Documentary: "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Go get 'em Shed. I tired of this argument 3 different threads ago as it will never be won but you are fighting the good fight. People need to look at the facts, see past their prejudices and not listen to hearsay. You've provided some very intelligent arguments here that completely refute the so called nay-sayers. Keep up the good work and let's just hope there are more people like you who can educate the masses.

There are a lot of people trying to educate and modify our behaviour, just most people don't listen or want to spend their time arguing instead of trying improve anything. Both sides are guilty of talking and no action.

To use a quote that posted here from a scientist that has not switch sides but thinks it is not as bad as first thought
"The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

Tree I try to be polite and not let my passion for the outdoors and environment control my emotions when I debate. I work in the environment field and run into anti-green people all the time (I am not for one second saying anyone on this site is, I believe hunters are the first line of true conservationist).

How can you think we are having an negative impact and not have the chance to change the climate? If you change the planet why can't you change the climate around it? If you change one variable then the other variable is likely to change.

Enough for now....this is a very interesting topic. Thanks for the debate and I am glad we can keep our emotions in check.

Who was measuring CO2 in 1750 ????? Or is this another computer model, seems to me in the 1700s you would get your head lopped off for stealing air.

Hey Shed!

Thank you for being polite, I'm trying to do the same. If everyone can try to be rational and listen to everyone else's responses and not let emotion take over we can generate a fantastic conversation.

Goon, if you were tired of this 3 threads ago, why are you still posting now? Just a question.

Shed, you said you worked in the environmental business. So do I. I have been an arborist (tree guy haha) for 15 years now. I have done more for the environment than any 'hugger' that has ever harassed me about cutting a tree down. I work 60 hours a week on average, and statistics prove that I have a very good chance of not coming home at the end of the day (174 US deaths in 2005). I have a degree in economics, yet I save trees for a much lower paying living that beats the sh!t out of me every day, and could leave my kids without a father every day because I believe in what I am doing. My days in the business are coming to an end as, well frankly I'm tired and beat up. There is only so much abuse one body can take for so many years. Yet I still believe, and after all of this, I still disagree with the notion that ONE SPECIEOUS can change the environment of an entire planet. It MAKES NO SENSE! The SUN warms our planet, based on recent evidence about the polar ice caps on Mars melting... I'm not brilliant, but I can certainly put 2 and 2 together. Thanks for the great posts, don't give up, this is fun!

Shed I think we all agree that reducing use of fossil fuels is a good thing. I for one think that Alberta should lead the way in nuclear electricity. It is by far the cleanest of the practical energy sources.

I know all the arguments why CO2 is being blamed for global warming, but I just haven't seen the evidence that it causes global warming. When I look at past graphs of global temperatures there seems to be a high correlation with temperature and sun activity. There also seems to be a more gradual correlation with CO2 but with temperature increasing and then CO2 levels increasing after temperatures have increased.

I read on the Suzuki website on one of the links (gristmill I think) on how to talk to a climate skeptic and they failed to explain the lag time for CO2 increases AFTER temp increases.

There seem to be many scientists coming out of the woodwork with stories of being shunned, labeled deniers, and Tim Ball has received 5 death threats so far all for presenting an opposing view of what is causing global warming. David Suzuki has tried scaring little kids, stormed off of radio talk shows when asked about opposing science, and chastised Alberta as being part of the problem when he didn't seem to have any problem burning Alberta diesel in his bus. Scientists that disagreed with the IPCC reports had their names left on the report as part of the 2500 people that agreed with it and only those that threatened legal action finally had their names removed.

All of this is to say that the facts just don't add up and the IPCC, UN, Al Gore, David Suzuki etc, have all been suspect in their respect for the scientific method. One has to wonder why and what it is that they are trying to hide or cover up.

Anyway, good to have an intelligent discussion about it

Here's an article in todays newspaper regarding the sun.

www.canada.com/nationalpo...e1e02dced7

Rug, I think he gave up. That's to bad. Would if we are wrong. Maybe shed is right. Who knows. Shed, keep up the fight. We appreciate a rational response. You do not yell, you counter, this debate needs intelligent counters! Thank you for that, and lets keep it that way!

Goon, if you were tired of this 3 threads ago, why are you still posting now? Just a question.

Because I like to p*ss off little trolls like you. Just a statement.

I still disagree with the notion that ONE SPECIEOUS can change the environment

Come on. Are you REALLY that uneducated? Are you REALLY that naive? Go back to school for crissakes! Shed has alreadyt pointed out several species that mankind has wiped out from the ENTIRE PLANET. You're bringing down the collective IQ on the entire board with ignorant comments like that.

"Isn't the only hope for the Planet that industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong. - architect of the Kyoto Accord

SHed...on that CO2 curve you posted I noticed that Suzuki claims the NORTHERN hemisphere is warmer than at any other time in the last 100yrs. "And it has already begun - global average temperature has risen by 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, and the northern hemisphere is substantially warmer than at any point during the past 1000 years."


What about the southern hemisphere? Has the southern hemisphere cooled or stayed the same? If only one hemisphere is warming wouldn't that point more to a solar influenced warming rather than a global warming caused by atmosphere?

www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

motls.blogspot.com/2006/0...lobal.html

Just a thought.

I still sit on the fence on this one. Hugely political. No one knows. To dismiss it could be catastrophic.

"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."

The above from: www.clearlight.com/~mhieb...imate.html

Read the whole page. CO2 levels as LOW as they are now are very rare in the history of the planet. The global warming/CO2 link is growing weaker and weaker.

"We are actually in an ice age climate today. However for the last 10,000 years or so we have enjoyed a warm but temporary interglacial vacation. We know from geological records like ocean sediments and ice cores from permanent glaciers that for at least the last 750,000 years interglacial periods happen at 100,000 year intervals, lasting about 15,000 to 20,000 years before returning to an icehouse climate. We are currently about 18,000 years into Earth's present interglacial cycle. These cycles have been occurring for at least the last 2-4 million years, although the Earth has been cooling gradually for the last 30 million years."

NOTE: interglacial periods happen at 100,000yr intervals and last 15 to 20 thousand years. We are currently in an interglacial period and have at most, 2000years left, although we could slide into an ice age at any time. IF CO2 is truly contributing to global warming we had better start pumping it into the atmosphere as fast as we can in the hopes of extending this interglacial as much as we can. The human population can survive warmer weather. An ice age would significantly reduce the amount of land that could be used for agriculture and would truly lead to mass starvations. If there is anything we should be worried about it is global cooling NOT global warming.

"Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward."

Back in the Jurassic period, Oxygen levels were higher as well. Only 2000 years left? Time to top up those RSPs boys. David Kawasaki sucks .

Sorry boys had to take a break!!! I just got in from the CWD public meeting in Edgerton. I like to be involved in many debates at the same time!! LOL

Anyways lots to read here and I will...Just want to let you know I haven't given up...Just other proirities....

Just one quick point though.....I see we are quoting the Jurassic period and CO2 levels....WE do know what happened in that era don't we....LOL

Dear Goonbag,

I want to sincerly appologize for lowering the collective IQ of this thread. I did not realize that my comments were so ignorant as to bring everyone down, so , to Rug and Shed, I am sorry to drag you into the sorry ignorant sespool that is my uneducated life.

Goon, thank you for helping me see the light, I am currently looking very seriously into going back to school, as maybe one day, years from now with lots of hard work and dedication I might, just might be able to send up a post as intelligent, educational and insightful as your last one. You've changed my life, man, thanks. Keep up the good work! Now if you'll excuse my, I have to go have sex with my sister. Have a good night!

Sincerly,
Tree

After a quick view I must ask where do you find these crazy blog sites.....????

I think the main point you are missing in all this is that since industrailization, CO2 levels have dramaticly increased at a rate that we have not seen. Yes we might have higher levels with different climate conditions in the past but the point of the "green movement" and the "Global Warming movement" is that man has increased greenhouse gases at an unnatural rate and is the main cause of this increase. It might be small in your big picture world but is still there and still happening...

Let's compare this to a human life...say the average life scan is 75 years right now. You add heavy drinking and smoking and the life scan decreases..... Do we as a society think it is ok to be a heavy drinker and heavy smoker??? No it not as acceptable as it once was.... No you think it acceptable to continue what we are doing and increase greenhouse gases and possibly decease the lifescan of the planet????

I am sure the tobacco industry fought the "science" too....Just like big industry (oil/gas and other heavy industry) is fighting the science now.....

Like I said before science is not black and white and I might be wrong but at least I have tried to improve and I can handle that lose......And your side???

And now I am tired!

Hey Shed, welcome back, man. We need you here in order to compensate for me bringing down the thread's collective IQ. Quick, say something smart!!

SMRT.....haha

I will forgive you! Just don't do it again!

On my way to bed so a quick note. The "Crazy blog site" where I got that last bit of info was actually from a guy who has done a paleo mapping website which has won scientific web awards from scientific american for 2000 and 2001. Doesn't really matter where the information comes from though. He has noted all his sources etc. The information is all sound, if it isn't I'm open to having it corrected.

My point is that the planet has seen higher CO2 concentrations than we have now and sometimes the temp was hotter and sometimes it was cooler and sometimes it was the same. Seems to indicate a wide range of temps associated with a wide range of CO2 concentrations which would indicate to me anyway that CO2 concentrations are not what we should be focusing all of our energies on. If the planet is headed for a cooling regardless of our current actions, maybe it is not such a good idea to be handicapping industrial progress and innovation right now trying to move global temperatures a fraction of a degree in the direction they may be heading anyway.

I'm all for conservation etc. I just don't think global socialism via carbon trading etc and huge transfers of wealth out of Canada into other nations or companies owned by Al Gore is the way to go. Especially when the science behind all the hysteria is highly suspect. The science is not supporting global warming via human increased CO2 levels and the climate history does not support it. Computer models torqued up by IPCC and UN hacks, enviro-nazis, and Al Gore support it though.

Just some thoughts to ponder. Better get to bed.

Actually meant the blog site you referenced the post before...not the web site. Anyways I still feel picking facts that suit the arguement is just as suspect. I mean you can find anything on the internet and use statistics to prove any point.

I think we are starting to go around and around....The main arguement you have is there is no proof that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. I am partly saying you have no proof they aren't but also the main point is we are adding some new greenhouse gases and adding more of old ones at an unnatural rate. You think that is good I think it is bad....

I guess we willl find out some century! I guess I work with species at risk and time is important and not doing anything about it leaves us mainly with less species....

Treeguy wrote:

I have to go have sex with my sister

Why I am not surprised? But that certainly does demonstrate the level of your intelligence. Thanks for removing all doubt. Now isn't it time for you to go to school?

I like Lubus Motls. He is a young physicist that is very intelligent. And as a further benefit, physics actually ties into global warming theories, not sure how fruitfly study or being an ex-vice president from a coal mine owning family, ties into climate though. Selecting websites that only had climatologists as authors would leave David Suzuki and Al Gore off the list.

I don't see anything wrong with using facts and statistics to back up my argument. In fact I know of no better way of proving a point than by using facts and statistics. I have found facts and statistics to be wholly more reliable than torqued up computer models with jacked up inputs.

I agree with you though Shed that this can get to be somewhat of a circular argument, it is good to have your ideas challenged though (from both sides). The only true way of verifying any of this is to wait for it to happen. I guess my point is that if this were in a court of law the preponderence of evidence more than casts a shadow of doubt on the alarmists motives, and their science.

As to the goodness or badness of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere...I don't think I said that it was good or bad (maybe jokingly). The main gist of my argument is that there is not enough evidence for AGW to support a drastic change in our economies, governments and energy consumption. A gradual move in that direction is fine with people changing how they use energy of their own free will.

My point more specifically is that MAN MADE CO2 is not causing global warming. Although I think it could be properly expanded to include the whole littany of greenhouse gases without damaging my argument.

I have no problem using facts but anyone can pull out facts about the coldest winter here....or the coldest day there...or this one area isn't warming. Taking samples of CO2 levels from millions of years ago but not showing the whole trend. I see lots of sites on the web doing this to try and trying to prove their point.

I must say you have hold firm on your hatred for Suzuki and Gore...I can understand Suzuki as he was angered a lot of people and some of his ideas are very much the tree hugger side.

I don't really get this Gore thing but I guess because he is the new image of global warming. I find it funny that there is this anger that he only green company...not sure why that is bad or the fact that he bought it in 2004 and global warming has been on the rader since the 70s....He didn't invent global warming ideas after he bought the company....He bought something that he feels is important and makes money....

Can I ask if you work for industry or oil/gas?

I think the fear of the economy crashing is the same thing you are claiming Suzuki is doing..spreading fear...for every industry that will have trouble with new regs there wil be another one that fills it place.

Green energy will slowly take over some markets. Why don't you support energy reduction????

Oh and I will post some key dates since everyone want facts
KEY DATES...

1827 French scientist Jean-Baptiste Fourier compares the warming effect of the atmosphere to a greenhouse.
1863 John Tyndall, an Irish scientist, shows how water vapour in the atmosphere can act as a greenhouse gas by trapping heat.
1890s Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius suggests that burning fossil fuels may lead to a build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which could exacerbate the greenhouse effect.
1957 David Keeling, a US scientist, begins to monitor carbon dioxide on a long-term basis and soon finds a year-on-year rise.
1979 First World Climate Conference highlights the possibility of global warming.
1985 The first world conference on the greenhouse effect his held at Villach in Austria.
1987 Warmest year on record.
1988 US congressional hearings blame major drought in the United States on the influence of global warming. The World Meteorological Organisation set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
1990 First report of the IPCC finds that the planet has warmed by 0.5C on average since the start of the 20th century.
1992 Climate Change Convention signed in Rio by 154 nations sets initial targets to reduce the scale of carbon dioxide emissions, based on emissions in 1990.
1995 The hottest year to date.
1997 Kyoto protocol agrees binding cuts in emissions but US says it will not ratify unless Third World countries are included.
1998 Hottest year on record, in the hottest decade.
2001 George Bush abandons Kyoto, saying the science is uncertain. IPCC publishes its third assessment report. Link strengthened between man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and global warming.
2002 The EU and Japan ratify Kyoto but Russia delays. The world experiences second hottest year on record.
2003 Heatwave kills thousands across Europe. Scientists link it directly with global warming.
2004 Russia signs up to Kyoto, so it can now come into force in 2005.
2005 Second warmest year on record globally. Kyoto protocol comes into force. Economist Nicholas Stern publishes his report saying that we cannot afford to do nothing about climate change. In August, New Orleans is devastated by Hurricane Katrina.
2006 The IPCC confirms that global warming is real and that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are at least partly responsible.

See I can play the game too.... Oh and another point there are hundeds of Scientist and climatologist working at the UN and on the IPCC committee...You named 1 that jumped ship....

Yes but how do you argue with this:rollin www.glennbeck.com/steakoutourfuture/

Goonbag, now I'm a little insulted. How does incest releate to my intelligence? That's just unfair and I demand an apology (and so does my sister)! I mean come on. My IQ is being challenged by someone who can't put up a two line post without having to edit.

Goon, if you have something to contribute, please do, but to only talk smack just shows you have NOTHING PRODUCTIVE TO ADD (other than some comic relief, 'cause you are freaken' hilarious, dude!). Add something, say something, please. Only saying that I am stupid because of my thoughts (and incest) is just hurtful and wrong.

"Oh and another point there are hundeds of Scientist and climatologist working at the UN and on the IPCC committee"

Even if a thousand scientists told me that a dog was a cat I still wouldn't believe them.

Hey Rug!

Did you see Licia Corbella's article in the Calgary Sun today. It is entitled 'Debunking Global Warming Myths'. Good read.

It is basically about a British documentary called, The Great Global Warming Swindle. You can see the film at:

littlegreenfootballs.com/...24760&only

This film is made by the same people who recently exposed the extremist ideology being promoted in Britian's Islamic mosques. If memory serves me correct, I think that you may have posted this one before, but better safe than sorry!

Anyway, considering that CO2 accounts for less than 1% of the composition of our atmosphere, here is a great quote from Dr. Tim Ball: "The analogy I use, is my car's not running very well, so I'm going to ignore the engine, which is the sun, and I'm going to ignore the transmission, which is the water vapour and I'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2. The science is that bad."

The point about CO2 levels from millions of years ago is to demonstrate that CO2 levels have varied from about 200ppm to 4400 ppm during the history of the planet with various temperatures associated with those levels. High CO2 levels do not necessarily occur with high temperatures (in some cases they do, in some cases they don't).

Yes I work in the oil and gas industry. Does that invalidate the facts?

My hatred for Gore and Suzuki is no different than my hatred for someone selling snake oil, or a greasy contractor out conning little old ladies. I actually used to look up to Suzuki and he was part of the reason for me getting my degree in biology.

I do support energy reduction. I even have some flourescent bulbs. I just don't think we need to be crippling an industry to try and move the climate a portion of a degree in the direction it may be moving soon anyway. Green energy is great and I think we should use more of it. I am a huge supporter of nuclear energy and think Alberta should encourage it. Kyoto will force us to spend billions buying carbon credits without improving anything.

Not sure what game you were talking about but I'll play along.

120,000yrs ago the Eemian interglacial period draws to an end and the Earth is plunged into another ice age that would last 100,000yrs. The Eemian interglacial lasted about 20,000yrs

18,000 yrs ago the present interglacial period started with the warming of the planet as the glaciers that covered most of Canada and into the states began retreating which they continue to this day. Global warming and glacial retreat have been occurring for the entire span of the Holocene interglacial period.

If past patterns continue to repeat themselves as they have for the last 2million years or so of the Pleistoncene epoch we are due for another ice age soon.

There is no science that supports AGW, only herd mentality scientists, computer models, and an iffy theory that postulates that increased CO2 concentrations lead to increased temperatures. Historical data regarding past CO2 concentrations do not support this theory. Historical data regarding climate patterns do not support this theory.

I do support energy reduction. I even have some flourescent bulbs. I just don't think we need to be crippling an industry to try and move the climate a portion of a degree in the direction it may be moving soon anyway.

This whole deal is about energy efficiency. Why everyone is getting so caught up in the hollywood is beyond me. How is becoming more energy efficient going to cripple the industry? that just boggles my mind.
Someone has the old style thermostat which stays constant all day, converts to the new electronic one that turns off when no one is home. He will regain the price of the new thermostat in about 2 months of energy savings, all the money there after will be gravy, and he will reduce the amount of exhaust, but yet you think he is going to be crippled.

Golly Treeguy, did I really hurt your feelings that bad? Aww, me so sorry but please, stop your weeping. Its embarrassing. Try to act like a man...even if you have to fake it. Now I know you're really just a child, possibly even just a young girl and the internet is new and exciting to you. But try not to get too excited or upset when you read something you don't like. I do, however, look forward to your next display of superior intellect and wonderful nuggets of wisdom. You've been contributing oh so much and I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one sticking it to your sister...that little sl*t. . Uh oh, I think heard the school bell. Run along to class now and try not to get your pretty little dress dirty.