The great global warming swindle-9pm tonight (thursday 8/3/07)

MetalMosher

Hello Boards.ie users!

I am writing to you with an urgent request.

We are currently in a debate with a Dublin debate organisation on the topic of "Global Warming- Does man accelerate it?"

We are browsing the internet and reading books trying to find proof to back up our view that MAN DOES ACCELERATE IT.

I am asking for your assistance. Recommend websites and reports to me, and please give information asap.

Thank you.

David.

ninebeanrows

Watche Al Gore's movie, an Inconvenient Truth... a good cover for people looking for a decent understandning and its definately from your viewpoint.. A debate such as this though is futile, it is beyond question that human activity does contribute to GW.

sunset

That's a questionable approach to the issue - take a view and then look for the evidence! Most of the GW debate is along the same lines. Its a very unscientific approach, despite its popularity. The film you mention, as well as others that preceded it, should not be taken too seriously.

junkyard

Tbh this planet has been warming up for thousands of years, and although humankind hasn't helped with pollution etc., I think humankind must be very naive to accept responsibility for the whole situation. As far as I'm concerned the planet is going to warm up one way or another and I'm sure the planet will adapt but I think we're suckers to have to pay taxes and fines for something thats going to happen one way or another. This is just my opinion by the way and I'm not in any way qualified to give an expert opinion on the subject but I have read a lot about it.

the_syco

Weathercheck wrote:

A debate such as this though is futile, it is beyond question that human activity does contribute to GW.

No offense, but simply whitewashing it by saying "of course its true" shows that it may be false.

Tell anyone something enough, and they may start to believe it.

CerebralCortex

junkyard wrote:

Tbh this planet has been warming up for thousands of years, and although humankind hasn't helped with pollution etc., I think humankind must be very naive to accept responsibility for the whole situation. As far as I'm concerned the planet is going to warm up one way or another and I'm sure the planet will adapt but I think we're suckers to have to pay taxes and fines for something thats going to happen one way or another. This is just my opinion by the way and I'm not in any way qualified to give an expert opinion on the subject but I have read a lot about it.

Not disagreeing but that is purely your opinion.

Celticfire

CerebralCortex wrote:

Not disagreeing but that is purely your opinion.

There seems to be a blind and unquestioning following that mankind is the cause of global warming alone.

junkyard

Celticfire wrote:

There seems to be a blind and unquestioning following that mankind is the cause of global warming alone.

There's alot of hype about global warming that's for sure, what concerns me is the people who are stirring it up, namely politicians. It amazes me that people are so gullible to believe what these guys have to say, all you have to do is look at their track record. Personally if a politician told me the sun was shining I'd go out and look for myself, I wouldn't believe a word they say. It seems to be a new trend and the thing to do.:rolleyes:

Supercell

And here we see why the general Irish public don't give a damn about it.
GW won't really change us here too much in a Maritime climate bar getting a bit drier in the summer and a bit wetter in winter.
The Irish public simply wont be exposed to wild hurricanes, snow seasons that don't happen ..

TBH Ireland gets off lightly in GW, maybe even benefits to some degree.
That doesn't mean we can go nuts with 4X4's on the road and burn whatever the hell we like as it doesn't really matter to us..but I think some might take that attitude.
Turn the Gulf stream off in the next 5 years and attitudes might change, after then next five though and it won't matter a damn if it stops, GW will compensate anyhow.

Danno

You think? Irish seas reach 18c in summers now - used to be avge 15c a few years ago, what happens when 21, 22, 23c and warmer waters get closer to our south west, hurricanes will most certainly thrive then.

edanto

junkyard wrote:

There's alot of hype about global warming that's for sure, what concerns me is the people who are stirring it up, namely politicians.

It's not just the politicians, it's the media and most scientists.

Yeah, those pesky scientists, they just want to be famous!!! And as for those total lunatics over at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists http://www.physorg.com/news88253763.html

"The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival."

Don't listen to them!!

Ignore the evidence!! It's all made up.

rolleyes yourself mate

Pherekydes

Danno wrote:

You think? Irish seas reach 18c in summers now - used to be avge 15c a few years ago, what happens when 21, 22, 23c and warmer waters get closer to our south west, hurricanes will most certainly thrive then.

It needs 26 degrees at least:

Dissipation

* It moves over waters significantly below 26°C. This will cause the storm to lose its tropical characteristics (i.e. thunderstorms near the center and warm core) and become a remnant low pressure area, which can persist for several days.

Celticfire

edanto wrote:

Yeah, those pesky scientists, they just want to be famous!!! And ask for those lunatics over at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists http://www.physorg.com/news88253763.html


Don't listen to them!!

Ignore the evidence!! It's all made up.

rolleyes yourself mate

"Predictions as to the consequences of this failure to fully correct the problem vary widely. Some believe that the Y2K computer problem will result in the end of western civilization as we have known it, the end of a way of life comparable to the impact of the American Civil War on the southern United States or the Nazi occupation on much of Europe. Others predict a disruption in services no greater than what might be brought about by a heavy snowfall, if even that...Although it is impossible at this time to predict the precise consequences of the Y2K computer problem, it is safe to say that there will be some sort of disruption to life as we know it."

Yeah we've never heard prophets of doom before, remember Y2K .

edanto

Remember the story of the boy that called wolf?




The wolf came.

junkyard

I think the root of the problem with global warming is the fact the the so called "experts" are tweaking their figures and basing their figures on wrong information to start with. There was a warm period from AD 950 to 1450 approx. and this has been omitted from the research the UN would have us believe. This warm period was warmer than the warmer period by up to 3 degrees C. From the year 1000, ships were recorded as having sailed in parts of the Arctic where there is a permanent ice-pack now. In 1421, a Chinese Imperial Navy squadron sailed right round the Arctic and found no ice anywhere. It is possible that at that time there was less of an icecap at the North Pole than there is now, particularly in summer and the polar bears survived. Even though there has been a lot of talk about the supposed threat posed by the warmer Arctic, the polar bears are thriving in the current warm period. 11 of the 13 principle known families are prospering as never before.
Greenland was actually green at one time, Eric the red named Greenland "Greenland" to encourage Danish settlers, because in his time south-western Greenland was in fact green, no ice whatsoever. Until 1425 it was extensively cultivated when farms were suddenly overrun by permafrost. The Viking agricultural settlements are still under permafrost to this day, a very good indicator that the middle ages were warmer than the present, and that there is little cause for alarm at the current melting of Greenland glaciers because they are very likely to have melted to more than their present extent during the medieval warm period. This medieval warm period was followed by a 300 year little ice age until 1750. At the start of this period the mean temperatures dropped by 1.5 degrees C in 100 years. The coldest period was from 1550 to 1700. Frost fairs were held on the River Thames in London. Not only is this warm period not shown up on the UN's graph of temperature over the past 1000 years, the little ice age is also missing. From 1750, temperatures rose and held steady until the late Victorian era. These temperature fluctuations were not caused by humankind's activities. The 1996 report included a graph illustrating them. By the time of the 2001 report, the UN had eradicated the medieval warm period.The UN's 2001 graph, also know as the "hockey stick" showed that the erasure of the medieval warm period in the 2001 graph had been caused by inappropriate data selection and the incorrect use of statistical methods.
The big problem with science is that they are generally funded by governments, and this is world-wide by the way. Its generally agreed that the fundamental equation of State-subsidised science is "No problem equals no funding" The UN's documents occasionally acknowledge the British government's funding. The fact that the central graph of the UN's 2001 report was defective has not had anything like as much attention from the media as the stories of impending disaster which politicians and the UN itself have derived from it.
An independent report by statisticians, probably the most devastating scientific criticism yet leveled at the UN on climate change, concluded not only that the UN's 2001 temperature reconstruction had used inappropriate statistical methods and data but also that many of the supporting scientific papers, both before and after the 2001 report, had been written by a small and closely connected group of palaeoclimatologists who effectively dominated their field worldwide and were all intimately linked to the principle author of the UN's 2001 graph.
The temperatures we're experiencing at the moment are not exceptional and that the medieval warm period was at least as warm as the present and probably up to 3 degrees C warmer.
There's some further info at www.co2science.org and www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf.

piraka

Danno wrote:

You think? Irish seas reach 18c in summers now - used to be avge 15c a few years ago, what happens when 21, 22, 23c and warmer waters get closer to our south west, hurricanes will most certainly thrive then.

Hooray, warm seas and big waves, surfing all year round with no wetsuits.

Is this warming due to AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) that occurs every 60 to 70 years?

McSandwich

It is true that there have been many natural periods of warm and cold temperatures throughout history. However, records show an unprecedented rise in temperature during the past 200 years - since the start of the industrial revolution.

See http://planetforlife.com/gwarm/glob1000.html

In addition to global warming, there has also been much research into the phenomenon of global dimming. This refers to the reduced level of sunlight reaching the earth due to pollution in the upper atmosphere. This first came to light after 9/11 when air traffic was grounded. It is thought that dimming could be offsetting the effects of global warming to some degree.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp

RedPlanet

junkyard: firstly, i think it's poor form to copy and paste from these articles and seemingly pretend they're your own words.

It is not particularly unusual for bad data to come out of the UN.
For example, you may remember a UN report on Nutrition that became very political when they ran up against the sugar industry.
Basically the final report incredulously claimed that sugar was good for you.
There's some info here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3726510.stm

But i'm not convinced about this "medieval warm period" discussed in one of your links. The claims supporting the temps read fairly dubious by themselves.
There's a wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
But this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Shows those temps nowhere near what we are seeing today.

edanto

Also, you might find it interesting to research the funding/motivation of co2 science dot org and those other small, loud, groups.

edanto

In for a penny...

junkyard wrote:

I think the root of the problem with global warming is the fact the the so called "experts" are tweaking their figures and basing their figures on wrong information to start with. There was a warm period from AD 950 to 1450 approx. and this has been omitted from the research the UN would have us believe. This warm period was warmer than the warmer period by up to 3 degrees C. From the year 1000, ships were recorded as having sailed in parts of the Arctic where there is a permanent ice-pack now.

It was warmer before, but that's not news.

If you want to trade facts, there's a story that Antartica wasn't covered by ice in the recent past - but those type of facts miss the point of the climate problem.

The changes that we're starting to see in the climate are happenning faster than the previous ones, in so far as it's possible to know this. That's a cause for concern because we don't know what effect it will have on the planet.

Some things are preditable, like rising sea levels, but we can move back from the coast. Drought and other catastrophes might affect people that can't move as easily. Do you see that as a problem or something that it's okay to ignore?

Or do you just have a distrust of science generally?

The big problem with science is that they are generally funded by governments, and this is world-wide by the way.

:eek: So, you don't trust government funded science??!! Yet, you link us to that co2science site that's been heavily funded by Exxon Mobile?!?!

hilarious

piraka

Red Planet wrote:

But i'm not convinced about this "medieval warm period" discussed in one of your links. The claims supporting the temps read fairly dubious by themselves.

I hope your not one of the MWP Denialists

The IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report effectively air brushed out the MWP and LIA. The graph itself came under scrutiny at the National Academy Sciences

The MWP is alive and kicking.

RedPlanet

piraka wrote:

I hope your not one of the MWP Denialists

The IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report effectively air brushed out the MWP and LIA. The graph itself came under scrutiny at the National Academy Sciences

The MWP is alive and kicking.

Oh no i'm not a denialist, but every graph i've seen shows the insignificance of the MWP when compared to todays raising temps.
BTW i wish you'd warn when linking to pdfs.

Snowbie

piraka wrote:

I hope your not one of the MWP Denialists

The IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report effectively air brushed out the MWP and LIA. The graph itself came under scrutiny at the National Academy Sciences

The MWP is alive and kicking.

Just keep in the back of your mind that some people are on dial up and even a 2mb file will take an eternity to download.If needed,copy and paste an important abstract instead.

Cheers.

piraka

Fortunately I’m on broadband and one tends to forget about the poor souls that eircom have forgotten, will post accordingly.

Just a heads up on this.
Should be very very interesting-it's on channel 4 at 9pm.

Don't panic if you dont have ch4 as you can watch ch4 live on their website as well as probably view this programme from its archive after tomorrow.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

Trogdor

I watched it. Really enjoyed, especially when they proved Al Gore wore. That's exactly what i said when i saw that part of the film:D. Nice to finally see a programme that isn't predicting doom and actually analizes the facts

Snowbie

Yep good programme.
I have grown up with "Global Warming caused by man crap",it is nice to see some real and true scientific analysis of it all and not the media hype ive always known.Will there be a rethink of the forecasting models now i wonder.

Undoubtly we are in a warming phase and in case know one saw this prog tonight the Earth has had warmer peroids than now with no ice cap melt and before the industrial era with higher co2 levels.(which i didnt know before being brainwashed by the media nearly)

But aswell as the Sun and clouds for changing the planets climate but one thing that was not covered was the ocean currents which influences our climate here more than anything else imo.

Also this peroid we are in is also minimal sunspot activity but with no temp variations over the winter months.This is proven that minimal sunspot activity leads to cooler temps on the planet which leads me to believe that warm ocean currents is the main factor in keeping us in a temperate climate all year round since the last ice age.

Thus here(Ireland) is where you would feel the first effects of climbing temps but would also feel the effects first of cooler temps.We have our own temperature line chart with just a gradual rise or fall in temp while the rest of the planet fluctuates more readily in time.
We are in a word "unique" and i happen to live here.

--gally--

I watched it and i must say it was a real eye opener. I hope the scientists involved will regain some of the respect they deserve. Unfortunatly its hard to see the "man-made" global warming crap dissappearing any time soon after so much money has gone into it and so many people backing it.

Everyone should watch this.

MoominPapa

Great show, so much food for thought. The ten thousand year ocean memory is an amazing concept and I always suspected part of the global warming agenda is to keep people in the third world in dire poverty so they don't make the same mistakes as us or that they are simply not as worthy as a panda or whale, but would have dismissed such thoughts as ludicrous, I mean the nice, cuddely environmentalists being anti-life? Well anti-human(particularly brown/yellow skinned, but definately poor and living far away) life anyway

ninebeanrows

All i'll say about the show is :rolleyes:

mike65

http://89.234.66.107/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055063345

Mike.