The global warming swindle TV program

[bryan1]

Well the above program finally run over here in Oz last night and I do have to agree the whole carbon trading scheme and global warming is a scam. Yes I was tempted to put this message into the alternate energy forum but with all the useless posts that seem to get all the attention I tend to agree with Nigel and get rid of the forum.

Anyway I did read of a study where a european company put a temp sensor 2,000 metres under the sea near Norway just after WW2. Over the last 50 years the temp at that level has risen over 200% so us people on earth are just a tadpole in the big fish pond.

End of Rant

Cheers Bryan

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

It's not 'global warming' any more, they are now calling it 'climate change'

 

[Hero999]

Well as I've said I have mixed feelings on this.

The cynical side of me things it's a load of bull and governments are making it a political issue just to raise taxes.

I think that we are having an affect on the climate, I just don't think it's as bad as much as many believe.

The term "climate change" means nothing (so what the climate has always being changing?) the correct term is "anthropogenic climate change".

 

[HarveyH42]

The world was a much warmer place before the Ice Age, campared to present day. Man had nothing to do with either. Don't think any of the crap these nut jobs are proposing will have the slightest impact on the rising temperature, it's natural and normal, it's going to happen. It would be better to work toward adapting to the change.

Only good thing is the part about conserving resources, and make more efficient use. But mostly not trashing are enviroment, and starting to clean up the mess. I spent half my life on the side of a mountain, still find large cities discusting. The Native Americans had the right idea, bummer the british came and destroyed most of them.

 

[Hero999]

The world was a much warmer place before the Ice Age, campared to present day. Man had nothing to do with either. Don't think any of the crap these nut jobs are proposing will have the slightest impact on the rising temperature, it's natural and normal, it's going to happen. It would be better to work toward adapting to the change.

Only good thing is the part about conserving resources, and make more efficient use. But mostly not trashing are enviroment, and starting to clean up the mess. I spent half my life on the side of a mountain, still find large cities discusting. The Native Americans had the right idea, bummer the british came and destroyed most of them.

Whilst I would agree with what you're saying but many 'experts' disagree. I shall now post their reasoning.
**broken link removed**

Myth 1 - Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is driving the current warming
Levels of atmospheric CO2 are higher than at any time in the last 430,000 years

Click on the image for a larger view

Only the first part of this statement is true. Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Concentrations of CO2 are now much higher and increasing much faster than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. This should be a warning that what is happening now is very different to what happened in the past.

In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years.

Well human emissions only account for <1% of the annual emmisions and whilst I do believe there will be some build up in the amptmosphere, I don't believe that all the CO2 we release stays in the ampmosphere, most of it is absorbed by plants. It's BS that the CO2 level is going up by 1% per year!

Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change

There have been major advances in the development and use of models over the last 20 years. The models are based mainly on the laws of physics. There are also empirical techniques which use, for example, studies of detailed processes involved in cloud formation. The most advanced computer models also include detailed coupling of the circulations of atmosphere and oceans, along with detailed descriptions of the feedbacks between all components of the climate system including the cryosphere and biosphere. Climate models have been used to reproduce the main features of the current climate, the temperature changes over the last hundred years and the main features of the Holocene (6,000 years ago) and Last Glacial Maximum (21,000) years ago.

The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events.

What so computer modles are only accurate to about 21,000 years ago? I might have more faith in them if they were accurate for the last 21 million year, not the last 21,000 years which is nothing on a geological time scale.

Finally, this is the reason I'm really sceptical:
**broken link removed**

They want you to believe in anthropogenic climate change as they want to sell you their consultancy services!

 

[HarveyH42]

What can ice core samples tell us about the pre-ice periods? Not much, I'd guess. I learned a lot about numbers when I was in school, and you can make the same data look good or bad. Kind believe that computer models work about the same way, the say what who paid for them wants them to say. Very skeptical about the integrity of the people making all the claims. Mankind hasn't been destroying the planet for very long, in geological time, for it to be such critical concern, requiring immediate and drastic measures to correct. Perhaps they feel a need to fudge the numbers, and stir a panic to get people more involved in doing what's right (cleaner and more efficient). I just don't buy into the claims that we caused the warming trend, or that anything we do will stop or even slow it down. It's a very big planet, and it's not that densely populated by humans.

 

[Hero999]

I would tend to agree.

Unfortunately, I don't have a source for this but I did read somewhere on the Internet that the anthropogenic emissions are within the noise margin. Natural emissions vary by more than 1% annually so how can we prove that the increase in CO2 concentrations isn't natural?

If I am wrong then please shoot me down but in dowing so please find me some infomation regarding the variation in natural CO2 emissions.

 

[mneary]

temp at that level has risen over 200%

A beautiful statistic. So now the temperatures are 270 degrees Kelvin whereas before they were...ummm...135?

Where did I go wrong with my math?

 

[Pommie]

I'd be impressed if they could predict next weeks weather.

Who was it said, Lies, damned lies and statistics. They need to add to that computer models. If I make the assumption that CO2 will cause warming then the computer model I produce will prove it.

And as for statistics, I am happy to announce that I have more arms and legs than the average human.

Mike.

 

[HarveyH42]

I'm still confused on how they became so focused on CO2 emissions being the primary contributing factor. Does the Sun's temperature remain constant? Since we have only been launching 'stuff' into space for maybe 60 years, how do we know this isn't a factor. Does the Sun sit in one precise position, and only the planets move? Perhaps the oil/energy companies have gotten tired of sharing their profits with the foreign nations, and decided it was time to break out some of the alternative energy concepts they've been buying yp over the years. Since most deal with freely availiable fuel, they need a way to market and control the technology to control profits and competition. Gas prices have been on a steady rise, gets people use to higher energy costs. A political push for even higher priced aternatives to gas, would take away any choice (only a little more expense, but so much better for the enviroment, really not such a bad change, right?). The oil giants have been control and enjoyed huge profits for a very long time, don't image they plan on just stepping aside. The oil producing countries have way too much control over the profits, must be something in the works to turn things around.

 

[Hank Fletcher]

The oil giants have been control and enjoyed huge profits for a very long time, don't image they plan on just stepping aside. The oil producing countries have way too much control over the profits, must be something in the works to turn things around.

That's true, but you're the first person I've known to suggest that the current trend towards alternative energy is somehow driven by the oil companies. I'm not saying you're wrong, but my impression is that that's taking the oil companies' conspiracies (and they do conspire) to one step beyond reality.

They ran an episode of a show we have here called the Fifth Estate, which is an investigative journalism show (kind of like 60 minutes, I think, although I haven't watched enough of 60 minutes to know for sure). The episode was all about this issue and how it's been playing out in Canada. There's been a movement of so-called scholars in Canada speaking out against global warming, but certain details of these scholars are not lending any credibility to their arguments. First, they're being sponsored by oil companies and right-wing politicians. Second, many may have PhDs, but don't have any qualifications specifically in the field they're criticizing (so they're essentially PhD padding used to confuse and insulate from their (or oil companies') skeptics). Third, the PhDs who do have qualifications in the field (e.g. climatology) do not have any published research to support their claims - in short, these people are just sharing their (paid for) opinions, and they're not backing anything up with credible research. For those of you who might not know, to be a credible researcher or expert in your field you must publish your research in a scholarly journal supported by your field's peers. That is, you must submit your work for scrutiny by a common body in your field. Anything else is just your opinion, and unfortunately there are very few laws limiting anyone's ability to pass their own opinions off as facts or accepted theories in their field. If you want me to believe what you're saying as an expert, give me a reference to a scholarly (not corporate or politically funded) journal in your field to back your claims.

Further to the connection between right-wing parties in Canada and the U.S. (and elsewhere) and large corporations like oil companies. This connection should not be viewed as any kind of conspiracy theory in itself, in fact, it shouldn't even come as surprising. The right-wing in the last century has always forwarded the advancement of select individuals in favour over the common interests of the general public. That's just what they do by definition - whether you think that's evil or not is up to you. Naturally, individuals (be they corporations or real people) inclined to exploit the means available to advance their own interests are going to gravitate towards an ethos (i.e. political party) that supports that interest, rather than towards one that challenges it (i.e. via the socialist interests of the left-wing). Inversely, right-wing political parties (and their individual members) will seek similar individuals (be they real people or corporations) that advance their agenda, meaning their agenda both in the political sphere and as individuals. It should be of no surprise to anyone that George W. et al, the oil industry, and military suppliers are bedfellows. George is looking out for #1 (himself), and likewise those industries. That's what they do - it's the ethos of those individuals to advance their own interests over other folks'. That's not conspiracy theory, in fact, that's what those party members and corporations will explicitly tell you what they're all about.

Political opinion is all just a measure of how much you buy into that. Sure, it has its charm and arguments - most obviously, the selling point of any individual's freedom to advance their own agenda. I think my concern, and what I would hope would be anyone's concern regardless of where they identify themselves on the scale of political opinion, is being fully aware of what the cost of that freedom is. What expense am I willing to pay to forward my own agenda? In the end, do I have any advantage over other people who perhaps have more momentum than I do in forwarding their own agendas? Will I myself become an expense sacrificed in the cost of fowarding someone else's agenda? Under the spreading chestnut tree...

 

[CheapSlider]

I'm still confused on how they became so focused on CO2 emissions being the primary contributing factor. Does the Sun's temperature remain constant?

Have a look at Maunder Minimum (section 3 "Maunder Minimum and Climate Change") also on NASA site.

**broken link removed** (NAO) doesn't get as much publicity as El Nino.

There was also a **broken link removed** which was a cool period from the 1400s to the 1800s in the northen hemisphere. The cause and effects are disputed.
There may also have been a Medievil Warm Period from 900s to 1300s - this is even more disputed than the Little Ice Age.

In the 1960s the 'oncoming ice age' was used as one of the reasons to build nuclear power stations. Apparently everybody was on the 'ice age' bandwagon. Now its 'Climate Change'.

The worlds greatest CO2 producer is the cow!

Some cold facts on global warming

 

[Hero999]

Cows are carbon neutral though as they eat plants which soak up CO2 then grow again.

Nevertheless it still proves a point, also Canada's largest source of CO2 emissions is their natural coniferous forrest.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Nevertheless it still proves a point, also Canada's largest source of CO2 emissions is their natural coniferous forrest.

But don't they produce oxygen during the day?, absorbing CO2 to do so, and the net result is a substantial reduction in CO2.

 

[Hero999]

Exactly, but the carbon offset trading scheme doesn't see it that way.

 

[technogeek]

A beautiful statistic. So now the temperatures are 270 degrees Kelvin whereas before they were...ummm...135?

Where did I go wrong with my math?

If it's zero degrees today and it will be twice as cold tomorrow.....

 

[Souper man]

If you think about it, with 'gobal warming' melting the ice caps, water levels would rise globally about 20ft. Thats not that bad. also, the atlantic water conveyor belt, which is water in the oceans that flow from the gulf of mexico to britain, will stop, causing worldwide cooling. But I think that perhaps global warming and worldwide cooling may cancel eachother out. I also think that there already fluctuations in earths temperature, we may not notice it for a long time.

 

[HiTech]

The absolute best solution to global warming is to put Al Gore inside a block of ice, tethered to a an old diesel motor, and tossed overboard in the arctic ocean.

 

[HarveyH42]

The absolute best solution to global warming is to put Al Gore inside a block of ice, tethered to a an old diesel motor, and tossed overboard in the arctic ocean.

Almost feel bad for the man, it was my state that screwed him out of the White House (though I'm glad he lost), and turned him into enviro-nut... That hangin chad defense was weak anyway, sore looser. I'd have thought he would have gone after the paper industry, tree-buggerer...

 

[Hero999]

If you think about it, with 'gobal warming' melting the ice caps, water levels would rise globally about 20ft.

It isn't the melting of the ice caps that would cause the sea level to rise (try putting an ice cube in a glass of water full to the brim and it won't over flow), it's the ice on the land melting that will cause the sea level to rise.

Thats not that bad. also, the atlantic water conveyor belt, which is water in the oceans that flow from the gulf of mexico to britain, will stop, causing worldwide cooling. But I think that perhaps global warming and worldwide cooling may cancel eachother out. I also think that there already fluctuations in earths temperature, we may not notice it for a long time.

The gulf stream stopping will only cool Europe, north weast Africa and the Eastern states and I've heard it will make Centreal America drier. The rest of the world will continiue to warm perhaps even more so since the gulf stream isn't taking the heat away.

This is another thing that I don't like about the current theory. The gulf stream must have got stronger as temperatures in the UK have risen by one degree C in the last century but only 0.7 degrees in other parts of the world.