The Global Warming Swindle

[Qdrop]

Aired on BBC 4 (cause you'd NEVER see this on US TV at this point).

Fantastic documentary that answers back to Inconvenient Truth.
Featuring many of the top climatologists and scientists from around the world...and no, Exxon doesn't pay their electric bill.

If you really consider yourself well-informed and fair...

you have to watch it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle

[Schmeltz]

Aired on BBC 4 (cause you'd NEVER see this on US TV at this point).

Ha ha, why not? Because the hardline ecoterrorists are using their hypno-ray to take over the Bush administration? Wow!

I'll try to watch this after work tonight, it looks interesting. (y)

[Qdrop]

Ha ha, why not? Because the hardline ecoterrorists are using their hypno-ray to take over the Bush administration? Wow!

because the american media has just recently swallowed the green kool-aid and forsaken all even-handed reporting on climate change.
global warming is scary.
fear sells.

and their sponsors think global activism seems socially conscience....so they want programming to appear the same.
follow the $$

I'll try to watch this after work tonight, it looks interesting. (y)
awesome.

[yeahwho]

Martin Durkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)) is now going to enlighten me on the con artists trying to cash in on a catastrophe and hoax all perpetuated by hanger ons with some sort of human consumption blame game.

"Well, isn't that ... extra special." (http://www.danacarvey.net/media/snl_cl_extra_special.wav)

[D_Raay]

Professor Carl Wunsch who appeared on the programme has since repudiated the film and compared it to propaganda.

However the Commission also concluded that Durkin had misled his interviewees about the nature and purpose of the documentary, and that he had misrepresented and distorted their views by editing the interview footage in a misleading way [7]. For these reasons, Channel 4 later issued a public apology on prime time TV.[8]According to The Independent, Durkin "accepts the charge of misleading contributors, but describes the verdict of distortion as 'complete tosh'." [9]

Uh oops...

[DroppinScience]

because the american media has just recently swallowed the green kool-aid and forsaken all even-handed reporting on climate change.
global warming is scary.
fear sells.


Yeah, because I'm sure Bill O'Reilly and co. have seen the light and are eating granola with Al Gore on roadtrips in their electric cars while on their way to windmill powered farms. :rolleyes:

[DroppinScience]

Oh and it aired on Channel 4, NOT BBC 4. Completely separate from the Beeb.

[sercomdj01]

Baring in mind it was in the same shockumentary series as "hairy women" and "men with breasts" coupled it was on channel 4 kinda looses wait to the argument. Also the fact many contributors complained it was miss edited.

[Carlos]

yeah this caused a slight stir when it was aired last month over here..

I thought someone else had mentioned it in another of the global warming posts, otherwise i would have pointed peeps in the direction of it.

It is in no way a balanced peice, but seeing as though for the last few years we have only ever seen documentaries on how man is warming the planet, I think it was about time we had the 'other side' as well.

I must say that the scientific exvidence this program does put forward is very convincing: when totally indepedent studies' graphs match up over a long periods of time, then that is good data.

But as I have stated in other global warming threads, the issue is being clouded - and certain aspects of the debate are being jumped on by those that can use it for power.
We should not be concentrating on CO2 levels- plants use CO2!! and the planet produces far more CO2 than we do...
What we should be concentrating on is the deforestation of our planet, how we are reducing important habitats, and the amount of toxins we produce as a race.. those are the important environmental issues, and NOT Carbon Dioxide..

Bottom line (as usual) is oil - there is less and less oil each years in the world, and so oild companies want to make us use less, and charge us more. Energy companies are charging more and more amounts, and the way it is heading, they will be able to justify increasing the price if oild becomes more expensive, due to it being less available.

So how we gonna solve it: by discovering a new form of energy, completely new that is - not hydrogen cells, or wind, as these are eneficient, and also finite.

please everyone truly interested and worried about our environment/energy situtation please watch race to zero point: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7365305906535911834&q=race+to+zero+point

[Qdrop]

It is in no way a balanced peice, but seeing as though for the last few years we have only ever seen documentaries on how man is warming the planet, I think it was about time we had the 'other side' as well.

I must say that the scientific exvidence this program does put forward is very

(y)

[Qdrop]

Uh oops...

uh huh.
what were the elements that were edited in a nefarious fashion?

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm

the said what he said....it wasn't completely out of context, he just didn't get chance to blab on and on in the film and cover his ass on both side, like many scientists try to do when a camera is on them.

if you think this is heinous...look up the "editing" that Gore enanged in with AIT.

I'd like you to show some real balls by debating the science they present.

drop drinking the kool-aid and answer.


environmentalism has become a fuckin religion.
complete with dogmatic thinking and faith.

[sercomdj01]

Global warming is a theory. There is no right or wrong answer. The whole thing rests upon the individual scientists opinion. Its like gods existance. No one can be sure either way. Its just the whole point of global warmin is that if we are to blame, then we need to do something about it. They're can't be 100% conclusive proof either way. Then it would be a law or fundermental and not a theory.
The arguement is do we rest on the side of causion or do we go with the cheeper option. Where do you stand on that Q?
I personaly beleive we are likly to be causing a speeding up of the global warming process. I read 2 scientific weeklies and many journals on the subject, and though evidence points in both directions - the main body of evidence suggests we are effecting the process.
I choose to read directly from scientific sources than how the media deals with a subject. Though everything in that documentary has factual basis, the cleaver editing and use of emotive phrasing can mislead and misappropriate many of the sources. But isn't that what the media does? Its politics now and is treated as such by the media.

Sorry to go all physicy on you all. But a good parable type idea to compair global warming is the big bang theory.
The history of the universe is based on infinate mathmatical differences that account for the entire makeup of the universe. Each one is different in a tiny way, just a number or constant. Of these only a finite small amouth actually have a big bang. So statistically and in veiw of probability there is less likly to have been a big bang.

BUT! Why do we go with the big bang theory so much? Well without the big bang the universe never started. And if the universe is infinate and has been around for ever, there is no creator. No god.

So despite the fact that the big bang theory isn't the best. People side with it as its not "ungodly". In other words there are politics and person beleif behind every scientific theory.

[fucktopgirl]

Global warming is due to human activities as well as the warming of the sun.

Both factors are playing a very important role.... And human should change his destructive production habits and switch to less damaging energy production and think more about his actions instead of blaming the ocean and the freaking rabbit that fart in the field.

Also, i am amaze that some people see human who care about environment like a scam....the fuck is your problem?

Anyway, that documentary is bullshit....total crap!! The ocean is responsable for the co2..hahahahaha, alright then.

[Qdrop]

The arguement is do we rest on the side of causion or do we go with the cheeper option. Where do you stand on that Q?
i believe we do NOT err on the side of caution when that entails dumping trillions in an unsubtatiated theory that will economicially cripple much of the world and keep the 3rd world countries stuck in the 3rd world...dying from poor drinking water and disease.
we have finite resources to put forth fixing global problems.
so we must prioritize the problems by levels likely hood and proof.
Man-made global warming is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down the list.

I personaly beleive we are likely to be causing a speeding up of the global warming process. I read 2 scientific weeklies and many journals on the subject, and though evidence points in both directions - the main body of evidence suggests we are effecting the process. I'm not seeing that, what that am seeing is coming from people more suspect and desparate for money and grants than the "Shell Answer Man."

I choose to read directly from scientific sources than how the media deals with a subject. smart lad.

Though everything in that documentary has factual basis, the cleaver editing and use of emotive phrasing can mislead and misappropriate many of the sources. But isn't that what the media does? Its politics now and is treated as such by the media. an COMPLETELY unbiased report or documentary just probably isn't possible anymore.
you just have to look at the science.

The science is that Co2 does not appear to causing the warming...it lags behind by about 800 years during temperature changes.
so C02 isn't the cause, but a byproduct. That was proven by the very deep ice core samples Gore showed in his AIT movie. He just didn't mention that part.

It's the sun, people....the sun.
Global Temp change relies on cloud cover.
cloud cover depends on cosmic radiation from the universe hitting our oceans and forming water vapor.
The cosmic rays hitting the earth depend on the activity of the sun and the solar winds it emits from time to time.

The problem that the Green Left have with that...is that they can't do anything about the sun. It's difficult for them to force us to change our lifestyles and industry if the changes are coming from the sun, not us.
I'm sure they'll find a way.

[Qdrop]

Global warming is due to human activities as well as the warming of the sun. prove it.

Both factors are playing a very important role.... prove it.
which scientists are you referring to.
what work did they do, what process. are they credible?
if you can''t answer that, then environimentalism is just a religion to you.

And human should change his destructive production habits and switch to less damaging energy production and think more about his actions instead of blaming the ocean and the freaking rabbit that fart in the field. to some degree, yes.
whenever possible, humans should be given the choice between better, cleaner environmental conditions or more industry or cheaper prices.
who are we to tell Ethopia how they should run thier industry.
free market ecomics....not Big Brother.

Also, i am amaze that some people see human who care about environment like a scam....the fuck is your problem? to those in the "know" it is a scam. Many scientists know thier data is flawed and thier predictions are unsubstatiated....but they need the grant dollars, they want the lime light...and/or they feel the means justify the ends.
and the pressure from thier peers is enourmous.

Anyway, that documentary is bullshit....total crap!! The ocean is responsable for the co2..hahahahaha, alright then. yeah. read some more books.

[sercomdj01]

Physically (sorry to talk about physics again) processes are mainly unreversable. It depends on a measurable quantity known as entropy. Studying the chemical reactions happening within the ozone layer it is possible to study there entropy (its pretty simple stuff actually that we new allready) and what reactions lead to global warming.
The process isn't reversable. IE there is no way we can go back once the damage is done. Part of the problem is chemical reactions are happening and truning chemicals into other chemicals. Once these are turned into the other chemicals (which means they no longer protect us from the suns power) they're is no going back. These chemicals cannot be maufactured on earth, and the process cannot be reversed. There is no way anyone can do anything about it, its against the laws of nature. Impossible.
All we can do is slow the effects down. Do you really want to see people been flooded? Cause its happening allready in some places. The whole of holland for example could disapear. Whats gonna happen then?

[QueenAdrock]

prove it.

To you? That's impossible. It doesn't matter how much proof the other side is willing to offer, you're set in your ways and you're not open to hearing the other side; you're only open to debating it because you're already convinced anything the other side has to offer is crap. Quite a few people on this board are like that, and I admit I'm like that for a few issues too. It's like debating evolution, 9/11 conspiracy, all of that. These debates aren't cut-and-dry, there are no concrete infallible answers for either side. You just choose the answer that best fits your beliefs and sounds best to you based on the evidence you yourself have seen, and debate from there.

However, most of the time these debates turn into an "I'm right, you're wrong" thing and it's like two brick walls screaming at each other, and chest-beating commences as each side claims victory. It's tiring.

[DroppinScience]

I dunno, this "60 Minutes" piece (talking with scientists no doubt funded by Al Gore's pocket and nefarious scheming Earth Sciences departments from colleges worldwide fearmongering for funding... I sure hope the English department catches on to this trend!) is convincing enough that we ought to do something.

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/54/the_age_of_warming

[Qdrop]

sigh...
it's "Y2K" all over again.

"we're all gonna DIE!!!!"

than it never happened.


remember those "killer bees" migrating up from Texas at an astounding rate....they were projected to hitting the west coast within a year or 2...
what ever happened to the "killer Bee" epidemic?

what ever happened to the Bird Flu epidemic?

i guess Global Warming is the next "we're all gonna die!" thing, huh?

can't any of you see trees for the forest?

can't any of you see the pattern?

[sercomdj01]

That was all media hype. I ignoured it all. Why did u ignour my argument. Nothing to say?

[DroppinScience]

The "global warming" talk isn't so much "we're all gonna die" as in "let's conserve our energy to reverse damage on the planet." Afterall, the picture we're given is, "This isn't impossible to fix. If we all do our part we can make a better world for our children and our children's children" not "we're all DOOMED!"

Look, a sensationalistic documentary made by a guy with a dubious agenda and done with dubious tricks isn't enough to convince any of us lemmings, sheeple -- or whatever condescending word you give to anybody who doesn't side with your views 100% -- to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. And rebutting the deceits and manipulation of Al Gore's documentary (if there are any) with more deceits and manipulation doesn't help matters either.

P.S. - The doomsday predictions of Y2K may very well have happened, but we spent years changing the codes to ensure a seamless transition that... guess what? The world didn't collapse. If we did nothing about Y2K, I'm not sure the world would have turned upside down (or at least to the extent we were being told), but you know what? We worked to prevent anything catastrophic from happening and nothing bad happened. Same thing here. Erring on the side of caution doesn't hurt. Oh, and global warming initiatives won't kill economies (even 3rd world economies). If anything, Africa is feeling the effects of global warming a lot worse than the rest of the world, and Africa has contributed the LEAST to the problem, so there's irony for you.

[ASsman]

Qdrop, you dumb.

As a species I think it is our best interest to think in the future and try to survive. If there was even the smallest possibility we are all going to kill the planet ,I, as one who wishes the longevity of the human species, would atleast start to do a little something.

Simple as that, hey there ain't much shit in space or the fucking moon, we got there though, hoping we might find something. Slim chance but one worth taking. Global warming isn't one I'm willing to gamble with, we are a wasteful and inefficient animal, makes sense that we need to curb ourselfs.

[yeahwho]

Well I sure hope that wisdom of taking the middle road on "Global Warming" also engages many to think on a level of higher thought than a couple of documentaries and theatrical releases. I have not seen Al Gore's film nor will I watch this "Swindle" documentary.

This planet is changing rapidly. The sun has not had the activity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) to cause this change.

Thus many critics of greenhouse effect have had a startling revelation, man is contributing to atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup.

I can layout charts, facts, timelines, people who are way too smart and wise to bullshit you....yet if your not convinced, fuck it....not everybody is going to get it. Charlatans and opportunists are at every turn of life so I'm not surprised by people exploiting this tragedy, don't let that fog your train of logical thought, seriously look into the industrial revolution and the rise of CO2 emissions, particularly in just the past 3 decades and take the information you gleam from this objectively. Think about the overall history of the planet earth, this is the most rapid rise of CO2 emissions in recorded history.

If your still not convinced that something odd is going on around you and your environment due to CO2 concentrations I'm not sure what to tell you.

Propaganda? Hype? Political? Sensational? All of those terms do not mean shit when the atmosphere reaches CO2 concentrations beyond 400 PPMV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png), it'll be all she wrote then.

[QueenAdrock]

what ever happened to the Bird Flu epidemic?


It's still a worry to many, just not in America. Just because the media has moved on to things they deem more important doesn't mean the problem disappears, it just means that the media has found something else to focus on. Everytime I leave the country, I'm briefed on the risks of Avian Flu abroad, and deaths have actually risen in countries overseas. Indonesia especially. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1104AP_Bird_Flu_Indonesia.html)

From today: "Bird flu has killed at least 172 people worldwide since it began its spread through Asian poultry in 2003, according to WHO. Most human deaths come from contact with infected birds, but experts fear it could mutate into a form that spreads easily among people."

It's not like it was "Whoops, we were wrong, don't worry about it because it's not a problem." It's still a problem, it's still a worry to many, people have died because of the flu. It's still a worry that it can warp and jump to humans, that threat has never disappeared, it's just gone under the radar. I work with a few of the top Avian Flu experts in the world, and I can assure you they are still very much worried about it. I do believe that the media does hype it up, but it's still a valid concern.

[Ali]

sigh...
it's "Y2K" all over again.

"we're all gonna DIE!!!!"

than it never happened. because people like me spent over a year hunting through pages and pages of code correcting the date or writing patches to prevent systems from using the two digit date.

Believe me, Y2K was real and we did something about it.

remember those "killer bees" migrating up from Texas at an astounding rate....they were projected to hitting the west coast within a year or 2...
what ever happened to the "killer Bee" epidemic? Dunno, but we were prepared for it, weren't we?

what ever happened to the Bird Flu epidemic? Ask the peeps in SE Asia who lost family and friends. We did something about that, too. Any infected bird found caused mass culling of all free range poultry in the area (ironic, eh?)

i guess Global Warming is the next "we're all gonna die!" thing, huh?NOt necessarily, but the earth is (http://news.google.co.uk/news?sourceid=navclient&aq=greenland%20island&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-36,GGLJ:en&q=greenland+island&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn) warming up and it might be speeded up by human activity and it might not. What harm is there in trying to slow it down (other than asking people to drive smaller cars and not waste so much electricity and heating oil).

can't any of you see trees for the forest?

can't any of you see the pattern?Sure. The forests of trees being planted by people who think they can travel as much as they like and donate some money to some people who say they are going to plant a tree in Africa, or some such bullshit. THAT is the swindle, my friend. That and Green Taxes and reducing trash collection to force people to recycle more. All it is is fucking greedy politicians jumping on the Green bandwagon and making money by taxing more and collecting less trash while at the same time approving more road building, more airport runways, more air corridors and spending sweet fukall of the taxes they collect on subsidising public transport, hybrid cars, micro-generation and all the other things which REALLY make a difference.

Every time I hear a politician utter the word 'green', posing on a bicycle or a glacier or whatever, I want to strangle the fukker. Bush's push towards biofuel is another part of the swindle... no doubt his family has bought up all the farmland on which the biofuel crops (GM no doubt) will be grown with all manner of horrible fertilizer and pesticides and whatnot. In the mean time poor people in neighbouring countries can't afford to eat because the price of corn has shot up due to demand from the US.

I read a great article about how the real greens are getting fed up with all the mainstream journalists and politicians jumping on the bandwagon and shouting doom without concrete proof as Q so rightly says they are, because it causes people to say 'hey it's just journos exaggerating and politikos lying as usual' and so they don't believe them when really there could be something that they can do (other than this stupid fukn practice of paying Tree Tithes for their CO2 sins.)

[yeahwho]

Man is contributing to atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup. (More than just exhaling and populating the planet)

Can anyone prove otherwise? No.

I'll wait for the shoddy bullshit to appear and then challenge it without any agenda.

It's a fact that Man is contributing to atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup, even a dork like myself has figured that out.

The swindle is in someone actually getting paid to make movies and documentaries about Junior High School science.

[Qdrop]

Well I sure hope that wisdom of taking the middle road on "Global Warming" also engages many to think on a level of higher thought than a couple of documentaries and theatrical releases. I have not seen Al Gore's film nor will I watch this "Swindle" documentary. than get off this thread till you do.

This planet is changing rapidly. The sun has not had the activity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) to cause this change.

ummm...did you read your link:
"Changes in the solar wind and the Sun's magnetic flux

* A more active solar wind and stronger magnetic field reduces the cosmic rays striking the Earth's atmosphere.
* Variations in the solar wind affect the size and intensity of the heliosphere, the volume larger than the Solar System filled with solar wind particles.
* Levels of 14C and 10Be show changes tied to solar activity.
* Cosmic ray ionization in the upper atmosphere does change, but significant effects are not obvious.
* As the solar coronal-source magnetic flux doubled during the past century, the cosmic-ray flux has decreased by about 15%.
* The Sun's total magnetic flux rose by a factor of 1.41 from 1964-1996 and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901.

[edit] Effects on clouds

* Cosmic rays may affect formation of clouds.
* 1983-1994 data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) showed that global low cloud formation was highly correlated with cosmic ray flux; subsequent to this the correlation breaks down[15]
* The Earth's albedo decreased by about 2.5% over 5 years during the recent solar cycle, as measured by lunar "Earthshine". Similar reduction was measured by satellites during the previous cycle.
* Mediterranean core study of plankton detected a solar-related 11 year cycle, and an increase 3.7 times larger between 1760 and 1950. A considerable reduction in cloud cover is proposed.
* An experiment conducted by Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center supports this hypothesis. [16]
"

Thus many critics of greenhouse effect have had a startling revelation, man is contributing to atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup. the data shows that CO2 is a BYPRODUCT of global warming..NOT the cause.

I can layout charts, facts, timelines, people who are way too smart and wise to bullshit you....yet if your not convinced, fuck it....not everybody is going to get it. that was done for you in the swindle movie...by people much smarter than you, but you choose not to listen.

Charlatans and opportunists are at every turn of life so I'm not surprised by people exploiting this tragedy, don't let that fog your train of logical thought, seriously look into the industrial revolution and the rise of CO2 emissions, particularly in just the past 3 decades and take the information you gleam from this objectively. Think about the overall history of the planet earth, this is the most rapid rise of CO2 emissions in recorded history. think about CO2 being the byproduct, not the cause.
you've been had.

If your still not convinced that something odd is going on around you and your environment due to CO2 concentrations I'm not sure what to tell you. you needn't tell me anything.
I can tell you that it appears you've been had.

[Qdrop]

Man is contributing to atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup. (More than just exhaling and populating the planet)

Can anyone prove otherwise? No.

I'll wait for the shoddy bullshit to appear and then challenge it without any agenda.

It's a fact that Man is contributing to atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup, even a dork like myself has figured that out.

The swindle is in someone actually getting paid to make movies and documentaries about Junior High School science.

watch the documentary by some top scientists who are much smarter than yourself....and not bought and paid for.
than comment.

stay off this thread till you do.

[Qdrop]

uh huh.
what were the elements that were edited in a nefarious fashion?

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm

the said what he said....it wasn't completely out of context, he just didn't get chance to blab on and on in the film and cover his ass on both side, like many scientists try to do when a camera is on them.

if you think this is heinous...look up the "editing" that Gore enanged in with AIT.

I'd like you to show some real balls by debating the science they present.

drop drinking the kool-aid and answer.


environmentalism has become a fuckin religion.
complete with dogmatic thinking and faith.

regardless of his belief that man still has a connection on some level to warming....he DID day : " am on record in a number of places as complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality "

[D_Raay]

Hey yeahwho, how much they paying you man to perpetuate the "myth" of Global Warming on a lightly traversed board such as this one? Or any one of you for that matter...

Are we all on the payroll or what? If so where's my cut?

[yeahwho]

I am not going to watch the Global Warming Swindle, it is and always will be an easy way to be told what to think, rather than to actually think.

Qdrop;

I do read my links, Thanks for quoting them..now on the first one you are trying to tell me you read it yet I will point out to a little section as you scroll down called "Global Warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation)" and while your there, read "Solar Variation Theory" the point I'm trying to get across is this,

Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Göttingen, Germany said:

The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Over the last twenty years, however, Solanki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Solanki) agrees with the nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the marked upswing in temperatures is indeed to be attributed to human activity.

"Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."

CO2 is the jargon, it is not a byproduct, but since you want to be fully informed (I believe that is your intent) here is something that will even piss you off more, Carbon dioxide equivalent or CO2e (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent), of which of course CO2 emissions (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html#ggo) makes up the bulk of when discussing mans involvement in "Global Warming".

As far as somebody being "had (http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/083194.html)" on this thread I suggest you pack in your insane thoughts on trivializing a very real tragedy and start realizing that it is only going to continue to be more and more of a tragedy until denial gives into acceptance. This film and its director will be exposed for exactly what they are (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070425_globalwarm_film.html), another in a long line of sensationalists trying to exploit reality for their own purposes.

Nothing more, Nothing less.

[yeahwho]

Hey yeahwho, how much they paying you man to perpetuate the "myth" of Global Warming on a lightly traversed board such as this one? Or any one of you for that matter...

Are we all on the payroll or what? If so where's my cut?

Just because I'm such a green slut, easily greenwashed and I have a greenie weenie too.

That is why I'm getting the greenbacks for hyping up this dream they invented called "Global Warming", hahahahahahaha!

Hey here is the Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/) website with it's intense debunking ready to go. I love it.

The best thing about all of this hype is it forces many to think beyond what is being fed to them by the media, to actually think. Thinking, that is what millions of people have neglected to do before entering the "Global Warming" issue.



Here is the first volley of misrepresentations (http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3) in the documentary the Great Global Warming Swindle.

[Otis Driftwood]

It's gettin' hot in hea:

An island made by global warming
By Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor
Published: 24 April 2007
The map of Greenland will have to be redrawn. A new island has appeared off its coast, suddenly separated from the mainland by the melting of Greenland's enormous ice sheet, a development that is being seen as the most alarming sign of global warming.

Several miles long, the island was once thought to be the tip of a peninsula halfway up Greenland's remote east coast but a glacier joining it to the mainland has melted away completely, leaving it surrounded by sea.

Shaped like a three-fingered hand some 400 miles north of the Arctic Circle, it has been discovered by a veteran American explorer and Greenland expert, Dennis Schmitt, who has named it Warming Island (Or Uunartoq Qeqertoq in Inuit, the Eskimo language, that he speaks fluently).

The US Geological Survey has confirmed its existence with satellite photos, that show it as an integral part of the Greenland coast in 1985, but linked by only a small ice bridge in 2002, and completely separate by the summer of 2005. It is now a striking island of high peaks and rugged rocky slopes plunging steeply to a sea dotted with icebergs.

As the satellite pictures and the main photo which we publish today make clear, Warming Island has been created by a quite undeniable, rapid and enormous physical transformation and is likely to be seen around the world as a potent symbol of the coming effects of climate change.

But it is only one more example of the disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet, that scientists have begun to realise, only very recently, is proceeding far more rapidly than anyone thought.

The second-largest ice sheet in the world (after Antarctica), if its entire 2.5 million cubic kilometres of ice were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 metres, or more than 23 feet.

That would inundate most of the world's coastal cities, including London, swamp vast areas of heavily-populated low-lying land in countries such as Bangladesh, and remove several island countries such as the Maldives from the face of the Earth. However, even a rise one tenth as great would have devastating consequences.

Sea level rise is already accelerating. Sea levels are going up around the world by about 3.1mm per year - the average for the period 1993-2003. That is itself sharply up from an average of 1.8mm per year over the longer period 1961-2003. Greenland ice now accounts for about 0.5 millimetre of the total. (Much of the rest of the rise is coming from the expansion of the world's sea water as it warms.)

Until two or three years ago, it was thought that the break-up of the ice sheet might take 1,000 years or more but a series of studies and alarming observations since 2004 have shown the disintegration is accelerating and, as a consequence, sea level rise may be much quicker than anticipated.

Earlier computer models, researchers believe, failed to capture properly the way the ice sheet would respond to major warming (over the past 20 years, Greenland's air temperature has risen by 3C). The 2001 report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was relatively reassuring, suggesting change would be slow.

But satellite measurements of Greenland's entire land mass show that the speed at which its glaciers are moving to the sea has increased significantly in the past decade, with some of them moving three times faster than in the mid-1990s.

Scientists estimate that, in 1996, glaciers deposited about 50 cubic km of ice into the sea. In 2005, it had risen to 150 cubic km of ice.

A study last year by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology showed that, rather than just melting relatively slowly, the ice sheet is showing all the signs of a mechanical break-up as glaciers slip ever faster into the ocean, aided by the "lubricant" of meltwater forming at their base. As the meltwater seeps down it lubricates the bases of the "outlet" glaciers of the ice sheet, causing them to slip down surrounding valleys towards the sea,

Another discovery has been the increase in "glacial earthquakes" caused by the sudden movement of enormous blocks of ice within the ice sheet. The annual number of them recorded in Greenland between 1993 and 2002 was between six and 15. In 2003, seismologists recorded 20 glacial earthquakes. In 2004, they monitored 24 and for the first 10 months of 2005 they recorded 32. The seismologists also found the glacial earthquakes occurred mainly during the summer months, indicating the movements were indeed associated with rapidly melting ice - normal "tectonic" earthquakes show no such seasonality. Of the 136 glacial quakes analysed in a report published last year, more than a third occurred during July and August.

The creation of Warming Island appears to be entirely consistent with the disintegrating ice sheet, coming about when the glacier bridge linking it to the mainland simply disappeared. It was discovered by Mr Schmitt, a 60-year-old explorer from Berkeley, California, who has known Greenland for 40 years, during a trip he led up the remote coastline.

According to the US Geological Survey: "More islands like this may be discovered if the Greenland Ice Sheet continues to disappear."

A self-governing dependency of Denmark, Greenland is the largest island in the world but is inhabited by only 56,000 people, mainly Inuit. More than 80 per cent of the land surface is covered by the ice sheet.


from : http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2480994.ece

[Qdrop]

Hey yeahwho, how much they paying you man to perpetuate the "myth" of Global Warming on a lightly traversed board such as this one? Or any one of you for that matter...

Are we all on the payroll or what? If so where's my cut?

you're not being paid....
you're just bowing to your new religion.

facts needs not apply.

[Ali]

Yeah, but how do we know that wouldn't have happened anyway?

We don't, do we?

Still doesn't mean we souldn't try and stop pumping CO2 into the sky and chemicals into our rivers, does it Q?

[sam i am]

Yeah, but how do we know that wouldn't have happened anyway?

We don't, do we?

Still doesn't mean we souldn't try and stop pumping CO2 into the sky and chemicals into our rivers, does it Q?

Actually, yes it does.

The hype about "global cooling" (see 1970-1975) was just as universally endorsed and accepted. If we'd followed the "logical" thinking y'all are embracing so wholeheartedly now, it would have made sense to pump CO2 into the atmosphere to save humanity (and all mammals/plant life) from a great Global Cooling.

Don't believe the hype (who said that again? LOL)

[D_Raay]

It is quite amusing that belief in facts could be put into the same realm as belief of the unknown.

[yeahwho]

I am casually interested in our environment. I did take 2 semesters of undergraduate meteorology courses' because I make a living on the water. Global Warming is not "My New Religion" but it is something I readily understand.

I am extremely happy this Great Global Warming Swindle is out and available in a broad release, anything that generates or motivates people to discuss or investigate our environment with levity is a plus.

The thing I cannot understand about you Qdrop, is I know you really enjoy Bill Maher and so do I, mainly because I share his view and outspoken candor on the environment. Every show this year he has brought up the effects of humans and the environment; Here is last Fridays piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/the-birds-the-bees-and-_b_46410.html). His show is one of the finest open ended political discussions to ever air, yet for something as imminent and threatening as these IPCC studies reveal Qdrop, we are on two opposite poles.

I am going with the science that uses the proper criteria, the IPCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Criticis m_of_IPCC)is a very large entity that has been criticized for being both to conservative and too loose with the numbers. I see where Christopher Landsea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea#_note-2)(what a apropos last name 'eh) quit the IPCC in 2005, disagreeing with the emphasis on greenhouse gases and they're effects on hurricane wind speed and strength.

After Hurricane Katrina the Republican administration did all it could to downplay any correlation between Global Warming and Hurricane strength so Christopher Landsea was they're go to man. Why would they do that? Why would this administration not use our own scientists at NOAA for explanation of Hurricane Katrina (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/19/noaa/)?

Agendas are everywhere, the agenda that ignores our responsibility fucking freaks millions of people out. It's not a new religion, it is time to step up to the plate and do the right thing.

[DroppinScience]

Anything Qdrop AND Carlos side against... well, I just gotta be for it. That's enough for me. Pass me the green Kool-Aid. :cool:

[yeahwho]

The thing that gets me about people who otherwise seem reasonably intelligent is they cannot grasp onto anything as obvious as the Global Warming evidence. It is more than just a bit coincidental the way the facts continually become clearer and clearer with each study. And not surprisingly the arguments against these IPCC studies continue to become weaker and weaker.

Just my thoughts, but apparently according to the front page of todays NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/washington/27pollcnd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) I'm not alone in these thoughts.

[Qdrop]

Time will tell.

both side go back and forth with their "latest round of debunking" of the latest documentary or agenda piece put out by the "other side"....and then the other side does the same.
and both sides say "more and more of their bad science is being exposed" and "more and more people" show the evidence to prove it.

will you ever admit that you were swindled....or just, in a flash, turn your anger towards those that swindled you?

or, by that point, will you be caught up in another social movement craze?

it's in your genes.
It's you. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/qdrop/yourgod.jpg)

no on sees these thing from the practical side, from the rational side.

trees are paper companies CASH CROP...literally. they need trees to keep their industry going. And it's not going anywhere soon, even with all the digital industry claptrap.
Thus, the #1 planter of trees in the world are paper manufacturers .They plant according to demand (supply and demand).
If you buy more paper, they cut cut more trees down, but plant even more (they plant more than they cut- it's more efficient and a better business model).
if you recycle more paper...you buy less "fresh paper". Less trees are cut down...and less trees are planted, much less trees.

I like trees. They make oxegen and are vital to our ecosystem.

so I don't recycle paper anymore.


unplug from the bullshit machine...stop swallowing the propaganda.
use your own fucking head and think for yourself.

people think they know everything there is to know about recycling and pollution, and risks and rewards with the environment. They claim it is so obvious...only idiots don't recycle paper.
Day cares indoctrinate thier children to do so.

everythinks they know all there is to know about CO2 causing global warming...and that man-made CO2 is having a huge impact.
It's obvious, they say.
everyone knows.

yet none of you can explain the "science" you hold so dear.
you can't ever explain what you believe in.
you don't even understand it.
you just TRUST and have FAITH in the "smart green scientists" who tell you the "facts".
you have faith in them.

welcome to your new religion.

[Qdrop]

Just my thoughts, but apparently according to the front page of todays NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/washington/27pollcnd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) I'm not alone in these thoughts.


the majority thought Y2K was a threat too.

[Ali]

Actually, yes it does.

The hype about "global cooling" (see 1970-1975) was just as universally endorsed and accepted. If we'd followed the "logical" thinking y'all are embracing so wholeheartedly now, it would have made sense to pump CO2 into the atmosphere to save humanity (and all mammals/plant life) from a great Global Cooling.

Don't believe the hype (who said that again? LOL)And the hole in the Ozone layer? We did something about that. It's not gone, but we did slow it down.

As for global cooling, as you saying that there was the same amount of Scientific evidence for it as there is for Global Warming? As far as I know, the geological evidence was attributed to huge volcanic eruptions, as opposed to human activity.

[Schmeltz]

How lamely predictable. Qdrop posts a link to more spurious material (yeah, that documentary is pretty much bollocks, didn't watch the entire thing though) and claims it absolutely upends everything his opponents have to say, is confronted with well-reasoned and supported arguments to the contrary, and pretty soon he's switched his tune back to "Oh well neither side really knows anything and this is just your religion." Laughable.

I don't really have anything else to add, most of it's already been said. Just thought it rather amusing how quickly Qdrop will change his tune, and how painfully insubstantial his position is. When you have to resort to putting words in someone's mouth, instead of actually taking on his perspective, you know you've run out of things to say.

[Qdrop]

How lamely predictable. Qdrop posts a link to more spurious material (yeah, that documentary is pretty much bollocks, didn't watch the entire thing though) coward.

and claims it absolutely upends everything his opponents have to say, it does.

is confronted with well-reasoned and supported arguments to the contrary, when was this?

and pretty soon he's switched his tune back to "Oh well neither side really knows anything and this is just your religion." Laughable.
it was remark the politizing of this matter rather than sticking to the science.
it's become a religion.

you're attacks poorly constructed strawmen.

attack the science of the documentary i posted or shut up.
THE SCIENCE....NOT THE PEOPLE....THE SCIENCE.

you can't.
you don't understand it.
you don't want to.
you just want to believe.
welcome to your new religion.

[Qdrop]

I am not going to watch the Global Warming Swindle, it is and always will be an easy way to be told what to think, rather than to actually think.

Qdrop;

I do read my links, Thanks for quoting them..now on the first one you are trying to tell me you read it yet I will point out to a little section as you scroll down called "Global Warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation)" and while your there, read "Solar Variation Theory" the point I'm trying to get across is this,

Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Göttingen, Germany said:

The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Over the last twenty years, however, Solanki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Solanki) agrees with the nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the marked upswing in temperatures is indeed to be attributed to human activity.

"Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."

CO2 is the jargon, it is not a byproduct, but since you want to be fully informed (I believe that is your intent) here is something that will even piss you off more, Carbon dioxide equivalent or CO2e (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent), of which of course CO2 emissions (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html#ggo) makes up the bulk of when discussing mans involvement in "Global Warming".

As far as somebody being "had (http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/083194.html)" on this thread I suggest you pack in your insane thoughts on trivializing a very real tragedy and start realizing that it is only going to continue to be more and more of a tragedy until denial gives into acceptance. This film and its director will be exposed for exactly what they are (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070425_globalwarm_film.html), another in a long line of sensationalists trying to exploit reality for their own purposes.

Nothing more, Nothing less.

why do CO2 levels TRAIL increases in global temp throughout history...if they, in fact, are supposed to CAUSE increases in temperature?
this is taken directly from the deep ice core samples show right in Gore's movie.

[Schmeltz]

you can't.
you don't understand it.
you don't want to.
you just want to believe.
welcome to your new religion.

Given that this is all you're going to parrot anyway, I see little point in engaging you in conversation. I've got four walls to talk to if I want to kill my morning that way.

[Qdrop]

Yeah, but how do we know that wouldn't have happened anyway?

We don't, do we?
so the debate is not over then, is it?

the best science we currently have shows, historically, rising CO2 levels TRAIL rises in temperature by about 800 years or so.
they don't appear to be the cause.

historical data of the sun and sunspot activity perfectly mirrors the historical global temp changes, thanks to the cloud cover changes it induces.

the spike in temps from 1990-1998 correspond perfectly to the sudden shut down of earth-based temp. stations in cold regions like the the former USSR.

the earth has stopped warming since 1998.

there is no credible scientific link between global warming and a rise in disasterous weather.

The Polar regions are not melting at any rater that is not normal for thier season.
the Polar bears are not losing thier habitat.

the Arctic is getting cooler.



Still doesn't mean we souldn't try and stop pumping CO2 into the sky what's it hurting?

and chemicals into our rivers, does it Q?
whoa, don't lump those two together like that.
very sneaky.

i'm skeptical of man-made global warming....but now i want to pollute the rivers?

[Qdrop]

Given that this is all you're going to parrot anyway, I see little point in engaging you in conversation. I've got four walls to talk to if I want to kill my morning that way.
k.
bye.

i didn't like talking to Racerstang either.

[Schmeltz]

Then you'll understand why talking to you is such a waste of time.

[Qdrop]

Then you'll understand why talking to you is such a waste of time.

have you prayed to your tree today?

the environment is getting angry.
better cut down on the evil CO2, or burn a corporate CEO to appease it QUICKLY!

[Qdrop]

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945

some of the points I've been making.



oh, and I'll go ahead and post some "damning" evidence about the Independent institute being a conservative think tank funded by Exxon Mobile:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=46



funny though...Charity Navigator gave them great review:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7991

apparently Exxon funding is a drop in the bucket compared to their total revenue.....and after costs....they barely have a profit.
how EEEEEEEEEEEEvil!!!

[D_Raay]

unplug from the bullshit machine...stop swallowing the propaganda.
use your own fucking head and think for yourself.
Perhaps you need a mirror?

you can't.
you don't understand it.
you don't want to.
you just want to believe.
welcome to your new religion.

Quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever seen written here. Do you envision yourself a songwriter or poet?

Belief in Global Warming is NOT sex, although if it was I am quite sure it WOULD be addressed most urgently.

[Schmeltz]

Exactly. That's supposed to substitute for an argument?

[yeahwho]

why do CO2 levels TRAIL increases in global temp throughout history...if they, in fact, are supposed to CAUSE increases in temperature?
this is taken directly from the deep ice core samples show right in Gore's movie.

I guess I'm going to have to remind you of something, I did not watch An Inconvenient Truth.

That question has pissed off some people enough to have to respond to this hackjob documentary, which really isn't fair because it legitimizes poor science more than it needs to be. The British Antarctic Survey/Natural Environment Council (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/News_and_Information/news_stories/story.php?id=50) have a very clear response to this query.

The British Antarctic Survey is highly critical of the program, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years." Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4's editorial standards, the statement says: "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 program would be guilty of serious professional misconduct. It uses the feedback argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Warming_somet imes_leads_CO2_increases) to explain temperatures rising before CO2.

[D_Raay]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6598953.stm

[Qdrop]

I guess I'm going to have to remind you of something, I did not watch An Inconvenient Truth.

That question has pissed off some people enough to have to respond to this hackjob documentary, which really isn't fair because it legitimizes poor science more than it needs to be. The British Antarctic Survey/Natural Environment Council (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/News_and_Information/news_stories/story.php?id=50) have a very clear response to this query.

The British Antarctic Survey is highly critical of the program, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years." Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4's editorial standards, the statement says: "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 program would be guilty of serious professional misconduct. It uses the feedback argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Warming_somet imes_leads_CO2_increases) to explain temperatures rising before CO2.

bullshit.
they got caught with thier pants down.
the CO2 house of cards is crumbling.

just like "the summer of the shark"
just like "y2k"
just like "alQueda in our backyard"
just like "WMD's"
just like "the killer Bees from mexico"

after real science triumphs AGAIN and smacks you greens into submission...

it will be on to the "impending doom from an as yet unnamed asteroid heading to earth!!! It's true! we have graphs!!"

[yeahwho]

bullshit.
they got caught with thier pants down.
the CO2 house of cards is crumbling.


Prove it. Show me where they made a misstep. Do you not understand the difference? Calling bullshit on an extremely objective scientific POV is very odd. The scientists involved covered up absolutely nothing.

When temperature is warm, the CO2 concentration is high, and when temperature is cold, the CO2 concentration is low. During the exit from glacial periods (for example the transition from the last cold period, between about 18000 and 11000 years ago), both temperature and CO2 increased slowly and in parallel. Close analysis of the relationship between the two curves shows that, within the uncertainties of matching their timescales, the temperature led by a few centuries. This is expected, since it was changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters (including the shape of its orbit around the Sun, and the tilt of Earth’s axis) that caused the small initial temperature rise. This then raised atmospheric CO2 levels, in part by outgassing from the oceans, causing the temperature to rise further. By amplifying each other’s response, this “positive feedback” can turn a small initial perturbation into a large climate change. There is therefore no surprise that the temperature and CO2 rose in parallel, with the temperature initially in advance. In the current case, the situation is different, because human actions are raising the CO2 level, and we are starting to observe the temperature response.

Look at this graph (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png), If spans 400,000 years. Something is amiss on this graph. What could it be? I think perhaps the correlation can be made with this stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png).

If anything counters the theory of nature being totally responsible for CO2 emissions it would be the way CO2 emissions have selectively chosen the which areas to emit (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_tp20.htm) from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions).

[yeahwho]

bullshit.
just like "the summer of the shark"
just like "y2k"
just like "alQueda in our backyard"
just like "WMD's"
just like "the killer Bees from mexico"

after real science triumphs AGAIN and smacks you greens into submission...

it will be on to the "impending doom from an as yet unnamed asteroid heading to earth!!! It's true! we have graphs!!"

Then do the math, don't use graphs. Just do the math. If you do not believe in the studies or the scientists who would make such a preposterous claim as "Global Warming" then ignore their claims. I think your in over your head saying things such as "Bow to your New Religion", it's not my new religion, this debate has been growing for decades and now when it becomes clear the greens were right all along, some people can't stand it.

So far you've grasped at straws, the whole premise of this thread turns out to be a inaccurate documentary that caters to people who do not want to change. Change is coming that much is guaranteed, it can be either very dramatic or it can be very logical.

[DroppinScience]

Qdrop's gotten lazy. Maybe he's too busy planning a wedding to properly pwn us all, but whatever the case, I hope he rides in a really huge hummer limo on the way to the ceremony just to show us. (y)

[fucktopgirl]

think about CO2 being the byproduct, not the cause.


HUmm, that is a weird saying, human activities created more CO2, therefore, warming up the planet, but maybe you are true in that co2 is in response to our crazy lifestyle, so the cause of this warming up is our stupid capitalism world and his mode of production, is that what you meant?

Anyway, listen to this, i will be quite scientific with my next sentence: If you fart steady in a room or a big balloon, eventually you will raise the toxicity of the air quite rapidly and anybody who will breath and live in that space will eventually be quite sick and die. So let transpose this super scientific analogy into the planet earth, we fart co2 and others toxic gases with our industries, energy production-consumption. Well, it is not hard to see that it will eventually have a negative impact on the ecosystem of this planet and fuck all the nature equilibrium.

And tell me, what is real science ? you seem to be very critic of people believing in global warming but you seem quite a fan of science!!! Don't you know that science has not heart and she his the left arm of this capitalism world?! So , therefore, debunking global warming because it does not help big company to continue on their journey of capital augmentation and pollution, so if global warming is just a scam, then no need to care about that problem and be more irresponsible. Maybe...

Global warming is happening , and the cause are human and nature(sun).

Point. The end.





Oh and Dropping, why do you write united states of Canada??
That is quite like a huge offense to us, canadian, i think anyway!!

[DroppinScience]

Oh and Dropping, why do you write united states of Canada??
That is quite like a huge offense to us, canadian, i think anyway!!

Vous, une québecoise, êtes une canadienne maintenant? Je me souviens que vous vous disant êtes une séparatiste. Interessant.

Anyways, the "United States of Canada" was a catchphrase right after the 2004 election, where an internet joke surfaced with a new map of North America: all the "red" states are called "Jesusland" and all of Canada and the "blue" states became the "United States of Canada." So calm down, willya? :p

[fucktopgirl]

Vous, une québecoise, êtes une canadienne maintenant? Je me souviens que vous vous disant êtes une séparatiste. Interessant.

Hummm, je suis québécoise, oui , mais je suis aussi une Canadienne. I am not really a separatist, in one way , yes, but really, i think we should care more about the environment and not being invade by the USA. So we should put our force together all trough Canada.

Anyways, the "United States of Canada" was a catchphrase right after the 2004 election, where an internet joke surfaced with a new map of North America: all the "red" states are called "Jesusland" and all of Canada and the "blue" states became the "United States of Canada." So calm down, willya? :p


I see, i will come down then!!:D

[yeahwho]

The current political climate in the USA is not unlike a fart when it comes to the environment.

[DroppinScience]

Hummm, je suis québécoise, oui , mais je suis aussi une Canadienne. I am not really a separatist, in one way , yes, but really, i think we should care more about the environment and not being invade by the USA. So we should put our force together all trough Canada.


Look, I know you enjoy the bong and you're into conspiracy type-stuff, but the War of 1812 is so... well, 1812. Canada's not getting an American invasion. Even if that happens, I'm sure they'll be greeted as liberators and we'll give them maple syrup! :p

[Qdrop]

Prove it. Show me where they made a misstep. Do you not understand the difference? Calling bullshit on an extremely objective scientific POV is very odd. .
the documentary i posted does prove it...with exrusiating detail.

but you won't watch it.

i can't help you.


shit 99% of you already sold out to your new religion.
enjoy your fad while it lasts.

as with all things like this *Y2K, global cooling, the killer bees*....reality and REAL science will prevail.



and yes, droppin i am very busy with life in general now....
while I am still very passionate about social issues...i have far less time or interest in battling about it on a message board....when it falls on 99% deaf ears.

sorry to disrupt your circly jerk, boys.

ahh...right back to 2004....right?

[yeahwho]

the documentary i posted does prove it...with exrusiating detail.

but you won't watch it.

i can't help you.


shit 99% of you already sold out to your new religion.
enjoy your fad while it lasts.

as with all things like this *Y2K, global cooling, the killer bees*....reality and REAL science will prevail.
and yes, droppin i am very busy with life in general now....
while I am still very passionate about social issues...i have far less time or interest in battling about it on a message board....when it falls on 99% deaf ears.

sorry to disrupt your circly jerk, boys.



Fuck that documentary, I am not going to watch it, I didn't watch the highly touted An Inconvenient Truth either. Show me some debatable science, not speaking points on a film. I could easily just write a bunch of horseshit about what I believe to be a reason to believe the current unprecedented Rapid Rise in temperature and just hope you'll bite on that bullshit.

Here is something I'm sure you understand readily, I am way less passionate about convincing you that humans are causing "Global Warming" than you are of convincing me it is all a swindle. Both of these movies are propaganda to some degree I am sure of that, even without seeing either one I have enough of an education to sort out what is really going on.

One of the ugliest scenarios mankind can playout is not being prudent with our environment.

What if carbon cycling science is wrong after a Global response? What is the worst case scenario? Regulation, taxes, higher energy bills, more economical transportation and sacrifice.

What if the science on carbon cycling is correct and we do nothing? I suspect the damage will go way beyond regulation, taxes, higher energy bills and sacrifice.

It will destroy the population and planet as we know it today.

So Durkin and his ilk had better get with it and prove the science wrong, because the generation growing up right now is being spoon fed "Global Warming".

He does need to answer a few questions before I watch this documentary, such as the arbitrary changes to graphs and facts used in the film?

The detail you talk about has been manipulated as you very well know if you've read anything I've posted.

[Carlos]

so....

anyone watch race to zero point?? :confused:

or... it doesn't include sounding really intelligent on a MB, and so it's not worth ya time? :rolleyes:

[Carlos]

Anything Qdrop AND Carlos side against... well, I just gotta be for it. That's enough for me. Pass me the green Kool-Aid. :cool:


lol... i know i'm just such a fucking rebel.... or was it retard :rolleyes:

seriously i didn't say i was either side - i just stated that the scientific evidence presented in the g.w.s was good science based on independent scientific studies... and that this CO2 hype is a smoke screen ('scuse the pun)....

but i also made it abundently clear we need to totally re-think how we interact with our planet, and where we get our energy from..

the 2 positions a not mutually exclusive, as the media would like you to believe!!

[yeahwho]

lol... i know i'm just such a fucking rebel.... or was it retard :rolleyes:

seriously i didn't say i was either side - i just stated that the scientific evidence presented in the g.w.s was good science based on independent scientific studies... and that this CO2 hype is a smoke screen ('scuse the pun)....

but i also made it abundently clear we need to totally re-think how we interact with our planet, and where we get our energy from..

the 2 positions a not mutually exclusive, as the media would like you to believe!!

C02 hype is a smoke screen? You do not have the slightest clue what of what your saying. Do you actually walk around spouting bullshit like this in real life?

Carbon Cycling is a real fact. CO2e is real. If a person can wrap their mind around these two facts, then read with objectivity the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of scientists alive on planet earth, perhaps then we could move forward with finding a solution to this tragedy. The brighter owners of brains have started trying to find ways to solve the CO2 cycling quandary, the lesser minds are still debating the simple fact of CO2e and if it is real or not.

You also say we need to totally re-think how we interact with our planet, and where we get our energy from.. ...why? Why would you care at all about how we interact with this planet? What is your timetable? Since carbon cycling is bullshit (in your mind) WTF would be the reason to find new energy? Obviously the environment isn't the priority. Because the real evidence escaped you, you spotted something that said "Swindle" on it and grasped it.

[yeahwho]

All of the arguments, all of the pseudo science debates, all of the SUV sales, all of the wars, all of the "God's Master Plan", all of the hack job total bullshit documentaries with stupid used up 70's titles are not going to change a fucking thing.

This shit is very real, we are warming, rapidly.

Now even King George is realizing the political fallout of his ass backwards policy on Carbon Cycling, the debate is becoming a little bit sillier. Because really if you think about it, it's like debating whether Friday follows Thursday.

Global Warming is real.

Recognize (http://news.google.com/news?tab=ln&hl=en&q=bush%20on%20Global%20Warming).

The only thing I cannot figure out is how a very large portion of people can fight something so inherently dangerous to their lives, yet the solution is actually much healthier than the ignorance of denial.

[kaiser soze]

personally I think bush is just pulling some "political theater", building up a platform that might sway votes for the future repub candidates

talk about a flipflopper

anyways, warming is becoming quite apparent regardless if it is influenced by man or natural, we'll still pay the price either way