The Great Global Warming Swindle - Channel 4

[Shyguy]

just attatch a big rocket on the earth and fly it abit further away from the sun

 

problem solved

[ZeldaFreak]

just attatch a big rocket on the earth and fly it abit further away from the sun

 

problem solved

 

Like the Walker adverts apart from moving the entire plannet and moving it away from the sun.

 

I like it

 

But seriously the thing about Global Warming is that if you look over time at the climate patterns. Theres a cysle heats up, goes cold, heats up, goes cold.

 

Its just the plannet keeping itself in a natural balance.

 

But the normal theory of global warming - being our fault seems to conveinet. Could it be the governments of thw world have thought of a plan to generate higher tax revenues by doing a con on the worlds population. My answer is maybe.

[Mundi]

It´s kinda hard choosing sides about this.... Both sides have theyre evidence and whatnot.

The worse part is are the people trying to get some fame and profit out of this situation, people like Al Gore.

The guy is obviously not serious about this. He held a speech somewhere in America about global warming and after the speech he drove to his house that spends 20 times more electricity then the average house in America on his fancy Range Rover.....

[Cube]

just attatch a big rocket on the earth and fly it abit further away from the sun

 

problem solved

 

Then we can have an extra Robot Party Week!

 

Anyway, the Earth will sort itself out. It always has.

[DCK]

I don't know, denying the global warming problem seems to me that people are too weak to admit people can do wrong things... I'm not much into the proof of the theory, but the sudden rise of temperature after the industrialisation is a more plausible theory than a coincedental anti ice age.

[Shino]

I don't know, denying the global warming problem seems to me that people are too weak to admit people can do wrong things... I'm not much into the proof of the theory, but the sudden rise of temperature after the industrialisation is a more plausible theory than a coincedental anti ice age.

 

Nah, thats just coicidence, being something never experienced before is much more plausible. Lets all believe that this is just one giant fart from mother earth.

[gaggle64]

Apparently the last documentary this guy made got into trouble with the broadcasting watchdog for being "biased" and "falsifying facts." Take that as you will.

[BlueStar]

Apparently the last documentary this guy made got into trouble with the broadcasting watchdog for being "biased" and "falsifying facts." Take that as you will.

 

Indeed, he's a right bullshit merchant. Before swallowing the stuff he put to you in his latest 'documentary' it might be worth reading this:

 

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2026091,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,341054,00.html

 

He's a mental marxist nutter who's always making films about how silicon implants prevent breast cancer, GM food is great, environmentalists are Nazis etc, all with the help of his mates from Communist magazine Living Marxism.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I don't know, denying the global warming problem seems to me that people are too weak to admit people can do wrong things... I'm not much into the proof of the theory, but the sudden rise of temperature after the industrialisation is a more plausible theory than a coincedental anti ice age.

 

It could be seen as people trying to shift the blame from themselves, and just saying that it's the way of the world.

 

Many people are arguing that the earth's temperature has risen and declined in the past many times. That's all well and good, but what were we humans doing at the time? Banging a couple of rocks together?

 

Thing is, humans have really only been interfering for the last few hundred years, with things like the industrial revolution and other forms of pollution. So, circumstances have changed.

[Anakenobi]

I saw on TV what will happen to Europe within a century or the next 50 years... doesn't look pretty at all.

 

[gmac]

I saw on TV what will happen to Europe within a century or the next 50 years... doesn't look pretty at all.

 

 

yes but this is all theoretical, no-one can prove for certain that humans are causing a global warming effect

[Kurtle Squad]

Lets say that it isn't completly our fault. Would it be bad for us cut down on the CO2 and make us less dependent on oil and cars,improving our lifestyle?

That's exactly what I think.

[gaggle64]

I think what is telling is that they're isn't a particularly strong scientific argument against the current global warming theory. When the vast majority of the worlds best brains are lining up to tell you we've almost certainly fucked ourselves, you should probably listen.

[Anakenobi]

yes but this is all theoretical, no-one can prove for certain that humans are causing a global warming effect

 

Oh my friend, but what we CAN prove is that humans have had an effect on everything below the heavens of this puny dirt ball called Earth. The fact that entire species of animals fade away forever due to cutting down trees and draining rivers/lakes or by way of extensive hunting (for fur/eggs/horns/tusks/etc.) is proof enough that when 1 component of a food chain goes, the whole thing goes to hell. And that includes animals, plants, insects and eventually, ourselves. We like to think we are set apart from the other living organisms and that what happens to them does not warrant our attention... fools that we are.

 

So my bet is that we play a major factor with this global warming phenomena.

[Kurtle Squad]

I think we should have algae farms to produce more oxygen...MUHAHAHAHA!!!!

[gaggle64]

I think we should have algae farms to produce more oxygen...MUHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

That's... that's not actually a bad idea.

(It's better then giant space mirrors anyway.)

[BlueStar]

Indeed, he's a right bullshit merchant. Before swallowing the stuff he put to you in his latest 'documentary' it might be worth reading this:

 

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2026091,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,341054,00.html

 

He's a mental marxist nutter who's always making films about how silicon implants prevent breast cancer, GM food is great, environmentalists are Nazis etc, all with the help of his mates from Communist magazine Living Marxism.

 

And, as if by magic...

 

Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Published: 11 March 2007

 

It was the television programme that set out to show that most of the world's climate scientists are misleading us when they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon dioxide. And The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.

 

But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.

 

Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.

 

More:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

[Goron_3]

Can someone briefly explain both sides of this argument to me?

[Shino]

Can someone briefly explain both sides of this argument to me?

 

One side says global warming is caused by human influence, such as CO2 and other harmful gases (that's my side, the side of truth and of God). The other side says its just a cicle the planet goes trough every thousand years and that we shouldn't worry about it.

[Rummy]

I watched it, and it's pretty much turned me to the other side, I totally hate the whole greenhouse/manmade global warming thing, until I see an actual proof of it which I can understand. I have alot to say about it, but I need to go home and do my work.

[jayseven]

 

Anyway, the Earth will sort itself out. It always has.

 

True... But we're kinda hoping that our species will be around as well. Earth has a habit of freezing over and shit. Not fun.

 

I think there's one thing that people don't realise, that should be more widely known. Even if we stopped ALL co2 production right now, it is too late to stop the climate from changing. If we stopped all pollution today our polluting activities over the last couple of centuries would continue having an effect into the next.

 

I think once people begin realising this, they may well be damn upset that reducing their co2 by 20% isn't doing enough. We need to do more positive things - that is, fixing what we've done rather than ignoring it.

[Shino]

I watched it, and it's pretty much turned me to the other side, I totally hate the whole greenhouse/manmade global warming thing, until I see an actual proof of it which I can understand. I have alot to say about it, but I need to go home and do my work.

 

So we'll wait until we drown.

 

True... But we're kinda hoping that our species will be around as well. Earth has a habit of freezing over and shit. Not fun.

 

I think there's one thing that people don't realise, that should be more widely known. Even if we stopped ALL co2 production right now, it is too late to stop the climate from changing. If we stopped all pollution today our polluting activities over the last couple of centuries would continue having an effect into the next.

 

I think once people begin realising this, they may well be damn upset that reducing their co2 by 20% isn't doing enough. We need to do more positive things - that is, fixing what we've done rather than ignoring it.

 

Still to do something than doing nothing at all. What would you suggest for fixing it?

[Rummy]

So I came home, had a drink then fell asleep for 3 going on 4 hours, no work been done but meh.

Basically, their first line of argument on this documentary was that of how CO2 levels are rising compared to temperature. I word it like that, because they basically showed a graph of CO2 levels and Temperature, and it showed that CO2 levels varied in accordance with temperature, but lagged behind slightly. As in, when temperature would rise then CO2 levels would rise in line with it, not the other way around.

Now surely, this is the very basis of the manmade global warming effect, and thus destroys the theory as such? That was the hook that got me right away. Sure, it seems alot more ridiculous now, temperature causing CO2 rises?! Surely not! It just doesn't make sense!

That's the thing with the greenhouse gas explanation, it makes sense and thus we believe it easier, because it is a theory that every one of us can understand. As it happens, I do believe that the greenhouse analogy is actually an incorrect one, so whilst we think we understand how it works, we actually don't!

Thing is, who's to say it's right anyway? It's just everywhere and has become the general consensus, but does anyone of us non scientists REALLY know it to be true? Have we see a conclusive proof? I wonder sometimes if even people like Tony Blair has seen the proof, or if he's just been told by the people employed to tell him. When something is believed by everyone, I feel it just begins to breed itself, and it's even harder then to accept people suggesting otherwise. I used to think about things like this, thought about how everyone used to think the sun went round the earth and how now we look back and laugh at them, and was sure nothing like that could ever happen in this day and age.

But could it? Could this be another sun round the earth incident? As for government, it seems beneficial to them that the manmade explanation is correct, given all this carbon taxes and whatnot that we keep hearing about, and even more reason to put up the prices of petrol too.

I'd like to say I'm keeping an open mind to it, though I'm more on the side of non man made as it firstly makes me feel better, and secondly I dunno, maybe I just want to be different. As I said before though, if I could just see a nice easy to understand proof of the man made explanation, the I'll accept it gladly.

[The Bard]

The thing is, the level of CO2 humans produce is negligible next to for example, if Mt. Etna erupted, that would release 5 or 6 times the amount of CO2 into the air that humans do in a year. Couple into that the fact that data has shown that this is a cycle that has repeated on a regular basis through history, and has a lot more to do with orbital changes than CO2 levels...and I don't really know who to believe anymore. I still do my bit, just in case: not using much paper, turning all lights off once I leave a room (even in school) and giving old magazines to be recycled...still, I doubt all that is ever going to be enough if we are really the cause for "global warming."

[Shino]

So I came home, had a drink then fell asleep for 3 going on 4 hours, no work been done but meh.

Basically, their first line of argument on this documentary was that of how CO2 levels are rising compared to temperature. I word it like that, because they basically showed a graph of CO2 levels and Temperature, and it showed that CO2 levels varied in accordance with temperature, but lagged behind slightly. As in, when temperature would rise then CO2 levels would rise in line with it, not the other way around.

Now surely, this is the very basis of the manmade global warming effect, and thus destroys the theory as such? That was the hook that got me right away. Sure, it seems alot more ridiculous now, temperature causing CO2 rises?! Surely not! It just doesn't make sense!

That's the thing with the greenhouse gas explanation, it makes sense and thus we believe it easier, because it is a theory that every one of us can understand. As it happens, I do believe that the greenhouse analogy is actually an incorrect one, so whilst we think we understand how it works, we actually don't!

Thing is, who's to say it's right anyway? It's just everywhere and has become the general consensus, but does anyone of us non scientists REALLY know it to be true? Have we see a conclusive proof? I wonder sometimes if even people like Tony Blair has seen the proof, or if he's just been told by the people employed to tell him. When something is believed by everyone, I feel it just begins to breed itself, and it's even harder then to accept people suggesting otherwise. I used to think about things like this, thought about how everyone used to think the sun went round the earth and how now we look back and laugh at them, and was sure nothing like that could ever happen in this day and age.

But could it? Could this be another sun round the earth incident? As for government, it seems beneficial to them that the manmade explanation is correct, given all this carbon taxes and whatnot that we keep hearing about, and even more reason to put up the prices of petrol too.

I'd like to say I'm keeping an open mind to it, though I'm more on the side of non man made as it firstly makes me feel better, and secondly I dunno, maybe I just want to be different. As I said before though, if I could just see a nice easy to understand proof of the man made explanation, the I'll accept it gladly.

 

For a religious person, you're really skeptic.

 

The thing is, the level of CO2 humans produce is negligible next to for example, if Mt. Etna erupted, that would release 5 or 6 times the amount of CO2 into the air that humans do in a year. Couple into that the fact that data has shown that this is a cycle that has repeated on a regular basis through history, and has a lot more to do with orbital changes than CO2 levels...and I don't really know who to believe anymore. I still do my bit, just in case: not using much paper, turning all lights off once I leave a room (even in school) and giving old magazines to be recycled...still, I doubt all that is ever going to be enough if we are really the cause for "global warming."

 

That's the point, even if it isn't our fault, what do you have to win from polluting the air you breath?