Great Global Warming Swindle (Ch4 last night)

[Sam Bo]

The person with the theory to prove that the world is not warming due to mans activity is gonna get the biggest payout on the planet. The problem is is that there is no data to back that theory up. The sceptical argument now is that scientists are conspiring with governments to earn their bread. I find that highly unlikely. Unfortunately businessmen and politicians have used carbon offsetting to make money which has only helped to reinforce peoples beliefs that a conspiracy is a foot. The science still stands.

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

Look at which forum? Hey, do we get paid for this? Yay, I didn't know that!!

Kaptain Klevtsov

[Tiny]

Look at which forum? Hey, do we get paid for this? Yay, I didn't know that!!

Kaptain Klevtsov

As a local politician wrote to me when I complained that my parish tax got me not a single benefitand what did I get out of it. "Your payment is (for) being here in this blessed place." :hello1:

[dave1978]

The scientists have to find someone or something to blame! they cant blame the ants & termites and there is no money for them if them blame natural sources so the only way they get their money & publicity is to blame MANKIND. They had us pinned even before they started to research it, its the easy option. In 40/50 years time we will have all paid huge %'s in TAX's (which is what its all come down to) and nothing will have changed.

So if its all our fault can anyone tell me from all the scientific research over the last 100 years "WHY DID WE HAVE AN ICE AGE" what caused it? we wernt about in significant numbers to contribute but something must have been the route cause! Also what caused the Earth to warm up and bring us out of the ice age? I can tell you!

EARTH'S NATURAL CYCLE WITH RELATION TO THE SUN :sunny:

[dave1978]

The person with the theory to prove that the world is not warming due to mans activity is gonna get the biggest payout on the planet. The problem is is that there is no data to back that theory up. The sceptical argument now is that scientists are conspiring with governments to earn their bread. I find that highly unlikely. Unfortunately businessmen and politicians have used carbon offsetting to make money which has only helped to reinforce peoples beliefs that a conspiracy is a foot. The science still stands.

This doesnt mean that the science is FACT, its all interpretation of computer models using selective data which supports them! do you really think now its come so far that the scientists will back down? do you think they would use data that had any risk of proving them wrong?

[Sam Bo]

The scientists have to find someone or something to blame! they cant blame the ants & termites and there is no money for them if them blame natural sources so the only way they get their money & publicity is to blame MANKIND. They had us pinned even before they started to research it, its the easy option. In 40/50 years time we will have all paid huge %'s in TAX's (which is what its all come down to) and nothing will have changed.

So if its all our fault can anyone tell me from all the scientific research over the last 100 years "WHY DID WE HAVE AN ICE AGE" what caused it? we wernt about in significant numbers to contribute but something must have been the route cause! Also what caused the Earth to warm up and bring us out of the ice age? I can tell you!

EARTH'S NATURAL CYCLE WITH RELATION TO THE SUN :sunny:

Yeah thats right! Over most of earth history that variability of the climate has been due to natural factors. The sun is one but greenhouse gases have also been another. Not from mans pollution but from gases produced by plant and soil respiration (CO2, CH4 and N2O). Changes in temperature brought about by the sun or the wobble of the earth caused an increase in respiration which increased these gases causing a positive feedback effect. This is why CO2 comes after temperature in the past climate records. But now it is the other way around. With greenhouse gases and temperature there is no simple cause and effect relationship. It goes both ways. And yes it was greenhouse gases that got us out of the ice age.

I would love to see the data the proves that the earths tilt or the output of the sun is the cause of current global warming. But that evidence does not exist. Where is the data that proves that current global warming is natural???

[Sam Bo]

The person with the theory to prove that the world is not warming due to mans activity is gonna get the biggest payout on the planet. The problem is is that there is no data to back that theory up. The sceptical argument now is that scientists are conspiring with governments to earn their bread. I find that highly unlikely. Unfortunately businessmen and politicians have used carbon offsetting to make money which has only helped to reinforce peoples beliefs that a conspiracy is a foot. The science still stands.

This doesnt mean that the science is FACT, its all interpretation of computer models using selective data which supports them! do you really think now its come so far that the scientists will back down? do you think they would use data that had any risk of proving them wrong?

Yes i do. Because that is how science works. It is never as you say fact. And it is always improved upon. If the climate began to cool i think scientists would be the first to predict it. They would get funding for it whether its global warming or global cooling. How many times have the laws of physics been changed. But no one has jumped on the backs of physicists and blamed them of a funding conspiracy.

[dave1978]

Does it all have to be about data? do you believe every piece of scientific research you read absolutley 100% factual without doubt? especially something as complex as the entire planets climate. There is every chance they are wrong, simple as that! Yes they could be right also but there is now too much money involved in the whole thing, this alone makes the results (for me) very scepticle. They now have no option but to continue to blame US and keep ramming it down our throats! can you imagine the uproar if they admitted even a slight chance of doubt in their results & models. They have interpreted results from interpreted data on interpretating computers, nothing about their argument is factual!

[Sam Bo]

Does it all have to be about data? do you believe every piece of scientific research you read absolutley 100% factual without doubt? especially something as complex as the entire planets climate. There is every chance they are wrong, simple as that! Yes they could be right also but there is now too much money involved in the whole thing, this alone makes the results (for me) very scepticle. They now have no option but to continue to blame US and keep ramming it down our throats! can you imagine the uproar if they admitted even a slight chance of doubt in their results & models. They have interpreted results from interpreted data on interpretating computers, nothing about their argument is factual!

Right but in the same way where are the facts for natural climate change. I understand your doubts and scientists have their doubts as well. But how can we base everything we do on just a hunch or faith. We have to base what we do on observable evidence. Yes the evidence is not 100 % factual but it is all we have to go on. And i think most people agree that it is better to put a bet on something that has evidence than something that has no evidence at all. Also Its not just the US to blame but all nations.

[dave1978]

I would rather base my beliefs on the knowledge that the Earth's climate has changed back & forth for millions of years without human interaction and will continue to do so for millions of years into the future, rather than believe the results of scientists who have 50 years of studies behind them!

[cygnusx1]

^ Agreed, Sambo pls explain the global warming and cooling that has been evident in core samples going back millions of yrs, way before mankind was here and Al Gore decided he needed a political/financial boost.

This isn;t anything new, its the everchanging planet, man has very little to do or effect on it.

[Macavity]

To me though the debate does seem to be very "political" (almost aligned along party (class?) boundaries). And I often find it hard to separate some of the more generic anti-science (scientist, reseach grants, intellectuals etc.), rants - Albeit not atypical of PUBLIC opinion? But this could be helped by using e.g. "climate scientist" etc.

As someone closer to the "underclass" in terms of income, healthcare etc. I think I'd personally "give it a go" (e.g. reduce my carbon footprint etc.) if I could help prevent SO MANY people dying during some recent "heatwaves" - Whatever the cause. I once made the mistake of asking, on another Forum, for the best way keeping my CAT cool in a heatwave. "Turn up the Aircon" [idiot?], was the snarled answer. But then I'm not sure there was genuine malice - Merely a complete and utter inabilitity to relate to another's circumstance...

[Sam Bo]

^ Agreed, Sambo pls explain the global warming and cooling that has been evident in core samples going back millions of yrs, way before mankind was here and Al Gore decided he needed a political/financial boost.

This isn;t anything new, its the everchanging planet, man has very little to do or effect on it.

You are right...the earths climate has varied greatly in the past long before man was around. The tilt of the earth caused the ice ages, and changes in solar activity have all had an effect. But greenhouse gases had an impact in the past as well. As the suns activity changed (for what ever reason), the increased temperature would have increased production of CO2, CH4 and N2O from microbial respiration (aerobic, methanogenesis and denitrification) on both land and in the oceans. One criticism of Al Gore is that these gases come after temperature and thus cannot cause global warming. Its true they do come after temperature because temperature was the cause of their release (in some years but not all...see link below). But evidence now suggests that our emission of CO2 from fossil fuels are now causing changes in temperature. So it goes both ways. Its not always cause-and-effect but due to a wide variety of climate forcings.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

The climate system is full of positive and negative feebacks. For example, CO2 increases temperature by reflecting solar energy (IR) back to the ground. The increase in temperature promotes the production of more CO2 from soil respiration. This is a positive feedback to global warming. A negative feedback may be an increase in cloud cover which reflects solar energy. Thus it gets more complex because water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. But through alot of earths history the climate has been controlled by a mix of greenhouse gas emissions from voLcanoes (CO2 wamrs; SO2 cools) and also solar activity that impacts on greenhouse gas emissions via soil and plant respiration.

The data that we have for the suns activity (solar cycles etc, tree ring data) does not suggest that it has increased in activity and therefore natural factors cannot explain the climate of the earth at present. Putting the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases into the current climate models and all of a sudden you get a perfect fit. Pretty compelling evidence i reckon. 50 years of it!

[dave1978]

So Sambo, you are so convinced the scientists are right yeah? so what about all the other scientists that disagree? are you just going to discount anything they say because it doesnt agree with the IPCC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[Sam Bo]

So Sambo, you are so convinced the scientists are right yeah? so what about all the other scientists that disagree? are you just going to discount anything they say because it doesnt agree with the IPCC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

No not at all. Some have valid reasons for attacking the science but alot of them dont. Alot of the scientists in the Swindle film were seriously misrepresented by the director who has been in trouble before. Some of them threatened to sue him. Some of the scientists arent even climatologists. And i am sure there a lot more scientists that agree with the evidence of man-made global warming. But then that is just my own opinion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Swindle#Reactions_from_scientists

Here is a quote from the Royal Society:

Scientists will continue to monitor the global climate and the factors which influence it. It is important that all legitimate potential scientific explanations continue to be considered and investigated. Debate will continue, and the Royal Society has just hosted a two day discussion meeting attended by over 300 scientists, but it must not be at the expense of action. Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future.

[beetlejuice]

You are right...the earths climate has varied greatly in the past long before man was around. The tilt of the earth caused the ice ages, and changes in solar activity have all had an effect. But greenhouse gases had an impact in the past as well. As the suns activity changed (for what ever reason), the increased temperature would have increased production of CO2, CH4 and N2O from microbial respiration (aerobic, methanogenesis and denitrification) on both land and in the oceans. One criticism of Al Gore is that these gases come after temperature and thus cannot cause global warming. Its true they do come after temperature because temperature was the cause of their release (in some years but not all...see link below). But evidence now suggests that our emission of CO2 from fossil fuels are now causing changes in temperature. So it goes both ways. Its not always cause-and-effect but due to a wide variety of climate forcings.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

The climate system is full of positive and negative feebacks. For example, CO2 increases temperature by reflecting solar energy (IR) back to the ground. The increase in temperature promotes the production of more CO2 from soil respiration. This is a positive feedback to global warming. A negative feedback may be an increase in cloud cover which reflects solar energy. Thus it gets more complex because water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. But through alot of earths history the climate has been controlled by a mix of greenhouse gas emissions from voLcanoes (CO2 wamrs; SO2 cools) and also solar activity that impacts on greenhouse gas emissions via soil and plant respiration.

The data that we have for the suns activity (solar cycles etc, tree ring data) does not suggest that it has increased in activity and therefore natural factors cannot explain the climate of the earth at present. Putting the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases into the current climate models and all of a sudden you get a perfect fit. Pretty compelling evidence i reckon. 50 years of it!

Another factor in the creation of the ice ages was the closing by tectonic movement of gap between the Pacific and Altantic oceans at the Panama isthmus. This disrupted global currents and contributed to the cooling of the northern hemisphere. Ice at the poles is actually very unusual for the planet. For most of its history there has been none. In the Cretaceous Period, around 100 million years ago, Dinosaurs lived near the south pole. So climate is extremely complex. The fact that the climate appears to be warming is nothing unusual either as we recover from an ice age - it's only 10,000 years since the last one, a mere blink geologically speaking. The proglobal warmers concentrate on C02 as the prime mover, but its percentage overall of all greenhouse gases is tiny and our contribution even tinier. It's hard to accept that such tiny changes in concentration have a significant overall effect; especially when everyone ignores the elephant in the room - water vapour which accounts for 96% of all greenhouse gases. Man-made global warming may or may not be happening. I don't know and, to be honest, I don't care. It's about time we started taking better care of the planet and if 'global warming' is going to be the catalyst that enables it, then that's fine by me.

[Tiny]

Does it all have to be about data? do you believe every piece of scientific research you read absolutley 100% factual without doubt? especially something as complex as the entire planets climate. There is every chance they are wrong, simple as that! Yes they could be right also but there is now too much money involved in the whole thing, this alone makes the results (for me) very scepticle. They now have no option but to continue to blame US and keep ramming it down our throats! can you imagine the uproar if they admitted even a slight chance of doubt in their results & models. They have interpreted results from interpreted data on interpretating computers, nothing about their argument is factual!

I had this boss who was very clever but he would only believe what it said in books about our machines. A quick live test would show that the book would not tell everything (as the books were written by the machines builders who left out the down side if any). So the boss would say the machine is this quick and I would say no - we have tested and it is only this quick when it has worked up to speed. But it says in the book would be his reply... He got rid of all the machine firms experts as he thought they were conning him when they told him he needed a bigger machine (before he got the first one based on what he read.)

He was totally stubborn on how books knew everything, he had an IQ of 200 and a common sense level of 2. He also had a self preservation level of thousands as he always moved to a new part of the company before they realised he had screwed up and what others said was right - and then the ones left behind got the blame.

He cost the company millions but retired - having caused a number of nervous breakdowns and acquired a sort of anti fan club of those that had suffered him - with an unblemished record and massive pension - recognised as brilliant, oblivious to others, and just the sort of guy you want to be as far away from as possible with his book fetish and his total belief in being right.

Luckily he was not a politician because if the book said launch the missiles he would have done it without a second thought.

The bottom line to this is to be like Baldrick - Deny everything, and only believe that it would be really good to own a large turnip while ignoring all else.

[Astroman]

It is all about getting grants for research - tip the forelock to the right people and say the right things and you get it. Most of the money comes from interested parties - there is no such thing as an independent body where the human race is concerned. Just look at this forum. Of course a lot of money for research comes from governments and we all know how politicians manipulate fact and fiction to their own ends and how grants committees have to play along - or else.r

I can't stand this argument. It's simply stupid. Scientists don't pocket the money they get for government grants. They use it to fund the study. Traveling to remote places, buying special ice drilling rigs and bits, paying for ice core storage, payroll, pencils and paper, all that stuff! And what with the constant government spending cuts on science it disagrees with, it's amazing scientists can get anything done at all.

Kindly pull your head out of your behind, focus on improving your carbon footprint, (which, by the way, couldn't hurt a soul), and help save the planet so our kids and grandkids can survive. How is that wrong?

:D

I knew I should have stayed out of this thread...

[saturn5]

author=Tiny link=topic=11541.msg227921#msg227921 date=1201880150]

Does it all have to be about data? do you believe every piece of scientific research you read absolutley 100% factual without doubt? especially something as complex as the entire planets climate. There is every chance they are wrong, simple as that! Yes they could be right also but there is now too much money involved in the whole thing, this alone makes the results (for me) very scepticle. They now have no option but to continue to blame US and keep ramming it down our throats! can you imagine the uproar if they admitted even a slight chance of doubt in their results & models. They have interpreted results from interpreted data on interpretating computers, nothing about their argument is factual!

Never seen so much Data since i watched all the Star Trek NG movies back to back. [quote

[Cloudwatcher]

Never seen so much Data since i watched all the Star Trek NG movies back to back. [quote

Wonder what ever happened to him?

Cheers

CW

[Ferox]

One thing I have noticed whenever this topic comes up is the terms THEM and US. When scientists say that we need to reduce the amount of carbon and other pollutants we are pumping into the Eco system they don't differentiate between us and themselves, they mean every industrialised human being. So why do people who do not want to do anything about it or refuse to accept what is happening around them invariably resort to arguments of THEM and US?

[saturn5]

Are you with them or us? :violent1:

[Tiny]

It is all about getting grants for research - tip the forelock to the right people and say the right things and you get it. Most of the money comes from interested parties - there is no such thing as an independent body where the human race is concerned. Just look at this forum. Of course a lot of money for research comes from governments and we all know how politicians manipulate fact and fiction to their own ends and how grants committees have to play along - or else.r

I can't stand this argument. It's simply stupid. Scientists don't pocket the money they get for government grants. They use it to fund the study. Traveling to remote places, buying special ice drilling rigs and bits, paying for ice core storage, payroll, pencils and paper, all that stuff! And what with the constant government spending cuts on science it disagrees with, it's amazing scientists can get anything done at all.

Kindly pull your head out of your behind, focus on improving your carbon footprint, (which, by the way, couldn't hurt a soul), and help save the planet so our kids and grandkids can survive. How is that wrong?

:D

I knew I should have stayed out of this thread...

O dear have I annoyed sir! You misinterpret what I say.

I say that some scientists will not get a grant and so won't have job if they say the wrong thing or pitch their claim wrong. And people are very touchy as we can see above. Far from pocketing the dosh you and we know that the chances are the funding will hardly cover the bills.

As for carbon footprints, as you want to get personal, we don't fly, drive 1,000 miles a year in our (tiny) car and tend to recycle a lot more than most (as we have always done with 10 New Zealand boxes for composing). None of this is done to save the planet - it just suits our lifestyle.

So, what about you mate - when you are not being rude to people who you think don't agree with your beliefs!

[Ferox]

Are you with them or us? :violent1:

Definately THEM.... no errrr I mean US.....errrr. :D

[supernova]

I am saying one last thing on this subject, we have added nothing to this planet except a bag of Moon rock.

All the rest has always been here!

We have just mixed it up a bit.