AlGore got an Oscar for his Big Lie Propaganda film about global warming. If anyone was looking for proof that the claims of human-caused global warming are entirely political and have nothing to do with science, that Oscar certainly provides it.
If anyone would produce a documentary that told the truth about global warming - that it is the natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age and is being caused by increased solar activity, i.e., a hotter sun - that documentary would never even be allowed to be shown in theaters, much less get an award.
40 comments
@Redhunter... between around 1200-1800CE the temperature in the northern hemisphere fell, resulting in cool summers and bitter winters. It wasn't enough to be a full-blown Ice Age, hence it being a Little Ice Age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
David B: Climate scientists know about solar maxima and minima too. They also know that neither happens to explain 20th century warming.
This is what I meant earlier. Sure, there have been fluctuations, but what we are seeing here is not due to a little ice age, it's a hundred times what that would've been. In order for us to have a pendulum swing that far to one side, it woudlv'e taken a bit more than a big cold snap.
This guy is pretty much right. Science requires some amount of reproducibility and there is no real way to prove that man has caused global warming. In fact we know of global climate shifts throughout history (long before man was around), which has far more evidence.
This is certainly not fundie either, I'm not a fundie and I know that there is very little science involved in the documentary.
Liberals (and conservatives) who use bad science as fact are exactly like fundies who use the bible as fact.
There's a ten part mini-series that is going to be aired in Canada that takes a critical look at some of the claims the IPCC crowd has made about climate change.
So your assumption that climate change deniers are being quieted is wrong and is actually backwards. Climate scientists have been silenced and offered money to keep quiet.
Link 1
Link 2
I plan on watching this mini-series with an open mind (hey, you never know!), but honestly, it's just so difficult to trust a documentary. With thousands of hours of footage (and a questionable conscience) it's very easy to tell whatever story you want. This also applies to An Inconvenient Truth (Although most of the movie is based on good science, Al Gore exaggerated certain claims)
Willful ignorance award.
Read the latest IPCC reports. They do address solar activity, which is not to blame.
As I've said so often before: It's one thing to ignore facts on, say Schiavo and evolution, but global warming? A whole planet at stake? How is it even remotely possible?
Oh, and: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=308802007
M: Since when is reproducibility the ONLY criterion? Do you consider the Big Bang theory to be baseless as well without making another universe? The science is as solid as it can get without the use of a few hundred other Earths and a few billion years to do a controlled study. Sorry, but there's just no budget for that.
However, scientists have these nifty simulation thingies that can stand in for the real thing pretty well; they are limited only by the information we can put into them, which comes down to accuracy and completeness of data. Most climate scientists have tried very hard to be completely fair and complete on this point; and for every scientist trying to skew the data one way, there's another trying to skew it the other direction, so the findings tend to get averaged out over time. And even in this situation, the trend is alarming.
Most importantly, though, as you point out, there is no reproducing this; we ARE the experiment, and we'd better get the necessary results -- our own survival -- right the first time. For what it's worth, I am all for doing whatever it takes to reduce global warming, WHATEVER is causing it; surely you don't deny that humans have at least some impact on the climate and environment, and it seems that the smart thing would be for us to do whatever we can to minimize that impact -- before it's too late and we're left with that impact minimizing US.
~David D.G.
David D.G. : As far as simulating the climate, we can barely understand weather patterns more than a few weeks out, hardly enough evidence to understand what impact we are having on the climate and what is caused naturally.
I'm not close minded, when I see evidence that is more compelling I'll reevaluate my beliefs but as of right now anyone who concludes that we are definitely causing global warming is using bad science.
"I'm not close minded, when I see evidence that is more compelling I'll reevaluate my beliefs but as of right now anyone who concludes that we are definitely causing global warming is using bad science."
Calling global warming bad science shows you're closed minded. That sound bite comes right out of the right wing noise machine.
I'm not close minded, when I see evidence that is more compelling I'll reevaluate my beliefs but as of right now anyone who concludes that we are definitely causing global warming is using bad science
I have to ask: how do you negate the evidence that there is far more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any other time in the planet's history (which we know by checking the ice cores), and the fact that we know that most of that CO2 is directly attributed to human resource consumption? I can think:
a) You attempt to say that CO2 has been higher (contradicting the ice core evidence)
b) Say it is not human produced (contradicting the available industry data/natural generation of CO2 data)
c) Say it is not related to global warming (contradicting basic greenhouse effect theories)
All of that is not "bad science" but basic stuff. Hard evidence.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Texan obviously never actualy SAW inconvenient truth. Or he would know that the "little ice age" was addressed,
He also nver saw any of the THOSANDS of older documentarys on he same topic, or he would know that global climate change was NOT invented by Al Gore.
Go look up Dr David Suzuki.
@M
As far as simulating the climate, we can barely understand weather patterns more than a few weeks out, hardly enough evidence to understand what impact we are having on the climate and what is caused naturally.
Well, part right...
We're unable to predict with any accuracy what's going to happen a few weeks down the road, but we're able to predict VERY accurately the broad future of weather patterns.
Your argument is based on assuming people would use fractions of an inch to work out the distances between stars...
M wrote:
"As far as simulating the climate, we can barely understand weather patterns more than a few weeks out, hardly enough evidence to understand what impact we are having on the climate and what is caused naturally."
This is the international standard signal for "I don't know what I'm talking about". Weather is not climate, weather prediction is not climate prediction.
I can not tell you the height of the next five waves, but give me an 15 minutes and I'll tell you if the tide is coming in or going out.
I cannot tell you the next five rolls of a dice, but let me roll it a thousand times and I'll tell you if it's weighted or fair.
It's not bad science, it's just science you don't know.
Science requires some amount of reproducibility and there is no real way to prove that man has caused global warming.
You are an ignorant person, M, and you demonstrate it with the "Science requires some amount of reproducibility". And you are ignorant because you don't know what it means: science requires that evidence be re-examinable. Saying that the accumulation of CO2 produces a greenhouse effect (and explain how I reached that conclussion with, say, a small glass box), it is reproducible because you can get another glass box and *repeat the experiment*. Or I can look at ice cores and measure their CO2 content, and any other scientists can go to the pole, dig a new core and *reproduce the experiment*. That is what reproducibility means. You objection, on the other hand, sounds suspiciously like "you cannot prove we are related to monkeys, because you cannot re-evolve humans!".
In fact we know of global climate shifts throughout history (long before man was around), which has far more evidence.
Yes, we know that climate shifts throughout the ages. We also know how much CO2 has been in the atmosphere for millions of years thanks to ice core samples and fossil samples - just like we know that the magnetic pole has shifted throughout the ages.
Closing your eyes to the hard evidence makes me think that this is a "soft spot" or rather, a "confort belief": As long as you don't believe hundreds of paleoclimatologists and climatologists when they show evidence of levels of global warming change completely unseen before in history (Earth has been hotter, but has never got this hot this quickly), you can continue to drive your SUV and cheerfully continue to burn wood, ignore recycling and whatever else would affect your confortable lifestyle.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
M wrote:
"As far as simulating the climate, we can barely understand weather patterns more than a few weeks out, hardly enough evidence to understand what impact we are having on the climate and what is caused naturally."
This is the international standard signal for "I don't know what I'm talking about". Weather is not climate, weather prediction is not climate prediction.
I can not tell you the height of the next five waves, but give me an 15 minutes and I'll tell you if the tide is coming in or going out.
I cannot tell you the next five rolls of a dice, but let me roll it a thousand times and I'll tell you if it's weighted or fair.
It's not bad science, it's just science you don't know.
Precisely. Weather is what happens on a daily or hourly basis in a localized area. Climate is a general pattern on a large scale.
M
Also, people like Redhunter are just as ignorant as the fundies he's trying to troll, good work there champ.
Oh do tell. Please show me the last time a mini-ice age contributed to CO2 levels as high as they are right now. Oh there hasn't been as far as anybody knows so far? Hmm. Well, when is the last time that the gulf o mexico was a few hundred miles of dead water where life has all but disappeared? Or that last hole in the ozone?
If you are so close minded (and you obviously are) to think that human actions are not contributing to at least, the cause of at worst, then your attempt at insult means less then nothing to me as you are not someone who's opinion I give two squirts for.
Just because you suck bush's dick doesn't mean the messenger of this movie is wrong. It means you can't see the difference between the speech and the speech maker.
Yes, but the group of people whose report Al Gore uses as basis, did it for the republicans. And these guys think that Iraq is a national subject, when It seems to be promoted by Bush and his core subordinates.
If anyone would produce a documentary that told the truth about global warming - that it is the natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age and is being caused by increased solar activity
Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses (such as carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's atmosphere. It is not a natural "recovery" from an ice age, and solar activity alone cannot explain the phenomenon.
And the same year they gave Best Picture to "The Departed", which proves infiltration by liberal Boston elitists. Don't worry, the year after, they got smart and gave Best Actor to "There Will Be Blood" in appreciation of our fine men in the oil industry.
While there's little doubt in my mind that our global climate is changing, I am less interested in the cause, but more interested in what we can do about it. It is a fact that increased densities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to a net increase in temperatures - this was already proven over a hundred years ago.
However, your assumption seems to be that climatologists are paid off to spread a lie that mankind's activities are causing the climate change, when in fact it is all due to natural fluctuations. I have several questions, but the most prominent of these are: Why? Why would anyone do that, and why would the climatologists (thousands of them) be open to such bribery?
Do you think it has to do with grant money? Well, then I ask you. Who do you think has the most money to spend on research? The governments or the oil companies? How much money do you think a large oil company would pay to get a few highly regarded scientists to publish papers detailing how climate change is not due to man's burning of fossil fuels, compared to the grant money provided to the scientists working on the climate change project for the UN?
Being a scientist really is not about the money in it's own sense. They are dependent on grant money obviously, but you'll never get rich being a scientist - at least not in the traditional sense. Scientists are in it for the knowledge, for the puzzle and for helping further mankind's understanding of the way the universe and our world works - not money.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.