superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7215

Documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle

I just finished watching .  Very powerful indeed.  A few months ago I, like most of the world, accepted the green house theory for global warming.  I saw Al Gore's flick and it strengthened my acceptance.  Then a little bit of doubt was stirred in me by threads on this forum.  Now, after seeing this documentary I'll say that I'm no longer convinced about the Greenhouse theory.  I won't say it can't be true, just that I've not seen enough evidence.  And what disappoints me is that despite the absolute attitude of those who do believe in Greenhouse Global Warming and the way they strike out at those who would question it.

In any case, look for yourself and decide for yourself.  I highly recommend the long version.

long version:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … ng+swindle

short version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4boaEbtjByU

I searched to see if it had been posted already but didn't see anything.  If it has let me know.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7206|PNW

I believe in the adverse effects of climate change, but we know too little to figure out the exact causes, and even less to subject it to routine human control...if you even think that kind of stasis is a good idea. Meanwhile, talking about it is an excellent way to drum up publicity.

leetkyle wrote:

...throw away my crisp packets and have big fires. It's nature!
Disregarding the fact that we are natural facets of nature, I will state that nature pollutes and burns too.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-03 23:54:24)

kylef
Gone
+1,352|6927|N. Ireland
Yeah, there are perfectly normal reasons. Most people actually 'think' the weather is hotter, when it isn't - just because of this. I'm sure on a very small level something is happening, but frankly, it won't happen when I'm alive, so I'll let the next generation take care of it! Yes I know, sustainability. I'm just not a huge fan of it. I want to throw away my crisp packets and have big fires. It's nature!
crimson_grunt
Shitty Disposition (apparently)
+214|7088|Teesside, UK
Just so you know that maker of that documentray misslead the particiapants, tooks things out context and has been investigated in the past for making a documentary that misrepresented peoples views.  If your going to let a documentary decide for you don't let it be that peice of shit.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environme … 347526.ece

"Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.

Any complaint would provoke a crisis at Channel 4, now recovering from the Jade Goody Big Brother storm. It had to make a rare public apology after the Independent Television Commission convicted previous programmes on environmental issues by the same film-maker, Martin Durkin, of similar offences - and is already facing questions on why it accepted another programme from him.

The commission found that the editing of interviews with four contributors to a series called Against Nature had "distorted or misrepresented their known views".

"Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled.""


Theres lots about it on the wike page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_ … ng_Swindle

Reactions from scientists

The IPCC was one of the main targets of the documentary. In response to the programme's broadcast, John T. Houghton (former co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions. According to Houghton, three of these were true, seven were not true, and one was possibly true. Houghton rejected claims that observed changes in global average temperature are within the range of natural climate variability or explicable by solar influences; that the troposphere is warming less than the surface; that volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning; that climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change; and that IPCC processes were biased. Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature, but then writes, "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC – NOT TRUE. For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide." Overall Houghton described the programme as "a mixture of truth, half truths and falsehood".

Climate scientists William Connolley and Gavin Schmidt claim in the RealClimate blog that the programme selectively used data that was sometimes decades old in making its arguments, altered graphs to make it appear that older observations had been made more recently, and used older scientific studies when more recent research would have disagreed with the film's conclusions.

The British Antarctic Survey released a "Statement" about the The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is highly critical of the programme, 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 programme would be guilty of serious professional misconduct." It uses the feedback argument to explain temperatures rising before CO2. On the issue of volcanic CO2 emissions, it says:

A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions.

Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading and Chief Executive of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, commented on the film in New Scientist. He wrote, "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role...Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence."

The Royal Society has issued a press release in reaction to the movie. In it, Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society, shortly restates the predominant scientific opinion on climate change and adds:

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

Subsequently, Friis-Christensen and Rive also criticised the use of this data, saying they had "concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming".

Thirty-seven British scientists signed a letter of complaint, saying that they "believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed".

Carl Wunsch controversy

Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists featured in the programme, has said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed. He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator. Filmmaker Durkin responded, "Carl Wunsch was most certainly not 'duped' into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said."

Wunsch wrote in a letter dated March 15, 2007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component". He also says he had thought he was contributing to a programme which sought to counterbalance "over-dramatisation and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts". He raised objections as to how his interview material was used:

"In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening."

On March 11, 2007, The Independent covered the Carl Wunsch controversy, and asked Channel 4 to respond to what it described as "a serious challenge to its own credibility". A Channel 4 spokesman said:

"The film was a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the contributors has concerns about his contribution we will look into that."

Wunsch has said that he has received a legal letter from the production company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he agrees to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented nor misled.

Last edited by crimson_grunt (2007-05-04 02:55:55)

GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|6807|Kyiv, Ukraine
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831

Pick any scientist that has a dissenting view on global warming, then do a search and see who signs his paychecks.  As I'm watching the film I'm batting 4 for 4 right now getting paid by Exxon.  Seems some scientists were also victims of "selective editing", I think Martin Durst could be the libertarian Michael Moore.

You can also find a great article on this film by media watchdog group Medialens:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313 … da_the.php

Besides -

Medialens wrote:

Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.
Basically every scientist that isn't pissed off that he was misrepresented in the film is on the big oil payroll.  But why shouldn't I believe that Exxon (or Shell or BP) corporation has nothing but my best health and happiness in mind when they fund these things?  I guess that's linked to my belief in the tooth fairy.

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-05-04 04:33:23)

superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7215

Google anything on the internet and you'll find counter arguments and conspiracy theorists...especially on an issue like this.  Al Gore's movie has twice as much propaganda controversy surrounding it but that doesn't make it any less valid.

In the end is a scientific debate.  That's the point: its a debate because the evidence does not prove or disprove the greenhouse gas theory.  That's what most of you guys are missing...we don't know yet for sure.

None of you guys (myself included) have the necessary scientific training to objectively analyze the scientific data that is out there to come to your own conclusions.  None of us really know...but we should at least be aware that we don't really know yet.
crimson_grunt
Shitty Disposition (apparently)
+214|7088|Teesside, UK

superfly_cox wrote:

Google anything on the internet and you'll find counter arguments and conspiracy theorists...especially on an issue like this.  Al Gore's movie has twice as much propaganda controversy surrounding it but that doesn't make it any less valid.

In the end is a scientific debate.  That's the point: its a debate because the evidence does not prove or disprove the greenhouse gas theory.  That's what most of you guys are missing...we don't know yet for sure.

None of you guys (myself included) have the necessary scientific training to objectively analyze the scientific data that is out there to come to your own conclusions.  None of us really know...but we should at least be aware that we don't really know yet.
I think it's fair enough to try to see both sides of the argument but when a media source is using out of date information, outdated scientific methods, editing peoples opinion so they say stuff they don't believe and most of all condemned as lies by one of the people who builds the documentaries main case then there's no way that it should be used in a series debate.

In the past I've seen people post this vid and say "See? global warnings a lie".  As long as people post this video I'm going to point out what a deliberately distorted piece of propaganda it is.  If you can find something credible that says global warming isn't man made etc then I'll listen but until then I'll belive that this kind of bullshit does more damage than good.
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7215

You guys should really watch this documentary.  I just finished watching the second half and it really does make some excellent points.

it is one sided but so is an inconvenient truth by al gore.  it has an agenda but that doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong.  i've seen both and this one makes a much more compelling case.  Sure some of the arguments aren't great or even flawed but as a whole they're pretty solid and convincing.

Look at information from both sides of the argument and then ask yourself if you still think global warming is definitively caused by green house gases.
geNius
..!.,
+144|6876|SoCal
https://srejects.com/genius/srejects.png
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6963|Global Command
NJ Soup.
PureFodder
Member
+225|6719
Is everyone aware that this documentary has been shown, mocked, ripped apart into tiny little pieces of BS that is is, then thrown out with the rest of the trash.

The arguments against global warming are being done in exactly the same way as the arguments against evolution. Here's how to do it.

Step 1;
Choose a topic in which the science says something people don't want to hear because it goes against their religion/puts responsibility on them.

Step 2;
Make a VAST number of separate arguments against the science the easier to understand the better. We're talking 'I look nothing like a monkey so I can't share similar DNA' or 'Look, it snowed when they played a video about global warming, therefore global warming is wrong'. It doesn't matter if these arguments are utterly wrong, misleading or downright stupid. The more scientific you can make the arguments against you the better.

Step 3;
Defend your arguments with the bare minimum of effort. Remember, there are two aims, to make the correct counter-arguments sound as technical and difficult to understand as possible and to falsely suggest that there is some serious debate going on regarding the validity of the science. It doesn't matter that all of your arguments will turn out to be incorrect. It doesn't even matter if your arguments contradict each other (global warming isn't happening - global warming IS happening but it's the sun causing it). Once one argument gets stuffed, move on to the next, if needs be, bring it back later despite already being shown to be wrong (it still works for some reason)

Step 4;
Look for any tiny piece of the science you are against that isn't 100% utterly provable, something with a percentage error. Remember if there's a 1 in a million chance that the science could be wrong, that makes you able to claim to be 100% right and all the science is 100% wrong.

Step 5;
Wait for idiots to see the large volume of dumb arguments against the science, then look at the confusing (but correct) arguments for the science, then decide that as there are lots of arguments against it and they understand them whereas the arguments for the science don't make sense. Plus they 'prefer' the non-scientific side of it as it means they don't have to do anything about it, therefore the science must be wrong.


This is how you convince a vast amount of people to believe something stupid.

p.s. May not work on people with intelligence.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7096|USA
We won't know the truth until the earth cracks in half and we all turn to dust. So it really doesn't matter. GO on about your normal lives.
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|7089|United States of America
Fact:  Planet is warming.

Fact:  It is cyclical.

Fact:  Will warm even if there were no man made pollution.

Fact:  Nobody knows exactly how much pollution is changing the normal process of this or what exactly the normal process should be.

Fact:  Pollution sucks and should not be tolerated on a large scale.

Fact:  Pollution will always be produced by people to some degree, so be reasonable.

Fact:  Humans are over populating the planet and this causes greater pollution so either choose to be an Environment Wacko or a PeaceNik but don't insult logic and try to be both.

Fact:  Hope that the bird flu wipes out China, Africa and the Middle East, this would solve many world problems and only France and Germany would find a way to blame the US for it.

Fact:  Most of the kids that read this are too brainwashed by Environmental Zealots to understand or accept the facts.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7096|USA

Major_Spittle wrote:

Fact:  Planet is warming.

Fact:  It is cyclical.

Fact:  Will warm even if there were no man made pollution.

Fact:  Nobody knows exactly how much pollution is changing the normal process of this or what exactly the normal process should be.

Fact:  Pollution sucks and should not be tolerated on a large scale.

Fact:  Pollution will always be produced by people to some degree, so be reasonable.

Fact:  Humans are over populating the planet and this causes greater pollution so either choose to be an Environment Wacko or a PeaceNik but don't insult logic and try to be both.

Fact:  Hope that the bird flu wipes out China, Africa and the Middle East, this would solve many world problems and only France and Germany would find a way to blame the US for it.

Fact:  Most of the kids that read this are too brainwashed by Environmental Zealots to understand or accept the facts.
Fact: Pigs fly

Fact: DOnkeys are a good sorce of protein.

Fact: 72 virgins await us all in heaven..


This is fun....

Fact: We used to live on Mars.

Fact.......
crimson_grunt
Shitty Disposition (apparently)
+214|7088|Teesside, UK

PureFodder wrote:

Is everyone aware that this documentary has been shown, mocked, ripped apart into tiny little pieces of BS that is is, then thrown out with the rest of the trash.
Not just that but created by a guy who was part of the revolutionary communist party who has a reputation for having researchers quit on him when he ignores research that contradicts his corporation based goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dur … irector%29

Last edited by crimson_grunt (2007-05-04 09:48:40)

KylieTastic
Games, Girls, Guinness
+85|6886|Cambridge, UK

leetkyle wrote:

...Most people actually 'think' the weather is hotter, when it isn't ....
Maybe not where you live, and I cant say for the rest of the world, but it is here and the historical records supports it - my dad measures the weather and compares it to the historical records for a hobby (old people have to do something when they retire I guess )

The Weather is most definitely changed, it been a hotter, sunnier and dryer April than the last few years.....
Ever heard of April showers... well this year hasn't, two local records 0.0mm and 2.5mm of rain recorded.

There are sound-bytes, pseudo-facts and politics on both sides of the debate.

Last edited by KylieTastic (2007-05-04 09:45:39)

Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|7089|United States of America

KylieTastic wrote:

leetkyle wrote:

...Most people actually 'think' the weather is hotter, when it isn't ....
Maybe not where you live, and I cant say for the rest of the world, but it is here and the historical records supports it - my dad measures the weather and compares it to the historical records for a hobby (old people have to do something when they retire I guess )

The Weather is most definitely changed, it been a hotter, sunnier and dryer April than the last few years.....
Ever heard of April showers... well this year hasn't, two local records 0.0mm and 2.5mm of rain recorded.

There are sound-bytes, pseudo-facts and politics on both sides of the debate.
If it was HOTTER it would tend to RAIN MORE near oceans and over oceans.

dohyyyyyy
KylieTastic
Games, Girls, Guinness
+85|6886|Cambridge, UK

Major_Spittle wrote:

KylieTastic wrote:

leetkyle wrote:

...Most people actually 'think' the weather is hotter, when it isn't ....
Maybe not where you live, and I cant say for the rest of the world, but it is here and the historical records supports it - my dad measures the weather and compares it to the historical records for a hobby (old people have to do something when they retire I guess )

The Weather is most definitely changed, it been a hotter, sunnier and dryer April than the last few years.....
Ever heard of April showers... well this year hasn't, two local records 0.0mm and 2.5mm of rain recorded.

There are sound-bytes, pseudo-facts and politics on both sides of the debate.
If it was HOTTER it would tend to RAIN MORE near oceans and over oceans.

dohyyyyyy
but I appear not to be near or over an ocean.... I would guess that its been a abnormal rainy April other places. so I guess dohyyyyyyyy back??

If you read what I said, it was that there is a definite historical documented change in the weather locally, we hardly had any winter as such this year with 1 day of snow compared to weeks of it when I was a kid, and spring has been more like summer. In short - it is hotter (in this part of the world at least)
PureFodder
Member
+225|6719
A great example of what I was saying

Major_Spittle wrote:

Fact:  Planet is warming.

Fact:  It is cyclical.
Misleading. Just because it's cyclical doesn't in any way mean by greatly disturbing this cycle we aren't going to get it way out of it's natural cycle which could cause alot of problems for ourselves.

Major_Spittle wrote:

Fact:  Will warm even if there were no man made pollution.
Misleading. It will also cool. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will only increase the temperature.

Major_Spittle wrote:

Fact:  Nobody knows exactly how much pollution is changing the normal process of this or what exactly the normal process should be.
It's the 'they don't know 100% exactly therefore they are 100% wrong' argument.

Major_Spittle wrote:

Fact:  Pollution sucks and should not be tolerated on a large scale.

Fact:  Pollution will always be produced by people to some degree, so be reasonable.
At the moment there is little 'being reasonable' going on. Pollution control is very lax throughout the world. Nobody is calling for the abandonment of all industry, just reasonable regulations. Misrepresenting the scientific arguments.

Major_Spittle wrote:

Fact:  Humans are over populating the planet and this causes greater pollution so either choose to be an Environment Wacko or a PeaceNik but don't insult logic and try to be both.
Interesting. If overpopulation is your concern then you should be for even stricter pollution control. Again, nothing to do with the argument

Major_Spittle wrote:

Fact:  Hope that the bird flu wipes out China, Africa and the Middle East, this would solve many world problems and only France and Germany would find a way to blame the US for it.
Utterly irrelavent arguement. How does the threat of bird flu (another great example of science vs. idiots) have any relation whatsoever upon whether people are causing global warming or not.

Major_Spittle wrote:

Fact:  Most of the kids that read this are too brainwashed by Environmental Zealots to understand or accept the facts.
Again, dispite not actually presenting any credible facts, the argument is to demonise the science by claim it is anything to do with environmentallists. It isn't. The scientific facts support man being a major factor in global climate change. Environmentallists are also prone to being very stupid and biased. We shouldn't ask them, we should ask scinetists.

I really don't know whether this was written as an ironic reply to my post or possibly was being written at the same time.
Skexis
Member
+6|6893

superfly_cox wrote:

None of you guys (myself included) have the necessary scientific training to objectively analyze the scientific data that is out there to come to your own conclusions.  None of us really know...but we should at least be aware that we don't really know yet.
Normally I wouldn't use a quote like this, but I'll indulge myself.
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist."

I'm not trying to equate driving an SUV with the embodiment of sin, but I don't think we can afford to sit around and twiddle our thumbs. Proactive methods of dropping CO2 production may not end up changing everything for the better. Until we do end up knowing how weather works and what causes such and such to rise and fall (probably never), we'd better damn well do something in the meantime.

If, after a period of time of using more eco-friendly transport and etc, we find that CO2 levels have demonstrably dropped, then we can all heave a sigh of relief. If not, then at least we've taken steps towards averting an energy crisis.
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|7089|United States of America

KylieTastic wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

KylieTastic wrote:

Maybe not where you live, and I cant say for the rest of the world, but it is here and the historical records supports it - my dad measures the weather and compares it to the historical records for a hobby (old people have to do something when they retire I guess )

The Weather is most definitely changed, it been a hotter, sunnier and dryer April than the last few years.....
Ever heard of April showers... well this year hasn't, two local records 0.0mm and 2.5mm of rain recorded.

There are sound-bytes, pseudo-facts and politics on both sides of the debate.
If it was HOTTER it would tend to RAIN MORE near oceans and over oceans.

dohyyyyyy
but I appear not to be near or over an ocean.... I would guess that its been a abnormal rainy April other places. so I guess dohyyyyyyyy back??

If you read what I said, it was that there is a definite historical documented change in the weather locally, we hardly had any winter as such this year with 1 day of snow compared to weeks of it when I was a kid, and spring has been more like summer. In short - it is hotter (in this part of the world at least)
#1  Weather and Climate are always changing, this is why my home isn't located 2000ft underneth a Glacier.
#2  Your life long observations about your one location don't amount anything meaningful in the terms of the entire history of global climate and proving that the world will now end due to industry being on this planet for 200 years.
#3  It is not the global warming you need to fear, it is the global cooling that will come afterward.  The world has been warming for most/all of man's known existance, this has caused the Ice Caps to recede and the planet to be more habitable for humans and we have thrived.  When it starts cooling again, this will really suck.  Think people complain alot about glaciers melting, just wait till they start expanding over countries.

Don't hate me for being right.

Last edited by Major_Spittle (2007-05-04 11:36:44)

Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7096|USA
everyones a weatherman.
Freke1
I play at night... mostly
+47|6981|the best galaxy
This docu video is good. Don't buy into the hippie's arguments. 1000 years ago the clima was warmer.

Read Bjorn Lomborg's book: "The skeptical enviromentalist" - if You want the truth - very, very interesting.

direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
WWF, IPCC, Greenpeace and Al Gore: You are all wrong and You know it.

Last edited by Freke1 (2007-05-04 12:02:41)

https://bf3s.com/sigs/7d11696e2ffd4edeff06466095e98b0fab37462c.png
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7215

Have any of you global warming advocates actually watched the documentary or do you dismiss it outright because it has been:

PureFodder wrote:

Is everyone aware that this documentary has been shown, mocked, ripped apart into tiny little pieces of BS that is is, then thrown out with the rest of the trash.
You can say the same thing about Al Gore's movie but that doesn't mean its not relevant.  Just to tear your entire argument to shreds with a cut and past, here's what The Independent Institute said about it:

Independent Institute Article

are they credible?  Wall Street Journal says they are:
“They win support precisely because they are not for sale.”
—THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Does any of this give more credance to the documentary: Absolutely not. 

Fact 1: There are many scientific theories and data being circulated by both sides
Fact 2: The vast majority of us do not have enough scientific training in this field or have spent enough time on this to subject to be able to analyze the information and know for sure which side is right.
Fact 3: Nobody on this planet knows for sure that greenhouse gases cause global warming.

PureFodder wrote:

p.s. May not work on people with intelligence.
Fact 4: Calling people unintelligent for exploring different explantions in a scientific debate only points out that you are ignorant and a hipocrit for emboding the extremist "i've got blinders on" mentalities which you say you dislike.

Skexis wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

None of you guys (myself included) have the necessary scientific training to objectively analyze the scientific data that is out there to come to your own conclusions.  None of us really know...but we should at least be aware that we don't really know yet.
Normally I wouldn't use a quote like this, but I'll indulge myself.
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist."

I'm not trying to equate driving an SUV with the embodiment of sin, but I don't think we can afford to sit around and twiddle our thumbs. Proactive methods of dropping CO2 production may not end up changing everything for the better. Until we do end up knowing how weather works and what causes such and such to rise and fall (probably never), we'd better damn well do something in the meantime.

If, after a period of time of using more eco-friendly transport and etc, we find that CO2 levels have demonstrably dropped, then we can all heave a sigh of relief. If not, then at least we've taken steps towards averting an energy crisis.
Very sensible.  I agree that its better to err on the side of caution.  Personally I'm against CO2 emissions and pro alternative energy sources.  What I'm against is the notion put forth by the media that Greenhouse Gases are the definitive reason for Global Warming.  There is a very real scientific debate going on and that the point I'm trying to make.
skeptic griggsy
Member
+1|6633
Global warming is happening according to scientific consensus. That program itself is a swindle as pointed out. What we ought to discuss is how can entrepreneurs not only meet the challenge of warming but how they can increase jobs! Regulated capitalism can meet the challenge!

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard