The manmade global warming myth

**Tesla** · 10-22-2007, 05:30 PM

According to Owl Gore the sky is falling and we're all doomed. Here's an awesome video that shows something you won't see very often...the other side of the story..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9la..._warming_myth/

**Dizz28** · 10-22-2007, 05:52 PM

Interesting that a pretty well known reporter would go against the grain like that. Most people are afraid to speak out becuase of the repercussions.

I've always agreed that we are polluting our planet pretty bad...but that doesn't have anything to do with the earth's temperature. remember in middle school learing about all those ice ages and then it warming up and then cooling down? How does that not apply here

And one quote from Michael Crichton kinda sums it all up "How can we believe computerized climate models to tell us what th temperature is going to be 100years from now if you can't even trust it will be right 5 days from now"

The qoute is paraphrased of course because it was from a book I read earlier this year and don't remember it exactly

**Johny-too-small** · 10-22-2007, 06:08 PM

"Owl Gore"...lmao.

Gore needs to read up in the diet forum.

**Dizz28** · 10-22-2007, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Johny-too-small

"Owl Gore"...lmao.

Gore needs to read up in the diet forum.

I think he was the one asking if he could drink winny the other day.

Anyone catch the "Live Earth" concerts...they had a lot of light effects...and sound...that uses a lot of electricity....that power plants have to make...after burning fossile fuels....

**3bd** · 10-22-2007, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Dizz28

I think he was the one asking if he could drink winny the other day.

Anyone catch the "Live Earth" concerts...they had a lot of light effects...and sound...that uses a lot of electricity....that power plants have to make...after burning fossile fuels....

Yeah no shit... owl gore's the biggest contradiction walking the face of the planet today. Peace Prize... PUH - LEEEEEEZE

**Dizz28** · 10-22-2007, 07:23 PM

When he was asked about the electricity thing..he said they made an "effort" to conserve energy wherever possible

I'm making an effort right now...I have my 42" tv off while I'm chatting on my computer with the air conditioning running next to me while it's 60degrees outside...it's an effort at least

**spywizard** · 10-22-2007, 07:26 PM

CNN ran a report interviewing like 7 scientist that say Gore's paper and theory were all wrong, and that was before they gave him the award.. and after..

**Dizz28** · 10-22-2007, 07:29 PM

i read someplace that Al Gore's chief scientists recanted his theories and said something like "If we were to change our policy about emissions, it shouldn't have anything to do with climate" <--once again, a paraphrase because I would have to look up that article

I can understade where they are coming from, We need a "shock value" crisis to get people to stop buying huge SUV's that guzzle our resources, but I just don't agree with the stance..

**Coop77** · 10-22-2007, 11:53 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35wyVQxXUA&NR=1

**Amorphic** · 10-23-2007, 12:31 AM

whether you agree with global warming or not, i think everyone can agree we are polluting the planet pretty severely. the consequences of which we are not yet sure of.

**Logan13** · 10-23-2007, 02:57 AM

If the end result is that we get out from under the Mid-East's thumb, I'm game.

**Flagg** · 10-23-2007, 03:48 AM

Global Warming will occur wether humans are around or not, though I do agree that polluting the planet doesn't help. What concerns me more though is the rate at which we're going through our resources. We're all just burying our heads in the sand until the day we've run out.

**bcaasdirty** · 10-23-2007, 06:43 AM

pft i dont need no scientist to tell me that global warming is REAL

i can tell my damnself when it was 80 degrees yesterday in upstate NY!

if having beautiful 80 degree sunny weather on october 22nd is globabl warming, ill take it LOL

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-23-2007, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Dizz28

And one quote from Michael Crichton kinda sums it all up "How can we believe computerized climate models to tell us what th temperature is going to be 100years from now if you can't even trust it will be right 5 days from now"

Climate is nothing but weather statistics over long time periods. Lack of predictive power in weather forcasts doesnt imply that statistical climate models are not accurate. A losely similar situation would be to throw dices, I cant predict what number a dice will land on when I throw it, but if I throw it 6 million times I can be pretty damn sure it will land on 6 roughly a million times. Climate models are all about avarages.

The best thing about the athropogenic global warming theory is that we will know for sure if its true or not after the next 10-15 years or so. If its co2 the temp will continue to increase, if it is the sun the temperature will go down since the sun is heading into a long period of lower activity.

Either way we should restrict polution and that will solve the co2 problem. Half a million people dying each year from air polution is the only reason needed to restrict pollution. Build 3000 nuclear reactors worldwide and the problem is solved

**Logan13** · 10-23-2007, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern

Climate is nothing but weather statistics over long time periods. Lack of predictive power in weather forcasts doesnt imply that statistical climate models are not accurate. A losely similar situation would be to throw dices, I cant predict what number a dice will land on when I throw it, but if I throw it 6 million times I can be pretty damn sure it will land on 6 roughly a million times. Climate models are all about avarages.

The best thing about the athropogenic global warming theory is that we will know for sure if its true or not after the next 10-15 years or so. If its co2 the temp will continue to increase, if it is the sun the temperature will go down since the sun is heading into a long period of lower activity.

Either way we should restrict polution and that will solve the co2 problem. Half a million people dying each year from air polution is the only reason needed to restrict pollution. Build 3000 nuclear reactors worldwide and the problem is solved

three-headed babies or dirty air, not much of a choice there......

sorry, had to play devil's advocate.

**Z12** · 10-23-2007, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern

Climate is nothing but weather statistics over long time periods. Lack of predictive power in weather forcasts doesnt imply that statistical climate models are not accurate. A losely similar situation would be to throw dices, I cant predict what number a dice will land on when I throw it, but if I throw it 6 million times I can be pretty damn sure it will land on 6 roughly a million times. Climate models are all about avarages.

The best thing about the athropogenic global warming theory is that we will know for sure if its true or not after the next 10-15 years or so. If its co2 the temp will continue to increase, if it is the sun the temperature will go down since the sun is heading into a long period of lower activity.

Either way we should restrict polution and that will solve the co2 problem. Half a million people dying each year from air polution is the only reason needed to restrict pollution. Build 3000 nuclear reactors worldwide and the problem is solved

I'm with you bro - nuclear power is the answer to EVERYTHING! I was reading an article the other day saying that the technology has evolved so much that reactors can now be built that have a 0% chance of meltdown. Something about using tennis-ball-size uranium balls coated in graphite instead of rods????

BTW, in 1 hr at 9 on CNN - "Planet in Peril" all about global warming

**Superhuman** · 10-23-2007, 07:01 PM

Not sure if we are CAUSING global warming, but I'll jump on that bandwagon because either way our environment is in a state of emergency and Bush said that our economy is more important that the environment!!! What a shithead.. making money is more important than our home, Earth? If "Global Warming" is what it takes for people to be more "green" then I'm all for it

**Z12** · 10-23-2007, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Superhuman

Not sure if we are CAUSING global warming, but I'll jump on that bandwagon because either way our environment is in a state of emergency and Bush said that our economy is more important that the environment!!! What a shithead.. making money is more important than our home, Earth? If "Global Warming" is what it takes for people to be more "green" then I'm all for it

Yessir - I agree /\

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-24-2007, 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by Logan13

three-headed babies or dirty air, not much of a choice there......

sorry, had to play devil's advocate.

Three headed babies are kind of cute though

Originally Posted by Z12

I'm with you bro - nuclear power is the answer to EVERYTHING! I was reading an article the other day saying that the technology has evolved so much that reactors can now be built that have a 0% chance of meltdown. Something about using tennis-ball-size uranium balls coated in graphite instead of rods????

BTW, in 1 hr at 9 on CNN - "Planet in Peril" all about global warming

Yupp there are several designs that are meltdown proof. The reactor you mention is the pebble bed reactor. The fuel are made in pellets composed of a tiny core of fissile material sourounded by layers of graphite and ceramics and other things. The pellets have such a high melting point that even if the reactor lose all its coolant the pellents will not melt or crack under any circumstance. Really awsome piece of engineering

They ran a pebble bed experimental reactor in germany where they tried the worst accident scenarios like total loss of coolant. Nothing ever got damaged and after the test normal operations could be resumed imidietly.

We swedes also had a reactor design that was inherently safe against all accident scenarios, but it was never developed because of the moronic referendum to dismantle swedish nuclear power

All of the next gen reactors are so safe that its almost ridicolous. Even the current reactors are insanely safe, the only serious accident in a light water reactor ever was three miles island and not one single person got hurt by that accident. Its close to impossible for a light water reactor to cause a large discharge of radioactive materials into the environment.

Compare that to the 40-50 000 americans killed by pollution from coal each year and nuclear is attractive no doubt.
The nuclear power plants worldwide today save 75 000 lives each and every year compared to if they where replaced by coal.

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-24-2007, 04:01 AM

What anoys me is the greens totaly unrealistic dreams about wind and solar power. They obviously have never done the maths. To replace fossile fuels with solar power would require tens to hundras of BILLIONS of solar panels. It isnt even remotly feasible to build so many solar panels.

As for wind, around 3000 wind power plants is required to replace one single big coal power plant. More realistic than solar but it cant come close to replacing fossile fuels on its own, especialy considering the unpredictable nature of wind.

**Flagg** · 10-24-2007, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern

What anoys me is the greens totaly unrealistic dreams about wind and solar power. They obviously have never done the maths.

Last week I read in the Times magazine that by 2010, 10% of all electrical output in the UK would be generated by wind power. At the moment it's only responsible for 4% and we're only three years away from that target figure. Anyways, by 2020 its supposed to be responsible for 20% and by 2050 a whopping 60%. I'm starting to see how Nuclear Powerplants are going to have to be a neccessity. The human race only seem to venture into new fields or eras when it's our survival at stake.

**Odpierdol_sie!** · 10-24-2007, 05:41 AM

Al gore is just another guy who is using spin to make people sit up and take note.

I think evolution will prevail wether we are here or not.

So what if sea rise? plant life will eventually flourish, indusrty fails an ice age occurs and with that the seas will drop, plant life and vegetation will flourish even more untill there is so much oxygen in the atmosphere that, the ozone layer is fully restored and the atmospheric tempreature stabalised, tempreature will balance out over the whole world bringing the tempreature higher in icy areas causing a melt, the seas will rise and our earth, although will look totally different will be like it was, just after the last ice age once again.

I think i should make a programme abotu this, im sure ill get an award if i can put my own spin on it.

I think mayeb we have caused some effects to speed up, but wastn it a meteor that casued the last ice age? wasnt that down to large ammounts of carbon? if that is permanet damage then how are we here????

just aslong as another meteor doesnt hit us like the one that killed the dinosaurs then i woudl imagien man will live through it with very little problem.

**pimpdawgin** · 10-24-2007, 09:43 PM

Stossel is a douchebag. He is debating little children. Way to go, you managed to outdebate little kids, would you like a medal?
I do believe human activity causing global warming is for real, but I think it is a shame that Al Gore has appointed himself as the posterboy for environmentalism. I think he is a douchebag as well.
Anyways, here's a more thorough look at the scientists who disagree, and their funding sources.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html

Let it stream, or get it at Goolge Video

http://video.google.ca/url?docid=-80...POowTCXgMVt3pQ http://video.google.ca/url?docid=-80...POowTCXgMVt3pQ

**Tesla** · 10-25-2007, 12:26 PM

[QUOTE=pimpdawgin]Stossel is a douchebag. He is debating little children. Way to go, you managed to outdebate little kids, would you like a medal?

I really don't think Stossel is trying to "debate" the children. He is simply asking them questions to prove a point to the viewer. These children have been indoctrinated to believe that mankind is solely to blame for any change in the climate. The children are simply too young to be able to think for themselves and do independent investigations into both sides of the argument.

**pimpdawgin** · 10-26-2007, 12:12 AM

[QUOTE=Tesla]

Originally Posted by pimpdawgin

Stossel is a douchebag. He is debating little children. Way to go, you managed to outdebate little kids, would you like a medal?

I really don't think Stossel is trying to "debate" the children. He is simply asking them questions to prove a point to the viewer. These children have been indoctrinated to believe that mankind is solely to blame for any change in the climate. The children are simply too young to be able to think for themselves and do independent investigations into both sides of the argument.

Yes, I know that Stossel isn't really debating little kids. But why even have them in the report? Give any argument to a child, and it isn;t going to be defended well. Why waste valuable time with the kids except for the specific purpose of mocking the manmade global warming argument? Maybe he should interview scientists/experts instead.
Would someone please explain to me why it is so unbelievable that human activity can tip the global thermodynamic balance towards warming? There are more people now than ever before on the planet. And each one is buying/consuming more than ever before. All these products don't materialize out of thin air. They are the result of a long chain of steps in the mining, manufacturing, packaging, and transport process. All the crap we buy (okay, most, as in from China) comes from half way around the world. The machines used to make this stuff are usually powered by coal. This has been occuring since the industrial revolution, a relatively recent event in the timescale of Earth (unless you believe the Earth is 5000 years old, in which case, you are beyond help, and probably think that carbon dating is some sort of socialist conspriracy). Anyways, my point is that although humans may be tiny creatures compared to the whole Earth, collectively, our actions, over time, can produce some dramatic results.

And if you check out that documentary I posted, you'll see that these scientists (of whom there aren't many) are the same shills that were trotted out by the tobacco industry when they were denying the link of tobacco to cancer. Now they're at it again, but this time being funded by Exxon-Mobil.
Go have a look.

Forget about Al Gore for just one damn minute. I don't like him either, although for entirely different reasons. Just try to focus on the actual question at hand.

**hulk1o1** · 10-26-2007, 06:32 AM

its all made up.. u seriously think that al gore gives a shit about the climate...

**pimpdawgin** · 10-26-2007, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by hulk1o1

its all made up.. u seriously think that al gore gives a shit about the climate...

What does Al Gore have to do with it??

Global warming has been studied before Al Gore was even in politics.
Even if Al Gore is using this to get his name out there, or whatever, how does that impact whether it's true or not??

**Logan13** · 10-26-2007, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by pimpdawgin

What does Al Gore have to do with it??

Global warming has been studied before Al Gore was even in politics.
Even if Al Gore is using this to get his name out there, or whatever, how does that impact whether it's true or not??

propaganda does not make anything true.
In the 80's, many of these same scientists were screaming that we were headed for another ice age. So tell me, which theory, if either, is correct.

**pimpdawgin** · 10-27-2007, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by Logan13

propaganda does not make anything true.
In the 80's, many of these same scientists were screaming that we were headed for another ice age. So tell me, which theory, if either, is correct.

Of course, propaganda doesn't make anything true.
But you are assuming that it is propaganda just because it is being talked about. Was the Holocaust just propaganda because it was, and still is, talked about? No. Because it was true.
Propaganda always has some interest group that would benefit from it. The lead up to the Iraq war (WMD excuse, democracy argument) were propaganda because large powerful groups stood to benefit from it (oil companies, military equipment manufacturers, etc.).
What corporation/evildoer/whatever stands to benefit from humans reducing their consumption and pollution levels? The all-powerful environmentalists??? Because they clearly are rich and powerful compared to the poor Exxon-Mobil's of the world.
Please.
No one is saying we have to go back to living live neanderthals.
The right wing propaganda machine is way more powerful and harmful than any percieved threat from "dirty tree huggers" could ever be.
They've even managed to convince Americans that universal health care would be a horrible thing and a devastating invasion of privacy. Fine, why have universal fire and police service then? As for invasion of privacy, the gov already can find out anything about you anyways, so privacy isn't really at issue.
Of course. Be good little boys and girls and just listen to everything the gov tells you.
I can't believe you guys. In one breath you are all pissed off at the government telling you that juice is bad for you, but in that same breath you will believe the same government's fear mongering against those dangerous liberal enviro-tree huggers.

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-27-2007, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by Logan13

propaganda does not make anything true.
In the 80's, many of these same scientists were screaming that we were headed for another ice age. So tell me, which theory, if either, is correct.

What you are saying here is that scientists has no right to be wrong and have they been wrong once they are always wrong.

Dont blame the scientists for what media and al gore is saying, there is only a handfull of scientists that are true alarmist. The others are honest about uncertainties in the climat modells.

**Logan13** · 10-27-2007, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern

What you are saying here is that scientists has no right to be wrong and have they been wrong once they are always wrong.

Dont blame the scientists for what media and al gore is saying, there is only a handfull of scientists that are true alarmist. The others are honest about uncertainties in the climat modells.

180 degree turn on any theory should make one question it.

**Logan13** · 10-27-2007, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by pimpdawgin

Of course, propaganda doesn't make anything true.
But you are assuming that it is propaganda just because it is being talked about. Was the Holocaust just propaganda because it was, and still is, talked about? No. Because it was true.
Propaganda always has some interest group that would benefit from it. The lead up to the Iraq war (WMD excuse, democracy argument) were propaganda because large powerful groups stood to benefit from it (oil companies, military equipment manufacturers, etc.).
What corporation/evildoer/whatever stands to benefit from humans reducing their consumption and pollution levels? The all-powerful environmentalists??? Because they clearly are rich and powerful compared to the poor Exxon-Mobil's of the world.
Please.
No one is saying we have to go back to living live neanderthals.
The right wing propaganda machine is way more powerful and harmful than any percieved threat from "dirty tree huggers" could ever be.
They've even managed to convince Americans that universal health care would be a horrible thing and a devastating invasion of privacy. Fine, why have universal fire and police service then? As for invasion of privacy, the gov already can find out anything about you anyways, so privacy isn't really at issue.
Of course. Be good little boys and girls and just listen to everything the gov tells you.
I can't believe you guys. In one breath you are all pissed off at the government telling you that juice is bad for you, but in that same breath you will believe the same government's fear mongering against those dangerous liberal enviro-tree huggers.

You must remember that there are industries and individuals who have and will profit from the whole "going green" movement as well. There is money behind both sides, not just the one.

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-27-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Logan13

180 degree turn on any theory should make one question it.

And that is what the scientists you try to make fun out of do every day. Question it that is.

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-27-2007, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by pimpdawgin

Of course, propaganda doesn't make anything true.
But you are assuming that it is propaganda just because it is being talked about. Was the Holocaust just propaganda because it was, and still is, talked about? No. Because it was true.
Propaganda always has some interest group that would benefit from it. The lead up to the Iraq war (WMD excuse, democracy argument) were propaganda because large powerful groups stood to benefit from it (oil companies, military equipment manufacturers, etc.).
What corporation/evildoer/whatever stands to benefit from humans reducing their consumption and pollution levels? The all-powerful environmentalists??? Because they clearly are rich and powerful compared to the poor Exxon-Mobil's of the world.
Please.
No one is saying we have to go back to living live neanderthals.
The right wing propaganda machine is way more powerful and harmful than any percieved threat from "dirty tree huggers" could ever be.
They've even managed to convince Americans that universal health care would be a horrible thing and a devastating invasion of privacy. Fine, why have universal fire and police service then? As for invasion of privacy, the gov already can find out anything about you anyways, so privacy isn't really at issue.
Of course. Be good little boys and girls and just listen to everything the gov tells you.
I can't believe you guys. In one breath you are all pissed off at the government telling you that juice is bad for you, but in that same breath you will believe the same government's fear mongering against those dangerous liberal enviro-tree huggers.

The environmental movement isnt quite that powerless and benign. Its a 8 billion dollar international monster and one of the major factors in oppressing and ****ing things up for the third world. The eco-nuts have alot of influence.
Read eco-imperialism written by Paul Driessen, its a eye opener on what the environmental movement has "achieved".

At the end of the day though propaganda in either way doesnt matter, what counts is if the theory fits nature or not. So far most scientists seem to agree that AGW is the best theory when it comes to modelling the climate. Most also admit that there are alot of unknowns.

What is screwed up is laymen on both sides making absolute statements without understanding the science.

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-27-2007, 12:59 PM

This is a AGW article I kind of like. Especialy the concluding sentances

http://www.eco-imperialism.com/conte...le.php3?id=207

We can and should develop new technologies, to further improve energy efficiency, reduce pollution and enter a new era of energy generation. But we need not and must not rush to judgment, trash our economy or slash our living standards, just to “do something” about a speculative climate change “catastrophe.”

We need a rational debate, with all views fully represented – not a media and congressional circus, and certainly not a legislative juggernaut more suited to Zimbabwe or North Korea than to the United States.

**Logan13** · 10-29-2007, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern

And that is what the scientists you try to make fun out of do every day. Question it that is.

no, they are actually embracing the 180 degree theory. You have made my point for me.

**TAPPER** · 10-29-2007, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by: Kärnfysikern
What is screwed up is laymen on both sides making absolute statements without understanding the science.

You got that right.

**Logan13** · 10-29-2007, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by TAPPER

You got that right.

it seems that everyone is an expert on the matter.

**IronReload04** · 10-30-2007, 01:36 AM

anybody who sais something like the debate is over, loses all credibility

**Kärnfysikern** · 10-30-2007, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

no, they are actually embracing the 180 degree theory. You have made my point for me.

You make it sound like someone just said yersterday "ohh it must be co2" and every expert in the world got enchanted by the idea and started preaching it like gospel without criticaly examining the hypothesis.

Just like every other scientific theory AGW has been worked on for quite some time and if there was obvious flaws in the theory it would have been discounted long ago.

But the climate experts do NOT claim everything is known, they readily admit that there are plenty of processes not yet accounted for in the climate models. They cant even include variations in cloud cover and how it ties in to climate change yet!

The truth is neither you nor me knows if its a good theory or not. What I cant understand is your total refusal to even entertain the though that it might be correct or poiting in the right direction?