The Great Global Warming Swindle

[VinnieK]

Slim, just because there are inummerable 'experts' (mainly with vested interests, re: their livelyhood) say "we can prove scientifically/statistically/politically that unless we act now, we're doomed", doesn't mean they are correct, there was a time not long ago when experts 'knew for a fact' the Earth was flat, and if you travelled too far, you would fall off the edge (to where I doubt ever crossed their blinkered minds)

 

Huh? didn't we just already cover this issue, including the flat Earth business (turns out it's a misconception, but the way)?

 

You are only an expert if you claim to know more than most, or if that majority choose to believe you

No, you're an expert if you undergo at bare minimum six to seven years academic education and training, then spend around two years or so learning the ropes as a research associate/assistant producing publications that are independently verfied and vetted before publication, and go on to spend somewhere around ten further years of your life working in your field and producing orginal and important research. Then, maybe you're an expert. These people aren't simply "deemed" to be in the know, or simply state they are. Occassionally a non expert may be presented as one by the media, but that's a different matter altogether. The point is that there's a sharp distinction between expert and amature, one that's justified by the quality of the person's work and the amount of experience you have.

 

The programme on ch4 showed me how illogical you can be to make people follow your every word, and how much you can twist the actual truth and still get away with it

 

You're probably right, but for the wrong reasons. The last time Channel Four aired a documentary by that particular individual they had to issue a formal apology when it transpired that he had dishonestly edited interviews to discredit his opponents and support his point of view. Follow every word indeed.

 

I prefer to see facts on the table not heresay and projections, we can see history, mother nature has left all the evidence I need to see.

 

What happens if you're in no position to understand the facts, a position you, I, and I suspect the vast majority of this forum share? It's all very well to say "I want facts!" but the whole reason scientists are useful to society is because the facts are usually beyond our comprehension.

[Declan]

Slim, just because there are inummerable 'experts' (mainly with vested interests, re: their livelyhood) say "we can prove scientifically/statistically/politically that unless we act now, we're doomed", doesn't mean they are correct, there was a time not long ago when experts 'knew for a fact' the Earth was flat, and if you travelled too far, you would fall off the edge (to where I doubt ever crossed their blinkered minds)

 

Experts suggested that the Earth was round in the 3rd Century B.C. "By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st Centuary, however, the Earth's spherical shape was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world". Additionally, "The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828."

 

People can't keep trotting out this as a reason not to believe experts. The concept of the flat Earth is one what supports the notion of listening to the scientific consensus because since antiquity the only people who believed that the World was flat were those that chose not to believe the experts.

 

You are only an expert if you claim to know more than most, or if that majority choose to believe you

Not if you spend a lifetime accumalating knowledge in a subject? Ok.

 

The programme on ch4 showed me how illogical you can be to make people follow your every word, and how much you can twist the actual truth and still get away with it

 

This would be a program by a film maker who has been chastised in the past editing his subjects comments to make it appear they are saying something different to what they actually said?

 

I prefer to see facts on the table not heresay and projections, we can see history, mother nature has left all the evidence I need to see

And that is what?

 

What pisses me off more than anything, the same type of people are pro smoking/shooting/no speed limit/etc. always shout the loudest trying to force their own self interests down everyone elses throat - like I said a few days ago, the Global Warming Nazis

 

Would that be people who disagree with you?

 

Actually, I'm a bit confused are you saying the pro-smoking lobby, the NRA and the shooting lobby, and Amadeus and Anti-Speed Limit guys are also Global Warming Nazi's because I don't see how their views are simillar (or have you got your negatives and positives mixed up?)

 

Besides, I can't see how accepting Global Warming has a manmade cause is in anyone's self-interest. I'd like to disbelieve it, I want foreign holidays, lower fuel bills, and I don't want the shit attempting to cut carbon emissions will cause. But, I can't latch onto some fringe scientists and ignore the overwhelming weight of scientific thought just because it suits me.

[Slim]

Slim, just because there are inummerable 'experts' (mainly with vested interests, re: their livelyhood) say "we can prove scientifically/statistically/politically that unless we act now, we're doomed", doesn't mean they are correct, there was a time not long ago when experts 'knew for a fact' the Earth was flat, and if you travelled too far, you would fall off the edge (to where I doubt ever crossed their blinkered minds)

 

I'm done trying to explain this to you, it's clear you're simply too stupid to reason with. People have taken the time to explain why what you've just written is utter bollocks, and you clearly either didn't bother reading it or are too obtuse to understand.

 

You are only an expert if you claim to know more than most, or if that majority choose to believe you

Sigh. What a sat representation of the majesty of human knowledge. What a miserable little fuckhead you must be to reduce our species learning to this.

 

I prefer to see facts on the table not heresay and projections, we can see history, mother nature has left all the evidence I need to see

 

Yes, we can look back at all those times mankind has grown at an unprecidented rate and spewed millions of tonnes of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere....

 

What pisses me off more than anything, the same type of people are pro smoking/shooting/no speed limit/etc. always shout the loudest trying to force their own self interests down everyone elses throat - like I said a few days ago, the Global Warming Nazis

 

 

What pisses me off more than anything is selfish wankers who think they're the centre of the universe and not part of a global community with a responsibility for the future of our children. People who can't see what's presented right in their stupid thick faces because they'd rather believe bullshit tin hat conspiracies and continue to drive their fuel guzzling jags, have their patio heaters on full blast, take holidays in australia and weekends in prague and not have to worry about any of that pussy green shite that's for puffs.

 

Declan: Great post. There's no reason not to go through with a greenhouse gas reduction programme, even if the theories are wrong, the result is worth it.

[Utah 01]

Slim et al. Your posts over the past few hours have exhibited the zealousness with which you are prepared to defend your obvious belief in the Co2 debate but they show, more importantly, your complete intolerance towards anybody who dares to question the validity of that belief. And Slim, be very careful before you start accusing posters on this forum of displaying ignorance.

[VinnieK]

Slim et al. Your posts over the past few hours have exhibited the zealousness with which you are prepared to defend your obvious belief in the Co2 debate but they show, more importantly, your complete intolerance towards anybody who dares to question the validity of that belief. And Slim, be very careful before you start accusing posters on this forum of displaying ignorance.

 

Who comprises et al? In any case, accusations of zealotry is somewhat hypocritical since, rather than address the points raised, you're merely making assumptions about the character and the beliefs of the people who have raised them.

 

For the record, I'm not in a position to know whether global warming is as much of a threat as it is said it is, but I do, however, trust in the scientific concensus on the matter. The idea of the scientific establishment being made up entirely or in the majority of careerist fraudsters and incompetants serving a sinister government's hidden agenda (whatever that might be with regards to global warming) is a poor one at best, and one that fails to take into account the international background of many of the scientists who back the global warming hypothesis. Someone mentioned, for instance, that the scientists are biased in their views because their livelihoods rely upon adhering to the global warming hypothesis. This is simply not true. Science thrives upon original, high profile research, and, as such, any group of scientists who could convincingly demonstrate that global warming is nothing to worry about and is not a consequence of our actions would make a name for themselves in an instant, and on one level or another academia is all about big names. Even if we assume that the European universities were under the stranglehold of governments dedicated to pushing the global warming hypothesis, its not unreasonable to suppose that such scientists would find themselves more than welcome at some of the big private U.S. universities, universities where they'd find funding and facilities of a far higher quality than can be found in Europe.

[Declan]

Slim et al. Your posts over the past few hours have exhibited the zealousness with which you are prepared to defend your obvious belief in the Co2 debate but they show, more importantly, your complete intolerance towards anybody who dares to question the validity of that belief.

 

If I'm part of the "et al" I'd like to know where I've been over-zealous in stating my views. This is a discussion forum you've got to expect people to hold differing views from you. It appears that whilst expounding on how important it is to challenge the views of the mainstream you aren't so keen for your own views to be challenged.

[Lost Login]

The "anti CO2" lobby as a cause of Global warming have much more vested interests than the pro CO2 lobby. You seem to indicate that you have no belief in the the pro CO2 lobby as a cause of global warming as you belive they have a vested interest but that does appear to apply to the anti lobby who have a greater interest. You appear to want to belive the side with the greater vested interest

 

If you read the thread the links posted show that what was stated in the programm does not stand up to scrutiny but you still seem to prefer to believe that rather than the majority view point which does presently stand up to scrutiny and questioning. You appear to believe the side whose theories quickly collapse under review but not the side whose theories stand up to review and are willing to continue the research on those theories.

 

Nobody on the side that argues that C02 is a cause of global warming says that it should not be challenged or that more research etc etc might not alter sciebtific opinion they purely argue that presently argue that scientific opinion which has all been reviewed and challenged supports that theory. The side that argue that CO2 does not cause global warming have yet to come up with a theory and data which on review and challenge supports that view. This is not because those that support the theory that CO2 causes Global Warming have no interest in accepting an alternative viewpoint just that presently the facts do not supoort it. Come up with some facts that under review do the scientific community will quickly take it on board. Those that discover it will make a mint and those that do not will still be gainfully employed researching the consequences and what can be done.

 

Simply you seem to have no interest in taking on board the arguments or wether your views are supported by the evidence or the facts. You have your views and that is the end of the matter. If we lived in another generation you would have been one of those arguing that the "earth was flat" as "just because there are inummerable 'experts' (mainly with vested interests, re: their livelyhood) say "we can prove scientifically/statistically/politically that unless we act now, we're doomed", doesn't mean they are correct"

 

Slim, just because there are inummerable 'experts' (mainly with vested interests, re: their livelyhood) say "we can prove scientifically/statistically/politically that unless we act now, we're doomed", doesn't mean they are correct, there was a time not long ago when experts 'knew for a fact' the Earth was flat, and if you travelled too far, you would fall off the edge (to where I doubt ever crossed their blinkered minds)

 

You are only an expert if you claim to know more than most, or if that majority choose to believe you

 

The programme on ch4 showed me how illogical you can be to make people follow your every word, and how much you can twist the actual truth and still get away with it

 

I prefer to see facts on the table not heresay and projections, we can see history, mother nature has left all the evidence I need to see

 

What pisses me off more than anything, the same type of people are pro smoking/shooting/no speed limit/etc. always shout the loudest trying to force their own self interests down everyone elses throat - like I said a few days ago, the Global Warming Nazis

[RC-Drift.com]

If you mean, If we lived in another generation I would have been one of those arguing that the "earth was flat" as "just because there are inummerable 'experts' blah blah blah, then you have read my post in the context you wanted to read it instead of the context I posted it which is exactly opposite to what you are referring

[Utah 01]

Slim et al, and that includes Declan. You should read what others have written carefully. I haven't actually expounded a view per se apart from this: that it is apparent from these forums that there is an antipathy towards those who wish/dare to suggest that the Co2 lobby might be wrong. There is nothing wrong with zealotry as long as those who might hold contrary viewpoints are not denigrated to the extent to which some of the vitriol poured upon them in this forum has occured.

 

'I'm done trying to explain this to you, it's clear you're simply too stupid to reason with. People have taken the time to explain why what you've just written is utter bollocks, and you clearly either didn't bother reading it or are too obtuse to understand.' QED

[Gladys]

Ok, but can anyone please tell us exactly what is happening? Is it something to be worried about, is it something we can change, does it need to be changed, is there anyone who can categorically confirm that either we have a problem that can be remedied, or is there someone who can say, 'no this is cyclical?'.

 

As a Joe Bloggs type, it would be good to hear a definitive statement from the scientific community before I smother my children because the earth is surely going to burn.

[Mission]

I'm kinda on the fence with this one tbh. In some respects I'd say it is cyclical BUT on the other hand, the positive explosion since the industrial revolution SHOULD also make us aware of our impact on the planet's health.

 

I really don't see why it should be such a hardship to seek out alternative means of renewable energy sources, rather than just continue to deplete the resources in the ground.

 

We may well only be contributing to the effects of global warming in a minor way but that doesn't mean we couldn't try to lessen the impact if we have the means to do so at hand.

[Gladys]

Exactly so Mish. We shouldn't waste finite resources, for no other reason than it is imprudent to do so because they are finite, so I am for recycling, minimising use of fossil fuels, respect for the ecology etc. But I do wonder how much of what we are fed is convenient propaganda, it (global warming) being a multi-million dollar business.

 

I, too, remember the dire warnings during the 60's and 70's of another ice age; how wrong was that?

[VinnieK]

convenient propaganda, it (global warming) being a multi-million dollar business.

 

I don't understand why so many Governments would go to such sustained efforts to convince the public though. On the one hand yes, ecology is a multi-mllion dollar business. On the other hand, the profit margins are tiny compared with pharmaceuticals and IT, and necessitate a costly change of public infrastucture if it as an industry is ever truly going to flourish. It really doesn't seem worthwhile given that the money and effort dedicated to climate research could be better invested in other industries.

 

I, too, remember the dire warnings during the 60's and 70's of another ice age; how wrong was that?

 

From what I can tell, much of those predictions was actually speculation on the part of the media, not scientists. At that time clamatology was in its infancy and the vast bulk of scientists recognised that the matter had not been studied in great enough detail to draw a conclusion, although it was apparant that there was evidence of some kind of systematic change undergoing within the climate. As such I don't really think that then and now can be compared - even though the media hasn't changed much, today there actually is a large scientific concensus that's emerged from decades of study and advanced techniques in climate modelling and a methodical

[Lost Login]

I and the majority who on this thread have argued that the current scientific consensus is that Global Warming is a consequence or greatly effected by man and C02 are not against the theory being challenged and tested. That is how science advances by questioning and reviewing in light of new research and evidence. I am all for the the theory being reviewed and questioned. The more it is and the more it stands up to that enquiry the more I am confertable in believing the scientific majority.

 

What I object to is not the questioning, but statements which in efect say the CO2 theory is wrong for X reason and that the global warming is caused by this alternative when all the evidence and investigation does not back that claim and worse when the claim is based on information etc which is known to be inaccurate and out of date. That is in effect what the programme did. If it had been put out ten years ago when the research was to still be done I would have no problem with the theory being presented as a possible cause and requiring research and investigationg. Putting it out now as fact when the majority of the claims have been reviewed and disproved is not questioning contents it is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

 

It appeares to have worked as the thread starts by Stu saying in effect I always knew my gut feeling was right that Global Warming is nowt to do with Hydro Carbons. I am all for questioning but I am zealously against people making claims on whichever size of the argument using "facts" which are knowlingy false.

 

I do though also struggle to understand how you can have a discussion with anybody on a topic who in effect say the that they understand and accept that the majority scientific knowledge is in favour of A but they might be wrong so therefore they will believe the minority view B despite over and over again B being disproved. The logic of that is that the more A is proved and B is disproved the more they will believe in B.

 

 

 

 

that it is apparent from these forums that there is an antipathy towards those who wish/dare to suggest that the Co2 lobby might be wrong. There is nothing wrong with zealotry as long as those who might hold contrary viewpoints are not denigrated to the extent to which some of the vitriol poured upon them in this forum has occured.

[RC-Drift.com]

As a Joe Bloggs type, it would be good to hear a definitive statement from the scientific community before I smother my children because the earth is surely going to burn.

The Earth IS going to burn, but not for quite a few million years yet - and there's sod all anyone can do about it, even the sun has only finite resources