The Great Global Warming Swindle

Natas said:
China is in the process of building additional coal based power stations. When the are all complete, these plants alone will pump over 4 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per annum. Thats 4 trillion kilograms of gas... how can there be any doubt that humans can influence major environmental balances.
Click to expand...

afaik good old dirty south africa is going to be building some more coal power stations.

I think were one of the dirties developing nations out there.
The ****e thing is we have the need for more power. So now eskom is jumping on the bandwagon and getting more coal power running.

There are some very interesting potential solutions to our energy needs. Renewable energy sources are starting to mature quite nicely. What would you rather have in cape town. A new addition to koeberg or wave power generators?
 
FFS people. This debate is as stupid as the AIDS/HIV debate (whatever happened to Johan?).

Scientific debate has long since moved from whether global warming is anthropologically caused. Far more pertinent at the moment is the question as to whether global warming is accelerating ie. Are the feedback mechanisms positive or negative. From what I gather current evidence seems to suggesting that it is, and the question is how much?

Deforestation and such yes, but affecting the entire planet is such profound way is not in our grasp quite yet.

Note CO2 is a natural greenhouse gas, the ocean pump out more CO2 than the entire human population.
Click to expand...

This is a rubbish argument. Many of the consequences are clearly observable, it is the finer details that are not yet entirely known.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn9903

Yes, the oceans also pump out loads of CO2 (330 GT pa), but other parts of the ocean absorb similar amounts.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

For those who are in doubt, I suggest you read some proper scientific evidence, and not base your entire argument on the evidence of one scientifically dubious documentary.
 
Last edited:
Tassidar said:
FFS people. This debate is as stupid as the AIDS/HIV debate (whatever happened to Johan?).

Scientific debate has long since moved from whether global warming is anthropologically caused. Far more pertinent at the moment is the question as to whether global warming is accelerating ie. Are the feedback mechanisms positive or negative. From what I gather current evidence seems to suggesting that it is, and the question is how much?



This is a rubbish argument. Many of the consequences are clearly observable, it is the finer details that are not yet entirely known.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn9903

Yes, the oceans also pump out loads of CO2 (330 GT pa), but other parts of the ocean absorb similar amounts.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

For those who are in doubt, I suggest you read some proper scientific evidence, and not base your entire argument on the evidence of one scientifically dubious documentary.
Click to expand...

Did you actually watch the video?
 
In truth, I haven't. One of the big disadvantages of being on a 3g connection rather than ADSL. It would just be too costly.

If the opportunity arises I will watch it though.

I still, however, stand by my previous point.
 
John Daly criticises surface temperature records.

Rebuttal.

Objection:
The surface temperature record is so full of assumptions and corrections that it only says what the scientists want.

This is a common attack and is most often based on the accusation that Urban Heat Island effects are the only reason there is an apparent warming trend. The best strategy is to avoid getting dragged into the specifcs of how the temperature record is analyzed because let's face it, whoever you are talking to is most likely not really interested anyway. Instead, focus on the conclusion of global warming and how this conclusion is consistent with many other independent findings.

Answer:
If you truly have a problem with the surface temperature record, there are many other completely independent lines of evidence that tell us the earth is indeed warming. And all of these various indicators unanimously agree. Putting aside the direct surface temperature measurements, Global Warming is also indicated by:

Satellite and Radiosondes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
Borehole analysis:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Glacial melt observations:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129
Sea ice melt:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
Sea level rise:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Proxy Reconstructions:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
Rising ocean temperature:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5732/284

All of these completely independent analyses of widely varied aspects of the climate system lead to the same conclusion: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.
Click to expand...
 
Tassidar said:
In truth, I haven't. One of the big disadvantages of being on a 3g connection rather than ADSL. It would just be too costly.

If the opportunity arises I will watch it though.

I still, however, stand by my previous point.
Click to expand...

If you get the chance please watch the video, as previously stated the folks in this video do not argue against global climate change, they simply question the gravitas of human involvement in the effects.
 
neio said:
If you get the chance please watch the video, as previously stated the folks in this video do not argue against global climate change, they simply question the gravitas of human involvement in the effects.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I will definitely try to.
 
The debate between scientists over global warming is interesting because the scientists fall into two categories:
1. Those who say humans need to change their behaviour;
2. Those who say we don't!

Unfortunately the first group have named companies and countries that need to do the changing (for example coal power stations, and USA and China). Now these changes require money and poluting less costs more.

So these companies and countries are supporting scientists who refute the first group. WHY? because to agree with them or to acknowledge they are right will cost them money. So the solution - support scientists and scientific reports that cast doubt on cimate change, then they can carry on poluting the environment and not have to spend money changing.

What I am saying, is that the scientific debate has nothing to do with which scientists are right, but rather it has everything to do with money. Thos who have money are trying to keep it.

Always ask yourself this question regarding scientific debates: Which side are they on and why?
 
Telkomhater said:
The debate between scientists over global warming is interesting because the scientists fall into two categories:
1. Those who say humans need to change their behaviour;
2. Those who say we don't!

Unfortunately the first group have named companies and countries that need to do the changing (for example coal power stations, and USA and China). Now these changes require money and poluting less costs more.

So these companies and countries are supporting scientists who refute the first group. WHY? because to agree with them or to acknowledge they are right will cost them money. So the solution - support scientists and scientific reports that cast doubt on cimate change, then they can carry on poluting the environment and not have to spend money changing.

What I am saying, is that the scientific debate has nothing to do with which scientists are right, but rather it has everything to do with money. Thos who have money are trying to keep it.

Always ask yourself this question regarding scientific debates: Which side are they on and why?
Click to expand...

you are 100% right there. Think back to the good old days when things like our toothpaste tubes were made from lead. The same kind of "debate" raged at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X