Posted on 04/25/2007 12:41:58 AM PDT by Omega Man II
Move to block emissions 'swindle' DVD
· Climate scientists say film misleads public · Wag TV producers reject 'contemptible gag attempt'
David Adam, environment correspondent
Wednesday April 25, 2007
The Guardian
Dozens of climate scientists are trying to block the DVD release of a controversial Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming is nothing to do with human greenhouse gas emissions.
Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office, and Bob May, former president of the Royal Society, are among 37 experts who have called for the DVD to be heavily edited or removed from sale. The film, the Great Global Warming Swindle, was first shown on March 8, and was criticised by scientists as distorted and misleading.
(Excerpt) Read more at environment.guardian.co.uk ...
I am looking forward to it.
The "must see" video.
It’s a shame that those who feel our climate change isn’t anthropogenic feel they must resort to Michael Moore-style lies to make their case. :-( But I guess this is the state of “documentary” in the 21st Century. :-(
Thanks for the link!
It’s a great video, I learned a lot from it including the fact that this hoax is harming so many people all over the world. Even shortening lives.
Don't trust main stream media. Their scare tactics have flip-flopped four times over the last eighty-some years.
The following graphs show that Earth is in a brief period of global warming called an interglacial. The longer time spans, the deep troughs are glacial periods. The line that runs across the graphs is the temperature in 1950 and listed as "0" on the left axis.
As can be seen in Figure 1-5, Earth appears ready to move toward another ice age in the cycle.
I'm more concerned with sustaining global warming to offset global cooling and the next ice age.
|
Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes |
This first graph looks bad, doesn't it -- steeper upward temperature trend. Horizontal red line is temperature at 1950.
Figure 1-1 Global warming
The second graph shows today's temperature isn't out of the norm. Horizontal blue line is temperature at 1950.
Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years
The next graph shows a downtrend in temperatures from 8,000 years ago to today. The down trend is steeper in the recent 2,000 years. From left to right the upper spikes have lower highs while the lower spikes have lower lows. (The same effect can be seen in Figure 1-2, above.)
Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years
This graph shows that agriculture and stationary societies emerged 8,000 years ago during a time frame when global temperature was much higher than normal, or average.
Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years
The next graph shows that the recent 8,000 years was one of five brief hot spikes when glaciers were at minimums. With much longer troughs when glacials (ice ages) were the norm most of the time.
Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice
The graph below is reversed. That is, the left side is present day and the right side is 3 million years ago. It shows a 3 million year down trend toward widening extremes in the temperature cycle.
Figure 1-6 Climate for the last 3 million years
The final graph shows CO2 lagging temperature change -- not leading it.
Figure 1-7 CO2 and temperature for the last 450 kyr
When man can cause meaningful global warming yesterday would be a good time to begin thwarting the next ice age.
Great documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle at Google.
The Great Global Warming Swindle at You Tube.
If the above links don't work use the respective search function at each Website. Type: The Great Global Warming Swindle.Anthropogenic global warming parasites and their dupes would tell you not to believe your lying eyes.
And why is 1960-1990 chosen as the "baseline" in your graph when that is the period so heavily influenced by sulfur-based aerosols?
Why can't we have an unbiased examination of the data, rather than each side spinning things?!?
"We believe that the misrepresentation of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest ... In fact, so serious and fundamental are the misrepresentations..."But I'm guessin' they're cool with Algore's "Inconvenient Truth".
Setting a "baseline" doesn't seem to be much of an issue as long as a suitably long set of data are displayed to show the cycles. There is nothing that is "normal" in weather or climate.
Please, tell me those NY Slimes and Slime Ragazine quotes are REAL. :) I want to fine ‘em, their article and pages at my local library, LOOK ‘em up and PRINT THEM for my lib friends. :)
Why don't you go back to about 65 million years ago? CO2 was much higher then and not one human to cause it, but I guess you don't want to talk about that right? Temperatures have been warmer in the past also, and we only have to go back about 1000 years for that. Don't let the truth hit you in the butt on the way out the door. Oh, yes, lets talk about water vapor which is a bigger cause of warming than CO2 ever could be, how about that? I know, you have another "chart" that shows BS and you think it proves something.
The fact is, climate change is not caused by man and Mars proves that. Climate change is natural and occurs constantly through out history and will keep on doing so.
In another 20 years when climate change hasn't occured to the point the screamers are predicting, the scare will swing back to global cooling because this is all about control and passing laws that will bring us under the yolk of globalization and allow higher taxes to be wrung from the citizens of the world, and allow oppressive laws that will shackle us like slaves.
More scientists, real ones not the fakes that are portrayed in this article, the ones trying to suppress free speech, but real scientists say that global warming is not man made and may not even exist at this point. The best that can be introduced is that temps have risen .5 of a degree F over the last 100 years.
If all the BS these so called scientists are saying about global warming is true, why are they afraid of a DVD showing the other side, why suppress free speech, they should welcome the debate, but like all liberals they don't and they reason they don't is becaue they are afraid of the truth, they can't stand a free debate and alternate view points, so they scream and cry and try to suppress other evidence that might be contrary to theirs. Happens all the time with liberals, either believe the way they do or be shouted down.
The baseline on1y sets the horizonta1 1ine on the chart (ie, where the zero is for tempreture), it has no other effect. It does not bias the chart.
Well, it should be! After all they're taking time out of their busy, busy schedules to do this for our sakes--you know, the little people, the lumpenproletarat.
This link is not working.
Why would increasing temp cause increasing CO2 ?
BUMP
Setting a "baseline" doesn't seem to be much of an issue as long as a suitably long set of data are displayed to show the cycles. There is nothing that is "normal" in weather or climate.
Exactly. To focus on the base line is an obfuscation. It is trivial compared to the climate cycles. That's why AGW parasites and their dupes don't even bother to trivialize the temperature and CO2 cycle over long time periods. Instead, they turn a blind eye and attempt to raise what is trivial to be most important.
It's like when a republican staff member found a memo on the republican/democrat shared house computer system. The memo was circulated among some democrats planning to manipulate the selection of judges to the court. The main stream media trivialized the contents of the memo and instead made, how the memo was obtained, the most important aspect of the story. The problem is, the memo was on a computer system shared by both sides of the aisle -- legal and trivial. Using deception to stack the court is important news information.
Thanks for posting the graph. I followed it to its source Web site and will look deeper into it. From what I briefly saw it looks to be a good source.
This link is not working.
The four links in post 8 work for me. Try them again.
Can anybody confirm this ratio one way or the other?
If they have such a problem with the DVD they should offer up evidence to refute the information contained in the DVD and make their own. This would make sense, but when you’re in “chicken little” mode for profit and credibility, you attempt to censor and edit the opposing view. Since the Martian ice caps are melting and they haven’t yet found a way to incorporate Martian suv’s into their little theory, obfuscation, intimidation and excision will have to do.
One possible factor is the reduced capacity of the water in the oceans to hold CO2 as its temperature increases. A warm soda goes flat (from losing CO2) a lot quicker than a cold one does.
I hope this helps.........http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
I understand there have been trouble calibrating it. The late 19th century and early 20th century direct measurements tend to disagree drastically varying from 280 to 550.
So we are left with no direct verification that the amplitudes of such measurements will match.
Correct, and the case was made for that in the program. Good explanation with the soda btw.
Why would increasing temp cause increasing CO2 ?
Increase in atmospheric temperature doesn't increase the amount of CO2. Increased ocean temperature causes an increase in the amount of CO2 released from oceans. Ocean temperature increases slower than atmosphere temperature. Thus the reason for the time lag.
If they have such a problem with the DVD they should offer up evidence to refute the information contained in the DVD and make their own. This would make sense, but when you’re in “chicken little” mode for profit and credibility, you attempt to censor and edit the opposing view.
Exactly. They supposedly have a consensus and this shows how consensus isn't predicated on facts or laws of nature. There a trial lawyer analogy that fits here...
When the facts aren't on your side argue the law. When the law isn't on your side argue the facts. When neither is on your side, pound on the table.
The most egregious thing is the political parasites and environmental parasites at the top of the AGW swindle is their intent to undermine science by politicizing it.
If they can convince enough people that they can nail Jell-O to the wall it opens the flood gates to evermore politicizing of science. It's almost as though they took a page right out of the Dark Ages.
Dozens eh?
The volcano site in the link you provided said that man created more then 150 times what volcanoes did each year. As did another volcano site, that gave a figure of about 33 billion tons per year for the volcanoes.
However a "green" site I found was sounding an alarm about automobile emisions increasing dramatically to about 6.8 billion tons per year.
Another "green" site claimed that mankind had produced a total of 500 billion tons per the industrial revolution. Which it 25 billion a year if divide it by the last 20 years--but they were including "deforestation" in their calculations.
At this point, my guess is the "150 times" is an urban legend being passed around, and that the Great Warming Swindle was right about this.
Prolly because all living things and dying things emit CO2 and warm climates allow life to thrive (witness summer/vs winter)
The fact that Co2 is a function of temp is damning to the entire premise of gores theory
Prolly because all living things and dying things emit CO2 and warm climates allow life to thrive (witness summer/vs winter)
The fact that Co2 is a function of temp is damning to the entire premise of gores theory
It takes several hundred years for the water to warm up.
But...But there's TWO SUV's up there! See, JUST SEE ALL THE DAMAGE THEY HAVE DONE!!!/sarc LOL!
And you are right, but it’s not urban legend it is scientists posing it as fact. When you said, “you guess”, you became a scientist, because that is what they were doing on the site I linked. They call it estimation, you guess, you have as good a chance at being correct as any. The estimations aren’t always forthcoming as to how the estimation is determined. Were underwater volcanic co2 emissions accounted for, I bet not, but how do we know. See we have partially bought into AGW, because we are researching the straw man they set up in the article. We get bogged down in the minutia of volcanic vs anthropogenic when co2 emmisions from our oceans dwarf both.
WOW, I am going to walk everywhere now, use one square of toilet paper, and buy every carbon credit from the Goracle I can get my hands on! lol
Not me! I’m from North Dakota, and I’m all FOR global warming!
But I’m guessin’ they’re cool with Algore’s “Inconvenient Truth”.
@@@@@
It’s a safe bet that every school child in the known universe whose school has access to a DVD machine will be seeing Algore’s “Inconvenient Truth”.
In the absence of human activity, the earth has regularly been going through cycles of heating and cooling.
The heating and cooling cycles are correlated with cycles in solar activity.
CO2 increases follow temperature increases; CO2 decreases follow temperature decreases.
Changes in solar activity drive changes in global warming and cooling; global warming/cooling drives changes in levels of atmospheric CO2.
Changes in atmospheric CO2 are the result, not the cause of, changes in global temperature.
Furthermore: solar-driven changes in global temperature change levels of human activity and population.
Increased human activity has caused an increase in atmospheric CO2.
Therefore, solar-driven changes in global temperature have also been responsible for the changes in the anthropogenic component of atmospheric CO2.
Both the "natural" changes in levels of atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic changes are effects of a cause that lies entirely outside the realm of human control.
In either case, since the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result, not the cause, of global warming, trying to decrease the level of the result can do nothing to decrease the degree of the cause. That is, since A causes B and B results in C, fiddling with degrees of C will do nothing to change A and attempting to do so is a waste of time and resources.
The Stalinists have goosestepped on stage, led by the Marxist propagandists at the Guardian.
Note that ocean and lake temperatures around the globe are not a single value. There is apparently a huge CO2 flux into and out of the water each year that dwarfs the anthropogenic CO2 output (though it’s likely true that the atmospheric CO@ concentration increase is mostly man made). The oceans could be moving massive amounts of CO2 around the globe in the ocean currents.
mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.