UK Documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Larry_OHF]

The video answers the question as to who is getting money from the swindle, plainly and directly.

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.

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?

[robertthebard]

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 ]

[Larry_OHF]

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

What about Alaska getting 72 inches in one weekend? They had never seen anything like that.

[Seraph]

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.

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.

[ZFR]

Originally posted by Seraph: 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"?

[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by Sir Goulum: How much money has been used trying to research/stop it? That money just doesn't disappear.

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.

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: 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?

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.

[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by ZFR: 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"?

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.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: quote: Originally posted by ZFR: 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"?

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. [/QUOTE]ZFR is not "putting words in Seraph's 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.

[PurpleXVI]

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.

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by Seraph: quote: 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.

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. [/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.