|
U-Know! Forum » The Great Global Warming Swindle |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Daminxa 1415 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 21:24
|
||
|
I'm not saying all the science in it was bollocks (well I can't really as I didn't see it!) And after all who am I, a lowly science tutor, to criticise intellectual heavyweights such as Patrick Moore, a man so erudite he wrote a book of bollocks under a pseudonym just so that he could publically disprove it to make himself look important? I digress... Yes climate change has happened throughout geological history, yes there is only so much control we have over mother nature and sea level changes, fierce weather, ice ages, volcanoes, earthquakes and mountain building are, by and large, beyond our control, but does this REALLY mean we can afford, KNOWING that for whatever reason there IS an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to carry on completely as we are? Surely we should still be taking every possible measure to reduce excess carbon dioxide being released, and burning fossil fuels, deforestation so that cattle can be grazed to provide meat for MacDonalds, plastics manufacture and industrial pollution can't help, can they? What I've been trying to say is that it's a bigger issue than global warming; it's about general responsibility for the state of the environment and all the things that allegedly do contribute to global warming, excess CO2 in the atmosphere or whatever you want to call it ARE detrimental to the environment in other ways. Even if it were proven that driving cars and having fossil fuel powered electricity generators had nothing to do with global warming, I'd still be clamouring for investment in renewable energy and for a change in our attitudes and behaviours. Oh and by the way, if you are trolling, fair fucks to you - we all gotta have a hobby!
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 21:53
|
||
|
I'm in agreement about minimising use of fossil fuels to eek out a finite resource and minimise pollution. I am generally pro environmentalism, provided it is rational. People tend to jump to conclusions about anyone who expresses doubt. A big question is if the CO2 should be included in a definition of pollution. Maybe our CO2 is having an effect on temperature, maybe it's insignificant amongst all the other factors. I'm pretty sure we'll all be dead before its known for sure (if ever). A possible scenario is CO2 emissions increasing (pretty likely as third world countries industrialise) and temperature falling during that period. That would intersting. It grates on me when everything is justified by (IMHO unproven) climate change theories even though I often agree with proposed action. The thing that really bugs me is carbon capture e.g. the proposed injection of CO2 from power stations into old oilfields. If the CO2 theory is wrong, energy will have been wasted in futile carbon capture. A bit of a dilemma that. Weather forecasters get lambasted for getting it wrong. How jealous they must be of climatologists who predict events 50-100 years in the future! Most of them will be dead and buried before they are vindicated or vilified.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Edited Mar 11, 2007, 22:04
Mar 11, 2007, 22:02
|
||
|
It's actually on YouTube now, Daminxa. Unfortunately, some of the contributors are from M.I.T and NASA, so say no more there. There's this notion proposed that 'environmentalists' are some all powerful lobby that have the capacity to silence scientific opinion, as the green market is as big as coca cola or something (paraphrasing there). In essence, the show initially juxtaposes its argument against images of the likes of Gerry Haliwell and student demos, and we know our young folk can be a bit 'daft' at times dressed up like giant mangoes etc so cheap victory shot there. As far as the science goes, they do inform us rather compellingly of how our climate has changed naturally without the aid of cars etc, and at one point temperatures went down despite an increase in post wWWII industrial activity. Now, it could be that as they're basing their knowledge of what's happened over millenia that they haven't gave man made CO2 a 'chance' yet. I think it's just a bit irresponsible to be so assertive as to what's happening regards man made c02 in the past 100 years when they have to gather the evidence otherwise over 'ages'. TBH, I don't know wy they go all out to deny it anyway, I'd really like to know that one. x
|
|||
PlateOfFood 141 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 22:03
|
||
|
Gosh, I never thought I'd be defending DarkMagus but here I go - I don't think he is trolling, and he has made some valid points that haven't been responded to. Everything Daminxa said in their post was absolutely right and I agree with it, but it was restating the consensus decision rather that engaging with the current challenge. I think it really is important to see this documentary, and find counterarguments to the details (rather than attacks on those involved). This film has had an effect on public opinion already and I think that influence will grow so long as there is no genuine rebuttal. Now, I understand why environmentalists have no desire for this, given the long frustrating history of denial from corporate-funded thinktanks and endless grind about the hockey-stick graph, etc. And I understand that now there's the impression that the 'debate is over', even the Bush govt have agreed etc, that there is no desire to put effort into futher fights with deniers. But this film put forward, for the first time, a coherent argument against the importance of human-caused CO2. It was a well made film (far better than Monbiot's recent doc), and it sold a seductive message that people would want to believe - that the effort of cutting C02 won't make an effect on climate change, and that the global temperature will come down by itself when the sun calms. Assuming that reducing human-caused CO2 will reduce global warming, then this film is very dangerous, as it could undermine public support and hence political will to make changes. However - working on the same principle that the experts are right, there should be people able and willing to argue why it is mistaken, and that's really what needs to happen. People should see this film and take it to pieces. At the moment though I'm only hearing attacks on those involved, and dismissals from people who haven't seen it, and that is helping its influence spread. I'm curious as to what Monbiot writes about it, assuming he does. It would be very easy to criticise the messagers and not the message. I'm hopeful he'll skew the message. Anyway - rant over!
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 22:12
|
||
|
It's actually on YouTube now, Daminxa. Unfortunately, some of the contributors are from M.I.T and NASA, so say no more there. There's this notion proposed that 'environmentalists' are some all powerful lobby that have the capacity to silence scientific opinion, as the green market is as big as coca cola or something (paraphrasing there). In essence, the show initially juxtaposes its argument against images of the likes of Gerry Haliwell and student demos, and we know our young folk can be a bit 'daft' at times dressed up like giant mangoes etc so cheap victory shot there. As far as the science goes, they do inform us rather compellingly of how our climate has changed naturally without the aid of cars etc, and at one point temperatures went down despite an increase in post wWWII industrial activity. Now, it could be that as they're basing their knowledge of what's happened over millenia that they haven't gave man made CO2 a 'chance' yet. I think it's just a bit irresponsible to be so assertive as to what's happening regards man made c02 in the past 100 years when they have to gather the evidence otherwise over 'ages'. TBH, I don't know wy they go all out to deny it anyway, I'd really like to know that one. Sorry, poted it twice, incase it gets lost in the mire. I did see it, bits of it do need dissecting. x
|
|||
|
Daminxa 1415 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 22:38
|
||
|
OK you've made some really fair points, but as you say, if it DOES turn out that CO2 emissions from power stations and the like contributes to climate change then it is dangerous to try and sway public opinion in the direction of 'oh well it makes no difference, let's not bother trying adjust our fossil fuel consumption at all'. As I say, even if it doesn't turn out that CO2 emissions contribute to climate change, I still don't like the idea of anything on the telly that's going to encourage people to ignore the other problems associated with fossil fuel consumption. I'll reiterate: had I seen the programme and been entirely convinced that CO2 emissions did NOT contribute to climate change, I'd still be banging on about how people should use their cars less and how we should be investing in renewable energy resources. Anyway, I'm aware I'm STILL talking without having seen the programme and that I'm starting to sound a little like a stuck record, so I'll leave it there for now!
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 22:46
|
||
I havent seen it either...but I still think we need to look after the planet and be responsible for our actions..
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Mar 11, 2007, 23:06
|
||
|
Quote:TBH, I don't know wy they go all out to deny it anyway, I'd really like to know that one. That's an odd statement to make. Most of the contributors are scientists putting forward their interpretation of the data. That's their job!
|
|||
riverman 845 posts |
Mar 12, 2007, 08:46
|
||
Yes, it was me who returned to the UK. It's going fine but never been so busy in my life. At the moment I'm up at 5.30 every morning to get to work early and sometimes have to work at home in the evening. Still no time to reply to this thread properly as I've got too much to do today!!!
|
|||
Vybik Jon 7717 posts |
Mar 12, 2007, 10:38
|
||
|
The point was, in delivering your shattering critique to us you said that one of the main tools you use if your bullshit detector. Come on!
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
