Global Warming....no longer a scientific issue...

[55CrushEm]

....rather, a political one. Interesting read....keeps me skeptical, which I like....healthy skepticism. It's a bit long, but pretty good......


Must-See Global Warming TV
Thursday , March 15, 2007

As Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" becomes mandatory viewing
for many U.S. school children and nears becoming the "official truth"
about global warming, it comes as most welcome news that an absolutely
gripping film rebuttal has made its international debut, much to the
chagrin of true believers in man-made climate change.

Last week, the UK's Channel 4 premiered a 75-minute film entitled, "The
Great Global Warming Swindle." Through interviews with prize-winning
climate experts and others, this masterful documentary explains the
origins of global warming alarmism; debunks claims of man-made global
climate change; exposes the motivations of organizations, scientists and
activists sounding the alarm; and explains why it's been extremely
difficult, if not downright dangerous, for climate scientists to
question global warming orthodoxy publicly.

The entire film, which is creating quite a stir among tens of thousands
of web viewers, can be viewed online at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65474899458831.

According to the film, the origins of global warming alarmism had its
roots in the 1970s-era fears of global cooling and an impending ice age,
resulting from the 1940-1970 global temperature decline. Swedish
meteorologist Bert Bolin suggested at the time that man-made greenhouse
gas emissions might offset the cooling by warming the atmosphere.

When Margaret Thatcher became UK Prime Minister in 1979, her mandate was
to reduce Britain's economic decline. Thatcher wanted to make the UK
energy-independent through nuclear power - she didn't like her country's
reliance on coal, which politically empowered the coal miner unions, or
oil, which empowered Middle Eastern states.

So Thatcher latched onto Bolin's notion that man-made emissions of
carbon dioxide warmed the planet in a harmful way, thereby providing the
perfect political cover for advancing her nuclear power agenda without
having to fight the miners or Arab oil states.

She empowered the U.K. Meteorological Office to begin global climate
change research, a move that eventually led to the 1988 creation of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations'
group that has come to be the "official" international agency for global
warming alarmism.

At about the same time, as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore explains
on-camera, environmentalism became more extreme. By the mid-1980s,
environmental goals - e.g., clean air and clean water - had become so
mainstream that activists had to adopt more extreme positions to remain
anti-establishment.

Then when the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, many "peace-niks"
and political activists moved over to environmental activism, bringing
their "neo-Marxist" political philosophy with them. As Moore puts it,
environmentalism became the "new guise for anti-capitalism."

Global warming alarmism was thus borne from this combination of official
British policy, environmentalism's rejection of its own success and
political opportunism by "unemployed" left-wing political activists.

With such an inglorious heritage, it's no wonder the scientists in "The
Great Global Warming Swindle" have little trouble dismantling climate
myths.

Perhaps the most important bit of scientific knowledge presented is the
actual relationship between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide.

In "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore disingenuously describes the
relationship as "complex" while implying that higher atmospheric carbon
dioxide levels cause higher global temperatures.

But according to the geological record and data from ice cores, higher
temperatures actually precede higher carbon dioxide levels by about 800
years. Twentieth century data support this idea in at least two ways.
First, most of the 20th century's warming occurred before 1940, while
most of the century's greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940.

Next, when manmade greenhouse gas emissions soared in the post World War
II industrial boom, global temperatures declined until the mid-1970s,
leading to the aforementioned global cooling concerns.

The Channel 4 program notes that ongoing temperature measurements
contradict global warming theory. According to the theory, lower
atmosphere temperatures should be warming at a much faster rate than
those at the Earth's surface. In reality, however, just the opposite is
occurring.

Then there's the sun - the gigantic yellow ball in the sky that climate
alarmists want all of us to ignore in favor of minute emissions of an
invisible gas that makes up less than one-half of one percent of the
Earth's atmosphere. As it turns out, solar activity - unlike atmospheric
carbon dioxide levels - correlates quite well with historic temperature
changes, including through its effects on cosmic rays and clouds, as the
film demonstrates quite effectively.

So why does the world seem to be caught up in the vise-like grip of a
controversy that is contradicted by available scientific data and its
own dubious heritage?

According to the scientists in the movie, there is an intolerance of
dissent on global warming. Official government sanction of global
warming opened the floodgates of funding to climate researchers, who
previously worked in obscurity.

NASA scientist Roy Spencer says in the program that climate scientists
need for there to be problems to get more funding. IPCC contributor John
Christy says of climate scientists, "We have a vested interest in
creating panic because money with then flow to climate scientists."
University of London biogeographer Philip Stott says that "If the global
warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of
jobs."

The film also debunks the IPCC claim that the 2,500 scientists
contributing to its reports also support its alarmist conclusions. One
key IPCC contributor for example, the Pasteur Institute's Paul Reiter,
threatened to sue the IPCC if the group didn't remove his name from a
chapter with which he disagreed.

When I met Al Gore in January 2006 after a presentation of his climate
slideshow, I asked him if he'd be interested in setting up a public
debate between climate scientists. He declined - twice. At this point,
I'd settle for a movie face-off - "An Inconvenient Truth" vs. "The Great
Global Warming Swindle."

Let the public see both sides of the story and then we'll see who's
believable and who's not.

[W*GS]

The "Swindle" program is as much a "documentary" as "Fahrenheit 9/11".

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by 55CrushEm

NASA scientist Roy Spencer says in the program that climate scientists
need for there to be problems to get more funding. IPCC contributor John
Christy says of climate scientists, "We have a vested interest in
creating panic because money with then flow to climate scientists."
University of London biogeographer Philip Stott says that "If the global
warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of
jobs."

Spencer is an intelligent design nut and a Rush Limbaugh fan, that's enough for me.

[Rohirrim]

I think we need to spread the word about this neo-Marxist conspiracy. Fortunately for us, pretty soon we'll be able to sail directly across the North Pole from Canada to Russia. That will speed things up. ;d

[55CrushEm]

Originally Posted by W*GS

The "Swindle" program is as much a "documentary" as "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Maybe....I don't know. I haven't watched the film, or clicked on the link in the original post.....I just read the article. Perhaps I'll watch it, but probably not.

As I say, I like to remain skeptical.....rather than be a doomsayer-like sheep, like the rest of the "the world is coming to an end" crowd.

And in terms of the idea that "if there isn't a problem, we won't get funding" argument.....that is common in many arenas.....many people in all walks unfortunately need reasons to "justify" there jobs.....not saying that that is the case here, but the rationale does exist.....

[Stormontheplains]

I watched and I am now convinced that Global Warming is a left wing scare tactic to keep people like Al Gore making money without spending time in the private sector, where he would never be able to make it. I will continue to do my part for a clean environment, but without my kids dying later as the motivation.

Is BroncoBeerslug really Al Franken ? No, Al is to manly to be broncobeerslug.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Stormontheplains

I watched and I am now convinced that Global Warming is a left wing scare tactic to keep people like Al Gore making money without spending time in the private sector, where he would never be able to make it. I will continue to do my part for a clean environment, but without my kids dying later as the motivation.
Is BroncoBeerslug really Al Franken ? No, Al is to manly to be broncobeerslug.

And I'm convinced you're not really a person but some kind of alien insect that got left behind?

[broncocalijohn]

Global warming is the new cry for the left to downplay success in our economy. Clean air is more important to me than trying to cost America and other countries their citizen's jobs to get the temps .10 percent lower. I say drive economy, gas saving cars, have clean emissions, nuclear power and recycle. Dont we remember the threat of Allor (sic?) on our apples ("What are we doing to our kids?"), 2k problems, bird flu and now global warming. If we can just adopt a tree for their carbon emmisions that is already in a forest to make us feel good while we fly in our private jet across the US of A, then we rich, limo liberals can get things done. I got to go. I have to figure out how Gore can have his energy bill 20 times more than the average American. Good example Al Gore.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

Global warming is the new cry for the left to downplay success in our economy. .

Our economy is fast moving to a service economy (lower wages, less or no benefits). And global warming is certainly not a "new cry".

For the right, it means lower profits in some sectors so they rail against it and the science.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

Global warming is the new cry for the left to downplay success in our economy.

Denying it is just a cry from the oil and coal companies to continue to pollute the air.

Clean air is more important to me than trying to cost America and other countries their citizen's jobs to get the temps .10 percent lower. I say drive economy, gas saving cars, have clean emissions, nuclear power and recycle.

Why would you think there would be no money to be made in reducing CO2 emmisions?

Dont we remember the threat of Allor (sic?) on our apples ("What are we doing to our kids?"), 2k problems, bird flu and now global warming.

I don't recall a pesticide used on apples had the potential to wipe out
civilization. Y2K problems were prevented because we were warned
about it an did something about it. As is bird flu, so far. Thousands
of infected chickens and other foul had been destroyed to prevent
bird flu spread. Likewise we are being warned about global warming.
But sadly it's our children's children who will pay for it this time if
we don't act. Hell, I'll probably have died of old age before it will affect me.

If we can just adopt a tree for their carbon emmisions that is already in a forest to make us feel good while we fly in our private jet across the US of A, then we rich, limo liberals can get things done. I got to go. I have to figure out how Gore can have his energy bill 20 times more than the average American. Good example Al Gore.

Yes, everyone should strive
for a zero carbon footprint, like Al Gore is doing.

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by 55CrushEm

NASA scientist Roy Spencer says in the program that climate scientists
need for there to be problems to get more funding. IPCC contributor John
Christy says of climate scientists, "We have a vested interest in
creating panic because money with then flow to climate scientists."
University of London biogeographer Philip Stott says that "If the global
warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of
jobs."

but...but...HE WAS PAID OFF BY THE OIL COMPANIES!!!!!!!

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Denying it is just a cry from the oil and coal companies to continue to pollute the air.



Why would you think there would be no money to be made in reducing CO2 emmisions?



I don't recall a pesticide used on apples had the potential to wipe out
civilization. Y2K problems were prevented because we were warned
about it an did something about it. As is bird flu, so far. Thousands
of infected chickens and other foul had been destroyed to prevent
bird flu spread. Likewise we are being warned about global warming.
But sadly it's our children's children who will pay for it this time if
we don't act. Hell, I'll probably have died of old age before it will affect me.

Yes, everyone should strive
for a zero carbon footprint, like Al Gore is doing.

No, that pesticide was DDT, and it was banned. That action has caused millions of deaths but who's counting right? Not that I care mind you, just amusing.

Make all the money you want with greenie tech, knock yourselves out. But manipulation of the marketplace through scare tactics and legislation smacks of....oh....horse****.

Like AlGore is doing? I guess the $30K/yr he's consumed in electricity does equal a "zero" carbon footprint. Manbearpig doesn't stand a chance against AlGore. Al's full of his own ****. He can't be inconvenienced by his own ideaology so he "buys" clean credits, paying others not to pollute in his stead. What an f'n crock. It's like paying someone not to eat because you can't be inconvenienced by your diet. What a jackass. I guess from now on I'm calling the spare change I drop to the bums my purchase of "carbon credits" so my carbon foot print is now in the negatives. I'm a huge greenie, I'm awesome everybody should have to do as I say because that's how awesome I am. F AlGore.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

No, that pesticide was DDT, and it was banned. That action has caused millions of deaths but who's counting right? Not that I care mind you, just amusing.

Broncocalijohn said it was Allor (Alar) they were using on apples.

{In 1986, concern developed in the U.S. public over the use of Alar on apples, over fears that the residues of the chemical detected in apple juice and applesauce might harm people.

In 1989, following the CBS broadcast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided to ban Alar on the grounds that "long-term exposure" posed "unacceptable risks to public health." }

If you disagree with him and feel it was DDT, and not Alar, that was banned
for use on apples you need to take it up with Broncocalijohn.

Like AlGore is doing? I guess the $30K/yr he's consumed in electricity does equal a "zero" carbon footprint. Manbearpig doesn't stand a chance against AlGore. Al's full of his own ****. He can't be inconvenienced by his own ideaology so he "buys" clean credits, paying others not to pollute in his stead. What an f'n crock. It's like paying someone not to eat because you can't be inconvenienced by your diet. What a jackass. I guess from now on I'm calling the spare change I drop to the bums my purchase of "carbon credits" so my carbon foot print is now in the negatives. I'm a huge greenie, I'm awesome everybody should have to do as I say because that's how awesome I am. F AlGore.

It's not the amount of electricity that is used, it is where the electricity
comes from. If no CO2 is formed by generating it, then yes, it does have
a zero carbon footprint. And you analogy about overeating is incorrect.
A more apt analogy would be to overeat and then spend the money
on research to study nutrition, heart disease, cancer, and to build
gyms and exercise centers.

How is giving money to bums going to help research ways of reducing the
amount of CO2 humans produce? That makes no sense.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Broncocalijohn said it was Allor (Alar) they were using on apples.

{In 1986, concern developed in the U.S. public over the use of Alar on apples, over fears that the residues of the chemical detected in apple juice and applesauce might harm people.

In 1989, following the CBS broadcast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided to ban Alar on the grounds that "long-term exposure" posed "unacceptable risks to public health." }

If you disagree with him and feel it was DDT, and not Alar, that was banned
for use on apples you need to take it up with Broncocalijohn.







It's not the amount of electricity that is used, it is where the electricity
comes from. If no CO2 is formed by generating it, then yes, it does have
a zero carbon footprint. And you analogy about overeating is incorrect.
A more apt analogy would be to overeat and then spend the money
on research to study nutrition, heart disease, cancer, and to build
gyms and exercise centers.

How is giving money to bums going to help research ways of reducing the
amount of CO2 humans produce? That makes no sense.

I should have been more clear, the "scare" pesticide was DDT. Alar was the pesticide that he was referring to and was correct. I interjected DDT because that has been the biggest pesticide boogeyman.

And I was precisely right in my analogy. If he wants to give money to programs dedicated to green energy that's called "investment" or "charity". What AlGore is doing is an effort to "feel good" about mitigating his carbon footprint because he's so hugely awesome that he can't actually be counted on to live by his bullsheeit philosophy of restraint and regulation and that's called "hypocrisy" or, in common parlance, "horsesheeit".

What's that smell coming from Manbearpig's house daddy? Is that his compost heap?

No son, that's "horsesheeit" and he's full of it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by spdirty

but...but...HE WAS PAID OFF BY THE OIL COMPANIES!!!!!!!

Worse, he's a proponent of ID and Limbaugh stooge.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by spdirty

but...but...HE WAS PAID OFF BY THE OIL COMPANIES!!!!!!!

I know you meant this as a joke , but you really dont understand the power that oil companies have .......... here is a prime example ......... Rig move outside of Lance Creek Wyoming , well Lance Creek is on a restricted highway 270 , there is a weight limit on that road , has been for over 30 years , they discover oil , and instead of making us oil field truckers drive 17 miles and oil companies pay for it , the oil companies lobby the Wyoming DOT for a special permit , so we can drive up and down this road .......... 2 weeks and road crews are working over time on this road repairing the damage we have done .........

[Spider]

I watched a little bit of F 9-11 , about 10 minutes`worth , I havent seen Gores Film doubt I will , yes I am a lefty , but slanted views from the left are not as bad as slanted views from the right ( Iraq war , companies operating with no ramifications ) but slanted views are never good from either side ........ I do not doubt Global warming is here , and it is real , despite what this numbnutted dickhead says ..........
I dont think man is the cause , I do believe we are speeding it up , but Global warming would be here with or without us .......

[TheDave]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Worse, he's a proponent of ID and Limbaugh stooge.

Well there went all his credibility...

[yavoon]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Broncocalijohn said it was Allor (Alar) they







It's not the amount of electricity that is used, it is where the electricity
comes from. If no CO2 is formed by generating it, then yes, it does have
a zero carbon footprint. And you analogy about overeating is incorrect.
A more apt analogy would be to overeat and then spend the money
on research to study nutrition, heart disease, cancer, and to build
gyms and exercise centers.

How is giving money to bums going to help research ways of reducing the
amount of CO2 humans produce? That makes no sense.

when I heard about al gore buying off his excess carbon usage I thought of church indulgences.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I watched a little bit of F 9-11 , about 10 minutes`worth , I havent seen Gores Film doubt I will , yes I am a lefty , but slanted views from the left are not as bad as slanted views from the right ( Iraq war , companies operating with no ramifications ) but slanted views are never good from either side ........ I do not doubt Global warming is here , and it is real , despite what this numbnutted dickhead says ..........
I dont think man is the cause , I do believe we are speeding it up , but Global warming would be here with or without us .......

I agree Spider with you on this. It's a fact earth is warming. I think its also safe to say we contribute to it. But it also has a lot to do with things we can't control. With the Earth growing so much in terms of industrialization of India and China I think we are along for the ride. What we need to do is start turning our ingenuity towards how we are going to deal with it. I read an article saying the longer growing season is drying out some crops and killing them. Rather then point fingers we need to get science working on probs like this right now. Not how to cool the earth because we cant. How to protect the crops is what we have to work on. Or figure out which ones will adapt to the new higher temps and longer season etc etc.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I dont think man is the cause , I do believe we are speeding it up , but Global warming would be here with or without us .......

What are you basing this on? What has led you to this belief?

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I agree Spider with you on this. It's a fact earth is warming. I think its also safe to say we contribute to it. But it also has a lot to do with things we can't control. With the Earth growing so much in terms of industrialization of India and China I think we are along for the ride. What we need to do is start turning our ingenuity towards how we are going to deal with it. I read an article saying the longer growing season is drying out some crops and killing them. Rather then point fingers we need to get science working on probs like this right now.

Wait a minute, people don't believe the scientists when the scientists
say the problem is we are causing global warming, and people come up
with a million other excuses to claim humans aren't the problem. And
yet we are going to turn around and expect scientists to solve the problem?
Scientists are working on the problem. Some people just don't want to
believe them.

Not how to cool the earth because we cant.

Can't or won't? The first step to solving a problem is admitting there is a problem.

How to protect the crops is what we have to work on. Or figure out which ones will adapt to the new higher temps and longer season etc etc.

What happens if the midwest gets too hot an dry to grow crops?
What if it becomes a vast desert like the Sahara? Not too much
grows there now, and it isn't for lack of trying.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

What are you basing this on? What has led you to this belief?

oh about old tropical plant fossils found in wyoming , you cant tell me the earth hasnt over gone changes before man came along , just wont be able to do it ....... warming cooling cycles happened before man , I think we have sped the cycle up ......... but it would be here with or without us ........end of debate

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

oh about old tropical plant fossils found in wyoming , you cant tell me the earth hasnt over gone changes before man came along , just wont be able to do it ....... warming cooling cycles happened before man , I think we have sped the cycle up ......... but it would be here with or without us ........end of debate

Yes, there are many periods in Earth history that are unequivocally accepted to be warmer than the present - the Pliocene
(3 million years ago), the Eocene (50 million years ago) and the mid-Cretaceous (100 million years ago) for instance.
Less clearly, the Eemian interglacial period or the Early Holocene may have been slightly warmer than today.
(Keep in mind though that these events took thousands of years to happen, not a few decades.)

But to say just because there were warm periods in the past proves we aren't causing the current warming this time is like a lawyer going
into court and claiming that people have died in the past, so therefore that proves my client didn't commit this murder.

Let me ask you this. What evidence do you have that if not for man, the climate would instead be getting colder?
There is something called the Little Ice Age that started around 1300 and didn't reverse until the industrial revolution,
when a lot of coal started to be burned, releasing more CO2
into the air.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Yes, there are many periods in Earth history that are unequivocally accepted to be warmer than the present - the Pliocene (3 million years ago),
the Eocene (50 million years ago) and the mid-Cretaceous (100 million years ago) for instance. Less clearly, the Eemian interglacial period or
the Early Holocene may have been slightly warmer than today.
(Keep in mind though that these events took thousands of years to happen, not a few decades.)

But to say just because there were warm periods in the past proves we aren't causing the current warming this time is like a lawyer going
into court and claiming that people have died in the past, so therefore that proves my client didn't commit this murder.

Let me ask you this. What evidence do you have that if not for man, the climate would instead be getting colder? There is something called the
Little Ice Age that started around 1300 and didn't reverse until the industrial revolution, when a lot of coal started to be burned, releasing more CO2
into the air.

prove that global warming wouldnt happen if man wasnt here ......... My point is , it happened before , it damn well can happen again ....... you prove to me that if man wasnt here global warming wouldnt happen