Global Warming - Fake or Real

[KinKyJ]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

Anyone seen this documentary yet? A counter voice in the desert claiming global warming is fake and designed as a political strategy. Just keeping an open mind...

Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.

'The Great Global Warming ... alle ? Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor.

Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.

A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."

Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don't believe you - it's taken 10 years to get this commissioned.

"I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys.

"It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.

"It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks

[gvideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170[/gvideo]

[geoffgulley]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

^^ double ditto.... i plan on buying beachfront property in charlotte as soon as the current ice age (which is technically what we are in) is over. course, i'll be dead but no bother...

[Kat]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

fake

[DIDI]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

^^Three billion was still a massive number last time I looked, and that poverty is being used as an excuse to allow even more pollution of every kind.

[runningman]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

^^^ Pretty much in denial to believe a massive six billion people doesn't have a massive effect!!

almost 1/2 of the world lives in poverty so they aren't having that much effect..

[88Mariner]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

mother nature polutes. ban mother nature.

[minneec]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

In another 1800 years the planet will be frozen again.....
Ebb and flow of mother earth.

Pretty egotistical to think we can actually effect this planet on a massive level.

real time human caused issue-because of our lack of knowledge of the biology of the seas and high tech ability to pinpoint areas of the seas to make fishing more efficient, we've about fished out most of the fish we are used to eating in the world.
that's the human population growth curve. modern advances in technology and medicine has made it possible to have more of us, but with it comes increase use of the land, increase need for sources of food. it's not just the average temperature increasing, but the way humans have changed the different ecologies of the world. an example would be the hunting of wolves in the northeast and such overpopulation of deers that we have to worry about them while driving on highways.
and yes, in a thousand years, the earth will still be around no matter what we do, but right now i'm more worried about the extinction of polar bears in three years.

[DIDI]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

^^^ Pretty much in denial to believe a massive six billion people doesn't have a massive effect!!

[palmer]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

In another 1800 years the planet will be frozen again.....
Ebb and flow of mother earth.

Pretty egotistical to think we can actually effect this planet on a massive level.

[shan]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

Real

[runningman]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

december 21, 2012

ya you going with the mayan calendar?? me too

[KinKyJ]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

Where did that guy get his degree? DDT causes pancreatic, liver and breast cancer with humans, is moderatly toxic to animals and highly toxic for aquatic life.

The nifty thing is that is bioaccumulates: DDT is stored (primarily) in fat tissue and accumulates the higher you move up the food chain. Given the fact that it has a half time of 2 to 15 years in the soil (up to 56 days in water), you don't want to use that shit...

[minneec]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

Plus ?a (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.

Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.

During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.

Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that "the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming."


Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to "Climate Change and Its Impacts," a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and "average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s." British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet "grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year," and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.

Earlier this month the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won't be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.


While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.

The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970--from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.

The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.

Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.


Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control."

International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.

As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings' experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

i can't believe anyone would quote anyone that uses ddt as an example for good. yes short term it will be able to kill mosquitoes that transmit malaria, but repeated use of the thing would obviously select for resistant mosquitoes and malaria would continue to be transmitted by the resistant mosquitoes. added onto this, ddt isn't harmless to people. sure the effects might take longer to show up, but basically it's poison and it's assured death as well. at the end of that, you'll have poisoned deaths on top of malaria.

wikipedia's link to UN's IPCC report from April 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

[ddr]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

december 21, 2012

[day_for_night]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

He is citing studies from scientists. I find it amuzing that all of the Global Warming backers cite an 'overwhelming consensus' that has supposedly concluded that Global Warming exists, yet I've never seen a list of those scientists. In fact, the majority of the scientists that were on the list cited by Congress here in the US a few years ago, came out swinging, saying that they had no idea why their names were even on that list.

One of those scientists is well respected Richard Lindzen from MIT, and he has stated continuously: "the climate is always changing. Innumerable factors go into temperature changes and many of these factors, such as the changing amounts of heat put out by the sun during different eras, are beyond the control of human beings."

well, the guy i took several undergrad courses from had a phd in atmospherics...he would mention ALL THE TIME about how there was consensus among the vast majority of the scientific community at meetings & conferences around global warming...i tend to believe him.

here is his resume, judge for yourself if he's a qualified expert

http://easweb.eas.ualberta.ca/directory.php?person=Busha