Global Warming?

crit13
#1
A funny thing happened on the way to global warming............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU&mode=related&search=

This was aired in England and is making some serious waves around the world.

I challenge any Al Gore fan to watch this documentary and not question his motives and principles.

 
Zzarchov
#2
In the very intro you got a guy who doesnt understand what the major difference between CO2 in Ice Cores and CO2 now is.

One was a sinlge massive burst blotting out the sun, the other is a sustained increase in CO2 that had previously been buried and removed from the Ecosphere.


What is the hard science here? World used to be much warmer, huge levels of Carbon ended up stuck under ground and removed from the biosphere and the earth cooled. We build all our infrastructure and cities along waterways because we are short sighted..then begin putting that carbon back into the biosphere and..no ship sherlock, it starts to get warmer.

It won't be a disaster to have global warming, it will be a disaster to us because we don't plan ahead, at all. The issue is..is it cheaper to fight global warming or to plan for it?
 
Sparrow
#3
If you believe in global warming will you explain to me why 55 million years ago the Arctic was subtropical and had CO2 of 2-3000 ppm compared to day of 380ppm. Someone is not telling the truth!

It is as illogical as deciding not to go to work any more because you might have an accident on the way.

We must clean up pollution but that does not need global frenzie to do the job. Someone is trying to lead us and our government around by the nose.
They are trying for global control and we have several examples of it today and people are blindly going along with it.
 
Tonington
#4
There are multiple threads where we discussed this program. The producers of the program took things out of context, most of their experts no longer work for the institutions they linked them with, presented a graph which has been shown to be inaccurate, and has been shot down by many in the climate field. By now you can find many sources where true scientists evaluated the content of that program and picked it apart with surgical precision.
 
crit13
#5
Quote:

By now you can find many sources where true scientists evaluated the content of that program and picked it apart with surgical precision.

The same way other scientists picked apart an Inconvenient lie.

The point is that it is a huge lie that there is a consensus on what is causing global warming. As evident in many scientists coming out and disputing pretty much everything that Al Gore talked about.

How do you explain the global warming that is happening on Mars? Too many Martians driving SUV's?
 
Tonington
#6
Mars ehh?

Well for starters the Mars year is about 687 days. Currently it is winter in the northern hemisphere, the warming has been observed in the southern hemisphere. The oblique orbit is what dominates the seasons on Mars. What you end up with are very long summers and winters, in the range of tens of thousands of years. Mars also has no oceans or atmosphere, making the climate easilly influenced by external factors. Last I heard, the solar influence on Mars was actually decreasing as we move towards a solar minimum.

Dust storms on mars have a large affect on the global means. Since the 70's when Viking made the first recordings, the temperature was decreasing because of the large dust storms. Now the storms have decreased, so we see a rise in the temperature. The temperature can vary by many degrees because of these storms.

Isn't it funny how people can be persuaded by the changes on another planet, yet be so skeptical of our own measurements here? Where Mars shows regional changes, and here on Earth we have bonafied global changes...
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post

If you believe in global warming will you explain to me why 55 million years ago the Arctic was subtropical and had CO2 of 2-3000 ppm compared to day of 380ppm. Someone is not telling the truth!

Yep, and 4 billion years ago the average global temperature would have been measured in thousands of degrees. Going back 55 million years is an irrelevant comparison, the continents were in different places and there was a good deal more volcanism going on. Times change. The earth began to warm up around 18,000 years ago, and global average temperature is now about 8 degrees C higher than it was then. The record shows in fact that over the last half million years global average temperature has fluctuated from about 8 degrees cooler than now to about 3 degrees warmer, on about a 100,000 year cycle. The warming and cooling cycles follow cycles in atmospheric CO2 levels with a lag of a few thousand years. We're currently in a warming phase, still emerging from the last ice age.

It's not a matter of belief at all, it's a fact. Global warming is happening, the evidence is incontrovertible. What's at issue is the human contribution to it and whether we can or should do anything about it.
 
thomaska
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

It's not a matter of belief at all, it's a fact. Global warming is happening, the evidence is incontrovertible.


Here is the problem most people have with the new Global warming religion. If you don't follow the party line of these lunatics, you are a heretic.
 
Tonington
#9
I really enjoy the comparisons to religion. There is no faith involved here, save for the people who see it on TV and exhibit zero degrees of critical thought or reason. They're on both sides of the debate. You can read the data yourself. Actual measurements. Not some superstitious claims which cannot be verified.
 
Curiosity
#10
Global Warming - Who Stands To Gain From the Hysteria?
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by thomaska View Post

Here is the problem most people have with the new Global warming religion. If you don't follow the party line of these lunatics, you are a heretic.

Which are you calling me? Interesting that you left out the second sentence in citing that paragraph, because it really is the issue. That's why I put those sentences together in one paragraph. They need each other for context.
 
tamarin
Conservative
#12
I'm still on the fence which is a rarity for me. Being 56 I've witnessed the huge changes in weather patterns since I was a kid. Canadian winters especially have changed enormously in eastern Ontario. Summers not so much. Is this evidence of a major climatic shift? I'm not sure but I am leery. What would push me into the GW camp completely would be a hellish summer. I think one's possible and it would be devastating.
 
hermanntrude
#13
really it doesnt matter whether we're causing global warming or not. Scientists across the globe are pretty certain it's happening anyway. Sea levels are rising and will rise faster. Cities in various places are in trouble and due to be in a lot more trouble.

seriously think about it logically:

does it matter if it was our fault?- not much cos we should clean up the mess even if it isnt causing global warming

does it matter if it's even happening?- it's better to assume it is happening, do something about it and find that it isnt, than vice versa. Also it's pretty safe to assume it is happening since there's a lot of science behind the claim

should we do something?- YES! we should plan for cities being awash, large scale climate change and other dangers ahead. We should also do anything we can just in case we have a chance of slowing or calming any of these effects, even if they turn out to be nonexistant, which is a small probability.
 
Sparrow
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Yep, and 4 billion years ago the average global temperature would have been measured in thousands of degrees. Going back 55 million years is an irrelevant comparison, the continents were in different places and there was a good deal more volcanism going on. Times change. The earth began to warm up around 18,000 years ago, and global average temperature is now about 8 degrees C higher than it was then. The record shows in fact that over the last half million years global average temperature has fluctuated from about 8 degrees cooler than now to about 3 degrees warmer, on about a 100,000 year cycle. The warming and cooling cycles follow cycles in atmospheric CO2 levels with a lag of a few thousand years. We're currently in a warming phase, still emerging from the last ice age.

It's not a matter of belief at all, it's a fact. Global warming is happening, the evidence is incontrovertible. What's at issue is the human contribution to it and whether we can or should do anything about it.

Yes global warming is happening. What I do not agree with is the political hype they are using to instill fear in the populations. This has gone from a study about pollution and climate change to a political tool. How can this group justify themselves and their findings by belittling and using name calling against scientists that do not agree. Is it because they cannot justify their findings and they are afraid of open debate? What are they hiding?

Here in small town Quebec I can tell you that global warming this winter was for others because we have had plenty of snow and cold weather.
 
Tonington
#15
It's really quite the opposite Sparrow. The IPCC gets the bum's rush because of thjings like 1000's of scientists worked on it. What is valid to note is that while not all of the scientists who contributed to the report agree, when you complie all of that data, analyze statistically, you get a high confidence and alpha level in the models which are predicting the changes. Some of the models have even underpredicted the change. Then you have programs like the Great Swindle, and the likes who are belittling the serious science, and inserting fraudulent junk. When we look at the solar correlation, Mars data, the fella who wrote that long email for the Telegraph in England, the numbers don't add up. Where the IPCC and it's supporters show you how the deniers evidence is flawed, the deniers put forth fraudulent stuff. They don't refute the IPCC science, becuase it is sound. Instead they counter with favourable studies which are as leaky as a sieve.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

It's really quite the opposite Sparrow. The IPCC gets the bum's rush because of thjings like 1000's of scientists worked on it. What is valid to note is that while not all of the scientists who contributed to the report agree, when you complie all of that data, analyze statistically, you get a high confidence and alpha level in the models which are predicting the changes. Some of the models have even underpredicted the change. Then you have programs like the Great Swindle, and the likes who are belittling the serious science, and inserting fraudulent junk. When we look at the solar correlation, Mars data, the fella who wrote that long email for the Telegraph in England, the numbers don't add up. Where the IPCC and it's supporters show you how the deniers evidence is flawed, the deniers put forth fraudulent stuff. They don't refute the IPCC science, becuase it is sound. Instead they counter with favourable studies which are as leaky as a sieve.


Well said Tonington.


The countries who's scientists contributed to the IPCC reports did not send their idiots. In a thing the size of IPCC there is bound to be some friction, I'd be surprised if there wasn't, but for 98 percent of IPCC scientists, there is consensus.
 
crit13
#17
Quote:

for 98 percent of IPCC scientists, there is consensus.

Last month the consensus was virtually 100%.

Why did the planet not have a mini ice-age by now such as was prophisized by many of the same scientists that now claim global warming?

I agree that the planet is warming, but I'm not convinced that humans are causing it. I believe it's part of a cycle.

It's hard for me to believe this theory when a similar theory only 30 years ago turned out to be not only false but the exact opposite of what is being said today. Can you blame me?
 
EagleSmack
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post

Yes global warming is happening. What I do not agree with is the political hype they are using to instill fear in the populations. This has gone from a study about pollution and climate change to a political tool. How can this group justify themselves and their findings by belittling and using name calling against scientists that do not agree. Is it because they cannot justify their findings and they are afraid of open debate? What are they hiding?

Here in small town Quebec I can tell you that global warming this winter was for others because we have had plenty of snow and cold weather.

How dare you mention the cold weather being the same as it always is!

HERETIC!
BLASPHEMER!

GORE WILLS IT!

<everyone together>

GORE WILLS IT!
 
Tonington
#19
Is it so unheard of that theories and information can change? We used to think billowing sulphates, CFC's, dioxins, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide etc. was acceptable. Now we have a better understanding of what these compounds can do, including negative forcings which cool the atmosphere. Models made in 1999 reproduced the global cooling effects, the cause was sulphate aerosols. Aerosols are also partly responsible for the Global dimming theory.
 
EagleSmack
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by crit13 View Post

Last month the consensus was virtually 100%.

Why did the planet not have a mini ice-age by now such as was prophisized by many of the same scientists that now claim global warming?

I agree that the planet is warming, but I'm not convinced that humans are causing it. I believe it's part of a cycle.

It's hard for me to believe this theory when a similar theory only 30 years ago turned out to be not only false but the exact opposite of what is being said today. Can you blame me?

Please ignore the green prediction of an up coming Ice Age 30 years ago. That is no longer the fad. That went out with disco.

GW is all the rage now. Get with it and be in goose step with the latest liberal scam.
 
Tonington
#21
For all the sarcasm and cynicism, I have yet to see anyone show how the data is flawed, without a futile tit-for-tat graph war.

Show me how the IPCC data is unreliable. From where I'm sitting a 95% confidence interval beats 25% every time, maybe 1/20 it's wrong. Better than 3/4 it's wrong it's wrong. I'd go all-in with IPCC's hand.
 
eh1eh
#22
That is a good vid crit13. I took the time to watch it a couple of weeks ago and posted it in another global warming thread. I can't find, (there are so many), but after watching this I have come to a definate conclusion.
Nobody really knows. So much evidence points in different directions that anyone that says global warming is real, or not, does not have an open enough mind to accept that maybe all the evidence is correct but we don't have the abilty to know what it means or what it will lead to. There has been compelling arguements to both, real, not real. I'm not putting money on either.
 
thomaska
#23
"As a believer: that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.


The Goreacle refused to sign this pladge yesterday, during the course of his shrieking before Congress.

Does anyone wonder why some of us aren't really taking the global warming panic too seriously?
 
tamarin
Conservative
#24
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,7539379.story

Worth a read. And maybe the title is less benign than thought. I'm sure Pat Robertson could find a way to link the two.
 
thomaska
#25
Read the article, He mentions something about Bush travelling forward in time to 2056, assuming that in 2056, earth will be like the sunside of Mercury during its summer, and coming back with a conviction to stop global warming.

What would happen if he did? Here's what would happen: If Bush did start doing something that could stop us all from bursting into flames spontaneously on Jan 1 2056, the left would just think he was up to no good anyways, and do all in their power to stop him.

But the beauty of GW, is that even if it isn't hot enough in 2056 for the GW crowd, they can always push the deadline back. Its got that whole "coming of the messiah" thing going for it. Impossible to disprove.
 
Tonington
#26
And many of the old denial cranks will long since been dead when things trully get messed up. Kinda like that conspiracy rule about setting the date past your life expectancy.
 
jimmoyer
#27
That is a good vid crit13. I took the time to watch it a couple of weeks ago and posted it in another global warming thread. I can't find, (there are so many), but after watching this I have come to a definate conclusion.

So much evidence points in different directions that anyone that says global warming is real, or not, does not have an open enough mind to accept that maybe all the evidence is correct but we don't have the abilty to know what it means or what it will lead to. There has been compelling arguements to both, real, not real. I'm not putting money on either.
------------------------------------------------eh1eh---------------------------------------------------------


That sums up my view nicely.

We got some real crusaders on both sides, which tells you once again ideology
is more important than the conflicting facts ---- for both sides.
 
Curiosity
#28
Tonington

It isn't the science which is being refuted, it is the politicization of the scientific data - at least with the people in my circle of friends who know way more than I do.

It is being tarted around like some patriotic duty of everyone to agree instead of wanting to discuss
and understand what all these different numbers actually represent.

Or are many of them geared to generate interest with an underlying agenda of rushed fear and not knowledge??? I wonder.
 
Sparrow
#29
I agree with you 100%. We must listen too both sides, many like myself have not made a final decision because the information is too politicized and that make me suspicious.
 
hermanntrude
#30
I don't think a final decision is necessary. whatever the outcome of the scientific investigations, it's better for everyone if we act as if the whole thing was true and that we should act upon it
 

Similar Threads

2
Where is Global warming?
by benny_patrick7 | Dec 19th, 2008
1
Umm, Global Warming...
by thomaska | Jan 21st, 2007
6
Its so hot from global warming...
by thomaska | Dec 9th, 2006
0
Global Warming
by jimmoyer | Oct 31st, 2006