The Great Global Warming Swindle, update: Gore Challenged to interantional debate [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Great Global Warming Swindle, update: Gore Challenged to interantional debate

zicofirol
03-11-2007, 07:23 AM
Its refreshing to see a documentary that dares to question the scaremonguering done by the media, enviromentalist and politicians in the Global Warming debate, here is this documentary from the UK (It was shown for the first time in the UK this week) that questions the global warming alarmist by just pointing out simple facts that everyone seems to ignore, like the fact that temperature has been rising for some time, that during the massive world industrialization period earth saw a cooling down of temperatures etc.

dont know how long the documentary will last on google, but its certianly worth a look, at least for those who dont eat up anything and everything the media throws at them...

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en)

UPDATE: in pg4 of thread, but ill put it here also

Gore Challenged to international Global Warming debate by Lord Monckton(he appeared in the GGW Swindle documentary) :

PERTH, Scotland, March 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a formal
invitation sent to former Vice-President Al Gore's Tennessee address and
released to the public, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to
challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an
internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation
on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous."

Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years
as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the
substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film,
An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and
errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."

Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head to head on the science,
politics, and religion of global warming in the usually-decorous pages of
the London Sunday Telegraph last November.

Monckton calls on the former Vice President to "step up to the plate
and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare
of the world's poor. If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the
defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever
faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the
issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his
claims against a serious, science-based challenge."
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-19-2007/0004548669&EDATE=

buddyholly
03-11-2007, 03:31 PM
Eventually we will see that man's contribution to global warming is a small, but significant, contribution to the cycle of climate change that is inevitable and controlled by nature. We are only just beginning to understand how the small variations on the sun affect earth so much. We could and should do our best to minimize man's contribution, but actually doing something has become less important than listening to politicians telling us what to do, while they exclude themselves from actually taking any steps to change their lifestyles.

I am more concerned with the much more urgent problem of the death of the oceans. As a diver I have seen in my own lifetime the soon to be complete disappearance of sharks from the oceans. But in the USA shark's fin soup is not on many menus, it is the Asian countries that are fully responsible for this demand for shark's fin at $100 a plate.
But it is just the usual tale - if we can't blame the USA then there is no fun in protesting. So let's just concentrate on global warming and worry about the rising ocean levels instead of falling ocean marine life.

Pfloyd
03-11-2007, 04:09 PM
This is an interesting debate, but I will remain cautious nonetheless. I have my doubt on wether global warming is actually a big hoax, or is being greatly exagerated, but at the same time, I can also see how human impact may be affecting the world enviorment.

A recomended reading on the issue the Global Warming is greatly exagerated would be Michael Crichton's fiction but based-with facts book, State of Fear.

On the other hand, having watched Al Gore's "An Inconvinient Truth" in it's entirety, I am further troubled by sometimes conflicting evidence shown by both sides of the debate.

However and even if Global Warming as a result of Human Activity is exagerated, we shouldn't give up in our pursuit of looking for alternative sources of energy. The reason for this is twofold. One, fossil fuels may well be a limited source of energy that will, quite soon actualy, cease to exist due to our huge consumption. Two, current energy producing products do polute the Earth. Cleaner sources of energy would help us live in a cleaner world.

However, always be a little skeptical of what the media, and even scientists say. Skepticism in everything, even if it is just a little bit of it, is always a good thing.

Anyway, thanks for the documentary, it was quite interesting.

kapranos
03-11-2007, 04:39 PM
I keep an open mind on the issue but most global warming skeptics don't seem very credible to me. At the same time, dissident opinions should be heard.

kapranos
03-11-2007, 04:43 PM
In a report in The Independent, published 4 March 2007, about the imminent broadcast of The Great Global Warming Swindle, Geoffrey Lean pointed out that the director of the documentary, Martin Durkin, had already been discredited in 1997 when it was discovered that his earlier film Against Nature (also broadcast on Channel 4) had been found guilty of selectively editing footage in order to misrepresent the views of several of his interviewees. These interviewees complained to the Independent Television Commission of the UK, which upheld their complaint and which ruled, moreover, that the documentary filmmakers had "misled" participants over the "content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part." [5] [6] Lean went on to compare The Great Global Warming Swindle to Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, remarking that "the clash between the Oscar-winning film and the Channel 4 production is likely to spark new public debate"

RonE
03-11-2007, 11:41 PM
This is an interesting debate, but I will remain cautious nonetheless. I have my doubt on wether global warming is actually a big hoax, or is being greatly exagerated, but at the same time, I can also see how human impact may be affecting the world enviorment.

A recomended reading on the issue the Global Warming is greatly exagerated would be Michael Crichton's fiction but based-with facts book, State of Fear.

On the other hand, having watched Al Gore's "An Inconvinient Truth" in it's entirety, I am further troubled by sometimes conflicting evidence shown by both sides of the debate.

However and even if Global Warming as a result of Human Activity is exagerated, we shouldn't give up in our pursuit of looking for alternative sources of energy. The reason for this is twofold. One, fossil fuels may well be a limited source of energy that will, quite soon actualy, cease to exist due to our huge consumption. Two, current energy producing products do polute the Earth. Cleaner sources of energy would help us live in a cleaner world.

However, always be a little skeptical of what the media, and even scientists say. Skepticism in everything, even if it is just a little bit of it, is always a good thing.

Anyway, thanks for the documentary, it was quite interesting.

For the first time I actually find myself in total agreement with you.

That is exactly how I feel- I remain skeptic of both sides of the story as each side has an agenda of its own behind it, and yet I still feel that even if global warming is highly exaggerated, that does not mean we as a collective society should sit idle and not try to improve technology and find alternate fuel resources.

jole
03-12-2007, 01:18 AM
But it is just the usual tale - if we can't blame the USA then there is no fun in protesting. So let's just concentrate on global warming and worry about the rising ocean levels instead of falling ocean marine life.

Haha, you are so correct.

Zirconek
03-12-2007, 04:15 AM
Its refreshing to see a documentary that dares to question the scaremonguering done by the media, enviromentalist and politicians in the Global Warming debate, here is this documentary from the UK (It was shown for the first time in the UK this week) that questions the global warming alarmist by just pointing out simple facts that everyone seems to ignore, like the fact that temperature has been rising for some time, that during the massive world industrialization period earth saw a cooling down of temperatures etc.

dont know how long the documentary will last on google, but its certianly worth a look, at least for those who dont eat up anything and everything the media throws at them...

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en)
:rolleyes:
Manicheism sucks. Shame on you :(
You are self-proclaimed critical, but you are not. Go read some books about science, episthemology, climate, and then you come here to discuss. Don't come with documentaries, go to a library.
Don't pose as critical, you're too pedantic.
I'm a geographer and geologist, I know what I'm saying.

mtw
03-12-2007, 03:49 PM
The global warming is no swindle. This is very sad and bitter truth. And who has the best results in emission of carbon dioxide? Of course: USA and China. They are world leaders in this.

Pfloyd
03-12-2007, 03:52 PM
Did any of you watch this documentary, or have tried looking at Crichtion's book?

Don't be dissmisive about things that challenge your everday beliefs. You may learn something.

buddyholly
03-12-2007, 03:59 PM
Did any of you watch this documentary, or have tried looking at Crichtion's book?



It is not sensible to cite fiction that was written with megabucks in mind as a source of information on global warming.

buddyholly
03-12-2007, 04:04 PM
:rolleyes:
I'm a geographer and geologist, I know what I'm saying.

Then you should know all about natural global warming and cooling. The big unanswered question is how much is natural and how much is man-made this time around.
If you know what you are saying, maybe you can enlighten us on that.

BTW, I was not previously aware that being a geologist entitled one to speak ex cathedra.

Oh, hot avatar, best curves I've seen here.

uglyamerican
03-12-2007, 04:05 PM
It is not sensible to cite fiction that was written with megabucks in mind as a source of information on global warming.

and what it the motivation of global warming folks who tell you to buy a new car and all new appliances?

In any event, the Chinese and Indians would rather have a reasonable standard of living than listen to neo-Imperialists, so it doesn't make much difference what kind of washing machine I use.

mtw
03-12-2007, 04:23 PM
Then you should know all about natural global warming and cooling. The big unanswered question is how much is natural and how much is man-made this time around.
If you know what you are saying, maybe you can enlighten us on that.

BTW, I was not previously aware that being a geologist entitled one to speak ex cathedra.

Oh, hot avatar, best curves I've seen here.

This warming is not natural. This warming is caused by human activity. Emission of carbon dioxide and other gases too. The hudgest producers are: USA in the first place and China in second one.

kapranos
03-12-2007, 04:33 PM
This warming is not natural. This warming is caused by human activity. Emission of carbon dioxide and other gases too. The hudgest producers are: USA in the first place and China in second one.

You sound like a brainwashed robot.

I don't think the USA should ruin their economy for a couple of Indonesian Islands and 3 or 4 people dying of malaria. They will have to switch to alternative form of energy eventually, but at their own rythm.

uglyamerican
03-12-2007, 04:41 PM
You sound like a brainwashed robot.

I don't think the USA should ruin their economy for a couple of Indonesian Islands and 3 or 4 people dying of malaria. They will have to switch to alternative form of energy eventually, but at their own rythm.

Ironic you mention malaria. You may recall the unjustified paranoia regarding the use of DDT and its effect on birds' shell thickness. It turned out not to be affecting the birds, but some activist were able to restrict its use--resulting in many unneccessary malaria deaths. (DDT kills mosquitos)

MisterQ
03-12-2007, 04:42 PM
I haven't watched the documentary yet. I hope you're right, that it's just a swindle.

It's easy to consider the "global warming folks" as politically or economically motivated today -- and indeed, some of them are --- but it's not like this is a new concept. It has simply been thrust into the news and political discourse more prominently than before, perhaps in part become of some unusual weather in recent years. I remember hearing about these warming predictions as a young child in the early 80s.

For years, the most obvious political agenda was held not by the global warming theorists (a minority at first), but by those who, in protection of the interests of gas, automobile and energy producers, ridiculed and repressed the suggestion that future warming was possible. It's a shame that so few people could look beyond their own interests back when there was still time to make a difference.

uglyamerican
03-12-2007, 04:45 PM
I remember hearing about these warming predictions as a young child in the early 80s.


From the early 90's I recall the cause dejure was global overpopulation.

MisterQ
03-12-2007, 04:56 PM
From the early 90's I recall the cause dejure was global overpopulation.

It's true, I even did a term paper on that in the early 90's. ;)

Zirconek
03-12-2007, 05:02 PM
Then you should know all about natural global warming and cooling. The big unanswered question is how much is natural and how much is man-made this time around.
If you know what you are saying, maybe you can enlighten us on that.

BTW, I was not previously aware that being a geologist entitled one to speak ex cathedra.

Oh, hot avatar, best curves I've seen here.

It's not easy to measure how much is natural and how much is man-made. We have to deal with such a spectrum of data, with different methods and scale. So, we have some direct data, like the temperature records of the last century - and we don't have it systematized (frequency, space). Historical records can be used as well. We have non-direct data, like paleontology (specially palinology and corals, good temperature index), sedimentology (the structures of the deposits, mineralogy, geochemistry, micromorphometry of the grains) and isotopes (C and O, in glaciars, caves...). And I'm not even talking about meteorology and climatology studies, like atmosphere content and behaviour, climatological analysis, etc. It's not an easy work to deal with so many different data and make global models. But competent researchers worked together and they say the global warming is explicit.
The last decades data can oscilate, but can show a trend. If the time scale is enough to say something, I don't know.
When I said manicheism sucks, I meant we have both sides, and yes, we have to pick one side, but no unconditional. Press made a big deal, over-reacted, but not because of it you have to disdain the global warming.
And about the political aspects of the UN report, you should read Kant and another philosophers to know it's inevitable. Bush and oil companies paid scientists to do clearly biased researches to go against the global warming fact.

Pfloyd
03-12-2007, 06:13 PM
It is not sensible to cite fiction that was written with megabucks in mind as a source of information on global warming.

I understand, which is why I said that it is a fiction book with facts, and a full biliography is given at the end of the book, along with a list of 20 or so books that deal with the issue of global warming being a hoax.

Plus, this documentary was very well made, and had good evidence.

Mind you, I am not choosing a side here, I do think that human beings are affecting the globe, in fact, they are.

All im saying is that there is good information on both sides of the argument, although I tend to slightly lean against those that rage extremly about global warming.

The way I see it is that, we are just tiny specs on a big chunk of rock. Although we do affect this planet, the planet controls us more than we do it.

zicofirol
03-12-2007, 06:17 PM
:rolleyes:
Manicheism sucks. Shame on you :(
You are self-proclaimed critical, but you are not. Go read some books about science, episthemology, climate, and then you come here to discuss. Don't come with documentaries, go to a library.
Don't pose as critical, you're too pedantic.
I'm a geographer and geologist, I know what I'm saying.

Keynes was a world renowned economist and he was very wrong, that you are a geographer and geologist does nothing to further your point...

Global Warming has turned into a political agenda rather than an enviromental concern, and it does seem to me that more and more scientist are coming out now and saying that all the doomsday scenarios are overrated, and that man is probably not causing this...

Ironic you mention malaria. You may recall the unjustified paranoia regarding the use of DDT and its effect on birds' shell thickness. It turned out not to be affecting the birds, but some activist were able to restrict its use--resulting in many unneccessary malaria deaths. (DDT kills mosquitos)
The DDT scare was brought to you by the same folks that are now bringing the Global Warming scare, enviroterrorist, who literally and admitelly hate human beings...
SOme crazy enviromentalist cooked up a story that DDT caused cancer and ruined a certain's bird shell, those claims where backed by 0 evidence, yet the media and public bought it up, it was taken to court to be banned and a judge struck down the ban saying their was no evidence that DDT caused cancer, well that didnt deter enviromentalist who continued to create hysteria about it and where able to get government to ban it.

Since then studies where people injested DDT for days str8 where made and not one single case of cancer ever occured.

Malaria was almost wiped out with the use of DDT, after it was ban in the US and worlwide the number of people dying of malaria got into the millions, and off course the poorest countries are affected, but because DDT is a banned they cannot use it. Well finally after 30 years of people dying their is a world movement by doctors and scientist to unban the use of DDT, and finally teh fraudulent US health departement admitted that in fact DDT does not cause cancer...

Now how can something with 0 scientific evidence be passed? because of the hysteria created by the media and politicians, much like is happening with Global Warming, when looking at these things we have to see the motivation behind these claims, and considering enviroterrorist are behind these claims questioning seems like the wise thing to do...

Pfloyd
03-12-2007, 06:18 PM
In the 70's the craze was all about global freezing. Nothing happened. Now they are talking about Global warming and mentioning that chunks of Ice are breaking off in Antartica and Greenland.

What they don't tell you that the Antartic as a whole is getting colder and solidifying more, particularly in the big central area. They don't tell you that though.

Also, the world has expirienced much hotter temperatures 1000's of years ago, and Greenland didn't melt.

I am no expert bit I do plan to further study this subject in the future. Thus, right now, I cannot give you too much more information other that.

Seriosly, if you have a minimal interest in the subject, read Crichton's book and more importantly, watch the documentary.

zicofirol
03-12-2007, 06:35 PM
In the 70's the craze was all about global freezing. Nothing happened. Now they are talking about Global warming and mentioning that chunks of Ice are breaking off in Antartica and Greenland.

What they don't tell you that the Antartic as a whole is getting colder and solidifying more, particularly in the big central area. They don't tell you that though.

Also, the world has expirienced much hotter temperatures 1000's of years ago, and Greenland didn't melt.

I am no expert bit I do plan to further study this subject in the future. Thus, right now, I cannot give you too much more information other that.

Seriosly, if you have a minimal interest in the subject, read Crichton's book and more importantly, watch the documentary.

yes its funny how they said a scientist that at the time of the global freeze scare had a theory that carbon dioxide might help the world warm is ridculed, it is also shown when the carbon dioxide debate came to existence, when government started giving money for scientist to prove that point, not to see if it was true or false but just to acknowledge it...

I am sure the documentary will be questioned and what not, but like lafuria said, the documentary provides some important points against the scaremonguers... and if people want to cite the inconvinient truth as a tell all, then this documentary should at least be given consideration...

mtw
03-12-2007, 06:56 PM
You sound like a brainwashed robot.

I don't think the USA should ruin their economy for a couple of Indonesian Islands and 3 or 4 people dying of malaria. They will have to switch to alternative form of energy eventually, but at their own rythm.

What rubbish do you talk? Firstly you must read about consequences of global warming for the world ( for Poland and the rest of Europe too, and Malaria has no connections with global warning) and then you can write something and say something about this. Read about consequences of iceberg's melting. It can cause immersion of land areas. Creation of new desert areas. It'll concern the areas, which are now densely populated including USA and Europe not only Indonesia. And buzz these Muslims off, because people can think, that only blockheads live in Poland. Do not discredit my state.

kapranos
03-12-2007, 07:06 PM
What rubbish do you talk? Firstly you must read about consequences of global warming for the world ( for Poland and the rest of Europe too, and Malaria has no connections with global warning) and than you can write something and say something about this. Read about consequences of iceberg's melting. It can cause immersion of land areas. Creation of new desert areas. It'll concern the areas, which are now densely populated including USA and Europe not only Indonesia.

Global warming = more malaria, it should be obvious why.

Yes, climate change, and humans will adapt. Population movement will create jobs, like war.

mtw
03-12-2007, 07:21 PM
Global warming = more malaria, it should be obvious why.

Yes, climate change, and humans will adapt. Population movement will create jobs, like war.

Sorry, but humans will not adapt. Many of people will die. The only, easy way is to prevent ( to restrict emission of carbon dioxide ). And especially it concerns such states, as USA and China. And additionally people should stop destroying natural ecosystems ( for instance rain forrest ) in macroscale. And in our Polish microscale for instance stop with stupid idea of building highway in Rospuda Valley. This idea is really sick and of course not good for Poland. But what can small potatoes and their friends think out?

Socket
03-12-2007, 07:43 PM
I won't pretend to know much about the science of climate change, but it is very, very scary when this happens:


Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007



Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

advertisementOne of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."



Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

zicofirol
03-12-2007, 07:52 PM
I won't pretend to know much about the science of climate change, but it is very, very scary when this happens:

yes, global warming has become a religion, this is like scientist persecuted for saying the world was round, lol...

I have heard some people want to revoke scientist license to all who do not agree with global warming, that is just insane, especially since the science field is supposable the one open to all ideas and research...

If youre a scientist who doubts global warming you can be sure you will lose or not get government funding, yet another reason why government should not be involved in funding science research....

The documentary from about minute 38 and on goes into detail about funding, the false data models, the pressure to quiet skeptics etc.

Zirconek
03-12-2007, 07:53 PM
Keynes was a world renowned economist and he was very wrong, that you are a geographer and geologist does nothing to further your point...

Global Warming has turned into a political agenda rather than an enviromental concern, and it does seem to me that more and more scientist are coming out now and saying that all the doomsday scenarios are overrated, and that man is probably not causing this...




Keynes being a world reowned economist and being very wrong (this last is debatable) does nothing to further your point. Both graduations gave me knowledge to talk about this issue. Sorry for being too rude. :o

It's hard to split the politics of the science, I've mentioned Kant before here. We have both influence in the climate changes, and it's something hard to estimate the participation, but it's pretty clear that we are disturbing the climate, in many ways. Media overrate to sell, to make it more interesting, but it doesn't mean it's not serious.

Pfloyd
03-12-2007, 07:54 PM
Likewise, just because a person agrees with intelligent design dosent mean that other arguments they make are false.

kapranos
03-12-2007, 07:56 PM
I must say though, one of the guy in the documentary is also a strong supporter of intelligent design. Honestly just because someone has a degree and is brilliant in a particular field doesn't mean his opinions is worth something.

buddyholly
03-12-2007, 11:13 PM
This warming is not natural. This warming is caused by human activity. Emission of carbon dioxide and other gases too. The hudgest producers are: USA in the first place and China in second one.

The great likelihood that it is produced be nature and by man seems to have escaped you. However, nobody has yet been able to pin percentages on each. Until this information is available it will continue to be easier to blame it all on man, because the warming due to factors beyond our control is too scary to think about.

buddyholly
03-12-2007, 11:27 PM
Likewise, just because a person agrees with intelligent design dosent mean that other arguments they make are false.
Blindly agreeing with something is not the same as making an argument.
For the life of me, I can not see how anyone could believe in intelligent design, other than by ignoring science.

kapranos
03-12-2007, 11:40 PM
Likewise, just because a person agrees with intelligent design dosent mean that other arguments they make are false.

If a historian says WW2 never happened, I'm not going to care about any other thing he'll say, whatever it is.

I've google most scientists in that documentary and I'm not impressed. Like I said, I'm open to hear both side of the debate, but at the moment to me global warming skeptics lack scientists with credibility.

zicofirol
03-13-2007, 12:06 AM
If a historian says WW2 never happened, I'm not going to care about any other thing he'll say, whatever it is.

I've google most scientists in that documentary and I'm not impressed. Like I said, I'm open to hear both side of the debate, but at the moment to me global warming skeptics lack scientists with credibility.

there are thousands of scientist including many Nobel laurates that are global warming skeptics, even if you think Al gore has more credentials than the scientist in teh documentary, if what they say is fact (and from what I know, they where right on alot of the stuff) then their credentials dont matter...

Socket
03-13-2007, 01:11 AM
An historian who denies past history is really quite different from a climatologist who has a minority view on predicting future weather patterns based on historical data. Scientists can reasonably disagree on what past patterns mean for the future -- that's different from denying what happened in the past during World War II, for example. This is why it's so stupid and cheap to compare global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers.

kapranos
03-13-2007, 01:18 AM
This is why it's so stupid and cheap to compare global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers.

You're right; who the hell did that?

Peoples
03-13-2007, 01:26 AM
Global warming is a problem but most likely is naturally caused, so nothing can be done about it.

Socket
03-13-2007, 01:58 AM
You're right; who the hell did that?

It's in the article I posted. Also, I've read that elsewhere.

oz_boz
03-13-2007, 11:19 AM
Its refreshing to see a documentary that dares to question the scaremonguering done by the media, enviromentalist and politicians in the Global Warming debate, here is this documentary from the UK (It was shown for the first time in the UK this week) that questions the global warming alarmist by just pointing out simple facts that everyone seems to ignore, like the fact that temperature has been rising for some time, that during the massive world industrialization period earth saw a cooling down of temperatures etc.

dont know how long the documentary will last on google, but its certianly worth a look, at least for those who dont eat up anything and everything the media throws at them...

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en)

So this documentary wasn't presented in "the media"? Because otherwise you would seem very stupid if you "eat it up". :lol:

aulus
03-13-2007, 01:01 PM
even if the global warming is natural, it is still a huge problem. it would still harm billions of ppl. large amounts of land would be lost, many millions of ppl would have to move, coastal cities would be slowly inundated or would end up like new orleans at risk of submersion. climatic zones would shift. many more species would become extinct. all those are great problems regardless of what caused them.

there isn't really any reason not to switch to alternative energy. it must happen eventually anyway. it would only create a new economic sector. it is BS that it would ruin the economy.

Socket
03-13-2007, 01:58 PM
This is a fairly long article from today's New York Times. I'll quote it since you have to register on the NYT's site. I think it's a good discussion of how politics is interfering with the science of climatology.

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype

Al Gore’s film on global warming depicted a bleak future.

By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 13, 2007

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.

“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”

“An Inconvenient Truth,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.

Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”

He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.

“He has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen, the group’s president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.”

Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, “Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.”

Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.

“We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is,” Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Gore. “On the other hand,” Dr. Hansen said, “he has the bottom line right: most storms, at least those driven by the latent heat of vaporization, will tend to be stronger, or have the potential to be stronger, in a warmer climate.”

In his e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. “Of course,” he said, “there will always be questions around the edges of the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions.”

He said “not every single adviser” agreed with him on every point, “but we do agree on the fundamentals” — that warming is real and caused by humans.

Mr. Gore added that he perceived no general backlash among scientists against his work. “I have received a great deal of positive feedback,” he said. “I have also received comments about items that should be changed, and I have updated the book and slideshow to reflect these comments.” He gave no specifics on which points he had revised.

He said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global warming, “I think that I’m finally getting a little better at it.”

While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.

“On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”

buddyholly
03-13-2007, 02:17 PM
The Medieval Warm Period continues to be a thorn in the flesh of Gore. However, we should be grateful to him for keeping the debate going. It will only get attention from governments by overstating the case.

Zirconek
03-13-2007, 04:31 PM
Blindly agreeing with something is not the same as making an argument.
For the life of me, I can not see how anyone could believe in intelligent design, other than by ignoring science.

you are so right :yeah:

zicofirol
03-13-2007, 04:42 PM
So this documentary wasn't presented in "the media"? Because otherwise you would seem very stupid if you "eat it up". :lol:

that is not what I said, this documentary presents very valid points that have been mentioned before, now if anyone takes this as the end all discussion documentary then they are "eating it up" but I certainly am not doing that, and this is the first skeptical view of Global Warming in tv so its the first time the media ever tries to look at the other side of the issue...

even if the global warming is natural, it is still a huge problem. it would still harm billions of ppl. large amounts of land would be lost, many millions of ppl would have to move, coastal cities would be slowly inundated or would end up like new orleans at risk of submersion. climatic zones would shift. many more species would become extinct. all those are great problems regardless of what caused them.

there isn't really any reason not to switch to alternative energy. it must happen eventually anyway. it would only create a new economic sector. it is BS that it would ruin the economy.
and here is the first problem, all those doomsday scenarios have been off already, we will not see new york and miami dissapear from the map, for years earth has gone through sever climate changes, rising and falling water temp etc. and it has not been the end of civilization as you describe it.

Remember many of those "predictions" that you see are sensationalized and false, this is the first problem of the debate, when the media, enviroterrorist and politicians try to sell this as if it where the end of civilization, that is simply not the case, even if Global warming scaremongers where right, all those things you mentioned would not happen, and humans woudl adjust...

mtw
03-13-2007, 04:45 PM
that is not what I said, this documentary presents very valid points that have been mentioned before, now if anyone takes this as the end all discussion documentary then they are "eating it up" but I certainly am not doing that, and this is the first skeptical view of Global Warming in tv so its the first time the media ever tries to look at the other side of the issue...


and here is the first problem, all those doomsday scenarios have been off already, we will not see new york and miami dissapear from the map, for years earth has gone through sever climate changes, rising and falling water temp etc. and it has not been the end of civilization as you describe it.

Remember many of those "predictions" that you see are sensationalized and false, this is the first problem of the debate, when the media, enviroterrorist and politicians try to sell this as if it where the end of civilization, that is simply not the case, even if Global warming scaremongers where right, all those things you mentioned would not happen, and humans woudl adjust...

No, of course not, citizens of US will form gills and adapt.

Sofonda Cox
03-13-2007, 06:53 PM
No, of course not, citizens of US will form gills and adapt.

most of them have more flubber than a sperm whale so there's no problem there...

uglyamerican
03-14-2007, 02:02 AM
The global warming is no swindle. This is very sad and bitter truth. And who has the best results in emission of carbon dioxide? Of course: USA and China. They are world leaders in this.

I believe volcanos are the world leaders in this category.

uglyamerican
03-14-2007, 02:06 AM
The definition of irony:

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/16890578.htm

Explorer Tom Sjogren has climbed Mount Everest and led expeditions to the North and South poles. When asked which is toughest, he doesn't hesitate. "The North Pole is by far the hardest one," he said.
On Monday, the Arctic thwarted another expedition. Minnesota explorer Ann Bancroft and her Norwegian colleague, Liv Arnesen, announced they were suspending their 2007 trek to the North Pole after just seven days.
They blamed damaged equipment, frostbite on three of Arnesen's toes and temperatures that hit 103 below zero at night.
Sjogren and two other experienced Arctic explorers interviewed separately said a combination of global warming, time pressure and cost considerations also probably influenced the decision to abandon the expedition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

These geniouses are claiming that global warming was responsible for the extremely cold temperatures.

MisterQ
03-14-2007, 04:26 AM
The definition of irony:

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/16890578.htm

Explorer Tom Sjogren has climbed Mount Everest and led expeditions to the North and South poles. When asked which is toughest, he doesn't hesitate. "The North Pole is by far the hardest one," he said.
On Monday, the Arctic thwarted another expedition. Minnesota explorer Ann Bancroft and her Norwegian colleague, Liv Arnesen, announced they were suspending their 2007 trek to the North Pole after just seven days.
They blamed damaged equipment, frostbite on three of Arnesen's toes and temperatures that hit 103 below zero at night.
Sjogren and two other experienced Arctic explorers interviewed separately said a combination of global warming, time pressure and cost considerations also probably influenced the decision to abandon the expedition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

These geniouses are claiming that global warming was responsible for the extremely cold temperatures.

The Arctic ice pack is unstable in places in recent years because of warmer seas -- I wonder if they encountered any problems with that.

zicofirol
03-14-2007, 05:21 AM
The definition of irony:

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/16890578.htm

Explorer Tom Sjogren has climbed Mount Everest and led expeditions to the North and South poles. When asked which is toughest, he doesn't hesitate. "The North Pole is by far the hardest one," he said.
On Monday, the Arctic thwarted another expedition. Minnesota explorer Ann Bancroft and her Norwegian colleague, Liv Arnesen, announced they were suspending their 2007 trek to the North Pole after just seven days.
They blamed damaged equipment, frostbite on three of Arnesen's toes and temperatures that hit 103 below zero at night.
Sjogren and two other experienced Arctic explorers interviewed separately said a combination of global warming, time pressure and cost considerations also probably influenced the decision to abandon the expedition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

These geniouses are claiming that global warming was responsible for the extremely cold temperatures.
lol, GLobal Warming has become the scapegoate for everything, when katrina hit, climatologist came out and said Hurrican had their own patterns and where nto affected by global warming yet global warming got blamed for Katrina, but in 06 no hurricane or 1 hit America dn it was very minor, so did Global Warming cause the low hurricane turnout also or just katrina :rolleyes:

here is a website called number watch with a list of news clippings with everything blamed on global warming, the list must be growing daily lol... http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

aulus
03-14-2007, 09:41 AM
and here is the first problem, all those doomsday scenarios have been off already, we will not see new york and miami dissapear from the map, for years earth has gone through sever climate changes, rising and falling water temp etc. and it has not been the end of civilization as you describe it.

Remember many of those "predictions" that you see are sensationalized and false, this is the first problem of the debate, when the media, enviroterrorist and politicians try to sell this as if it where the end of civilization, that is simply not the case, even if Global warming scaremongers where right, all those things you mentioned would not happen, and humans woudl adjust...

1st, i said nothing about end of civilization. you sensationalize as much as anyone.
2nd, never has humanity depended so much on fixed locations. of course rising seas weren't a threat to civilization, when ppl could just pack up and move everything in a week. and never have so many ppl lived in those areas at risk.

adjustment of present behavior is gigantically easier than adjustment to higher temperatures, higher sea levels and shifting climatic zones and weather patterns. and we will adjust anyway. doing it now is just faster.

kapranos
03-14-2007, 03:01 PM
Say good-bye to the Miami tournament!

Good riddance! I prefer Indian Wells.

MisterQ
03-14-2007, 03:03 PM
Free Tibet! (so we have somewhere to play tennis) :tennis:

Jim Jones
03-14-2007, 04:10 PM
Free Tibet! (so we have somewhere to play tennis) :tennis:

yeah up in the mountains. Tennis players will have to play with oxygen masks and ball will travel lightning fast in the thin air. Karlovic will repeatingly win the Tibet Open in these conditions.

Pfloyd
03-14-2007, 05:40 PM
Wow, MTF never ceases to amaze me. Global warming a swindle? :haha:

It's hilarious how solid, scientific evidence has been building - no, piling up - for decades now, and people are actually more opposed to the idea of global warming than ever.

So what if Gore stupidly exaggerates in his movie? Attack him all you want, but just because one politician made a movie that isn't 100% accurate doesn't mean that the message he's trying to convey - a message that scientists have been studying for decades - isn't true.

For example, take Gore's exaggeration that instead of a sea level rise of 23 inches (about 60 cm), the sea level will rise 20 feet. So he was dead wrong and shouldn't have misrepresented the facts. But that still doesn't change the fact that a sea level rise of 60 cm would still dramatically alter the shape of low-lying coastal areas, river mouths, and deltas, all of which are the types of environments where human settlements are concentrated. This is how 100 cm of sea level rise could alter the Floridian peninsula:

http://whyfiles.org/211warm_arctic/images/flordia_sea_rise.jpg

That's not 20 feet, that's 100 cm. Say good-bye to the Miami tournament! And it wouldn't be just Florida; in the US alone the coastline of all the Gulf states and the states bordering the Atlantic would be dramatically changed even with just a 100 cm sea level rise.

As a marine bio major I've had taken classes taught by biologists, ecologists, geologists, oceanographers, and climatologists, and the telling fact is that while they all tend to disagree here and there on minor points surrounding various controversial issues (such as genetically modified organisms, the value of manmade pesticides, etc.), the ONLY thing that they all consistently agree on is that global warming is real, and that human activity is a major cause of the current warming trend.

And so what if some scientists disagree with Gore - what does that prove? I know scientists who agree, so does that automatically make me right - just because I know people? It's nice that a small minority of scientists don't agree with the general scientific consensus that global warming is real and influenced by human activity, but if such scientists are being mentioned and namedropped by the naysayers to strengthen their arguments, one wonders how fair it is for them to disregard the opinions of the MAJORITY of the scientific community and the decades of work done on this issue.

And just as Gore misrepresented some things, it's not as if scientists being quoted for a short news article don't ever misrepresent facts. The reference to the Medieval Warm Period in the article posted above is hilarious because even though the scientist being quoted says that there have been warming trends in the past as large in scale as the one we are currently in, it says NOTHING about the RATE. For instance, it says nothing about the fact that the amount of temperature deviation from the prevailing trend during the Medieval Warm Period is TEN TIMES SMALLER than the amount of temperature deviation we're currently experiencing .Not only that, but the temperature deviation during the Medieval Warm Period was spaced out over four centuries while the current deviation has happened over just one - meaning that the rate of current warming is far MORE than ten times greater than during the Medieval Warm Period.

Tellingly, the scientist in the article fails to address the point that just because there have been warming events in the past before the large-scale burning of fossil fuels by humans, that does in no way mean that the current warming trend can't be man-made.

And it's hilarious how people cite unusually cold weather in a certain region as evidence that global warming doesn't exist. Right, because global warming and the ways in which weather systems on an entire planet operate are SO simplistic that it's impossible for there to be really cold weather in specific regions and at specific times during periods of overall warming.</sarcasm> :rolleyes: Same with the argument that those who believe in global warming are politically motivated. Right, because no amount of political capital or cash has EVER been spent to promote the idea that global warming is a hoax or at least something not to worry about. :haha:

And for whoever it was that was worried about the world's ocean life, they might want to consider that overall warming of just a couples of degrees Celsius will seriously affect ocean life. There are plenty of species in the world's oceans that can only exist within a narrow temperature range, and warming rates that are too high for populations to slowly adapt and/or move to more suitable habitats are definitely a recipe for ecological collapse. Already coral reef failures influenced by warming have been documented.

And if a person is truly worried about the world's oceans, I might point out that the burning of fossil fuels, which is linked to global warming, has without a shadow of a doubt greatly increased the CO2 content of the world's oceans, which are a huge sponge that soaks up this manmade CO2. This has caused a steady decrease in the oceans' pH (in other words, the oceans are acidifying as CO2 and H2O interact), and if this continues unchecked it could have serious negative consequences for the pH-buffering system of the oceans and for the ocean life that depends on calcium carbonate (calcium carbonate dissolves when conditions are acidic enough), such as coccolithophores, corals, crustaceans, echinoderms, foraminifera, and mollusks. Ocean acidification isn't even a controversial issue - even global warming naysayers admit that it's happening and that it's caused by human activity.

Anyway, that's enough for me in this thread. I doubt I'll change anyone's mind with what I've presented, and talking about this fairly regularly in my personal life has left me with little taste to expend more effort on it at a tennis message board.

Did you watch this video?

It was a great post of yours, but at the same time I am not stating that just because some scientists disagree with Gore mean that they are right. All I'm saying is that the video is very interesting.

Watch it.

You are a knowledgable person on the subject, and It might be interesting to watch and see if they tell you something you didn't know.

I doubt it will change your mind, but it is always good to know what other people say about your everday beliefs and ideas.

zicofirol
03-14-2007, 06:15 PM
Wow, MTF never ceases to amaze me. Global warming a swindle? :haha:

It's hilarious how solid, scientific evidence has been building - no, piling up - for decades now, and people are actually more opposed to the idea of global warming than ever.



piling up? it certainly cant be for decades, as just in the 70's the next ice age was coming, when the evidence is based on faulty models and premises, mixed with strictly and convinient anti-industrialization agenda(or anti-capitalist, agenda), then somethings must be terribly wrong with that information, I imagine you will not even see that documentary, not that it would change you mind, but that just shows how close minded the debate is...

on this issue here is a video of enviromentalist banning water... look in the video at how eager people where willing to ban something without getting more information,,lol... these are the same nutjobs that start the global warming issue and push it the hardest...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

zicofirol
03-19-2007, 08:41 PM
Gore Challenged to international Global Warming debate by Lord Monckton(he appeared in the GGW swindle documentary) :

PERTH, Scotland, March 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a formal
invitation sent to former Vice-President Al Gore's Tennessee address and
released to the public, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to
challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an
internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation
on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous."

Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years
as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the
substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film,
An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and
errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."

Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head to head on the science,
politics, and religion of global warming in the usually-decorous pages of
the London Sunday Telegraph last November.

Monckton calls on the former Vice President to "step up to the plate
and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare
of the world's poor. If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the
defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever
faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the
issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his
claims against a serious, science-based challenge."
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-19-2007/0004548669&EDATE=

I bet Gore does not take the debate, he should though...

buddyholly
03-19-2007, 11:37 PM
I bet Gore does not take the debate, he should though...

Oh, I do so hope you meant to make that brilliant pun, "I bet Gore does not take de bait."

zicofirol
03-19-2007, 11:53 PM
Oh, I do so hope you meant to make that brilliant pun, "I bet Gore does not take de bait."

not sure what you mean, I just mean that I doubt he could win the debate(and he knows it) so he will shy away from it...

buddyholly
03-19-2007, 11:56 PM
And for whoever it was that was worried about the world's ocean life, they might want to consider that overall warming of just a couples of degrees Celsius will seriously affect ocean life. There are plenty of species in the world's oceans that can only exist within a narrow temperature range, and warming rates that are too high for populations to slowly adapt and/or move to more suitable habitats are definitely a recipe for ecological collapse. Already coral reef failures influenced by warming have been documented.



My first intention was to reply to your post by saying that my instincts told me you were not educated as a scientist, by the way you kept repeating that it is no big deal to fool around with scientific data and not important for it to be rigorously applied.
Ihen I saw where you said you were a scientist.

It was I who complained about disappearance of ocean life and made the point that indiscriminate fishing will kill the oceans way before any global warming might. I went on to say that since most of this fishing is done by Asian nations and the US can not be blamed, then most people here will want to ignore the damage by fishing, because there is no fun in blaming Japan etc. You seem to be proving my point.

buddyholly
03-20-2007, 12:01 AM
not sure what you mean, I just mean that I doubt he could win the debate(and he knows it) so he will shy away from it...

When you make a proposal to someone and hope that you can talk them into accepting your invitation, then, as with a worm on a fishing hook, you hope that they will ''take the bait.''
When I read that you doubted that Gore would ''take debate'' I thought it was hilarious and wished I'd said that.

zicofirol
03-20-2007, 12:15 AM
When you make a proposal to someone and hope that you can talk them into accepting your invitation, then, as with a worm on a fishing hook, you hope that they will ''take the bait.''
When I read that you doubted that Gore would ''take debate'' I thought it was hilarious and wished I'd said that.

oh, lol, yeah I know "take the bait" I just used horrible grammar in putting my sentence together, no joke inteded, it would of been funny though, lol

aagbest
03-21-2007, 06:00 PM
rather than listen to politicians ramble on,
the forced to be silent ones are most important to listen to..the scientists who have irrefutable evidence but it does not become public.

buddyholly
03-22-2007, 11:22 AM
rather than listen to politicians ramble on,
the forced to be silent ones are most important to listen to..the scientists who have irrefutable evidence but it does not become public.

So how do you know about it?

uglyamerican
03-22-2007, 11:41 PM
Any global warming fans here want to advocate increased use of nuclear energy? You will gain some creditbility with me.

uglyamerican
03-23-2007, 04:25 AM
What's the harm in using alternative fuels? Rising food prices for poor people:

Mexico Grapples With Soaring Prices for Corn -- and Tortillas

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601896_pf.html

Richard_from_Cal
03-23-2007, 08:58 AM
Any global warming fans here want to advocate increased use of nuclear energy? You will gain some creditbility with me.
I'm a fan of Global Warming. Every Winter, I'm a fan of Global Warming...right about this time, in fact.

As to increased use of nuclear energy: I read William E. Simon's book--A Time for Truth, and he advocates the increased use...but you'd never get it past the electorate, nowadays. Especially after Chernobyl, especially poor timing coming right after Earth Day (March 20th,)...;)

Richard_from_Cal
03-25-2007, 10:45 PM
http://www.azstarnet.com/ss/2007/03/25/l175177-1.png
^^--this image--^^

...appeared in the Arizona Daily Star, today, along with the following article:
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/175177
As Arctic melts, nations line up for oil, other rights
Countries rush to exploit global- warming changes
The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.25.2007

HAMMERFEST, Norway — Barren and uninhabited, Hans Island is very hard to find on a map.

Yet these days the Frisbee-shaped rock in the Arctic is much in demand — so much so that Canada and Denmark have both staked their claim to it with flags and warships.

The reason: an international race for oil, fish, diamonds and shipping routes, accelerated by the impact of global warming on Earth's frozen north.
.rest of
..article at
...hyperlink
....
and the total text of the map, cut off by the paper's tech wizard, apparently, when they uploaded it, reads:CLAIMING THE FUTURE ON AN OPEN OCEAN Some experts predict the Arctic Ocean will have an ice-free summer in 10 to 15 years. Vast resources in the region, including oil and natural gas, have prompted territorial disputes with some officials calling for an international treaty in the polar region.
.

buddyholly
04-07-2007, 01:59 PM
Rev. Jerry Falwell has gone on record to say that the proponents of man-made global warming are doing the work of Satan and distracting Americans from the true Christian issues of today - such as abortion and homosexuality.

Now I really am scared!