The Great Global Warming Swindle?

[PureX]

Actually, the video claims that humans are not responsible for global temperature change at all. So, we're not "crapping in our own house".

Pumping hydrocarbons into the atmosphere is crapping in our own atmosphere. Dumping chemical pesticides on the land that run into the rivers and lakes is crapping in our own water supply. Creating nuclear waste that killed every living thing that comes near it for centuries, and then burying it in the ground is crapping on the very earth that we need to live.

So far, we know of no where else in the whole universe that can sustain our own life, yet day after day and years after year we knowingly and willfully poison the air, the water, and the earth upon which we depend for life.

THIS IS REALLY STUPID!!!!

Whether or not we are, at this moment, responsible for global warming is irrelevant, because only complete idiots would continue to knowingly poison their own life-sustaining environment while arguing over whether or not their poison has created an environmental catastrophe, yet. Are we really so incredibly stupid, greedy, and short-sighted that we would have such an argument, when we know that we're destroying our own environment, and killing ourselves in the process?

 

[YmirGF]

I think this completely misses the point.

We, as a species, are essentially crapping in our own house. This is a very stupid thing to do whether it happens to be causing a deadly disease at this moment, or not. So the issue isn't whether our crapping in our own house is causing a deadly diasease or not, the issue is WHY ARE WE CRAPPING IN OUR OWN HOUSE, AND HOW CAN WE PUT A STOP TO IT?

You see, Oh pontificating one, that is your perception. Sadly you are not alone in you analysis. What disturbs me is that anyone who feels any hint of being against your somewhat myopic viewpoint is seen to be somewhat stupid and "missing the point". Again, science would seem to have precious little to do with anything.

For example, I think that “global warming” is used as an excuse to impose radical changes on an unwilling populace. Computer models are ratcheted into a given direction and then those models are implied to reflect reality. It is like letting the assertions of JurassicPark supplant the archaeological record.

Otoh PureX, I think there are many practices that we should change, but I would like us to change our ways for the right reasons and not for popular illusions based on skewed evidence provided by politically correct Chicken Little’s. The reason I feel strongly about this is that I would hate to alter our ingrained habits the WRONG way and perhaps end up making even greater mistakes due to our own misunderstanding.

I guess all I am saying is that we should take a long cold look at hard evidence and make decisions based on reality, not on flawed computer models and hypothetical scenarios. Is that asking too much?


Edit: Now I see you are adding non-global warming elements to the discussion, as you know it is a flawed version of events. Now you want to "back door" other serious, but unrelated issues under a catch-all umbrella. I think what bugs me the most about these red herring arguments is that any idiot will agree. The thing is PureX, you don't have to tell me that dumping raw sewage into the ocean is stupid... but perhaps you might exert some energy on a suitable, cost effective alternative. Ditto air pollution. No one in their right mind would argue that they don't want to choke to death, but instead of hysterically stating the obvious... try promoting reasonable alternatives. Is that too much to ask or do you just enjoy the moral high ground of venting your spleen and feel no compunction to offer alternatives.

 

[PureX]

What is it about fouling the air, water, and earth, upon which all life depends that you find so complex and confusing that it would require decades more of scientific study to figure out the proper way NOT to do it?

What is it about fouling the air, water, and earth that ISN'T stupid? I mean, which of the many toxins that we're dumping into our own environment are you supposing to be GOOD for the environment?

How is my "perception" wrong when I point out that poisoning our own one and only life-sustaining environment is STUPID???

 

[MaddLlama]

What is it about fouling the air, water, and earth, upon which all life depends that you find so complex and confusing that it would require decades more of scientific study to figure out the proper way NOT to do it?

What is it about fouling the air, water, and earth that ISN'T stupid? I mean, which of the many toxins that we're dumping into our own environment are you supposing to be GOOD for the environment?

How is my "perception" wrong when I point out that poisoning our own one and only life-sustaining environment is STUPID???

Because you're presenting a straw-man argument. You're basically saying that people who don't believe that the global warming idea, as it's being presented, should be accepted as absolute truth are anti-environment, and promoting the polluting of the air and dumping of nuclear waste. I am very interested in environmental issues, I just don't happen to believe the catastrophic series of events that's being presented to us based on an idea that I think doesn't have enough scientific evidence behind it. Does that make me an evil capitalist anti-envrionmentalist who's out to destroy the planet?

I think that if we move away from this STUPID "end of the world" rhetoric that the global warming people are throwing at us, maybe we could make some intelligent and informed decisions on actually helping the environment.

 

[PureX]

Because you're presenting a straw-man argument. You're basically saying that people who don't believe that the global warming idea, as it's being presented, should be accepted as absolute truth are anti-environment, and promoting the polluting of the air and dumping of nuclear waste.

No. What I'm saying is that the argument is foolish, all together. The fact that we would argue about whether or not we have caused an environmental cataclysm or not, yet, is foolish in the face of the fact that we are unarguably poisoning our one and only life-sustaining biosphere, when we don't even have a way of knowing how much damage we've done. We're playing Russian Roulette with a loaded gun and we're arguing about how many bullets are in it???? What? Are we INSANE???

I think that if we move away from this STUPID "end of the world" rhetoric that the global warming people are throwing at us, maybe we could make some intelligent and informed decisions on actually helping the environment.

We're playing Russian Roulette with the one and only life-sustaining environment in all the universe (as far as we know), and even you have admitted that we don't know how much damage we've done yet, or how much more damage we can do before it does become catastrophic. Yet you don't think this is completely idiotic behavior, and you don't think people should be trying to point out just how insane this behavior is????

So, you care about the environment, but only after it's been poisoned beyond repair? Before it's been poisoned beyond repair, you figure it's OK to go on adding more poison to it???? Or, you care about the fact that we're poisoning it, but not enough to say that we should stop poisoning it, at least not until it's too late, or almost too late. Right?

Are you beginning to see the irrationality, here?

 

[Mathematician]

Again, science would seem to have precious little to do with anything.

For example, I think that “global warming” is used as an excuse to impose radical changes on an unwilling populace.

Interesting you follow up that remark with your own extraordinary claim. Many skeptics keep talking about a Green/Socialist/NWO conspiracy, but they've been unable to bring up one bit of evidence that group X is actively playing on the science. On the other hand we see oil companies paying off scientists and politicians to skew research. :areyoucra It would be interesting to know who actually paid for this program to be made. One suggestion they made is that global warming is driven by people who would like to live in a preindustrial world and then they showed a renaissance fair.

Let's remember the scientists who claimed there wasn't a link between smoking and lung cancer were largely funded by the tobacco companies.

 

[Todd]

No doubt all the merry Greeny Warming Weenies will find this documentary rather insulting and deeply offensive. Frankly, I thought it was great. You really need to watch this video and think about the actual science for a wee bit.


Taken from the ever delightful Little Green Footballs Website: March 10, 2007

The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Here’s UK Channel 4’s decidedly non-PC documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. I also rather enjoyed many of the comments that followed the 1-1/4 hour video. It pretty well nukes the non-debate over "global warming" and explains how it is a political monster that has little interest in sciences contributions to the movements pronouncements. I found the bits on computer models very interesting indeed.

*dons authentic Green resistent RF Flak jacket*

I actually agree with that after studying the last few days about causes of global warming. I've read quite a few articles from scientists (not affiliated with any religion) that state we are a fraction of a percent of the cause of global warming. However, even though I don't think we are a direct cause, I try to do my part in helping keep the earth clean (recycling, using cleaner fuels and such). There are just a lot more reasons for the cause of global warming than just human pollution and fossil fuel burning.

Here is one of the articles that gives different scientific arguments regarding global warming. I thought it was pretty interesting. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html (this wasn't the only study that I've seen producing similar numbers).

One of the facts that I was most interested in on that website was:

"

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."

 

[MaddLlama]

No. What I'm saying is that the argument is foolish, all together. The fact that we would argue about whether or not we have caused an environmental cataclysm or not, yet, is foolish in the face of the fact that we are unarguably poisoning our one and only life-sustaining biosphere, when we don't even have a way of knowing how much damage we've done. We're playing Russian Roulette with a loaded gun and we're arguing about how many bullets are in it???? What? Are we INSANE???

So, then as long as someone is concerned about the environment, we should believe anything they say and not question it at all?
There are REAL problems we should be focusing on if you really care about the environment, but global warming isn't one of them. To say that any dissenting opinion should be ignored because there's so many other problems is what is insane to me.

So, you care about the environment, but only after it's been poisoned beyond repair? Before it's been poisoned beyond repair, you figure it's OK to go on adding more poison to it???? Or, you care about the fact that we're poisoning it, but not enough to say that we should stop poisoning it, at least not until it's too late, or almost too late. Right?

Are you beginning to see the irrationality, here?

You're not understanding me. The issue here is global warming, and my position is that I don't believe that human carbon emissions are poisoning the planet, and I don't believe that the world is going to come to an end if we don't squash industry.

From where I sit, you're the one who sounds irrational. You're not even talking about global warming. How about we stick to the topic and not water pollution or deforestation or any of the other non-global warming issues of the environment?

 

[PureX]

So, then as long as someone is concerned about the environment, we should believe anything they say and not question it at all?

If you are concerned about the environment, you would not wish to see it poisoned. The degree of poisoning is irrelevant.

If you care about your children, would it be OK for someone to poison them, just a little? Would it be OK to keep on poisoning them as long as the poison doesn't kill them?

There are REAL problems we should be focusing on if you really care about the environment, but global warming isn't one of them.

How do you know this ... because some video says so? Don't you realize that big corporation make videos just like this one as propaganda. And they have been doing it for years.

To say that any dissenting opinion should be ignored because there's so many other problems is what is insane to me.

What I'm saying that that the dissenting opinions are irrelevant. No one is trying to even pretend that we are not poisoning our environment. Not even the paid liars and propagandists will try to float that lie. And it's the fact that we are poisoning our own one and only life-sustaining environment that is the issue. How much poison it can take and still sustain us in an insane question. It's as insane as saying that it's OK to poison your children as long as we don't kill them.

Don't you realize that what we do to the environment we are doing to our children? Don't you understand that if we poison it today, it will poison them tomorrow? They can't live without it, and if they live within it, they will be effected by it, and by what we are doing to it.

You're not understanding me. The issue here is global warming, and my position is that I don't believe that human carbon emissions are poisoning the planet, and I don't believe that the world is going to come to an end if we don't squash industry.

Should the lives of billions of human beings be gambled on what you and a few corporate-sponsored scientists and video-makers believe? Do you have the right to gamble the lives of your children's children like that?

From where I sit, you're the one who sounds irrational. You're not even talking about global warming.

I'm not talking about global warming because it's just one symptom among hundreds of the negative effects of human beings exploiting and destroying their only source of life.

How about we stick to the topic and not water pollution or deforestation or any of the other non-global warming issues of the environment?

Yeah, wouldn't that be convenient. Just like putting blinders on a horse, so he can only see what we want him to see, and go where we want him to go.

 

[MaddLlama]

Yeah, wouldn't that be convenient. Just like putting blinders on a horse, so he can only see what we want him to see, and go where we want him to go.

Well, see, this is a topic about Global Warming. So, naturally it would make sense that we talk about global warming. You want to talk about air and water pollution and all that other stuff, go start your own thread. Why drag this off topic?

What I'm saying that that the dissenting opinions are irrelevant.

If my opinion is irrelevant, then I guess there's no reason to even try talking to you. Buh-bye.

 

[Valjean]

I have to come down on the side of PureX. I think the weight of evidence supports the theory that we are in the midst of, and a major cause of, a potentially catastrophic climate shift. This is the general opinion of the vast majority of those with expertise in the subject.
The evidence is not based on only a few variables or on computer models.

As for global warming and cooling being a Natural occurrence that's shifted back and forth many times in the past, no-one denes this. The problem lies in the rate of change. On a geological scale the current observed and projected changes are a virtual explosion. Many Natural processes cannot cope with this rate of change.