'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary

**Bigen12** · 03-05-2007, 06:28 AM

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?s...ms_documentary

**eliteforce** · 03-05-2007, 08:03 AM

One thing I don't understand about all these glaciers melting is..why does the sea where i live still rise an fall (high-low tide) the same as it did in the 1940's when the bank was built, shouldn't it be spilling over now that all these glaciers have melted?

but i think the developed countries should have the strictist environmental controls anyways and use the maximum amount of nuclear power, why risk permanent environmental damage if the leftys turn out to be right..the conservative agenda is like going thru life with no money in the bank, and no insurance because your too cheap and probably disaster won't happen (like me)

**Tock** · 03-05-2007, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by eliteforce

One thing I don't understand about all these glaciers melting is..why does the sea where i live still rise an fall (high-low tide) the same as it did in the 1940's when the bank was built, shouldn't it be spilling over now that all these glaciers have melted?

From what I understand, should the Antarctic ice melt, then you'll see substantially higher sea levels. Several thousand square miles of Antarctic ice has already melted, but that was the ice that was floating in the ocean; 90% of that was under water, 10% above. There are thousands more square miles of ice on land that's hundreds of feet thick (from centuries of snowfall), and when that melts, well, that's when you'll see some squirming from all the folks living on the coast.

In addition to the rise in ocean levels, when the fresh water from the ice mixes with the sea water, it will have an effect on ocean currents, which will affect the weather patterns world-wide.

I'm no expert on this stuff, but there are lots of other folks who are, and they're battening down the hatches, getting ready to deal with what's coming. England is preparing to abandon several coastal areas, but is going to put up a fight to save London. Holland is making preparations to manage the inevitable floods. Dunno what Asian countries are planning on, but the USA is, as you might expect with the Bush Administration running things, way behind the curve -- we haven't even dealt with New Orleans yet (which, IMHO, they ought to abandon, because it's already below sea level, the land it's on is sinking, and the ocean is rising -- no need to throw good $$$ after bad) . . .

Nevertheless, the question is, what are you personally going to do to reduce your contribution to the problem? Criticize Al Gore, the US government, other folks, and otherwise fiddle-faddle around while things get worse?
Or, are you going to reduce your use of fossil fuels?

Has anyone within eyeshot of this thread ever heard of "Conservation?"

**Hoggage_54** · 03-05-2007, 07:33 PM

It's more than just the Earth getting warmer. People seem to forget the fact that the fuels we are burning are bad for our health.

2 scenarios:

1) Lets say we stop using fuels that are causing CO2 gases to rise into the atmoshpere, but the Earth is still getting warmer on its own, then we will know that it wasn't the CO2, but we will still be better off with our physical health.

2) We keep pumping out CO2 gases, the Earth temperature cools, and it turns out that CO2 isn't responsible for the Earth warming. But we're still screwed with our physical health.

So whether or not global warming is caused by humans, we are still better off using renewable resources for fuel, because we are better of physically as human beings. Its not a very hard concept to understand. Solar power, wind power, nuclear power and conservation solves all our problems. Lefties can stop whining, righties can stop whining, everyone wins.

Governments should stop spending money on research into global warming, lets spend money into research on how to make solar power more efficient. Its a win-win situation! Clean air and lots of energy, no one can complain. The Earth is getting warmer? Well, we're not pumping CO2 anymore, so it's not caused by humans. The Earth cools down? It was us, but we fixed the problem. End of debate

**Act of God** · 03-05-2007, 11:33 PM

No one is saying that conservation and alternative energy sources are not a good thing. What "we" don't like is how all this global warming crap is almost like a cult. These people are basing their political careers on this being true, and we simply do not know. We don't know enough to make broad changes in policy and laws based on a scientific hunch that defies the common knowledge that the earth has warmed and cooled periodically since the beginning.

That's it.

**Tock** · 03-05-2007, 11:43 PM

Ya, ya, ya . . .

It's gonna be a looooooooong time before "they" or Congress or the UN or whoever do anything. Meanwhile, you and me and "they" and "them" continue to use fossil fuel and muck up the planet.

My question is not so much about what they are gonna do later, it's about what are YOU going to do today, tomorrow, this week, next week, this month?

How are YOU gonna cut back on your use of energy NOW?

**Grappler13** · 03-06-2007, 01:13 AM

"Global Warming", or "Global Climate Change" is the new secular religion. Seriously, back when I was a kid, the hysteria was based on the impending, menacing, "Global Cooling." The warming thing showed up in the 80's and now there is a massive number of bureaucrats, scientists, and supporters who depend on funding to "combat" the imminent threat to the environment that burning fossil fuels will supposedly cause. I am not saying that the climate isn't changing but good god, the climate has always been changing.

Olives trees flourished in Northern Germany in the 1300's and then we had a little Ice Age that lasted until the early part of the last century. I don't remember any historical Teutonic lords pumping oil and driving hummers around their estates in those days.

The climate is changing and will continue to do so regardless of what we humans do. There may be some causal link to the increased recent temperatures and CO2 emissions but the evidence is just not there. Tell this to a believer and it's very much like arguing against the risen Christ with a born-again. No evidence, just alot of faith.

Finally, it seems that the environmentalists whose crusade is stopping global warming are the same ass-hats that refuse to support any new nuclear reactors, the building of new, cleaner refineries, etc.......It seems like they not only believe that we are causing the warming with our burning of fossil fuels but these same protesters have something to gain if we keep it up.

**DTBusta** · 03-06-2007, 08:59 AM

Its a coult because the government owned corporate media wants the corporate "war lords" that are invading countries for their oil, to still have someone to sell to...Its because it is sooo dam profitable that the media makes it sound like they are a coult, I believe its somewhere around 95% of scientists admit global warming is occuring and that fossil fuels are speeding it up by their estimates..Just because the media wants you to have negative condenations on the global warming studies, doesn't mean you have to feel the way they want you to. It's Fox's MO, "spin anything you can that doesn't further our agenda"....look at the "Hillary Fried Chicken" THREAD for a clear example of this spinning..

**Kärnfysikern** · 03-06-2007, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by eliteforce

One thing I don't understand about all these glaciers melting is..why does the sea where i live still rise an fall (high-low tide) the same as it did in the 1940's when the bank was built, shouldn't it be spilling over now that all these glaciers have melted?

but i think the developed countries should have the strictist environmental controls anyways and use the maximum amount of nuclear power, why risk permanent environmental damage if the leftys turn out to be right..the conservative agenda is like going thru life with no money in the bank, and no insurance because your too cheap and probably disaster won't happen (like me)

Glacier melting(mountain) isnt realy a problem for sea levels. The bad thing about glacier melting is that in the long run it will mean alot of very important rivers will dry out. Leaving large parts of primarly asians without water supply. That will be a humanitarian disaster of a scale never seen before.

But for sealevels to rise the greenland and antartic ice sheets have to start melting.

Originally Posted by Hoggage_54

So whether or not global warming is caused by humans, we are still better off using renewable resources for fuel, because we are better of physically as human beings. Its not a very hard concept to understand. Solar power, wind power, nuclear power and conservation solves all our problems. Lefties can stop whining, righties can stop whining, everyone wins.

Leftis(most of them, there are a sizable ammount of rational ones aswell offcourse) wont be happy aslong as there is any nuclear power! They would rather sacrifice the environment, the economy and our living standard than admit that they have been wrong about nuclear power all along.

Remember these are the people that oppose reprocessing and breeder reactors and at the same time are whining about the waste issue. I guess it is a choosen strategy to make nuclear power look dangerous. Whine about the problem while preventing the solution.

Originally Posted by Hoggage_54

Governments should stop spending money on research into global warming, lets spend money into research on how to make solar power more efficient. Its a win-win situation! Clean air and lots of energy, no one can complain. The Earth is getting warmer? Well, we're not pumping CO2 anymore, so it's not caused by humans. The Earth cools down? It was us, but we fixed the problem. End of debate

No matter how much money is spent on solar power research it wont become much more effective. Solar power is inherently inefficient and unreliable.

Its a good strategy to heat water with sunlight and maby have a few solar panels on buildings. Solar power is promising in places like australia and africa. But as a baseload power in western countries it sux and thats why Im oposed to solar and wind subsidises. The money is better spent on nuclear power, nuclear waste management, hydrogen fuel cells, efficient production of hydrogen, geothermal power, clean coal and finaly long term fusion research.

**Hoggage_54** · 03-09-2007, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern

No matter how much money is spent on solar power research it wont become much more effective. Solar power is inherently inefficient and unreliable.

Its a good strategy to heat water with sunlight and maby have a few solar panels on buildings. Solar power is promising in places like australia and africa. But as a baseload power in western countries it sux and thats why Im oposed to solar and wind subsidises. The money is better spent on nuclear power, nuclear waste management, hydrogen fuel cells, efficient production of hydrogen, geothermal power, clean coal and finaly long term fusion research.

As long as its clean, its all good. You're right about solar power, it's way too inefficient right now. The best solar panels (and most exspensive) today get something like 6% of the potential power that is hitting the panels.

Here's a link about renewable energy technology that scientists at the University of Toronto have been working on. It sounds promising, and it's Canadian

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/050110-832.asp