The Great Global Warning Swindle

[StupidScript]

I sat down and watched it all the way through, taking notes so I wouldn't screw up my analysis, and found its science slipshod, at best. Regardless of mindset, the evidence presented was unconvincing, and seemes to me to be merely an attempt to poke holes in a single aspect of the whole argument ... the C02 aspect. I apologize if my previous post did not make that clear.

I'm curious ... of those of you who have seen the Gore film (I haven't), what aspects of it were unconvincing to you? Similarly, how about the Durkin film? What did you think of the scientific analyses presented in each film? For you, how does it relate to previously presented scientific analyses with regard to this issue?

If I'm on the wrong track, I would be delighted to be convinced otherwise. It sure would take a load off my mind.

[John Scott]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMn_Ry3z6M

Watch that. I could name the gross fallacy in one word, but I'd like to see if you can see it.

[StupidScript]

Do you mean his comment about how the World Trade Center Memorial (proposed height: basically underground) would be underwater if the oceans rose 20 feet? Or that the preview is rated PG? I can't find anything at first viewing that I could name in one word.

[John Scott]

The word I was looking for was anecdotal. Scare tactics and hysteria based on anecdotal evidence.

The fact that glaciers have melted, for example. He would like us to believe that it is due to human activity, but the fact is that glaciers have been melting and disappearing long before humans were industrialized.

The video I posted on injustice files.com, however, bases its arguments on actual numbers.

[StupidScript]

He would like us to believe that it is due to human activity, but the fact is that glaciers have been melting and disappearing long before humans were industrialized.

I totally agree with that, and I submit that the rate of decay has increased, on average, historically, since we entered the Industrial Age, about 100 or so years ago. Also, I agree with your 'anecdotal' assessment. What can I say ... not a fan of the film-as-provacateur concept, as noted earlier.

I haven't been able to find anything online about the "Hot Age" that must have been in the Earth's past, much like the "Ice Age" was. Enh? Enh? How about that!? Enh? (sorry)

[John Scott]

I submit that the rate of decay has increased, on average, historically, since we entered the Industrial Age, about 100 or so years ago

Without denying or accepting the veracity of the claim that the rate of decay has increased, I will point out that an increase in itself does not prove a causal relationship with industrialization.

[StupidScript]

Just throwing this out there, as it relates to this discussion: Reuters article on new U.N. report

Greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 70 percent between 1970 and 2004 and are expected to rise by a further 25 to 90 percent by 2030 from 2000 without new restraints, driven mainly by growth in developing nations such as China and India.
...
In February, the first U.N. report concluded there was more than a 90 percent likelihood that humans were to blame for warming.

While I agree that a causal relationship between industrialization and climate change is not necessarily proved by the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, their coincidence isn't that easy to dismiss, IMHO.

The good news? According to the report cited above, if we act quickly, we will hardly notice any impact on our economics as we work to reduce (not eliminate) our negative contributions to the atmosphere.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by StupidScript

Just throwing this out there, as it relates to this discussion: Reuters article on new U.N. reportWhile I agree that a causal relationship between industrialization and climate change is not necessarily proved by the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, their coincidence isn't that easy to dismiss, IMHO.

The good news? According to the report cited above, if we act quickly, we will hardly notice any impact on our economics as we work to reduce (not eliminate) our negative contributions to the atmosphere.

There is a problem with both paragraphs, and I think you still got it upside down. According to the graph presented by Gore, whenever temperatures rise the CO2 level rises too. Unfortunately and contrary to the graph, Gore turns the cause and effect around.

If the above is true, then I dunno what to do with your first paragraph, cuz according to it, it would appear that it's not to late to cool the planet down, which will be automatically followed by a decrease of the CO2 levels.

[StupidScript]

Tell you what, let's just keep increasing our industrial waste output for the next 50 years or so and see what happens. What the heck, right? The current crop of humans will be long gone by the time anything really serious needs to be done ... if anything needs to be done at all. I mean, if humans aren't contributing to the problem, it won't make any difference what we do, anyway, right?

Is that what all of you who doubt humans are having a negative impact on the Earth's environment and its climate change are saying? Or is it just that you don't like hearing it as presented by Al Gore?

<edit>
BTW, the whole point of talking about it, reasoning about it, investigating it, debating it and making decisions about it now is because it is not too late to do something about it. Should we dicker about it until it is too late?
</edit>

[ewomack]

There's an aspect of the whole global warming debate that smacks of human arrogance. Here again we're at the center of things, like the foci of an armillary sphere. We're the ones causing the damage, we're the ones who can flip the levels. We're at the center of the universe once again. In some way that must make us feel good. What wouldn't make us feel good is the realization that we're pretty much floating in a gas bubble in the middle of an immense vaccuum. The earth would get along without us just fine. And we probably have a smaller effect on the world's ecosystems than our big human egos would care to admit. If the climate wants to go and change, there's probably not a lot we can do about it. Not to mention the possibility that "fixing" it could make things worse. If we're wrong and we take the wrong action, then what? Whoops. We land splat in our own feces. Think of the attempts back in the 1960s to "control" the weather. Chaos theory grew out of that after some shocked folks realized that if they stop a storm in Toledo, then the entire weather system in San Jose could get mauled. We itty bitty fleshy things don't know what we're doing when it comes to climate and weather change. To some degree we remain a little helpless. But the science needs to stabilize around this topic before we do anything rash.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by StupidScript

Tell you what, let's just keep increasing our industrial waste output for the next 50 years or so and see what happens. What the heck, right? The current crop of humans will be long gone by the time anything really serious needs to be done ... if anything needs to be done at all. I mean, if humans aren't contributing to the problem, it won't make any difference what we do, anyway, right?

Is that what all of you who doubt humans are having a negative impact on the Earth's environment and its climate change are saying? Or is it just that you don't like hearing it as presented by Al Gore?

What kind of gibberish is that? Who in this thread suggested we should continue polluting the planet at the current rate? All that some said here is that global warming is not necessarily caused by humans. Don't put words in people's mouths.

As for Gore, I don't mind the guy especially that he is much less boring type than he used to be. Still, kinda makes me think about his environmental actions. A few days ago they said Gore will be decreasing his monthly electricity bill from $12,000/mo. $12 ****ing thousand dollars for electricity in a private home!!! The guy creates more pollution than some 50 average households How environmentally conscientious is that?

Oh, and I hope we'll not see articles on human induced global warming on Mars. After all we sent a couple vehicles over there and Mars too is undergoing global warming. So are other planets and larger moons in our solar systems. Mars is a planet. Earth is a planet. Would it be possible that both go through climatic changes on the scale of our planetary system and not an idling SUV? (btw. I think SUVs should be mostly banned)

[Domain name master]

I find this interesting I've read a lot on this topic and I can even believe this.
I just hope that people will take this more seriously in the future. we can help make a difference, one person at a time.