 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (3)big recycle belb ...and 374 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 7 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"About the Guy behind this (the great swindle) Martin Durkin In 1997 television producer Martin Durkin from the TV company Kugelblitz made a series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which targeted environmentalists, presenting them as 'the new enemy of science' and as comparable to the Nazis." i trust bush more than a man who says that environmentalists are fascist enemies of science. what kind of bollocks ist that? Is solar energy against science? Is any alternative energy against science, is improving houses to save energy against science, is alternative fuel or electric cars against science? being stuck on fossil fuel is against science... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, the great global warming swindle was basically ridiculed and put to shame by a lot of international climate experts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
from link: "According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it." It's Kyoto over again, why would i believe a couple of scientist over hundreds of others? "We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming." I don't believe the environmental lobby, i believe science |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
are you people stupid or are you joking? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
evil forces made this a left- or right-wing issue or something |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
whats your view on this then, o master of philosophy (and therefore climatology) ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you must be fucking kidding. I wonder which corporations funded that movie. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
destroy the evil forces ! destroy i say ! anyhow the conservative powers that be in germany, all of a sudden are pro-environmentalism finally one point i agree with them |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
gore isn't a politician imo (wiki:Today, Gore is president of the American television channel Current TV, chairman of Generation Investment Management, a director on the board of Apple Inc., and an unofficial adviser to Google's senior management.) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy to make you drive your car less because that's what socialists and scientists have to do to make money. This shouldn't be seen as a political issue (or it should, but then political issues would have to go back to being political issues (as opposed to economical, as they are today)), but rather as an ethical issue. You are the person doing this, you are the person doing bad. Do you want to be that person? And I think the fact that that it already is an ethical issue is what makes so many people believe it isn't their fault; the weight of guilt is heavy, but the only way of truly lightening it is admitting it and repenting it (by doing good, or rather, stopping doing the bad); moving the responsibility elsewhere (natural variations, the big corporations, wherever) is only a temporary solution, and it will hit you in full weight when it comes back. Then you can choose if you once more want to send it out to the field to graze and put on more weight or if you want to actually admit it, take the responsibility and do something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
OH BUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING AS A PERSON IS HAVING ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's man made. Not all of it, some is natural variations, and I can't say with certainty how much of it is us, but what is us is solely our responsibility and we need to ask ourselves, as I said, not "can we afford this," but rather "do we want to be the people who did this?" Even if the impact was, as ceri seems to believe, negligible (which I don't believe. I believe it to be significant), not doing something where we can is a true sin. My dad is a meteorologist/geophysicist, and I talk to him about it quite a bit, so I bet I have more knowledge about it than you. I also worked for a year at the geophysical institute here in bergen, where the Bjerknes centre for climate research also lies, and I read up a bit on their stuff whenever I didn't have anything to do. Don't ask me about numbers, though, I can't even remember my own birthday. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, people can keep telling themselves that. When you get in your car in the morning, it's the air planes doing the polluting, when you fly to oslo (instead of taking the train), it's the industry, or you justify it with "I don't have the time to spend six hours on a train," when you buy the stuff that is produced by "industry," it's not that particular industry, it's china and their coal power plants, please china do something!!! THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY MUST ACT! *drives off in a hummer* What, the shopping bags are heavy, ok? Bah. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I also read an article by a psychologist a while back.. he'd done some research on how people perceived the threat of global warming, and, basically, if you told them how to deal with it, they perceived it as moralizing or paternalistic and closed their ears to it. We are a bunch of grown up babies, and you know what the problem is? Fucking individualism and liberalism, but even with the capitalist notion that "no matter where you're born, what you're born to, if you don't make it, don't strike it big, no-one's to blame but you," putting all responsibility (for ones economical situation) on each and every one of us, no-one seems to be able to figure out that pollution is a personal problem; Consumers are part of the industrial pollution. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I am angry, will have an ice cream. There's close to 20 degrees in bergen in march! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i am naturally dubious of claims against artificial global warming but i'm definitely not all that knowledgable in the field. but it does really interest me. ceri: what claims did they make in the GGWS documentary and how did they support them? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
global warming is very real and quite scary, but i really fucking hate al gore for making a movie about himself instead. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oops, wrong link ignore last link! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's nice to see how influenced you all are. i can't see any ot you as an idividual. it's fun to be anti, you just feel so alive. oh ceri just get a farm and use your bike to the fullest and why bother? chin ching! me me me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, at least something happens. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's a great principle. it should be applied to the creationists as well, who harm the public by dumbing it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
puting faulty science into their heads |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
theres really no problem with creationists, the idea of creation is quite nice actually and sometimes they are SO FUNNY, so i like em each to his own on that issue |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yea i saw the peanutbutter video |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
50 years from now, (if I'm not dead and if I am, it'll be from something other than climate change) I'll look back on this and be amused. People will either of quietly dropped it, or the enviros will still be banging on about this great cataclysm that will happen "in the next ten years". My parents lived through this the first time it came up, 40 years ago. All the very same panic about the end of the world and guilt at using a car was popular material back in the 70s. Guess what? It didn't happen. 40 years, on they still want us to believe it's imminent. It's not even like traditional "end of the world" zealots. At least they have the courtesy to set a date they reckon it's all going to kick off. Then, when the date passes, we can all have a laugh and they can either be quiet, or look even more stupid and go "well, I got it wrong, actually it's 9 years and 234 days from now." This is effectively what the enviros have done since the inital claims in the 70s. So, my challenge is this: Put your head on the line, give a date it will definately of all gone tits-up by, if we carry on as we do. If we get to that date and it hasn't, you're not allowed to bring it up again. I bet you the dates would suddenly not be quite so close, instead of 10 years, it'll be 20, or 50. I think it is massive egotism on the part of humans that: a) We somehow consider ourselves different to any other animal. b) Think our actions, in the grand scheme of things will dramatically effect the planet for any real length of time. As an aside, I don't grasp how people are unable to seperate the two distinct issues of using up fossil fuel (which I think is worth looking at) from that of global warming. I also don't understand how the same people who discredit GGWS on the grounds those involved in it may have vested interests, fail to see how the same applies to those who make a living out of global warming. is hardly "a couple" is it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Whoops, linked like a n00b there. scientists (many who hold pHDs) reckon it's bunk. Hardly "a few dozen" who are being payed off by oil companies, is it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right, but temperatures are rising rapidly and polar icecaps melting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'll just say it's foolish to not think we have a great impact on climate, just how much is the tricky part the problem is it's just so complicated a science plus we never had a situation like now so there is no anticipation possible based on data so, in fact, NOBODY can really tell what will happen next it's a whole new situation for humanity and that's why there is so much panic, misinformation and misunderstanding we just don't know for now |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i gladly welcome every reason to cut down pollution, because it stinks and is unhealthy and receiving my electricity out of renewable ressources, that dont have any co2 output doesnt cost me more middleclass people can even make a profit out of it by having solar panels on their houses producing more energy than they need. and its a benefit for all factories can save much money by investing in new generators that work more effectively, decreasing their electricity bills using up the fossil fuel more efficently would probably do no harm either. we all know it will be used up anyway and in the long run the small people will pay more and more for it, so why not develop alternatives soon enough so that people still can afford their own vehicles in the upcoming decades? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're a truly inspiring induhvidual. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i've read a bit of that, and it gives argumentation that is totally refuted by the ipcc, which honestly seems highly reliable as a source of information i'll read it in detail later and try to compare the arguments to really see what is going on but by initial reading it uses false argumentation |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Your assumption that I'm stupid, because I disagree with your point of view, only serves to discredit your argument. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No-one is talking about ten years, and that'll be the end of it. It is 50 year and 100 year prognoses, and no-one knows exactly what the consequences will be, but it's a good (and educated) guess that they will not be pleasant. Also, when it comes to the time-frame, things are indeed a bit unpredictable, as there could quite possibly be unforeseen factors (like the sudden release of the tundric gas reserves due to a warmer climate) or volcanos erupting or whatever. Ok, maybe today, some are trying to make a living from this, but the original observations were made in research into other things, researchers see trends that the temperature is increasing, and then they go through possible explanations for this. When it isn't possible that the entire effect is "natural," other explanations were tested, and pollution seemed to fit the data; growth in pollution equals higher global average temperatures. And who the fuck cares about burning up all the fossil fuels in any other way than that leading to more pollution? Maybe if we lost all our fossil fuels, people would have to look into alternative fuel sources. Also, I'll bet you could scrounge up 17000 scientists who believe in creationism, and you could also probably scrounge up more people than that with various relevant degrees that believe war was necessary, etc. Also, we are different from other animals. Do you see other animals constructing what we construct? Do you see crabs doing second-degree equations? Is it even reasonable to think that all animals are self-conscious? And why shouldn't our actions affect the planet? We cover almost all of it, we've burned down lots of it, we've covered it with concrete. I'll leave it up to you to prove that we don't affect the planet, because even the most intuitively given evidence should indicate to any moron that do. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*that we do. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You should try moving to the Maldives. Maybe you need to feel the effects. Oh well, I guess this once more proves that science requires as large a leap of faith as religion does. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"I'll leave it up to you to prove that we don't affect the planet, because even the most intuitively given evidence should indicate to any moron that do." I (and indeed none of the people who don't buy into the notion that global warming is predominantly a human factor) do not claim we make no impact on the earth. Our claim is that the difference we make is very slight. You said yourself earlier that regardless of the difference we made, we should still aim to curb it. I'd disagree. How much of the problem is us? What if it's 0.1%? Won't this great cataclysm happen anyway? Would we be making huge sacrifices to merely delay it by a matter of days or weeks? Alright. 250,000 years from now, humans as we know them will no longer exist on earth. The earth will still be there, carrying on pretty much as it ever did before we were around. Going into and out of ice ages, tectonic plates moving about, volcanoes still erupting. At that stage, the temperature will be negligibly different to how it would have been had we never of existed. The earth will still have millions of years left before it is engulfed by the sun and it will probably still be capable of supporting life (and if it's not, it won't, by then, be anything to do with mankind) and, if it is, there will almost certainly be some sort of life on it. I'd like to sum up, that if you truly believe this great disaster is inevitable, what are you doing wasting your time on a messageboard typing about it? Why aren't you off in your remote bunker hoarding stores and supplies for you and your children to prolong (and improve the quality of) your and your children's existence? Oh well, I guess this once more proves that science requires as large a leap of faith as religion does. Indeed. I've always said that the notion that science is some all encompassing "church" of thought that has none of the failings that religions do and that it never contradicts itself, is a bizzare and illogical one. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The problem with these studies is that of bias. How many people are studying global warming to verify whether it is human made or not? Most people are conducting studies SEEKING a certain correlation (positive negative) in order to effect human policy in a specific way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'll note that good research is being made but wankers go and take things out of context. Climate modeling is extremely complicated and will be extremely approximate for many years to come. As such, one should leave scientists to interpreting results. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
True, I can't really think how you would go about actually selecting a team with the suitable skills who didn't have some sort of vested interest. Even if the individual is truly impartial (which is unlikely), whether that impartiality could remain (for the majority of the members of the team) in the face of all the pressure from whoever is funding it. In fact, I can't think of an organisation to fund this research that wouldn't have some sort of vested interest. It's not like discovering electricty or the combustion engine, is it? This is true in all fields of science of course. Some, hoever are slightly more "proveable" in mathematic terms, or near irrefutable studies and hence there's less grounds for disagreement on facts. Others are less prone to have cause for outside factors to interfere. It's such an emotive issue that it's particularly susceptible to this sort of influence. Childish taunt: If you're so worried about global warming and think we are responsible for it, do the decent thing. Turn off your computer and stop posting about it on messageboards. You'll conserve electricity and I'm sure it'll make all the difference in preventing a cataclysm. :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Are we talking protect the planet all of a sudden? We're trying to protect our children, all the animals, etc, all those that don't get to choose how to live their lives. And who said I believe it is inevitable?! You seem to believe so, you seem to not be able to handle the responsibility for this. We can prevent it by acting. I'm typing here to try and convince people like you to act. And I do what little I know how to, I turn off lights, I don't own a car, the apartment is one of several rooms in an office building (offices all around, only top floor is for living) and heating is provided by radiators, circulating hot water from one source throughout the entire building (granted, that isn't my doing, but I wouldn't feel as good heating my room up if I had to use more inefficient means of heating (for smaller buildings it's probably more efficient with other more conventional ways of heating, btw)). Also, do you even know what 0,1% is on a global scale? That's a hell of a lot, that's what! And with how things like these go, those 0,1% could escalate; If all the downfall in an area is rain instead of snow in a period where it should snow, that increases the relative heat. Also, it isn't just a matter of global warming. Global warming is the overall measurable effect, but that doesn't mean that it is the only effect, and in no way is increased temperatures the only problem: A city, for instance, generates a lot of heat. If this heat is retained by gases in the atmosphere, that will create a local irregularity that interferes with a system farther away, . You won't necessarily need a global increase in temperatures to get catastrophic results. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wrt global warming, the current uproar and bias will cause a reaction among people who are secondarily interested in the issue but primarily dedicated to scientific honesty, and I predict a good bit of excellent research will begin to appear. It's true that science has all sorts of crap like this, especially since funding issues can snare people by the balls. Luckily with 6 billion people on the planet, you can get followings on so many sides of any big issue. A huge barrier of course is the money involved in simply collecting and processing the data, oh well, let alone paying people to do stuff. ah well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So what in the world does the Norwegian government gain from funding research on global warming? Our biggest export is fossil fuels. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes but that'd be bad science, so it's up to you who to believe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I can't help but notice you've completely ignored manicminer's posts and material proved therein. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thanks for bringing some sense into this thread. *Note to self: print out the above 2 posts and spam CeriJC and chambre noire to death with them* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If the great global warming swindle is anything like loose change I would not want to watch it. Even if there are some valid points in it they deliberately swamped it with weak and biased opinion and terribly inaccurate data, just making me more confused as I was watching it. If they did have a valid point or 2 in loose change then they should have stuck to those and not gone of nitpicking at the situation for tiny things to use to "strengthen" their case. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well i think the channel 4 board are just the same gullible dumb as the many others who believe global warming isn't true (not xlt people) who will be persueded by false evidence because they don't know it's false. and the only jerk in this is the guy who made this documentary |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why "not xlt people"? what makes them excluded from that category? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
because they thought about this a bit. you can't be called stupid for your (stupid) opinion the thing is this is not a political or philosophical debate. im fighting for science here |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
