“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle - Page 4

alan meehan (Alan) · #61 11-07-2007, 11:07 PM

i couldn,t agree more alex what about the global world concert,they used more lighting &power than ten small cities not to mention the rubbish left behind ,global warming will make for some good weather photos.

tbentley · #62 12-07-2007, 12:18 AM

It's amazing how egotistical we humans are isn't it. We can't believe for a second that anything is beyond our control.
Do we really know if it's warming? If so is it any different to the long term history of the planet? The only evidence we have is based on data taken from ice. Of course the interpretation of all of this data is subject to lots of assumptions which we can't possibly know are correct, unless we had the original data to verify it. Chicken or the egg anyone?
Of course even if it is warming how can we possibly know what is causing it? We can have educated guesses, theories or whatever but there is only one way to prove it. Change the rate at which we emit carbon and see if the warming changes in accordance. As it seems it will be very hard to reduce our emissions rapidly I propose that we increase them by massive amounts to prove it one way or the other.
In the name of science I ask you all to turn on your heaters and air conditioners on full, breathe more, kill the trees, drive the long way to work and turn all your electrical appliances on. In ten years or so we should have the data we need.
LOL
Travis

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #63 12-07-2007, 09:21 AM

I know it's been said before, but those who wholeheartedly follow apocalyptic headlines as gospell are probably made up of the same group who believe that the world was going to end because of a "Y2K" bug. That was a doozy - a hell of a lot of people were convinced that their laptop was going to eat them.

Damn amusing....... there are people who just love attention.

What also annoys me is that the BBC "Swindle" presentation tonight on the ABC is being labelled "contentious", yet Al Gore's apocalyptic ravings aren't. Incredible - we humans are worse than sheep. This must be an age where people believe what politicians say about scientific phenomena rather than scientists.

casstony · #64 12-07-2007, 09:43 AM

Ego has little relevance here Travis. The point is we may or may not be facing a serious threat. It's up to each person to look at the evidence and decide whether to guard against this potential threat or not. Having been wrong often in the past makes me cautious about taking a stand, but I'm sufficiently concerned that I think we should do something to reduce our CO2 emissions. We have to wean off fossil fuels sooner or later anyway.

Having a strong opinion and then being proven wrong - now that's something that really dents my ego.

astroron (Ron) · #65 12-07-2007, 09:55 AM

Where there is smoke there is probably fire.
What do you propose to do, sit back and do nothing?
I as an older bloke ,with only maybe at the best 2 score years left on this mortal toil, it wont affect me that much, but what are we leaving our future generations?

matt · #66 12-07-2007, 10:21 AM

The latest out of ANU...for those interested:

ANU Media Release
News from The Australian National University

THURSDAY 12 JULY 2007
SCIENTISTS TAKE THE HOT AIR OUT OF ‘SWINDLE’

Leading scientists from The Australian National University and Stanford University have dismissed much of the content of “The Great Global Warming Swindle” to be broadcast on ABC TV tonight as a lot of hot air that fails to present any credible evidence to back up its claim.

ANU climate scientists Dr Janette Lindesay and Professor McCulloch, along with their Stanford University colleague, Professor Robert Dunbar, will critique the claims aired in the documentary at a public forum at ANU this Friday lunchtime, focusing in particular on claims that global warming is not due to greenhouse gas emissions but other ‘natural’ causes. All three have viewed the original documentary that went to air in Britain.

“Nearly all the ideas presented in the documentary as arguments against human-induced climate change are either carefully selected parts of more complicated stories or are in fact recycled hypotheses that have long since been rejected by the science community based on thorough testing and analysis,” said Professor Dunbar.

“The record of pre-20th century climate change has been developed by 1000's of scientists working all over the world. Contrary to the unsubstantiated assertions in documentary, this record strongly supports the view that carbon dioxide levels have an important and substantial influence on climate, at timescales ranging from years to 100's of thousands of years. Climate scientists have also examined the influence of other factors that force climate change, solar forcing and ocean circulation for example. Although these are found to be important, the collective wisdom is that carbon dioxide levels are very important, particularly the current and previous periods of planetary warming. The fact that climate can change "naturally" in no way argues against the idea that humans also influence climate.”

Dr Lindesay said there is unequivocal scientific evidence that global average temperatures are higher today than they have been at any time since world-wide instrumental measurements began in the mid 19th century, and strong evidence that they are higher than at any time in at least the last 1000 years.

“It is equally indisputable that there is an identifiable anthropogenic (human) signal in the temperature trends during the last 100 plus years, overlaid on natural variability.” Dr Lindesay said.

“In Australia, the effects of rainfall variability have been exacerbated by rising temperatures, as is evident in the long-running drought and recent severe bushfire seasons in south-eastern Australia. The rainfall decline in the south-west of Western Australia has been linked with large-scale shifts in atmospheric pressure patterns associated with climate change.

Professor McCulloch warned that the program takes a step backward in attempting to deny the reality of global warming. “It ignores for example recent temperature data that shows that the beginning of this century has included the 2nd to 7th warmest years recorded with the years 1998 and 2005 being the warmest on instrumental records. Other so-called scientific data are at best distortions or in some cases blatant misrepresentations.”

“Whilst there is no question that our planet has previously undergone major shifts in climate our current era of global warming is unique in being driven by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

“Our current era of global warming is being driven by increased atmospheric CO2 , and is occurring almost 100 times faster than during the period at the end of the last ‘ice age’, and is of enormous concern. In fact, such rates of warming have rarely, if ever, been previously encountered by our planet.

“So what can be done to prevent this? Action taken now can substantially ameliorate some of the worst effects. Clearly the reduction of CO2 emissions is a key challenge, which requires more efficient energy usage, and the development of new and alternative technologies, such as solar and wind power, as well as the wise use of our vast natural endowments of gas, coal, and uranium. Given the expertise and calibre of Australia’s scientific community, and thus our potential technological capacity, there is clearly a great opportunity for Australia to play a leading role in the development and implementation of a new energy regime, which takes advantage of our natural resources. In such critical times, scientists have a clear responsibility, to not only get the science ‘right’, but also in educating, not misleading the general populous as this program does.”

The public forum, “De-bunking the Debunking 'The Great Global Warming Swindle” will take place from 1.00 pm – 2.30 pm on Friday 13 July at the Finkel Theatre, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Garran Road, ANU.

xelasnave · #67 12-07-2007, 06:44 PM

As I said I am not going to say another thing about global warming other than if its real I am sure we can fix it just like we fixed the problem of children dieing all over the world thru lack of food...

I think its down to only 50,000 a day dieing now... now that seemed like a problem that the West could not fix and yet we have.

How many died today from starvation I wonder... 6 billion dollars earmarked for desalinators for Sydney and Melbourne and 50,000 a day die...

I wonder when someone will do a movie about that and the other problems that Mr Gore helps us avoid...

In truth I dont know how many a day die from starving ...who does? who cares? when we have bigger issues to dribble on about... now theres a good movie title..."The Sad and Unwanted Truth"...we could have bands do concerts to fix it..the ongoing hunger..... er was that done or was that a movie plot I remember.
Yes it was done..Sting was there U2?
mmm get aid for the funds and knighthoods all at once.. near stopped people starving so they abandonded it ... fads can only be milked for so long.

Maybe we just concentrate on fixing something within our reach like stopping humans consuming more energy and becoming more glutonous.. much easier than feeding the staving.

alex

sarahpsystudent · #68 12-07-2007, 11:35 PM

hello!

- I'm a psychology student in Melbourne who is currently working on a thesis about attitudes toward global warming and various current and potential energy sources. There is very little Australian-based research in this area at the current point in time.
In short, I am conducting an online, anonymous survey that takes around 10 minutes to complete.
If you would like to contribute, here is the link:
http://opinio.online.swin.edu.au/s?s=2235
Thanks to those who do take the time to share their knowledge and opinion on this important issue.
Apologies if this post offends/bores or impinges upon anyones enjoyment of this discussion - I hope I am not considered a spammer and promise to only post this once - please let me know if there is any problems though and I will remove it if this is the case...

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #69 13-07-2007, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarahpsystudent

I hope I am not considered a spammer and promise to only post this once - please let me know if there is any problems though and I will remove it if this is the case...

Your welcome to become a regular contributor and join in the conversations.

You never know, Sarah, you might even get hooked on Astronomy!!!!

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #70 13-07-2007, 12:32 AM

What gets up my goat is the world-wide concert 'Live Earth!!!!

It didn't do anything but entertain youth around the Globe with their favourite bands.

Oh, sorry . . it did do some other things. BIG things.

It caused massive pollution from the enormous mountains of rubbish left behind at each venue worldwide, It delivered tons more car exhaust from all the people driving to the events, the concerts around the Globe in total consumed more Electricity than a city, and don't even mention the massive amount of paper that was involved in hand-outs, programs etc!!!

What a fine example of cleaning up the Earth

Sheeeesh!

But Hey! The Youth got to go to great concerts

Did 'Live Earth' make you save the earth?

OneOfOne (Trevor) · #71 13-07-2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ballaratdragons

What gets up my goat is the world-wide concert 'Live Earth!!!!

[snip]

Unfortunately Ken, I have to agree. I would love to be able to say that Live Earth has begun the world on a path of fixing the global warming problems, but as a lot of skeptics have said "it was a concert", and that is all it was. I had exactly the same thoughts, they may have used bio fuel for the generators, but I am sure the audience didn't walk and the staging equipment wasn't dragged there on trolleys! And I would be very surprised if they all, or anyone, put their rubbish in bins. Maybe we have been on this planet for too long Ken. When the "concert" generation takes over the world, I hope I am pushing up daisies.

I can picture it now...."interest rates are set to soar", lets have a "Live Interest" concert, "we are running out of water" -> "Live water" and so on. My generation we not driven everywhere, we didn't get cars when we were in high school, or dare leave a light on when we went out of the room, we didn't have a computer and TV in our room, a new mobile phone every year, new clothes every other week etc. I think this generation (as a whole) will inherit the Earth they insisted their parents make for them (pollution and resource wise at least). I hope the less self centric teenagers take an interest in politics and do DO something rather than sing about it, so the human race may have a chance of surviving.

OneOfOne (Trevor) · #72 13-07-2007, 07:48 AM

I haven't seen the global warming show yet, I hope to see it over the weekend. I did see a couple of snippets while rewinding a tape or two. The one comment I can agree, at least partly with, is that developing nations will not be happy when we say to them that they cannot embrace all the technology that we enjoyed and insist that the be "green". You could see the shows point that the "environmental side" is holding back the development of these countries, but the Earth could not survive the environmental onslaught caused by the whole of Africa driving cars, mobile phones, world travel etc. I guess we had the benefit of living at a time of plentiful energy, but by the time we realised the errors of our ways, it was too late for anyone else to join in.

The energy party is about over and it is getting time for everyone to go home and if anyone turns up now to join in....to quote a very famous saying..."tough titties".

PCH (Paul) · #73 13-07-2007, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casstony

Pessimism breeds apathy and nothing gets done. (not aimed at any particular poster)

Better to prepare for the worst but hope for the best.

I always recall what a well known English gentleman of the 'old school' type said on radio once. I forget what the interview was about, but he said ...
"all we can do is hope for the best, expect the worst and take what comes". I think it's pretty spot on here too!

Cheers,
Paul

rogerg (Roger) · #74 13-07-2007, 03:39 PM

I haven't really been following this topic, and have only seen a little of the documentary in question.

To be honest I wouldn't be sure if the documentary is right or the global warming scientists are right, I'm not a scientist, and I don't particularly care....

I think the point is, people on the earth waste an awful lot of everything, energy, fossil fuels included. We don't need to waste that much. This "global warming fanfair" is as good excuse as any to cut that waste. Doing so would surely have a less burdening impact on the planet, which can only be a good thing.

Also, I'm all for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels irrespective of global warming, it doesn't make sense to so heavily rely on something which will at some time just suddenly run out completely, leaving us "up the creek without a paddle".

Roger.

KenGee (Kenith Gee) · #75 13-07-2007, 06:59 PM

Very sad that even oh a science related website like this it's impossible to have a rational science based discussion about the facts and what science can and can't draw from them. Too many people are getting what scientist are saying and what environmentalist and worst the environmentalist are saying. Worst still many people seem unable or unwilling to follow some very basic scientific principles. While there are differing scientific opinions on what the facts mean. Despite what some groups may wish people to believe the science journals are a hot bed of robust debate. This subject has been thrashed out in the pages of science journals over the last 30 years or so. There are times when very good scientist are just plain wrong. Einstein views on QED are a good example. He hadn't or couldn't keep up with the change in understanding and in the end just plain didn't want to except the conclusions. In fact his famous comment on QED namely “God does not play dice” has become the catch phase of many a nut.
The same can be seen with global warming denial’ers, anti-evolutionist, and just about any modern scientific world view you’ll get some fridge group coming out against it. Often with very common sense reasons why the scientific consensus is wrong. I think what was most disappointing part of last night was the question(?) from the audience. It would have been a good chance to talk about some of the issue however that’s not what we got. Now it’s a fact that all scientist bring their own hypothesis however hypothesis don’t become mainstream theories except via the weight of facts. For those who doubt that just me an example.

xelasnave · #76 14-07-2007, 02:41 PM

The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. ... We must not conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. ...
Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!" (Albert Einstein)
alex

xelasnave · #77 14-07-2007, 06:35 PM

The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

alex

casstony · #78 14-07-2007, 08:07 PM

It's good that you have yourself to talk to Alex

I enjoy reading your posts but it often takes me a little time to decipher them.
When looking at the big picture it's hard to see Humanity's path to an enlightened future..........so many problems............but if we are able to solve one problem at a time hopefully the path will become evident. Of course, to solve a problem we have to actually tackle it first.

xelasnave · #79 14-07-2007, 08:15 PM

Well its a case of listening to the great writers of history ..there are many .
I am never lonely therefore.
Thank you for the encouragement
alex

tornado33 · #80 15-07-2007, 09:55 PM

What astounds me is the way people waste electricity with excessive lighting (yes as an amateur astronomer I do notice wasted lighting a lot more) but I notice many houses dont just have an outside light, they have dual 150watt floodlights, and not sensor ones, but ones permanantly left on all night. How do they afford the power bills?

The best thing governments can do to start limiting our "carbon footprints" is to have the same lighting ordinances in every city in Australia as there is in Coonabarabran, and lighting like this
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/news/archive/2004/03_mar/
MUST be mandatory. It should also be illegal to lave on any light outside that isnt for an essential purpose. Every streetlight must be shielded, and the wattage of its bulb halved. All these acts would at least halve or more, power consumption for lighting across Australia, yet still provide adequate and safe lghting where its needed. It would, as a not too small side issue give us MUCH darker night skies in the cities