UK Documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Bithron]

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.

Yeah, the neighbouring town around here deserves a good washout...

[robertthebard]

As with a lot of Global Warming Science, on either side, it's posted on the internet, it must be true. I don't need proof, I just need to know that someone, somewhere, said so. Like Al Gore, I don't need to consider all the facts, such as the source of the article I linked to, I just need to know that the story is there for all to see. This is the same logic used regularly, even in this discussion. Don't question, just believe, if you question...Therefore, I still have no answer as to why it's ok to use melting ice to prove it, but not ok to use not melting ice to disprove it. In this case, opposite doesn't mean opposite?

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by 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.

Excuse me for interrupting the flow but I really have to say this. I think most of you can agree that I, more than anybody else on this website has reason to have never wanted Neb back with us on IW, yet I was one of the moderators that voted for him to return in the Mod forum when the question came up. The things he said about me to other mods, Ziroc, on other websites (that he did not know I was being linked to) and basically the attitude he had towards me in the past outweighs anything any of you have suffered from Neb.

So why did I forgive him and vote for his return? Because this is now PurpleXVI, and he has earned his place back here unless he decides to break our TOS, which he has not done. However, posts such as the one I quoted are a form of harrassment and should not be tolerated.

Please forget about Purple's past and let's move on. He is very thick-headed and loves to debate against sometimes obvious points of discussion but at least he is keeping his cool (to a degree) and not actually blowing up in anger, nor is he flamebaiting anyone that I personally have seen. If another mod has received a report, I have not been told about it.

It comes down to this: If you feel that somebody is causing trouble on the forum, report them. The new forum will actually have a running tally of how many times a person is naughty and after a decided # of tallies, that person gets an automatic block from the forum! Is that not great?!! I cannot wait to get these new powers.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: 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."

The only slightly ad hominem attacks I've seen thus far have come from you, Purple. ZFR asked Seraph why snowfall levels can be used to support global warming but not used to contradict it. Instead of addressing the question - which you have since acknowledged is a legitimate query - you accused ZFR of "putting words into Seraph's mouth". Something he/she did not do. Melting ice caps and warmer winter temperatures are a cornerstone argument used to support global warming, so it was reasonable for ZFR to ask why the argument can be used for one side but not the other.

When I added my :2cent: worth, you criticized the labels I chose to use rather than address the question. You also claimed - erroneously - that I was basically stating every person on either side of the debate wholeheartedly accepts any and ALL arguments offered to support thier side. Simply stated (in American Southern grammer), I never said no such a thang. I did use generalized labels to differentiate between the two sides of the debate, but there is no implication at all in my post that either side wholeheartedly accepts all arguments offered to support their view.

As for the revelation of your former identity, that had no bearing on this response. If you're active on IW at all, then you know I'm not around much these days (for various reasons). I had no problem with you when I was active and I don't have any problem with you now. But I do suggest you follow your own advice and focus on the questions asked rather than criticising the poster or the wording used in a particular response.

As for the whole question of melting ice caps, lower snowfalls and warmer winter temperatures, that is one of the foundation arguments used by most supporters of global warming - at least the ones getting any media attention. Al Gore recieved an Academy Award for his "documentary". In the trailer of his film, he cites reduced snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro (along with comparative photos to validate his statement) as just one example of the impact global warming is having on our planet. Which brings back once again to the legitimate question ZFR asked several posts ago; if snowfall (or snow on the ground) can be (and IS) used to support global warming, why can it not be used when measurements contradict global warming? That question - so far - remains unanswered.

[Seraph]

Originally posted by ZFR: quote: 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"? [/QUOTE]It doesn't. As evidence it is just as meaningless.

However, as an argument point it does have an advantage:
If "lots" in "I've had lots of snow, so global warming isn't a problem" refers to an abnormal amount of snow, then it can be used to say "If you have an abnormal amount of snow then it's evidence of something abnormal in the climate". So that argument frequently isn't internally consistant.

[Sever]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: 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.

All the more reason for us stop looking externally for answers and start looking internally. There's big bucks riding on the outcome of this debate. Enough that i'm not really willing to trust anything said by anyone who stands to be on a winning (or losing) side. Why do people need to flock to a banner for this?

Gore, for all i can see, is giving it %110 to stay in whatever race he thinks he's running. Global Warming appears to be the one big acorn in a smeggin' acorn shower and he's using it as the backbone of his argument. Why Global warming? It's the one effect of our fossil fuel munching habit that can concievably have short term, drastic consequences for a very large number of people. He wants to win this debate before he dies, after all, and to do that he needs lots of little chickens running around, shouting and pointing at the sky. Or maybe he's not got backing from whichever companies own the rights to the next big renewable energy and is just using his acorn along with his "almost was" status as a pretty clever way of selling something to the whole world and looking like a good guy at the same time. Or maybe he's the genuine article and is truely concerned about the direction we're heading and hasn't given up after losing his one big chance at doing something about it. Heh, if that's true then it's a damn shame he missed his shot. Not that i think for a second that anyone openly waving the alternative energy flag could've made it that far in the US of all places. Much less retain it once there. Nope, sorry, if he's declared himself a figurehead and is waving his name as the banner for saving the world, then it's small wonder that people don't flock to it. It's just too easy to imagine the conflicts of interest.

And in the blue corner, we have the companies that own the big, bad, CO2 spewing, energy technologies. I'm not even going to bother. I must admit that i was surprised to see people on this thread actually jump to defend an institution that stands to gain as much as fossil fuel companies do. That is until i gave it a little more thought and i reasoned: It's not the companies people are defending, just their own lifestyle that is too bothersome to change. Or their own faith in humanity's infinite wisdom which is too blind and strong to deny. Perhaps it's also impossible to acknowledge an addiction to fossil fuel without also denying that pursuits in the name of freedom and liberty weren't actually made in search of it. Perhaps still, others may just be jumping onto whatever bandwagon happens to be travelling in an opposite direction than the one carrying an eternal opponent of past battles (without looking at how far the road ahead of it travels).

In fairness to you Larry, i'll watch the doco. I'll even put in an extra special effort to ensure that i'll weigh it on its own merit with as little bias as possible. But i'll tell you now, my mind is made up. For i do not need anyone weilding the weapon of scientific fact to argue, for or against, what i believe to be true. We're not so dumb that we can't destroy this earth. We're not so special that we should. We're not so smart that we can see all the ways in which we are killing it and we're sure as shite not wise enough to deny that we are.

For what it's worth, i'm not so sure about climate change myself. Part of a greater cycle of seasons or whatever. Every conclusion we draw about our Earth is based upon what we've seen, learned and failed to disprove in the few years that we've been here. I'd like to think that we haven't been here long enough that we shouldn't do what we can to guarantee we learn a little more. We know we've got the technology and the smarts to make all sorts of changes for the better, but people and nations alike can't make it happen for their own politics and economies. Two very petty things when compared to our Earth.

[ 03-25-2007, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Sever ]

[Felix The Assassin]

My apologies Larry, for I did not quote the post in which I was referring; that might have presented it in a different context.

That really was not meant as harassment, it was meant as written. Just like some of the sayings from where you and I hail from are not sinister, but truthful understanding.
[img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

[Sever]

Originally posted by Seraph: quote: Originally posted by ZFR: quote: 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"? [/QUOTE]It doesn't. As evidence it is just as meaningless.

However, as an argument point it does have an advantage:
If "lots" in "I've had lots of snow, so global warming isn't a problem" refers to an abnormal amount of snow, then it can be used to say "If you have an abnormal amount of snow then it's evidence of something abnormal in the climate". So that argument frequently isn't internally consistant. [/QUOTE]Precisely. I seem to recall that "global warming" was done away with before such time as i'd left high school and replaced with the much less deniable catch phrase "climate change". Was it Gore who turned back the clock?

[Dreamer128]

Of course, besides the issue of Global Warming, there are several other reasons to limit the use of fossil fuels. Energy dependency, for example. As long we get our oil from countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and our gas from Russia, we'll always remain vulnerable to blackmail. For example, in 1973 The Netherlands supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War. As a result several Arabian countries stopped selling us oil, which led to an economic crisis.

[Chewbacca]

Anyone else check out this film's critics? Some I found:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...7/03/swindled/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1517515.ece


Anyway...I think it is reasonable to take even a good possiblity of man-made global warming seriously and act upon it. We have only one planet and only one climate. If we screw it up there is no second-chance. Better safe than sorry is the only correct approach IMO.

[ 03-26-2007, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]