Jump to content

The Great Global Warming Swindle


Stu Peters
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 286
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The Earth IS going to burn, but not for quite a few million years yet - and there's sod all anyone can do about it, even the sun has only finite resources

 

So those fiendish so-called scientific "experts", who you've exposed as knowing sod all and who owe their status entirely to their own claims of knowledge, can be trusted with regards to predicting the eventual demise of the Sun, but when it comes to climate change they're just making it up? I'm tempted to undergo some damascene conversion, the idea that scientists are only right when I say they are looks like fun, not to mention immensly flattering to my ego. When anyone questions what I say, I'll just say mother nature's provided me with all the facts I need. Ace!

 

Back on the subject of the documentary, it looks like one of the "big names" they roped into contributing is already considering taking official action against the programme makers and channel 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly off track - but I'm nervous when people say things like "the official line (which we trust, 'cos why would they lie to us) is that"...

 

* Wrap up warm - there's an ice age coming

* Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald ('back, and to the left....')

* Good ol' Bill did NOT have sexual relations with that woman

* Weapons of mass destruction are definitely there SOMEWHERE, so let's bomb away

* Gambling is evil, especially if it's online and offshore. Vegas and Atlantic City are different though

* George talks to God for advice. And has a briefcase with a big red button by his bedside

* We'll spend all these carbon taxes on the environment

* Gas is two dollars a gallon because any more fuel tax would stifle US economic growth

 

I know I've banged on about it already, but Noam Chomsky reckons the way of controlling a population is to present a huge threat (WMD/Global Warming/Al Quaeda) that only our smart and trustworthy Governments can hope to solve for us. So pay your extra taxes, make our corporate pals extra billions, do as you're told, and go home and watch American Gladiators/Big Brother on TV. Sorry - went from Chomsky to Hicks there, in a breath...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly off track - but I'm nervous when people say things like "the official line (which we trust, 'cos why would they lie to us) is that"...

 

* Wrap up warm - there's an ice age coming

* Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald ('back, and to the left....')

* Good ol' Bill did NOT have sexual relations with that woman

* Weapons of mass destruction are definitely there SOMEWHERE, so let's bomb away

* Gambling is evil, especially if it's online and offshore. Vegas and Atlantic City are different though

* George talks to God for advice. And has a briefcase with a big red button by his bedside

* We'll spend all these carbon taxes on the environment

* Gas is two dollars a gallon because any more fuel tax would stifle US economic growth

 

I know I've banged on about it already, but Noam Chomsky reckons the way of controlling a population is to present a huge threat (WMD/Global Warming/Al Quaeda) that only our smart and trustworthy Governments can hope to solve for us. So pay your extra taxes, make our corporate pals extra billions, do as you're told, and go home and watch American Gladiators/Big Brother on TV. Sorry - went from Chomsky to Hicks there, in a breath...

 

Stu, this is interesting and really goes to the nub of the issue as I see it - a distrust of science and a linking of science into government AND corporate issues.

 

It makes for an incredible mix of anti-science people. Your list is a mix of right wing and left wing distrust. I feel a strong irony in mixing Chomsky with neo-con rethoric about WMD and petrol tax, and Clinton's sexual pecadillos.

 

The way my mind works is to look for analogies - I'd guess you'll be interested in research trying to get fuel efficient cars with urban cycles above 60 mpg, research into ultra light batteries, hybrids and fuel cell engines. You'll know alot of the claims about these technologies are still speculative, but do you really believe the engineering behind it is faked or false. Universities and research institutes have a vested interest in trying to get money out of the big corporations to fund their research, and now with pollution and global warming fears they can tap money out of governments too - I feel there is a strong analogy with this nexus of research and big money that makes the risk of false claims etc valid in comparing this area of science with climatology.

 

You are telling me you are just skeptical of the science - you think its been manipulated and distorted - maybe, but when you go to the science, rather than the policies that should come from that science, are you really telling me you don't believe the results.

 

For me that is like telling me you don't believe in fuel cell engines and concept cars that can navigate for 100 miles independently across the Nevada desert. That is the leading edge research in automotive design and the IPCC is the leading edge in climatology.

 

Science makes mistakes - we've been saying for 50 years that nuclear fusion is just 20 years away. Korea has just had a major scandal concerning cloning research.

 

But in those 50 years nuclear fusion has advanced in leaps and bounds - sustainable reactions have occurred, the knowledge of containing plasma flows expanded massively. It is now worthwhile to attempt to build the first commercial scale reactor as a proof of concept. Something impossible 50 years ago.

 

And in the cloning research the scientist was found out - yes he'd falsified his research to get money from the government, but in science there is peer review and no matter what the government thought the review panel of Science got steadily more concerned about his papers and the truth came out.

 

Lonan3 tried to articulate what it would take to convince him - the trouble is with that approach is that it would take probably 5 years of hard work to provide the training and theories to enable him to be able to make a valid judgement.

 

How are we to analyse issues as complex as climate change? The IPCC is a huge multidisciplinary attempt to get consensus on the issue. The Channel 4 documentary, and Stu and Lonan3 dismiss it as biased. But its whole purpose is trying not to be biased.

 

Multidisciplinary Scientists from multiple nations come to an agreement on a scientific explanation of the issue and then governments attempt to thrash out an agreement on what that science actually means. I've quoted somewhere on the various threads on this topic the Chinese delegates worries about desertification in Northern China, I'm certain I could find the South African delegates comments, or the Canadians.

 

The idea that such a hugely diverse group of people are being bought off, or are being willfully blind to evidence is very very unlikely. Peer review is a stunningly successful way of sorting the wheat from the chaff and we can thank it for almost everything that makes us different from people living in the middle ages - technology, telecoms, health care etc etc

 

Some people in this thread go on about the fact that consensus is irrelevent in science - every one thought the world was flat - that consensus was false. Yes that's true - but the relevent issue is who is likely to be more accurate in reporting the current state of our scientific knowledge.

 

The IPCC is that effort. If you go and read what the people who worked on the IPCC think of this documentary - the people who have spent their lives attempting to understand the issues - they will tell you it was bunk. As links have shown, even some of the people who have been involved have said their views have been distorted - and the scientist who is responsible for the Cosmic ray theory at the centre of the program wasn't even interviewed.

 

Channel 4 has done a huge disservice to its public broadcasting remit by presenting a partial and distorted view of this massively important debate. But people are lapping it up.

 

It scares the willies out of me. MMR, Stem Cells, AIDS in South Africa, Intelligent Design - public distrust of science is now so widespread it is probably affecting our ability to continue to advance knowledge because people are being discouraged from entering science. Thank god for China and Singapore! They will scientifically prosper as anti-science prospers here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw a spanner in the global warming warmongers works, are any here aware that global warming is also currently happening on our neighbour - Mars?

 

Martian Ice Shrinking Dramatically

 

According to a September 20 NASA news release, "for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress." Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year, the shrinking of the Martian polar ice cap has been ongoing for at least six Earth years.

 

The shrinking is substantial. According to Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, the polar ice cap is shrinking at "a prodigious rate."

 

"The images, documenting changes from 1999 to 2005, suggest the climate on Mars is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago," reported Yahoo News on September 20.

 

...coincidence eh :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was mention on the Inconvenient Trusth Thread and linked to the following for those that wanted to read more

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

 

Just to throw a spanner in the global warming warmongers works, are any here aware that global warming is also currently happening on our neighbour - Mars?

 

...coincidence eh :rolleyes:

Edited by Lost Login
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw a spanner in the global warming warmongers works, are any here aware that global warming is also currently happening on our neighbour - Mars?

 

I'm sure someone else will point out that most climatologists are well aware of climactic patterns on other planets in our solar system, and that, unsurprisingly, their work takes this into account, so I'll simply say:

 

Warmongers?

 

Explain please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw a spanner in the global warming warmongers works, are any here aware that global warming is also currently happening on our neighbour - Mars?

 

Martian Ice Shrinking Dramatically

 

According to a September 20 NASA news release, "for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress." Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year, the shrinking of the Martian polar ice cap has been ongoing for at least six Earth years.

 

The shrinking is substantial. According to Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, the polar ice cap is shrinking at "a prodigious rate."

 

"The images, documenting changes from 1999 to 2005, suggest the climate on Mars is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago," reported Yahoo News on September 20.

 

...coincidence eh :rolleyes:

 

No - totally separate - and explainable processes.

 

The NASA scientists involved in this reasearch don't link this cycle - mainly due to the diffent ecenticity and obliquity of Mars' orbit - to global warming on Earth - and it definitely IS NOT caused by the sun being stronger

 

An interesting point is that the Scientist behind the Cosmic Ray research used as the basis for the Channel 4 documentary believes the sun is getting weaker and so is producing fewer cosmic rays which interact with cloud formation on earth making for fewer clouds and less albedo effect. So please don't use the Channel 4 documentary to say the sun is getting hotter - the science it was distorting says quite the opposite! The trouble with this theory though is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the sun's output has changed since the 1950s when the global warming trends started to become measurable.

 

RC-Drift.com - I suppose I'll be accused of being patronizing in answering like that - but I'd really recommend that you read this article on RealClimate. You will not find a better understanding of the science than this site. This article directly explains in laymans terms what is happening on Mars.

 

It is not connected with Global warming or the sun getting hotter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw a spanner in the global warming warmongers works, are any here aware that global warming is also currently happening on our neighbour - Mars?

...coincidence eh :rolleyes:

 

Jeez you're a genious. The UN should be listening to you and not these sham boy climatologists!

 

Your post just sums up whats wrong in this thread. We're not climatologists. We cannot interpret this information and make informed conclusions. You haven't answered my question, if you saw 10 doctors and 9 of them told you you would die without treatment and one said you're fine, what would you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martian Ice Shrinking Dramatically

 

According to a September 20 NASA news release, "for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress."

 

...coincidence eh :rolleyes:

 

Really, you can't call it a trend from three years worth of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent programme.

 

I'm a bit surprised that you are now recommending a program which relies on a theory that the sun getting weaker at emitting cosmic rays. This seems at odds with most of your earlier posts, but there you go. I assume you've studied the science and so are able to know which particular theories more closely correspond to reality.

 

I wonder if you could comment on the regression analyses of cosmic ray output which show no significent increase of decrease in output since 1950.

 

Aren't all those satelites useful.

 

Lonan3 quoted: "Knowing a great deal is not the same as being smart; intelligence is not information alone but also judgment, the manner in which information is collected and used."

Dr. Carl Sagan

 

This is a subtle quote - I fully admit I do not know the science, but I have tried very hard to ensure the information I use to make my judgements was collected and used in a smart way - isn't that something to do with your ideas of dumocracy, Albert?

 

PS - as Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere or significent cloud albedo - the theories presented in the Channel 4 programme CANNOT explain anything do do with changes in Mars' climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I presume it is classified under fables and fairy stories?

 

I was not going to reply because as far as I can see you are basically a sh1t stirrer or an idiot. I prefer to believe that it is the former and you greatly enjoy trying to wind up various contributors.

 

Whilst I do not accept the minority point of view I fully accept the right for those that have it to question the majority scientific viewpoint. There are a few emminent people in the list which I think includes David Bellamy. What those people do when questioning is not rely on misrepresenations, old data and lies.

 

I fully respect your right to have doubts and question the global warming & CO2 theory but to believe that a programe made by a discredicted film maker, where the majority of information on it has been easily proved to be at best dubious and where already some on it are complaining that their views were deliberately misreprsented is an "excellent programme" shows you to be blinkered almost to the point of blindness or basically just a wind up merchant. I bet you also believe the TV premium rate phone ins have been excellently run!

 

You state elsewhere you are a scientist or engineer, although I have questioned previously as I have not seen any evidence of the logical thought processes that I would expect to see of somebody with scientific or enginnering training, if I accept that this at face value then as I say I can see no way that you can describe the programe as in any way being "excellent" unless as I say you are a sh1t stirrer of the highest order. For that I salute you although it is slightly disappointing as it does mean I will not be able to take any of your future points with any level of seriousness.

 

 

Excellent programme.

 

You can see it here on youtube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...