The Global Warming Swindle

[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" 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 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, of which of course CO2 emissions makes up the bulk of when discussing mans involvement in "Global Warming".

As far as somebody being "had" 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, another in a long line of sensationalists trying to exploit reality for their own purposes.

Nothing more, Nothing less.

[yeahwho]

Originally Posted by 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?

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 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 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/enviro...cle2480994.ece

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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. 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 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 (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?

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.

[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 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.

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]

Originally Posted by yeahwho

Just my thoughts, but apparently according to the front page of todays NYTimes I'm not alone in these thoughts.

the majority thought Y2K was a threat too.

[Ali]

Originally Posted by sam i am

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by 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" 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 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, of which of course CO2 emissions makes up the bulk of when discussing mans involvement in "Global Warming".

As far as somebody being "had" 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, 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]

Originally Posted by Qdrop

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]

Originally Posted by Ali

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]

Originally Posted by Schmeltz

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]

Originally Posted by Schmeltz

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/inde...ary&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]

Originally Posted by Qdrop

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 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 to explain temperatures rising before CO2.

[D_Raay]

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

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by yeahwho

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 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 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]

Originally Posted by Qdrop

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, 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.

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 from.

[yeahwho]

Originally Posted by Qdrop

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.