|
The Global Warming Swindle |
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
With that title, I sincerely doubt it. [EDIT] -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
I think there is something to the "global warming" hysteria, but I also think it's gotten way out of hand, like McCarthyism in the '50's. It's an excuse for some people to make Although my belief that there is something to global warming has weakened considerably. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
|
The global warming is real. It's not a conspiracy, and you can't make it go away by denying it. The scientists are not making stuff up, they are finding stuff out. Using the same process that made computers, nuclear weapons, and space travel possible. Why would you not accept the scientific consensus when it comes to climate change caused by human activities? What's different about it? This isn't just one "evil" company that you can demonize, like Monsanto when it comes to GMOs, it's scientists all over the world that come to the same conclusions. More CO2 in the air leads to more heat from the sun being trapped in the atmosphere instead of radiating back into space. |
Striker
Member #10,701
February 2009
|
Pollution of the atmosphere is heating up the earth. Ice on the poles and the mountains is melting, raising the sea level. Many islands are already sunken. These are facts. Whatever you say, there will always be someone speaking against it, for whatever reason. In this case they are wrong, don't believe them.
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
|
Neil Roy said: Not a conspiracy video but an actual documentary with some pretty amazing facts. That's what fans of the Zeitgeist movies say.
|
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
|
Watch this entire video before you comment. It has some very good, scientific data. I don't expect everyone to accept it, but at least give it a chance and watch it straight through with an open mind. Some of the scientific data is quite interesting. I can tell that some are replying against this before even watching it. --- |
torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
|
Neil Roy said: I can tell that some are replying against this before even watching it. Yes, because it's 99% likely to be bullshit It doesn't matter what one guy says, it matters how he can back it up with actual data. And not just pretend that he can, by interpreting data in a way that fits with his preconceived notion, etc., etc. Completely random Wikpedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias APPEND: The point is this: If that guy think he's onto something, he has to convince scientists in the field that he is right, by showing them why he is right. That's how science works. Appealing to the general public when the relevant scientists won't take you seriously is a red flag. Most of us are not qualified to judge the science anyway, we have to judge who is trustworthy or not. |
Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
|
This is going to be an even bigger flamewar than our religious threads. What more evidence do you need: {"name":"nasa_seaice_1979_2012.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/5\/b5de9553f2f6cc4406f3707e8a8f213e.jpg","w":800,"h":690,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/5\/b5de9553f2f6cc4406f3707e8a8f213e"} It's absolutely true that many "Green" movements are just scams for more money. But scams do not disprove logic. Just because the Red Cross steals aid money, doesn't mean people aren't starving or dying of malaria around the world. -----sig: |
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Neil Roy said: I can tell that some are replying against this before even watching it. Well, yes. A climate change "documentary" called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is like a 9/11 documentary called "WAKE UP, SHEEPLE - The Great False Flag Operation" - unless the title is ironic, you don't even have to watch it to know that it's going to be filled with conspiracist bullshit. And the minute I managed to watch (again: not watching this sober ) was exactly the kind of shit I was expecting. And as torhu pointed out, this is a matter of science, and we already know what the science says. -- |
furinkan
Member #10,271
October 2008
|
LennyLen said: That's what fans of the Zeitgeist movies say. My thoughts exactly. EDIT: Also OP, you're in Canada. You should be able to see it from your house. |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
If the global warming people are right, then it would certainly help if they didn't keep "adjusting" the historical data. The references to how many "scientists" support global warming is largely because of peer pressure, even the threat of jail time. This is just the other side of the 1970's "ice age" scenario. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010
|
I don't doubt CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas, it isn't even the only or the strongest greenhouse gas. I just don't see that it's been proven human activity is a driving factor in the planet's changing temperatures, considered it's been well known to be cyclical, and it's following such patterns much more closely than the doomsayers' predictions. Also, as Arthur mentioned, editing past temperature recordings doesn't help their cause. |
Erin Maus
Member #7,537
July 2006
|
Pretty sure that NOAA adjusting records is because the way temperatures were measured. Some were measured on ships (near the exhaust), which created a constant difference when compared to bouys. All they did was fix the information on record--the adjusted data was already used in reports, etc. And if global warming were a solar cycle issue, then all the planets would be warming at a similar rate (adjusted for distance and other factors, of course). They're not. For the record, Venus probably had an earthlike atmosphere at one point. Its atmosphere is composed largely of greenhouse gases now, resulting in it being hotter than Mercury despite being much farther away from the sun. Also, even though it was before my time, the 1970s "ice age" is a crap strawman: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/ and https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm --- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
raynebc said: I don't doubt CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas, it isn't even the only or the strongest greenhouse gas. I think the argument goes that the CO2 raises temperatures slightly which increases water vapor, which in turn is the major "greenhouse gas". Aaron Bolyard said: And if global warming were a solar cycle issue, then all the planets would be warming at a similar rate Are you claiming we can measure other planets temperatures to a fraction of a degree Celsius? I doubt the readings are that accurate here (especially 100 years ago), let alone millions of miles away. Actually the sun seems to be rather weak the last few years, so another Mini Ice Age might be coming. Quote: Its atmosphere is composed largely of greenhouse gases now Understatement of the year. The atmosphere of Venus is more than 96% CO2, and it's 100 times as dense as well. Quote: it was before my time, the 1970s "ice age" is a crap strawman Here's 112 links to the published hysteria. It wasn't "just a couple of articles" as some claim. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Erin Maus
Member #7,537
July 2006
|
And I read an article that the elusive batboy gave birth. Only a few published scientific articles pointed towards a possible global cooling in that time. The media tends to exaggerate or outright fabricate stories in order to sell ad space, no matter the results. Credible scientific journals are not under this pressure. Also the recent "yet another mini ice age" hysteria that climate change deniers clung to is again a strawman. If I remember correctly, it was prematurely reported and inaccurate compared to the actual research. Who would have thought? --- |
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
|
torhu said: It doesn't matter what one guy says, it matters how he can back it up with actual data. This isn't one guy. Watch it, seriously, it interviews lots of scientists who have studied this and presents their data. Some of it surprised me, like the real source of warming (and cooling) trends which the data matched precisely. Watch the video to to find out where. This isn't one man, just a well done documentary with lots of legitimate scientists commenting. I will admit, I think the title could have been better done, but the documentary is not really like what the title would suggest. Just please watch it, it's not what you think. It's really quite interesting and makes some good points. A few I never thought of. I won't argue the issue, I just wanted to share some data and opinions from legitimate scientists that have studied this (and been silenced to a certain degree) of the opposite end of the coin on the issue which you don't hear. And I feel that in all fairness, everyone should at least give this a fair chance to explain their point of view and show you their data. Then once you have heard both sides, you can decide which you feel has a stronger case. But so far we just hear one side of the debate, and that in my opinion, is not very fair at all. Especially with what is at stake, and I'm not talking about the climate here, watch it to see what else. Lets see if it is possible for people in these forums to be fair and then reply without swearing. --- |
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
|
Neil Roy said: Watch this entire video before you comment. Please note that I wasn't trying to make a comment on the video. I don't intend to watch it myself as it's not a topic that interests me, nor do I have the background to determine if the facts presented are credible or not. I was simply amused by the one line I quoted as I'd been having a discussion about the Zeitgeist movies earlier that day with one of my staff who is totally convinced that they are serious documentaries filled with real facts. He also believe a lot of other stuff about them as well, such as that they were banned from cinemas worldwide (No, they just wouldn't have made any money), and that it was treason in the US to own copies of the movies (I have no idea where that one came from).
|
torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
|
Neil Roy said: This isn't one guy. Watch it, seriously, it interviews lots of scientists who have studied this and presents their data. Consider this: almost all scientists (or if you will: experts, people that do this for a living and has spent years studying it) in the field agrees that global warning caused by human activities is a real thing. But you, a layperson, choose to believe a few outliers instead. Why would you do that? It's a bit like with GMOs. People don't like the idea of it, so they want to pretend that there's something wrong with it. But there probably isn't, it's just that there is a lot of scare mongering and conspiracy talk going about. Poeple are often so inflexible when it comes to relating to new ideas. Basically, you should start with an open mind and follow the science, otherwise you are just setting yourself up for embarrassment Highly relevant: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/ |
Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
|
torhu said: Poeple are often so inflexible when it comes to relating to new ideas. I've sometimes heard this idea followed by a point about the Copernican revolution. If I had a time machine, I would enjoy traveling to that time period to see how public opinion migrated on that, perhaps to provide insights to peoples' ability to change in general. Apparently, that one was particularly challenging. -- |
amarillion
Member #940
January 2001
|
My house is already 50 cm below sea level, and that is certainly not going to get better. I'm happy that at least my government is taking this problem seriously: NL Climate Agenda Of course we should be doing even more -- |
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
|
I'm glad Limburg is on a hill Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard) |
Striker
Member #10,701
February 2009
|
Clever people have a houseboat. {"name":"609634","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/c\/8c312fd03047bdf6361c35723960b4da.jpg","w":2592,"h":1944,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/c\/8c312fd03047bdf6361c35723960b4da"} Houseboats in Berlin.
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Yeah, yeah, New York City was supposed to be flooded by now! [EDIT] Neil, you really need to get on the bandwagon, all the cool kids are doing it! [EDIT 2] you old codger... They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: Yeah, yeah, New York City was supposed to be flooded by now! [newsbusters.org] Arguing against science with the faults of television is not going to work. I've discussed with a "clima-sceptic" years ago. He seemed to grasp the subject better than me, so I had to resort to saying that I didn't understand the topic well enough to competently argue about it. I asked him where he learned all he knew. It turned out it was an American website by an obscure "institute" or "center" in Washington. About 4 mins of googling revealed that this "institute" received a large sum of $$$ from ExxonMobile. They were even so nice as to publish a big list of donations. After I showed this to him, he went on to say that none of it was relevant, because all the mainstream-scientists formed a large conspiracy, too, with big monetary interests behind them. |
|
|