The Great Global Warming Swindle

[BagOfCrisps 24]

Excellent documentary just on Channel 4 called The Great Global Warming Swindle. Lots of details of it on the site below but it was an extremely persuasive look at the way we are all being "lied to" about global warming, the sun - not co2 - driving changes in the cliamte, and the immoral way the global warming environmentalists are trying to prevent poor places like Africa from using their natural resources and developing.

 

Lots of impressive sounding talking heads, including co-founder of Greenpeace and other high profile scientists.

 

Really interesting and persuasive it was, don't know if you will be able to find it on youtube or anything in the near future.

 

Check out some info on the website

 

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

[Oyuki kigan 0]

i thought the idea that the sun`s output cycles (if that is what they are talking about)were disrcedited a long time ago, especially by the guy that came up with the idea in the first place.

[YellowSnow 0]

Yes the sun has 11 year hotspot cycles that do effect the temperatures. But the differences can be accounted for and the results normalized. Also the last cycle has been going on for a bit.

 

But for all the skeptics about global warming, I don't know how you can't see how bad it is even local warming, e.g. big cities with smog problems and concrete problems like Tokyo's Heat Island. What ever about the sun and C02 the heat has to dissipate somewhere and it doesn't just go away.

 

For me its not really an argument of global warming its the massive shift in weather patterns,weather is becoming more extreme even if the average is hardly different.

 

Also I believe things like solar power isn't that efficient, think of the energy required to make these green energy systems. The only real answer would be Nuclear fusion so I am crossing my fingers for the next 20 years.

 

Maybe in the future my children(if I have any) will never have seasons, just a choice of 3 climates, desert, icecap and hurricane/flood plains.

[YellowSnow 0]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

 

Unless they are pointing their fingers at the Media companies and politicians, the swindle here is that the documentary is not impartial. The title says how impartial they are "Swindle". How is a swindle if global warming was deducted from observable facts? But anything scientists do these days is turned into a political argument.

[samurai 0]

I'll say it again, from another post;

 

Next time I see fossils of sea-shells in the mountains, I'll remember the last time humans and their energy consumption changed the world's climate.

 

I won't deny that CO2 emissions have an impact on the ozone. I'll also admit that I would prefer green-fuel. But blaming global warming on humans or even believing that humans have the capacity to stop it seems quite the swindle to me.

 

The geography of the planet proves beyond a doubt that serious changes in climate happen all the time and are astronomically beyond our control.

[Oyuki kigan 0]

Yeah, it happens all the time, and has happened throughout history.

 

why the are THE MAJORITY of climate scientists convinced that this time we are tipping the balance?

 

Why has nothing to the contrary to the "humans are heating the planet through emmisions" theory appeared in any peer-reviewed science journals in the past 25 years?

 

Why is it warming faster than it normally would, given previous records?

 

How is it that we can possibly pollute as much as we do, and have no impact on climate?

[YellowSnow 0]

Even that Channel 4 quiz has wrong answers. Aluminium oxidizes i.e. rusts. Leave the science to the scientists instead of the talking heads.

[samurai 0]

I do think our pollution has an impact on the climate, Oyuki. Absolutely. And I greatly appreciate your work regarding a very important topic.

 

I'm just convinced that the poles were going to shift way before we arrived.

 

I too want ethanol replacing our oil refineries. (Brazil pulled it off.) I too want blue skies. But I can't find it in me to see those things arriving by blaming the human race. Stopping emssions will absolutely clear up the skies, but I'm reluctant to say it will stop climate change.

 

1 "why the are THE MAJORITY of climate scientists convinced that this time we are tipping the balance?"

 

because we don't have anything to compare that balance to.

 

2 "Why has nothing to the contrary to the "humans are heating the planet through emmisions" theory appeared in any peer-reviewed science journals in the past 25 years?"

 

because we don't have anything to compare the recent heating to.

 

3 "Why is it warming faster than it normally would, given previous records?"

 

Because we don't have any previous records to compare it to.

 

4 "How is it that we can possibly pollute as much as we do, and have no impact on climate?"

 

I do think we have an impact on the climate, I just don't think we have an impact on the climate that is being changed by astronomical forces.

 

Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but even with zero emissions from today onward, I'm willing to bet that the world would still flip inside-out. (and would have regardless of our influences.)

 

I'll even apply a date to symbolize the completion of this climate change;

December 12 2012.

 

every world-belief system has a 10,000 year flood. And I'm a believer in most of the world-belief systems I have studied. Especially the mayan, being as their calendar is the more astronomically accurate than the gregorian calendar we currently follow. It ends at the date above. Nobody knows why. I just think it's interesting. I would also put more faith in it than the recent 25 years of climate study.

[js 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by YellowSnow:
Also I believe things like solar power isn't that efficient, think of the energy required to make these green energy systems. The only real answer would be Nuclear fusion so I am crossing my fingers for the next 20 years.

Totally disagree there.

There never will be, nor has there ever been, a one-all answer to energy production. World-wide production of energy has always relied upon several options in a system.

Solar remains one of the most abundant sources of free energy. Investment in solar tech was reduced, in my opinion, by pressure from multi-nationals and politicians with vested interests (corruption).

You may find this info. somewhat hopeful, if not enlightening (pun intended):

http://solar.anu.edu.au/level_1/research/sliver.php

The question remains unanswered: why replace a polluting finite resource (coal/oil use) with another (nuclear)? No matter what way you cut it, nuclear is dirty.

The best way I had it explained to me was:

A need drove the advancement of most technologies. However, with the nuclear industry, the technology required a need (use), so for vested interest reasons, the powerful boffins involved lobbied for increase investment, research and use. None of them have made it any more efficient, safer or cleaner since the 1940's.

Interestingly, nuclear energy production creates more greenhouse gases than coal if you compare them from hole-in-ground to end of life.

[YellowSnow 0]

samurai answer to questions 1,2,3 : Ice core samples. Even basic tree rings will tell you if a summer was warm.

 

SubZero, nuclear fusion rather than fission produces almost no waste and the fuel is free.

[BagOfCrisps 24]

 Quote:

Unless they are pointing their fingers at the Media companies and politicians

That's pretty much who they were pointing the fingers at, with the bottom line being that a huge and powerful bandwagon has grown from the incorrect science.

I'm not really up on all the facts and data. All I know is that they put forward a very persuasive argument.

 Quote:

why the are THE MAJORITY of climate scientists convinced that this time we are tipping the balance

One of the many (lesser) points they made was there there is now a huge number of people who rely on this subject for their livelihoods. That may be why some are convinced.

But it did not go for a sensationalist approach - more trying to debunk some of the sensationalism that goes with the subject.


Anyway it was very interesting if you get a chance to see it, whatever your views.

[BagOfCrisps 24]

 Quote:

Leave the science to the scientists instead of the talking heads

They had what sounded like an impressive line up of top scientists. (Perhaps they aren't and they are just nobodies, would be good to check).

[NoFakie 45]

The UN reckon they are 90% sure its human caused. That's lots of scientists from lots of countries, none of which is governed by especially green politicians.

 

Passive solar heating/cooling and solar water heating can reduce your energy bill by absolutely loads. Solar electricity generation is great too, but doesn't have as fast a payback as low-tech solar.

[daver 0]

without getting into the whole and useless debate over who started climate change, i have to bring attention to one line that deserves attention:

 

"the immoral way the global warming environmentalists are trying to prevent poor places like Africa from using their natural resources and developing."

 

i don't even know where to begin with this. to suggest that africa's plight is the fault of money hunger environmentalists is the type of delusion only expected from a lunatic.

[SerreChe 2]

 Quote:

Originally posted by samurai:

I'll even apply a date to symbolize the completion of this climate change;
December 12 2012.

the mayan, being as their calendar is the more astronomically accurate than the gregorian calendar we currently follow. It ends at the date above. Nobody knows why. I just think it's interesting.

I did not know this, that's really fascinating !
Thanks Samurai.

[BagOfCrisps 24]

 Quote:

"the immoral way the global warming environmentalists are trying to prevent poor places like Africa from using their natural resources and developing."

i don't even know where to begin with this. to suggest that africa's plight is the fault of money hunger environmentalists is the type of delusion only expected from a lunatic.

Perhaps my wording was not as good as it could be.
Or perhaps you are just throwing the word lunatic around rather easily.
Could be both I suppose.

The general argument was:

- Africa and other developing countries are being encouraged (or something stronger? don't know) to use things like solar power;
- and being discouraged to natural resources such as coal & oil;
- they are being encouraged to use solar power, which only yeilds a tiny small amount of power compared to what coal and oil can do quite easily, hindering development;
- Western powers have been using coal and oil to develop for ages with scant concern for the environment, but suddenly have decided it is bad - based on "bad science" - and are trying to turn that around and in the process stifle Africas development

Summat like that.

I'm off out for some beers.

[samurai 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by SerreChe:

 Quote:

Originally posted by samurai:

I'll even apply a date to symbolize the completion of this climate change;
December 12 2012.

the mayan, being as their calendar is the more astronomically accurate than the gregorian calendar we currently follow. It ends at the date above. Nobody knows why. I just think it's interesting.

I did not know this, that's really fascinating !
Thanks Samurai.

now to completely twist your secure view of the world, research the mayan calendar combined with planet X. Then... relax and take it with a grain of salt. If you take more seriously than that, you'll become a doomsayer.

[SerreChe 2]

I actually love being negative, like this I am always positively surprised.

[scouser 4]

Here is the documentary

 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle+&search=Search

 

It sure makes for an interesting watch.

[SirJibAlot 0]

weren't the glaciers melting since the end of the ice age? Global warming started a LOOOOONG time before we turned the key in the first Honda Civic. I think both sides over estimate the impact. I'm all for a cleaner environment, but i won't be held hostage by terroristic predictions.

[Oyuki kigan 0]

what do you mean by `held hostage`?

As in actually having to do something?

[YellowSnow 0]

As in actually having to do something?

 

Might have to give up having charcoal BBQs 100+ days a year can cut it down to 50. What a loss of personal liberty.

 

Really its all about the me first attitude. I find it hard to believe that any of the critics of global large scale environmental damage are being critical for altruistic reasons.

[YellowSnow 0]

But I do agree with some of you guys here pointing out that some scientists are just creating jobs for themselves.

At college in general I always hated these groups, for me it was the group of girls who would only write about " Why are women underrepresented in IT" Despite the class there were in was more than 50% women and would ignore government an industrial studies that showed the opposite.

 

These people are not real scientist, I 100% and it is one of the reasons I dropped out of my Masters.

 

If the science is sketchy, if you have time or a budget to fund the trials then with conviction you can overturn popular opinion.

 

e.g. Recently scientists have said that Geckos use Van der Waals to stick to glass etc. I really don't believe in this theory at all. And if I collect some Geckos in Japan I can prove it. With polar and non polar polished surfaces, even silicon doped and non doped could help to prove it. Its not impossible for one man to beat the system, that is the real quality of science.

[NutteyCubey 0]

Just finished watching that - very interesting. It makes a persuasive argument. I'm one of those who don't know all the science behind it all but after watching that I'm interested in finding out more and learning the sides. Thanks for the link.

[TheOrange 0]

That was an interesting watch. I think it's great that people are actually talking about this now, rather than just listening. And there is another side of the argument. Now there is a two way split, it's easier to look at both sides with a better amount of information - and maybe more people will start to think about it and research it themselves to come up with a balanced opinion.