The Great Global Warming Swindle

[jo172]

For anyone interested in hearing the other side of the global warming debate this (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html) is well worth taking a look at. Is a Channel 4 doco showing that anthromorphic global warming is at best a guess and at worst a conspiracy.

Some interesting facts most notable that humans are responsible for at most .054% of all Carbon Dioxide emissions (most comes from the oceans of all things) and that many scientists who international bodies claim support Global Warming are less then completely sure.

Anywho the ABC is showing it at 8:30 on July 12th and with all the global warming hysteria about i think everyone at least owes themself the chance to hear a balanced view.

[Kickin_Goals]

Oh no not the horrible conspiracy to encourage people against polluting and rolling around in their own filth.
What a horrible atrocity....
The inefficient management of resources strip mining and cooling of the earths surface aids in killing off natural purifying effects of the ecosystem.
People are thought to generally not be intelligent enough to recognize the indirect cause and results of such things and so are given easy answers in the AL Gore before/after picture point at emissions form.
750 times more oxygen is burned by a car then a person in an hour, it is not just the emissions them self but the use of non-renewable energy in burning as a whole as well as the moving of these things.
Currently we are destroying rain forests at the speed of a constant meteor shower destroying habitats and killing various animals.
The earth travels an eliptical orbit which brings us closer to the sun at times, as well the sun as well as our planet are expanding, I'm sure that makes certain things more apparent.
If the climate of the antarctic continues on it's way the Ross Ice shelf will sink and this will cause the oceans to rise and flood us.

[Southerntakeover]

Sponsored by Halliburton im sure.

There were also 'scientific studies' which denied smoking caused cancer.

[jo172]

Sponsored by Halliburton im sure.

There were also 'scientific studies' which denied smoking caused cancer.

As opposed to the 2 hour long Vote Gore 2008 election commercial:rolleyes:

[Kickin_Goals]

There will be another movie out called the 11th hour which was to be aired at the cannes film festival, it likely will have better information.

[jo172]

There will be another movie out called the 11th hour which was to be aired at the cannes film festival, it likely will have better information.

Good, what is needed on Global Warming is more debate on BOTH sides. Too many people accept anthromorphic global warming as fait accompli when it is far from it.

[Kickin_Goals]

Regardless of what is said, to think that we are separate from our environment is a fallacy.
Our bodies are entirely comprised of the nourishment we take from it and all adverse conditions in it are reflected in our self and vise versa.
Not to efficiently manage our planet is to pollute and degrade our self.

[jo172]

Regardless of what is said, to think that we are separate from our environment is a fallacy.
Our bodies are entirely comprised of the nourishment we take from it and all adverse conditions in it are reflected in our self and vise versa.

Indeed, but my premise is that we can burn as much carbon dioxide as possible without affecting our environment. Solar activity is more responsible for climate change then Carbon Dioxide emissions which are irrelevant. In Humanity's greatest period of industrialization the temperature dropped for 30 straight years!

Yes we should take care of the environement, especially trees, the ecosystem etc. but to blame everything on ManBearPig is a joke.

[Southerntakeover]

Indeed, but my premise is that we can burn as much carbon dioxide as possible without affecting our environment. Solar activity is more responsible for climate change then Carbon Dioxide emissions which are irrelevant. In Humanity's greatest period of industrialization the temperature dropped for 30 straight years!

Yes we should take care of the environement, especially trees, the ecosystem etc. but to blame everything on ManBearPig is a joke.

You do realise that the period of cooling is also attributed to human activity?

[jo172]

You do realise that the period of cooling is also attributed to human activity?

No it was actually related to an increase in cosmic rays being propelled from the sun:thumbsu:

[jo172]

Southern Takeover can you please explain why Mars, Jupiter and Neptune are warming at a similar rate to Earth?

Does this mean that man is flying to these planets and somehow causing this warming too?

While man and carbon isn't neccasarily great for the environment it is not the reason for climate change, climate change occurs naturally due to the sun!

[Southerntakeover]

No it was actually related to an increase in cosmic rays being propelled from the sun:thumbsu:

Before i even begin to get into this debate, can you atleast agree that the pumping of pollutants into the atmosphere is a bad thing, if not for global warming, simply for the detrimental effects that they can have on our health?

[jo172]

Before i even begin to get into this debate, can you atleast agree that the pumping of pollutants into the atmosphere is a bad thing, if not for global warming, simply for the detrimental effects that they can have on our health?

I agree completely. I am at heart an environmentalist.

I just get offended by the far left trying to pervert rational facts and argument with doomsday hypothesis for their own political gain. Anyone who doesn't believe Al Gore is just doing this because he knew he was politically dead if he didn't is beyond thick. Man Made global warming is so far away from being a fact. humanity is damaged by anyone who wants to examine the alternative arguments being ridiculed.

[Southerntakeover]

Im reminded of this cartoon.

http://aycu37.webshots.com/image/9596/2003851011736378004_rs.jpg

[Southerntakeover]

I agree completely. I am at heart an environmentalist.

I just get offended by the far left trying to pervert rational facts and argument with doomsday hypothesis for their own political gain. Anyone who doesn't believe Al Gore is just doing this because he knew he was politically dead if he didn't is beyond thick. Man Made global warming is so far away from being a fact. humanity is damaged by anyone who wants to examine the alternative arguments being ridiculed.

Your labelling of Al Gore as the 'far left' is slightly hillarious.

[jo172]

Your labelling of Al Gore as the 'far left' is slightly hillarious.

It just looks like that because i'm tired, Al Gore isn't the far left but the far left is keen to claim him as a patron saint. Al Gore is just a political animal exploiting this issue for his own personal gain.

And on your theory about scientists all agreeing on the exsistance of Man Made Global Warming. This is completely incorrect. Many disagree and submitted their views to the IPCC but did not get published and many climate change rationalists struggle to get grants for their research because governments fear offending the vocal minority. The founder of Greenpeace himself acknowledges global warming hysteria is completely unreasonable.

[Southerntakeover]

And on your theory about scientists all agreeing on the exsistance of Man Made Global Warming. This is completely incorrect. Many disagree and submitted their views to the IPCC but did not get published and many climate change rationalists struggle to get grants for their research because governments fear offending the vocal minority. The founder of Greenpeace himself acknowledges global warming hysteria is completely unreasonable.

Actually, you've made that up. I never said anything of the sort. I would never try to claim that theres unanimous agreement for anything in the scientific community. I also dont think its needed.

You on the other hand appear to be attempting to form some sort of a conspiracy theory by suggesting that the contradicting views were ignored by the IPCC simply because they did not agree, rather than the many other possible reasons why these views werent accepted. If you can provide solid evidence that a credible study by relevant scientists was ignored purely because it provided a conclusion that climate change is not impacted by human activity, then id be interested in seeing it. In fact, if you can provide me a copy of such a study full stop i would be interested.

[- PC -]

Anyone who doesn't believe Al Gore is just doing this because he knew he was politically dead if he didn't is beyond thick..

Not going to try and argue your belief on the environment, I would like to correct you on this point.

Al Gore may be using this platform as a 2008 Election gimmick, but to say he is only doing this to get re-elected is to not understand Gores past.

From Wiki

According to a February 27, 2007 article in The Concord Monitor, "Gore was one of the first politicians to grasp the seriousness of climate change and to call for a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases. He held the first congressional hearings on the subject in the late 1970s."[49] During his tenure in Congress, Gore co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste in 1978–79, and hearings on global warming in the 1980s.[50]

On Earth Day 1994, Gore launched the worldwide GLOBE program, a hands-on, school-based education and science activity that made extensive use of the Internet to increase student awareness of their environment and contribute research data for scientists.

In the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Treaty, which called for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.[51][52] He was opposed by the Senate, which passed unanimously (95-0) the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[53][54] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[55] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

( ie he was defeated by his own party in his fight for Kyoto)

Now continue on with your beliefs but please dont paint Al Gore as some Johnny Come Lately who has jumped on this bandwagon just recently :)

[jo172]

Not going to try and argue your belief on the environment, I would like to correct you on this point.

Al Gore may be using this platform as a 2008 Election gimmick, but to say he is only doing this to get re-elected is to not understand Gores past.

From Wiki

According to a February 27, 2007 article in The Concord Monitor, "Gore was one of the first politicians to grasp the seriousness of climate change and to call for a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases. He held the first congressional hearings on the subject in the late 1970s."[49] During his tenure in Congress, Gore co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste in 1978–79, and hearings on global warming in the 1980s.[50]

On Earth Day 1994, Gore launched the worldwide GLOBE program, a hands-on, school-based education and science activity that made extensive use of the Internet to increase student awareness of their environment and contribute research data for scientists.

In the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Treaty, which called for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.[51][52] He was opposed by the Senate, which passed unanimously (95-0) the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[53][54] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[55] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

( ie he was defeated by his own party in his fight for Kyoto)

Now continue on with your beliefs but please dont paint Al Gore as some Johnny Come Lately who has jumped on this bandwagon just recently :)

So a guy with roughly 30 years in public life has achieved perhaps 5 significant things?

I'm sure if you went back into John Howard's past you could also find him being at the center of 5 pro-environment policies. Does that make him an environmentalist?

In 8 years as Vice President he achieved 0 and i'm willing to bet that had he been elected President no achievment would have been added.

Gore is a shameless political animal who knew he would never get another shot at national office without a hot button issue in which to scare the public. What he has done is no different to what Messrs Bush and Cheney have done with terrorism, exxagerate the threat beyond all rational reasons so that open debate on the topic is impossible.

Actually, you've made that up. I never said anything of the sort. I would never try to claim that theres unanimous agreement for anything in the scientific community. I also dont think its needed.

I think i interpreted that from your little cartoon.

If you can provide solid evidence that a credible study by relevant scientists was ignored purely because it provided a conclusion that climate change is not impacted by human activity, then id be interested in seeing it. In fact, if you can provide me a copy of such a study full stop i would be interested.

Do scientists telling a camera that they didn't agree with the IPCC's results yet were quoted as agreeing count as a study? If so head to youtube and search the thread title.

[- PC -]

So a guy with roughly 30 years in public life has achieved perhaps 5 significant things?

I'm sure if you went back into John Howard's past you could also find him being at the center of 5 pro-environment policies. Does that make him an environmentalist?

In 8 years as Vice President he achieved 0 and i'm willing to bet that had he been elected President no achievment would have been added.



I think minimalising it to '' 5 things in 30 years'' is stretching the truth a little. What I attempted to show you was that your original statement was incorrect.

Al Gore DOES have a history of commitment to the environment. His party doesnt

[NikkiNoo]

Maybe have a read of this article as well Jo - http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

[Southerntakeover]

I think i interpreted that from your little cartoon.



Do scientists telling a camera that they didn't agree with the IPCC's results yet were quoted as agreeing count as a study? If so head to youtube and search the thread title.

Then your interpretation skills are poor. The cartoon itself shows that scientists dont agree unanimously.

So your credible study is a youtube video? Can you verify that the people are who they say they are? Have you found a credible scientific study yet?

[jozeph]

I think we've been swindled in the SE over global warming, it is freezing down here, has been for months, must be the coldest winter i've endured for 30 years, explain that with a 3 hour movie Al Gore.

[jo172]

Then your interpretation skills are poor. The cartoon itself shows that scientists dont agree unanimously.

So your credible study is a youtube video? Can you verify that the people are who they say they are? Have you found a credible scientific study yet?

Mate it's not a youtube video as such, it's a Channel 4 documentary that's been screened on the ABC in a couple of weeks. That's the equivalent of calling An Inconvenient Truth a youtube video as segments of it are on youtube.

Some articles worth having a look at are:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

[KUNG FU]

I think we've been swindled in the SE over global warming, it is freezing down here, has been for months, must be the coldest winter i've endured for 30 years, explain that with a 3 hour movie Al Gore.

One of the great dangers of global warming is that it produces more extreme weather conditions. So, although the globe as a whole will warm, there will also be inordinately cool temperatures in some regions. The raise in overall temperature sets off a number of chain reactions.

[jenny61_99]

One of the great dangers of global warming is that it produces more extreme weather conditions. So, although the globe as a whole will warm, there will also be inordinately cool temperatures in some regions. The raise in overall temperature sets off a number of chain reactions.

And we can all validate that our weather has been at extremes! We had days of 31 in late May in Brisbane, and then in June - just 3 weeks later, experienced a day where the maximum got no higher than 10! :eek: We have had two separate days of good solid rainfall in the last two years! Our dams are at 17% - the lowest in recorded history. You can't get much more extreme than that!

[NikkiNoo]

Mate it's not a youtube video as such, it's a Channel 4 documentary that's been screened on the ABC in a couple of weeks. That's the equivalent of calling An Inconvenient Truth a youtube video as segments of it are on youtube.

Some articles worth having a look at are:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

Jo have a good look at the link I provided and maybe look into the history of the director of the 'documentary' who Channel 4 had to apologise for screening his last documentary where he compared environmentalists to Nazis! :eek:

One of the scientists (Wunsch) who appeared it it has asked that he be removed from it as he has been misrepresentated, plus what they told him it was about and what it really was about was vastly different. Plus the titles of some of the other scientists used in it are not correct. There is no such School of Climatology at the University of Winnepeg. Most of the Scientists used in this film have not had their science peer reviewed and in fact many of them have never tried to have it peer reviewed. Mainly because they accept money from companies who need coal etc to survive.

The science that they are using is also very flawed.

There is this site as well that provides some other discussion on the subject - http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/03/11/the-great-global-warming-swindle/

[jo172]

Jo have a good look at the link I provided and maybe look into the history of the director of the 'documentary' who Channel 4 had to apologise for screening his last documentary where he compared environmentalists to Nazis! :eek:

Yeah, i read that, no question the bloke is biased and somewhat insane but it was interesting to hear from one of the founders of Greenpeace in the doco saying the exact same thing, pretty much that the environmental movement has turned into a political movement who value "a whale ahead of a human"

Most of the Scientists used in this film have not had their science peer reviewed and in fact many of them have never tried to have it peer reviewed. Mainly because they accept money from companies who need coal etc to survive.


Movie did raise a good point in that no government sponsored work is ever going to come out with any different hypothesis on climate change due to the possible shaming of the government. Scientists who don't believe in climate change are treated like lepers and cannot get funding, of course they have to turn to companies with a vested interest in their research to gain funding.

[Southerntakeover]

Mate it's not a youtube video as such, it's a Channel 4 documentary that's been screened on the ABC in a couple of weeks. That's the equivalent of calling An Inconvenient Truth a youtube video as segments of it are on youtube.

Some articles worth having a look at are:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

When you're telling me to search youtube for information, your credibility in a serious debate is lessened. Also, for the record, that link you provided is to a piece, which hasnt been published, written by Spencer Weart, who as far as i can see isnt a Climatologist. I also wonder if you read the whole thing.

In the mean time, you could also try responding to the article Nikki provided which demonstrates some of the flaws in the documentary.

[Southerntakeover]

Movie did raise a good point in that no government sponsored work is ever going to come out with any different hypothesis on climate change due to the possible shaming of the government. Scientists who don't believe in climate change are treated like lepers and cannot get funding, of course they have to turn to companies with a vested interest in their research to gain funding.

Thats a conspiracy theory where one need not exist.

Could it not be that the theories of these scientists simply arent credible, and dont deserve public funding?

[NikkiNoo]

Movie did raise a good point in that no government sponsored work is ever going to come out with any different hypothesis on climate change due to the possible shaming of the government. Scientists who don't believe in climate change are treated like lepers and cannot get funding, of course they have to turn to companies with a vested interest in their research to gain funding.

Jo those statements prove that you have no idea about research, especially government funded research. I work for a Research Office, so just trust me on this.

Those scientists take those companies monies and they could send their results off to be peer reviewed but they do not. Why not, because it would not stand up to peer review. It is poor science in most cases.

[jo172]

Jo those statements prove that you have no idea about research, especially government funded research. I work for a Research Office, so just trust me on this.

Those scientists take those companies monies and they could send their results off to be peer reviewed but they do not. Why not, because it would not stand up to peer review. It is poor science in most cases.

Look i'm tired of arguing with you all (i had a very hard game today) and you all make a lot of good points.

What alarms me is most posters in this thread's reluctance to even consider alternate points of view because it is too far from the norm. This is the same as the 1400's the world is flat thinking. Healthy debate of facts and issues should be encouraged not stamped on.

And i don't care what anyone says, watch the day of the Live Earth concerts for the Gorichal to announce he's running for President, then from day 1 of the Gore Presidency watch him forget about this issue as it becomes too hard.

[NikkiNoo]

Jo I look and see if it has been peer reviewed. Those scientists that have appeared in the doco have not have peer reviewed science. Until they put it out there and stop being talking heads that are funded by companies that are not after good science but science that backs up their interests only, I will not give it much credence.

[Southerntakeover]

Look i'm tired of arguing with you all (i had a very hard game today) and you all make a lot of good points.

What alarms me is most posters in this thread's reluctance to even consider alternate points of view because it is too far from the norm. This is the same as the 1400's the world is flat thinking. Healthy debate of facts and issues should be encouraged not stamped on.

And i don't care what anyone says, watch the day of the Live Earth concerts for the Gorichal to announce he's running for President, then from day 1 of the Gore Presidency watch him forget about this issue as it becomes too hard.

No, see you've got it backwards.

By denying climate change you are playing the role of the man warning us not to fall off the edge of the world.

Healthy debate would be welcomed. Unfortunately those who deny it are not taking place in a healthy debate. Suggesting a course of inaction to a major societal dilemma, based upon nothing more than poor science and fear of 'left wingers' is at best ignorant, and at worst dangerous.

[- PC -]

What alarms me is most posters in this thread's reluctance to even consider alternate points of view because it is too far from the norm. .

If you look at my post history on this subject on the SRP boards you will see I take a little from column A and a little from column B.

I do think man has made some mistakes in the way he has treated the earth, I also dont think it can all be blamed on pollution. Rampant population growth is the most prevalent factor ( imo ) in most of this

[jozeph]

One of the great dangers of global warming is that it produces more extreme weather conditions. So, although the globe as a whole will warm, there will also be inordinately cool temperatures in some regions. The raise in overall temperature sets off a number of chain reactions.

And you know this how, have you experienced other global warming scenarios in previous ice ages?, ffiw i think its great that the polar ice caps are melting, at least the evaporation is causing rain which is falling into our catchments.

[- PC -]

i think its great that the polar ice caps are melting, at least the evaporation is causing rain which is falling into our catchments.

Ohhh kay

Walks away whistling

[KUNG FU]

I wish I could remember the name of the doco, but in the SBS "Future" series that ran a couple months ago there was a really good doco about climate change sceptics. To put it simply, most of the scientific sceptics on climate change are the exact same people who were smoking causes cancer sceptics, usually retired scientists who specialised in other fields and driven by PR companies. But I can't remember its name. It was good.

[Southerntakeover]

I wish I could remember the name of the doco, but in the SBS "Future" series that ran a couple months ago there was a really good doco about climate change sceptics. To put it simply, most of the scientific sceptics on climate change are the exact same people who were smoking causes cancer sceptics, usually retired scientists who specialised in other fields and driven by PR companies. But I can't remember its name. It was good.

Yeah, i remember seeing that myself. Thats why whenever im linked to an article trying to deny climate change i always try to look up the authors credentials. Yet to find one that actually stacks up.

[Capitalist]

i read somewhere that if all the icecaps melted we would lose something like 8% of total land because we would actually get a whole continent back (antartica) and other countries like Greenland would be inhabitable.

but these things happen

[Pie eyed]

If you think there could not be any reason why "Governments" who historically do not give a S**T about anything environmental eg: US and Australian, are all of a sudden accepting all "science" on the matter then have a think about their preferred option to deal with the alledged problem.

They want to set up a "World Market" where "Carbon Credits" can be bought and sold to offset "Carbon" load.
The only thing stopping this from becoming a full blown industry is they are making sure that right people profit from the commissions on the transactions.

Imagine a Global Market which profits by making commissions on trade in a commodity which may or may not exist.

Works something like this...You plant a tree (Carbon Sync) and I will give you $1.00..ei. I purchase 1 carbon credit...I then sell this credit to the Steel Industry for $2.00 and they can burn the equivalent of 1 tree's worth of carbon in the form of coal or fuel oil.

The trick here would be to Grow the sapplings to sell to you in the first place and also mine and sell the coal the steel industry needs to power it's furnaces.


Lets have a look..
I grow a sapling.... $0.05 cost to Me
I sell it to you...... $7.50 $3.00 to the nursery, $4.50 to Me
I give buy your Carbon Credit $1.00 cost to Me
I sell your Carbon credit to BHP $5.00 to Me
I sell coal to BHP $10.00 to Me

Every one in the chain has done the right thing environmentally and feels good about themselves.
I have made a neat profit from basically do nothing but playing along.

The exact same effect environmentally could be obtained if you just planted a tree and the Government gave your a $1.00 rebate


Total Gross I Make $18.45
Government Cut $ 8.12
Total Nett Profit to me $10.33




The reason Governments are doddering around at Kyoto and the likes is that they are trying to decide who gets to be "Me" and how much the Government Cut will be.

What are the chances that John Howard will become and Environmental..(Carbon Trading) Consultant once he retires.

[ThePeckers]

The world is screwed. Because 1. China is growing so fast and 2. Because China is growing so fast


The world just can't handle another 1 billion consumers. In a non mean way the world needs China to be poor. There is some doco that said with every problem we fix another arises and when it comes down to it the world is just to overpopulated.

[Crow-mo]

Sponsored by Halliburton im sure.

There were also 'scientific studies' which denied smoking caused cancer.

dude,

the 'science' behind this greenhouse/global warming thing never existed.

that's not to say the idealogy is a bad thing, being more environmentally friendly, recycling, carbon focussed etc is all good. we should do that, can't imaging anyone would disagree.

but there has never been any scientific basis behind it.

[Southerntakeover]

dude,

the 'science' behind this greenhouse/global warming thing never existed.

that's not to say the idealogy is a bad thing, being more environmentally friendly, recycling, carbon focussed etc is all good. we should do that, can't imaging anyone would disagree.

but there has never been any scientific basis behind it.

Well i always respect your opinion, as its usually well backed up. Im interested on what leads you to say this though. So whats your take on why most major scientific bodies have reports accepting climate change?

[jenny61_99]

If you look at my post history on this subject on the SRP boards you will see I take a little from column A and a little from column B.

I do think man has made some mistakes in the way he has treated the earth, I also dont think it can all be blamed on pollution. Rampant population growth is the most prevalent factor ( imo ) in most of this

Kind of a little OT here, but when I lived in Toronto Canada (on Lake Ontario) we followed an experiment being conducted by scientists (hired by the auto industry in Detroit) to try to prove that Lake Ontario was not polluted (despite the fact that it no longer froze over during winter - which it had done for 200 years). Anyways they released one dozen white ducks into the Lake and were going to monitor them over a 6 month period. At the end of the first WEEK - half the ducks were already dead and the other half were BLACK and couldn't move due to the pollution weighing them down. :rolleyes:

The fact that glaciers are receding rapidly must be some proof of global warming surely? Athabasca Glacier has markers showing it's rapidly shrinking size over the last 40 years (something like 20 times + faster than the previous 40).

[jenny61_99]

Look i'm tired of arguing with you all (i had a very hard game today) and you all make a lot of good points.

What alarms me is most posters in this thread's reluctance to even consider alternate points of view because it is too far from the norm. This is the same as the 1400's the world is flat thinking. Healthy debate of facts and issues should be encouraged not stamped on.

And i don't care what anyone says, watch the day of the Live Earth concerts for the Gorichal to announce he's running for President, then from day 1 of the Gore Presidency watch him forget about this issue as it becomes too hard.

Everyone would stand up and listen IF the opposition to Global Warming could provide concrete evidence to prove it is not happening. At the moment they cannot and people tend to be fairly cynical when research is "funded" by companies that will lose if we keep pushing for a cleaner society.

[jo172]

The fact that glaciers are receding rapidly must be some proof of global warming surely? Athabasca Glacier has markers showing it's rapidly shrinking size over the last 40 years (something like 20 times + faster than the previous 40).

I don't think there is any debate as to whether Global Warming exsists, just whether it is anthromorphic.

[YOTC]

Way to fight the Good Fight Jo!!

People love to believe they are destroying the world. I've got some bad news for you. You are not destroying the world.

Guess what happens when a tree dies, where does all that carbon dioxide it's absorbed go? Thats right, straight back into the atmosphere.

There has been weather changes from the start of time, There has been hotter periods on Earth.

The Artic and Antartic wouldn't be the size they are without the Ice Age.

[Crow-mo]

Well i always respect your opinion, as its usually well backed up. Im interested on what leads you to say this though. So whats your take on why most major scientific bodies have reports accepting climate change?

ok, fair enough. that's not my point.

the climate is changing, it has been changing for millions of years. we had an ice age once ;)

there have been many things written and presented over here on this subject, and again I'd say anything that causes us to behave 'better' is a good thing.

regarding the ice age thingy, I heard one cambridge professor about a year ago, say that the earth has been changing for millions of years, long before we got here, and that it was the height of arrogance in a lot of ways to think we have anything to do with this.

it is generally accepted that the amount of man made greenhouse gases are tiny, and if that's the case (it is) any variation on that is not going to make much difference either way. it's one of the principle reasons why getting countries to sign up to the kyoto treaty and similar is so difficult, global warming is a nice political device, but you wouldn't want to stand behind it in an economic sense.

best of all, there was a BBC special on the subject about 2 or 3 months ago, and one guy (must've known what he was talking about, he had a white coat, and a beard and everything :D ) was saying that there is a natural lag between the cause and effect in the environment. what we do today, doesn't take effect immediately. his research estimated that delay at 800 years! which intuitively makes sense to me, though I am no scientist.

there are all sorts of things like that out there. things are changing, they have always changed, and our role in it is very speculative at the moment. According to many scientists I have seen or read on the subject, there is next to no real science being used to promote these agendas. Which is ok by me, as I don't think that is any reason to not conduct ourselves responsibly either way.

my personal view on what drives these things? hubris and folly of the human condition, that likes to believe it is in charge of all elements of the world around, and if something is our fault, then in turn it follows that we can fix it. If we don't have much of a say in things, then how can we prevent further change?

[jenny61_99]

ok, fair enough. that's not my point.

the climate is changing, it has been changing for millions of years. we had an ice age once ;)

there have been many things written and presented over here on this subject, and again I'd say anything that causes us to behave 'better' is a good thing.

regarding the ice age thingy, I heard one cambridge professor about a year ago, say that the earth has been changing for millions of years, long before we got here, and that it was the height of arrogance in a lot of ways to think we have anything to do with this.

it is generally accepted that the amount of man made greenhouse gases are tiny, and if that's the case (it is) any variation on that is not going to make much difference either way. it's one of the principle reasons why getting countries to sign up to the kyoto treaty and similar is so difficult, global warming is a nice political device, but you wouldn't want to stand behind it in an economic sense.

best of all, there was a BBC special on the subject about 2 or 3 months ago, and one guy (must've known what he was talking about, he had a white coat, and a beard and everything :D ) was saying that there is a natural lag between the cause and effect in the environment. what we do today, doesn't take effect immediately. his research estimated that delay at 800 years! which intuitively makes sense to me, though I am no scientist.

there are all sorts of things like that out there. things are changing, they have always changed, and our role in it is very speculative at the moment. According to many scientists I have seen or read on the subject, there is next to no real science being used to promote these agendas. Which is ok by me, as I don't think that is any reason to not conduct ourselves responsibly either way.

my personal view on what drives these things? hubris and folly of the human condition, that likes to believe it is in charge of all elements of the world around, and if something is our fault, then in turn it follows that we can fix it. If we don't have much of a say in things, then how can we prevent further change?

Nice post :thumbsu: Particularly like the technical terminology (the ice age thingy) :D. Concerns re the delayed effect of our damage to environment... does that mean the people in 800 years are going to be well and truly rooted because of our haste to use the earth as a garbage disposal unit today?

Your suggestion of common sense approach is probably the way to go - except perhaps for our current water crisis. Years ago in Brisbane, everyone had rain water tanks - Councils MADE people get rid of them because they posed a huge mosquito problem. Now they are paying people to put them in because we have no water :rolleyes:. I predict in 5 years time, we will have mossie problems again! ;) My B.I.L. works for Brisbane Water and apparently they have been so successful getting people to install tanks, that our creek systems are suffering because there is not enough run-off to flush them through. :rolleyes: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[NikkiNoo]

Crow-mo - there have actually be 4 glaciation periods, not one, on earth btw ;)

[KUNG FU]

i read somewhere that if all the icecaps melted we would lose something like 8% of total land because we would actually get a whole continent back (antartica) and other countries like Greenland would be inhabitable.

but these things happen

Its not the land loss thats the main problem. Its the fact that unprecedented numbers of people live right next to the coast. Combine that with more extreme weather patterns. There would be unfathomable rates of human displacement.

[Crow-mo]

Crow-mo - there have actually be 4 glaciation periods, not one, on earth btw ;)

I didn't know that. :)

[NikkiNoo]

I didn't know that. :)

It's what you get for having a father who is a geographer whose special interest is weather. :p

[crow87]

Maybe have a read of this article as well Jo - http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php
"The Scientists are the bad guys" is a title to get your immediate attention :p:rolleyes: Not bad though. A decent site also.

I agree completely. I am at heart an environmentalist.


-Hmm, no-one says you have to be but Im not convinced :cool:


I just get offended by the far left trying to pervert rational facts and argument with doomsday hypothesis for their own political gain. Anyone who doesn't believe Al Gore is just doing this because he knew he was politically dead if he didn't is beyond thick. Man Made global warming is so far away from being a fact. humanity is damaged by anyone who wants to examine the alternative arguments being ridiculed.
-Gore is not a latecomer to the topic of glabla warming. He has always been somewhat of a pioneer with respect to this topic, long before "it was cool" to be green, he was fighting for this cause. To dismiss it as a political stunt is a little shallow, would be quite the stunt.
-He's come under a lot of criticism from naysayers, especially when his movie first came out but the fact is that these people dont have a shred of evidence to support their claims, and the evidence he uses is not his, its scientific evidence and its overwhelming.
-Please dont quote South Park while discussing an issue like this :p;)

[crow87]

ok, fair enough. that's not my point.

the climate is changing, it has been changing for millions of years. we had an ice age once ;)

there have been many things written and presented over here on this subject, and again I'd say anything that causes us to behave 'better' is a good thing.

regarding the ice age thingy, I heard one cambridge professor about a year ago, say that the earth has been changing for millions of years, long before we got here, and that it was the height of arrogance in a lot of ways to think we have anything to do with this.

there are all sorts of things like that out there. things are changing, they have always changed, and our role in it is very speculative at the moment. According to many scientists I have seen or read on the subject, there is next to no real science being used to promote these agendas. Which is ok by me, as I don't think that is any reason to not conduct ourselves responsibly either way.

my personal view on what drives these things? hubris and folly of the human condition, that likes to believe it is in charge of all elements of the world around, and if something is our fault, then in turn it follows that we can fix it. If we don't have much of a say in things, then how can we prevent further change?
You express a view remarkably similar to a lecturer I have/had at uni (or as you like to call it "Imaginary rocket school" :cool:). Anyhoo, he speaks of how we've had changes in climate over the history of the planet, yes true ok check! but the thing is, we've never had it happening this quickly. I'll give you an example:
- Imagine the antarctic ice sheet, every year when it snows, the snow traps tiny bubbles of air underneath it. Then next year it happens again, more air is trapped underneath the blanket of snow. Over the years, this accumulates and so we have a snapshot of the atmosphere if you like, and we can measure how much carbone dioxide is around by sampling at different depths, the deeper we go, the older the sample is. So lets say you make a plot of this, you can see that over the past hundreds of thousands of years, the amount of Carbon dioxide stays relatively constant with small fluctuations as you would expect. However over the past fifteen or so years, the curve turns almost exponential, and at present the graph is moving almost vertically. Thats something that should be alarming to most people interested in living on the planet Earth.


my personal view on what drives these things? hubris and folly of the human condition, that likes to believe it is in charge of all elements of the world around, and if something is our fault, then in turn it follows that we can fix it. If we don't have much of a say in things, then how can we prevent further change?
Again you express a simliar view to my geology lecturer, hmm I didnt know he had an interest in footy :cool: I think its a little too simplictic to attribute it solely to human nature though and that we like to believe we are masters of the world. Its through ignorance of the affect of our actions that we have samaged the plaet so badly in the first place, and engineers are the ones to point the fnger of blame at most of the time :o Im just glad that we now must undertake more environmental subjects in the course Im doing (even if they are boring as bat shirts).


it is generally accepted that the amount of man made greenhouse gases are tiny, and if that's the case (it is) any variation on that is not going to make much difference either way. it's one of the principle reasons why getting countries to sign up to the kyoto treaty and similar is so difficult, global warming is a nice political device, but you wouldn't want to stand behind it in an economic sense.

Just wondering where you pulled this one from? As for an agreement between countries regarding environmental responsibility I think you'll find the reason why its hard to "get countries to sign up to it is so difficult" is the economic effect it would have, and probably on the whole it is not such a good political device, take a look at the current Australian Political landscape over the past 11 years, "Its the economy stupid" springs to mind (The "stupid" is not aimed at you by the way).
Regarding the amount of man made greenhouse gases being tiny, have you ever heard of the enhanced greenhouse effect? Use Wikipedia if you really must.

Sure, the televison program is a welcome alternative view but as with any source should be viewed with caution and ask yourself, where is the source coming from, and what are their aims/driving force? Follow the money trail. I will not name the lecturer I mentioned but those who are really interested in the topic will most probably know him as he is a fairly high profile person (who I actually really like, although do not agree with on all fronts-and his lectures were soo much more interesting than Env Eng IIIA!), he specialises particularly in mining, so much so that he has particular interest and plays a rather "active role" (not secretive in any way) in a certain mining company.

[Crow-mo]

"The Scientists are the bad guys" is a title to get your immediate attention :p:rolleyes: Not bad though. A decent site also.



-Hmm, no-one says you have to be but Im not convinced :cool:


-Gore is not a latecomer to the topic of glabla warming. He has always been somewhat of a pioneer with respect to this topic, long before "it was cool" to be green, he was fighting for this cause. To dismiss it as a political stunt is a little shallow, would be quite the stunt.
-He's come under a lot of criticism from naysayers, especially when his movie first came out but the fact is that these people dont have a shred of evidence to support their claims, and the evidence he uses is not his, its scientific evidence and its overwhelming.
-Please dont quote South Park while discussing an issue like this :p;)

do you think Al Gore invented the internet?

[jo172]

do you think Al Gore invented the internet?

Al Gore thinks he did;)

[Corpuscles]

IF it is a swindle then it is worthwhile!!!

Until one of you naysayers can explain how billions of tons of pollution is NOT damaging the planet... then just buckle up and realise most political manouvers are a swindle!

This one is simply protecting or promoting the sustainablity of life... and controlling one of the factors... one we have control of!

EVEN If you are were going to be swamped by a tidal wave one day do you think it is good idea to keep swallowing poision?.... or do you hope that there is someone gunna save ya?

[NikkiNoo]

Hey Jo - you might want to wander down to Bonython Hall on Sunday and have a listen to this guy (http://www.adelaidefestivalofideas.com.au/speakers_lovelock.html) ;)

[jo172]

Hey Jo - you might want to wander down to Bonython Hall on Sunday and have a listen to this guy (http://www.adelaidefestivalofideas.com.au/speakers_lovelock.html) ;)

Formal on Saturday Night, so if i'm conscious by then let alone able to go to lectures i'm considering myself well ahead:D;)

[NikkiNoo]

Formal on Saturday Night, so if i'm conscious by then let alone able to go to lectures i'm considering myself well ahead:D;)

Have fun and if I remember correctly I got home at about 8.30am to finally get some sleep after my formal :p