Forums > Social Discussion > The Great Global Warming Swindle

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123...5
dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
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

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:I'll start by saying I didn't see this program but I did want to. Written by: dream





statement of outright lies



Such as your body is made of co2











sorry to bring this up but that's not outright lies,





most cells in the human body produce CO2 as a bi-product of respiration, CO2 is carried around half the bloodstream as deoxyheamoglobin, co2 IS inegral in the human form, we use massive amounts of oxygen which is turned to CO2 and H2O. admittedly mostly water, but CO2 IS in most human cells...



I don't want to sound antagonistic, but rather realist, I know this program annoyed a hell of a lot of eco friendly folk but the fact is the temperature of the Earth has been MUCH hotter and it was all caused by.... the sea, it has been reported by many scientists that massive carbon deposits have been routinely "dumped" by the sea (the trigger I am not sure of and I don't know if they actually know) but we covered this in ecology at uni (not TOP level science but pretty good)



I'm all for being environmentally friendly and admit humans are not doing the environment any good, but do believe that the claim HUMANS are causing global warming to be an unproven fact, rapid temperatur rises have occured before and they will do so again, in the 70's scientists were 100% sure that we were entering a global cooling period, so only time will tell.


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

astar2
member

Member Since: 7th Jan 2006
Total posts: 37
Posted:it may be a bit off topic, but im not sure what the point of denying global warming is. So, perhaps it is all a big sham conspiracy. It's still a pressing matter to reduce fossil fuel usage, simply because were on the bring of a global depression due to our rapidly increasing demand for fossil fuels vs dwindling supplies.



If the well being of the planet in terms of the climate isn't enough to worry people, perhaps global financial collapse is. Money talks louder then anything else for some people.

EDITED_BY: astar2 (1173446551)


Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:we have had dwindling supplies for years... I always wonder how dwindling they are wink (not being picky just a point) if we were told supplies were dwindling that would up prices, maybe thats just me being sceptical I know fossil fuels take years to make and seconds to burn, but it's something to think about.

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
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:ubblove you beat me to it mate smile

I started an email rant about this last week.

hug


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

Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:in all fairness both sides are opinionated and possible journalistic scare moungering, you can find a scientist to prove nearly any theory you can to name they're all at odds with each other trying to come up with a theory to make them famous / rich, I know.. I wanted to be one 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

polarity
polarity

veteran
Location: on the wrong planet
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1228
Posted:Solar activity is up and the ice caps are melting on Mars too. That doesn't mean that human activity isn't contributing to global warming though. We're screwed no matter what's causing it, so should be looking at ways to reduce it not adding to it.

You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Interesting...I've always wondered where the conspiracy theorists were when it came to global warming,,busy with the BBC/CNN videos showing WTC7 still standing in the background I suppose.

Global warming has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory...wide acceptance by the "mass media"...suggestions that the government may force us to compromise our lifestyles in order meet this threat...billions of dollars changing hands and the fact that environmental gurus like Al Gore are ignoring their own advice and behaving like a complete dork only add fuel to the fire.

And then throw in a few examples like this one where scientists had made world ending predictions before..and been wrong. And then there's that lame "very likely caused by human activity" qualifier attached to the IPCC report...come on guys..are you sure or not ? Can we see a few professional reputations wagered on this report..please ? Or is the very likely statement designed to avoid that sort of responsibility ?

No wonder,,we, the non scientist general public are somewhat skeptical. Take the energy crisis of the 1970s for instance..weren't we running out of oil back then ? And now , here we are, discussing peak oil 30 years later..and reading reports of massive reserves in..for instance ..Canada.


Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by:

in the 70's scientists were 100% sure that we were entering a global cooling period



No they weren't.

In fact this is a toned down version of one of the many errenous claims made by TGGWS...

In the 1970's the POPULAR PRESS had several ice age/global freezing scare stories, accompanied by fictional books projecting what such a scenario might have entailed for human societies.

Note the difference between popular press - eg Newsweek, and fictional books rather than peer reviewed scienctific papers.

A page examining the peer reviewed scientific evidence from the 70's, in juxtaposition to the popular sensationalist accounts regarding global cooling concludes

real climate (winner of a 2005 Scientific American Science and Technology Web Award)

 Written by:

its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.



So the lesson of the global cooling/global freezing debate of the 1970's was that while the peer reviewed scientific analysis of time has proved worthwhile advice, the wild, sensationalist speculation of the popular press has proven to be nonsense.

Its somewhat strange that programs such as TGGWS somehow manage to invert this relationship - or to make hollow and frankly untrue claims such as Mynci's allegation that in the 70's scientists were 100% sure we were entering a global cooling period.


As regards the human body is made of co2 - most cars contain seatbelts and a radio. However to say that cars are made of seatbelts or radios is plainly wrong. At absolute best the quote becomes statement of an obvious but irrelevant truth - co2 is part of the human respiratory system/co2 is natural - however the direct quote from the documentary was 'the human body is made of carbon dioxide'.


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

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:your point with the car IS just plain silly, a human has CO2 THOUGHOUT the entire body, nearly every cell,

by using the car analogy you just did you show a pre-school knowledge of basic anatomy, I did not say the body was MADE of CO2 just that CO2 is present in a vast majority of cells.

A car DOESN't have seat belts in the fuel tank or engine, or a radio in the tyres, where CO2 is present in the brain, all the organs not just the lungs, the blood, muscles, somatic tissue through-out.
the car analogy you use is using the very method of point proving you which you seem to be arguing against in the first place 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

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Even if we were made from 100% co2, it wouldn't mean that co2 is never harmful, as they were trying to imply - so the argument is pointless either way.

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

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Dream- I made a point of watching the doc and found it a little disturbing, as it seemed to make some plausible claims.



You seem to know what you're talking about and have dealt with several of the documentaries claims- however, they're not really the ones that I personally found troubling.



I wonder if you could address a couple of the ones that did seem, to me, to be troubling-



1. the claim that, historically, global warming follows, pretty exactly, recorded sunspot activity.



As you know, this led to the documnetary claiming that it is the sun, rather than humanity, that affects global warming/cooling.



(on the documentary they showed a graph showing the similarity).



2. that, historically, rises in co2 levels follow global temp increase, rather than precede it.



Which the documentary claimed cast doubt on current theories that co2 (from uman activivites)caused global warming.



Can you cast light on either of those?



***edit*****

Dream, I've just followed one of your links and I was wondering, if you do choose to comment on the above claims, it would be better for me and, I suspect, many of those reading this thread, if you could, as far as it's possible to do so, err on the side of being as non-technical as possible.



************


"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

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by: Mynci

I did not say the body was MADE of CO2



This is EXACTLY what the show you didn't watch but have decided to defend said.

However given that you didn't watch TGGWS you weren't to know that. The question I have is why defend it? This thread isn't aimed at you but at the documentary.

 Written by: Sym

Even if we were made from 100% co2, it wouldn't mean that co2 is never harmful, as they were trying to imply - so the argument is pointless either way.



Exactly

hug

At best it's irrelevant - at worst deliberately misleading. I was probably a bit harsh with outright lie...

 Written by: Mynci

in the 70's scientists were 100% sure that we were entering a global cooling period



This on the other hand probably falls under outright lie. At best it's a massive misunderstanding of climate science (100% sure about chaotic systems ???), alongside a willingness to make audacious claims based on populist speculation rather than peer reviewed scientific evidence. The result is that well conducted scientific study is discredited - exactly what TGGWS set out to do with arguments such as the one you presented.

Do you dispute this?


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

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:I'm defending it for several reasons, firstly, my mind isn't made up, I am aware of acute geological and ecological chronology which has had nature create enough CO2 related rapid global warming before humans, humans don't help but if we stopped EVERYTHING, would global warming stop? I don't think so we are in an interglacial things will get warmer.



secondly I HAVE NOT DONE THE STUDY, all the "facts" we are stating are information from other scientists predicting something that has NEVER happened before - hman influence on global temperature. science by it's very nature is NOT proof, it is purely unopposed or non-disproved theorems, remember before the greeks everyone KNEW the earth was flat (not true but a vast majority believed it to be so) until someone comes along with a radical idea everyone dislikes (like this program you speak of) science does not progress, it stagnates



I bet I could find more than 1 scientist (therefore scientistS who were 100% sure we were entering global cooling wink semantics but truth NOT a lie.



Words can be bent and twisted to peoples uses hug



and finally, if i didn't see fit to defend what is obviously the underdog this wouldn't BE a discussion would it ubblol it would be a load of hippies agreeing with each other ubblol



I'm just annoyed I have to do a test on global ecological policies at work, reading through it much is lies, scaremoungering and corporate policies to make themselves look good others look bad or make money developing new EXPENSIVE products / proceedures. when I should be doing proper work.


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
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted: Written by: Mynci

remember before the greeks everyone KNEW the earth was flat (not true but a vast majority believed it to be so) until someone comes along with a radical idea everyone dislikes (like this program you speak of) science does not progress, it stagnates




Well it was either going to be that or Galileo wink

 Written by: Mynci


I bet I could find more than 1 scientist (therefore scientistS who were 100% sure we were entering global cooling wink semantics but truth NOT a lie.




Please do. I think it's hard to find a scientist who is ever 100% sure of anything in a large complex theory. That's why you get people like the IPCC saying "there is less than a 5% chance that humans have not caused global warming" - they are 95% sure, not 100%.

 Written by: Mynci


and finally, if i didn't see fit to defend what is obviously the underdog this wouldn't BE a discussion would it ubblol it would be a load of hippies agreeing with each other ubblol




Great - I'll see you in ID vs evolution when you argue for ID then. Also, I'll start a flat earth thread and look forward to you arguing against round world. wink hug


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

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by: Mynci

in all fairness both sides are opinionated and possible journalistic scare moungering



Reductionist dualisms need not apply. This is not an issue with two positions.

There are many ranging from the utter garbage presented by TGGWS to we should all live as peasants and find a way of forcibly reducing the global population to 100 000.

I hope that no one here subscribes to either of these - but instead finds a way of negociating the plethora of complex material in order to find their position on the subject.

Once you stop thinking in black and white the notion of the underdog seems somewhat less appropriate.

 Written by: Mynci

I HAVE NOT DONE THE STUDY, all the "facts" we are stating are information from other scientists predicting something that has NEVER happened before



Actually a lot of the evidence is empirical work. Wherever possible I have provided links to the studies so you can check the results for yourself. The interpretation as far as future scenarios goes is of course somewhat uncertain. Hence my statements about chaotic systems and the impossibility of 100% certainty.

 Written by: Mynci

if we stopped EVERYTHING, would global warming stop?



IPCC 2001 Scientific Basis

As you will clearly see from the link above the current scientific consensus position is that the observed warming is a result of Anthropogenic radiative forcing AND natural changes.

The logic of the AND is all important here - where as the reductionist/dualist either/or requires a choice of one or the other position, the magic AND allows for a position which more closely approximates reality.


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

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:If it makes you feel any better, it's starting to bug me that there are just as many people (at least in my circles) who are mislead in the other direction about global warming. We've had an El Nino affected winter and everyone was yelling about global warming. Everytime there's a hot summer day more and more people are jumping up and down about global warming.

The fact is: You will never feel the affects of global warming in any one instant. You can only compare it to the rest of the globe through different times. It takes quite an ego to assume that just because your house/city/country is getting warmer that the rest of the world is also.

Then again, I'd much rather have folks ignorantly overreact to global warming than ignorantly underreact.

Sorry for the tangent, it was just in the "things that bug me about global warming" box.


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

Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:yer got me sym wink ubblol however I was in ID versus evolution I studied genetics and CAN'T support ID 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
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Worth reading:

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/


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

Delete

alien_oddity
alien_oddity

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: in the trees
Member Since: 31st Dec 2004
Total posts: 7193
Posted:one thing thats been on my mind for some time is.. CO2 fire extinguishers. the government keeps banging on about reducing co2 levels all the time so why not get rid of these fire extinguishers?? confused

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Yep..it was worth the read....but I liked this one even better

Ravehead...the thing about CO2 fire extinguishers is....where does the CO2 to fill one of those things actually come from ? Compare that to releasing CO2 that's been locked deep underground for a gazillion years. It parallels the burning wood vs burning fossil fuels as a heat source concept.


Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:CO2 fire extinguishers? You're serious.

Oh my god.

Other secret CO2 sources that the government refuses to get rid of:
Soda, Kittens, Welding Torches, Bunnies, Black People, and your mother.

Scale dude, we're talking about scale.


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

Delete

Rouge Dragon
Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Member Since: 21st Jul 2003
Total posts: 13215
Posted:Thankyou NYC for bringing up the point about el Nino.

And no, we're not talking about some random child.

When I was a little 'nina', this phenomenon was mentioned all the time; in school, in the media. I've hardly heard it at all lately and I blame the media.


i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

alien_oddity
alien_oddity

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: in the trees
Member Since: 31st Dec 2004
Total posts: 7193
Posted: Written by: NYC


CO2 fire extinguishers? You're serious.

Oh my god.

Other secret CO2 sources that the government refuses to get rid of:
Soda, Kittens, Welding Torches, Bunnies, Black People, and your mother.

Scale dude, we're talking about scale.



eek you horrible person, that is so raccist eek


Delete

Rouge Dragon
Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Member Since: 21st Jul 2003
Total posts: 13215
Posted:I agree with him. We need to get the kittens out of this country now. They're too cute for their own good and theyre taking all the modelling jobs from the puppies.

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:You guys should make a channel 4 documentary about it - they love that sort of reasoning ubblol

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

Delete

psycotic_furby
psycotic_furby

Hehe, you said 'Member'
Location: Lydiate, nr Liverpool
Member Since: 25th Mar 2005
Total posts: 105
Posted:Climate scientist duped to deny global warming

An article by Ben Goldacre (of the Guardian's 'Bad Science' article) about one of the contributors to this show being lied to and misrepresented.


Eww, Liza Minelli...

The communists gave my mother a job, teaching sculpture to limbless children.

Delete

BansheeCat
veteran
Location: lost
Member Since: 29th Jul 2005
Total posts: 1247
Posted:I just read all this when I should have been outside planting a tree, or hunting bunnies or something ... sigh.

Dream, did you catch OWD's post? Curious about your response...


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

Delete

PyroWill
PyroWill

HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
Location: Staines
Member Since: 4th Aug 2004
Total posts: 4437
Posted:I think we all know the true cause of global warming, all this malarkey about CO2 and the sun, why is it that no one wishes to discuss it, we all know who's causing it, let's all work together to stop him.

Non-Https Image Link


An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind

Give a man a fish and he'll eat 4 a day hit a man with a brick and you can have all his fish and his wife

"Will's to pretty for prison" - Simian

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: Sym


You guys should make a channel 4 documentary about it - they love that sort of reasoning ubblol



Just thinking today how much the 9/11 attacks were so closely linked to the rapid production of CO2. All orchestrated singlehandedly by George W. Bush who is yet another carbon dioxide source.

Think about it.


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

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: onewheeldave



Dream- I made a point of watching the doc and found it a little disturbing, as it seemed to make some plausible claims.



You seem to know what you're talking about and have dealt with several of the documentaries claims- however, they're not really the ones that I personally found troubling...





I'm not going to go into detail, because I'm not a specialist, but there are legitimate points of contention in the global warming debate. The 2007 icpp report states that a significant human contribution to global warming is about 90% to 94% likely. At the risk of using evil reductionistic dualism logic (oh noes!), that means that the ipcc thinks there is at least a 6% chance of human effects not being significant. The uncertainty is included precisely because there are a few unanswered questions such as these. smile


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

Delete

Page: 123...5

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..