Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep3_banner.thumb.jpg.5533fb830ae914798f4dbbdd2c8a5853.jpg

Sign in to follow this  
G1ZmO

Great Global Warming Swindle (Ch4 last night)

Recommended Posts

I too watched this program and thoroughly enjoyed seeing and alternate view point.

I try to be environmentally friendly, my children have green issues drummed into them at school, the media frighten the life out of us with prophecies of doom and calamity, central & local government tax us to the hilt and use green issues as as a stick of guilt to hit us with. The next general election will be the first in history that green issues could decide the new government in this country. I am sick of it. You don't know who or what to believe.

Like many of us I have to separate waste at source before the council will collect it, all well and good, recycling regardless of your standpoint is a sensible thing, but a friend of mine travels the country repairing the compressors on landfill sites, and he has witnessed hour after hour, recycling vans emptying their separated waste into landfill all mixed up again. In his experience this happens all over the country. Having questioned site supervisors as to why this happens, he was told that we do not currently have the technological ability to recycle efficiently many of the goods, and therefore they are dumped. The separation at source by joe public is a way of conditioning us for a time in the future when we will be able to recycle these items!!! It honestly scares me that we are lied to so openly.

I completely agree that we should not empty chemicals into the sea, that we should not destroy species and habitats for our own greed, indeed many of the basic truths of the green lobby are simple, common sense. The issue of global warming and carbon emissions on the other hand, is so contentious and means so many can make huge profits in its name, that I do not believe either side 100% at this moment in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok some good points made here.

Another alternative to global warming is tht the poles could be getting ready to reverse?

Is this not also a symptom of the ice caps melting?

AT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok some good points made here.

Another alternative to global warming is tht the poles could be getting ready to reverse?

Is this not also a symptom of the ice caps melting?

AT

Pole reversal is related to the Earths magnetic field reversing, not the temperature or amount of ice at the poles. Were the poles to physically reverse (i.e. the whole Earth shifts) then the whole global warming debate becomes an irrelevance...

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the poles to physically reverse (i.e. the whole Earth shifts) then the whole global warming debate becomes an irrelevance...

James

Sounds like a good idea to me! 'Down Under' seems to have much better weather than we do 'Up Over'. :wink:

CW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing i know for certain is that i would be happier to know that global warming and the resulting climate change IS due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and not an increase in solar output or some complex theory about gamma rays and clouds. If its us then there is something we can do about it based on the 'precautionary principle.' We cant do jack s*&% about the sun (unless you believe in Bruce Willis and Hollywood).

Ive read alot of the scientific papers on the subject and as far as i can see the evidence suggests that man has altered the climate by producing carbon dioxide via anthropogenic global warming. Most papers coming out now suggest that positive feedbacks in the global system are occuring that are pushing the climate to a tipping point. One that has been mentioned on here is H2O which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But it has been man made warming that has increased humidity in the atmosphere. Just as solar energy has also had an impact on climate change in the last century, it has been mans impact that has pushed climate change beyond natural variation.

Unfortunately lots of people have destroyed the credibility of the scientific argument and the debate is now politicial. The scientific debate was finished years ago. The Great Global Warming Swindle film had me fuming as the science on it was a joke...for example...most of the graphs ended abrutly in the 70s and 80s and didnt show what has happened in the last 20 years...also in the film volcanoes produce lots of carbon dioxide...this is true BUT it failed to point out that volcanoes produce sulphur dioxide as well that forms sulphate aerosols that COOL the atmosphere...and not ending there either....they failed to point out that the oceans and vegetation absorb nearly ALL of the carbon dioxide that is naturally released from soil. So the only carbon dioxide that affects global warming is that produced by man that would normally be locked away in fossil fuels.

There is so much uncertainty on both sides of the arguments but it is a serious shame that the science has been demolished by nah sayers, journalists, politicians and idiots who think they are gonna make a film that will make them famous. The world is facing a serious crisis and its not just about global warming...its also about the end of oil, poverty, water shortage and war...they are all linked.

Science is always 95 % certain. The science is never going to be 100 % right...Einstein was never 100 % right but who says Einstein was wrong or was an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that the original guy who got up and predicted global warming in the 70s said that in 30 years temperatures would be up 3 degrees.

Many scientists jumped on the bandwaggon as doing a study into 'xxx and global warming' would get a grant while doing a study into 'xxx' got them nowt. Up until the great global warming speech many scientists were more interested in the next ice age - another non starter for money once global warming (as in it's all the fault of the naughty humans) had been taken up by the Eco's and later as a real money maker by business and government.

So thirty years after the great prediction the temperature had moved up by 0.1 and not 3 degrees. (It has moved up and down more than this in past 30 year periods.) You might think this would cause the great man a problem but, far from it he gets up and says - 3 or 0.1 degrees - who cares - it just goes to show how hard global warming is to predict or prove but everyone is sure it is going on blah blah blah.

And by now so many are on this gravy train (which we pay for) I guess it will race on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiny, your message is entirely devoid of verifiable information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually a number of papers published in the journal Nature in the 1970s accurately predicted the temperature of the globe and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today. This i can prove but not at the moment as im not at work!

Yes there was one author in the 70s that predicted a coming global ice age. Everyone shreiked and the press grabbed hold of it and now everyone today uses it as an argument against global warming. "In the 70s the ice age was coming...now scientists say its global warming...why should i believe you!!!" Well, it was journalism that spun the wrong story not science. The majority of scientists at the time got global warming theory right and some of their predictions have been astoningly accurate. But that story back then wasnt as exciting as an impending ice age!!

Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. There are many others and there are gases that have a cooling effect. Since World War 2 we have been pumping out lots of polutants and aerosols that have acted to cool the atmosphere. Since the 70s these chemicals have been banned. This has led to an increase in the warming trend in the last 20 years! But there are many others factors that explain the ups and downs on the temperature graph over the last 100 years.

The Swindle film has been found to contain a large amounts of inaccurate data

http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9250037634/m/5770042657

even Durkin admitted it and yet people still believe this film has an important argument. Nearly all of his data was made up or distorted.

Most scientists (that are good credible scientists) get there funding independently of there results (unless of course you work for an oil company). The whole hoopla about funding is another example of poor arguments spread by people like Durkin who really have something to gain from global warming. Scientists studying climate change have nothing to gain if they are right...if they are wrong they have everything to loose!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Higher humidity means more :smiley::evil: ....... looking back over the last couple years our observing windows seem to be diminishing which backs this theory up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Higher humidity means more :smiley::evil: ....... looking back over the last couple years our observing windows seem to be diminishing which backs this theory up.

Yeah! What we need is bigger and better holes in the ozone layer! Join the Return Our CFCs Direct Action Group and get a free aerosol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an emotive topic! Just shows how different we all are, and how differently we interpret information. (It would not do for everyone to have the same opinion - especially if it was wrong!).

There are Scientists, Men of God, and Politicians. All with different agendas.

As some have said on this forum. We (Human Beings) are indeed doing (irrepairable) damage to this wonderful planet we live on. There is also natural climate changes we can do nothing about.

I think the main thing we have to be aware of (which a lot of native tribes - we used to call them "savages" are indeed very well aware of), is that we have got to work with Nature, and not against it.

The way we are using up natural resources (which have taken millions of years to form) is unprecedented - and irreplaceable.

Scientists warn us of our actions.

Religion condemn us for our sins.

The Politicians Tax us! (They don't bother making the huge multinational companies change their ways, or come up with alternatives).

The real, 100 effective, and oh so simple answer to all our environmental (and social) problems lies with "us!" - the common populace.

There are more of us than "them." We have the power to change things.

E.G. If everyone in this country stopped dropping litter for example, and picked up one piece of litter and put it in a bin, Britain would become litter free within a week!

We can do it - it just needs "individual" action.

Regards,

philsail1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the debate is still open but remember that the human race is only here because of previous mass extinctions, I think I'm right in saying that there have been 5 mass extinctions so far. so I guess sooner or later........

M2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope we've achieved the technological (and social) advance to enable us escape the Earth if "when" disaster looms!

Regards,

philsail1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "debate" among scientists. The climate is warming. Humans are, if not causing it, they are making it worse. This year, studies show the rate of warming is in excess of predictions.

Do we do nothing and "hope" it all goes away? Or do we try whatever we can think of to slow it down?

I vote for action, not debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree wholeheartedly AM. Now, how did the weekend go for you?

I thought a condensed report might be forthcoming.

Ron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing we have added to this planet is a bag of moon rock,

The other stuff has always been here. We are just mixing it up :nono:

Tax :scratch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "debate" among scientists. The climate is warming. Humans are, if not causing it, they are making it worse. This year, studies show the rate of warming is in excess of predictions.

Do we do nothing and "hope" it all goes away? Or do we try whatever we can think of to slow it down?

I vote for action, not debate.

The way I see it is this. There is a strong and emotive debate by both the people who say we contributed to the climate changing and the other folks who say its entirely natural. For my lay understanding, the truth is lost.

What I believe is that all pollution should be cut as much as possible. The public enemy no 1 is carbon dioxide, which is wonderful for vegetation :D but if cutting CO2 emissions has the side effect of reducing other and maybe even toxic pollutants then it can't be a bad thing.

We've done a lot of harm to the planet, but boarding the Japanese whaling fleet in the south pacific aint gonna fix it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GW is a natural process,but we`re just speeding it up.Obviously the cause of it is CO2 but it ain`t just us, people who need the cars and what have ya to live i blame it on motor racing you have about 30 odd cars going round a track doing about 30-70 laps and you`re telling me that we`re just by going to work by car coming home turning our heating up using the computer electricity etc that we``re contrabuting more.cmon open ya eyes,stupid** governments. :x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GW is a natural process,but we`re just speeding it up.Obviously the cause of it is CO2 but it ain`t just us, people who need the cars and what have ya to live i blame it on motor racing you have about 30 odd cars going round a track doing about 30-70 laps and you`re telling me that we`re just by going to work by car coming home turning our heating up using the computer electricity etc that we``re contrabuting more.cmon open ya eyes,stupid** governments. :x

Hi Carl,

Totally with you on the motorsport issue. I despise formula one for the amount of emmissions they must produce. I'm told some folks like drag racers use biofuels, but I don't know.

I'm not sure about electric at home though. If everyone did it (Use less) sure it would make a difference, but are many folks doing anything at all?

I was thinking about leaving my PC on overnight doing SETI, but I really cannot decide if it's really a bad thing or not.

Peace and Clear Skies.

Becky.

PS With you on the fur issue too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can put proposals together to build base stations on the Moon, and eventually Mars together with the technology to survive, surely we could put some of this resource and assets into reversing the trend of global warming.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but be quite pessimistic on the GW debate. I reckon we'll still be arguing in 20 years on whether we are causing GW or not and the planet will be steadily getting warmer and warmer. The problem is there's too many fingers in the pie and they all have vested political or economic interests. I think without a doubt the planet is getting warmer and we are at fault. It's simple concept really. The question shouldn't be about whether we are causing it or not but what are we going to do about it.

Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoted from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/01/11/do1101.xml

There are 1.3 billion cows on this planet, and every year each cow produces about 90kg of methane, and as greenhouse gases go, methane is about 24 times worse than CO2 in sealing the heat in the air. According to a recent report by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, agriculture produces 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent — and that, my friends, is more than is produced by the entire human transport industry.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and also, manufacturing a car is much, much more economically unfriendly than all the fumes it produces over its lifetime. Rather than saying "drive your car less", we should really be saying, "buy less cars and keep them longer".

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.