• Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!

To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.

Already a member? Log in here.

Program: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by wayneL, Mar 17, 2007.

  1. wayneL

    wayneL Rotaredom

    Posts:
    16,794
    Likes Received:
    977
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
  2. 2020hindsight

    2020hindsight

    Posts:
    9,985
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    wayne - 1 minute was enough for me ;) -
    I preferred the show on abc four corners which showed the corrupt scientists to be what they are ... in the paid service of the Exxons of the world - (the one you kndly found the link for) :2twocents
     
  3. 2020hindsight

    2020hindsight

    Posts:
    9,985
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    wayne - 1 minute was enough for me ;) -
    I preferred the show on abc four corners which showed the corrupt scientists to be what they are ... in the paid service of the Exxons of the world - (the one you kndly found the link for) :2twocents

    This youtube video reminds me of Ayn Rand (again) - (previous post of mine follows) - the quote in bold is based on data compiled in 1971, probably written 1973 or so I guess. - such ignorance, such incompetence, such mismanagement , such selfishness by the industrialised and developed countries ...., such a terrible legacy for the Y generation :(
     
  4. wayneL

    wayneL Rotaredom

    Posts:
    16,794
    Likes Received:
    977
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    This one acknowledges GW but refutes CO2 as the cause and pins it on solar activity. Does a good job of it.

    Pollution is still the biggy for me rather than co2.
     
  5. 2020hindsight

    2020hindsight

    Posts:
    9,985
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    lol -k m8, I'll try again "later" - maybe I'll get to the second or third minute before I "change the channel". :)
    when they claimed the ice wasn't melting, I thought to myself - so go find a hungry polar bear and tell THAT to his face :p:

    PS polar bears are eating each other - even more frequently than normal
    PPS If the problem is pollution , then let's play safe and work on BOTH pollution and CO2 :2twocents
    PPS I think i heard last night that last year was the hottest on record since records commenced in 1880? - worldwide? or USA one or other anyway.
    PPS The other thing I didnt like about the intro is that Al Gore is ridiculed. As you said somewhere else "don't play the man, play the ball". :eek:
     
  6. wayneL

    wayneL Rotaredom

    Posts:
    16,794
    Likes Received:
    977
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    This was on prime time TV in the UK. You gotta watch the whole show before canning it. ;)
     
  7. wayneL

    wayneL Rotaredom

    Posts:
    16,794
    Likes Received:
    977
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
  8. 2020hindsight

    2020hindsight

    Posts:
    9,985
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    well I agree wit the lastcoupla lines anyway.
    " During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level, but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency toward increasing temperatures," Usoskin explained.

    He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
     
  9. wayneL

    wayneL Rotaredom

    Posts:
    16,794
    Likes Received:
    977
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    You have to say that to get money ;)
     
  10. 2020hindsight

    2020hindsight

    Posts:
    9,985
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Wayne, I'm sure you've heard that one ... the Irish scientists at a meeting
    Professor Shaun :- "well so wott if the americans have gotten to the moon , we're gonna go to the sun!!!"
    "but won't it be too hot?" sez Prof Paddy?
    "ahh no , we've thought of that ... and we've worked out how to get around it ...
    we've decided to go at night ya see" ;)

    lol that avatar of yours (icarus bull) sure tells a story - same story as your previous dive bomber i guess?. :eek:
     
  11. ghotib

    ghotib THIMKER

    Posts:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    I watched the whole thing. It's nice watching something like this at the computer: you can look things up as questions arise.

    The programme lost cred for me early on as it featured Tim Ball and Fred Singer, both of whom featured earlier in their careers as spokesmen for tobacco/cancer skeptics and to my mind are hopelessly tainted witnesses to anything. Incidentally, Singer is one of the guys who claims in the programme never to have seen a cent from oil companies. Here's a counterclaim, with references: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer.

    I was more interested in the work of John Christy, the guy who does the temperature measurements with balloons. As best I can find, his current view is that human-generated CO2 emissions are responsible for at least part of a real global temperature rise, but that the effects are not likely to be as catastrophic as some predictions. That strikes me as a reasonable and scientific position, and the guy is doing real research and looking for real data. Which makes this article interesting
    http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html

    I don't say that Al Gore presented a flawless case but this programme has its own problems:

    http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

    Wayne, you summarised the programme's case as being that global warming is real but caused by solar activity rather than by (human-caused) CO2. I don't quite agree with that summary; I think the programme sets several arguments running and doesn't actually make any of them. The kicker is the end, where it suggests that economic development in Africa is impossible without increased use of coal and oil. The suggestion doesn't even pretend to be scientific: it's a rhetorical gambit that to my mind discredits everything that preceded it.

    That's a pity because there probably is more information to be publicised that would be useful in forming public policy. But this programme certainly won't stop me turning out lights when I leave a room.

    Cheers,

    Ghoti
     
  12. wayneL

    wayneL Rotaredom

    Posts:
    16,794
    Likes Received:
    977
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Thanks for your assessment ghotib.

    Agree with you on this.

    It's still an interesting topic with loads of rhetoric, misinformation, hidden agendas and hypocrisy on both sides... interspersed with a little bit of real science.

    I've learned long ago to be mistrustful of "science" on a lot of different fronts, for a lot of the reasons outlined in the program, and indeed the reasons outlined in your post.

    Just trying to generate some discussion sans the foregone conclusions implanted by the thought police. As far as turning out the lights... yeah I'm all for that, for lots of reasons independent of CO2.

    Cheers
     
  13. 2020hindsight

    2020hindsight

    Posts:
    9,985
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Sorry wayne, I just can't get into this tainted spin-doctored science. (and thanks ghotib). Bit like the proof that USA didnt land on the moon because the flags are flying - or a million theories about USA bringing down WTC themselves - as if.

    Global warming is obvious. This isn't one of those cases where you say, ok, we have 3 scientists on the committee saying black (i.e. doomssayers), and three saying white (no need to worry folks, fossil fuel is harmless) - let's go for grey. You end up with a camel, and a camel just won't work for this one. The scientists predicting doomsday have been amazingly reserved imo. The truth could well lie on the black side of black. :2twocents

    At least moths are turning up at the meeting in Europe to give proof of the crazy climate changes going on. - crops being eaten by catepllars that would usually not survive the winter etc. It's dead easy decision for me. Global warming left to continue unchecked is the death knell.

    Whatever the cause of Global warming, we have to try to slow it down at least. This thing is like the Queen Mary - It will take a hundred years to get back to where we are now in any case.

    Anyone who trusts the word of (cigarette companies or) oil companies needs their heads read. As for coal - I can see that the "fossil fuel lobbyists" will probably get their way in Aus - Even Peter Garrett is saying "coal is ok for the time being" - but at least he's adding the bit about the need for clean coal technology. :2twocents
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1854517.htm
     
  14. 2020hindsight

    2020hindsight

    Posts:
    9,985
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Wayne - finally found time to listen to it all. Have to say I owe you a massive apology. Fantastic.

    In my defence as to my initial reaction ... it starts with what I consider to be a spindoctored twisted logic:-

    "1. ice is melting ,
    2. sea is rising ,
    3. hurricanes are blowing and
    4. its all your fault
    5. scared?
    6. dont be,
    7. its not true."

    I think we should all be "scared", but the answer "it's not true" apparently only applies to statement 4, the fact that man is probably not responsible (or at least not as resonsible as we are lead to believe).
    The inference is that nothing we do will change anything (very fatalistic - probably over simplistic in itself), and that man is insignificant and not in control as he thinks (very humbling)
    "ahh but I may as well try to catch the (solar) wind" - as Dylan would say. :(

    Can't see how clearing the amazon jungles (the lungs of the planet) is gonna help (?) - and they don't go anywhere near topics like that - Once that is out of the way , it is fantastic (I concede).
    Pretty compelling case for "political interference" behind the environmental debate. (starting with Maggie Thatcher etc) and for lop-sided funding of research projects, etc (pro vs anti global warming (?) or "greenhouse" (?) - they use the terms interchangably which gets confusing).

    Hard to argue with the likes of Patrick Moore, apparently cofounder of Greenpeace (till he left) who now sees sinister motives in the debate. (as do many).

    Temp is leading CO2 by 200 years . Hence CO2 is clearly not the cause. yep, that sure wan't brought out by Al Gore either.

    I was particularly "hooked" at about 68th minute , in summary :-
    "the precautionary principle has politically suspect motives ( third world suffer)". If we are telling the third world that they are only to use wind and solar - what we are really telling them is "you cannot have electricity!" and you cannot become industrialised !. or a steel industry , or railway networks etc. "might power a transister radio" as they say. ..."morally repugnant". "somebody (the environmental lobby) is keen to kill the African dream - and the African dream is to develop" . "We are still at the level of survival"

    PS I have to go away and think long and hard on this. Do some more research lol. thanks again.
    PPS I still intend to help my mate down the road with his objective of planting 100 trees lol. :2twocents
    PPS as usual wit these things you have to define your terms - global warming is happening, real, measureable. But the causes ? - that's where these scientists differ yes? Then come the motives - ?
     
  15. wayneL

    wayneL Rotaredom

    Posts:
    16,794
    Likes Received:
    977
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    2020,

    I hope people don't go and rush out the door to buy that hummer, or by a whopper made with beef raised where the Amazon "used" to be, (and now can hardly support pasture)(as you and ghotib have said); I certainly won't be.

    Take away the CO2/climate change arguement and there are still huge challenges. I will still be as annoyingly green as possible.

    I just wonder about the agenda and am cynical when an "industry" is built up around something... and I am deeply suspicious when an American politician takes up a cause. (and races around the world in jets, motorcades and probably lives in an energy hungry mansion)
     
  16. 2020hindsight

    2020hindsight

    Posts:
    9,985
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    thanks Ghotib - sheesh - even Channel 4 is not above bending the truth ( and consistently) throughout that article.
    Seems there's lies, damned lies, and then (out on their own by a country mile) lies about the environment. manipulated every which way.
    here's the true NASA graph for comparison.
    (question arises does Channel 4 have links with Exxon? lol)
    But the article of this thread is still worth a watch for sure. :2twocents
    http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/9929/a001008_pre.jpg
    the graph on the right is the real graph (NASA website) -
    one has increase 1880 - 1940 of 0.5, then decrease 1940-1980 of 0.2, then increase by 0.4 since.
    The true graph shows increase of 0.5 then a further INCREASE of 0.2 then increase 0f 0.3, arriving at a point 0.3 higher overall, and blowing the argument that things cooled between 40 and 80. (I'm making assumptions that both are in degC) :(
    But there's no question either way that things are getting hotter.
     

    Attached Files:

  17. 2020hindsight

    2020hindsight

    Posts:
    9,985
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Here are some graphs etc on sun effects.
    the Channel 4 program showed correlation between solar activity and temp over 500 million years.
    Here's another of those LiveScience.com articles:-
    The first graph is from Channel 4. (temp and solar winds) - good correlation.
    The second graph is only over a few 100 years, temp appears to be in phase with "solar cycle" (assuming Ive read it right) - and between 1880 and 1940 there is approx 0.4deg C increase in "Temp Anomaly".
    They are not meant to be directly compared and contrasted. different time frames. - both fairly convincing you'd think. Yet the LifeScience website concludes differently (human influences far outweigh .. Sun's brightness" (?) - and they are the sourceof the second graph for instance. - that's it , I'm knocking off for a beer. (rather than get into another sun-heated argument).
     

    Attached Files:

  18. Kimosabi

    Kimosabi

    Posts:
    838
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Alot of the Global Warming stuff is absolute crap...

    The REAL problem is we're running out of OIL. Now the governemnts of the world can't readily admit that their running out of BLACK GOLD because of the subsequent social/political upheaval etc.

    So in classic Government fashion they create another crisis that achieves their ends without admitting to the real problem.

    What better way to get Society/Industry to come up with new renewable fuels and energy, than create an environment condusive to develop renewable fuels/energy than come up with this Global Warming crap which accelerates the development of Renewable Energy etc.

    Not that this is a bad problem or strategy, but imagine the reaction if the Wall Street Journal, CNN or Bloomberg ran with the front page headline

    "WORLD HAS TWO YEARS OF OIL SUPPLIES LEFT"
     
  19. rederob

    rederob

    Posts:
    3,081
    Likes Received:
    627
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Not sure which bits you are referring to, but the scientific consensus, which did not exist a few years ago, suggests global warming effects are well and truly to the fore.
    Moronic mortals have a conceptual problem with evolutionary time, and therefore find it difficult to conceive that a one degree temperature change to planet earth makes a massive difference to weather - due to many subsidiary influences, particularly related to melting of the ice caps ans incumbent rising sea levels.
    It is in fact this latter effect that will prove the greatest catastrophe, but if we are not willing to see the writing on the wall now, I guess worrying about it later is something the next generation will have to learn to die with.
     
  20. Kimosabi

    Kimosabi

    Posts:
    838
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Planet Earth has been getting hotter and colder all by itself without any help from humans.

    If you want to cool the Earth down, blow up a couple of huge volcano's or steer an asteroid into the Planet. It's worked in the past and I'm sure it'll work in again the future.

    Planet Earth is a pretty dynamic place, it's always been changing and I suspect it will continue to keep changing regardless of what humans do...
     
Loading...

Share This Page