Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
i love them :]
though all it was saying was that C02 didnt add to climate change, right?
That doesent mean climate change isnt happening.
And Im sure the less shit we pump into our atmosphere, the better.
Sure it works on a pattern, so does everything else on this earth, but we're adding to it.
Anyone who says that it doesent exist is just being anti-anti-climate change for the sake of supposedly "telling it like it is"
is it saying its all a part of the earth's natural cycle?
there is a correlation between sun spots and historical climate change back to ice ages, a graph showed it and everything, thatcher wanted nuclear power, the fall of comunism left hippies needing something to latch onto etc.
that we're damaging the ozone layer
after cfc's were gone
I liked the bit about the hippies.. now they're saying: green movement = anti-capitalist movement
global warming is an anti capitalist conspiracy?
for people who prefer pseudo proof rather than the chilling reality of science,
for people who prefer the fantasy of conspiracies to watching the ice melting and feel the seas getting warmer
for people who would much rather find someone to blame
rise and shine
whether we're fucked or not, it's anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist. and if we play it right, decentralist and community spirited.
Double edged sword - everyone hates hippies.
are good things.
why are they good things?
was it worth me trawling through that to find this? maybe not
still, re: capitalism etc, obviously extremely debatable and at the end of the day down to personal ideologies
Apparently, there was a mini ice age in the 14th cetury.. and a period of very very hot weather in the middle ages.
They make a lot of sense.
but i missed it.
I don't know what to beleive
providing two different sets of facts, its hard to know who to believe, this programme does make a very good case though.
I'm not watching it, but I read about it earlier this week. My thought:
Whether or not we are contributing to the changing of the planet's climate is endlessly debateable. What is fact however, and what many of the people screaming about climate change fail to realise, is that the earth is supseptible to severe changes of climate regardless of what's living on it.
We can hit very target we like and the Earth could wake up tomorrow and say "shit, it's a bit hot, better freeze northern Europe again!"
It's not so long ago you could have an ice-skating party on the Thames, remember.
is basically an excuse for you to not do anything.
What would I be doing anyway? Cutting down on my carbon emisions by rocking out not quite so hard on Friday nights?
Step off, bitch.
the "loose change" of climate change
I remember captain planet and the smogies cartoons when I was a child, propaganda placed there to brainwash a generation keep developing countries down etc.
Humans really need a kick up the arse. A good bit of fear is what we need. Stop people being such consumerist arseholes, whether its their fault or not.
And yeah, the earth will recover from it. We're only here for about a second in the earths life.
glossing over serious issues, which are very complicated. i'm sure most of the people who were talking heads on the program would be appalled at the conclusions the producers drew from their expert opinions.
for instance - the bit where they showed the CO2 and solar activity plots alongside each other. sure, the solar fluctuations do have an effect on the earth's temperauter, that makes sense. NO-ONE IS DENYING THAT. what people are saying is that what is MORE OF A PROBLEM is the human-induced warming, WHICH ALSO HAS AN EFFECT, and about which we can actually do something.
sorry if i seem angry - but i am.
the program did raise interesting issues, but then steadfastly refused to address them intelligently, instead presenting everything as a diametrically opposed answer to the current widely held theories, which although they may not be perfect, are certainly onto something!
if you ask me
there is another angle to all this which makes it even more complex
did this documentary make any mention of the pan-evaporation readings of the last few years?
was pan-evaporation discussed?
the main points were that the whole global warming movement is based on increasing levels of carbon dioxide leads to temperatures rising when in fact its the other way round, rising temperatures actually cause the increased levels of Co2. Also basically the sun is responsible for glabal warming and not us.
and there is evidence in the martian icecaps that we are experience a solar system wide warming period HOWEVER here on earth we are piling our own human factors on top and exaggerating the effect
I mention pan evaporation because recently it has been discovered that the increase of pollution in the atmosphere is actually providing a cooling effect on ground temperature ie the levels of water evaporating from pans in almost all parts of the globe is actually decreasing and not increasing as one would expect
in other words our global pollution is actually MASKING the true effect of the level of global warming our activities are adding to the solar fluctuations
all of this is very bad for humans
ironically enough (perhaps) this effect was only noticed during the days after 9/11 when all flights in the US were grounded and suddenly the pan-evaporation levels in the US began to match the computer models for atmospheric temperatures as the particles from air traffic dissipated over the skies of the USA
i think YOU got the wrong end of the stick
'exposing the truth' MY ASS
i know it wasn't denying global warming per se, but it was denying the human cause: which is FUCKING BULLSHIT
ok... calm down. i'm glad such a program exists; showing the alternative view. especially as it shows how stupid that view is!
i like it.
if it was saying 'keep driving', i hate it. There can be nothing good come from putting car exhaust into the atmosphere.
polluting the atmosphere might be the only way to save ourselves
or we could hope for (or induce) some serious volcanism
but I definitely want to induce some serious volcanism. I also now want to start a 60's style hard rock/heavy metal/blues band called Some Serious Volcanism.
Otherwise though, I'm bored of climate change. Scientists seem to think either it was "our" CO2 wot dunnit, or it wasn't but either way most of them seem to suggest that without drastic and (at this stage, particularly when looking at places like china and india) tremendously implausible changes *something* not entirely pleasant is going to happen and it might be too late even if we all stopped burning anything and killed all the cows.
Wake me up for the apocalypse.
(will be a song title if I ever do start Some Serious Volcanism.)
we're just watching the first few trailers
at the moment
but "the apocalypse is all around you" might well be another Some Serious Volcanism song title. if you can provide me with some chord progressions and maybe a few lyrics I'll be away.
maybe there are some lyrics in there somewhere
but I like the idea that it'll get so hot that our only option will be to induce acid rain. Then we can all live in a bubble like in so many bad movies. The stuff about the possible effects of air traffic is intriguing too...
It didn't explain to me how or why I'd go about inducing some serious volcanism.
they combatted that by interviewing some scientists who had raised questions over global warming and had resigned from the studies but their names were still kept on the reports as being part of the 2500 scientists who backed human caused global warming.
Also it was pointed out to say global warming is a problem they get extra funding, if they say there is no problem they get nothing basically.
that there is some vast conspiracy or "understanding" amongst leading scientists to lie about global warming in order to garner better funding is the biggest, largest pile of horseshit ever.
but that link's quite interesting anyway
"On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming."
If *Craig, this would have been the best thing ever.
That's not to say I think we should all start driving Hummers and throw all our rubbish into landfills but there are some salient points made here.
1. Greenhouses gasses make up 0.54% of the atmosphere. CO2 is a small percentage of that (smaller than water vapour). Volcanos produce more CO2 than all the cars, aeroplanes, ships etc put together. The Ocean makes the most CO2, rotting vegetation makes alot etc etc so man made CO2 emissions are a tiny tiny contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
2. I can buy the fact that research into environmental science attracts big funding which academics compete for. The Environment is a big political football these days. It's the same in other academic disciplines. You can't get funding to undertake Criminological research if your research does not back up the political rhetoric of the day. Hence the disapearance of radical criminology as the government doesn't like dissenters to current policy. Tony Blair has jumped on the Environmental bandwagon so basically research needs to back him up or bye bye government funding. You may or may not believe it but it happens.
3. Linked in with above, Global Warming is big business these days. If it is shown that man's contribution is absolutely minimal at best, lots of people will be out of jobs.
4. Interesting statistics wise this programme was. Particularly the guy who was predicting the weather based on the sun's activity who was making a mint from the bookies by betting against the MET Office's long range forecasts which were wrong.
5. The emergence of Environmental issues as a left wing political tool on an anti-capitalist agenda is an interesting point and one I think that has mileage. It conincides with the failure of Communism on a large scale and Consumption creates 'Pollution' so is an avenue for anti-capitalists to explore.
6. Another interesting point was the use of Environmental reasons to try and suppress developing countries from becoming industrialised. This is by the by as it has been levied at China & India to try and slow down their economic progress (which is being ignored).
But me and my housemate have had this discussion loads.
I just hink that if you look back over time on this planet, the seas have risen, huge land masses have moved and split, islands have disappeared and others have appeared, everything's frozen, everything's melted again...
I'm not completely convinced that global warming is a man-made thing.
I wish I'd watched the programme now. Then I'd have some hard facts to throw at my housemate..
Bigger than say, the oil trade?
And using environmental reasons to keep developing countries down - why bother when you've got the world bank? Plus today the EU have announced climate change measures that allow flexibility in order for the poorer countries (eg. Poland) to catch up economically before they commit to CO2 reducing measures.
I can't believe people are being taken in by this.
is now big business and the reality is it will make little impact on the oil business anyway, regardless of how loud people bang their drums. Industrialised nations rely on oil/fossil fuels too much now to put the oil companies out of business. Eventually oil will run out anyway so alternatives will need to be found, regardless of any perceived Environmental impact.
The World Bank won't have much affect on holding back China and India, who are emerging to challenge the current world order with America at the top of the pile. Plus, holding back say African Nations via the world bank is deemed unethical....but if you can convince the world that African Nations should not industrialise because of Environmental Problems then that's a bit more ethical and cuddly.
Poland needs to catch up with other countries in the EU in order to strengthen the EUs position as a whole in the world market. Not to mention to stop it being a drain on EU resources and actually contribute.
"Global warming is now big business and the reality is it will make little impact on the oil business anyway". What? Did you mean to say, "Global warming is NOT big business and the reality is it will make little impact on the oil business anyway". That seems to be the only way that sentence could make sense. And how is global warming big business? Maybe for research scientists, but I find it hard to see who's making huge profits running global warming-centred businesses.
No-one's suggesting that developing countries shouldn't industrialise, obviously tackling climate change shouldn't inhibit the development of countries - it's just that the disparity in consumption between, say, the average American and the average Indian (one of the most impoverished nations on earth) needs to be corrected.
I do not understand your point about Poland. Of course the EU is trying to compete economically, and obviously it's good for Poland if their economy strengthens. My point was, this is a good example of larger countries allowing poorer countries to develop first and then become green later. The sooner poorer countries can afford to be green the better, surely. And it's best for the planet if the EU is strong as it's the only international organisation taking climate change seriously.
wouldn't change the fact that my great-grandparents were murdered in Auschwitz though...
Essentially my point is this:
climate change and global warming are real - as is global dimming
The earth's environment is changing both locally and globally in many different ways - some natural, some obviously man-made and some a complex looping together of the two
unlike the rest of the solar system, which may or may not be experiencing solar-induced warming, earth is the only habitable planet though large areas of it are uninhabitable or unable to sustain life effectively
The human population of earth is higher than it has ever been and the global average temperature is higher now than at any point in the last 10,000 years
so what we have to consider is whether we are going to bog ourselves down in the debate over who's to blame for climate change, whether we are going to shrug and accept our possible looming extinction (or decimation at least) as part of a long established natural physical cycle or whether we're going to try and accept that climate change is real and thus come up with some difficult and imaginative way to protect ourselves and limit the damage we cause to the environment so that we can limit the damage that is caused to us.
I, and I assume you, have no actual proof of this (unless you are some kind of scientist studying this, in which case I take it back!)
I just find it funny how a bunch of scientists say 'there is global warming' and we all panic and believe them instantly, and then when a bunch of others say 'there isn't global warming', people shoot them down in flames. I don't understand why.
I'm kinda open to both ideas, I'm not completely convinced of either argument yet...
just a handful who argue about the cause of this warming being human driven
fair point. That's what I meant..
if the deniers are wrong we are doomed
1 - so what? ueah its a small percentage, and yeah other things contribute to CO2 levels more than we do, but that doesn't mean we aren't having an effect on those levels!
2 - this is bullshit. they really twisted the words of the talking ehads there. what they said was that you need to say your research will 'look at how global warming might affect....' and basically just say your study has something to do with global warming. then, once you've got the funding to do your research - you can do what the fuck you like, and if you felt like it you could try and prove it doesn't exist. the funding IS NOT DEPENDENT ON YOU SHOWING GLOBAL WARMING TO BE A PROBLEM. it is jsut dependent on you looking into that area, regardless of which 'side' you might be taking
3 - big business my ass. like chuff said, the fossil fuels industry is a lot bigger, so that argument is irrelevant
4 - i actually read an article about this guy before. he has some interesting ideas, and yes - the sun clealr ydoes affect our weather. HOWEVER he isn't 'making a mint'; in fact his company went bust recently, so he isn't exactly onto a million-pound idea there
5 - yeah ok. so anti-capitalists also happen to think polluting and gloabal warming is a bad thing. so what? whats that got to do with anything?
6 - no-one is trying to suppress developing nations, just make sure they develop right. that guy with the lightbulb and fridge was a fucking joke. so he doesn't have enough power for both? SO GET ANOTHER SOLAR PANEL THEN YOU RETARD. that has to be one of the worst arguments against solar energy ive ever heard.
for you and anschul. I thought I was going crazy!
I didn't see this documentary but I've heard all these arguments before
truth is that there isn't a single credible scientist on the planet that is saying any of the following:
the ice caps are getting larger and thicker
glaciers are extending
see levels are falling
the earth's average temperature is falling
But there are plenty who say 'the ice caps are melting but it's not because we drive cars....'
That's the argument, not whether global warming is happening
there are MANY people who rationalise the debate on the causes of global warming into denying that global warming exists and that they have to change anything in their lives or their world view in order to avoid a catastrophe
"so get another soloar panel then you retard" I think the issue was it is 3 x more expensive
they are like poor
that sucks, and its a difficult situation, but that they are poort is not a good reason to dismiss solar energy. if we got our acts together we (the UN?) could subsidise a program for cheaper clean energies in developing countries or something.
1. Yes we have an affect on CO2 levels. I don't dispute that. But the effect we have is extremely insignificant to the overall picture that it is questionable that it actually makes any difference. Plus the stats they used on this programme indicated that CO2 does not cause global warming - it seems to be an effect of global warming in that CO2 trends follow differences in temperature some 800 years behind. The data showed this, and there was little correlation between CO2 levels and temparature on the data presented.
2. If you undertake research that attracts government funding and you produce results that governments don't want to hear, you will get no more funding to research further. That is going to happen. Governments don't like uncertainty, dissenters, people who go against populist thinking. I would argue that because the environment is such a political football now, it is too late for many governments to do any sort of u-turn, and it would harm their credibility to the swathes of voting public who are convinced that CO2 emmissions are dictating climate change.
3. Think about how many people are involved in the business of being 'Green'. Scientists, journalists, operations to recycle and mass produce recycled products, manufacturers and developers of alternative energy, etc. etc. Companies now to all they can to appear to be 'green'. It is a lifestyle choice that businesses cash in on and make/save money from. To say it is not big business now I would argue is blinkered. The oil business too is big business. Both the 'green' business and oil business exist alongside each other. Until they mass produce cars that can run on fuel other than oil based and this is accepted by consumers, and until they can produce all electricity that runs on renewable/non fossil fuel dependant resources then oil will continue to be big business too. It would take a massive rehaul of infrastructure for that to happen costing billions of pounds and that is hardly likely. Doesn't mean to say being green is not big business these days.
4. I was being flippant with my 'making a mint' comment about the weather prediction chap. Why his company went bust neither you or I can speculate correctly. It did show (and you do admit) that the sun does affect weather patterns and from the evidence I saw last night, I would argue that this has a greater affect on the temp of the planet than an insignificant change in levels of CO2.
5. The fact that anti-capitalists have kind of hi-jacked the Environmental movement in part I think demonstrates that the underlying motive may not necessarily be to point out consumption is killing the environment (which looks questionable having seen evidence on this programme) but it is motivated by a desire to oppose capitalist structures and persuade people that Capitalism is bad because it's killing the environment and we are all going to die because of it. The Environment is deemed to affect us all so everyone has a stake in the fact that Capitalism is not good for the environment.
6. I don't really understand your point here. Emerging economies rapidly undertaking industrialisation is a threat that may bring about a new world order where western countries may no longer be at the top of the pile. If other nations become developed then that means more self sufficiency. Countries then need fossil fuels if their infrastructure is based upon classic western industrialisation. Oil and Gas rich developing nations (of which there are plenty) will no longer be able to sell to western countries as they will be consuming fossil fuels themselves. I would say they is great motivation for supressing developing nations and using the environment is one way of ethically doing this.
I would finally say this. Prior to watching this programme I was in the 'We are killing nature' camp, and I was sure that American scientists would be explaining it blah blah just to protect their SUV way of life. But looking at the data presented I thought it made a credible argument and it did convince me. I think the 'we are all doomed' Anschul line is not true. There are periods throughout history where the earth's temparature changes (i.e. skating on the Thames etc.) and the human race has not been wiped out. From the data presented last night it would be reasonable to deduce that the increase in temperature does not correlate with CO2 emmissions. I think that there is a collective 'guilt' that people subscribe to because of our industrialised way of life and because people are told that this is the only or main reason for climate change. It seems that this has become a highly emotive debate where people are unable to accommodate any other explanation than the popular one which is presented. I still think that the less toxic gas that can be pumped into the air can only be the right way forward, and that we should still recycle etc etc. but I think now that global warming is not necessarily affected (or affected to any significant degree) by human activity - that planet would still be warming up/going through temperature change anyway.
it seems like you're saying that yes, it's a problem but not a serious or urgent one
there has NEVER been another time in the entire history of the earth where it has had to support and sustain the lives and livelihoods of 6.6 billion humans - 6.6 billion polluting humans
our 'insignificant' contribution to greenhouse gases and environmental destruction could and arguably has already significantly affected our ability to feed ourselves and has accelerated the extinction of many plants and animals
do you honestly think that humans are immortal and separate from the natural world? The environment that we are creating for ourselves is not the environment we have evolved to deal with and so we are more susceptible than ever to suffer massive losses and enormous conflicts and disruptions in our way of life
the fact is that humans have survived ice ages but look at what happened in France a few summers back - a small increase in heat led to THOUSANDS of deaths - we are much less able to cope with increasing temperature than decreasing temperature simply because of the evolutionary bottlenecks we have passed through
It is warmer now than at any time in the last 10,000 years and if we reach the point where it gets warm enough to release the methane from the siberian tundra and/or the ocean floors it will be an extinction level event - in fact some scientists have posited this effect as having been responsible for mass extinctions in the past (google 'clathrate gun hypothesis')
The concept that we are all doomed is not rubbish - it WILL happen as surely as mass extinctions have happened in the past. It is more a question of when.
If we are so blind to the way in which we are piling up the pressure on ourselves it will happen sooner rather than later.
Of course, the chances of it happening within the next 5, 10, 15 or 50 years are exceedingly remote - but that doesn't mean to say that they don't exist and we shouldn't address them - urgently.
At the very least - given the size and acceleration of the human population on earth - we should constantly be looking for ways to better manage and protect the frankly scarce resources that our existence is built on
your last paragraph there. However I think you are missing the point of what I am saying. I don't dispute that the population is getting bigger and more difficult to sustain(and that sounds more like an advert for eugenics than anything else!). I agree that either other resources need to be secured to power the machine that our existence is built on, or that there should (and will be) a shift for better or worse into another 'phase' of 'evolution' (a la Industrialisation) as fossil fuels will inevitably run out, in order to cope with the changing situation and burgeoning populace. I also agree that rises in temperature compound the inevitable problems faced for the Human Race. I don't necessarily agree that the Human Race will be wiped out though, because none of us can say what will happen for sure, and temperature fluctuations have happened historically and we're still here. Yes extinction happens and yes maybe this could happen to Humans in 2000 years or whatever but I don't think, going on data provided in the film last night, increased CO2 levels will do that, or make any massive difference to that. From what I saw last night, It seems solar activity has far more impact on the climate of this planet than CO2. I think that dissenting views as to climate change which seem to be as valid as popular views are largely surpressed due to politics/business. As I said previously, I don't think we should stop being environmentally friendly and we should do what we can to stop CO2 & pollution (i.e. not all drive Hummers/recycle/not spew out toxic gasses etc) because as you say, we have a resposibility to look after this planet. I'm not some sort of oil baron who eats endangered tigers for lunch and uses toothpicks made from amazon rainforest trees - far from it. BUT, I think the climate situation is misleadingly portrayed and that global warming is a naturally occuring phenomenon that is cyclical and the 'blame' for it cannot be left at Industrilisations door.
but i will say this: do not be so easily swayed by one incredibly biased program. you say the 'data' showed that CO2 is not the cause of warming, but there was no data! they just showed ONE graph which showed that the solar variation correlatated a bit better than the CO2 with the temperature increases.
to be honest i think this program was SO FUCKING IRRESPONSIBLE as it has succeeded in convincing reasonably intelligent people like you and others on here, who may not be experts on the subject, that we really aren't doing anything wrong.
all in all - this program was so full of holes, it was practically just a big hole. it was so full of vague generalisations, skipping over important points, not considering other opinions, making statements which are basicvally just conjecture sound like hard facts, drawing ludicrous conclusions from dodgy data etc etc
just don't think they have all the answers and look into the subject further before you decide what you think.
The program was biased in favour of other explanations of global warming than that of man made pollution but that is because so far as I'm aware, there is little published dissent and debate on a balance scale about this - the media tends to promote the stance that pollution is the ONLY reason for the current rise in temperature and that is now largely accepted as fact.
Other data in the programme such as the drop in temp in the postwar industrial boom when much more CO2 was being pumped into the atmosphere, and the correlation of the rise and fall in levels of CO2 with the rise and fall in temperature (albeit lagging by 800 years), as well as the data you mention all taken together seemed to back up the hypothesis. But then all data produced anywhere to back up any hypothesis should be taken with a pinch of salt - even the data suggesting that man made CO2 emmissions are creating the rise in the earth's temperature. The combinations presented here though I found to be more than conicedental and some severe food for thought.
The fact that there were many different scientists/experts in this field contributing to the programme - many of whom were previously testing theories that CO2 emmissions were causing global warming, then distanced themselves once they concluded that that CO2 was making no real difference - I think gave the programme some credibility. I'm no expert but I will listen to an argument by experts.
On the other side of the coin, it seems like you have made your mind up from what other scientists, media etc has told you that CO2 emmissions are creating global warming (unless you are an Envrionmental Scientist yourself and tested theories etc) perhaps without appreciating the full situation. Maybe you refuse to see another point of view because perhaps for one reason or another you have invested a lot in the Environmental issue - that is mere speculation on my part and of course I mean no offence by that. I would say personally I have always agreed with the view that man is contributing to global warming but I will also entertain views that challenge that and I thought that what was presented last night was fairly credible.
but i am drunk and stoned, so i may not make much sense,
erm - yeah i have made my mind up - thats true. i havent directly sudies the subject, but i have looked into it a lot, and i know that a lot of what they were saying on this program was bullshit.
i don't REFUSE to see another point of view - or i wouldn't have watched this program, with an honestly open mind, ready to accept different theories. but what they had to say was (for the most part) so stupid that i couldnt possibly agree with it!
errr - lie i said im quite drunk now and i cant think straight, but basically my point is this: a lot of what hey presented as fact is simply not true, and even things that re true (like the sun having an effect on gloabl temperautres) was presented badly, in this case as though it was the ONLY cause, when in fact we are having AT LEAST as big an effect, if not even more so.
also : i spoke to my mum about this program earlier, and she watched and siad, like you, that she was quite convinced by it. this GENUINELY WORRIES ME. if the producers of this program are so fucking irresponsible that they manage to con millions of un-knowledgeable viewers into thinking we can't do anyting about gloabl warming, and that it is perfectly natural, then imagine the consequences!!! it'll be a fucking disaster if everyone just stopped caring!
so i'm going to stop writing now, as i probably dont make any sense, but i might say more tomorrow!
BUT wrong about agency. the idea that tony blair even has TIME to say 'make sure you don't fund any radical criminology' is laughable.
these things are massively underpinned by trends though...
how if a scientist is funded by the corporations and big business they are definitely in the oil companies pocket, yet if they are funded by governments pushing global warming policies then they are suddenly impartial.
Also 40 years ago the scientists were predicting another ice age, but they all got that wrong.
yes - do you know WHY scientists were predicting another ice age 40 years ago?
and scientist suggested pumping out co2 to fix the problem were laughed at
were producing an effect that we now know as global dimming
apart from the fact that aerosols disperse within weeks or days whereas CO2, NH4 etc take about 1000% years to disperse in the atmosphere
it's a bit like treating heroin addiction with methadone - but then that seems to be the norm so ...
300 years, isn't it?
but it's definitely longer than weeks
NH4, I remember reading somewhere, takes a millenium to disperse
had been slowly decreasing for 30 odd years?
i am merely posing questions raised by this tv programme, i do believe that we play a part in global warming and should be bringing in precautionary measures.
was very much like Loose Change in that it was being extremely close minded and petty about an issue which has far more interesting and urgent angles which need exploring. I think it is much more important to consider how governments are manipulating global warming for their own ends, and how seriously they are actually taking it.
in that rather than coming to a reasonable conclusion they would rather just choose the polar opposite of whatever was said in An Iconvenient Truth, giving it a "conspiracy" feel which kinda cheapened it
is just a right-wing version of the power of nightmares, right?
i watched about 45 minutes of this last night and there was a bit too much sneering at 'activists' and conspiracy theorising for my liking...
before the fall of communism.
Then I understood the principals of greenhouse gasses, CO2 is not the worst but it is the one we produce most of others are far worse.
I understood that when the earth was new there was not much oxygen, I understood than many micro organisms grew up to take advantage of the large amount of CO2 and converted some of this to oxygen, there was more vulcanic activity in the past, and they belched most of the water vapour and much Co2 into the atmosphere, however the increased CO2 in these time was lapped up by many CO2 tolerant/hungary plants and microbes.....Since humans have been knocking around we have been mostly living in a reduced kind of CO2 atmosphere, however we have not got the same level of microbes and plants to breathe this in.....and we are increasing it very rapidly. we have also been increasing other gasses.
Nowagays there is less volcanic activity, what is not mentioned by the anti humans responsible for global warming brigade is that the past volcanic activity was also acompanied by huge production of water vapour, so the componants of the atmosphere were not directly comparable, it was a coctail, you cannot reason that if a then b using volcanic activity because there is no control.
This is largley irrelevant anyway, because the science is this......recent human activity is responsible for an enourmous increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in a short space of time. An increase in these gasses results in the sun having a greateer warming effect on the earth............I cant see how that can be disputed......yes there may be other factors, yes an increase in temprature may accelerate the unlocking of other co2 stored in the earth.......so I cannot see how their argument works.......f they say 'increased solar activity is creating a warming effect' then surely the human reaction must be ,,,,,so lets not add to that effect......instead these dumb f*** seem to be saying......of well if the suns sdoing it then why cant we as well........by that rational we could say that the sun bombards us with radiation that could cause cancer......OK fine why dont humans also release more radioactivity on the earths surface as well......its al right, because not all the bad effects will come from human activity, some is from the sun as well........dumb f***s
Also in the 60's it was well known that antibiotics should not be overused lest the nasty microbes become immune......people and doctors were told to be responsible.........in the meantime we have had systemic forcing of antibacs into livestock to imporove growth......unbridled unethical commercialism which measures its success in the immediate short term by short term profits does not have humans future at heart, We MUST have safeguards to protect us against it. Thatcher found that most of the country would sell out for a few bucks, because everyone figured, well its going to happen anyway, id be a fool not to pick up my pieces of silver, it wont make any difference if I dont.........I didnt pick up my pieces of silver, and it didnt make any difference,
commercialism/consumerism has the majority in its thrall.......and the majority have the government in democracies.......so
we have consumerist democracies..........the adman/media controllers are the real leader of society now........even china follows consumerism....so we have consumerist communism and consummerist dictatorships as well.
If people attack commercialism/consumerism, they are not just attacking the democracies, they are attacking greed/short termism and anti humanism, attacking the promotion of human weaknesses.
consuumerism/commercialism loves promoting human weaknesses because it turns us into slaves, that serve it, and it wont allow you to escape.
you know at least the worlds religeons all seemed to personify greed and weakness for greed and avarice for itself into a kind of demon......'mammon'
because although ommitted from the four horseman of the apocalypse, Mammon is the one that will weaken humanity enough so that we will be unable to resist the 4 horsemen
i don't know what we would do without your concise summaries of all the major arguments of the thread.
i particularly agree with your point about how even though the sun does have an effect, so do we, and that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything to try and counteract it anyway!
it said that all models on global warming make the assumption co2 has an effect but it is just an assumption, that was the thing that stuck with me, anyone know the truth about that?
the warming is increased, if scientific tests are carried out in a labouritary.......which is how most science is conducted......the programme makers would probably justify their ludicrousness by saying that that is on a smaller scale than planet sized, but by that reckoning nothing could ever be proven, because we cannot reproduce scientific experiments on planet scales with suitable controls. Normal accepted scientific process is to reasonably apply these laboratory experiments to reality.......luckily climate change has been applied to many different computer modelling systems, working, as I do, for a large corporation that makes large climate modelling supercomputers, I am quite convinced that the, although, oversights in parameters, or algorithms can result in vast differences, overall the overwhelming number of models that show definate global warming on a planet scale when greenhouse gasses including co2 and Co2 alone, would normally be enough to be considered proof.
Of course many things may be claimed are just assumptions....I mean one could claim that its just an assumption that the earth is not hollow at the centre.
Seriously this program was made by f***tards
a much clearer and more concise analysis of the program than we are able to muster here.
especially the blog which is linked to, here http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html , which takes apart each main point of the program and shows it to be full of holes.
it's real! that programme was shit.