[Simon47]

Protection or Politics

Very valid counterpoint

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle (Complete)

[Stepper]

As Jerry Seinfeld would say, "Not so much." Here is a rebuttal by a leading expert in climate change: JRI - The Great Global Warming Swindle

I found particularly interesting the links for background on the filmmaker, Martin Durkin.

There is also this rebuttal: Anything except the truth: The Great Global Warming Swindlers You have to read a good way down before he gets into it, but it's worth it. My favorite quote:

"So to compensate for this, you have to slide the CO2 graph approximately 3000 years to the left so that it properly aligns with the temperature graph. Otherwise any conclusions are going to be invalid. And we wouldn't want that! Some quack might end up thinking that CO2 lags behind temperature!"

[Simon47]

In the movie they state

Clark: "Temperature is leading CO2 by 800 years."

ie warming causes increased co2 not the other way around. This to me is the most accurate assessment of the issue I've seen as I understand it from my own research. eyes to the sun and watch out for the scientific politics that does undermine the truth.

Originally Posted by Stepper

As Jerry Seinfeld would say, "Not so much." Here is a rebuttal by a leading expert in climate change: JRI - The Great Global Warming Swindle

I found particularly interesting the links for background on the filmmaker, Martin Durkin.

There is also this rebuttal: Anything except the truth: The Great Global Warming Swindlers You have to read a good way down before he gets into it, but it's worth it. My favorite quote:

"So to compensate for this, you have to slide the CO2 graph approximately 3000 years to the left so that it properly aligns with the temperature graph. Otherwise any conclusions are going to be invalid. And we wouldn't want that! Some quack might end up thinking that CO2 lags behind temperature!"

[Stepper]

Iconoclast421 (Anything except the truth: The Great Global Warming Swindlers) rebutted Clark's argument (assuming he is correct that the anti-global warming folks didn't shift the CO2 graph properly).

Here is a roundup of recent studies that come down on the global warming side of the argument: The Heat Is Online

"A third contribution to our understanding of the global climate appeared in the spring of 1995 when David J. Thomson, a signals analyst at AT&T Bell Labs, evaluated a century of summer and winter temperature data. While some scientific skeptics had attributed this century’s atmospheric warming to solar variations, Thomson discovered the opposite: the accumulation of greenhouse gases had overwhelmed the relatively weak effects of solar cycles on the climate. He also discovered that since the beginning of World War II, when accelerating industrialization led to a skyrocketing of carbon dioxide emissions, the timing of the seasons began to shift. Since 1940, he wrote in the journal, Science, the seasonal patterns 'of the previous 300 years began to change and now appear to be changing at an unprecedented rate.'"

Citation: "The Seasons, Global Temperature and Precession," by David J. Thomson, Science, Vol. 268, April 7, 1995; also, "Dependence of global temperatures on Atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance," David J. Thomson, 1997

[ToddF]

I saw a Fox chiron that scrolled the opponents in the global warming debate. They were scubs and third stringers and nonclimotologists. I wonder why none have ever produced a peer-reviewed paper that formally stated their thesis and backed it with facts.

Scientists have been accused of being grant whores and alarmists. The opponents are the ones with a financial incentive. The few real scientists who try to debunk global warming have grants by Exxon and the like. This reminds me of the evolution "debate" where the one guy on the "anti" side had grant awarders from right wing think tanks peeing themselves to fund Behe (sp?) who had a fairly pedestrian carreer before he "challenged the orthodoxy.

Peer-reviewed science is not flawless but it usually beats the mavericks that crave the spotlight and support the evil empire.

[workinman]

the accumulation of greenhouse gases had overwhelmed the relatively weak effects of solar cycles on the climate.

this is what i believe to be true... seasons change, the sun does effect our temps.. the earth naturally warms and cools... BUT, when u factor in the mass amounts of CO2 that we have released, PLUS the mass amounts of trees we have removed and damage to oceans that we have done.. the outcome is that we are intensifing and magnifying any natural change.

Toddf... good post! i agree with u!!

Peer-reviewed science is not flawless but it usually beats the mavericks that crave the spotlight and support the evil empire.

[Simon47]

thanks stepper; I will get into this.

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

A favourite quote.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein

to understand his point of view on this. Einstein was known for his unconventionality as for him the only problem with conventional science was; fact was not necessarily wrong but merely, incomplete. I think we are far too much the infants in science and so many of the scientists in it will say of many key aspects; we just don't know or we just don't fully understand the mechanisms involved. That's a fact. A global warming trend is a fact; climate change is an everpresent fact and the reason we exist in the first place and something that has been causing global, regional and local devastation and rejuvenation for millions of years. The only conclusions we can draw are to effect and some little knowlege as to cause or likely consequence. We assume a lot and base fact on a preponderance of evidence. The facts support very few conclusions but what seems apparent and will be supported or upon deeper analysis be further supported or denied.

Pollution and human practices are the issues. If we finally learn that no matter what we do we cannot alter the global weather patterns just on the basis of the lesser contribution we make compared to nature perhaps; when our ancestors are struggling to cope in the next mini ice age or global increase in mean temperatures there will be clean water to drink and air to breathe and abundant plant,animal and human life and their genetic makeup and their immune systems will not be compromised by systemic pollution. CO2 is one. pollutant.

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
Particulate Matter
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2)
Ozone (O3)
Hydrocarbons
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
TOMPs (Toxic Organic Micropollutants)
Lead (Pb) and Heavy Metals
Acid Deposition

It's like the argument you made to your Mom when she wanted you to clean your room. the convenient response was,"it's not that dirty" and Mom would say; Clean it anyway and maybe it will stay cleaner longer next time..

Sim

Lets face it; an argument can be made as to the cause of global warming being Human induced and natural. co2 isn't what's causing cancer and deforming babies and clogging peoples lungs and putting flame retardants in breast milk and cadmium in the food chain at unprecedented levels not observed in natural surroundings because we concentrate them. Screw the debate on warming. Pollution is the problem and that is someting we can do a lot about. If the sun gets busy and increases it's output..whoa...How much ozone can you stand.

Originally Posted by Stepper

As Jerry Seinfeld would say, "Not so much." Here is a rebuttal by a leading expert in climate change: JRI - The Great Global Warming Swindle

I found particularly interesting the links for background on the filmmaker, Martin Durkin.

There is also this rebuttal: Anything except the truth: The Great Global Warming Swindlers You have to read a good way down before he gets into it, but it's worth it. My favorite quote:

"So to compensate for this, you have to slide the CO2 graph approximately 3000 years to the left so that it properly aligns with the temperature graph. Otherwise any conclusions are going to be invalid. And we wouldn't want that! Some quack might end up thinking that CO2 lags behind temperature!"

[ToddF]

The coincidence between the temperature and carbon dioxide graphs over the last thousand years show that both have a "hockey stick" shape. Cause and effect? Can't say yet but the coincidence certainly is close, not 300 years off.

[horselover]

Can't be a coincidence. No such thing is there? I would thing that both would inter-relate somehow, and the graph result would have them running similar in that regard.

[ToddF]

Coincidence means that they happen together. It does not mean that they are unrelated. A coincidence can be a cause and effect relationship. I think this one is.