PDA

View Full Version : The Great Global Warming Swindle



Steve
08-02-2009, 10:23 PM
It is an 8 part movie. Should be able to find the next part in the related videos section.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMA6sszChwQ

dnf777
08-03-2009, 01:14 PM
It is an 8 part movie. Should be able to find the next part in the related videos section.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMA6sszChwQ

Looks like the vid was taken down due to copyright violation. I guess even propaganda is protected:rolleyes:

Bob Gutermuth
08-03-2009, 01:21 PM
Al bore has been spreading the propaganda for several years, its time for the truth about the swindle to be broadcast to the public.

dnf777
08-03-2009, 01:42 PM
Al bore has been spreading the propaganda for several years, its time for the truth about the swindle to be broadcast to the public.

Not wanting to get into a global warming thread, I WILL say that even the scientists who were on the Petro and Bush/Cheney payrolls have since recanted, admitting that global warming is beyond any debate, REAL, and caused at least in major part by human activity. Ice core records show that only following massive, catastrophic volcanic eruptions has the climate changed at this pace; natural fluctuations notwithstanding.

Henry V
08-03-2009, 03:53 PM
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

Bob Gutermuth
08-03-2009, 03:56 PM
Junk science to sell the cap and trade boondoggle.

YardleyLabs
08-03-2009, 04:00 PM
Junk science to sell the cap and trade boondoggle.
As opposed to junk science to sell more oil and coal???:rolleyes:

Bob Gutermuth
08-03-2009, 04:23 PM
Coal we have plenty of it will help reduce dependence on foreign oil, but thats not what Osama wants.

Henry V
08-03-2009, 04:25 PM
Is our energy future "coal" or "clean coal"? Just curious.

brandywinelabs
08-03-2009, 04:49 PM
Gore's movie is banned in British classrooms due to the number of false facts. Then how much of what we hear from our media and politicians in the USA is fact?
I have heard too much that makes me skepticle of what we are presented with from our politicians and media. Sure we need to be proactive. But it seems we are being rather extreme in our handling of this situation.

Bob Gutermuth
08-03-2009, 04:52 PM
Any kind of coal. What scares me is that Osama will soon try to ban wood stoves as his next act.

Steve Amrein
08-03-2009, 04:55 PM
What I really would like to see is all the global warming folks actually put out or shut up. Algores 100 foot boat is not solar powered. It may charge the batteries and keep the beer box cold. If you are in favor of this the sell you car turn off the electric and gas and have a nice day. Dont be a high and might cause you passed me doing 80 in your prius and before you ask this winter no I wont pull you out. If you really believe that crap and want to do something about it unplug. If not the hot air that you are spouting is only adding to the so called problem. If you are not willing to unplug then you sure dont have any right to tell me my Jet Ski is causing global warming. BTW it 250 H.P. and goes almost 70. Also I dont want to hear any whining when cap and tax causes prices to skyrocket.

dnf777
08-03-2009, 05:00 PM
Gore's movie is banned in British classrooms due to the number of false facts. Then how much of what we hear from our media and politicians in the USA is fact?
I have heard too much that makes me skepticle of what we are presented with from our politicians and media. Sure we need to be proactive. But it seems we are being rather extreme in our handling of this situation.

ALL British classrooms, or just the socially sequestered schools like the ones we have here than "ban" evolution and women's rights issues?

I don't get my scientific information from politicians (or deceased sci-fi writers). Peer-reviewed journals, and Colleges and Academies of scientific organizations. As I said before, even the scientists that were on the take, now have recanted and stated beyond any doubt that global climate change is real and upon us, at much greater rates than previously thought. Currently, no legitimate, peer-reviewed scientist that is not an employee of petroleum companies or their agents, rebukes global warming. Just like round earth, you gotta admit eventually, it's true!

Here's a European essay on climate change that's probably not banned in their classrooms:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/scientists-global-warming-conference-poll

Steve Amrein
08-03-2009, 05:05 PM
ALL British classrooms, or just the socially sequestered schools like the ones we have here than "ban" evolution and women's rights issues?

I don't get my scientific information from politicians (or deceased sci-fi writers). Peer-reviewed journals, and Colleges and Academies of scientific organizations. As I said before, even the scientists that were on the take, now have recanted and stated beyond any doubt that global climate change is real and upon us, at much greater rates than previously thought. Currently, no legitimate, peer-reviewed scientist that is not an employee of petroleum companies or their agents, rebukes global warming. Just like round earth, you gotta admit eventually, it's true!


I think a lot of scintist have gone back the other way as well. Especially the ones that were trapped in the ice thats not suppossed to be there.

brandywinelabs
08-03-2009, 05:07 PM
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

Last I heard the gevernment had not undertaken the steps to do the above.

Steve Amrein
08-03-2009, 05:09 PM
What have any of the global warming supporters here on the RTF done to help such as wind, solar or carbon credits ?????

I am really interested.

YardleyLabs
08-03-2009, 05:09 PM
Gore's movie is banned in British classrooms due to the number of false facts. Then how much of what we hear from our media and politicians in the USA is fact?
I have heard too much that makes me skepticle of what we are presented with from our politicians and media. Sure we need to be proactive. But it seems we are being rather extreme in our handling of this situation.
This isn't true. The judge's opinion is more accurately summarized in this story from the Washington Post:

"High Court Judge Michael Burton, deciding a lawsuit that questioned the film's suitability for showing in British classrooms, said Wednesday that the movie builds a "powerful" case that global warming is caused by humans and that urgent means are needed to counter it.

But he also said Gore makes nine statements in the film that are not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus. Teachers, Burton concluded, could show the film but must alert students to what the judge called errors." [Emphasis added]

brandywinelabs
08-03-2009, 05:11 PM
Again, I guess it depends on where you get your facts.
The Wash Post - talk about being in the politicians pocket! :)

dnf777
08-03-2009, 05:20 PM
I think a lot of scintist have gone back the other way as well. Especially the ones that were trapped in the ice thats not suppossed to be there.

Not aware of any, other than those on the petroleum payrolls. Local climate trends do not constitute global climate change. That would be like stating that Austin Tx's record breaking July temps PROVE global warming. They do not.

Ask George W Bush. Before leaving office, he admitted that global climate change is due to human activity. Or maybe he was just pandering to the more central republicans who accepted this reality. The following is from FoxNews, fair and balanced reporting:


WASHINGTON — President Bush called on the world's worst polluters to come together to set a goal for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the climate to heat up. He didn't exempt his own country from the list.

"By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem, and by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it," Bush said in a speech that capped two days of talks at a White House-sponsored climate change conference. "We share a common responsibility: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economies growing."

bold emphasis is mine, words are W's

YardleyLabs
08-03-2009, 05:24 PM
Again, I guess it depends on where you get your facts.
The Wash Post - talk about being in the politicians pocket! :)
Then how is this from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm):

"Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus."

"In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed."

This is the source being quoted by all the conservative newspapers which leave out the judge's comments about the general credibility of Gore's thesis while questioning certain specific statements of fact. In fact, the movie was sent to all UK public schools along with a CD containing additional information from the Ministry of Education including materials providing the clarifications requested by the judge.

Steve
08-03-2009, 06:05 PM
It is a shame that they took the movie off. There were a number of scientists on there including a founding member of Greenpeace.

The main points that they argued is that the CO2 rise that Algore referred to was after the earth warmed and was caused by oceans releasing CO2. It is a fact that the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing temperature. They also pointed out that the main greenhouse gas is water vapor and that CO2 is a relatively small contributor.

The earth was much warmer before the little ice age hit. We had been warming up from that and the majority of warming in the 1900s took place before 1940, then we cooled down (they were talking about the next ice age in the mid 70s) before warming again. Since 1999 we have been cooling.

There is no need for scientific consensus if you can prove your theory, but they can't. You can worry about scientists paid by oil companies, I worry about the ones paid by government.

zeus3925
08-03-2009, 06:43 PM
It is an 8 part movie. Should be able to find the next part in the related videos section.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMA6sszChwQ

What oil company do you work for??

Steve
08-03-2009, 10:11 PM
What oil company do you work for??

None. What environmental group do you shill for.

Keep in mind that I live on this planet too.

Terry Britton
08-03-2009, 10:25 PM
Who on here believes an attorney practicing outside his profession over a Biosystems Engineer that is qualified to discuss a global con?

zeus3925
08-04-2009, 12:10 AM
None. What environmental group do you shill for.

Keep in mind that I live on this planet too.

None!

Get your toosh out in the wild and do some hunting, fishing or what ever you do outdoors besides barbeque on Sundays. Be a little observant and open minded. It doesn't take to many years to see that things are changing very fast.

Steve
08-04-2009, 07:04 AM
None!

Get your toosh out in the wild and do some hunting, fishing or what ever you do outdoors besides barbeque on Sundays. Be a little observant and open minded. It doesn't take to many years to see that things are changing very fast.

You don't have a clue who I am or what I do. You are one of these arrogant people who think the world is supposed to stay just like it was you when you born. You aren't that important.

zeus3925
08-04-2009, 07:57 AM
You don't have a clue who I am or what I do. You are one of these arrogant people who think the world is supposed to stay just like it was you when you born. You aren't that important.


Get a little arched up when someone disagrees there, Steve? Oh well, I can see those who believe they are God or are His voice, can believe in the insignificance of others.

Steve Amrein
08-04-2009, 09:20 AM
What oil company do you work for??


Zeus, Is working for a oil company evil ? Do you own anything that has a internal combustion engine ? Do you own anything plastic ? How is you house heated and cooled ?

I am still waiting to read all about how the global warming supporters are doing to personally fix it. The silence of hypocracy is defening.

dnf777
08-04-2009, 09:35 AM
Zeus, Is working for a oil company evil ? Do you own anything that has a internal combustion engine ? Do you own anything plastic ? How is you house heated and cooled ?

I am still waiting to read all about how the global warming supporters are doing to personally fix it. The silence of hypocracy is defening.

Your using the old debate tactic of reductio ad absurdum...offering two alternatives, yours, or a complete exaggeration of the opponents position. Reminiscent of "you're either with us, or with the terrorists". That tactic works in a debate only if your opponent doesn't catch and refute the exaggerated claims.

I believe in global climate change as a result of human activity. And I enjoy toting my dog around in my GMC 2500HD, having a warm home, and most of the other luxuries that we as Americans have come to enjoy. I am trying to do what I can to reduce my energy consumption in ways that don't sacrafice the "good life" too much, and that if we had a mass effect across the population, would make a significant difference.

ie, in the winter time, I wear sweat pants and a sweater instead of shorts and t-shirts in the house, thus reducting the thermostat by about 6 degrees. I'm NOT living in an adobe hut burning llama dung to save energy! We just replaced a monster of an oil-burner with a ultra-high-efficiency propane boiler. Saves a couple hundred a month. Should break even in two years, then the savings start.

For daily commutes, I am looking to a more fuel efficient people carrier (honda civic or subaru) instead of driving my truck. I'm NOT wearing out sandals (non-petroleum derived organic shoes) walking to work each day!

See, there are SMALL things that can be done without making HUGE sacrafices, that if done across the board, will add up to significant reduction in greenhouse emissions.

At this point, I'm happy just to have folks admit that global warming is real, and a result of our activity since the industrial revolution. At least George W agrees on that point!

brandywinelabs
08-04-2009, 09:54 AM
[QUOTE= In fact, the movie was sent to all UK public schools along with a CD containing additional information from the Ministry of Education including materials providing the clarifications requested by the judge.[/QUOTE]


I hadn't read that but I will believe you. It still points out that to make a point some will do anything. I guess that is kind of normal. Seems to happen here too. Back to what I inferred before. Who do you trust? Those with the agenda/special interest/hypocrits or other sources who may also be biased the other way. I trend toward the other sources. JMHO

zeus3925
08-04-2009, 09:56 AM
Zeus, Is working for a oil company evil ? Do you own anything that has a internal combustion engine ? Do you own anything plastic ? How is you house heated and cooled ?

I am still waiting to read all about how the global warming supporters are doing to personally fix it. The silence of hypocracy is defening.

Working for an oil company is not inherently bad, but their continued loud mouthed campaign to discredit climate change is self serving and disingenuous.

I have driven econo-boxes for years. We use public transportation as well. I have installed energy efficient equipment, siding, and windows in my house to save energy. We have been installing energy efficient lighting.

When alternatives to hydro-carbon fuels become available I will adopt those as well.

But then you deny that change is happening. You attack those who see the change as hypocrites. Aren't you being a bit hypocritical for attacking people for not doing anything about a situation you say doesn't exist?

Steve
08-04-2009, 10:10 AM
Get a little arched up when someone disagrees there, Steve? Oh well, I can see those who believe they are God or are His voice, can believe in the insignificance of others.

You made it personal by assuming things about me.

Steve Amrein
08-04-2009, 10:35 AM
I am not saying change does not exist. What I am saying is the zealots that want me to change my habits or tax what I do are hypocrites. If you say climate change is warming the planet and think that you can do things to help improve it than thats OK. I think the argument or topic is not fully provable. I also think things like cash for clunkers are counter productive. How much energy was used to build the cars that are being traded in? Lots of folks would love to have a running car to improve their own lifestyle. I do myself try and conserve energy, money and recycle. Not because I have to because some politician says I have to. The problem I have with this is blowhards showing up on jets at a global warming summit using more fuel in 1 hour than I will use in my and my families lifetime telling me how my SUV is ruining the planet and I am the bad guy. Or borrowing money from China because of their poor management. BTW where is the push to boycott China and all countries that are far polluters worse than the US. Now someone heating with lama dung, wearing hemp clothes, does not use 1 bit of energy or ad to the climate change problem tells me that I am killing the planet I may actually listen. He may be smelly and have a poor quality of life ( IMHO) but certainly walks the walk. It to me is no different than the elites in Washington telling me what type of medical care I am to get when they are exempt.

dnf777
08-04-2009, 10:43 AM
I am not saying change does not exist. What I am saying is the zealots that want me to change my habits or tax what I do are hypocrites. If you say climate change is warming the planet and think that you can do things to help improve it than thats OK. I think the argument or topic is not fully provable. I also think things like cash for clunkers are counter productive. How much energy was used to build the cars that are being traded in? Lots of folks would love to have a running car to improve their own lifestyle. I do myself try and conserve energy, money and recycle. Not because I have to because some politician says I have to. The problem I have with this is blowhards showing up on jets at a global warming summit using more fuel in 1 hour than I will use in my and my families lifetime telling me how my SUV is ruining the planet and I am the bad guy. Or borrowing money from China because of their poor management. BTW where is the push to boycott China and all countries that are far polluters worse than the US. Now someone heating with lama dung, wearing hemp clothes, does not use 1 bit of energy or ad to the climate change problem tells me that I am killing the planet I may actually listen. He may be smelly and have a poor quality of life ( IMHO) but certainly walks the walk. It to me is no different than the elites in Washington telling me what type of medical care I am to get when they are exempt.

Steve,
As asked I gave examples of non-lifestyle altering efforts I make to reduce my energy consumption. I in no way proport that we should live in huts and smoke dung, but that's about the opposite extreme of what we hear from some, that GW does not even exist. Those are chiefly people who profit of of me and you continuing to burn fossil fuels.

Admitting there is an issue, and taking reasonable steps to ameliorate the problem is common sense. Flat out denying and ridiculing those who take that position is irresponsible and burying heads in the sand. Even W admits it.

Its time to put politics aside, look at the issue realistically, and come up with solutions we can all live with. When there's billions of dollars at stake, I seriously doubt we'll put politics aside though.

zeus3925
08-04-2009, 11:01 AM
I agree with dnf's post above. We don't have to go back lighting with candles or riding bicycles. But, smart, heads up changes in the way we do things can make a difference without a noticeable change in lifestyle. In fact, it may put some green in your jeans as well.

dnf777
08-04-2009, 11:23 AM
I agree with dnf's post above. We don't have to go back lighting with candles or riding bicycles. But, smart, heads up changes in the way we do things can make a difference without a noticeable change in lifestyle. In fact, in may put some green in your jeans as well.

I was really pissed when my wife insisted I did NOT need a Gator XUV to set wingers and blinds, that I would benefit from the exercise. :mad: If anyone has any successful replies to this one, please share.

kjrice
08-04-2009, 11:41 AM
I posted this a while ago and it pulls back the curtain on Al Gore's scam.

http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom112.htm

twall
08-04-2009, 11:41 AM
I don't get my scientific information from politicians (or deceased sci-fi writers). Peer-reviewed journals, and Colleges and Academies of scientific organizations.

This sounds good but peer-reviewed is not always what it sounds like. When the "peers" all have the same belief system and are trying pushing the same agenda as the reviewed reasarch it is not free of bias. Research dollars drive the research projects. Funding agencies decide what research they will fund.

Tom

dnf777
08-04-2009, 11:53 AM
This sounds good but peer-reviewed is not always what it sounds like. When the "peers" all have the same belief system and are trying pushing the same agenda as the reviewed reasarch it is not free of bias. Research dollars drive the research projects. Funding agencies decide what research they will fund.

Tom

that is so true. It may actually be one of the biggest hidden problems.
when I read medical journal articles that are favorable to a particular drug, then see full-page, end-page glossy ads in the same journal, it makes me wonder...:rolleyes:

Even more devious is choosing what articles NOT to publish. When you fund research, often you own pubishing rights (and burying rights).

I would add though, that large, international organizations with large, diverse, memberships would find it hard to build a conspiracy consensus, and promote that without being revealed!

Mike Noel
08-04-2009, 12:48 PM
I was really pissed when my wife insisted I did NOT need a Gator XUV to set wingers and blinds, that I would benefit from the exercise. :mad: If anyone has any successful replies to this one, please share.

Do we really need to explain the permission/forgiveness axiom to you:-P

When having those discussions with the spousal unit ALWAYS use the past tense explaining what you ALREADY did. If she doesn't get over it she didn't really love you.;-)

Sean H
08-04-2009, 02:24 PM
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

I don't have anything to add to the thread other than to comment on this plot. Anyone trying to make a point with this plot surely must hope his audience is stupid.

Seriously? The range of data is from 1960 to 2010? Some of you history buffs, how long has the earth been around?

Like to see the rest of the story regards,

dnf777
08-04-2009, 03:48 PM
I don't have anything to add to the thread other than to comment on this plot. Anyone trying to make a point with this plot surely must hope his audience is stupid.

Seriously? The range of data is from 1960 to 2010? Some of you history buffs, how long has the earth been around?

Like to see the rest of the story regards,

It may not be the absolute rise in CO2, but the rate of increase that is trying to be illustrated. It would be useful to see this in a larger context in any case.

Matt McKenzie
08-04-2009, 04:03 PM
It may not be the absolute rise in CO2, but the rate of increase that is trying to be illustrated. It would be useful to see this in a larger context in any case.

It would also be interesting to compare it to global average temps over the same period. Then IF there is a direct correlation, we could discuss causation versus coincidence. I'm not informed enough about the issue to decide if it is true or not (and I suspect most are in the same boat), but I don't trust most of what I hear about it from either side, as it seems that everyone has their own agenda to push or is too ignorant to discuss it fully.
What I would like more than anything is for someone to show me how temps have fluctuated over the last few thousand years, show me the corresponding CO2 levels, and then show me the same data for the last couple of hundred years. Show me that CO2 levels go up, causing a rise in global temps and then CO2 levels go down, causing a drop in global temps, and I'm on board. Then prove to me that the reason for the increase in CO2 levels is due to the burning of fossil fuels and that if we decrease our use of fossil fuels that CO2 levels will drop. I'm sorry, but I just can't push the "I believe" button whether you are selling me life everlasting or cap and trade.
By the way, if all the folks who are preaching this stuff stopped exhaling, how much would CO2 levels drop? I mean, come on, what's it worth to you to save the planet?

YardleyLabs
08-04-2009, 05:01 PM
Over the last 400,000 years, CO2 levels ranged from about 200-300 ppm, only going above that level in the 20th century (http://taha.instedd.org/2009/02/atmospheric-co2-levels-green-orange-red.html) Current levels are at their highest in more than 2 million years. The significance of these numbers if that homo sapiens are only believed to have existed during the last 400,000 to 2,000,000 years. So while the earth may have lots of experience with higher levels in its history, we as a species have not. That at least suggests, to me, that a little caution is warranted when we begin "experimenting" with our atmosphere in ways that may threaten our very existence as a species. That's a much bigger experiment than any proposed changes in health care.

Henry V
08-07-2009, 02:16 PM
Sean welcome to POTUS Place. Do a search on climate change or global warming and you will find that this topic has been discussed at length. If you are interested in this topic, I suggest you also take a look at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html.
In specific response to your post.
I don't have anything to add to the thread other than to comment on this plot. Anyone trying to make a point with this plot surely must hope his audience is stupid.

Seriously? The range of data is from 1960 to 2010? Some of you history buffs, how long has the earth been around?

Like to see the rest of the story regards,
I posted the longest running empirical record of atmospheric CO2 concentration to get folks thinking. I actually hope folks look at this data and ask the exact question that you asked and follow-up with their own investigation. If you did want to add something more to this discussion you could do some research and present evidence to support your point of view, whatever that is. Regarding the rest of the story.....
Temperature and CO2 variations in the Vostok ice cores compared with changes in solar irradiance due to orbital variation (Image: US Global Change Research Program)http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11640/dn11640-1_800.jpg

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg

Matt McKenzie
08-07-2009, 03:23 PM
Good stuff. So based on the ice cores, temperature, atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and atmospheric Methane change in direct proportion. What caused the peaks and valleys over the last 400,000 years? Is the CO2 to blame for the temp and methane levels? Is the methane to blame for the temp and CO2 levels? Is the temp to blame for the CO2 and methane levels? Or is some other factor or combination of factors to blame for all three? Too many times I get lost in the terminology of the studies, so I need someone to explain it to me in a way that a product of the GA public school system can understand it. How do we KNOW that CO2 is the problem and not one of the symptoms?

Steve Amrein
08-07-2009, 04:13 PM
What ever happened to that hole in the ozone thingy ? I still have the SPF 500 left over:rolleyes:

Henry V
08-07-2009, 08:16 PM
What ever happened to that hole in the ozone thingy ? I still have the SPF 500 left over:rolleyes:

Since you asked, check out: http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Gerry Clinchy
08-12-2009, 01:50 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/business/energy-environment/12incinerate.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

Maybe we won't have to worry about global warming "doing us in" ... dioxin and other contaminants could make CO2 a moot issue.

Henry V
08-12-2009, 03:31 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/business/energy-environment/12incinerate.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

Maybe we won't have to worry about global warming "doing us in" ... dioxin and other contaminants could make CO2 a moot issue.
There always has to be an optimistic one in the bunch:)

road kill
08-12-2009, 03:45 PM
Here you go, 4 months is all we have;

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=557

Henry V
08-12-2009, 04:02 PM
Good stuff. So based on the ice cores, temperature, atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and atmospheric Methane change in direct proportion. What caused the peaks and valleys over the last 400,000 years? Is the CO2 to blame for the temp and methane levels? Is the methane to blame for the temp and CO2 levels? Is the temp to blame for the CO2 and methane levels? Or is some other factor or combination of factors to blame for all three? Too many times I get lost in the terminology of the studies, so I need someone to explain it to me in a way that a product of the GA public school system can understand it. How do we KNOW that CO2 is the problem and not one of the symptoms?
All very good questions. You can search for the answers and the rebuttals to those answers beginning at that New Scientist website. There are also other sites with legitimate information.

Truth is, no one KNOWS whether CO2 is THE problem but the vast majority of climate scientists believe it is. We do know that the earth has warmed, that the global warming gas CO2 is at historic levels with no sign of moderating, and that there is good evidence that the increase in CO2 concentration is most likely attributed to humans burning many thousands of years worth of stored carbon during the past century. We also know that the global climate is very complicated, that processes are not linear, and that not all information points in the same direction.

The basic theory, supported by evidence and climate modeling, is that the historically high level of CO2, is a forcing agent that will result in warmer global temperatures. As temperatures warm, there a positive and negative feedback mechanisms that are likely to kick in. If negative feedback (e.g more clouds reflecting solar radiation, ocean absorption of CO2, etc) kicks in more than positive feedback (increased water vapor, greenhouse gas sinks like the tundra becoming greenhouse gas sources, etc.) then warming will occur at a slower pace than projected. If the opposite happens, then warming will occur at a faster pace than projected.

Gerry Clinchy
08-12-2009, 06:42 PM
There always has to be an optimistic one in the bunch:)

Not sure if you read the article Henry, but for those who may not have done so.

Basically, China has run out of places to stash their trash, so incinerators are their answer ... burn it all. There are regulations in place for the effluent of the incinerators, but there's not a lot of confidence that the regulations are being met. If the Chinese regulate their incinerators as well as they do corn gluten and lead paint on toys, then I'd say that we can't count on the cleanliness of the incinerators there ... with more to come. It also included the fact that the Chinese populace simply "don't care" about recycling.

With the Chinese economy and population growing a lot faster than other developed countries, and a lack of interest in making that growth "green", the efforts proposed by cap & trade seem a bit like spitting in the ocean.

That Korean fellow's speech sounded good. I wonder who is supposed to provide the financing for those underdeveloped countries so they can grow green? ;-) I wonder how much $ will come from North Korea? Will the Brazilians stop clearing rain forests because it is good for the planet?

Henry V
08-13-2009, 09:52 AM
Gerry,

Yes, good article. My other response was an attempt at humor. You pitched the article as don't worry about climate change this is going to get us first.

I was not aware of the household waste situation but I was aware that we have outsourced much of our manufacturing related pollution to China and elsewhere. We live downwind in this case so it is coming back to us. Kind of ironic. But what's an increased mortality rate and the incidence of few major health problems when you can have some working for pennies on the dollar to make us a DVD player for $29.95?. Seems like a good trade-off. Right?

So, what's your answer to reduce or solve the problem? They suggest better regulations by the Chinese government.

Gerry Clinchy
08-13-2009, 10:59 AM
Yes, good article. My other response was an attempt at humor. You pitched the article as don't worry about climate change this is going to get us first.

Likewise, Henry, my original post was meant to be ironic.

I think we can get sidetracked in our priorities. Global warming may really take a back seat to keeping No Korea and Iran (& others they might sell to) from having nuclear armaments. And if we can't get countries like China to join in protecting the planet, our leverage is limited.

While there may be no denying that CO2 levels have increased, the question is "why". The question remains whether increasing CO2 levels are the result or the cause of global warming. There are still a lot of "ifs" in my mind. We are assuming that even IF CO2 is the cause, it is most directly related to man's activities on the planet; and we're getting even more specific that it is related to our daily activities.

IF CO2 is a cause, can we prove that the CO2 increase was or was not a delayed reaction to something like the detonation of nuclear armaments? Are activities assoicated with armaments of war more responsible for the increase of CO2 levels than our daily activities. We also know that the natural order of things has been for phases of warming and cooling of the planet. How can we be sure that is not part of the equation; and a larger part than is readily evident to us? I believe there are many unanswered questions.

Certainly there are cases of pollution that need to be addressed. Whether they contribute to global warming or not, the more immediate concern would be health reasons. "Smog" in LA was a health issue, aside from being just an inconvenience.

The fact that we will run out of oil, is strong motivation for finding automotive and energy generation improvements and alternatives. Global warming would be secondary, again, to having our transportation vehicles and energy generation plants grind to a halt. The alternatives we see (so far) are also ones which could improve the CO2 problems.

Seems like basic common sense to me that we solve our immediate problems, but choose options that also take into account long-term consequences. It's the way we lead our personal lives with personal responsibility.

We'll not help our survival or long-term consequences by stifling our own economy while others, like China, use that same time to strengthen theirs.

One question that keeps coming to my mind ... where does China get all the $ to buy our debt?

Personally, I do try to avoid "Made in China" products.

Sean H
08-13-2009, 11:37 AM
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11640/dn11640-1_800.jpg

Analyzing this graph, the teperature and CO2 data does appear to correlate somewhat. But not enough to convince me that one is directly responsible for the other. Especially considering the fact that some sort of cycle occurs every 100-150 thousand years that appears to be the determining factor for both data levels.

What is responsible for this cycle? Why is there such a quick increase in temperature followed by a long drawn out decrease?

Also of note is that the temperature has stabilized in the last 10,000 years more so than at any other point in the 400,000 years. And the temperature is lower than it should be compared to the previous cycles. The second graph you posted would actually be explained by this. We should be at a higher temperature based on the last 400,000 years, and maybe we are just now catching up?

And once again, even though 400,000 years is a much better sample than 40 years, it still doesn't tell the whole story on climate change and the earth.

TerRun
08-15-2009, 09:36 PM
ALL British classrooms, or just the socially sequestered schools like the ones we have here than "ban" evolution and women's rights issues?

I don't get my scientific information from politicians (or deceased sci-fi writers). Peer-reviewed journals, and Colleges and Academies of scientific organizations. As I said before, even the scientists that were on the take, now have recanted and stated beyond any doubt that global climate change is real and upon us, at much greater rates than previously thought. Currently, no legitimate, peer-reviewed scientist that is not an employee of petroleum companies or their agents, rebukes global warming. Just like round earth, you gotta admit eventually, it's true!

Here's a European essay on climate change that's probably not banned in their classrooms:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/scientists-global-warming-conference-poll

here, here - took the words out of my mouth. Glad to know that some retriever folks can read peer reviewed scientific lit, rather than just listen to Rush on the radio!

Gerry Clinchy
09-06-2009, 12:49 PM
Did anyone else watch the History Channel program on "The End of Days" ... surveyed all the things that point to Dec. 21, 2012 as "the end of days". Everything from the Mayan calendar to all the various prophecies from The Sybil to the prophecies of Merlin and The Holy Bible.

The really interesting part was the scientific part ... on that date, the earth is supposed to line up with the sun and the black hole in the Milky Way. An event which only occurs once every 25,800 years. The hypothesis is that this could cause a reversing of the earth's poles with the whole mantle of the earth rotating, causing all kinds of havoc like volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis.

As part of the scientific aspect, there was also some mention of global warming occurring as a prelude to this major event.

If this happens, probably no reason to worry, as there would be nowhere to run as the whole mantle of the earth would be impacted.

What do you scientific types think?

road kill
09-06-2009, 03:14 PM
Did anyone else watch the History Channel program on "The End of Days" ... surveyed all the things that point to Dec. 21, 2012 as "the end of days". Everything from the Mayan calendar to all the various prophecies from The Sybil to the prophecies of Merlin and The Holy Bible.

The really interesting part was the scientific part ... on that date, the earth is supposed to line up with the sun and the black hole in the Milky Way. An event which only occurs once every 25,800 years. The hypothesis is that this could cause a reversing of the earth's poles with the whole mantle of the earth rotating, causing all kinds of havoc like volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis.

As part of the scientific aspect, there was also some mention of global warming occurring as a prelude to this major event.

If this happens, probably no reason to worry, as there would be nowhere to run as the whole mantle of the earth would be impacted.

What do you scientific types think?

I guess we need to get busy training our dogs, we are running out of time for those titles!!

Gerry Clinchy
09-06-2009, 05:35 PM
I guess we need to get busy training our dogs, we are running out of time for those titles!!

Return to common sense! :D:D:D

dnf777
09-06-2009, 05:49 PM
If this only occurs once every 25,000 years, this must be the first occurence, since the Bible indicates the Earth is only what, 6000 years old? Maybe someone will be inspired to build a giant spaceship, and put two of every living creature on it.

Seriously, I think they got a good ratings ploy going. After reading Stephen Hawking's book, my understanding is that black holes do exist, but even the closest one to us has negligible effects upon our solar system, compared to the sun's energy.

Dec 21 is a very interesting day. Winter solstice, the returning of the sun, has been celebrated by many cultures and religions. I have always enjoyed it in a small way, as I then know that each day will be getting longer until June 21. I'm not going to alter my plans, change my investment strategy, or start building a spaceship, but I may put some extra beer in the fridge.

subroc
09-06-2009, 06:13 PM
I am pretty much hoping the weather man gets tomorrow right. To believe the man caused global warming political activists can change the world’s temperature by stopping campfires or the history channel can predict the reversing of the earth’s poles based on Merlin and the Mayans is pretty much the same as belief in little green men to me.
But then lots of people believe in little green men.

road kill
09-06-2009, 07:23 PM
I am pretty much hoping the weather man gets tomorrow right. To believe the man caused global warming political activists can change the world’s temperature by stopping campfires or the history channel can predict the reversing of the earth’s poles based on Merlin and the Mayans is pretty much the same as belief in little green men to me.
But then lots of people believe in little green men.
Isn't amazing how some beleive with all of their hearts that this is true, but can not beleive that there is a God??

stan b

dnf777
09-07-2009, 09:08 AM
Isn't amazing how some beleive with all of their hearts that this is true, but can not beleive that there is a God??

stan b

Just because someone believes in scientific fact, and observes the world around them, does NOT have anything to do with whether or not they believe in God. That's the old "you're with us, or you're a godless communist gay terrorist" debate tactic that holds as much water as cheesecloth, and serves no useful purpose other than to quell debate, and I sincerely don't believe that is your goal.

God gave us brains to explore and discover his natural world around us. Some choose not to use them. For those people, he included the "quick start" guide like the one that comes with DVD players and TVs. That is the collection of stories about men building big boats with two of EVERY animal on EARTH, seas parting, seven days to engineer and construct the universe, etc... Quick simple explanations. The full instruction manual, which requires eons of frustrating study, with lots of failures and disappointments before revealing the true wonders of the universe, is the world around us, and our determination to understand it. It took us 1492 years just to convince ourselves that the world is round! Dont expect anything as complex as climate change to just expose itself overnight. Just like flat-earthers, most will see the light as more and more evidence is presented through hard work, but there will always be those clinging to the parables as the end all and be all.

"Of all that is seen and unseen" regards,
Dave

Gerry Clinchy
09-07-2009, 09:21 AM
Dave

Just like flat-earthers, most will see the light as more and more evidence is presented through hard work, but there will always be those clinging to the parables as the end all and be all.


Columbus may have proven the world was round, but he still didn't know where he was :-)

As we unravel the mysteries, we sometimes are not sure where we are ... or exactly where we will end up :-)

WRL
09-07-2009, 12:48 PM
[QUOTE=dnf777;495451] It took us 1492 years just to convince ourselves that the world is round! /QUOTE]

This quote cracks me up.

Even if you believe God created the earth and it is only 6k years old, well I can certainly assure you that within a short period of time, we were wondering if the world was round.

Time did not begin with Anno Domini.

WRL

Pete
09-07-2009, 12:58 PM
If this only occurs once every 25,000 years, this must be the first occurence, since the Bible indicates the Earth is only what, 6000 years old? Maybe someone will be inspired to build a giant spaceship, and put two of every living creature

Modern man is a few years past 6000 ,,,,the earth is not.
No one knows how old the earth is except God himself.

Pete

dnf777
09-07-2009, 01:24 PM
[QUOTE=dnf777;495451] It took us 1492 years just to convince ourselves that the world is round! /QUOTE]

This quote cracks me up.

Even if you believe God created the earth and it is only 6k years old, well I can certainly assure you that within a short period of time, we were wondering if the world was round.

Time did not begin with Anno Domini.

WRL

I think you missed my sarcasm. I do believe God created the universe, and that free-thinking people have questioned church dogma, silently in the privacy of their minds, else risk persecution and exile. But there are still people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old (do accept it's round, I think), and that fossils and geographic records are falsified pranks or something.

I was responding with sarcasm to the premise that if you believe science, evolution, or global climate change, you MUST be Godless.

Buzz
09-07-2009, 01:38 PM
Just because someone believes in scientific fact, and observes the world around them, does NOT have anything to do with whether or not they believe in God. That's the old "you're with us, or you're a godless communist gay terrorist" debate tactic that holds as much water as cheesecloth, and serves no useful purpose other than to quell debate, and I sincerely don't believe that is your goal.




When I went to engineering school and began to discover the beauty, order, and complexity in nature, it just reinforced my belief and admiration for God.

WRL
09-07-2009, 03:06 PM
[QUOTE=WRL;495538]

I think you missed my sarcasm. I do believe God created the universe, and that free-thinking people have questioned church dogma, silently in the privacy of their minds, else risk persecution and exile. But there are still people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old (do accept it's round, I think), and that fossils and geographic records are falsified pranks or something.

I was responding with sarcasm to the premise that if you believe science, evolution, or global climate change, you MUST be Godless.

No I did not miss it. But I have seen quotes similar that people truly believe and it always amazes me how these guys must bury their heads in the sand.

WRL

Pete
09-07-2009, 03:08 PM
Dittos except i didnt go to engeneering school,,

I started studying the word of God during my studies in evolution in college. Something didnt make sence what the teacher was saying,,, way to many contridictions,,, After I found a rare dinosour in wyoming,,,, I started to see the light.

It was about that time I really started in believing and learning more about Gods making,,,forming,,and creating.
No there not the same.
It all fits within the framework.



Pete