Thread: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Already mentioned in another thread but I decided that it deserved it's own thread.

A recent BBC documentary is available on Google Video -- The Great Global Warming Swindle (1 hr, 14 min)

According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.

We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.

Yeah, uh-hunh, O.K, sure.

Channel 4, not BBC. Just FYI.

best solution.............keep moving north

Covertly funded by...





...Exxon?

Never mind that man behind the curtain, just keep driving those SUV's, folks!

http://www.rense.com/general75/daily.htm

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi...06_709_sci.pdf

http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...tml?source=rss

http://www.rense.com/general75/who.htm

http://www.rense.com/general75/clioma.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...doanything.htm

Originally Posted by Snow Dog

Already mentioned in another thread but I decided that it deserved it's own thread.

Well, you decided wrong douchebag.

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

Some scientists eye odd climate fixes By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
1 hour, 48 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - When climate scientist Andrew Weaver considers the idea of tinkering with Earth's air, water or sunlight to fight global warming, he remembers the lessons of a favorite children's book.

In the book, a cheese-loving king's castle is infested with mice. So the king brings in cats to get rid of the mice. Then the castle's overrun with cats, so he brings in dogs to get rid of them, then lions to get rid of the dogs, elephants to get rid of the lions, and finally, mice to get rid of the elephants.

That scenario in "The King, the Mice and the Cheese," by Nancy and Eric Gurney, should give scientists pause before taking extreme measures to mess with Mother Nature, says Weaver of the University of Victoria.

However, in recent months, several scientists are considering doing just that.

They are exploring global warming solutions that sound wholly far-fetched, including giant artificial "trees" that would filter carbon dioxide out of the air, a bizarre "solar shade" created by a trillion flying saucers that lower Earth's temperature, and a scheme that mimics a volcano by spewing light-reflecting sulfates high in the sky.

These are costly projects of last resort — in case Earth's citizens don't cut back fast enough on greenhouse gas emissions and the worst of the climate predictions appear not too far away. Unfortunately, the solutions could cause problems of their own — beyond their exorbitant costs — including making the arid Middle East even drier and polluting the air enough to increase respiratory illnesses.

Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said mankind already has harmed Earth's climate inadvertently, so it's foolish to think that people can now fix it with a few drastic measures.

But at Trenberth's same Boulder, Colo., research center, climate scientist Tom Wigley is exploring that mock volcano idea.

"It's the lesser of two evils here (the other being doing nothing)," Wigley said. "Whatever we do, there are bad consequences, but you have to judge the relative badness of all the consequences."

Studying the concept of how volcanic pollutants could lessen global warming — the Earth was slightly cooler after the eruption of a Philippine volcano 16 years ago — was brought to the forefront of scientific debate last summer by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen.

"It was meant to startle the policymakers," said Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end, we have to do experiments like this."

In the past, scientists and others have avoided talking publicly about these ideas, known as "geoengineering," even though the concept was first raised in 1965. They worried that the hope of a quick technological fix to global warming would prevent politicians and the public from making the real energy sacrifices that they say are necessary to slow climate change.

David Keith, a University of Calgary engineering professor and one of the world's experts in geoengineering, says that just because tinkering with the air, water and sunlight are possible, they should not be substitutes for cutting emissions just because "we've been politically weak-kneed."

Instead, he said, such options should be researched as an "insurance policy" in case global warming is even worse than forecast. And that prospect has caused climate scientists to talk about the issue more openly in recent months.

There is also a chance that discussion of such radical ideas as a volcano or sun shade could shock the world into acting to reduce fossil fuel emissions, Keith said.

However, White House science adviser Jack Marburger, said spending money on geoengineering doesn't make sense. The federal government, which spends about $2 billion on climate change science, invests nearly all of its research on energy sources that produce fewer or no greenhouse gas emissions.

"I don't think it's scientifically feasible at this time to consider a plan like that (geoengineering)," Marburger told The Associated Press. "The real urgency is to reduce carbon dioxide."

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change looked at geoengineering as part of its report on how to lessen global warming. It found some promise, worried about unexpected side effects, legal and ethical implications, and concluded that "unlike other strategies, geoengineering addresses the symptoms rather than the causes of climate change."

Even proponents of geoengineering research are wary.

"We are playing with fire here," Keith said. "Those of us suggesting we do something are suggesting it with real nervousness."

___

Associated Press Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley in New York contributed to this report.

Statement from the filmmaker (link) to an MIT scientist (link) that he cited in the mockumentary:

You're a big daft cock

Go and fuck yourself.
link

Originally Posted by Roo

Channel 4, not BBC. Just FYI.

I haven't seen it, but to give context :

Channel 4 = Funded by Adverts = Likes sensationalist TV.

Just saying, is all...

edg

I've just watched it. I've seen Inconvinient Truth. Both are convincing you tell me who's right.

My favorite ad going right now is the Taco Bell with the two lions....

"Carrrrrrrrrne asada....... Carrrrrrrrrr"

I've had a few British friends tell me that Channel 4 is "rubbish" - which I understand is Brit for garbage. Or maybe that was "utterly believable" in the vein of Fox News. I forget.

So, from a non-weather-scientist, average-human point of view - WHO IS RIGHT? This documentary might be sensationalist. Isn't "An Inconvenient Truth" as well? Aren't they both basing their statements on 'facts'? Who is right, who is wrong? Neither? Then it simply shows that there is indeed a HUGE hype about Global Warming ...

Bernardo, you've stated exactly the result the channel 4 guy wanted to get: confusion and doubt.
It doesn't matter if you believe him or not - as long as you don't believe anyone, it's Mission Accomplished.

These guys are right.

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

confusion and doubt.

What confusion? What doubt?

Personally, I'm not *confused* in the least...nor do I *doubt* that climate change has occured in the past, is occuring now, and will occur in the future...naturally.

-Astro

I'm not confused either. I'm 100% certain that this is a douchebag thread.

I am sure of this: If (human caused) global warming didn't exist, a hell of a lot of "scientists" wouldn't be able to make their yacht payments with their grants.

According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.

You idiot; this is just a convenient excuse for the lazy to continue being environmentally irresponsible.

I believe global warming is the real deal with some dire consequences, but even if I’m and others are wrong that's no excuse to live as an all consuming whore.

Drive less, fly less, consume less, reuse, recycle, localize and wake the fuck up.

How about watching the film and THEN commenting on it.

Like I've always said, we really don't know shit.

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

Bernardo, you've stated exactly the result the channel 4 guy wanted to get: confusion and doubt.
It doesn't matter if you believe him or not - as long as you don't believe anyone, it's Mission Accomplished.

These guys are right.

Correct, correct, and correct.

Originally Posted by P_McPoser

I am sure of this: If (human caused) global warming didn't exist, a hell of a lot of "scientists" wouldn't be able to make their yacht payments with their grants.

Yes, that's it - all of those scientists are just scammers, and the energy companies, auto manufacturers, etc are the victims.

Won't someone look out for the energy companies and auto manufacturers!!!


Btw, you are vastly overestimating the income of those scientists.

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

These guys are right.

I cant get that link to work, but if youre saying what I think youre saying, youre wrong.

Originally Posted by P_McPoser

I am sure of this: If (human caused) global warming didn't exist, a hell of a lot of "scientists" wouldn't be able to make their yacht payments with their grants.

Having gone through grad school in climate science, I can tell you that there are not many of these types of people you speak of... Sounds like a paranoid delusion to me...

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Like I've always said, we really don't know shit.

YESSSSSSSSSSSS
You can call it a cop out or whatever, but its true. Flat out true.

Are we really having this discussion again??

Originally Posted by Jer

I'm not confused either. I'm 100% certain that this is a douchebag thread.

That's a big surprise.

Now it's time for you to really think about who's being a douchebag, constantly posting the same thing in (only certain types of) NSR threads. Or could you not figure out what this thread was going to be about before you clicked on it?[/spittingintothewind]