The Great Global Warming Swindle (Ch 4 9pm 8/3/07)

A very interesting programme that shows that there are two sides to any debate. I have recently done a lot of research in to this topic and found that my conclusions fit in wth this programme! What are your thoughts guys and lassies?

Jock



The great global warming swindle web site

 

I have always thought global warming was a feed, anyone remember summer of 76?
The weather does what it wants, and will do so again no matter how much deodourant we wear.

 

I started a thread on this about a month ago:

http://www.rumration.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=4252.html

I have also done some pretty heavy mathematical work on this (not through choice but toward a qualification) it really captured my interest though, the mathematical models used to predict climate change are absolute crap, produced by alleged "leaders in their field" they do not contain any real science more a bunch of guesses and what ifs.

I already knew about the 800 year carbon gap and the relationship of weather to sun activity (neither of which are included in the standard weather model) I was very interested in how this has been driven by politicians though, shocking! The problem is these scientists will get reduced funding now and less of an opportunity to prove their point, this is a Billion pound industry, who in authority is going to admit it's complete fantasy? What about the embarrassment? financial incompetence? political advantage?

One thing good comes out of the great swindle, at least people have started to think about the huge amounts of waste they are producing daily. Unfortunately, especially now that George has been convinced, the third world will never be permitted to reach their full potential.

 

Alleluia! A mainstream media outlet has at last been daring enough to present the evidence as seen by many experts, most of whom appear to have no axe to grind.

I have always believed that the global warming theories of today were just an excuse for pseuds to make money and that humankind's arrogance knows no bounds.

Unless you are bereft of useable intelligence, like the creationists, the historical record shows that man has been a pimple on the backside of the Earth for a very brief period and that temperature fluctuations have occurred often in its history. As one of the contributors said, if you use computer models for anything, you can make them predict what you want by changing your input assumptions. That appears to be what the global doom-mongers have managed in this case - oh and made a fantastic living from peddling ballox!

It was interesting to hear that Maggie jumped on the global warming bandwagon so that she could big up nuclear electricity generation. Now, there was a canny bird!

The only thing we need to worry about now is just how much of our GDP is being squandered on this nonsense.

 

The world does seem to be getting warmer, we cam measure that, so it isn't a con. The problem is why. I agree that the process could be a completely natural process that we have no control over whatsoever and nothng we do will change what will happen. There are some of the scientific community who support this view. Equaly the global warming- greenhouse gas theory has many adherants and equally a good publicity machine. I think both camps are as yet unable to prove their theories conclusively, we just don't know enough about the mechanisms involved

Now if the bunch who say it is all natural are right any thing we do will have little or no impact, we are b*ggered. If the greenhouse mob are right then we can do something.

Which way should we gamble, because that is what we are being asked to do, gamble on opposing scientific theories. If being less wastefull had no benefit I would probably suggest we prepare for the worst rather than try to change it, but being less wasteful does have a positive side, using less energy does cost you and me less, so that is 'god'. Equally many of the primary resources we use are finite and potentially costly to produce so 'renewing' as much as possible has an element of sense and potentially will cost us less. Just to give a 'for example' here in the UK for as long as I can remeber and probably for a long time before that we have had to pay people to take our rubbish away and dispose of it. Some time ago my ship was based in Mombassa for several months and there the local rubbish contractor paid us for the priviledge of taking away our rubbish whilst in harbour because he could make more money by recycling it. This is an art we have lost. So perhaps there are sgnificant benefits for us as a society if we move more to renewable energy and recycle far more of our waste rather than just sticing it in big holes in the ground.

 

I've always had a bit of a problem with this one too.

No one seems to consider the 19th/early 20th century when all the mills and foundrys etc were pumping out the [email protected] into the atmosphere all over Europe and the States (think London killer smogs) and the amount of pollution that must have been caused by the two world wars. What about all the steam trains, coal fired ships and household coal fires - none of this is ever mention in relation to global warming, why? didn't it have any effect?

Or is it because it's all in the past that it won't help secure all that loverly money they get?

 

Until I watched the programme last night I was as much a sheep as most people on this subject I guess. The number of "experts" that are constantly rolled out sounded as if their research was scientifically sound and that the consensus was that Global Warming was largly a man-made phenomenon. I like to think I am a reasonably intelligent bloke and have a naturally enquiring mind and always try to see an argument from both sides, but I got taken in by the steamroller of popular "evidence" and pure weight of public opinion which I admit, blindsided me to any other explanation.
After watching the programme last night I now feel I have been duped - or at the very least, we as a population have not been given the full facts. Well done to C4 for airing the programme and hopefully sparking what we should have had from the begining - a proper debate on the subject, usung ALL available data and not just CO2 emissions as the basis.

Dusty Jack - no more the sheep

 

I do recall (I wish I could remember where) reading a report which stated that only 6% of the global warming was directly attributable to humans..
Most was direct from the Amazon (and other) rainforest due to natural vegetation rotting etc.
The politicians have jumped on the bandwagon purely as another ruse to get our money with the "green tax" pretence..

 

Perhaps we should treat all Ministers / MPs / PC Dogmatists / 'experts' / with the contempt they deserve, until they have positive proof.
But as some are now beginning to realise, it's a way to grab money ( a thing that this government and its cronies has down to a fine art) for populist, but unfounded and unaccepted by all scientists, beliefs.

If they were really so interested in cutting the emissions, why do they allow jet travel (something that the government loves indulging in), car racing and other high pollution pursuits to continue - 'look at me I am so in touch', cronyism, the need to be with the high life, rich donors perhaps - or am I too cycnical .......??

 

Theres some fairly simple things that could be done which would save energy and cost.

I think one of the easiest would be the doubled up packs of biscuits and the like, it doesn't need wrapping on both pack and then another layer to put the packs together, just a sign saying two packs for x amount, look in the supermarket on your next trip and see how many items this applies to, not just extra energy and costs to prepare but more rubbish to dispose of. A simple thing to stop.

 

Global Warming who cares I will be long dead before the world implodes or cooks its self to bits.
Live for the moment, live on the edge and save room for other buggers.

I am here for a good time not a long time !!!!!!

ANON

 

On your first point if you wait untilthese is conclusive proof you will be too late to take action if of course any action is required.

Of course it is a way to try to get funding for this and that, if it wasn't global warming it would be something else so no real change there at all. Stopping them grabbing money for global warming stuff will not stop people grabbing money for pet projects just change the project.

I don't think motor racing itself is that carbon heavy, but the vast numbers of car/bike goons that go to watch the events, they must shift a hell of a lot of carbon. As for air travel the actual carbon spend per passenger mile has falen significantly in recent years, the real problem is the increase in passenger miles, but what government s going to commit political suicide by stopping the great unwashed from having their holidays

 

The problem is if we gamble the other way we may be hastening the next Ice Age.......

 

Hi Peter,

Get your points, but some of the often quoted politically correct reports state the gunk that comes from a planes engines on take off, or a car's exhaust when it running around a track / on public road as 'major sources of pollution' - can we blame TopGear here ?.

And then we also have 'experts' who call it all bunkum and that it is a regular occurence as shown in historical events.

As for pollution, what of those countries recently joining the EU from the former Eastern Bloc whose technology was/is far inferior and whose industries do not work to the betterment of the environment.
And, of course, there are also those simpletons who think that cattle produce more pollution than anything else in the world (- personally I think more gas comes from the inhabitants of the Houses in Whitehall :wink: ) do we rid the world of animals ?
As for your point about 'stopping the great unwashed from having holidays' isn't in fact what GB is trying to do now with the flight tax being levied at airports - but I bet this will not stop pollies from jetting the world causing more pollution in the name of 'look at me, aren't I good in discussing the environment and its peril'.

Until there are those responsible persons (not only scientists but all interested parties, not the treehuggers and the PC dogmatists) who will sit down and discuss properly, and rationally the consequences of overindustrialisation, instead of spouting doom & gloom all of the time, nothing is likely to be achieved, except the draining of our monies by those in power to spend on PC environmental projects.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for saving all life as well as the planet (and NO I'm not a treehugger either before anyone gets it in :razz: ) and I do try, like many, to do my bit. But very unfortunately, those in power (with no clue as to what they are in fact supposed to do ) will carry on doing their PC thing because they are 'in touch with the environment' and spending undisclosed sums of money, despite FOI requests, travelling by air and gorging themselves at our expense.

Anyone think different ? ...... dig in ..... I'm going for coffee break.... :razz:

:smile:

 

I was shown some data onboard an antartic survey ship that was derived from ice samples.

They bore a hole in the ice, the ice at the bottom has been there thousands of years. This way they can look at what was happening in the atmosphere over different periods of time.

The records show steady rises and falls in CO2 over the Earth's history. The scary thing was the rise we're seeing now is the fastest rise ever, and it all started about 100 or so years ago.

Now correlation does not demonstrate causation but my money would be on the industrial revolution, therefore mankind, causing this. And it can only get worse. look at the amount of crap China and India are going to start kicking out.

All this CO2 needs to be sucked out of the atmosphere and stuck back into the ground where it came from.

As for global warming giving us a Mediterranean climate, just think that when the ice caps melt and the Gulf Stream stops we're going to need warm coats not flip-flops and t-shirts!

 

I saw David Bellamy on TV talking about global warming being a natural occurance, if thats good enough for David it's good enough for me. I can see how we may have sped it up a little but not in the extremes we are led to believe.

 

Having read through the thread I think a couple of things are obvious, either some peope didn't see the documentary, or they didn't understand what it was trying to explain! Global warming exists, fact, the results of that are yet to be felt but it's likely not to be terminal and certainly way less serious than the media or environmental loonies would have you believe. The Earth has been a lot warmer than it is now or even than it's likely to be should the loonies turn out to be correct, it will then cool again and continue in it's mildly chaotic manner!

Carbon Dioxide has absolutely no effect on global warming, it's fiction a lie, it doesn't have a small effect, not even minute effect, carbon dioxides' effect on the warming of our planet is absolutely zero. It's not actually a hard concept, the total carbon on the planet is and always has been the same (just about) It's form alters constantly and it is as essential to human life as it has ever been. The increases in carbon dioxide we measure in our atmosphere are not the cause of global warming they are the result of it.

Now, that's not to say we shouldn't think about waste and pollutants (those who worry about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should google nitrous oxide, now that is really scary!) So, recycle it prevents waste and saves money, use less energy but you aren't going to save the world, just some cash.

However, at least think twice and consider this argument when the idiot environmentalists(who used to be in CND, greenpeace or any other essentially anti-estabishment organisation with an ear and a cause and marxist support) try to convince you that letting the third world develop the technology we take for granted is like allowing them to destroy the Earth. It's crap, we can no more stop global warming than can we start it, it happens, we could all die, but we probably won't. :lol: maybe! :wink:

 

i found the fact that a founder of greenpeace was debunking the idea as well quite interesting. Im afraid im in the camp of "lets take the safest gamble". I also found the sun spot data interesting, although at no point were the scales visible or any other data to prove that those graphs had not been edited. Most graphs can be altered to suit your argument. We have had an ice age so now maybe a heat age then another ice age. Who really knows. My feeling is though that if we can reduce things like pollution (all pollution not just co2) then the world would be a better place. I definetly think we shouldnt be dictating to countries like Africa to not use Electricity when we live the way we do. I have partly reduced emmisions myself and i would get a wind turbine but a 4 year pay back - come on. Thats not about reducing my emmisions though its about saving costs and reducing dependency. But if anyone was serious about these things then biodiesel would be getting a massive push forward. The fact it isnt merely reinforces the fact money and big business are the motivations behind these things.

 

Well it would appear that I have started a hot topic! Wopee! Seriously though it is refreshing to see a debate concerning this topic rather than just accepting only one side. In science the constant challenging and testing of any research is not only the best way to form complete conclusions but can aid us in forming a unbiased veiw of the world.

My own feelings in this topic are that some current enviromental topics are right on the money - such as recycling! Yet some topics, such as climate change are no more than political tools. To those who associate opposition to climate change with big business ask yourself one question - Isn't climate change now a big business?

The one thing in that programme that got me however was the number of kids dying in Africa due to restrictions on energy production. How would any of these 'concerned enviromentalist' console an African mother who has lost her child? Would they say "At least the climate is OK?" In that respect all enviromentalist have blood on their hands. So much for their smug self-rightous bull$£!t.

Anyway time for me to hand over the soapbox till tomorow.

Take it easy guys and remember - question everything!

Jock

 

That's my impression as well. As was explained in the documentary, the greatest contributor to atmospheric CO2 is the ocean and atmospheric CO2 tracks temperature change not vice versa. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and has no effect on temperature in isolation. Water vapour is by far the biggest component of greenhouse gases, which are vital if the Earth is to retain heat from the Sun, but no mention is ever made of this by the scaremongers.

The story about the Gulf Stream changes was also a revelation. Any change in the flow of the North Atlantic has its roots anything up to 10,000 years ago and has nothing to do with carbon emissions in the last century.

The documentary is still available on C4, so if you didn't see it last night, do give it a go