accepting grants from. Especially when the acussations are untrue and destroy peoples reputation and livelyhood.

Don't forget that the major funders who support global warming have an agenda themselves. If you think that there is no financial gains to be made supporting global warming, then you really need to wake up.
The global warming issue has become a industry in itself. It's a bureaucracy with billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake. Do you think Mr Climate Change Minister of Podunk Nowhere is going to have a job long if he tells you global warming doesn't exist? Don't tell me there is no ulterior motives or agendas involved with the green side of the arguement.

Telling the world to stop development is hardly humane, once you consider what it will do to the developing world. It makes complete sense to have the worlds poorest people rely on the most expensive, unreliable and most innefficent sources for electricity.

Your ideals for a perfect world will lead to the exact opposite.

 

[hamato_yoshii]

'scuse me for one last comment
Ryan, your claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activities is totally wrong
Volcanoes produce an estimated total approx 200 million tonnes per year Vs the 7 Billion produced by human activity, ie 150 times more than volcanoes..that is all the volcanoes on the planet combined.

And altho there have been warm periods before in the earth's history, unless the dinosaurs were burning coal and oil this time it is obviously a bit different
Here's a link for ya on the volcanoes.

It would be nice if folks would verify their info before posting such inaccurate statements.
google is a very useful tool, try it, its pretty cool.
have a good one.
no offence intended to anyone

Your awful active for being inactive.

 

[Big Business]

I did not realize another post was made a week after your last post DavidW

sorry but I am not active in this forum any longer, but the ice core info you give is not correct because of something called 'lag' and the difusion of CO2 through ice. It is explained very well in the "earth 2100 wild weather ahead ' docu
the only person to have done any research and published what you claim is Zbigniew Jaworowski, a Polish guy who published not in any peer reviewed publication but in a conspiracy theory magazine . http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13.
He failed to use the slding scale necessary to correctly align the CO2 data with the age data
CO2 is not the only factor in GW, but it is a large contributing factor.
please provide links to any peer reviewed science articles that support your position.


also this on the so-called expert who is the main guy who disputes GW in the 'swindle' docu

Channel 4 Now Ashamed of its Experts http://www.desmogblog.com/channel-4-now-ashamed-of-its-experts
QUOTE
After a DeSmogBlog post yesterday complained about academic misrepresentation in the promotional material for a UK television show (The Great Global Warming Swindle), Channel 4 went back into its website and removed all reference to the "experts" that it plans to quote in the program, due to air March 8 at 9 .m.
QUOTE
In its promotional material, Channel 4 was advertising one of its experts, Dr. Tim Ball, as a “Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg.” In fact, Dr. Ball retired from a short, unspectacular academic career in 1995. He neither earned – nor was he given – the honour of an Emeritus professorship, and the University of Winnipeg has, on at least one previous occasion, specifically requested that he stop presenting himself as such.

Far from being a working scientist or credible expert, Dr. Ball has associated himself in the last decade with a series of energy industry front groups (the Friends of Science, the Natural Resource Stewardship Project ) that fight against any policy that would address climate change.

Even the Calgary Herald, the leading newspaper in the Canadian oil capital of Calgary, has said that Ball is “viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
QUOTE
But the locations that Channel 4 still mentions suggest that the other “experts” will include at least a cross-section of other people who are known more for taking money from the energy industry than they are for scientific research.
So who is trying to swindle who? Who is most likely to be mis-representing the truth.

this is my last post here in this section
someone else can take over or not, as they please.
Time and events will tell who is correct in this debate

yes, Dr. Ball was one of the many scientist interviewed in "The Great Global Warming Swindle." here are Dr. Ball's credentials on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
and on the Fraser Institute page
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/author.asp?id=532
despite the slandering from an alarmist site (DeSmogBlog) it appears that this man has an extensive background in climatology

if someone receives funding from a group (such as as oil company) does this fully discredit them? hmm... then would a scientist who received funding from a group who benefits from global warming research grants also be discredited?

 

[RyanS]

if someone receives funding from a group (such as as oil company) does this fully discredit them? hmm... then would a scientist who received funding from a group who benefits from global warming research grants also be discredited?

You would sure hope so, sadly it isn't the case.