UK Documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle

[johnny]

Originally posted by 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.

Ah yes, i remember those "autoloze zondagen", i was still a kid back then, and we could play football on the freeway, i really miss those days.

Didn't know Yom Kippur was the cause of that though.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by 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.

Not to mention the lack of democracy and poor human rights records of some of those nations.

My U.S. government(The executive portion to be precise) is so deep in bed with some of those people(Saudi Arabia), they have been seen holding hands in public- literally.


I say we all get off oil and leave the middle east to their own devices. The U.S. and many E.U. Allies have meddled enough.

[robertthebard]

Snip from the first link:

CO2 doesn't match the temperature record over the 20th C. True but not relevant, because it isn't supposed to.

What? We're told time and time again that CO2 is prominent in the Global Warming arguments, but now we're told, because the data used doesn't fit with their theory I suspect, that it's irrelevant?

Either CO2 is relevant, or it isn't. This is the problem with the debate, since both sides are really guilty of "glossing over the facts", or completely ignoring them, when they don't fit their model.

Fact: The globe has been warming for at least 20,000 years, since the last ice age, as can be evidenced by the fact that I'm not posting from a glacier.

Fact: While mankind did indeed exist in these parts during that time, it is extremely doubtful that he had anything to do with the dramatic changes that took place at the time to turn the climate around, and while I'm sure mankind does have an impact now, I'm also quite sure that proponents of either side will exaggerate that impact to suit whatever program is paying them, as has been stated before.

However, to post an article stating that what we have been led to believe is the main problem, CO2, isn't relevant drops the relevance of the first link. As I said, if CO2 is a culprit, then CO2 levels are relevant, no matter what that site would have us believe.

[Chewbacca]

Why did you edit out the whole explaination from the link Robert? Was it to make your point?

I dont care to argue one way or the other. I'm convinced that man-made global warming/climate change is possible enough and will wholly agree that neither "side" has the perfect undeniable objective truth. I can also agree both sides have HUGE financial stakes in the debate.

I only caution against butchering and skewing one-side's argument for the sake of another. That is a desperate ploy and easy to see through. I don't think that was your intent, but the way you edited the link makes it seem dubious when in fact a whole explaination is provided.

[robertthebard]

I just quoted the first line that made me go "What?". Since we are told time and time again by proponents of "man is the reason it's happening" Global Warming Priests, er Scientists. They shot their credibility with that, in so far as I'm concerned. If they had concrete evidence that there are aliens in Area 51, and that the aliens are responsible, I'd be hard pressed to believe them.

[Dreamer128]

Originally posted by johnny: Ah yes, i remember those "autoloze zondagen", i was still a kid back then, and we could play football on the freeway, i really miss those days.

I remember seeing pictures of that in my history books. Quite spectacular.

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Ah yes, i remember those "autoloze zondagen", i was still a kid back then, and we could play football on the freeway, i really miss those days.

I remember seeing pictures of that in my history books. Quite spectacular. [/QUOTE][img]graemlins/Funny_post.gif[/img] Just what are you trying to say?

Anyway, back to the topic, more or less, I was pointed to this article today, and what it has to say is rather interesting.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

It was meant to refute something I had said there, and here, about the natural cycle, but, I find that it rather supports it. I've been taken to task twice about quoting interesting parts, even if I provide a link, but...

Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations was about 300 ppm. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 370 ppm. Humans may be able to take credit for some of these additions, but not all of them. Earth's plant life will respond to soak up these additions with additional biologic activity, but this takes time. Meanwhile perhaps up to 9% of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere today may be attributable to human-related activities like agriculture, industry, and transportation. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Interesting rebuttal. 9% attributable to humans. 9%... That's not a very large piece of the pie, now is it? The fact is, as I have stated from the very beginning, we do contribute. However, I don't know what we are supposed to do about the other 91%. I will say, however, that when sources are submitted by proponents, they are considered reputeable. So, since this is a reputeable source, it's nice to see what happens when science is actually applied. We aren't such the bad guys after all.