Canmoore

The Great Global Warming Swindle from Channel4.com

yet...somehow I cant see this becoming a big hit like "an inconveniant truth" has become!?

Must be because real science is not cool.

highsea

Nice to see someone is trying to separate the politics from the science anyway.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Canmoore

Why is there a Nature Canada Adverstisement at the bottom of this page? I know its probably a random thing but, they have pictures of Polar Bears, and says " There habitat is melting. They need our Help. Let's stop Global warming! (sign the petition)"

The inuit hunters, and biologists in Nunavut have counted more polar bears than ever, the population of polar bears is not dwindling, its exploding. Polar Bears survived the last great warming period, they will survive this one also. Can we get this crap off the website? or is it all just random generated advertisements?

execrable

Trouble is, one of the scientists heavily used in the programme now says the program heavily misrepresented him and he does now believe mankind is causing the problem.

Independent Online Edition > Climate Change

Warming is happening but whether our actions contribute in a meaningful way to the warming is very debateable.

You mention Polar bears - they are highly adaptable and swim large distances pretty well, more to the point I think (and I'll allow Dale to shoot me down here) is that people and countries now exist on flood type plains. I have no idea what will happen in places like Bangladesh. Are there historical records anywhere from the last warming? I know borders didn't exist the same way so people could move easier than they could now.

Canmoore

I think its hillarious that he is calling this documentary "propaganda" yet, no one wants to admit that an inconveniant truth is nothing more than propaganda.

There were many many scientists used in the film, not just the one. Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, was in this documentry. Claiming that that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels. But why isnt Prof. Ian Clark arguing that his information was being miscontrued?

I wouldnt be surprised if this Professor Carl Wunsch is being payed off by the "green technology Industry" to rebuke what he said.


..But then again, Mr.Gore's house uses more Energy than 20 average american homes. So right there, we can see just how much this clown cares for the environment.

execrable

This is a pretty useful read.

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

I'm still looking for what happens as climate change continues with people living on lowlying areas in the future.

So far the only real weakness with the science of the sun being the source of the extra heat is that sciencee seem to rely on sun-spot numbers and even that is an inexact record.

Canmoore

Did you see the recent images of the sun from Hinode: the new Japanese X-ray telescope? THe sun appears to be more active and dynamic than ever previously thought. Humans have only been recording global temperatures since the late 1880's, we no very little about our own sun and its impact on our climate, let alone our own climate as it is.

How people like Al Gore can stand up and say that Humans the only, difinitive cause of Climate Change is just ignorant and foolish. And what is worse, is that scientists and professors are being forced to shy away from questioning Human induced Global Warming, because it has turned into this faith. Where if you deny it, you are no better than say a Holocaust denier, and your professional career is put into jeopardy.

Science is all about questioning the the common held beliefs, it is not about finding the one definative answer and holding onto that answer like there is no other alternatives or questions to be asked. Human Induced Climate Change is taking a path away from Science, and is taking in the characteristics of Religion.

gunnut

Gorebal Warming is not science. It's a religion. They have a conclusion first and then set out to find evidences to support it.

religion: see what you believe

science: believe what you see

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Canmoore

HAHA at first I thought that was a typo, then I realized it was no typo at all!!

zraver

Guys, lets seperate two distinct issues. Global warming, and the cause. Ther eis no doubt tha tthe cimate is warming and is already affecting flora and fauna in a vareity of ways: good for some, bad for others.

Even if man is the cause, we wil not die by fire but by ice. NOAH and Woods Hole now agree that when the level of fresh water in the atlantic gets to be enough to disrupt the "Great Conveyor" the climate will rapidly cool and induce at least a mini-ige age. The latests projections say England and Norway now open year round will be ice bound during the winter within 20-50 years.

As the glaciers grow, see levels will drop not rise and the atmosphere will get more arid. The real threat is the start of a true ice age, which we are due for as we are entering the tail end of an 11,500 year warming trend.

gunnut

The effectiveness of the "great conveyor" is now in doubt the some scientists. They do not believe the more temperate climate on the British Isles are entirely due to the effect of the oceanic current.

zraver

source?

RadioM

The source is irrelevant, there will always be scientists who can produce work that disproves any current theory. When I was at uni I saw a survey that showed 10% of US scientists were creationists.

The great strength of science is that there is ALWAYS debate. A few posts back someone mentioned something along the lines of "why isn't anyone questioning the Gore film" well they are and have been since global warming theory was first publicised.

It is important in the global warming debate to realise that as far as scientists are concerned, they don't give a crap about what the general public think (except when it comes to getting funding of course). Only the general population get worked up about populist films either pro or anti global warming.

My views on climate change:
Global warming is indeed happening to claim that it is a 'swindle' is IMO false. It is also appears to be happening at a faster rate than previous "warming periods" have occured. That human industrial outputs (HIO) are contributing to warming (to some degree) is also proven.

However this does not initself suggest that HIO has artificially caused a "warming period," nor does it suggest that the temperature increase has been solely caused by HIO. Perhaps the HIO component is negligable.

At present all we have are questions. Science is better at analysis than prediction and thus most of the pro-climate change scientists are suggesting emission cuts as a POTENTIAL preventative measure. This I think is often lost on the anti-climate change lobby and the Gore types.

A potential trend has been discovered as has a potential cause. Do we ignore it and wait and see or do we take the risk (in some economies a huge risk) and make some fundamental changes to our industrial emissions?

Regardless it would be better for all concerned that we cut industrial emissions in the developed world (where the technology exists, just not the will) and in our personal lives cut back on our resource consumption (no Mr Gore carbon offsets DO NOT MAKE IT BETTER). Not just for the potential climate change effects but for general effciency and to lower the number of people that die each year as a result of particulate matter in the air.

But all in all 'global warming' is not an environmental problem. Nature is fantastically adaptible, some species will die out others will rise in their place. This cycle has been occuring for the past 2 billion years (possibly 3.5), with no problems.

Rather 'global warming, climate change, etc' is a human problem. The humans living within 0-10 meters of sea level, humans without ready access to food and all the other humans that will have to deal with those affected.

dalem

Human-sourced global temperature rise is a foolish notion for foolish people.

It is the Flying Spaghetti Monster of the ignorant Left.

-dale

execrable

The 2 real problems with the theory of global warming are

1) it can't be rationally discussed without insults and charges of political stance being taken. It's a shame as there's real events taking place and Al Gore's entry has unfortunately polarised the whole debate into ways of attacking HIM and HIS American political views.
Even the scientific community is split about whether Global Warming is happening and whatever people say about the "left" or the "tree-huggers" - those scientists are not all American or working in American Universities.

2) "Global Warming" is not the same as "Climate Change."
We should be thinking about those people and countries which are going to be affected by changes in Sea Level (if any) and making plans for that rather than wasting money and resources getting the public to store rubbish in their homes before they recycle it.