Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Global Warming Swindle

The Global Warming Swindle (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 01:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by lyanma View Post
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.
What makes you think that the science behind pollution fears is stronger than the science behind climate change fears? Just because you were taken in by The Great Global Warming Swindle propaganda film? Do you think there aren't industry shills spreading FUD about pollution fears as well?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
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.
This new generation tends to lose their "responsibility" towards the planet when the following conversation occurs:

Son (@17): "Dad, can I borrow the car?"

Dad: "No, you've been banging on about how evil they are for the last ten years - you can get the bus to go pick up your girlfriend"
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
lyanma  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sto Dgo, DR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What makes you think that the science behind pollution fears is stronger than the science behind climate change fears? Just because you were taken in by The Great Global Warming Swindle propaganda film? Do you think there aren't industry shills spreading FUD about pollution fears as well?
I don't think pollution is a stronger fear, I never said GW is a stronger fear either. I'm not talking about which of those is more important at all. I wasn't "taken in" by The Great Global Warming Swindle propaganda film, and yes I imagine industries are spreading FUD about pollution as well...but talking about that will guide us off topic.
...Are you people really reading what I say?...you guys are completely misunderstanding me. I'm just arguing the theories' veracity, I am not saying that they are lies, it is obvious there is a climate change and this are proposals of what the problem might be...I'm not discarting them at all, they both have interesting conclusions. And I do agree alternatives are making Earth a better place, I've helped friends create campaigns and projects to help the enviroment, and make them aware of this alternatives.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
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 agree. That's why I'm all for teaching children that masturbation will make them go blind, smoking pot will end in their death, and stepping on cracks will break their mothers backs. I'm all for that type of rationalization!
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 11:58 AM
 
I remember this when I was in 7th grade
Another Ice Age? - TIME
From 2009
The Planet Gets Cooler in '08. Say What? - TIME
45/47
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 12:08 PM
 
Have you read the second article, Chongo?
Originally Posted by linked Time article
So does that mean global warming has ceased?

Afraid not. Even though 2008 is cooler than the past several years, it's still likely to rank as the 10th warmest year since the beginning of climate records in the 1850s. And despite the cooling of the Pacific, several parts of the Earth — especially the Arctic, where sea ice melted to its second lowest level ever this summer — were far above normal temperatures. Globally, 2008 was about 0.56 degrees F (0.31 degrees C) warmer than the annual average between 1961 and 1990.
Or are you just posting this to show that scientific consensus changes over time?
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Feb 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by lyanma View Post
I don't think pollution is a stronger fear, I never said GW is a stronger fear either.
Stronger... science is what I said. Stronger science, not stronger fear.

...Are you people really reading what I say?...
Yes. Are you reading what you say? You said this: "<pollution> has been taught to us at school and with this TRUTH they are not brainwashing us at all." You're saying that the science of pollution is ok because you believe that it's true, meanwhile the science of climate change is "brainwashing" because you believe that it's untrue.

Both are equally true, or equally untrue. Both theories of pollution and climate change are supported by a large body of scientific evidence. Both have vocal professional-skeptic detractors who stand to benefit if the theories are abandoned. Both are possibly incorrect despite the evidence supporting them (as are all scientific theories, including gravity and electromagnetism).

You started this thread to make a stink over the fact that your personal biases of which scientifically supported theories are objectively "right" or "wrong" isn't being taught in your school, which is moderately naive. When you accuse others of "just not listening" to you when they try to explain this fact is comically naive.
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Feb 6, 2009 at 01:01 PM. )
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 01:21 PM
 
Sorry, I didn't mean for my comments to be taken as anything other than obviously absurd. It's hard in this place sometimes when you've got people so vehemently spouting bullshit.

I'm a strong supporter of research, actual science and (more importantly) ignoring the hysterics of retards. Righties, industry shrills, environmental activist, Al Gore, etc.

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
lyanma  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sto Dgo, DR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Stronger... science is what I said. Stronger science, not stronger fear.

Yes. Are you reading what you say? You said this: "<pollution> has been taught to us at school and with this TRUTH they are not brainwashing us at all." You're saying that the science of pollution is ok because you believe that it's true, meanwhile the science of climate change is "brainwashing" because you believe that it's untrue.

Both are equally true, or equally untrue. Both theories of pollution and climate change are supported by a large body of scientific evidence. Both have vocal professional-skeptic detractors who stand to benefit if the theories are abandoned. Both are possibly incorrect despite the evidence supporting them (as are all scientific theories, including gravity and electromagnetism).

You started this thread to make a stink over the fact that your personal biases of which scientifically supported theories are objectively "right" or "wrong" isn't being taught in your school, which is moderately naive. When you accuse others of "just not listening" to you when they try to explain this fact is comically naive.
There are somethings about pollution which are taught at schools which I believe is true, and that this "some" have series of things that make them believable and I am not discussing them at all because I would go off topic, and it is not something I want to discuss. I mentioned it 'cause Sek929 referred to the pollution and I wanted to make myself clear.
The theory of "An Inconvenient Truth" was taught to us as a fact, I am not saying it is not true just that I disagree with the fact that they taught it like that. But that was just my case, which Sek929 decided to discuss. That issue is not the reason why I created this thread. I started this thread to read your opinions about this theories and try to understand them better. And all of your opinions have helped me a lot, really some of the things you guys have said make a lot of sense.
And also, I said you guys weren't reading what I said because some of you thought I was somehow against the theories, or that I didn't believe there is actually a climate change and that these theories are crap, and also that pollution was ok and we should just let it happen. Which is not true at all, those assumptions made me doubt that you were actually reading, or maybe obviating some of the things I was saing, but it is obvious that I have been misunderstood.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by lyanma View Post
The theory of "An Inconvenient Truth" was taught to us as a fact, I am not saying it is not true just that I disagree with the fact that they taught it like that. But that was just my case, which Sek929 decided to discuss. That issue is not the reason why I created this thread. I started this thread to read your opinions about this theories and try to understand them better. And all of your opinions have helped me a lot, really some of the things you guys have said make a lot of sense.
What school? I just find it hard to believe that schools use Al Gore's video as curriculum and that they teach it as fact. Are you sure you didn't misinterpret things?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 03:12 PM
 
I see there's a Classroom version of An Inconvenient Truth with a worksheet. Here's a link to it.

It doesn't state anywhere on the worksheet that humans are responsible for Global Warming.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 04:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by lyanma View Post
And also, I said you guys weren't reading what I said because some of you thought I was somehow against the theories, or that I didn't believe there is actually a climate change and that these theories are crap
Bullshit. You're lying through your teeth here. This is how you started the thread:

"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."

You're not simply asking for input from an unbiased position. When you misrepresent yourself about doing so, it doesn't matter whether you're doing this intentionally as a transparent attempt to falsely claim the moral high ground as a debate tactic, or whether you're simply unable to express your true intentions (repeatedly and consistently). Either way you're in for a rude awakening. Cut it out.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Have you read the second article, Chongo?


Or are you just posting this to show that scientific consensus changes over time?
Time Magazine editors have a short memory span.
45/47
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Time Magazine editors have a short memory span.
And, presumably, long careers.

lyanma, si quieres discutir algunos puntos de la theoria, tienes q' indicar cuales son. no vale solo decir 'que piensen'. come he dicho, la tema es grandote y cada pedazo tiene much complexidad y hay mucho informacion sobre cada pedazo. has visto las dos - y no hubieras posted aqui si algo no te ha caido bien. que es?
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
This new generation tends to lose their "responsibility" towards the planet when the following conversation occurs:

Son (@17): "Dad, can I borrow the car?"

Dad: "No, you've been banging on about how evil they are for the last ten years - you can get the bus to go pick up your girlfriend"
I wasn't being totally serious, moreso pointing out that we teach our children all sorts of half-truths. Getting up in arms about teaching GW in schools is picking a tiny subset of the BS we teach kids and blowing it way out of proportion.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I agree. That's why I'm all for teaching children that masturbation will make them go blind, smoking pot will end in their death, and stepping on cracks will break their mothers backs. I'm all for that type of rationalization!
We already teach kids nothing but BS about pot, and if the religious types had it their way I'd bet you'd see a crusade against beating it being taught side-by-side with all the other BS.

Adults have always taught their hang-ups to young impressionable kids, this GW thing is no different.

I was never trying to defend the process of mis-informing youth, I was pointing out that teaching GW is no different than the millions of other concocted half-truths that get taught as fact. Of course the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-GW crew is freaking out about this because, well, that's their hangup.
     
lyanma  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sto Dgo, DR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 07:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
And, presumably, long careers.

lyanma, si quieres discutir algunos puntos de la theoria, tienes q' indicar cuales son. no vale solo decir 'que piensen'. come he dicho, la tema es grandote y cada pedazo tiene much complexidad y hay mucho informacion sobre cada pedazo. has visto las dos - y no hubieras posted aqui si algo no te ha caido bien. que es?
WOW, gracias por postear en español, de verdad! No entendí bien lo que Uncle Skeleton dijo. Lo que pasa es que escribí el thread con una pequeña introducción de mi historia, asi fue como paso a mi en mi el colegio, no me agrado el hecho de que me hayan hecho creer que esa era la pura verdad y que años despues en clases de Ciencia Ambiental de la universidad es que me enseñan este video de que GW es una teoria y que existen muchas otras, TODOS en mi clase nos quedamos sorprendidos de que hay una minima posibilidad de que lo que Al Gore dijo era mentira, y no es que lo sea. Me sorprendio mucho y quise compartirlo aqui para ver que opiniones tenian ustedes sobre el asunto ya que yo solo seguía lo que se proponia en el Film de Al Gore, y no es que no me guste las alternativas que hay hoy en dia, en contrario me benefician a mi y al planeta no le veo nada de malo.

Solo queria ver si ustedes entendian que el CO2 en realidad si puede causar GW o no y si solo creen que sea un proceso natural de la tierra.
Cual de las dos les convence mas. Eso es todo, y muchos de ustedes me han respondido esas preguntas, algunos no me responden bien y a veces creo que es porque "yo sali de la nada del Thread de Twilight". Pero muchas de sus opiniones me han ayudado a comprender mejor este tema del GW, en especial tu! si te has mantenido en el tema.

Espero que comprendas lo que dije, no se si hablas mucho el español.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 07:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I wasn't being totally serious
Neither was I.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
moreso pointing out that we teach our children all sorts of half-truths.
I hear ya.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Getting up in arms about teaching GW in schools is picking a tiny subset of the BS we teach kids and blowing it way out of proportion.
It's actually becoming something to get up in arms about over here. Have a read of this:
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/articl...etter-aqa.html
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2009, 11:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
It's actually becoming something to get up in arms about over here. Have a read of this:
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/articl...etter-aqa.html
Man, I love that guy. I always read his comics. I never knew anything about his real life or that wellington grey wasn't some foppish nom-de-plume. He's a real person with a real life outside of being a web comic. Who knew!?! Thanks for expanding my horizons!
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Feb 6, 2009 at 11:47 PM. Reason: fixed a typo.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by lyanma View Post
Solo queria ver si ustedes entendian que el CO2 en realidad si puede causar GW o no y si solo creen que sea un proceso natural de la tierra.
Para mi, es lo mas facil explicarlo. (Pues lo escribo en ingles para los demas. Si no entiendes algo, solo pidame.)

Greenhouse gasses have been around forever; without them our atmosphere would probably be too cold to support life. Our contribution is simply to add to the amount that we have and we are doing so in dramatic fashion (see the unique near-vertical spike). No one doubts that we are solely responsible for that spike.



Solar activity, the obvious driver of our environment (and temperatures), is not the sole influence as indicated by this graph. If solar were influencing the warming we've seen over the past 40 years, it's odd that solar activity has remained level while temperatures increase. (This is the graph I talked about that was out of date in "Great warming swindle") And even that cyclical change (1366.15 to 1366.25 w/m^2) is only a 0.014% difference between extremes.



So the other explanation? "Natural cycles" and I use it in quotes because it gets bandied about but never defined. Which natural cycle? If you're going to engage in a scientific debate, you need to identify that cycle and quantify it's effects.

So simply, we have humans, who burn fossil fuels, and emit GHG's. The temperature is rising (albeit not by a huge amount) and the rise cannot be explained by solar activity (or any other identified process). So what else could it be?
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 01:31 PM
 
More examples of the "crazy" things they were saying in the days of yesteryear...

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I remember this when I was in 7th grade
Another Ice Age? - TIME
Growing Blanket of Carbon Dioxide Raises Earth’s Temperature Popular Mechanics (1953)


Invisible Blanket - Time (1955)
In the hungry fires of industry, modern man burns nearly 2 billion tons of coal and oil each year. Along with the smoke and soot of commerce, his furnaces belch some 6 billion tons of unseen carbon dioxide into the already tainted air. By conservative estimate, the earth's atmosphere, in the next 127 years, will contain 50% more CO<SUB>²</SUB>

This spreading envelope of gas around the earth, says Johns Hopkins Physicist Gilbert N. Plass, serves as a great greenhouse. Transparent to the radiant heat from the sun, it blocks the longer wave lengths of heat that bounce back from the earth. At its present rate of increase, says Plass, the CO<SUB>²</SUB> in the atmosphere will raise the earth's average temperature 1.5° Fahrenheit every 100 years.

As the blanket of CO<SUB>²</SUB> gets thicker, it also prevents the tops of clouds from losing heat as rapidly as before. The smaller temperature difference between cloud base and top cuts down the air currents which must circulate through the cloud before rain or snow can form. Lowered rainfall will make a drier climate. Less cloud cover will be formed, more sunlight will reach the earth, and the average temperature will rise still higher.

After thousands of years, says Professor Plass, plants and the slow-moving seas will absorb most of the excess CO<SUB>²</SUB>. But for centuries to come, if man's industrial growth continues, the earth's climate will continue to grow warmer.
Carbon Dioxide and Climate - Scientific American (1959)
The geological record indicates that the huge capacity of the biosphere to store and turn over carbon dioxide has also had its effect upon climatic change. We know that plants borrow 60 billion tons of carbon dioxide yearly for photosynthesis. Under present conditions the organic world repays nearly all of this debt each year via respiration and decay. The formation of new fossil fuel deposits withholds at most only 100 million tons of carbon dioxide, or less than .2 per cent of the annual amount used for photosynthesis. At one time, however, the withdrawals were much larger. During the Carboniferous period, when most of the coal and oil deposits were formed, about 1014 tons of carbon dioxide were withdrawn from the atmosphere–ocean system. This staggering loss must have dropped the earth's temperature to chilly levels indeed; it is not surprising that the gigantic glaciers that moved across the earth after this period were perhaps the most extensive in history.

The present capacity of plants to consume carbon dioxide in photosynthesis gives us an interesting clue to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere in bygone ages. Plants are almost perfectly adapted to the spectral range and intensity of the light they receive, yet they grow far more rapidly and luxuriantly in an atmosphere that contains five to 10 times the present carbon dioxide concentration; in fact, florists sometimes release tankfuls of carbon dioxide in greenhouses to promote plant growth. The present carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere must therefore be unusually low. Apparently plant evolution was keyed to some much higher concentration in the atmosphere of the geologic past. This hypothesis is also supported by the known fact that the earth's climate was warmer during most of geologic time; presumably the atmosphere then contained a much higher percentage of carbon dioxide.

Much of the carbon dioxide in the atmospheres of past geologic epochs now lies buried in the carbon dioxide reservoir of the earth itself. The earth's hot springs and volcanoes pour about 100 million tons of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere per year. The earth in turn recaptures approximately the same amount each year by the weathering of rocks. But this equilibrium is upset during periods of mountain-building. In fact, the carbon dioxide theory provides an essential link to explain the timing of the last two glacial epochs with respect to the mountain-building periods that preceded them.

At least several million years intervened between the climax of these mountain-building episodes and the formation of the great ice sheets. If glaciation was brought on only by the elevation of the land or by the slight darkening of the sky with the dust of volcanoes, there should have been no great time lag before the onset of the glaciers, But these upheavals exposed large quantities of igneous rock to the chemical action of the minute amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolved in the rain water that washed over them, Over millions of years the weathering of the rock trapped vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the air. With the atmospheric concentration reduced sufficiently, the temperature fell, permitting the young mountains to provide natural birthplaces for the glaciers that then crept across the earth.

...

In less than 1,000 years, if consumption continues to increase at the current rate, we will have exhausted the currently known reserves of coal and oil. By that time we will have multiplied the carbon dioxide tonnage of the air 18 times. When the ocean–atmosphere system comes back to equilibrium, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air will be 10 times greater than it is today, and the earth will be 22 degrees warmer. In another few thousand years, when the carbonate content of the oceans has reached equilibrium, the concentration will still be four times greater than it is today. The earth's temperature will then fall to about 12.5 degrees above its present average.

Meanwhile the carbon dioxide content of the oceans will have doubled. This raises an incidental question about the welfare of sea organisms. We know that an increase in carbon dioxide concentration increases the acidity of water, and that many marine animals are extremely sensitive to changes in acidity. However, if the carbon dioxide content of the air were to increase sevenfold, the acidity (pH) of sea water would not rise more than .5 above its present value. Thus changes in carbon dioxide concentration, which have such a profound effect on climate, will probably not disturb future marine life. Perhaps only man will be uncomfortable.

We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half-century. Since we now can measure the sun's energy output independent of the distorting influence of the atmosphere, we shall see whether the earth's temperature trend correlates with measured fluctuations in solar radiation. If volcanic dust is the more important factor, then we may observe the earth's temperature following fluctuations in the number of large volcanic eruptions. But if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long-term temperature records will rise continuously as long as man consumes the earth's reserves of fossil fuels.
(This last article is 5 'pages' long. It's good. I only excerpted maybe 1.5 'pages')
( Last edited by Warren Pease; Feb 9, 2009 at 01:39 PM. )
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2009, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
So... I just want to make sure it's climate change now and not global warming. I think it's important to get this down now before future threads.
From the Al Gore thread.

The originator* of the term "Climate Change" is a Republican PR expert PR versus science: the Luntz memo

We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism”. It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation”instead of preservation.

“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
Bold text is from original memo.

He has since changed his tune.
In 2000 the science was not definitive. There were plenty of people at that point who were challenging it.
...
It’s now 2006. Now I think most people will conclude that there is global warming taking place, and that the behaviour of humans is affecting the climate.
(* originator? Did I say that?)
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2009, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
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.
Huh? Did you take your own advice? I went to your link (tho we all know wikipedia is totally untrustworthy when it comes to political matters) and I saw:

Originally Posted by Wiki
Viewpoints expressed in the film

The film's basic premise is that the current scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising.
A number of academics, environmentalists, think-tank consultants and writers are interviewed in the film in support of its various assertions. They include the Canadian environmentalist Patrick Moore, founding member of Greenpeace but for the past 21 years a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; the former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson; and Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster.
Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used.[7]
The only mention I even saw of your claim was:
Originally Posted by Wiki
The authors of the graph were from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, publisher of the Oregon petition in opposition to the greenhouse gas-regulating Kyoto Protocol. The programme's producer Martin Durkin acknowledged that the graph's time axis was mislabelled, indicating that 1988 data were valid through 2000. The graph was corrected in subsequent showings by ending the data series at 1988.[20]
Which means they got one or more graph labels wrong in the video and only in the early showings. I think it's funny that the rebuttals sited on the Wiki page are like:

Originally Posted by Wiki
Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading and Chief Executive of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, commented on the film in New Scientist. He wrote, "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role...Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence."[28]
LOL meaning what? That they (Chief Executives and other profiteering individuals), really expect us to believe that there is no evidence that the Sun warms the Earth? LOL!!!!! Go swimming in the Ocean on a hot summer's day or walk barefoot on the sun-baked black-top. Alan Thorpe is an extreme moron! LOL!!!!
( Last edited by Tesselator; Feb 11, 2009 at 01:35 AM. )
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2009, 03:00 AM
 
The Wiki page goes on to discredit the movie with claims like:
Originally Posted by Wiki
On July 5, 2007, The Guardian reported that Professor Mike Lockwood, a solar physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory had carried out a study, initiated partially in response to The Great Global Warming Swindle, that disproved one of the documentary's key planks — namely that global warming directly correlates to solar activity. Lockwood's study showed that solar activity had diminished subsequent to 1987, despite a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth's surface. The study, to be published in a Royal Society journal, used temperature and solar data recorded from the last 100 years.[31]
In a BBC interview about this study, Lockwood commented on the graphs shown in the documentary:
All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that ... You can't just ignore bits of data that you do not like.
So I rewatched the movie and here are the end graph years listed in order of graph appearance:

Graph #01 Graph Year Edge: 2000+ ("Now")
Graph #02 Graph Year Edge: 2000+ (perhaps 2004)
Graph #03 Graph Year Edge: 2000+ (perhaps 2003)
Graph #04 Graph Year Edge: 2000+ (same graph as #03)
Graph #05 Graph Year Edge: "Present"
Graph #06 Graph Year Edge: 2000+ ("Now" - same as Graph #01)
Graph #07 Graph Year Edge: 2000 (Data ends: 1975 and 1985)
Graph #08 Graph Year Edge: 2000 (Data ends: 1985 and 1997)
Graph #09 Graph Year Edge: 2000+ (Data ends: 2000 and 2002)
Graph #10 Graph Year Edge: 2000+ (Data ends: 2001 and 2001)
Graph #11 Dual Graphs: Graph A Edge: 2000+ (Data ends 2002 and 2000). Graph B Edge 2005 (Data ends 2000 and 2000).

Here's a screenshot of the last graph spotted:


So far all graphs except for two go to 2000 or beyond and the two that don't are interested in data 100 years ago or so.

OK, I'm tired of Graph spotting. This Lockwood a-hole is obviously the monetarily and politically motivated fabricator that this film spoke of in the first 10 min. or so. I'll keep watching till the end of the film (I'm at 80% {50 min.} finished right now) and if I see some that end around 1980 like was claimed I'll jump back in for an edit.

BTW, you can watch the movie here. If the film is BS I'm buying it hook line and sinker! It makes the most sense of anything I've heard on the topic and matches up perfectly with the state of politics and education (academia) in the USA/UK over the past 60 or more years and ESPECIALLY considering the past 8 or 9 years!!! It just fits with everything I think I know.


EDIT: I watched it to the end of the film and #11 was the last Graph. No other graphs were used or reused in the film after my screen grab. LOL! Busted!
( Last edited by Tesselator; Feb 11, 2009 at 03:33 AM. )
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2009, 08:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
EDIT: I watched it to the end of the film and #11 was the last Graph. No other graphs were used or reused in the film after my screen grab. LOL! Busted!
Excellent work Tesselator!

I've long-maintained that folks who resort to such depths of BS are not acting in the interest of global climate or science as much as political climate and politics. Makes you wonder with so much science to "affirm" them, why they'd have to stoop to this degree. Of course, both you and the film you cite do an excellent job of exposing the nonsense. As it is affirmed the globe is cooling, the argument will move from Global Warming to Global Climate Change. I'm already seeing it and as usual, MacNN is ahead of the curve, setting the trend.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2009, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
From the Al Gore thread.

The originator* of the term "Climate Change" is a Republican PR expert PR versus science: the Luntz memo
I'm seeing mostly those defending AGW hype now softening to "climate change". There will be starkly different contexts behind the usage of this verbiage. For the skeptic, climate change is natural and as such we should expect to see it "change" again. For the zealous proponent, evidence of cooling creates doubt on global warming. As evidence of cooling becomes more prominent, using the verbiage "global warming" is not going to carry the same weight in the court of public opinion. You cannot expect one who's been railing on the travesties of consumption as causal of global warming to all of a sudden accept consumption because the globe is cooling. One usage of the term "climate change" is consistent with a view on the issue. The other is a necessary usage to continue an agenda, opposing something else entirely.

Whether or not a Republican PR "expert" at some point advocated the use of "climate change" is irrelevant. For many, it will simply have to move to "climate change". Just wait and see.
ebuddy
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2009, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
EDIT: I watched it to the end of the film and #11 was the last Graph. No other graphs were used or reused in the film after my screen grab. LOL! Busted!
Since you've seen the film, do they source the data used? Every study I've seen does not show the gigantic dip in solar irradiance seen in the Swindle graph.

For example:



Also, I'm glad that they've updated, err, changed their graphs. The first version measured irradiance off some value between 12-9.5 (I assume it's negative because the numbers get bigger as you go from top to bottom, but there appears to be no explanation why), but in the second graph it uses (and I assume this as well, because it's not shown, but the numbers appear to reflect values for) W/m^2.

For everyone's pleasure: NASA satellite archives - daily total solar irradiance
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2009, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Excellent work Tesselator!

I've long-maintained that folks who resort to such depths of BS are not acting in the interest of global climate or science as much as political climate and politics. Makes you wonder with so much science to "affirm" them, why they'd have to stoop to this degree. Of course, both you and the film you cite do an excellent job of exposing the nonsense. As it is affirmed the globe is cooling, the argument will move from Global Warming to Global Climate Change. I'm already seeing it and as usual, MacNN is ahead of the curve, setting the trend.
I somehow don't see any meaningful differences between the two. "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" both indicate to me that the IMF, the International Bankers and the other Nazis running our military industrial complex - Northcom, and etc. wish to cull and control the world population. Calling it "Climate Change" just gives them more wiggle room. They can cull and control with bogus reasons in both directions.

I would feel like a fool if I were the only one thinking this way but there are now 9 states in the USA that feel there is so much evidence to this affect that they are legislating a kind of succession from the union (10th amendment state sovereignty resolution). I myself can site hundreds (hmm, maybe 100) of investigations, declassified federal documents, and recently passed (last 8 years) federal bills that all show strong indications or outright reveal this truth.

I listen to 4 hours a day of government official after government official, historian after historian, and research analyst after research analyst laying it out and warning of these things. The current state of the financial crisis we undergoing was predicted (revealed is a better word I guess) by many different such individuals over the past 10 years. So when the same people as well as others come out now and say it was and is being engineered there's very little room for doubt. When the same people say that global warming or climate change if you want to call it that now, come out and say this is part of the same exact thing - and have been saying that for 8 to ten years that I know of then for me at least there is very little room for doubt about that too.

Here's today's 4 hours: http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Audio/AJ_09_02_11.mp3 For the first year or two that I listened to this stuff I checked and rechecked ALL the claims being made. Some of it (20%) seemed slightly exaggerated but only in the conclusions being drawn. But there was always great merit to every claim and testament. Later seeing how the evidence given unfolded and became reality I stopped checking so vigilantly cuz there was just no need. Generally speaking it was 100% accurate and technically speaking probably like 95% ~ 98% accurate. I pull it down off of http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls or the low bandwidth stream: http://www.infowars.com/stream2.pls

Anyway, over 10 years of this at 4 hours a day 6 days a week with few or no misses containing interview after interview and evidence presentation after evidence presentation which ALL checks out and it just can't be ignored. To me it's overwhelmingly obvious! And the worst thing to me which also stands as yet more evidence imo, is that less than 1 or 2 percent of this info ever even makes it on the (corporate controlled) evening news.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2009, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
Since you've seen the film, do they source the data used? Every study I've seen does not show the gigantic dip in solar irradiance seen in the Swindle graph.
I think they do yes. I didn't pay real close attention this time through but I believe it was mentioned in the dialogue prior to or during the presentation of each graph - though perhaps not every graph.

For example:



Also, I'm glad that they've updated, err, changed their graphs. The first version measured irradiance off some value between 12-9.5 (I assume it's negative because the numbers get bigger as you go from top to bottom, but there appears to be no explanation why), but in the second graph it uses (and I assume this as well, because it's not shown, but the numbers appear to reflect values for) W/m^2.

For everyone's pleasure: NASA satellite archives - daily total solar irradiance
Yeah, I dunno about all that. You're talking over my a head a little and I'm too lazy to go back through and fit/compare your graphs with the one's in the film. I supplied a link to the show if you want to though. I'm a computer scientist, technical writer, and 3D/CG film artist and not an atmospheric cosmologist or whatever. If you think the data is wrong and have some idea of where or why - then you should bring it to light I think. Both here and with the producers. I would. I do know that they said they considered BOTH the satellite data and the weather balloon data. I notice your bottom link is to the satellite data. I assume the satellite data only dates back to the late 60's or so tho right?
( Last edited by Tesselator; Feb 11, 2009 at 11:31 AM. )
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2009, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
Yeah, I dunno about all that. You're talking over my a head a little and I'm too lazy to go back through and fit/compare your graphs with the one's in the film. I supplied a link to the show if you want to though. I'm a computer scientist, technical writer, and 3D/CG film artist and not an atmospheric cosmologist or whatever. If you think the data is wrong and have some idea of where or why - then you should bring it to light I think. Both here and with the producers. I would. I do know that they said they considered BOTH the satellite data and the weather balloon data. I notice your bottom link is to the satellite data. I assume the satellite data only dates back to the late 60's or so tho right?
I hope I'm not talking over your head, especially when it concerns the construction of a simple graph. Especially for someone who calls himself a scientist!
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2009, 12:35 PM
 
OK, well maybe not over my head. But I didn't want to say that your sentences didn't make any sense at all to me. I thought it would appear rude so I just said it was over my head to avoid that. Here's what didn't make sense:

You said "The first version measured irradiance off some value between 12-9.5". What first version? I never saw it so I dunno it. And don't you mean it expressed irradiance as values and not measured irradiance off some values? :-/

Then you said " (I assume it's negative because the numbers get bigger as you go from top to bottom,...". Umm OK. but who knows. If it was an error then it was an error. Right? Are you saying it wasn't an error and that we should spend time discussing some chart I never saw? I guess the people who made the chart are non-technical videographers who had no idea what it was supposed to look like. <shrug>

Then you said "...but in the second graph it uses (and I assume this as well, because it's not shown, but the numbers appear to reflect values for) W/m^2. ". What second graph? I still haven't identified which is the 1st one you are talking about. I saw 11 presentations from probably 8 different graphs. Which one are you talking about? Next, what is W/m^2 and where is W or m on any of the graphs? Huh? What does W and m stand for? It's not obvious to me and why is any of this important anyway?

See what I mean?

Personally I would much rather deal with the big picture. That our government has been hijacked and the direction it's headed in is a global totalitarian dictatorship which aims to control, jail and kill the majority of it's citizens. That global warming or "climate change" is a hoax and just one small means to that end. Is this all an insane delusion? God, I hope so! Is there historical precedence for such a claim? Damn straight there is! Russia, China, and Germany - just in the last century or so. Is there real and tangible evidence that this is indeed the case and is actually happening (again)? Yes, way way WAY too much to be comfortable with. That's all I know.
( Last edited by Tesselator; Feb 11, 2009 at 01:05 PM. )
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2009, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
OK, well maybe not over my head. But I didn't want to say that your sentences didn't make any sense at all to me. I thought it would appear rude so I just said it was over my head to avoid that. Here's what didn't make sense:

You said "The first version measured irradiance off some value between 12-9.5". What first version? I never saw it so I dunno it. And don't you mean it expressed irradiance as values and not measured irradiance off some values? :-/

Then you said " (I assume it's negative because the numbers get bigger as you go from top to bottom,...". Umm OK. but who knows. If it was an error then it was an error. Right? Are you saying it wasn't an error and that we should spend time discussing some chart I never saw?
Here is the graph I posted earlier in the thread (Version 1 of the film) to contrast yours (Version 2). Hopefully, this will clarify the thoughts I had going on in my head.



Then you said "...but in the second graph it uses (and I assume this as well, because it's not shown, but the numbers appear to reflect values for) W/m^2. ". What second graph? I still haven't identified which is the 1st one you are talking about. I saw 11 presentations from probably 8 different graphs. Which one are you talking about? Next, what is W/m^2 and where is W or m on any of the graphs? Huh? What does W and m stand for? It's not obvious to me and why is any of this important anyway?

See what I mean?
That was half my point. The previous version only was labeled 12-9.5. 12-9.5 what? Electrons? Horses? The second version only lists 1374-1367.Where does W/m^2 ( watts per meter squared - the energy we receive from the sun ) show up on the graphs? They don't in the Global Warming Swindle graphs, so a person watching wouldn't know what they mean. That is why I inferred that the graph you posted was W/m^2 because the values of that axis were close to those of the graphs that I posted (which are properly labeled)

If you've had a HS education you know that you always label your axis on a graph.

I guess the people who made the chart are non-technical videographers who had no idea what it was supposed to look like. <shrug>
No, they may not know the science, but they can stitch together a convincing argument apparently!

One of the problems that science has always suffered from is explaining the research simply enough that anyone can understand it. It effectively "dumbs down" the science, and I believe is the reason that many people, on both sides of the debate, have come up with the notion that CO2 is the sole reason for global warming, when it is one only facet of the whole picture, but the one that we, as humans, contribute the most to.
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2009, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
Here is the graph I posted earlier in the thread (Version 1 of the film) to contrast yours (Version 2). Hopefully, this will clarify the thoughts I had going on in my head.
Oh, ok I see.


No, they may not know the science, but they can stitch together a convincing argument apparently!
Well, no. that's two different jobs. There's a writer, an orator, a graphic artist, and a technical supervisor, etc. The artist blew chunks and the tech super missed it is all.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2009, 07:35 PM
 
Sooooo... yet another layperson sees this documentary and says "I don't know anything about the subject, but this makes sense to me!"

Yawn. Sigh. Moving on.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2009, 03:34 PM
 
Why would you jump to that conclusion? It's wrong. Dead wrong. And you can't even properly use double quotations - so am I to assume that you aren't even qualified to comment here at all? No, right? Just because you're not a top notch scholar of the English language and misquoted me terribly does not make your observations (expressed in English) any less valid.

But if you're not adding anything to the discussion I guess "moving on" is probably the best course of action for you and us.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2009, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
... and the tech super missed it is all.
I think "missed it is all" is a little bit of an understatement.

So viewers of the Swindle documentary, which piece of scientific evidence presented clinched it for you?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2009, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
And you can't even properly use double quotations - so am I to assume that you aren't even qualified to comment here at all?
Out of mild curiousity, how did I improperly use the quotations?

And, I've already added plenty to this discussion. You should read the thread from the beginning if you think otherwise.

But, excuse me if I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they start from the position that "global climate change a hoax and one means to the end of a hijacked government and totalitarian world control." I mean please, come on. Discussing climate science with someone of that mentality is like pissing in the wind.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2009, 03:14 AM
 
Warren,
We may never know. At this point we are left only to guess. Unless someone interviews the staff there's just no way of telling. I was speaking from experience having worked on many documentaries. To me that would just be the logical assumption.


Shortcut,
I don't think it's a far reach at all. There's a huge body of politicians, historians, scientists, and joe citizens that support and believe the theory that man-made GW or CC is made up out of thin air for no other reason than to control and restrict commerce (monopolizing), spy on and control individuals, and bring closer the possibility of their STATED totalitarianism goals. By considering everything I've read on the topic I would have to say there's a very good chance that is indeed the case. So under that light discussing one without the other is a little near-sighted at best.

I'm a retired University professor and when one understands the Department Of Education it's not at all difficult to throw out the vast majority of research done concerning man's affect on GW if there is enough evidence of political and/or religious wrangling. Take cosmology as just one example. You were probably taught the Big Bang theory. It's propagated primarily through the DOE by the political and religious groups who depend on its support of their Darwinian views. Yet almost no stalwart cosmologist can support the theory with any earnestly nor has since the late 70's. But what do we all see and hear in school and on the television? It too is a hoax propagated by those who benefit from it - either blindly or knowingly. A growing number of scientists, politicians, historians, and concerned citizens are concluding very similar notions about man made climate change. It's not my fault that you may not find this to your liking. If you're truly interested in this topic then with the true scientific discipline of considering all of the data and possibilities, you will review all of the data and ideas - not just those which support your own opinion - however formed.

PS: You misused quotes when you placed text I did not write inside them and attributed it to me.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2009, 10:30 AM
 
so, just outta curiousity, which theory of the origin of the universe do most stalwart cosmologists support?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2009, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
But, excuse me if I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they start from the position that "global climate change a hoax and one means to the end of a hijacked government and totalitarian world control." I mean please, come on.
Well hey. I've seen inside government (even had lunch with the Minister of Defence one day) and it don't need to be hijacked for these muppets to get a chubby at the prospect of a bit of NWO.

Does any of it make sense any other way when you look at the whole?

I mean, come on, if CO2 and heat was going to bring us famines, then why do we pump commercial greenhouses full of CO2? So the plants in them don't grow too large?

If CO2 is bad for the planet, then why haven't we banned the catalytic convertor?

If CO2 is bad for the planet, then why do most governments spend more on buying cars for African dictators than they do on government programs to find "fossil fuel" replacement technology?

The fact that most countries have introduced a public smoking ban in the same half decade as each other doesn't ring alarm bells with you?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2009, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
so, just outta curiousity, which theory of the origin of the universe do most stalwart cosmologists support?
Big Bang.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2009, 10:28 PM
 
Ah yes...GARBAGE IN - GOSPEL OUT.... lets hear it for unproven computer models. Collect all the data you want, but the methods, and systems are still incorrect. Perhaps the assumptions are wrong? Different species thrive as climate changes. We will be gone someday, to be replaced by giant insects or something. Too bad, so sad. The GW dorks assume they know SO MUCH that they and their conclusions just CAN'T be wrong. Something similar happened to some folks from Harland & Wolff shipyards almost 100 years ago.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2009, 01:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
Shortcut,
I don't think it's a far reach at all. There's a huge body of politicians, historians, scientists, and joe citizens that support and believe the theory that man-made GW or CC is made up out of thin air for no other reason than to control and restrict commerce (monopolizing), spy on and control individuals, and bring closer the possibility of their STATED totalitarianism goals. By considering everything I've read on the topic I would have to say there's a very good chance that is indeed the case. So under that light discussing one without the other is a little near-sighted at best.
Sigh.

I suppose this "huge body" doesn't understand the chemistry behind how CO2 traps heat inside the earth's atmosphere either? Or how we humans get our precious energy from releasing it into said atmosphere? Or how the concentrations in this atmosphere have steadily increased along with the said releasing?

What's not to believe? We are contributing to global warming. That's just a fact. The rest is just a debate on the semantics of "contributing".

I'm a retired University professor and when one understands the Department Of Education it's not at all difficult to throw out the vast majority of research done concerning man's affect on GW if there is enough evidence of political and/or religious wrangling.
What? The US Department of Education is responsible for similarly skewing the independent results of scientists from all around the world? Damn they're good.

Take cosmology as just one example. You were probably taught the Big Bang theory. It's propagated primarily through the DOE by the political and religious groups who depend on its support of their Darwinian views. Yet almost no stalwart cosmologist can support the theory with any earnestly nor has since the late 70's.
Wait... good cosmologists haven't supported a Big Bang-type theory in the past thirty years? Where are you getting this from again? What's your source?


If you're truly interested in this topic then with the true scientific discipline of considering all of the data and possibilities, you will review all of the data and ideas - not just those which support your own opinion - however formed.
And this is what you've done, right? With your Amargeddonish starting point of a "hijacked government and totalitarian world control"? Really sounds like you've explored the "true scientific discipline" there sir, and reviewed all the "data and ideas".

...oh, no, wait. It sounds like you've read some intarweb editorial sites, and maybe some blogs, instead.

Never mind then!



greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Tesselator
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2009, 05:27 AM
 
olePigeon,
Nope!

BadKosh,
Yup!

ShortcutToMoncton,
Being a smart-ass helps you understand this how exactly?
It just so happens that all of your above suppositions are in error.

1) We contribute 0.20 ~ 0.28 % depending on what serious scientist you ask. And the CO2 on planet Earth was responsible for Jupitor's moons warming how exactly? It's a solar system wide phenomena so it stands to reason that it's solar in nature.
2) Yes they are. But I guess it doesn't take a genius to teach incorrect theories, assumptions and propositions in order to create a flawed body of research from those acting therefrom. It helps of course that funding is dolled on political criteria more so and more often, than merit.
3) The majority of serious cosmologists. The term serious excludes the TV personalities the public is fed of course.
4) Yes, I have done that. And no, not "some intarweb editorial sites, and maybe some blogs, instead."

You're batting a thousand in your willful ignorance - I guess that's not working out for you so well. Try something else - like actual open minded study. You're going to have to get out of your rut of just interjecting condescension in reply to anything not in sync with what the mass media has spoon fed you though. Are you capable of that? So far not, I guess we'll see.
( Last edited by Tesselator; Feb 28, 2009 at 05:37 AM. )
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2009, 10:22 AM
 
- Professor Tesselator; It's Jupiter's moons, not Jupitor's moons.

- Greg; the problem with this is that current science on climate change is a one-size-fits-all discipline. As mentioned before, the dire predictions made by the IPCC don't have to be challenged outright. You don't have to risk financial or popular support by "debunking" or even arguing whether the source of change is anthropogenic. What you can do is offer science that morphs the debate on climate itself. Take this study for example, nature

You'll notice (and you're generally quick to point it out) that this study still supports the notion of anthropogenic contribution, while essentially saying that climate modeling is errant; missing crucial information related to subsurface ocean data. They further go on to say that the effects of global warming over the coming decades will be modified by shorter-term climate variability. In other words, the IPCC predictions were wrong. How profound can AGW be if natural variability will (as it always has) offset it? You'll likely argue that the article clearly states "short term", but in fact evidence suggests natural variability will take precedent long term. In other words, the climate was changing before the Industrial Age.

You would argue that the motivations of those skeptical of the science are financial, popular, and political; oil industry apologists willing to throw the globe on the table for a buck, as if these characteristics are exclusive to skeptics and not to a science in its infancy and politicians waiting to exploit it for their own agenda. Why is it black helicopters are acceptable with regard to critical analysis of science and laughable regarding the potential misuse of science itself?
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2009, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
ShortcutToMoncton,
Being a smart-ass helps you understand this how exactly?
Well it certainly makes it more interesting to cover the same ground over and over again.

It just so happens that all of your above suppositions are in error.

1) We contribute 0.20 ~ 0.28 % depending on what serious scientist you ask.
Do you mean... 20-28%? In another words, .20 to .28? I've never seen any serious climate scientist say less than one percent. Please give me a link or direction to these "serious scientists" you're referring to so I can read their reasoning.

And the CO2 on planet Earth was responsible for Jupitor's moons warming how exactly? It's a solar system wide phenomena so it stands to reason that it's solar in nature.
*snort*

We've lived on Planet Earth for tens of thousands of years, we've been studying our natural surroundings for at least a couple thousand years, and we've been quantifiably measuring for the past couple hundred or so. We've got fancy satellites, we've got fancy thermometers, we've got thousands upon thousands of people all over the world in disciplines like biology, physics, mathematics, computer programming, chemistry, climatology, geology, yadda yadda yadda all doing work on the subject.

And all these people are saying "hey: greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere. That's what they do. And humans have been solely responsible for releasing a crazy crapload more of greenhouse gasses over the past few hundred years, which is trapping heat and warming the planet in a way that isn't explained by solar mechanisms as we currently understand them".

And you'd like to discount all this because... Jupiter's moons might be warming? Or Mars? Do you know how little we know about those planets, or the way their atmosphere works? Hell, from Jupiter's moons I bet our Sun doesn't look any different than just another bright star in the sky... ya think that might mean a significant difference from how we understand "climate" on Earth?

2) Yes they are. But I guess it doesn't take a genius to teach incorrect theories, assumptions and propositions in order to create a flawed body of research from those acting therefrom. It helps of course that funding is dolled on political criteria more so and more often, than merit.
You're seriously claiming that the US Department of Education is causing scientists around the world to skew their results?

Did you just read that last sentence? I said around the world. Could you please explain how the US Department of Edumacation is responsible for influencing climate scientists in India, Denmark and Germany to forgo their pride in what they do and produce incorrect results which are nonetheless remarkably consistent in their inconsistencies?

Oh yes, and I also said Department of Education, which doesn't even fund all of the high-end climate science in the US. (See: NASA.) But I assume the big, bad wolf extends there as well...?

3) The majority of serious cosmologists. The term serious excludes the TV personalities the public is fed of course.
Once again, I'll ask for some links. Or some names. You claim you're the retired professor; then you should know the value of citation.

4) Yes, I have done that. And no, not "some intarweb editorial sites, and maybe some blogs, instead."
Once again, then you should have no problems with providing sources and/or citations to back up your claims which run contrary to thousands of scientific publications, hmmmm?

You're batting a thousand in your willful ignorance - I guess that's not working out for you so well. Try something else - like actual open minded study. You're going to have to get out of your rut of just interjecting condescension in reply to anything not in sync with what the mass media has spoon fed you though. Are you capable of that? So far not, I guess we'll see.
Mass media? Who said anything about mass media? The studying I've done on the subject has been from university textbooks, university professors, scientific publications, and blogs by scientists at NASA and other climatology centres. Hell, I've got the American Meteorological Society's Online Weather Studies textbook on the bookshelf by my elbow, which I found quite helpful in edumacating me about how weather and climate systems work.

But you know, funny: I haven't heard much about "totalitarian world control" from these sources. So maybe they're all in on the Big Lie™?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2009, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
- Greg; the problem with this is that current science on climate change is a one-size-fits-all discipline. As mentioned before, the dire predictions made by the IPCC don't have to be challenged outright. You don't have to risk financial or popular support by "debunking" or even arguing whether the source of change is anthropogenic. What you can do is offer science that morphs the debate on climate itself. Take this study for example, nature

You'll notice (and you're generally quick to point it out) that this study still supports the notion of anthropogenic contribution, while essentially saying that climate modeling is errant; missing crucial information related to subsurface ocean data. They further go on to say that the effects of global warming over the coming decades will be modified by shorter-term climate variability. In other words, the IPCC predictions were wrong. How profound can AGW be if natural variability will (as it always has) offset it? You'll likely argue that the article clearly states "short term", but in fact evidence suggests natural variability will take precedent long term. In other words, the climate was changing before the Industrial Age.
I don't think anyone doesn't believe that climate didn't always change.

That study created quite a bit of debate as well. It'll be interesting to see how far the climate pans out in their favour over the next 6 years.

You would argue that the motivations of those skeptical of the science are financial, popular, and political; oil industry apologists willing to throw the globe on the table for a buck, as if these characteristics are exclusive to skeptics and not to a science in its infancy and politicians waiting to exploit it for their own agenda. Why is it black helicopters are acceptable with regard to critical analysis of science and laughable regarding the potential misuse of science itself?
Of course, they're not. You've just got to show them, that's all. Unfortunately that burden of proof seems a little easier with the skeptic side.

Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
I mean, come on, if CO2 and heat was going to bring us famines, then why do we pump commercial greenhouses full of CO2? So the plants in them don't grow too large?
Oh come on, this is a deliberate red herring from you. You know as well as I do that global warming is expected to bring about worldwide climate change, in weather patterns as well as temperatures. Plants don't like that.

If CO2 is bad for the planet, then why haven't we banned the catalytic convertor?
You also know the answer to this: nitrous oxides and carbon monoxide.

If CO2 is bad for the planet, then why do most governments spend more on buying cars for African dictators than they do on government programs to find "fossil fuel" replacement technology?
Question: would you evaluate the legitimacy of any other issue based on how well governments have responded to it?

I thought not.

The fact that most countries have introduced a public smoking ban in the same half decade as each other doesn't ring alarm bells with you?
Yeah, seems to indicate a widespread recognition that it's an activity that causes a massive drain on socialist healthcare systems, and not always only to the people doing it.

Logical?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2009, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Question: would you evaluate the legitimacy of any other issue based on how well governments have responded to it?
Yes, of course. If a government is pushing for changes then I always look at every angle of it.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Yeah, seems to indicate a widespread recognition that it's an activity that causes a massive drain on socialist healthcare systems, and not always only to the people doing it.

Logical?
No, not logical. If that was the reason, they'd just ban smoking altogether. But then they can't do that because tax revenues from smoking exceed the smoking-related health care expenditures in every country by a wide margin.

It's all about control, same as all this green nonsense.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2009, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
]





Both are equally true, or equally untrue. Both theories of pollution and climate change are supported by a large body of scientific evidence.

Thats a false dichotomy. How can you say that the "theories" (which one is not) are either both true or not true? Correct me if i've misunderstood what you've said...

Let me first point out that pollution is not a theory but a noun. There is no theory of pollution. To argue that there is would be strictly semantic argument and would serve no practical purpose. Humans create waste which in terms of the environment is pollution. Its effects are up for theory and debate but pollution itself is not.

Global warming is but a theory. Unless you mean the denotation of the term (ie. the earth gets warmer) but that depends on what context whomever is using the term is in. I think its safe to say for our purposes that no one here means it in that context.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2009, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I see there's a Classroom version of An Inconvenient Truth with a worksheet. Here's a link to it.

It doesn't state anywhere on the worksheet that humans are responsible for Global Warming.
Not explicitly. but if you look at the questions...its implied.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:45 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,