The great global warming swindle - TravelPUNK Backpacker College Student Budget Travel Message Boards!

**MeTurk** · 03-09-2007, 04:23 AM

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...=homepage_box3

Channel 4 (UK) showed a documentary last night about how global warming just isn't happening and how the subject has been hijacked by politics.

I feel like such a mong after watching it (maybe I'm a fool for believing this version too but they where pretty convincing) these scientists claimed that not only are our CO2 emissions unlikely to be causing global warming but it's preposterous to think they are.

There's a cartoon that shows that volcanoes produce more CO2 every year than all human output put together, animals produce far more than that, decomposing produces far more than them but the largest contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere was the oceans. We only contribute 0.6%.

Not only that, they showed that CO2 doesn't lead to a rise in temperature, it's actually the other way around, a rise in temperature leads to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Meaning the sun controls the weather on earth and meteorologists that study the activity of the sun can predict the weather much more accurately than those that don't which is most of them.

The worst was when they showed how anti global warming is holding back 3rd world countries. They need electricity it's shocking how a lack of electricity can affect the lives of people and we're preventing them from using their own natural resources (coal and gas) because of pollutants and telling them to use solar and wind power which just don't cut the mustard.

I feel like I've been conned, I have been conned! What do ye think the science seems sound I don't think the show was sponsored by Shell or the Bush administration (one of the scientists was a former head of Greenpeace).

**raoulduke** · 03-09-2007, 04:33 AM

Sounds like an interesting doco.

It's really hard to know what to believe when it comes to global warming and all it's media hype. The media has a long history of blowing things completely out of proportion, remember SARS, bird flu and Y2K bug?

It's also strange how this has only become an issue in the last 6-12 months, once the media bandwagon get's rolling it's unstoppable. People start noticing and change in anything and blame it on global warming.

Too Hot? Blame it on global warming. Too Cold? Blame it on global warming.

**LiveFreeorDie** · 03-09-2007, 06:31 AM

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation or use of selective pieces of information when it comes to global warming - on both sides. The bottom line is that we do not have anywhere near good enough climate science to know what the hell is actually going on, or what is causing phenomena we observe today. All of the global warming 'projections' you see on TV that predict doomsday scenarios (including those used by Al Gore in his documentary) are based on predictive computer models. These models have never been accurate in the past and it is crazy to think they are accurate now - we just do not know enough. We cannot predict the weather more than 3 or 4 days out - how the hell can we predict climate change going out tens of years? What is interesting to me is that people are flipping out over shrinking glaciers and ice mass in the Arctic and in parts of Northern europe. Greenland's ice sheet for example is shrinking, so it must be global warming caused by humans, right? Well, 400 years ago the Danes (Vikings) used to farm on Greenland. There was little to no ice - it was arable land (hence its name - Greenland). So what happened between now and then to cause Greenland to freeze? Obviously 400 years ago there was not enough human CO2 to have caused Greenland to have much less ice than today, right? Bottom line is that the earth is a continually changing system - this would still be true if no human was ever born. Does that mean global warming caused by humans is false? Not necessarily, but at this time we do not know enough to justify throwing developing countries into chaos by limiting their access and use of cheaper fossil fuels. Nor does it make sense to enter into politicized treaties like Kyoto (which, by the way, the Europeans have already failed to comply with) when there are little hard facts to support it. Is cutting emmissions and pollution an important goal? Absolutely, but as in most things, it should be done slowly, in moderation and not in some masive foul swoop that could cause mass human suffering in some regions of the world.

If you want to read a pasable fiction book but that has a lot of cited facts on the global warming situation and the use of science in today's politicized world, go read Michael Crichton's The State of Fear. It has an interesting point of view on how most science today is slanted towards a particular goal, based on who is funding the study. There is little independent scientific work going on that is completely unbiased.

**DC_Jessica** · 03-09-2007, 07:29 AM

Just my $0.02:

I honestly don't care if "global warming" (quotes optional) is imminent or something that my great great great great great grandchildren won't even think about. My bottom line is that if we can use less, we should use less. I would love to be able to afford a hybrid car, but for now, I have a bus pass until I can realize that. (Besides, I can't sleep or read if I'm driving my commute...or *shouldn't* rather than *can't*!) I take totes to the grocery store because I just end up storing my plastic Giant bags anyways. If I'm not in a room, I don't actually need a light on, and if it's daylight, well, that's why I pay the big bucks for an apartment with windows. I don't pay for utilities separately, but I shower until I'm clean, and then it's over (and of course, two people showering at once is economical, right?

).

However, I certainly don't flip out on people eating individually wrapped foodstuffs or buying non-hybrid vehicles (Hummers in cities are ridiculous btw - no contest). If the way to slow down global warming involved draining my blood with leeches biweekly, then I would totally understand all the hype surrounding whether or not it is a scientifically PROVEN risk. But until I'm actually phsyically harmed by taking a 5 minute shower or opening a window instead of blasting AC, then I don't see what the BFD is. Conservation and environmentalism seem more practices of modesty than of alarmist politicking.

**louse** · 03-09-2007, 07:31 AM

Maybe humans are not the sole or main cause of global warming, if it even exists. But we are definitely completely fucking up this planet. And are working at doing the same to the rest of our solar system. (life on mars or abandoned satellites anyone?) So if this hype is what it takes to get governments and individuals concerned over the way we are living, then that is great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raoulduke

It's also strange how this has only become an issue in the last 6-12 months, once the media bandwagon get's rolling it's unstoppable. People start noticing and change in anything and blame it on global warming.

Too Hot? Blame it on global warming. Too Cold? Blame it on global warming.

I personally just blame everything on global warming. It is a good method. "Sorry I haven't blogged for a while guys. It's because of global warming."

Media hype is a strange thing. I often notice articles announcing supposed scientific discoveries and developments, that are actually things I thought we already knew. Like the headline, "scientists say humans to blame for global warming"... well, haven't we been saying this for years? Although know I have to rethink that assumption considering what you say about decomposing and the oceans etc.

**TheJake** · 03-09-2007, 07:32 AM

Regardless of whatever the situation is with global warming, I know one thing and that is that Phoenix, LA, Chicago and the other major american cities are disgusting and need to cut down on co2 and pollution for the sake of the breathability of the air. It's disgusting to look at and yeah...ever heard of Valley Fever? Can't argue with that.

Furthermore I stand by what jess said. It's not a whistle-blower thing to do, it's just good living.

**MeTurk** · 03-09-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

All of the global warming 'projections' you see on TV that predict doomsday scenarios (including those used by Al Gore in his documentary) are based on predictive computer models. These models have never been accurate in the past and it is crazy to think they are accurate now

They talked about that in the doco, all the current models are based on the assumption that CO2 causes rises in temperature which hasn't been proven at all. They even showed a bit of Als doco where he shows a graph showing CO2 and temperature rising together but there's actually an 800 year gap involved. The temperature goes up then 800 years later the CO2 goes up. They also showed graphs.... I could go on but.. I'm actually annoyed about it, I fell hook line and sinker for global warming and I like to pride myself on not jumping on bandwagons.

Of course the results of the panic that surrounds global warming are good in allot of ways reducing our pollution is a good thing even if CO2 is a farce there are loads more pollutants that could be causing damage so cutting back on all of them is bound to be good. Cars have become much better, especially European cars. There just better at getting more from less which is better all round you get more power for less fuel and it costs less to run. European diesel cars are nearly as fast as their petrol versions in some makes.

Damnit though I feel like such a numpty.

**micdans** · 03-09-2007, 09:31 AM

What the graphs are showing is that in the last 30ish years there has been a large increase in the CO2 emissions worldwide and following those same lines the temperatures have been increasing almost 2 degrees Worldwide (average, in many places, and it's about 1.8 Farenheit).

Scientists measure things and from those measurements they try to make sense out of them. From the stats like this, they believe that the CO2 (and Methane, another prominent greenhouse gas) fly waaay up high in our atmosphere and create some sort of 'greenhouse' trapping heat and particles that normally would go straight out of our atmosphere. This is where they are thinking.

Similarly, everyone keeps talking about deforestation, but forest cover has actually been slightly increasing past few years. The developed world is increasing forest cover, which makes sense, because when there is an excess amount of money, they realize that environment is something they enjoy, and can enjoy because they don't need to devote every bit of space and resource to sustaining themselves. The United States has more forest cover than they have had in the past 100 years. Because of technology, processes are made extremely efficient and less land is needed for farming. Oh, so why forests are important are because they sequester alot of carbon in them (carbon is the building block for life on earth) and the increase in forests is absorbing more carbon than it did say 30 years ago.

Even though it may be difficult in some developing worlds, property rights actually seem to be very effective in environmental improvement. If you own the land or resource or whatever, you tend to care about it and its future much more than if you didn't. It is even more difficult to claim property rights for the air. But that's something that insitutions are trying to make possible.

I've been to various environmental conferences and acutally am currently in an environmental class, so I'm learning more and more about it all the time. It's pretty interesting.

**SuDz** · 03-09-2007, 09:34 AM

There is a guy here at my work who is a scientist who pretty muc does everything he can to difute global warming. Everynow and then we have to blacklist some email addresses because of like death threats and stuff. People go way crazy about protecting the fact that people DO BELIEVE in global warming.

Makes me wonder why they want it so badly from time to time...

SuDZ

**micdans** · 03-09-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeTurk

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...=homepage_box3

The worst was when they showed how anti global warming is holding back 3rd world countries. They need electricity it's shocking how a lack of electricity can affect the lives of people and we're preventing them from using their own natural resources (coal and gas) because of pollutants and telling them to use solar and wind power which just don't cut the mustard.

Yea and this is truly sad. The good thing for many of these countries are the fact that technology has created many new processes that makes farming easier, cheaper, more 'profitible.' For them, eating food is much more important than caring about the fertilizers or 'organically grown' food, but rather growing as much food as they can so they can stay alive.

On the air issue, is it fair to put restrictions on these third world countries when they have only 'created' a fraction of the emissions that the developed world has created in the last hundred years? Or should we let them catch up first, then restrict them? ...

**LiveFreeorDie** · 03-09-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

There is a guy here at my work who is a scientist who pretty muc does everything he can to difute global warming. Everynow and then we have to blacklist some email addresses because of like death threats and stuff. People go way crazy about protecting the fact that people DO BELIEVE in global warming.

Makes me wonder why they want it so badly from time to time...

SuDZ

Do you know how large and powerful the environmental groups have become? Do you know how many of these foundations have been formed and are funded and survive because of donations from other organizations and individuals? If global warming was suddenly found to be greatly over exaggerated, millions, perhaps billions, of dollars in donations and grants would dry up. It is only through fear and hype that many of these groups survive - it is a bit of a self-perpetuating machine.

**LiveFreeorDie** · 03-09-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Scientists measure things and from those measurements they try to make sense out of them. From the stats like this, they believe that the CO2 (and Methane, another prominent greenhouse gas) fly waaay up high in our atmosphere and create some sort of 'greenhouse' trapping heat and particles that normally would go straight out of our atmosphere. This is where they are thinking.

Here are some things to consider when it comes to 'stats'.

One big stat is historical temperature records. We have historical temperature records going back around 100 years, give or take 20 years. However, how accurate do you think these records are from the beginning of the 20th century? Do we really know? Also, much of the warming shown in these trends tends to be driven from the fact that the measurements cited come from urban areas. Of course temps have gone up, it has been proven that population centers grow continually warmer as they grow in population density due to lack of plant cover, asphalt, power emmissions, etc. What is interesting is that temp records from rural areas have not shown much increase over the last 100 years. Which one is right?

Sea levels - these are always cited to show sea level is increasing. However, what is not often mentioned is that sea level measurement is a very imprecise science. The earth's crust is not static. It is continually shifiting, both land mass and sea bed. There is no way to historically analyze sea levels in any truely accurate way. Sea level estimates are just that estimates....depending on how you choose to analyze that data can result in very different conclusions.

The more you learn about this whole issue the more interesting and disturbing it becomes.

I do want to add that I am very much in favor of protecting the environment. My biggest gripe is that the global warming scare puts all the focus on CO2 emmissions to the exclusion of everything else. What I would rather have people focused on is reduction of particulate matter emmissions, both into the air and water and proper global forest management - to me these are the real issues. These issues are certainly linked in many cases hand in hand with CO2 emmissions, but there are many other facets that are also important aside from only CO2.

**Delaney** · 03-09-2007, 10:26 AM

Oh my god oh my god OH MY GOD. First off, I agree with Jessica and Louse. Do you really care that much if global warming is *proven* or if its a *theory*? Like it has been said, humans are seriously fucking up this planet. We are making more changes to it than any and all other species combined. Think of how many unnatural things each of us does everyday. All of the chemicals and land cover and unnatural things we consume and throw away are seriously altering the climate and state of the environment. So regardless of, in your mind, whether global warming is proven or not, we need to change our actions. Like Jake said, in cities like LA and even Portland in the summer, you can literally SEE the pollution. And don't tell me humans didn't cause it.

Second of all, global warming hasn't been "hyped" for 6 - 12 months. It has been at the forefront of scientists research for 20 years. Just because the media just started to pay attention doesn't mean it a political movement or some controversy. Research is what it is, research. It is ongoing and changing all the time. Personally, there is no doubt in my mind of global warming, but I understand the skeptics. And just like how one day red wine and chocolate is good for you and the next day it will kill you, environmental research changes too. But you can't deny what we are seeing now, which is species going extinct every day, people breathing in more toxins than our bodies can handle and the weather and climate changing. Instead of focusing on whether its good science/stats/research, we should be focusing on how to change our way of life so we don't affect the planet so much. It would make better lives for all of us, especially generations following us, even if it turns out that humans weren't the sole cause of global warming (which, by the way, I believe that we are).

**Delaney** · 03-09-2007, 10:28 AM

Sorry, I will get off the soap box now

It's just a topic that I feel strongly about.

**blinkchick2134** · 03-09-2007, 11:19 AM

I saw the Al Gore doc a few months back, I though it was interesting and it made sense and got me all riled up at the time. But I really don't think we can have that much impact, refering to his CO2/temperature scale. I do think that we could do a lot better to conserve resources and limit pollutions - mainly conserving energy & water, recycling and reusing.

However, it's just as possible that global warming could be a hoax.

**DC_Jessica** · 03-09-2007, 11:30 AM

The one criticism I have on Inconvenient Truth is that it wasn't particularly prescriptive. Like, well, we're all gonna die. Good movie. Now, tell me what can I do?! I have a bus pass and don't eat meat and carry totes, so aside from NOT buying a Hummer, what exactly can I do to stop this?

I want my magic beans!!!

**Delaney** · 03-09-2007, 11:43 AM

It really simple. Recycle everything you can, buy stuff in bulk (to save on packaging), get a low flow shower head and water saving toilet. Sign up for renewable energy for the electricity in your home. Encourage your friends to do the same thing. Buy local (think of all the oil that is used to get produce, etc across the country). It's small changes that each person should do that will add up to a big impact.

**DC_Jessica** · 03-09-2007, 12:23 PM

I guess I was looking for something HUGE. Like, "OMG I didn't even realize that was bad for the earth and I do it every day!" Maybe if they had hit us hard with the guilt of our destructive ways and then lightened the load by asking us to do something moderate but meaningful, it would have been more helpful.

As Kermit says, it's not easy being green!

**SuDz** · 03-09-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiveFreeorDie

Do you know how large and powerful the environmental groups have become? Do you know how many of these foundations have been formed and are funded and survive because of donations from other organizations and individuals? If global warming was suddenly found to be greatly over exaggerated, millions, perhaps billions, of dollars in donations and grants would dry up. It is only through fear and hype that many of these groups survive - it is a bit of a self-perpetuating machine.

Absolutely. Actually, he used to tell me that back about 7 or 8 years ago that a few times he was sent envelopes or emails with pictures of his wife and kids in the yard or him coming going to the car/store/work etc.

I guess people used to joke about not going to lunch with him for fear of getting caught in some crossfire.

SuDZ

**Delaney** · 03-09-2007, 12:49 PM

Jessica,
I hear ya. I think if people knew how easy it was to make a difference (how corny do I sound) they would do it more often.

Here are two websites that might be helpful:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/gsteps.asp

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/genergy/easy.asp