• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Was this the same program which quoted one scientist in it's broadcast as agreeing with their theories but he then later raised severe objections and claimed that they'd cut his part down quite a bit and managed to alter his message from one of raising doubts and criticisms into one confirming their theories?
 

Langrenus

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
358
Yes, the same programme Xander

The scientist in question was Carl Wunch (based at MIT), who was one of the few people actually working on active research projects to be featured on the programme (many of the others were captioned at working at universities they retired from years ago).

See link for his open letter to Channel 4 (the broadcasters)

Edit:

A nice quote, particularly in light of some of the discussions here:

In general, good scientists (unlike lawyers) are meant to keep in mind at all times that conceivably they are wrong. There is a very wide spectrum of scientific knowledge ranging from the almost certain, e.g. that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow, or that no physical object can move faster than the speed of light; to inferences that seem very plausible but for which one can more readily imagine ways in which they might prove incorrect (e.g., that melting of the Greenland ice cap means that sea level will rise); to fiercely disputed ideas (e.g., that variations in the North Atlantic circulation directly control the climate of the northern hemisphere). Most of us draw conclusions that seem to us the most compelling, but try hard to maintain an open mind about counter arguments or new observations that could prove us wrong. Reducing the extremely complicated discussion of future climate change to the cartoon level we see on both extremes is somewhat like making public policy on the basis of a Batman movie.
 

Opivy1980

New member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
138
MBTI Type
INTJ
What is actually happening according to most scientists is a combination of greenhouse gas buildup and cyclical climate change.

Climate change usually occurs at a rate of millennial and it is now occurring at a centennial rate. So the changes are more noticeable and are causing more drastic weather patterns and natural disasters more frequently.


I had all sorts of quotes and scientific studies url links but when I went to post it erased everything.

So here is my proof:

Go to google and put the phrase: global warming causing earth climate cycle faster

read some of the studies done and see if it doesn't make sense.

Then go back to watching documentaries that spoon feed you what you want to hear.
 

Veneti

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
264
MBTI Type
XNTX
When some scientist can actually prove what they actually preach then "I'm a believer".

When we have carbon particles measured in 2-3 parts per billion, I can't really emphasise with the blanket concept. When scientists can say "Hey, the bubble of pollution over china creates a convection which transfers heat" then I'll start getting interested. Carbon has a 15 year life in the atmosphere.

When you look at the earth in relation to the sun you are comparing a pea against a basketball. Then consider the differential in heat between the poles and the equator and you can see any small change with the sun will create significant heat changes.

Nup, most of this global warming is just Y2K bug in disguise, so research scientists can get their funding allocated.

Bring on global warming; the summer was crap in the UK. In fact I'm going to burn some toast right now...
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
I am not yet ready to sign on as a Global Warming true believer. I am still skeptical about it. Maybe in part because I can still be a skeptic about. However, it is getting to the point where it is a "you are with us or against us" kind of thing. Some people believe it is impossible to be liberal without signing on whole heartedly to the global warming theory and its attending dogma.

You are accused of not "caring" about the environment, as if simply supporting the idea of GW were the real solution to the problem. You can say that you do still care about the environment and that we should all do what we can to live more green but in the end if you don't 100% without question support the idea that GW is manmade and not a natural cycle of weather then you are accused of not being a caring person. *sigh*

I am still open to new information on the subject either way, my mind is still open about it but it raises my feelings of unease to think that a political agenda could be silencing voices that critique the man made Global Warming theory, even if they come from the political side that I am most often in sympathy with.

In opinion the left needs to watch this idea or else fall victim the hijacking of their parties in the same manner that the Christian Dominionism hijacked the right and the dogma will be used for political gain just the same as with the right. Some people absolutely cannot tolerate any questioning , just mere questions and discussion, of GW without it turning into a heated, emotional debate and that in and of itself should be a red flag about the potential nature of this growing concept.



Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
Chris Landsea


Global-warming theorists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence:

"But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
When some scientist can actually prove what they actually preach then "I'm a believer".

When we have carbon particles measured in 2-3 parts per billion, I can't really emphasise with the blanket concept. When scientists can say "Hey, the bubble of pollution over china creates a convection which transfers heat" then I'll start getting interested. Carbon has a 15 year life in the atmosphere.

When you look at the earth in relation to the sun you are comparing a pea against a basketball. Then consider the differential in heat between the poles and the equator and you can see any small change with the sun will create significant heat changes.

Nup, most of this global warming is just Y2K bug in disguise, so research scientists can get their funding allocated.

Bring on global warming; the summer was crap in the UK. In fact I'm going to burn some toast right now...

Think of it from a clinical perspective.

What is the cost of acting on Global warming before it is too late if it is real vs. acting on it when it is not real? I don't know the answer to that question, for global warming.

The risk avoidance perspective was the way we acted on the Y2K bug (and having removed such bugs personally, I know it was a real issue). I don't believe there was ever a chance that the world would come to an end (nor would any of the other catastrophes advertised come true).

But (like the dot-com false promises) it was the advertisers that made the hype, not the IT professionals. I hope no-one is trying to pin any sort of hype on IT professionals (or scientists in the case of global warming), while absolving marketing (or Al Gore and other politicians).
 

Veneti

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
264
MBTI Type
XNTX
Think of it from a clinical perspective.

What is the cost of acting on Global warming before it is too late if it is real vs. acting on it when it is not real? I don't know the answer to that question, for global warming.

There are two major issues I have which underlie my "contempt" for the way it’s all being handled.

1) If pollution really is the cause as they seem to be indicating, then why aren't they placing massive taxes on low value but polluting items? (just rank them and work down the list) No, they'd rather do token gestures and put a punitive tax on air travel.

2) Even if you boil less water a day or anything else... it’s going to make sod all difference compared to India and China's contribution as they come on stream.

Lastly, nobody is actually acting on global warming (not to a degree that’s going to make a difference).

The risk avoidance perspective was the way we acted on the Y2K bug (and having removed such bugs personally, I know it was a real issue). I don't believe there was ever a chance that the world would come to an end (nor would any of the other catastrophes advertised come true).

Nothing actually happened and many companies were unprepared, it was just easier to set their system clocks back than reprogramme. There were loads of contractors milking it for all it was worth....looking busy but not doing much.

But (like the dot-com false promises) it was the advertisers that made the hype, not the IT professionals. I hope no-one is trying to pin any sort of hype on IT professionals (or scientists in the case of global warming), while absolving marketing (or Al Gore and other politicians)

No false promise with the internet, its killing the daily newspapers. Advertising is shifting to the net. More and more commerce is conducted online. It has and continues to revolutionize the way we do business, think of how often you look up info and do transactions online... online sales +40% PA.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
There are two major issues I have which underlie my 'contempt' for the way it’s all being handled.

1) If pollution really is the cause as they seem to be indicating, then why aren't they placing massive taxes on low value but polluting items? (just rank them and work down the list) No, they'd rather do token gestures and put a punitive tax on air travel.

That annoys me too. Like the rock concerts that waste all sort of energy to raise 'awareness'. Talk about hypocritical.

2) Even if you boil less water a day or anything else... it’s going to make sod all difference compared to India and China's contribution as they come on stream.

Well. I think that'll be a while yet. The West, in particular the U.S., is responsible for the majority of what exists. We can't really expect China and India to not become industrialized, when we've already enjoyed the benefits.

Lastly, nobody is actually acting on global warming (not to a degree that’s going to make a difference).

There are people looking for fuel alternatives. Replace the gasoline that goes into all the cars in the world with low-emission alternatives, compatible with current engines, and comparable in cost (it could happen, really :cry: ), and you'll have something.

Nothing actually happened and many companies were unprepared, it was just easier to set their system clocks back than reprogramme. There were loads of contractors milking it for all it was worth....looking busy but not doing much.

Not surprising actually.

No false promise with the internet, its killing the daily newspapers. Advertising is shifting to the net. More and more commerce is conducted online. It has and continues to revolutionize the way we do business, think of how often you look up info and do transactions online... online sales +40% PA.

I was referring to the near instant riches from dot-com's, not the promise of progress from the internet itself.
 
Last edited:

Veneti

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
264
MBTI Type
XNTX
Well. I think that'll be a while yet. The West, in particular the U.S., is responsible for the majority of what exists. We can't really expect China and India to not become industrialized, when we've already enjoyed the benefits.

China has surpassed the US in emissions very recently. It was in the press.
China is building 2 coal powered fire stations A WEEK. I've been in southern china around an economic zone... sheeze... talk about air pollution.

There are people looking for fuel alternatives. Replace the gasoline that goes into all the cars in the world with low-emission alternatives, compatible with current engines, and comparable in cost (it could happen, really :cry: ), and you'll have something.

I think the oil companies are not focused on alternative fuels seeing as they own the oil in the ground. I believe they have been buying patents... probably to slow the progress.

I was referring to the near instant riches from dot-com's, not the promise of progress from the internet itself.

Ok, you'll notice when a market is close to peaking there's always a surge of public offerings. Whether its shares, .com's, property developments ... its all the same. Its actually a sign to get out while you can...
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
China has surpassed the US in emissions very recently. It was in the press.
China is building 2 coal powered fire stations A WEEK. I've been in southern china around an economic zone... sheeze... talk about air pollution.

I wasn't aware of that (must have been in a cave or something). Still emissions are different from total contribution to pollution (over time).

I wonder if you would be in favor of cutting down on pollution for it's own sake (climate change or not).

I think the oil companies are not focused on alternative fuels seeing as they own the oil in the ground. I believe they have been buying patents... probably to slow the progress.

But there are others (universities, crackpot friends of mine). Not that means anything, but Edison, Tesla, and Ford were among the biggest crackpots of their time. Crackpots helped fuel this pollution, maybe they can curb it too.

(Note to self. Attend next Inventor's Alliance meeting)

Ok, you'll notice when a market is close to peaking there's always a surge of public offerings. Whether its shares, .com's, property developments ... its all the same. Its actually a sign to get out while you can...
[/QUOTE]

Define surge. Distinguish from legitimate boom. Would you advise not to ride strong up-trends at all?
 

htb

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,505
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
That's the smartest thing I've read all week! (I should have read that months ago.)
All greens have a recurring nightmare: the Son of Man will come again and announce that burning fossils fuels to build capital is a sacrament.
 

InFlux

New member
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
18
All the arguments aside. This is a particular interest of mine, and something I'm starting a career in, so that's your grain of salt. Admission: I only skimmed the thread. Keep that in mind when you rip me apart. Thanks! :)

(1) Most of the ways people deal with this are talking and not acting, particularly the rock concerts that were mentioned. But if everyone did seriously just use fluorescent lightbulbs instead of incandescent - that's actually quite a lot from a little. So the energy wasted on a rock concert - IF it worked - is worth it. Energy efficiency is like voting. Nobody does much, but it's all in the aggregate. Unfortunately, we live in a world where talk/appearance rules over action.

(2) There is scientific consensus and there is a reason there's consensus. Scientists are trained to look at data, first and foremost, and the climate change models that people are computing are consistent with the temperature rises since people started burning fossil fuels. Of course, these are complicated computations and I don't do simulations, but assuming they have their basics right (and considering how much money there is to be made attacking these simulations - I buy it) then there's reason to think it might be right.
And! I know the models are simplified. But there's a reason to develop better computers. Fluid dynamics and global modeling are some of the nastiest systems to solve. If anyone is familiar with Lorenz's butterfly, here's a moment to consider it.
NB: Yes, there have been similar rises in the past. Yes, it could be natural. It also might not be. And either way, it's not good for humans.

(3) Those of you who mentioned China and India are spot-on. That's what's really scary, and also murky in terms of value. Is it the right of those in the West to say don't develop 'cause we already screwed up the world? No. Which is why we need more money/effort towards developing better technology so that development doesn't need to add to our carbon count. There are studies in progress and there is work being done jointly with those countries, but not enough. This is a great place to really contribute...

(4) Maybe for a lot of people it is like religion. It shouldn't be. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis. If it's wrong, and the earth is heating up naturally, it's bad for us and there's nothing we can do. If it's right, then there is something we can do. Better to take action and be wrong than to do nothing and fry because we were stupid.
 
Top