The Great Global WArming Swindle

Post Reply New Topic

I wonder what my mother was thinking, then.

For some reason, I tend to believe the climatologists.

How did they define volcanic activity?

Plants don't just suck up carbon through their roots, they have to take it from the atmosphere.

(for some reason my computer doesn't start the movie so I'll have to do with this.)
Indeed the explanations stated are sound and reasonable. We do not even come close to the world's contribution of CO2. I read the numbers somewhere and they're relatively very, very small, and even smaller than that. But we do contribute. As follows: there was a balance. The world absorbed as much CO2 as it contributed. Now, with human influence (chopping trees, burning them) we contribute CO2 and at the same time we destroy the organisms that absorb CO2. So balance is disturbed. Less CO2 is absorbed, more contributed, and though in small fractions, after years it appears to be a lot.
About the sun and solar spots: right... that makes no sense at all. The Earth makes a rotation all around the sun. The sun (unlike the moon) doesn't rotate around 'itself' as fast as that.

About scientists: I have no clue what their scource is for that, or what scientists you mean (well, actually I do have a clue, the ones that said dinosaurs lived 3000 years ago ) but I do know a lot of scientists (I study chemistry) and there's not even one that states CO2 does not effect warming of the earth. Models are clear, it does influence.

Yes, the climate changes all the time, but never nearly as fast as it has since 1800 (big comets falling on the earth prohibited, and as far as I know, that hasn't happened in the last 200 years). Furthermore, according to science, around 1800-1900 earth should have been on the highest temperature in earth's cycle, to lower after that. However, temperatures rised faster than ever.

I know, but sometimes you just can't trust them!

For example, a weatherman on one of the TV stations I used to watch in the past once said it was going to be 60 degrees and sunny one day, but we actually got thunder and lightning!

Talk about a simple but very costly mistake!

This is essentially my take on the issue, as I tend to think in terms of economics. Lacking an economically viable alternative to fossil fuels, people will continue using them, regardless. As you mention, current CO2 levels are already too high, according to the computer models, so at best we will perhaps limit the rate of acceleration at which we continue releasing CO2, but we will still be releasing at record levels.

It seems likely to me that, when the economically recoverable fossil fuels are used up (in 30-300 years depending on who you believe), humanity will be forced to adopt an alternative. It's price that determines action, and the intangible price of damages due to potential future climate change aren't as compelling as the immediate price of higher taxes or fuel bills.

One contention I do have with the popular presentation of global warming is the ineluctable idea that the effects will be uniformly (and according to some, catastrophically) bad. This simply isn't a provable outcome. Perhaps the problem is that we don't know what will happen, and that's scary to some, but alarmism isn't going to help anything. We can only observe and adapt.

I totally agree on everything here, except for one. Economics.
Ot's not only about the money: France spent billions on research for nuclear fusion. For the same money, enough solar collectors could be bought to provide enough electricity for the whole of europe.
Politicians are nuts...

Ya, CityTV in Calgary says "Catch the weather with "such and such" who can't even SPELL 'meteorologist' - catch his best 'weather guess' at 6" < -- they are honest

what would be the area taken up by such a large collection of solar panels?

Not as much as one would think. Certainly not is there would be more research on solar collectors.

I'm really concerned about the global warming on Mars. Is anyone else?

I watched the documentry at the start of the thread a few days ago. The point I began to "LOL" at it is when they start going on about how terrible it is that african people and 2/3's of the world are to have to light a fire in their house for warmth and cooking and that the majority of them die from cancer.

What would of been a more logical target was to say it was in someway a political conspiracy to de-rail the economic growth of developing nations such as india or China. Then you go and look up the credentials of the person who made it and low and behold he's a total cocksucker. What a let down

I'm all for solar power, and hopefully the efficiency of PV cells increases and the manufacturing costs go down in the near future. The only problem with environmental power sources (with the exception of hydroelectric) is that they aren't controlled, so their output is variable. Traditional power plants are highly controlled, so that power can be made to match demand. In a solar/wind situation, one needs a way to store excess supply to redeliver when the wind dies down, or the clouds roll in. I see occasional reports about exotic new batteries and capacitors that may serve that role economically in the future, but there isn't anything currently, beyond lead-acid or lithium batteries. The most practical current storage mechanism is to pump water up a gradient for later power generation.

Nuclear power actually seems to be the most economical, environmentally friendly power source in the foreseeable future.

personally i cannot take scientists too seriously when it gets to researching potential political problems because at the end of the day the scientists are paid to research such an area if all the climatologists just say "it's all a bunch of bollocks" then they will not be getting so much in research grants. science is funded in a unique way.

now my view and i am not going to use anything from the video.
there is proof that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect and that is called mars. the atmosphere is 96% CO2 and the difference between the lowest temperature and the highest temperature is 100K

but the CO2 in the air on earth is only about 380 ppmv and i cannot really accept that being a source of significant increase for the earths temperature.

i think this was mention briefly bu there is much more CO2 dissolved in the sea than in the entire atmosphere as the earth's temperature increases the sea releases CO2 because it is not able to retain so much

personally i do think that we do need to investigate further to another source of temperature increase because i am not really convinced with either idea, the carbon dioxide concentration seem too small to make a noticeable difference and i cannot see what would make the sun's radiation fluctuate in such a way.