UK Documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Cerek]

Originally posted by 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.

One side accepts global warming arguments, one side questions global warming arguments. Choose whichever label you want.

ZFR 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)?

[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by Cerek: One side accepts global warming arguments, one side questions global warming arguments. Choose whichever label you want. ZFR 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)?

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.

[Felix The Assassin]

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

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?

[johnny]

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.

[ZFR]

bullshit arguments, huh?

Well it's nice, only you yourself used that as an argument in the Why has Boston had NO SNOW so far this winter? thread.

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: we've usually had solid frost from the start of December and it tends to keep going till February, sometimes even March, or April. So far we haven't had frost more than one overnight incident. "Global warming is a lie" my ass!

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?

[Felix The Assassin]

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.

[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by ZFR: 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?

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 ]

[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by johnny: 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.

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.

[robertthebard]

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.

[Dreamer128]

Originally posted by robertthebard: Nay sayers are shouted down, or brought up on charges in the Netherlands, for disagreeing with the mainstream.

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.