http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arming+scandal

British TV, Channel 4
1 hr 13 min 32 sec - Mar 8, 2007

I'm too lazy to watch a 70-minute video about global warming. Especially if it has something to do with political lobbying. The environmentalists think that we'll all die if we don't stop polluting the atmosphere and the polluters think that they'll get less money if they have to stop polluting the atmosphere. Both have very compelling evidence to back up their positions. I wish someone made a cost effective fusion reactor so we could all stop worrying about it.

<font color=skyblue>For what its worth, I think this documentary was very well put together and represents the side of "its not our fault" extremely well. They talk about
1. Why Gore is wrong and misleading with his half-truths
2. How the other side is not following scientific procedure
3. What greenhouse gases are actually doing as opposed to what the other side is claiming they are doing
4. How evidence proves that CO2 follows and does not precede temperature change
5. The fact that the sun's activity changes are being avoided in discussion
6. Why the majority of scientists that oppose the other other side are being forced into silence
7. Who these lies are hurting
8. How the whole thing began and who is to blame for the scandal of global warming
9. Various proofs for many other reasons why they are coming forth and saying that it is a swindle (Too many to try to list).

Seriously, I love this documentary and sad to see that it was the UK and not the US to produce it because this is something that US citizens will not have access to very well unless they learn about it like I did; word of mouth.

Good work, UK for producing it! </font>

Psssst. I made one in my basement....but I can't figure out how to get the power transferred, and I can't get in there any more...

Edit: Larry and I cross posted, so now I just looked retarded...

On the subject of Global Warming; if core samples from Antartica, or the Arctic show carbon dioxide levels comparable to the ones we have now, 10,000 years ago, or however far they go back, then Gore's proponents are really hoping nobody pays attention. Because if there was that much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then, either the Earth's population was one hell of a lot more advanced than we think, or human's aren't related to it. Things that make intelligent readers, as opposed to fanatic followers of either side, go hmmm.

[ 03-24-2007, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]

Well, the main problem is that the No Warming side tends to be funded by industrial interests, while the There Is Warming side tends to be either independent or funded by ecological interests.

The industrial interests are less trustworthy because they stand to make less fat loads of cash if they lose their side of the case.

Global warming is true, no one can dispute that, the main question is: Are we contributing? The answer to that is debateable. But the question then remains, to me: Why not make an attempt to halt our possible contribution to global warming? We'll have to switch off fossil fuels anyway once we hit the Oil Peak, so why not get a good head start on that? A lot of things that produce CO2 also have other harmful emissions, so why not just cut down on them Just To Be Safe but also to limit their various other pollutants?

No one has yet been able to satisfactorily answer this, except for saying that it would harm the industry. Firstly I'd say it's rather sad that anyone would put harming the industry as more dire than harming the planet or his fellow humans, and secondarily, fact is it would only harm OLD industry and OLD monopolies, new industries would spring up to work on making green energy more efficient, to give us better alternatives, or old industries would have to change to fit new demands.

As for the producer of this documentary you're putting up, maybe you should look at some of his background?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin

(For some silly reason the forum is blocking a paranthesis in the link that would lead you to the right Martin Durkin, but the disambiguation page should leave little doubt about which is the real one.)

Seems like he has a history of ignoring research, misleading his subjects and distorting their statements through clever editing. There's quite probably some of this on the Stop Warming side, too, but in this case I would not listen to this man without taking everything he says with a grain of salt.

Thanks for posting this Larry, I missed it when it was aired over here a few weeks ago.

I'd always been a bit of a sceptic towards humans being the cause of the increase in global temperature, and now I think this documentary confirms that for me.

Oh, isn't it lovely? It's not our fault! I love it when people tell me things like that :rolleyes:

Now, correlation does not equal causation, but the only thing more difficult to believe than the theory that the unfathomable amount of stuff we're pumping into the atmosphere every day has *nothing* to do with global warming is the fact that people believe it.

You're right, Mr. Durkin. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

I'm still too lazy to watch it (sorry!) but since you've seen it, could you explain this bit? I thought that it was an indisputable fact that pumping carbon from underground and burning it into CO₂ will inevitably raise the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, unless carbon is simultaneously removed from the atmosphere by, say, forestation. "Follows" gives the image that the increased amount of carbon dioxide is caused by global warming. Or is the amount of CO₂ increasing even faster than human activity would allow?

<font color=skyblue>But did you actually watch the documentary? You might change your mind. There is more evidence on that documentary than there is for the other side. But I am sure this topic will have all sorts of people voicing what they've been told to voice without hearing both sides of the argument well enough to make up their own mind.

Purple...I am rather surprised that you are taking a fence-sitting stand on it, though with your critism towards the producer, you are leaning towards CO2 as the main cause of the global warming. Since the documentary clearly points to the fact that the whole idea stems from US and UK politics, I would have assumed that you would therefore be against the idea. You shocked me! But maybe I should not be surprised because the documentary was made in the UK, so its obviously a load of garbage, right?

I wonder how many scientists in Denmark actually believe in CO2 as the main cause of Global Warming? I would have thought that since they are outside the influence of US politics, there would be more rational men and women realizing that the sun is what is causing the trouble.

Why did the atmosphere not heat up during the industrial revolution?
Why did Gore miss some vital points in his charts that will show that the CO2 levels "follow" heating?
Why is is that weather balloons prove that the upper atmosphere is not hotter than the surface of the earth...a clear way to prove that global warming is at work?
Why does nobody mention that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas that there is, and that CO2 right now is only at .025%?
Why does nobody realize that the history's volcanic eruptions has added more dangerous gases to the atmosphere than humans ever has? </font>

As far as I understand it, lot of CO₂ is trapped in the polar ice caps, and as global heating melts them, it releases more CO₂.

However, this does not mean that CO₂ does not worsen global warming, rather, it might just mean that even a little bit of global warming could cause a runaway chain reaction as the ice caps begin to melt while we are deforesting, lessening the planet's ability to re-absorb CO₂, rather than planting more forest to bind the CO₂ again.

<font color=skyblue>Its sad that you care not to actually see the opinion from the other side because there is a man from Asia, cannot remember his nationality, that is the leading expert in the ice caps. He says that the ice caps melt and refreeze all the time and that only due to satellite imaging have man been able to finally see it happening...but that this is not anything new. He says that he tires of people coming to him with the idea that the caps are melting for the first time. </font>

<font color=skyblue>I'd love to but I would have to watch it again because I saw it yesterday and did not take notes or anything. Its in the first fifteen minutes of the show, if I remember...but its past lunch time and I need to go see to feeding my fool self. If I have time today, I'll see if I can do so, and I'll try to quote directly from the source. </font>

My actual stance is pretty much that CO₂ is a major cause of global warming and that industry is to blame, however, just yammering that at someone who doesn't agree will never get me anywhere, and we can trade scientific sources until our Ctrl, C and V buttons are worn down to little nubs without either of us ever changing our minds.

That's why I promote the "Just In Case, It'll Prepare Us and There Are Other Benefits"-point of view. Since it is based on arguments that the anti-warming side are not necessarily violently disbelieving in.

If you cannot win a debate with physical evidence, start off by assuming your opponent is right, or at least that you may be wrong, and then use logic from there. You cannot even have a debate without the same assumptions about the world, really, and since you cannot ask your opponent to sacrifice his, you should do it.

Hell, I have arguments in favour of the separation of church and state based on the assumption that God exists, and they're far more hard-hitting than anything based on Atheism.

Did you actually follow the link I supplied, though? I feel that it casts some major doubt on the trustworthiness of the documentary's producer.

As for Denmark, the majority of the population, in my experience, believes that CO₂ is to blame for global warming. The fact that the US government tries to promote otherwise really only helps us take that stance, since most of Denmark rabidly hates everyone even vaguely associated with running your state, or at the very least considers them madly incompetent. Please note that this is not an attack, but merely a statement of the vibe that I get from every Dane I have ever talked to, and our media.

I cannot speak for our scientists since I do not know many of them, but in general they seem to be predisposed towards that view as well since a lot of them are working on hydrogen fuel and renewable energy sources.

Our current deforestation is on a much larger scale? That is one thing I would definitely suggest.

But in the past we have generally had far more forest capable of absorbing the released CO₂. Just because something has gone one way before, doesn't mean it'll go the same way this time.

If humanity is really managing to knock the equilibrium just a tad farther in one direction than it usually is, it might mean that when we hit a high point on the sine curve of average global temperature, we keep going upwards farther than we normally would have, rather than diving around the usual point.

Normally, nature would likely just adjust to such an event, but considering all of the other destabilizing we've done, it might not be as easy for it. We've killed off a lot of species and destroyed a lot of their habitat, there may no longer be ones around to fill the new niches created in the ecosystem.

Now, here's another question to make intelligent debaters/discussers go hmmm:

If Global Warming, capitalized for the proponents benefit, is largely due to man, then why wasn't the Majority of North America still under Ice when Columbus found it? Just a thought here, but it would seem to me that something caused the glaciers to retreat northwards, oh, and for you Global Warmists, that means melt. What kind of industrial society was in place then that caused all of that melting of the Ice Caps, which at the time would have extended to my very home?

Few Global Warming believers decline to believe in the existence of a NATURAL warming/cooling ice age/nice age cycle, but we do tend to believe that humanity can WORSEN this.

The fact is that we have been in a warming state for thousands of years, perhaps 10's of thousands. That means, since Kansas isn't under Ice, that the glacier ice has been melting for that long as well. Since this is a well established, and well documented event, why is any seeming surprised? Why scare us, and our children, with "science" that says in 100 years, we will have different coasts, water levels will rise xx feet, and Florida will be gone. Simple, there's money in it. There's bad science on both sides. My position, being a neutral observer, is that if you really really want to do something, plant a tree. Don't preach to me, Mr. Gore, about reducing my carbon footprint, while your mansion's footprint is larger than 1/2 your state. Don't tell me that buying into somebody else's efforts makes my footprint smaller, especially when one of your very own companies has it's footprint on the market. "Make me richer to reduce Global Warming", even though nothing changes. Plant a few trees on your grounds there Al, it will do more than all your jetting around to shoot a movie did.

In short, is the globe warming, yes. It has been for 10's of thousands of years. Is man responsible for it, no. However, we could do more to make the world cleaner. As I said, plant a tree. Do I think we have no impact? No. We exist, and therefore we impact our world, I just don't think, given all the facts that can be observed by simply looking out my front door, that man is the whole reason the situation is so bad.

How is there money in global warming?

How much money has been used trying to research/stop it? That money just doesn't disappear.

Oh, nature will make it. Nature managed to survive whatever killed the dinosaurs. There will always be ants.

There is no real proof, but as far as I am familiar with the current theories, the Earth has been steadily warming since the last ice age ended some 20 000 years ago. We are currently in a temporary warm phase, a few degrees Celsius below what we had before the last ice age, and in another 20 000 years the ice caps will have spread again. After that, we'll have a proper warm period again.

Actually, that might happen anyway. If the Antarctic ice cap melts, the ocean will rise. And the current trend seems to be melting. We had different coast lines during the last ice age, and they can change further.

<font color=skyblue>The video answers the question as to who is getting money from the swindle, plainly and directly. </font>

<font color=skyblue>I don't understand this post. I thought it was clear that Gore (American) was trying to lead our country's opinion towards it being soley our fault...and Bush has signed on as believing that as well, quoting the documentary. It appears that you are saying that the US govt. is of the attitude that it is not our fault, yet I see the US as leading the idea that it is. Therefore, your post makes no sense to me.

And you should not use the word "state", because Denmark does not hate soley North Carolina, do they? :( </font>

Yeah, we're subject to have very different coastlines every 100 years, or maybe just something noticeable. However, that has been changing for the entire existence of the world, and if Science is correct, then at one time, this was all one big continent anyway. Nothing to say that it won't be something similar again, I'd guess. However, you can't get millions, or billions of dollars out of the government saying that. You have to shock people, or support the ones that are. I've read that the Science of Global Warming is becoming more of a religion, than an actual science these days, and with that being the case, anybody that looks around and says, "Mr. Gore, last Feb may have indeed been warm somewhere", a fact that has been attributed to El Nino, "but I had more snow in my home town this year than I've had in 30 years", is considered to be in league with anti-environmentalists, and in league with the oil companies. Despite the fact that I have physical evidence to the contrary. Physical evidence that contradicts Global Warming is considered to be heresy.

Edit: Hey Cloudy, how much snow you guys still have on the ground up there?

[ 03-24-2007, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]

<font color=skyblue>What about Alaska getting 72 inches in one weekend? They had never seen anything like that. </font>

The "I've had lots of snow, so global warming isn't a problem" is a strawman argument. The relationship between temperature and snowfall is increadibly complex, and most of the time is isn't possible to come up with a simple relationship between the two. So, unless there is a lot of reasearch behind it, attempts to use snowfall as evidence that the climate is/isn't getting warmer should be treated as an attempt to deliberatly confuse the issue.

Then tell me this. Why does it work the other way round? Why do people keep saying "there has been no snow, so global warming must exist"?

Researching it would require a conspiracy with the guys from the other side to never come to a conclusion, otherwise that money would come to an end fast.

Stopping it? I suppose you mean renewable energy, but fact is that the renewable energy industry does not yet have the power or money to lobby governments or scientists into working with them. They do not have any major cartels or organizations like OPEC, either. Conventional industry that would suffer from global warming being proven to be worsened by human action would have both the most to lose, and the money to organized a counter-action.

The money also has to come from somewhere, and the people who would gain, as little as it would be, just do not have that money, for the most part.

A pro-warming(That is, as in pro- that the idea is real) conspiracy is just hugely implausible. They have little to lose since we're hitting the oil peak soon where they'll start earning their money anyway, and what they'll gain will come to them with patience at any rate.

When I say "your state" I am referring to your entire country, I am afraid. We don't dislike any of your states or your entire country, we're willing to treat most of you like any other human being, we just despise your government for being incompetent and screwing it up for everyone.

Few people here also believe that your government is truly siding with pro-warming advocates in any way, really, aside from a few local measures(Like Schwarzenegger(It was him, right?)'s lightbulb thing.), there hasn't been anything largescale. You're still outside of the Kyoto Treaty, for example.

Considering that many of your senior officials are associated with things like the oil industry and others which would suffer from warming being accepted as human-exacerbated, they are also basically seen as pawns of the industry who line their own pockets while offering empty words to the pro-warming side in an attempt to mollify them.

Now you're putting words in Seraph's mouth, he/she never said that, nor defended it.

There are fools on both sides of the debate, many pro-warming arguments are as bullshit as many anti-warming arguments.

Now you're putting words in Seraph's mouth, he/she never said that, nor defended it.

There are fools on both sides of the debate, many pro-warming arguments are as bullshit as many anti-warming arguments. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum><font color=yellow>ZFR</font> is not "putting words in <font color=white>Seraph's</font> mouth". He/she is simply asking why critics cannot use increased snowfalls to support their arguments since environmentalist can (and do) use decreased snowfalls to support theirs.</font>

You cannot just say "critics" and "enviromentalists" like that.

Some critics do, some enviromentalists do, but not all. Please try not to assign us all the exact same behavior, moniker and personality.

The "I've had lots of snow, so global warming isn't a problem" is a strawman argument. The relationship between temperature and snowfall is increadibly complex, and most of the time is isn't possible to come up with a simple relationship between the two. So, unless there is a lot of reasearch behind it, attempts to use snowfall as evidence that the climate is/isn't getting warmer should be treated as an attempt to deliberatly confuse the issue. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think so. Global Warming science will fall back to melting ice to say that it's a major problem, but, as has happened recently, little demonstrations about how warm it is get cancelled, because it's too cold. What makes snow fall may be a mystery, I'm no climatologist, or meteorologist, but I do know that if it's above freezing, existing snow will melt. There was more snow on the ground here in Wichita, for longer, than there has been since 1974. That's not based on calculated records, but by personal observation. I was here in 74, and I'm here now, and I was and am in a position to be able to see the snow on the ground, when it was. There is no strawman here. Snow on the ground will melt if it's above freezing, or even if it gets enough direct sunlight, at temps below freezing. Strawman indeed.

<font color=plum>One side accepts global warming arguments, one side questions global warming arguments. Choose whichever label you want.

<font color=yellow>ZFR</font> asked a legitimate question. Why can snowfall or ice cap levels be used to support global warming (when measurements decrease) but NOT used to contradict global warming (when measurements increase)? </font>

No, that is false.

According to that statement, all pro-warming people accept all pro-warming statements, and all anti-warming people accept all anti-warming statements.

Going by that, you would say: "Hell yes, preach it, brother!" if I claimed that global warming was due to fairies, rather than human interference.

People on both sides are capable of questioning ridiculous statements made by their own side. We do have critical minds and are capable of questioning things even if they would seem to be in favour of our side of things.

And ZFR's question is legitimate in so far as it is intelligible and answerable, but it still makes the assumption that all global warming proponents use "BUT IT'S SNOWING LESS!" as an argument, which is untrue.

<font color=8fbc8f>How much money was generated the night Al Gore won his award?
Where will the proceeds from the forthcoming book by Kerry go?
Who handles the money funded for these documentaries?

I would like to place an addendum to ROTs post. Additionally Mr. Gore, how was your cross country flight aboard your personal jet?
Did you find the stretch limousine service adequate?</font>

Bah, bring on some more global warming, our summers are too short as it is to begin with. The oceans will rise because of melting polarcaps ? Good, let the flooding begin, Utrecht-on-Sea doesn't sound that bad to me, and Noone would really miss an armpit like Amsterdam, and an asshole like the Hague and/or Rotterdam. I see only positive things in global warming. :D

bullshit arguments, huh?

Well it's nice, only you yourself used that as an argument in the <a href=http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/noncgi/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=004198;p=2>Why has Boston had NO SNOW so far this winter?</a> thread.

Short memory? Or do you consider yourself one of the "fools on both sides of the debate"?

Now tell me why did you not write that "the relationship between temperature and snowfall is increadibly complex" then?

<font color=8fbc8f>You know, since he has been back; it is not hard to see how he is becoming more educated, articulate, and well balanced. He has really improved upon his writing style, and his total worldly knowledge. I commend him on that.

And, as we all know, he is still just "Neb" to us. And on occasion, that reality comes back and writes a check right across his kisser.</font>

Yes, that was really my commentary on a serious global warming debate. I honestly think that one extra-warm winter is proof of global warming.

That is correct, that is the entire foundation of my beliefs. I was not merely making a joking comment on our oddly warm winter.

Even if I had meant it seriously, though, it's entirely irrelevant. Plenty of pro-warming people have never said it, therefore attributing it to all of them is a faulty argument.

In fact, I don't think I ever claimed that I hadn't said it myself, I merely said it was an uncharitable generalization to claim that all pro-warming people based their stance simply on the amount of snowfall they'd had that year.

EDIT: Now please, drop the ad hominem and return to the argument at hand. I have no time or patience for a fight about me or what I think. All I expect from a civilized debate is that both sides be treated as human and intelligent, otherwise we might as well resort to shouting in all caps rather than attempting intelligent arguments. If you persist in attempting to shift the debate to me rather than to my arguments(Most of which I note have been entirely ignored.), then I shall expect that it is because you have no superior facts or logic to counter mine, consider the debate a victory and leave the "battlefield."

[ 03-25-2007, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]

I really couldn't agree more, I figure if we get a few more meters of sea level, this house will be beachfront property and I can make a fortune if I sell it.

Hmmm... I have to wonder if anyone really IS speculating like that? It would require a lot of farsighted planning and study, but in theory, one could really get filthy rich off of investing in property on high ground ahead of time. Assuming we don't suddenly get an ice age, of course.

Speaking of ice ages, I am reminded of some people arguing that volcanos throw up a lot of CO₂, but what about all of the ash, dirt and other things they throw into the high atmosphere, too? While it thickens the atmosphere to keep in more heat, it also keeps a lot of heat OUT. Somewhat similar to a low-grade nuclear winter after very, very big eruptions. This is, of course, based on me remembering my volcanology right, a field which I admit is not my main focus of study.

Very well, but I notice that none of the questions asked have been answered. Instead, the wording has been attacked, but the subject matter completely skimmed around, otherwise, I would now know why it is acceptable practice to say that melting ice is proof positive that global warming is a serious problem, but that new ice, or snow, is not conclusive proof that it's just another weather cycle. All I know about this question is that some scientists will say it and others won't, which doesn't answer the question about why they can say it at all. You may consider skimming the question, by attacking what's in it a victory if you wish, after all, that is how it's actually handled in scientific circles. Nay sayers are shouted down, or brought up on charges in the Netherlands, for disagreeing with the mainstream.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=54819

So, consider it anything you like, I'd like an answer though. I don't think it's asking too much.

Do you have a link to this, for I find it hard to believe. Global Warming has never been an important political issue in The Netherlands. Furthermore, since scientists have never been able to agree on the cause of global warming, it is highly unlikely we here at Ironworks will be able to conclude the debate. After all, no matter what your political affiliation is, you're sure to have plenty of sources to call on. In this field, the result of any probe into the cause of global warming seems to be mainly determined by the party that payed for the research to begin with.