The Great Global Warming Swindle

[JSCOOK]

Are we all being swindled with the whole "Global Warming" issue?

You decide ... does raise some questions as to how "factual" are the "facts"

The Great Global Warming Swindle from BBC ...

It is worth watching ...

[MilDoc]

For the truth about this film:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle

"The film's critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

"Two of the scientists featured in the film, Carl Wunsch and Eigil Friis-Christensen, have since stated that they disagree with the way their contributions were used."

etc etc etc

There are arguments on both sides. Of one thing I am certain: we (humankind) are polluting this planet to such a severe extent that I doubt mankind will survive as we know it now.

[JSCOOK]

I've learned a long time ago you CAN'T believe everything on Wikipedia too

BTW, Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" has had some of the same discrediting as well ...

Point of the post was that there is ALWAY two sides to everything ....

[Daryl]

Wikipedia is not the definate answer on anything controversial.
Hey, does anybody remember the big scare about the ozone hole a few or more years back? Turns out to have been an natural occurance. THe fear mongers pack their wallet over this nonsense.

[isddarms]

Well, here in Minnesota we'd like a little warming right about now.

[balzac.thegreat]

Even if Global Warming is some kind of "scam", it would benefit probably just about everybody on the planet if everything was done just a little greener. Your great, great-great, and great-great-great grandchildren will thank you.

[Gator95]

There is about an equal amount of evidence to say (1) "global warming can occur and be prevented by curbing carbon emissions" as there is evidence to say that (2) "reduction in interest rates or taxes spurs economic growth".

That is: reasonable people disagree about the probable effect of changing a single variable in a complex system, but there is still enough general consensus to make public policy in both cases by reasonable people.

By the way, cutting down sustainable hardwood and making it into tables and cabinets is a great carbon sequestration program- woodworkers buying new table saws or sustainable hardwood/sheetgoods should be able to do this with pre-tax income...

[MilDoc]

A quote from Carl Wunsch, one of the "commentators" in the film:

"My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrassing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped.....Durkin says that I reacted to the way the film portrayed me because of pressure from my colleagues. This is completely false. I did hear almost immediately from colleagues in the UK who saw the film who didn't berate me. They simply said, "This doesn't sound like you, this seems to be distorting your views, you better have a look at this". And having had a look at what they did with my comments in the film out of context and cutting away many of the important things that I thought were important that dealt with the science of it, it was a complete distortion of what I had told Durkin I believed."

Always dig deeper for the truth. There is BS on both sides, but I never take what I see or hear as the Gospel

[Ed62]

There is BS on both sides

It's always been like that, and it always will be. From a favorite movie line, "And that's all I have to say about that".


Ed

[Shipwreck]

Global Warming?

In the 1970's....the same type of alarmists were all saying that we were heading into a ice age. They went on and on about how life on planet earth was going to change and how mass populations would be migrating to warmer climates. I had to sit in class day after day and listen to my moronic science teach go on about it. Polar bears would be playing golf on Hilton head.


Go figure!

[MilDoc]

In the 1970's....the same type of alarmists were all saying that we were heading into a ice age. They went on and on about how life on planet earth was going to change and how mass populations would be migrating to warmer climates. I had to sit in class day after day and listen to my moronic science teach go on about it. Polar bears would be playing golf on Hilton head.
Go figure!

Yeah. I heard that in college too, and still hear it to debunk global warming. But:

"Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces...."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

[jonmulzer]

In the 1970's....the same type of alarmists were all saying that we were heading into a ice age. They went on and on about how life on planet earth was going to change and how mass populations would be migrating to warmer climates. I had to sit in class day after day and listen to my moronic science teach go on about it. Polar bears would be playing golf on Hilton head.


Go figure!

I hear this argument all the time, and I do see your point. The thing is, just because a group of people or a person was wrong before, does not mean they are wrong now. I am sure you have been wrong in the past on something or the other. That does not mean you are wrong on any and all points from there into the future.

I am also of the opinion that we could stand to do a lot of things much more environmentally consciously whether global warming is real or not. Mankind has assaulted our Mother Earth in almost every conceivable way since the industrial revolution. It is about time we start taking care of her before, in one way or another, she shrugs us off like a bad case of fleas.

[OpaDC]

Global warming/Ice ages are multi-cyclical. Every X amount of years/decades/millenia the climates change. Do humans contribute to it? Of course we do, since the very beginning. So did Mt Vesuvius, and the meteor in Siberia. Do we always think about the consequences of what we do? Only recently have we realized our effect. And scientists around the world disagree to what affect. Statistics, blah! Both sides can prove their facts, it's all in the interpretation. Don't know what to believe, so I try to do my little bit to help the environment, but I'm also not planning to walk to work every day to save energy. I do wonder why the Mt. Kilimanjaro icecap is receding though. Maybe one of those warming cycles. Or too much ozone, or too little, or too close to the sun, or .....

[MilDoc]

I don't know, either. And it may take decades for us to know for sure. If global warming is correct it may be too late to change anything by then. If not, well ..... but should we just ignore the warnings and do nothing? Sure. Why not? that's the easy way.

[Slik Geek]

Well, here in Minnesota we'd like a little warming right about now.

Here in Illinois as well. And in Canada, Siberia, Mongolia and China - all who are experiencing below average temperatures determined during the 20th century. You likely won't hear much about this on CNN. (Now if it were above average, they would be trumpeting how man has induced global warming).

You also don't hear about how the last two atlantic hurricane seasons (2006 & 2007) failed to match the climatologists predictions of many storms due to mankind's effects upon the climate. Both seasons produced just two major hurricanes (at least a 3 on the 1 to 5 scale), instead of the predicted 4 to 6 for 2006 and 5 for 2007.

You also likely won't hear much about the Arctic sea ice that caused such a panic in recent years, including 2007. The sea ice has apparently expanded by about 2 million square kilometers this season beyond what it has been in the previous several years (when it was said to be at record low levels). The cumulative decline in sea ice the past four years was apparently 1.3 million square kilometers. Could it be that less than one season has overcome four years of tragedy?

The Arctic sea ice won't peak until March, so it can expand even further. The long-term average for March sea ice, as determined by NASA measurements from 1979 to 2000, is 16 million square kilometers. Let's see if the peak sea ice number that was so important in 2007 will make the news in 2008.