[lyanma]

Now, before you start reading or anything else: I know there are other 'Global Warming Threads', I read them all (At least those I could find). And yes I am going to say something that has not been mentioned yet in the other threads (That I've read).

Kids and teenagers have been forced/assigned/demanded (whatever you want to call it) to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" by their School and High School teachers. And even during college/university, professors still demand us to watch that documentary. They have been brain washing us that WE are the ones causing Global Warming, and we believed all the scientific tests that have been made to prove this theory without having any doubt about them.
Yesterday, during class, we watched another Global Warming documentary but this one was called "The Global Warming Swindle" (This one was made by the BBC, maybe some of you have seen it). In this documentary they start by proving that humans are not the ones causing the so called Global Warming, and that we are not the major producers of CO2, and not only that but that CO2 is not the one causing Global Warming either. They also mentioned the graphic that was shown at the "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary ( where Al Gore compares the CO2 in the last couple of years and the Iceberg's tests of vaporized water) the one with which Al Gore makes his statement : that everything started during the Industrial Revolution era and climate has been getting worst since then, blah blah blah. Well in the other documentary they tell us that Al Gore also mentioned how this graphic was "complicated" to understand, well they inverted the results to make both graphic lines seem that they matched. They also showed another graphic (without the results inverted), how during the Industrial Revolution, and 4 decades after this, the temperature was not getting hotter, but colder. So, CO2 is obviously not the cause of Global Warming.
So now the question is, what is causing Global warming? or is there even a Global Warming?
In "The Global Warming Swindle" they talk about this scientist who is famous for his accurate weather predictions and because of the method he uses to predict the weather. He uses the sun for his predictions, using the solar spots behaviour. They also created a graphic to compare the solar spots and the climate changes, it was obvious how this were related, and so now the sun is the one causing this hot period.
There has been hot periods in the past, and cold periods too, so they conclude that what is happening is normal and there is nothing we can do to stop it...it's just nature.

This got me totally confused, and don't really know which documentary believe. Al Gore's documentary can be really just seen as advertisement, pure propaganda, where they persuade their viewers with touchy scenes where anyone can get easily identify, it is a very emotional-driven documentary and believe me there is no better way to convince people but to really touch their feelings/their sensible side.
So if this is propaganda, what are they trying to do with it? Can "The Global Warming Swindle" be seen as propaganda too? and if yes, where are they tring to get with it? What are they trying to do? I really don't know what to believe now.

So, What do you guys think?

-lyanma

[Dakar V]

Wrong Lounge.

[Maflynn]

Count down to the PL
3...
2...
1...


dang it, Dakar beat me to the punch

[Laminar]

Attack of the Twilight lamer!

[Dakar V]

Oh, that explains it.

[lyanma]

Why wrong lounge Dakar V ?

[besson3c]

Honestly, at this point, I wonder whether the issue of carbon induced global warming is even worth debating?

The solutions to GW are to stop burning fossil fuels, but if you take the issue of GW out of the picture entirely there are still many good reasons for us to aggressively seek out fuel alternatives: our security, pocket books, relations with other countries, and the economic gains that would come from coming up with a viable alternative.

Therefore, why not just back burner this contentious issue and strive towards agreeing upon these benefits and strategies we can employ to realize these goals, which I think we are all closer to sharing?

[besson3c]

It's rather odd that GW has become such a partisan issue, when you think about it...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by lyanma 

I really don't know what to believe now.

Welcome to reality.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's rather odd that GW has become such a partisan issue, when you think about it...

Not really.

Left-wing/Democrat = environmental nutcases, hippies, love mother earth
Right-wing/Republican = anti-Left-wing/Democrat

It makes perfect sense.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Not really.

Left-wing/Democrat = believe in the scientific method as a means of learning what goes on in the world
Right-wing/Republican = believe whatever the church tells them to believe

It makes perfect sense.

fixed

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Honestly, at this point, I wonder whether the issue of carbon induced global warming is even worth debating?

The solutions to GW are to stop burning fossil fuels, but if you take the issue of GW out of the picture entirely there are still many good reasons for us to aggressively seek out fuel alternatives: our security, pocket books, relations with other countries, and the economic gains that would come from coming up with a viable alternative.

Therefore, why not just back burner this contentious issue and strive towards agreeing upon these benefits and strategies we can employ to realize these goals, which I think we are all closer to sharing?

I totally agree with you, there are many other good reasons.
I also read in an article about "The Global Warming Swindle" where a scientist says that we might not be the biggest producers of CO2 but we are producing it a lot, and even if it is not causing GW it is harming us in some other way.

[besson3c]

Sure, there is also the issue of smog and other forms of pollution that AFAIK are related to trapped greenhouse gasses. If GW isn't your cup of tea, don't fixate on it, there are many other reasons to curtail these practices.

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Welcome to reality.

Nice, well mmm, thanks?
I am obviously dealing with reality and at least trying not to live in an uncertainty/ignorance of what is going on.

[ort888]

It's all propaganda.

Who knows what to believe.

That said, pumping toxins into our environment can't be a good thing, right? So maybe one way or another we should try and do that less. Or something.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

fixed

OH BURN all caps

The point of my post was to poke fun at both sides, not to look like a jackass.

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by laminar 

oh burn all caps

the point of my post was to poke fun at both sides, not to look like a jackass.

ha!

[Eriamjh]

I look at it this way:

Years ago, C02 levels in the atmosphere were very high. After millions of years of plant growth, giant insects, dinosaurs coming and going, etc. the CO2 levels dropped as those things all died and turned into oil and coal. Today, we burn it up and put it back into the atmosphere.

Dinosaurs come back and kill us all.

The warning signs are there. We are subconsciously putting them up.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

OH BURN all caps

The point of my post was to poke fun at both sides, not to look like a jackass.

I know that... however, the point of MY post WAS to look like a jackass. I see I've succeeded

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lyanma 

Now, before you start reading or anything else: I know there are other 'Global Warming Threads', I read them all (At least those I could find). And yes I am going to say something that has not been mentioned yet in the other threads

Don't lie, it makes the black baby jesus cry

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...rming-swindle/

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Don't lie, it makes the black baby jesus cry

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...rming-swindle/

Oh well, I just didn't consider to discuss this matter from a politcal point of view, that's why I posted this thread in this lounge not in the Political lounge or even consider to search if this topic was there.

*Edit*
I don't understand why this thread was moved. The point of the thread is not political at all, I'm just discussing Global Warming. It affects politics yeah, but the point of this thread is not to discuss how G.W. affects politics at all :S

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's rather odd that GW has become such a partisan issue, when you think about it...

Not at all. Since the proven demise of communism, the radical left are using green issues as their vehicle to achieve their aims.

Ever noticed how all the causes of MMGW are all things that "the left" have always hated?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by lyanma 

It affects politics yeah, but the point of this thread is not to discuss how G.W. affects politics at all :S

You can't discuss one without the other, because GW is an application of politics to science (or economics). It's a giant wealth transfer scheme, and it's pretty transparent to anyone willing to actually consider alternatives to the "common knowledge" that we all know and love. It's just one more way to attack US sovereign interests in the name of "the children" via the UN.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lyanma 

This got me totally confused, and don't really know which documentary believe. Al Gore's documentary can be really just seen as advertisement, pure propaganda, where they persuade their viewers with touchy scenes where anyone can get easily identify, it is a very emotional-driven documentary and believe me there is no better way to convince people but to really touch their feelings/their sensible side.
So if this is propaganda, what are they trying to do with it? Can "The Global Warming Swindle" be seen as propaganda too? and if yes, where are they tring to get with it? What are they trying to do? I really don't know what to believe now.

It's really, really simple. "The left" is about big government and wants to control your lives. "The right" (traditionally) wants small government and wants you to control your own life.

Ask yourself this simple question: Why are you believing anything which comes out of the mouth of a bloke who once said he invented the Internet and is married to a woman who founded the PMRC? These people are all about control.

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

"The right" (traditionally) wants small government and wants you to control your own life.

Unless it involves something the relgious leaders (of whatever stripe) deem "immoral" -- then it's all about the control. Hell, the Right is all about top-down authoritarian-type control anyway. "Smaller government" is simply shorthand for "One man telling everyone else what to do."

At least, that's the way it is here in the States. Dunno about the Right over there 'cross the pond, Doofy.

[SpaceMonkey]

Thanks for starting this non-political thread, lyanma!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Hell, the Right is all about top-down authoritarian-type control anyway.

No, it isn't. What you perceive to be "the right" might be, but they're just another faction of "the left" - the proper right is nothing of the sort. Ask Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

At least, that's the way it is here in the States. Dunno about the Right over there 'cross the pond, Doofy.

They're all lefties here. We have no "right" (well, except me).

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Unless it involves something the relgious leaders (of whatever stripe) deem "immoral" -- then it's all about the control. Hell, the Right is all about top-down authoritarian-type control anyway. "Smaller government" is simply shorthand for "One man telling everyone else what to do."

Those are Conservatives. The Conservative voting base could be either Democrat or Republican.

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by finboy 

You can't discuss one without the other, because GW is an application of politics to science (or economics). It's a giant wealth transfer scheme, and it's pretty transparent to anyone willing to actually consider alternatives to the "common knowledge" that we all know and love. It's just one more way to attack US sovereign interests in the name of "the children" via the UN.

I understand what you are saying, it is true, but you also have to understand that I said I was willing to discuss (and that was the point of the thread) both theories' veracity, not to consider alternatives, that has been discussed in other threads, otherwise I wouldn't have created this thread. But I guess it does no harm to discuss it's political view also.

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Thanks for starting this non-political thread, lyanma!

Eh...Jodete, ¿ tu quieres?

Oh wow, parece que también comencé mi thread en español,
... ups

[olePigeon]

Touché.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by lyanma 

Eh...Jodete, ¿ tu quieres?

Oh wow, parece que también comencé mi thread en español,
... ups

Quizás deberías abrir un thread de la política de la República Dominicana.

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Quizás deberías abrir un thread de la política de la República Dominicana.

Quizás deberías de dejar tus sarcasmos solo para decir algo, cuando en realidad no tienes nada inteligente que decir.

[SpaceMonkey]

¿Una conversación seria? Sabes que todos se pasan el día dándonos la paliza.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by lyanma 

Now, before you start reading or anything else: I know there are other 'Global Warming Threads', I read them all (At least those I could find). And yes I am going to say something that has not been mentioned yet in the other threads (That I've read).

Kids and teenagers have been forced/assigned/demanded (whatever you want to call it) to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" by their School and High School teachers. And even during college/university, professors still demand us to watch that documentary. They have been brain washing us that WE are the ones causing Global Warming, and we believed all the scientific tests that have been made to prove this theory without having any doubt about them.
Yesterday, during class, we watched another Global Warming documentary but this one was called "The Global Warming Swindle" (This one was made by the BBC, maybe some of you have seen it). In this documentary they start by proving that humans are not the ones causing the so called Global Warming, and that we are not the major producers of CO2, and not only that but that CO2 is not the one causing Global Warming either. They also mentioned the graphic that was shown at the "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary ( where Al Gore compares the CO2 in the last couple of years and the Iceberg's tests of vaporized water) the one with which Al Gore makes his statement : that everything started during the Industrial Revolution era and climate has been getting worst since then, blah blah blah. Well in the other documentary they tell us that Al Gore also mentioned how this graphic was "complicated" to understand, well they inverted the results to make both graphic lines seem that they matched. They also showed another graphic (without the results inverted), how during the Industrial Revolution, and 4 decades after this, the temperature was not getting hotter, but colder. So, CO2 is obviously not the cause of Global Warming.

Originally Posted by lyanma 

So now the question is, what is causing Global warming? or is there even a Global Warming?

In "The Global Warming Swindle" they talk about this scientist who is famous for his accurate weather predictions and because of the method he uses to predict the weather. He uses the sun for his predictions, using the solar spots behaviour. They also created a graphic to compare the solar spots and the climate changes, it was obvious how this were related, and so now the sun is the one causing this hot period.
There has been hot periods in the past, and cold periods too, so they conclude that what is happening is normal and there is nothing we can do to stop it...it's just nature.

This got me totally confused, and don't really know which documentary believe. Al Gore's documentary can be really just seen as advertisement, pure propaganda, where they persuade their viewers with touchy scenes where anyone can get easily identify, it is a very emotional-driven documentary and believe me there is no better way to convince people but to really touch their feelings/their sensible side.

Originally Posted by lyanma 

So if this is propaganda, what are they trying to do with it? Can "The Global Warming Swindle" be seen as propaganda too? and if yes, where are they tring to get with it? What are they trying to do? I really don't know what to believe now.

So, What do you guys think?

-lyanma

Honestly, I'd believe neither. Haven't seen either but from what I've heard, both suffer from oversimplification of a very complex subject, and in some cases use outdated and incomplete data for their graphs. From hearsay, I believe that "The global warming swindle" suffers most from using limited data*, but debunkings for both films can be found on the internet. Look at those and reconcile the differences between the two films with other sources.

*Thinking specifically of this image - where the data correlates very well up until 1975. But for some reason, they chose not to show the 30+ years of data to present. I fail to believe that the fact that the data diverges at that point was not lost on the creators of that graph. It's great when data works for you - that is - until it doesn't


The question of Global Warming ("Is the Earth warming now?") and Anthropogenic Global Warming ("Are humans responsible for it?") is very expansive, heated and has no ready answers.

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

¿Una conversación seria? Sabes que todos se pasan el día dándonos la paliza.

No sé cual traductor es el que usas, pero ya no se te entiende nada.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

The question of Global Warming ("Is the Earth warming now?") and Anthropogenic Global Warming ("Are humans responsible for it?") is very expansive, heated and has no ready answers.

I thought the debate was over and the science was clear.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by pooka 

I thought the debate was over and the science was clear.

New data can change our understanding of how things work.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The solutions to GW are to stop burning fossil fuels,

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Honestly, I'd believe neither. Haven't seen either but from what I've heard, both suffer from oversimplification of a very complex subject, and in some cases use outdated and incomplete data for their graphs. From hearsay, I believe that "The global warming swindle" suffers most from using limited data*, but debunkings for both films can be found on the internet. Look at those and reconcile the differences between the two films with other sources.

*Thinking specifically of this image - where the data correlates very well up until 1975. But for some reason, they chose not to show the 30+ years of data to present. I fail to believe that the fact that the data diverges at that point was not lost on the creators of that graph. It's great when data works for you - that is - until it doesn't

The question of Global Warming ("Is the Earth warming now?") and Anthropogenic Global Warming ("Are humans responsible for it?") is very expansive, heated and has no ready answers.

First of all, thanks for staying on topic, and thanks for answering my questions.
Yeah, I agree on your opinion. Apparently no one really knows what is going on, but there is definitely something going on and they are just desperate giving us their theories and expecting us to aprove those theories to actually fullfill some scientific goal/achievement? They just want to be recognized. But the reality is, no one has the answer yet and this theories have not been proven, the earth will keep getting warmer and there is nothing we can do about it. But that doesn't mean that we have to stop using the new energy and fuel alternatives, and other kind of alternatives out there, because they are doing some good to the Earth.

[olePigeon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle

This is why I can't very many of the opponents to global warming very seriously. Half the documentary was based on data from The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The same right-wing, super religious nut jobs selling Rapture Survival Guides and Faith Based education for private schools.

Some advice: Always check your references.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by lyanma 

Yeah, I agree on your opinion. Apparently no one really knows what is going on, but there is definitely something going on and they are just desperate giving us their theories and expecting us to aprove those theories to actually fullfill some scientific goal/achievement?

Well, the nice thing about a scientific theory is that it's testable. If you can't consistently reproduce your results, it doesn't hold any water scientifically speaking. Each assertion is backed up by evidence. Do you have evidence for "no one really knows what is going on?"

Originally Posted by lyanma 

They just want to be recognized. But the reality is, no one has the answer yet and this theories have not been proven, the earth will keep getting warmer and there is nothing we can do about it.

One of the hiccups in discussing the Earth is that of time-scales. The earth will keep getting warmer? In 100 years? Probably. During the next ice age in 20,000 years - no. But it will be quite warm when the sun goes nova in a few million years.

Originally Posted by lyanma 

But that doesn't mean that we have to stop using the new energy and fuel alternatives, and other kind of alternatives out there, because they are doing some good to the Earth.

It never hurts do something more efficiently and cleanly.

One thing I've notice a lot about this debate is the amount of FUD that gets thrown about. For instance, 2007 and 2008 had record minimums as far as Arctic Sea Ice is concerned. In the summer time, everyone was talking about how much ice had melted, in the winter (now that it's cold up there) it's all about the record freeze.

If you say that neither is significant, you piss off both sides The rate of change between summer and winter only relies on the difference between the minimum and maximum area covered by ice, which has been diverging.

Both sides strongly cling to their arguments though while missing the big picture.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by lyanma 

No sé cual traductor es el que usas, pero ya no se te entiende nada.

Lo siento. No estoy usando un traductor, pero yo no he practicado mi español recientemente.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by pooka 

I thought the debate was over and the science was clear.

When has the debate about science ever been "over"? Science isn't about arriving at a single point and being happy about it, but rather finding and defining that point and then moving behind.

One argument I have seen often is that about Hansen's 1988 model projections. As if everything we knew about science was manifest in this one program, and was then never revisited ever again. To this day, we still use the science of 30 years ago (which is apparently etched on some tablet somewhere).

Physicists didn't stop when they discovered that matter was composed of atoms. There are probably even more questions now about sub-atomic particles than there were about plain old atoms, but it doesn't mean you throw out what you know about atoms.

The science becomes clearer but the progress is never over.

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Lo siento. No estoy usando un traductor, pero yo no he practicado mi español recientemente.

Pues déjame ayudarte un poco, el problema es que estas pensando en inglés y traduciendo palabra por palabra lo cual hace que lo que digas no tenga mucho sentido al ser leído en español. Necesitas un poco más de practica pero me soprende que no estés usando un traductor.

[sek929]

I don't see the correlation between showing students something and brainwashing them.

I would hope they'd have enough brains to make a conclusion for themselves, that's what I did when I watched An Inconvenient Truth which is laden with hyperbole about the world ending. Just like how in 9th grade some dudes from the Navy showed up to tell us how great nuclear power is and how solar power is the work of the devil (not in those words, but pretty much). I didn't listen to those yahoos either.

We are given mass amounts of mis-information throughout our lives, that's why god/allah/xenu gave us a goddamned brain to sort it all out.

Edit: I'd like to add that whether or not you believe that GW is happening, you have to agree with the message of reducing our impact on the planet, developing alternatives to fossil fuels (which 'fuel' our enemies with cash), and finding better ways across the board to live more in harmony with nature. You can disagree with the the climate science all you want, but if you are vehemently against the entire message then there is no hope for you.

[Hg2491]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Quizás deberías abrir un thread de la política de la República Dominicana.

Now that would be fun, but only a handful of users could argument about it. Or am I mistaken?

Dominican Republic: The land of baseball and politics ~

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I don't see the correlation between showing students something and brainwashing them.

I would hope they'd have enough brains to make a conclusion for themselves, that's what I did when I watched An Inconvenient Truth which is laden with hyperbole about the world ending. Just like how in 9th grade some dudes from the Navy showed up to tell us how great nuclear power is and how solar power is the work of the devil (not in those words, but pretty much). I didn't listen to those yahoos either.

We are given mass amounts of mis-information throughout our lives, that's why god/allah/xenu gave us a goddamned brain to sort it all out.

Edit: I'd like to add that whether or not you believe that GW is happening, you have to agree with the message of reducing our impact on the planet, developing alternatives to fossil fuels (which 'fuel' our enemies with cash), and finding better ways across the board to live more in harmony with nature. You can disagree with the the climate science all you want, but if you are vehemently against the entire message then there is no hope for you.

If you tell a little kid/or someone who doesn'y know much about the topic, over and over again Global Warming is making the world warmer and we are the ones causing it, and show them why then they are going to believe it. In my case almost everyone in my school believed it, we weren't looking at it as a theory but as a fact. We didn't know much about the topic, and Al Gore's documentary was the first time we've ever heard about this so called Global Warming. We had to see the documentary as an assignment or in class, over and over again, analyze it, and come up with possible solutions of how we could make this stop. For me that was brainwashing.
You can't compare a scientific theory with a couple of Navy dudes, you have been taught since little that in wars people are killed...dont see the relation there.

And I have not discarted the possibility that one of this theories may be truth, I know there is something going on, the world is getting warmer, but this theories, none of them have been proven as a fact, that's all I am saing. I am not against them and I am totally not against alternative fuels and energy...

[sek929]

I was taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America (which he didn't) and was an upstanding chap (instead of a genocidal murderer). We teach our children absolutes in a world of grays. It's only once they grow up that they are able to think for themselves.

Earth Day has been a part of schools since I was in 1st grade where students come up with ways to 'save the Earth.' Teaching little kids we are killing the planet has been part of the curriculum way before Al Gore. This 'story' is only yet another weak attempt by the anti-GW crowd to cause hysteria (which they accuse the GW people of doing too, O! The irony).

If kids are 'brainwashed' into believing the world is ending due to our pollution the only thing I can see coming out of it is a generation of responsible folks ready to end the decadence and wastefulness of our current society. That would take to much effort though, we might as well sit on our lazy asses and continue to live like filthy hogs until it's to late.

[lyanma]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I was taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America (which he didn't) and was an upstanding chap (instead of a genocidal murderer). We teach our children absolutes in a world of grays. It's only once they grow up that they are able to think for themselves.

Earth Day has been a part of schools since I was in 1st grade where students come up with ways to 'save the Earth.' Teaching little kids we are killing the planet has been part of the curriculum way before Al Gore. This 'story' is only yet another weak attempt by the anti-GW crowd to cause hysteria (which they accuse the GW people of doing too, O! The irony).

If kids are 'brainwashed' into believing the world is ending due to our pollution the only thing I can see coming out of it is a generation of responsible folks ready to end the decadence and wastefulness of our current society. That would take to much effort though, we might as well sit on our lazy asses and continue to live like filthy hogs until it's to late.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that I think it is better if we do NOTHING about pollution at all, all I am saying is that this pollution might not be the cause of GW, and this as many many other things (which are not being discussed in this thread 'cause, oh wow, we are only discussing GW) should be made more clear at schools, now pollution is affecting us in other ways, that has been taught to us at school and with this TRUTH they are not brainwashing us at all.

Take off your head that I think pollution is ok, I am against that, totally against that.