Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 13 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Hob
Hob
4033 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 09, 2007, 23:17
Refutations? I dunno if that's a word, but I'll use it anyway.

DM, just on the off chance that you're not a troll (anyone care to offer a percentage likelihood of that?) Here's the thing:

Earth's CO2 levels fluctuate. Yup. They always have done, hopefully they always will. But a closed system like Earth's atmosphere can usually compensate for fluctuations, maybe not instantly, but over the long terms things balance out. This strange blip of an interglacial we're curently experiencing will end at some point, and things will go back to normal. Read yer Lovelock.

So there's no problem with someone professing that natural sources of CO2 cause greenhouse warming. The problem comes when they say that just because natural sources of CO2 exist, that anthropogenic CO2 increases are irrelevant. They're still a factor. It seems a bit like saying that as most people die of natural causes, we needn't bother doing anything to try and prevent murders.

And when you take into account that the 'natural balance' of CO2 production and sequestration over the long term is one of those wonderfully dynamic complex systems, we have to be very wary of people who simplify the issue by pointing out that anthropogenic sources are smaller than natural sources of CO2. Because in any dynamic re-iterative system, small variations in conditions can have massive knock on effects.

To simplify (be wary now...) if Earth's painstakingly evolved homeostatic mechanisms of CO2 turnover are such that they can cope with having a few million years worth of organically sequestered carbon bunged back into the atmosphere in a tiny fraction of the time it took to sequester them, then we're OK. If it can't, maybe we are fucked after all.

There, I've said me bit, and care not a jot if it makes any sense, so I'll shut up now.
theelectricgonad
theelectricgonad
22 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 10, 2007, 07:56
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/02/26/tomo/index1.html
DarkMagus
170 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 10, 2007, 07:59
Sorry, but did you see the film? It stated and showed evidence that CO2 increases followed warming, not the other way round! i.e. warming of the oceans causes CO2 to increase 800 years AFTER the Earth has warmed. Therefore the CO2 is an effect of warming not a cause.....

I'm waiting to hear someone effectively contradict that statement from the film (which was 50% of their whole arguement), but there's been a deathly silence.
anthonyqkiernan
anthonyqkiernan
7080 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 10, 2007, 08:48
DarkMagus wrote:
Sorry, but did you see the film?


DarkMagus wrote:
On Channel 4 now.

Seems like you'd made your mind up before you'd seen it too.

Anyhoo, Merrick's first post carried all the counter argument you (should) need. See the bit about 'peer review'.
anthonyqkiernan
anthonyqkiernan
7080 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 10, 2007, 08:51
Nicely put.
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Edited Mar 10, 2007, 09:27
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 10, 2007, 09:00
DarkMagus wrote:

Sorry, but did you see the film? It stated and showed evidence that CO2 increases followed warming, not the other way round! i.e. warming of the oceans causes CO2 to increase 800 years AFTER the Earth has warmed. Therefore the CO2 is an effect of warming not a cause.....


Hob wrote:


So there's no problem with someone professing that natural sources of CO2 cause greenhouse warming. The problem comes when they say that just because natural sources of CO2 exist, that anthropogenic CO2 increases are irrelevant. They're still a factor.


Doesn't this give you an answer? Hob and Merrick seem to be among the few who actually understand this at any depth, but what I gather is that yes, naturally occurrent CO2 is a cosequence of changes in the earth's temperature, so those who proclaim that one are correct.

But you must differentiate between 'natural' 'CO2'and unnatural man made 'CO2' yourself before you claim you've had no satisfactory response from anyone. To quote the programme as to the general tenor on that one would be useful, IMO.
I know you say you're undecided yourself, which is fair enough. But I don't think it's useful to ignore that which has been addressed when you haven't fully put your own deck out!
I'm learning things here myself on this one!
x
DarkMagus
170 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 10, 2007, 11:59
Check the timings... I posted while the programme was on and had seen sufficient to reckon there was valuable information there. I repeatedly say I don't know for sure, unlike many who seem utterley convinced one way or another.
DarkMagus
170 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 10, 2007, 12:01
Manmade CO2 was covered in depth, with the apparently qualified academics thinking it was insignificant in the great scheme of things.
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Edited Mar 10, 2007, 12:25
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 10, 2007, 12:22
Then it's your entitlement to base your own uncertainties on that, of course it is. Personally, I don't know the 'truth' but the less crap I breathe in the better, even just for the aesthetics, and I'm sure we're all the same there.
My point is that you seemed to be ignoring the fact that Merrick and Hob at least adressed the issue of man made v natural CO2.
You did seem to be shifting the goalpost as to what your point was , and if your statement of intent had been something like 'I don't believe for sure that co2 emmisions have any impact on global warming as is discussed in this programme', that would've brought about much needed brevity, and it might have made for a more productive argument.
People did respond when you asked them to 'refute' the claims made in the show, but then you shifted your argument elsewhere with no acknowledgement of what they'd said.
EDIT: I don't think either Hob or Merrick (I go back to these two as they seem to be the most clued up on the subject) professed to be 'right' or 'wrong'.
I'm always glad to see a bit of a barny here, so I appreciate it!
x
DarkMagus
170 posts

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 10, 2007, 13:43
The point that wasn't answered was the CO2 following warming i.e. the causal relationship being appaently reversed.

I'd genuinely like to hear what is incorrect in the science part of the film (I'm a little less interested in the reasons and motivations for the CO2 theory which were also a large part). The responses have largely been name calling and repetition of the standard pro arguements, but not addressing the specifics of the science of the film of I have only mentioned part. There were an array of things pointing to the man made CO2 theory being incorrect. I am not going to argue in depth about it because it is the scientists in the film's baby, not mine. Their word are more authoratitive than mine.

Some have accused me of trolling which is not true: devils advocate is more like it.

Maybe someone will produce a detailed debunking of the film. They'd better be robust though, as the main contributors would seem to be heavyweight academics: 4 professors and 7 doctorates appear in the credits.

So step forward anyone. What are the flaws in the evidence presented? If the data they showed is correct, what other interpretation is more plausible? Anyone who hasn't actually seen the film need not apply. See previous Life of Brian comment.
Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 13 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index