The Great Global Warming Swindle Options

[blaarg]

Oh I doubt there's many that do. I just wanted to ask her to clarify

And it wasn't meant as a "do you believe in temperature cycles" it's more of a "do you believe we are really currently warming?"

ah gotcha

[Dogmeat]

watch the movie if you haven't.

[Psykopath]

you want us to watch (and support) a far right-wing piece of propaganda, but you refuse to watch a far left-wing propagandized "documentary" to counter it, for lack of a better phrase?

*sticks fingers in ears*
"Nyyaaaaaaa I'm right you're wrong nanny nanny booboo head~!"
...that's pretty much what I see as your defense for such an unfair request (and also to many of your political ideas/beliefs).


But hey, internetz.

This post has been edited by Psykopath: Feb 22 2008, 05:21 PM

[Testm0nkey]

why waste my time? "ive heard all the same reports in the media." and every piece of that information can be put up against other information for global warming and its massive human involvement. it all boils down to whether you think climatologist and atmospheric scientists are more credible or lobbyists and people who are paid to come up with their conclusions

[Dogmeat]

well, the movie has at least 6 different climatologists who are claiming that man-made global warming is essentially a hoax, so I'm gonna put more stock in what they have to say than a career politician trying to scare people into supporting his policies.

[pebkac]

6? 6?

Someone call the New York Times.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Feb 22 2008, 09:47 PM

[Dogmeat]

6? 6?

Someone call the New York Times.

What I find hilarious about virtually every reply in this thread is that the movie predicts it.

Any time somone speaks out against the pop-culture belief that global warming is entirley man made, and we're all doomed unless we vote for the politicians who will save us, you're labeled as a heretic.

None of you even so much as bothered to watch the movie as you already knew it shreds your precious global warming theories to bits and you simply can't stand the fact that it doesn't fit your own political beliefs.

If I thought for one fucking second that there was any credible evidence of global warming that was caused by Co2 emissions from industrialized nations, I wouldn't be posting stuff like this.

The bottom line is, you people have a bunch of career politicians, special interest groups, lobbyists, whoever pushing this.

There is no "scientific consensus" on man-made global warming, only that "Yes, the earth undergoes climatatic changes over the course of the planet's lifecycle" ...

Seriously, this is purley a political/relegious subject ... any time you get lawyers and politicians involved in something, it throws what the truth is out the window....this is definatley that way.

Christ, 500 years ago these same people pushing man-made global warming would have been the ones hanging people who spoke out about how the world was round .... think about it.

[Testm0nkey]

"None of you even so much as bothered to watch the movie as you already knew it shreds your precious global warming theories to bits and you simply can't stand the fact that it doesn't fit your own political beliefs."


didnt we try to make you watch a video proving that co2 emissions do contribute significantly to global warming and you didnt watch it? so arent you doing the exact same thing, though with less credibility to hold up your point

the side with the lawyers and politicians have been antiglobal warming and human involvement for a significant amount of time, even now to a large extent. you dont even know what youre talking about. you think the largest lobby group isnt against the idea that co2 emissions etc lead to climate change? do you know what country you live in? each one of your points is totally contradictory


http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1977366.htm
the global warming swindle - same vid you are talking about. theres been accusations from the scientists on it that the editors twisted their opinions and statements and made them seem like they were on the opposite side of the issue then the one they are on. good quote from the interview

It's not a science film at all. It's a political statement.

in addition several production companies/networks that played durkins documentary have shut it off and distanced themselves from it because it was found out to be horribly and unethically done

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

… Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial “lie” foisted on the public.

Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this newspaper’s inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.

BBC's Channel 4 was what the documentary was on

oh heres some more of the political side that you hate so much dogmeat:

The Independent reporters asked the documentary makers, Wag TV, for the sources for the information they used to create their ‘World Temp - 120 Years’ graph, which was the centrepiece of their solar-activity-induced global warming theory - and were referred to a dated and obscure journal produced by well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

On 5 July 2007, The Guardian reported that Professor Mike Lockwood, a solar physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory had carried out a study, initiated partially in response to The Great Global Warming Swindle, that disproved one of the documentary's key planks — namely that global warming directly correlates to solar activity. Lockwood's study showed that solar activity had diminished subsequent to 1987, despite a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth's surface. The study, to be published in a Royal Society journal, used temperature and solar data recorded from the last 100 years.

dogmeat, why were you saying this video was so much more credible than an inconvenient truth?

[pysex]

it's true that gore's movie is a massive piece of political propaganda...


yet when some scientists want to rebuke those claims in their own response you come back and say its just as political...


so then that means we can never find the truth...


how fucking stupid is that





i'm going to side with the scientists who have spent a lot of their life studying this...not al gore and his pocket pals



and thanks dogmeat.....the video was very interesting

[Testm0nkey]

ugh. by al gores pocket pals you mean scientists who have spent their lives studying this?

the science channel is showing Meltdown: A Global Warming in march. its a great documentary thats actually based on legitimate science and hasnt been reamed by everyone for being political propaganda and totally false

but id just like to reiterate no one here doesnt believe in global warming itself? like blaarg was saying. because thats been scientifically proven. the only argument is human beings involvement. greenhouse effects are measured

we've had the Hockey Stick graph debate on here in the past but i cant remember the statements of those who didnt believe it/didnt support it. when fluctuations in solar output, volcanic and oceanic disturbance, and other natural occurances that disrupt climate are laid onto the hockey stick with a line of human emission... its pretty shocking. i guess the common layperson doesnt know scientists can calculate solar fluctuations

but in the end, whether you believe humans are the cause or solar cycles, WHATS THE HARM? do you want to keep breathing polluted air and have more and more people with cancers? do you want to be tied to an ever increasing in price gas pump for the rest of your life and all the societal and world problems that causes? do you not want to save money by having an energy efficient home? do you just really enjoy pollution?

[pysex]

id love for the world to clean up

that would be fantastic...

but scaring people and telling them their car emission is going to cause a massive snow tornado glacial freeze acid flood won't help...

i don't know what it will take...

we have scientists with "scientific proof" that we're causing it....

we have scientists with "scientific proof" that we aren't and it's the earth doing its thing...


SO WHAT THE FLYING FUCK ARE WE TO THINK?



i won't be on this earth long enough to give a fuck anyway...

[Psykopath]

i won't be on this earth long enough to give a fuck anyway...

It's this mentality that will fuck us over.

[FORSAKENR320]

people know cigarettes and drugs will kill and harm them, but they do it anyway... what makes anyone think that people will care about the enviroment when they won't even care about themselves?

[pysex]

It's this mentality that will fuck us over.

I'd like to know what difference YOU and YOU alone have made in cleaning up this massively huge planet.

[Dogmeat]

dogmeat, why were you saying this video was so much more credible than an inconvenient truth?

Because it's not being pushed by a bunch of politicians ... that right there is reason enough for me.

Please explain to me how this film was "right wing propaghanda" ... I didn't see Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchannan, anybody on there, did you?