What do Neowinians think?   863 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think Global Warming is caused by human carbon emissions?

    • Yes
      397
    • No
      348
    • Unsure
      118
  2. 2. Should we use the precautionary principle until we know for certain whether carbon dioxide causes global warming?

    • Yes
      561
    • No
      302

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

6,610 posts in this topic

I personally think the scientific debate ended years ago but if you wish to discuss that then this is the place to do it.

I'll start off by linking to some basic graphical primers:

Warming 101

Melting Polar Ice Cap

Fueling the Fire

What You Can Do

Climate Change Photo Gallery

You can debate the merits of those if you wish.

Here's something else to sink your teeth into:

Poll Finds Worldwide Agreement That Climate Change is a Threat

March 13, 2007

An international poll finds widespread agreement that climate change is a pressing problem. This majority, however, divides over whether the problem of global warming is urgent enough to require immediate, costly measures or whether more modest efforts are sufficient.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...29&lb=hmpg1

Hey Fred; Maybe you can post this link on the first post.

Apocalypse Cancelled

Edit: Poll by _sphinx_ (added via a merger of threads)

If I had done the poll, I would have asked if human carbon emissions are accelerating global warming (rather than causing it)

Edited by Fred Derf
Original voting text was too long: "Should we use the precautionary principle until we know for certain whether carbon dioxide causes global warming? This means we must cut our carbon emissions for the moment."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

?The Great Global Warming 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 ten 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.

"Al Gore might have won an Oscar for ?An Inconvenient Truth?, but the film is very misleading and he has got the relationship between CO2 and climate change the wrong way round."

One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In ?The Great Global Warming Swindle? Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.

He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth?s history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels.

Prof Clark believes increased levels of CO2 are because the Earth is heating up and not the cause. He says most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, which dissolve the gas.

When the temperature increases, more gas is released into the atmosphere and when global temperatures cool, more CO2 is taken in. Because of the immense size of the oceans, he said they take time to catch up with climate trends, and this ?memory effect? is responsible for the lag.

Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades.

It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began.

This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory, because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2 and should, according to the consensus, have meant a rise in global temperatures.

The programme claims there appears to be a consensus across science that CO2 is responsible for global warming, but Professor Paul Reiter is shown to disagree.

He said the influential United Nations report on Climate change, that claimed humans were responsible, was a sham.

It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of scientists who disagreed with the findings and resigned from the UN?s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by government appointees.

The CO2 theory is further undermined by claims that billions of pounds is being provided by governments to fund greenhouse effect research, so thousands of scientists know their job depends on the theory continuing to be seen as fact.

The programme claims efforts to reduce CO2 are killing Africans, who have to burn fires inside their home, causing cancer and lung damage, because their governments are being encouraged to use wind and solar panels that are not capable of supplying the continent with electricity, instead of coal and oil-burning power stations that could.

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore is shown saying: "Environmentalists have romanticised peasant life, but this is anti-human.

"They are saying the world?s poorest people should have the world?s most expensive form of form of energy ? really saying they can?t have electricity."

Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, is featured in the programme, and has just released a book claiming that clouds are the real reason behind climate change.

?The Chilling Stars? was written with Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark who published a scientific paper, claiming cosmic rays cause clouds to form, reducing the global temperature. The theory is shown in the programme.

Mr Calder said: "Henrik Svensmark saw that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars - when there are more cosmic rays, there are more clouds.

"However, solar winds bat away many of the cosmic rays and the sun is currently in its most active phase, which would be an explanation for global warming.

"I am a science journalist and in my career I have been told by eminent scientists that black holes do not exist and it is impossible that continents move, but in science the experts are usually wrong.

"For me this is a cracking science story ? I don?t come from any political position and I?m certainly not funded by the multinationals, although my bank manager would like me to be.

"I talk to scientists and come up with one story, and Al Gore talks to another set of scientists and comes up with a different story.

"So knowing which scientists to talk to is part of the skill. Some, who appear to be disinterested, are themselves getting billions of dollars of research money from the government.

"The few millions of dollars of research money from multinationals can?t compare to government funding, so you find the American scientific establishment is all for man-made global warming.

"We have the same situation in Britain The government?s chief scientific advisor Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change."

The programme shows how the global warming research drive began when Margaret Thatcher gave money to scientists to ?prove? burning coal and oil was harmful, as part of her drive for nuclear power.

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London , who also features in the film warned the issue was too complex to be down to one single factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He said: "The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start because you can?t say that just one factor can have this effect.

"The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be, or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.

"It?s ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2C or 3C."

Mr Stott said the film could mark the point where scientists advocating the greenhouse effect theory, began to lose the argument.

He continued: "It is a brave programme at the moment to give excluded voices their say, and maybe it is just the beginning.

"At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous."

In the programme Nigel Calder says: "The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don?t agree, you are a heretic.

He added: "However, I think this programme will help further debate and scientists not directly involved in global warming studies may begin to study what is being said, become more open-minded and more questioning, but this will happen slowly."

Copyright ? 2006 National News +44(0)207 684 3000

Source

Great Global Warming Swindle = http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...ndle/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who believes this anymore even if it would be true, because some big corporations offered to pay money to those scientists who denies global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can there be scientists associated with this? I thought there was a consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

science is seeing and doing, so how can people denying global warming be classed as scientist ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can there be scientists associated with this? I thought there was a consensus.

con?sen?sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-sen-suhs]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

?noun, plural -sus?es.

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much, so there's also a scientific consensus that global warming is nonexistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can there be scientists associated with this?

Just because they are scientists doesnt mean they cant be idiots too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because they are scientists doesnt mean they cant be idiots too.

True enough, just like many of the same scientists that believe in Global Warming were predicting another ice age in the 70's. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad this view is becoming more mainstream. Hopefully we can get rid of the stupid Green Taxes over here - I miss the good old ?10 Ryanair plane tickets (now ?20, thanks Gordon Brown).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks so much, so there's also a scientific consensus that global warming is nonexistent.

You can have a majority of agreement on both the existance and non-existance of something ? Talk about a crackpot.

Edited by davemania

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seen a documentary on a similar theme to this last year and several of the arguments in it were compelling.

i also hate the way we always see the weather forcast moaning about global warming causing XYZ and then they say its the worst <insert phenomena> for 100 years or whatever. guess what folks...that means it happened 100 years ago too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night was kind of cold so I'm going out on a limb but: I pronounce Global Chilling! Ill pick up my award at the door. Thank You.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last night was kind of cold so I'm going out on a limb but: I pronounce Global Chilling! Ill pick up my award at the door. Thank You.

yea i was outside today and the wind was really cold. infact my eyes were watering it was that chilly.

i expect more from global warming in a northerly latitude in march!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last night was kind of cold so I'm going out on a limb but: I pronounce Global Chilling! Ill pick up my award at the door. Thank You.

That proves to me how little you know about global warming. It baffles me how people run their mouth about how cold it is outside for 1 week and claim global warming is blasphemy. Global warming does not mean that its always going to be hot year-round. When the earth faces away from the sun, its obviously going to get colder no matter what.

Oh noees1!! Its 25 degrees outside today after it was 51 yesterday, those scientists are lying about global warming!!11!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That proves to me how little you know about global warming. It baffles me how people run their mouth about how cold it is outside for 1 week and claim global warming is blasphemy. Global warming does not mean that its always going to be hot year-round. When the earth faces away from the sun, its obviously going to get colder no matter what.

Oh noees1!! Its 25 degrees outside today after it was 51 yesterday, those scientists are lying about global warming!!11!

You really know how to prove to us global warming is. I'm a firm believe now. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That proves to me how little you know about global warming. It baffles me how people run their mouth about how cold it is outside for 1 week and claim global warming is blasphemy. Global warming does not mean that its always going to be hot year-round. When the earth faces away from the sun, its obviously going to get colder no matter what.

Oh noees1!! Its 25 degrees outside today after it was 51 yesterday, those scientists are lying about global warming!!11!

You're right. I woke up this morning and its fairly warm here in Hawaii. Must be Global Warming again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right. I woke up this morning and its fairly warm here in Hawaii. Must be Global Warming again.

You really know how to prove to us global warming is. I'm a firm believe now. :rolleyes:

He wasn't attempting to. He was pointing out the idiocy of the common counter-arguments that are thought to be valid reasoning against global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That proves to me how little you know about global warming. It baffles me how people run their mouth about how cold it is outside for 1 week and claim global warming is blasphemy. Global warming does not mean that its always going to be hot year-round. When the earth faces away from the sun, its obviously going to get colder no matter what.

Oh noees1!! Its 25 degrees outside today after it was 51 yesterday, those scientists are lying about global warming!!11!

He wasn't attempting to. He was pointing out the idiocy of the common counter-arguments that are thought to be valid reasoning against global warming.

People are starting to run from the Man Made theory - Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic...http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Truth is all that should be seeked; why do some get so bent out of shape about the simple looking into...are we putting someone's agenda at risk or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People are starting to run from the Man Made theory - Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic...http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Nice I love it. Except the article lacks reasoning completely and doesn't really have anything to do with what I previously said.
why do some get so bent out of shape about the simple looking into

How about this:

Global warming is lies.

Yeah, a simple looking into. Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice I love it. Except the article lacks reasoning completely and doesn't really have anything to do with what I previously said.

How about this:

Yeah, a simple looking into. Sure.

Why do you deny the possiblilty that this all maybe a bunch of mumbo jumbo? or maybe an agenda?

By the way the title is 'Global Warming Is Lies', Claims Documentary. :trout:

You pick apart my post (leaving out what you do not like) to make your point. That is what the people behind global warming appear to be doing. Picking and choosing the facts.

Edited by Fresh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you deny the possiblilty that this all maybe a bunch of mumbo jumbo? or maybe an agenda?

By the way the title is 'Global Warming Is Lies', Claims Documentary. :trout:

You pick apart my post (leaving out what you do not like) to make your point. That is what the people behind global warming appear to be doing. Picking and choosing the facts.

Those arguing against global warming are doing the exact same thing, picking and choosing facts, while ignoring anything the other side has to say. Irony? Not realy. Attention ###### taking the lead, on BOTH sides?

Definately.

Will both sides of a polarised argument see it, ever, as it realy is? Hell no, they are to busy making fun of each other, and saying "The OTHER side is worse!! So Nanny-Nanny-Boo-Boo!!" and trying to equate this with being "right" somehow.

You all sound pretty much alike, which is whats so darn amusing about watching the two sides bicker :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those arguing against global warming are doing the exact same thing, picking and choosing facts, while ignoring anything the other side has to say. Irony? Not realy. Attention ###### taking the lead, on BOTH sides?

Definately.

Will both sides of a polarised argument see it, ever, as it realy is? Hell no, they are to busy making fun of each other, and saying "The OTHER side is worse!! So Nanny-Nanny-Boo-Boo!!" and trying to equate this with being "right" somehow.

You all sound pretty much alike, which is whats so darn amusing about watching the two sides bicker :laugh:

Thanks for the contribution (Y) :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those arguing against global warming are doing the exact same thing, picking and choosing facts, while ignoring anything the other side has to say. Irony? Not realy. Attention ###### taking the lead, on BOTH sides? ...

You know what? You're right. This is pointless bickering. There really is no point to talking to someone like Fresh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.