UK Documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: 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.

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.

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: 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?

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.

[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: 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.

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.

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: Why did the atmosphere not heat up during the industrial revolution?

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

[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: 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.

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.

[robertthebard]

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?

[PurpleXVI]

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.

[robertthebard]

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.

[PurpleXVI]

How is there money in global warming?

[Sir Goulum]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: How is there money in global warming?

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

[Iron Greasel]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: 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.

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

Posted by robertthebard: The fact is that we have been in a warming state for thousands of years, perhaps 10's of thousands.

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.

Posted by robertthebard: 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.

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.