• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > The Great Global Warming Swindle

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12345
dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted:Was the title of a documentary shown on Channel 4 in the UK last night. It made me very very angry. Here's a brief outline of some of the reasons why...

Statement of technically accurate but irrelevant facts

Examples...

Carbon Dioxide is natural.

The sun affects climate

Climate was changing before humans evolved

Water vapour has a radiative forcing effect greater than carbon dioxide

These statements are all true. However, they none of them in any way disproves, or even contests the IPCC position on Anthropogenic Climate Change.

The IPCC does not think carbon dioxide is unnatural. What the hell is unnatural exactly? The only thing I can think of are those things designated as supernatural. Of which none are as decisively proven to exist as co2.

The sun affects climate. Really? Perhaps the authors of the documentary had failed to read this section of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (2001)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm

Its titled solar forcing of climate. Anyone fancy a guess as to what its about?

Climate was changing before humans evolved. Yes. I think Anyone who took science A-levels, or has read anything about chaos theory will be aware of this. The IPCC certainly are. Or as the IPCC put it in 2001

 Written by: IPCC

complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system



http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/504.htm

Water Vapour has a greater radiative forcing effect than co2. Yes. This an integral part of the IPCC's position. How exactly is this supposed to dispute things?

 Written by: IPCC

Water vapour feedback continues to be the most consistently important feedback accounting for the large warming predicted by general circulation models in response to a doubling of CO2. Water vapour feedback acting alone approximately doubles the warming from what it would be for fixed water vapour (Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000). Furthermore, water vapour feedback acts to amplify other feedbacks in models, such as cloud feedback and ice albedo feedback. If cloud feedback is strongly positive, the water vapour feedback can lead to 3.5 times as much warming as would be the case if water vapour concentration were held fixed (Hall and Manabe, 1999).



http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm

What we can determine then, is that the documentary either deliberately misrepresents the IPCC position or hasn't read it.

As far as techniques go, its a methodologically interesting one. They facts they call upon are true (obviously so) however the consequences they draw from these facts are untrue. What this suggests, is that to present an accurate picture, one must not simply lay down the facts - suggesting that there are a limited and definitive series of facts, but distinguish from the multitude of true facts, which ones are relevant to the issue at hand. In the case of the documentary, the facts are entirely irrelevant to the argument.

use of discredited data

One of the central scientific claims of the documentary was that evidence from globally respected scientists has proved that the troposphere - which should according to ACC be warming - is in fact cooling, casting a major doubt over the adequacy of the IPCC's claims. This claim is based on a paper by globally respected atmospheric scientists John Christy and Roy Spencer published in 1992.

What the documentary failed to include however, was the minor series of details, that in 2005, three seperate studies,

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...631abf93113a577

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1556

all suggest that the 1992 data was massively flawed - as the troposphere is warming in line with ACC models.

Leading Christy to admit that is figures were incorrect in August 2005

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...-climbdown.html

In this case the documentary appears to have deliberately deceptive - why use a 15 year old paper which has subsequently been dismissed by its own author as a central argument? Possibly because there wasn't much of an srgument to make.

statement of outright lies

Such as your body is made of co2

The environmental movement is the biggest threat to African development

The IPCC is driven towards sensationalist conclusions in order to make headlines and retain funding

The first statement is just stupid.

The second is misleading. If president Bush's preconditions for a US cut in fossil fuel use (a global cut - ie everyone else has the same cut, so they don't get an 'unfair' economic advantage over the US) was the position of the environmental movement this would be fair. However Bush is rarely regarded as an environmentalist. Instead, the proposal of most 1st world environmentalists, such as George Monbiot, is a global per capita carbon cap - with an emission trading scheme so that heavily polluting industrial nations can buy credits from less developed countries. The implementation of this scheme would see a massive redistribution of wealth as we in the 1st world started paying hundreds of billions of pounds to many of the world's poorest countries.

The third statement is directly contradicted by the predictions of the IPCC and the empirical observations which have been made since. In 2001 the IPCC predicted the global temperature change and sea level rise by the publication of the 2007 report. Both predictions were wrong. Both temperature and sea level had risen by more than the IPCC's predicted maximum. This would appear to be in line with comments such as Prof Bob Spicer's comment that the IPCC is 'necessarily conservative' due to the fact that it works by consensus. Indeed the program gave the Gulf Stream and it's potential disappearance as an example - this is something the 2007 report has suggested is extremely unlikely to happen.

Reliability of sources

A good place to start when analysing a documentary is ist maker...

 Written by: George Monbiot

In 1997, the director, Martin Durkin, produced a very similar series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamt up by environmentalists. It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and to edit their answers to change their meaning. Following complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing and that they had been misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.(14) Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has ever made



http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/01/30/another-species-of-denial/

Not exactly a good start... And what about his scientific sources?

A number of them, such as Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen are the same fossil fuel funded cronies that get brought out time and again...

(for a For a good assessment of Lindzen's scientific claims click here

Singer is one that I find particulary amusing... Especially as seems to crop up so often. In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [9]

Singer's deposition

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years.

That someone is paid a shedload of cash by companies who have a vested interest in deceiving the public on a certain issue does not prove them wrong, but will arise suspicion. That someone attempts to deceive the public by lying about the existence of this funding hardly allays these suspicions.

It is also worth noting that Singer has in the past ben paid by the tobacco industry - and unsurprisingly was one of the foremost scientific experts heading the campaign which claimed that the link between smoking and cancer was 'junk science.'


There's more... Much more to rip into about this program. As you can possibly tell I'm still seething about it.

There may be some doubt over the IPCC's claims, and there will always by an element of uncertainty about the effects we're having on the climate (a hitherto unknown negative feedback may kick in tomorrow - but there's no evidence that it will, and resultantly its insane to factor this in to contemporary discussion about ACC), however, the positions presented by 'The Global Warming Swindle,' were complete garbage.

It's a fantastic argument for why broadcast media sucks - a programme like that which has a lot of money poured into it, claims to be based on scientific evidence would probably present a fairly compelling argument to someone with little knowledge about the subject bar a few daily mail headlines...

frown


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete Topic

87wt2gxq7


87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham

Total posts: 1502
Posted: Written by: NYC


I said you'd get an F in my class on a graph if you did that and you would and you should.
...
So if you're in 7th grade or 17th grade, and you don't use broken axis', you get an F. And the 7th grades would be glad to tell you why using such a 'trick' can be misleading.
...
That's all I was saying.



Okay.

However, I still think you're implicitly arguing that "all graphs showing correlation between two sets of data are by nature misleading, and so we can't trust any such graphs." That's the implication that got me so railed up to post here in the first place, and the concern that that's the idea you might be conveying to your students.

Speaking of students, I misunderstood round about my "big motherloving deal" comment; I thought you were a university tutor not a high-school teacher. Yes I agree, it is important to be fennickity about things like broken axis symbols when teaching to schoolkids. But my experience has been that little things like that get dropped from graphs published in certain journals (ie the ones that I've read) and it's no big deal in that arena. So sorry about that.


Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted: Written by: Sym



Personally, I really hope we ARE causing it - because then we have a very small chance of stopping it. If it was nature then we would be 100% committed to the disasters resulting from climate change. As it stands there is a tiny chance of us avoiding a lot of the problems - not enough of them to save large parts of the 3rd world, but that is a result of the inequality in this world.



I don't think we are so much causing it as kick starting an event that recurrs naturally, and as to stopping it, what could be the long term damage if the Earth doesn't have it's global warming phase? I'm sure the warming phase of the earth acts to increase sea levels and balance it'self out reduce land space and limit populations, has anyone thought of what could happen if we DO try and stop something the Earth wants to do? I find it the height of human conceit that we should even try, fair enough try and cut our input but stop it, that would be as wrong as starting it.


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Mynci


 Written by: Sym



Personally, I really hope we ARE causing it - because then we have a very small chance of stopping it. If it was nature then we would be 100% committed to the disasters resulting from climate change. As it stands there is a tiny chance of us avoiding a lot of the problems - not enough of them to save large parts of the 3rd world, but that is a result of the inequality in this world.


I don't think we are so much causing it as kick starting an event that recurrs naturally, and as to stopping it, what could be the long term damage if the Earth doesn't have it's global warming phase? I'm sure the warming phase of the earth acts to increase sea levels and balance it'self out reduce land space and limit populations, has anyone thought of what could happen if we DO try and stop something the Earth wants to do? I find it the height of human conceit that we should even try, fair enough try and cut our input but stop it, that would be as wrong as starting it.


As far as anyone is aware, the Earth doesn't want to do anything. It just has natural cycles. There isn't a fundemental reason not to try and resist them if they are destructive.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

87wt2gxq7


87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham

Total posts: 1502
Posted: Written by: Mynci



I don't think we are so much causing it as kick starting an event that recurrs naturally ... I find it the height of human conceit that we should even try, fair enough try and cut our input but stop it, that would be as wrong as starting it.





On the one hand, if it is mankind that is kick-starting global warming, then it's not a 'natural' phenomenon in that sense.



On the other hand, it's not an act of conceit to try and stop global warming, it's an act of self-preservation. An act of acknowledging the responsibility for our collective actions as a species.





 Written by: Mynci



I'm sure the warming phase of the earth acts to increase sea levels and balance it'self out reduce land space and limit populations





That's precisely the problem. You can say that it's the earth 'wanting' to do something, but it doesn't actually 'want' to do anything, it's a system that responds to inputs in a complex way. If it responds by increasing sea levels and wiping out low-lying areas, then that will have the effect of curbing human populations, yes. But I'm sure you'd be a lot less complacent about it and less of the view 'oh it's just the earth doing what it wants' if you lived in Bangladesh!



EDIT:  Written by: jeff(fake)

As far as anyone is aware, the Earth doesn't want to do anything. It just has natural cycles. There isn't a fundemental reason not to try and resist them if they are destructive.





Snap! wink

EDITED_BY: 87wt2gxq7 (1173873372)


Delete

bluecat


bluecat

geek, level 1
Location: everywhere

Total posts: 5300
Posted:(hey, NYC, could you shrink or remove the really wide graph that makes this page really annoying to read? ta hug )

Holistic Spinner (I hope)

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:True the Earth isn't sentient, but come on, people die every day, the Earth has survived numerous Extinction Level Events and Life continues, I personally wouldn't care if every human was washed from the face of the planet, LIFE will go on, not for you not for me.

Just because we kick start a phenomenon, it doen't mean it's not natural, global warming has happened before we did anything, and it probably will happen again, when I say try and stop it, I can see man doing extraordinary things to try and who knows what could happen as a result? all we can do is try and help where we can and try and protect the ones we care about

Tthe world will NOT stop using fossil fuels hell my company contributed the equivalent to 2% of the WHOLE UK's carbon emissions last year that 13.42 MILLION tonnes cof CO2, and you know that it is THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY of it's type. the average person creates approx 1 tonne of carbon waste per annum (roughly). My company were importing organic foodstuffs, parts for hydro electric plants and wind farms, come on people realise that almost NONE of the eco friendly stuff in this country comes from this country. I'll admit there are plenty of organic farms etc which is great, but we will never stop it's a thimble bailing out the Titanic. Britain Imports EVERYTHING apart from a lot of food. the best way to become environmentally friendly in this country is to reduce population. I feel THAT is the best way to reduce waste and reduce effects of global warming, it's the volume of HUMANS that's the problem not CO2 and not other green house gases, as humans will always create waste.

And I'm still not 100% convinced we did anything hug


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: 87wt2gxq7


 Written by: NYC


I said you'd get an F in my class on a graph if you did that and you would and you should.
...
So if you're in 7th grade or 17th grade, and you don't use broken axis', you get an F. And the 7th grades would be glad to tell you why using such a 'trick' can be misleading.
...
That's all I was saying.



Okay.

However, I still think you're implicitly arguing that "all graphs showing correlation between two sets of data are by nature misleading, and so we can't trust any such graphs." That's the implication that got me so railed up to post here in the first place, and the concern that that's the idea you might be conveying to your students.

Speaking of students, I misunderstood round about my "big motherloving deal" comment; I thought you were a university tutor not a high-school teacher. Yes I agree, it is important to be fennickity about things like broken axis symbols when teaching to schoolkids. But my experience has been that little things like that get dropped from graphs published in certain journals (ie the ones that I've read) and it's no big deal in that arena. So sorry about that.



Bah... wrote a response but computer crashed.

I'm certainly not arguing that "all graphs showing correlation between two sets of data are by nature misleading, and so we can't trust any such graphs" in fact the first such correlations I try to impose on my students is to find correlations between their data and general expressions/formulas such as y=x or y=x^2.

I also find it imporant to express to my students that by truncating an axis and picking arbitrary points of comparison, the data itself is being manipulated to suggest a correlation. Which is the point. And that's fine. But it can be misleading.

Here's a perfect example I'd show my students:

Non-Https Image Link


and the article that went with it.

[Check out again that the margin of error in the sample is 7%!]


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

87wt2gxq7


87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham

Total posts: 1502
Posted:Then we are in accord! Hooray! Everybody wins. 'cept CNN. wink

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Also..CNN magically found a label for their y axis..without it I found the graph to be meaningless...53 -> 63 what, exactly. Good example of not really lying but....with statistics though.

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Is this about the great graphs swindle confused wink

However, I'm afraid Mynci raises valid points... this planet is going to wither away any which way, whether or not we will do anything against global warming.

But as in the age of men: "It's not how old we get, but HOW WE GET OLD."

Meaning that even though we know that this is going down the drain later or sooner, we just.... or is it that we find out to be too close to the wall in order to brake the car in time before crashing the wall and instead accelerate? umm


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by: Mynci

I personally wouldn't care if every human was washed from the face of the planet



eek

This is just misanthropy... I care very much about my friends, my family, my community and about people generally... That you can dismiss actions which are likely to cause hundreds of millions of people extreme distress, suffering and death because you couldn't care less about people is something i find genuinely shocking.

As long as people maintain a perspective whereby they don't care about the lives of others there will be no meaningful action on climate change...

So if we care about the lives of other people we need to teach those who hold this kind of view how to care for the communities that support them. Something like what Hardt and Negri discuss at the conclusion to their recent book Multitude...

 Written by: Hardt and Negri 2005:351

People today seem unable to understand love as a political concept, but a concept of love is what we need to grasp the constituent power of the multitude. The modern concept of love is almost exclusively limited to the bourgeois couple and the claustrophobic confines of the nuclear family. Love has become a strictly private affair. We need a more generous and unrestrained conception of love Love means precisely that our expansive encounters and continuous collaborations bring us joy This does not mean that you cannot love your spouse your Mother and your child. It only means that your love does not end there, that love serves as the basis for our political projects in common and the construction of a new society. Without this love we are nothing.



 Written by: Mynci

it's the volume of HUMANS that's the problem not CO2 and not other green house gases, as humans will always create waste.



No no no no no...

Average amount of CO2 emissions per year in cubic tonnes (2003)

US 19.8
UK 9.4
Argentina 3.3
Cuba 2.3
Bangladesh 0.25
Uganda 0.06
Cambodia 0.04

So on average, 500 Cambodians emit as much co2 as one american... It's fairly safe to say that the Bangladeshis, Ugandans and Cambodians aren't the problem - yet they, along with the many of the rest of the worlds poorest human inhabitants are likely to be the ones who suffer most from OUR actions.

Claiming that you simply don't care about people seems to me like an excuse for behaving in a way that is likely to cause immense suffering among people who are worse off than you.

Equally, blaming the volume of humans, rather than addressing the minority of humanity who are largely responsible for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (that is to say us) is another way of avoiding taking responsibility for your actions.

 Written by:

And I'm still not 100% convinced we did anything



I'm guessing when you say 'did anything' you mean 'are responsible for the observed changes in climate?

As has been repeatedly pointed out here climate science is not about being 100% convinced/sure. Its about acting on the best evidence we have - which will always be imperfect. Hence the IPCC's assertion that

 Written by: IPCC 2007

most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations



http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

'very likely' correspoding to a 90 - 90% chance... This differs from 'likely' - 66 - 89% in the 2001 report...

People shouldn't be 100% sure about Anthropogenic climate change... They should act on the best (though imperfect) information we have... Which is that it is highly probable that our actions are responsible for the observed warming. And that is we don't take some fairly serious action on a personal, national and global scale then life will become considerably more crap for those who already have it hardest.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

BansheeCat
BRONZE Member since Jul 2005

veteran
Location: lost

Total posts: 1247
Posted:Wow Sy, you just doubled the strength of your arguement in a way all your very impressive statistics never could...

It really does come down to love, respect, compassion, empathy--- we do need to learn to practice these things in the political realm, extend our caring out to the global community, beyond our personal needs and experience.

I think we also need to look a the culture of laziness that has dominated for so very long. People are profoundly selfish, and dont seem to enjoy working towards a goal or being productive any more.Many people are sitting back, waiting for someone to convince them-- then tell them what to do and how to do it. I think that kind of apathy is really just laziness, but the origins of it run deep and if we are to inspire action we really need to look at why this is the case, so we can change it effectively. We are looking for things to motivate people, everything from fear to compassion, but maybe we need to look harder at why people are not responding. Are they numb? If so, why? When did this behaviour become the norm?

sorry, no time to refine these thoughts, on the fly today. I hope it is clear enough to get my point...
Tx
a


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

tim_marston


addict


Total posts: 614
Posted:@dream hug ubbrollsmile hug

Delete

Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted:Mascot finds himself wanting to applaud dream yet feels nervous doing so lest it encourage him.

Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted: Written by: dream





 Written by: Mynci

it's the volume of HUMANS that's the problem not CO2 and not other green house gases, as humans will always create waste.





No no no no no...



Average amount of CO2 emissions per year in cubic tonnes (2003)



US 19.8

UK 9.4

Argentina 3.3

Cuba 2.3

Bangladesh 0.25

Uganda 0.06

Cambodia 0.04



So on average, 500 Cambodians emit as much co2 as one american... It's fairly safe to say that the Bangladeshis, Ugandans and Cambodians aren't the problem - yet they, along with the many of the rest of the worlds poorest human inhabitants are likely to be the ones who suffer most from OUR actions.

.





Another interseting statistical fib wink I think you missed per person on that statement, the other factor here is are you talking about domestic waste, or total industrial waste? in the UK it is 1 cubic tonnes of DOMESTIC carbon waste PER PERSON, this does not take into account industrial waste, so your figure of 9.4 means there is 8.4 cubic metres of industrial carbon waste per person wink



this doesn't take into account the wood burnt by developing countries in fact how do you take measurements from countries with such little technology and recording that some still live in huts? do they fill out questionaires?



the technologically advanced nations will obviously create more recorded waste per person as we are better at recording it and have more industrial processes (won't argue we create more just how much more hug )



also these are all statistics and to quote oscar wilde..



"there are 3 types of lies... Lies, Damn lies and Statistics"



I actually got to watch this on More 4 over the weekend, to be frank they made some very pertinent points, I do believe the IPCC would state mans involvement in global warming as those 2 words (Global Warming) seem to have become linked to a lot of money and jobs, and they (the shows makers) have been proved right by this very thread



they said (paraphrasing to be honest)



"anyone who claims the global warming is not caused by Man gets shouted down almost before they can speak wink



anybody who tries to provide scientific evidence to the contrary is claimed to be in the pay of the oil companys"



People have made global warming such a part of there lives and beliefs that it's almost becoming a new religion, do we wait for the IPCC to say sorry it's been wrong, please stop paying us or does this "new church of the environment" have to agree with anybody elses findings?



everybody sits around saying the governments are a bunch of liars then sit down meekly to listen to their tame scientists quote what everybody wants to hear.



I know it seems a little strong I just want people to look at things more deeply and have a little scepticism about stuff there appears to be 2 sides to, science is not exact (as a rule) it's a process of best guesses and who WOULD get up in arms or say "phew" if they saw a climate model that said,



"hang on everything is gonna carry on just the same as the last 2000 years" it's not very exciting reading now is it ubblol



please note I do not refer to any graphs.. I don't believe in graphs they say what people want them to say or they wouldn't be shown to others wink

EDITED_BY: Mynci (1174309358)


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Spanner
BRONZE Member since Feb 2003

Spanner

remembers when it was all fields round here
Location: in the works... somewhere...

Total posts: 2790
Posted:By the way - for Mynci and anyone who also missed it or doesn't receive Channel 4 - I think this programme may still be on 4od.

For the bargain price of 99p you too can be as angry as Sy cool hug



(I was reminded of this global warming thread as I've just walked through my front door out of warm sun and through my house to see it cloudy and hailing through the back window about 15 seconds later eek )


"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted: Written by: mynci



the technologically advanced nations will obviously create more recorded waste per person as we are better at recording it and have more industrial processes (won't argue we create more just how much more hug )





so your presenting an argument against dream, but how? by talking nonsense about recording waste and then discounting yourself? thats not an argument.

 Written by: mynci



also these are all statistics and to quote oscar wilde..

"there are 3 types of lies... Lies, Damn lies and Statistics"





excuse me if I reject mr Wilde's expert opinion on the validity of statistics.

 Written by: mynci



I actually got to watch this on More 4 over the weekend, to be frank they made some very pertinent points, I do believe the IPCC would state mans involvement in global warming as those 2 words (Global Warming) seem to have become linked to a lot of money and jobs, and they (the shows makers) have been proved right by this very thread




huh? of course? you know about externalities? well the thing about global warming is that when you include what was previously excluded, business bottom lines look bad. And thats why theres money and jobs involved. I'm finding it difficult to work out your pertinent points against the IPCCs report.


 Written by: mynci





they said (paraphrasing to be honest)

"anyone who claims the global warming is not caused by Man gets shouted down almost before they can speak wink

anybody who tries to provide scientific evidence to the contrary is claimed to be in the pay of the oil companys"





thats because it often turns out to be the case. There really isnt that many papers begin published in peer reviewed journals that are suggesting man has nothing to do with this - and of the handful that are, there are usually direct links to oil companies involved.

 Written by: mynci



I know it seems a little strong I just want people to look at things more deeply and have a little scepticism about stuff there appears to be 2 sides to, science is not exact (as a rule) it's a process of best guesses and who WOULD get up in arms or say "phew" if they saw a climate model that said,





but I dont think there is two sides to this really. Its not like there is balanced evidence on both sides of the debate. recently in New Scientist, it was pointed out that there are a lot of good studies showing even more radicial climate change is on the way that were left out of the IPCC because their findings couldnt be intepreted in the current models. does your argument account for those scientists whose work is well reviewed but left out of the IPCC report for mainly political reasons?

 Written by: mynci



please note I do not refer to any graphs.. I don't believe in graphs they say what people want them to say or they wouldn't be shown to others wink



yeah, graphs stats, scientists, politicians they're all in it together! trying to get me to give up my imported fruit!! I wont have it!! :P


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:redirected your thoughts from the 4th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq though didn't it winkclever polititians ubblol



all I like to point out is the world has been hotter, although I'd like to know what they mean by "hotter" air temp? water temp? earth temp? and where are these hotter places? (not a dig at the facts)



if the sea is hotter of course levels will rise... it expands and when antarctica melts we'll all be drowned... just like when it was a lush forest and life on earth thrived, honestly... WHAT are the dangers of global warming? anyone? what will happen that will be so disasterous?



we can't predict the weather 10 days in advance so how can we do it 50-100 years it amazes me ubblol soon we'll catch up with predictions and the weather forecast will always be right wink



Only wiki but there you go



global warming as a religion



pay attention to part 3 of the definition



wink

EDITED_BY: Mynci (1174383218)


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004

Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk

Total posts: 1858
Posted: Written by: Mynci


pay attention to part 3 of the definition

wink



 Written by:


3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.




So your point is that anything followed with devotion is a religion? That is fine, I can accept that, and if that is the case then I am very very religious, and I'm making up new ones all the time - for example my latest religion is making passionate posts pointing out how stupid the idea of science as a religion is. My other religions include: having sex, catching a train, making and keeping friends (maybe I'm breaking that one at the moment), listening to music, spinning poi. There are loads more, but I don't think I need to list them here.

Now read this.

rolleyes


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Would the belief that "anything followed with devotion is a religion" be a religion?

And if I don't believe "anything followed with devotion is a religion", is that my own religion of "not believing that anything followed with devotion is a religion"?


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004

Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk

Total posts: 1858
Posted:Yes, but only if you're devoted to that idea.

Just having it as a passing idea that you're not too passionate about wouldn't be religious at all! Don't be silly!

ubblol


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: mynci







if the sea is hotter of course levels will rise... it expands and when antarctica melts we'll all be drowned... just like when it was a lush forest and life on earth thrived, honestly... WHAT are the dangers of global warming? anyone? what will happen that will be so disasterous?









Most people concerned about global warming are not under the delusion, as you seem to think they are, that it will adversely affect the planet in a literal sense, or life in the general sense.



The planet is a lump of rock that will survive the worst humanity can do and life in general will always continue regardless of humanity, even if it's mainly just cockroaches smile



What they are concerned about is the effects on humanity, cos, they care about it.



You apparently, do not care-



 Written by: mynci



True the Earth isn't sentient, but come on, people die every day, the Earth has survived numerous Extinction Level Events and Life continues, I personally wouldn't care if every human was washed from the face of the planet, LIFE will go on, not for you not for me.







Now, that attitude is, to me, and most here, somewhat bizarre- in the unlikely event that you do actually not care if everyone you know dies, then so be it, that's for you to deal with/live with.



Except of course, you won't be around either if everyone is wiped away smile



The thing is though, that view seems more like a huge personal issue that you need to deal with, rather than being anything which is relevant to this discussion.



The vast majority of people, whichever side of the warming debate they're on, have in common the fundamental belief that, at least part of humanity is of sufficient importance to be worth caring about and any discussion pretty much assumes that.



Whereas your view point would probably be better discussed with a mental health professional (cos ultimately, you're saying you don't particualarly want to live and you're happy for all of humanity to die).



We all know the planets not in danger- you don't need to keep pointing that out, we're not stupid smile



We're concerned about our friends, children, grandchildren and humanity in general.









 Written by: mynci



we can't predict the weather 10 days in advance so how can we do it 50-100 years it amazes me soon we'll catch up with predictions and the weather forecast will always be right







Global and local are effectively two different systems, often local parts of a system are difficult to predit, while the system as a whole is easy to predict.



Quantum particle behaviours for example are genuinely random (unpredictable) whereas the macroscopic objects made up from them are as predictable as clockwork.



Or, in weather, where and at what time a hurricane will hit are unpredictable in advance, but the fact that there is a hurricane forming, is very predictable.



Even more so, that, in any given year, a certain number of hurricanes will form globally- it's a certainty, even though the local aspects (where/when etc) are unpredictable.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:you misread my point, the belief in global warming as a man made phenomenon is one believed in by many, a FAITH and devotion (many believers who state in the 1 truth) in a FORCE, I agree that my dictionary except was a bit slack however I'm at work and don't have much time to surf.

I did NOT state that SCIENCE was a religion wink that is where your link falls down. It makes sense, the amount of pagans and wikkans on HoP who believe in the force of mother nature, it's only a short hop to the idolisation in the belief of a natural force of global warming.

from that step you have the source of knowledge on the subject the IPCC (the global warming church). I'm not defending mans polluting of the world I feel pollution a far greater threat to global warming, what I'm doing is I'm drawing parallels.

NYC are you DEVOTED to your belief?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/devotion

that may be a better link (slightly) showing how earnest attachment to a cause is classed as devotion
profound dedication.

NYC would you spread the word of what you stated, tell all your friends that you believe this to be true? your family? you may believe but are you devoted?

Sym yes I would say that to many making and keeping good friends is a devotion, I believe it is covered buy many world religions, are you devoted to catching trains? No I don't believe you are, if you miss one you will wait for another I can't see you crying over it or do you get trains because you want to? not because you have somewhere to go?

and hobbies like poi, they aren't really a person or cause. I would say you were dedicated not devout.

if you follow my path you see man created god.

man created global warming.

both have huge followings as a global force which is believed to have power over the reasoning of people, just because global warming has not been personified does not make it any less of a belief. the christians persecuted non believers with words and the sword and believers of global warming are doing just the same to me hug ubblol

I DO believe in global warming people, It's happened before I DON'T yet believe that it is all mans fault and it will have catastrophic ramifications. YES we should cut pollutants and recycle but that's just common sense, reuse and prolong our resources, cut pollutants that will cause cancer and death but CO2... come on people it is NOT the most hazardous material on the planet, hell CO2 stimulates the breathing reflex. agreed a room of it would kill you but while it is at 0.003% of our atmosphere I'll sleep easy.

Pyrolific with regard to waste production.. read the words I write... I again wasn't saying we didn't produce more... just that statistics like those given were probably false, and how statistics as a whole are easily twisted often by factors people overlook (purposefully or not I don't know)

I ran a survey of who believed dogs could fly. the results were

Yes - 67%
No - 33%

those are statistics, and are completely true (100% if you prefer ubblol ) so 2 people lied or were insane, or were joking. what isn't reflected is that I asked 6 people (not 3 as you would probably have thought) 50% were between 25 and 45, 1 under 25 and 2 over a fair representation of the populace as 3 were female and 3 male.

I can agree with some of your statements can any of you see sense in mine? or are you too focused on your beliefs wink


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:well spotted OWD if everyone was wiped away I wouldn't care because I wouldn't be here wink

how hot do you think the world will get? what effects on humanity are you talking about? again no one tells me, humans will survive fine, I mean polar bears have survived global warming in the past wink you all talk about the effects on humanity what are they? hurricanes? we have them now and have always had them are they linked to global warming? I thought they were produced by 2 differing fronts of air not general global temperature.

I'm not happy for me or humanity to die, but then I don't believe we have anything to worry about with CO2 levels. but well done for spotting the fact that NO-ONE would care if we were all washed away. wink

I want people to think aboout global warming not re-spout the same tired arguments they have heard and had ingrained from childhood.


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004

Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk

Total posts: 1858
Posted: Written by: Mynci


I did NOT state that SCIENCE was a religion wink that is where your link falls down. It makes sense, the amount of pagans and wikkans on HoP who believe in the force of mother nature, it's only a short hop to the idolisation in the belief of a natural force of global warming.




and I did NOT state that you DID! ubblol My link doesn't fall down, because it showed how believing something to be true because you think it is or you've been told it is is different from believing something because you can use science to predict it or prove it with reasonable certainty.

Climate change is the latter in my case, and I hope, in the case of everyone. Sure there are some fuzzy minded hippies out there who think it's happening because the trees told them, but I don't think they are a fair representation - in the same way as Claire fox or Fred Singer are not fair representations of rational humans. The are at either ends of a spectrum, but they are quite similar in many respects.


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:aoplogies sym wink I was rushing a bit to fit it all in my lunch break. ubblol
although it IS based around evolution with is a process NOT a forceI agree GW can be considered a process but involves natural forces mostly hug

I can predict the out come of a marriage with a degree of certainty and that's a religious process wink (well at least 50% ubblol )


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004

Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk

Total posts: 1858
Posted: Written by: Mynci


Sym yes I would say that to many making and keeping good friends is a devotion, I believe it is covered buy many world religions, are you devoted to catching trains? No I don't believe you are, if you miss one you will wait for another I can't see you crying over it or do you get trains because you want to? not because you have somewhere to go?

and hobbies like poi, they aren't really a person or cause. I would say you were dedicated not devout.




You're right, I don't cry when I miss a train? does that mean that crying about something is a religion? By the way, in pointing out that, you utterly sidestepped and missed my point, but whatever, I don't have time to say any more as I have to go and prey to the 383PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 Written by: Mynci



if you follow my path you see man created god.

man created global warming.

both have huge followings as a global force which is believed to have power over the reasoning of people, just because global warming has not been personified does not make it any less of a belief. the christians persecuted non believers with words and the sword and believers of global warming are doing just the same to me hug ubblol




Ok, my reply:

"if you follow my path you see man created god."

Prove it. Can you?

"man created global warming."

Prove it: here you are

Sorry, but that argument is totally idiotic. That is why I posted that link, because it points out how religion and science are not the same thing, and seeing as climate change it a SCIENTIFIC idea not just demonstrated by science but demonstrated by some of the largest scientific papers ever co-authored in history. Do I need to go back to my argument about a flat earth or ID?


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:Ok I can't prove as such man created God although we did create the word "God"

I have been reading the IPCC report... all the hazards to humans are preceded with "possibility" it doesn't seem like proof of threat to me.

climate change occurs I have already agreed Sym, I just don't see the threat to humanity.


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

BansheeCat
BRONZE Member since Jul 2005

veteran
Location: lost

Total posts: 1247
Posted:Mynci, As long as you are reducing, reusing and recycling, taking care of your environment with ecologicaly sound choices, influencing your government to support environmentally sound practices....

Well, the nuances of what you believe do not matter so much, except as an issue of abstract curiousity. Shows like shat Sy describes are more of a concern, cause they have the ability to spread information/disinformation on a large scale, and potentially influencing choices of behaviour amongst whole communities. You, as an individual probably influence people more through your model of behaviour than your words.And from what you say, you are behaving in line with someone that cares about the planet, even if you dont, so thats all right by me! smile


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:cheers, I have been looking at some other factors it seems that the IPCC are pulling a moses wink



the threats to humanity seem to be inline with the 10 plagues of Egypt and I admit I'm not a biblical scholar so I can be sure the timeline but wasn't there a biblical flood? which I think has been corroborated by high water marks on mountains and landmarks...



Could global warming have been the cause for noahs flood and (some) of the 10 plagues of Egypt, boils increase in insects (beetles and flies) locusts, hail (freak weather) I don't reckon the water into blood, death of first borns (although could have been a tropical disease) or plague of dark (unless there was an eclipse and lots of clouds).



edit:

here is a graph (I know I hate graphs) taken from longrange weather.com please tell me if this lot are shunned by IPCC or affiliated with swindlers or if people think it seems OK



http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:sP2L9...;cd=1&gl=uk it is a little hard to read but the pdf file is http://www.longrangeweather.com/gtemps.pdf



Just to be fair wink I don't think this graph is right, different sites have different dates for the Moses migration from egypt, this graph (not from a biblical site) reckons about 1200BC but another I have seen says 1600BC if this is right then sorry maybe I was wrong maybe we will have floods, plagues and the human race will be culled (I don't believe in the bible as a religous story but titanic upheavals in weather may have been attributed to God) however look at how we bounced back.

what do you think?

EDITED_BY: Mynci (1174481970)


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Page: 12345

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [great global warming swindle] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > Staff > Double Staff > Flowers Part 0 - Warming up *help/resource 15 20 seconds each  drink after warming up...
2. Forums > The Great Global Warming Swindle [139 replies]
3. Forums > Air conditioning, global warming and the American *cough* Western way [43 replies]
4. Forums > Global Warming [66 replies]
5. Forums > Global Warming [27 replies]

     Show more..