A Convenient Truth

Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
I've chosen to remain neutral on Global warming, because it seems too complicated for me to wrap my head around, and I'm not a scientist. But this video offers some compelling evidence.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...35300469846467



Edit: Even the co-founder of Greenpeace contributes (who's since left, partly cause they wanted to ban Chlorine worldwide ). It's very fascinating
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    The arguments are "compelling" only if you don't know much about the science, which is exactly the point.



    This article puts it better than I can:



    Quote:

    And it was sometimes very convincing, as strongly worded opinions often are when they are not subject to any verification or external challenge. For example, there are excellent rebuttals against the contention that global warming is correlated to cosmic rays (for example see? ) At the bottom I list the growing number of well referenced and detailed rebuttals of the scientific claims in the programme.



    There was only one scientific advisor on the programme, Martin Livermore, whose sole scientific qualification is that he is the Director of a web-based think tank, The Scientific Alliance. The Alliance was set up by in 2001 by Robert Durward, the fiercely anti-green director of the British Aggregates Association, and Foresight Communications, a Westminster public relations and lobbying company, to ?counter scare-mongering by the so-called green lobby?. (For more?)



    The Scientific Alliance has no affiliation with any recognised scientific body but, like most of the contributors to the programme, it does have very strong links with the US public relations and lobbying organisations that have been so effective in setting the Bush agenda on climate change.



  • Reply 2 of 22
    franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay View Post


    I've chosen to remain neutral on Global warming, because it seems too complicated for me to wrap my head around, and I'm not a scientist. But this video offers some compelling evidence.



    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...35300469846467



    Edit: Even the co-founder of Greenpeace contributes (who's since left, partly cause they wanted to ban Chlorine worldwide ). It's very fascinating



    It's been discussed in this thread which was started about a month ago.



    Or you could have posted it to the ongoing hysterical GW thread over here.



    The content is VERY one sided, I would even say COMPLETELY one sided, and given that these opinions are held by a very small group of scientists, that the science that is presented is fairly dated, I really don't know what to say. Other than there are several websites that go into extreme details in debunking the debunkers!



    There is also a clear bias by the filmmaker which is also discussed in some detail on the web. To say the least, this is not his first "controversial" documentary.
  • Reply 3 of 22
    deapeajaydeapeajay Posts: 909member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    It's been discussed in this thread which was started about a month ago.



    Or you could have posted it to the ongoing hysterical GW thread over here.



    The content is VERY one sided, I would even say COMPLETELY one sided, and given that these opinions are held by a very small group of scientists, that the science that is presented is fairly dated, I really don't know what to say. Other than there are several websites that go into extreme details in debunking the debunkers!



    There is also a clear bias by the filmmaker which is also discussed in some detail on the web. To say the least, this is not his first "controversial" documentary.



    Ok, I guess I was late on this one, should have searched before posting. But in the event this thread stays alive. Can we focus it on why the CO2 levels *follow* the temperature increases? That seemed to be the most compelling evidence that I saw in the video and I don't see how it can be rebutted since it goes against the scientific principle of cause and effect.



    I'm trying to keep an open mind.
  • Reply 4 of 22
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay View Post


    I've chosen to remain neutral on Global warming, because it seems too complicated for me to wrap my head around, and I'm not a scientist. But this video offers some compelling evidence.



    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...35300469846467



    Edit: Even the co-founder of Greenpeace contributes (who's since left, partly cause they wanted to ban Chlorine worldwide ). It's very fascinating



    Yes, that was pretty much the biggest lard of bullshit, EVER.



    I can't believe you can actually believe those frauds.
  • Reply 5 of 22
    deapeajaydeapeajay Posts: 909member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by icfireball View Post


    Yes, that was pretty much the biggest lard of bullshit, EVER.



    I can't believe you can actually believe those frauds.





    you know, I'm more likely to believe somebody who uses intelligent language and seems to know what they're talking about than someone like you who can only insult and berate other people.
  • Reply 6 of 22
    mydomydo Posts: 1,888member
    Maybe I can elevate the discussion? I thought it was interesting that in the history of the earth the CO2 level lags the global warming/cooling. Calling into question if warming/cooling drives CO2 or of CO2 drivers warming and cooling.



    Does anyone have a good scientific source that explains this observation? Or refutes it?
  • Reply 7 of 22
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Here's a whole website with a nicely organized list of climate skeptic objections and their rebuttals.



    I find it interesting to note, as I read these threads, that the same objections are endlessly repeated, often by new people, in slightly different ways, no matter how many times and in how many ways and how thoroughly they are refuted. That tells me that there is a great deal of disinformation being disseminated, and that much of it isn't even designed to hold up to close scrutiny, but rather to just keep things stirred, so that the idea of controversy can be kept alive.



    For instance, at the linked site if you look at section 3c, item 5, you'll find "CO2 doesn't lead, it lags" as one of the perennials.
  • Reply 8 of 22
    Dissolved gas in water is less soluble at higher temperatures...
  • Reply 9 of 22
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay View Post


    you know, I'm more likely to believe somebody who uses intelligent language and seems to know what they're talking about than someone like you who can only insult and berate other people.



    I've done quite a bit of research on the issue. (30 page formal research paper with pages of works cited in addition)



    You seem to confused strong emotions (and strong words) with lack of intellect. I can use copious amounts of sophisticated words and proper language when I want to. But I'm not an uppity prick.



    And to clear up any confusion, I'm certainly NOT implying that you are [an uppity prick]. Merely that different less than formal expressions and styles of language are also acceptable, especially in something as informal as an online forum. Besides, if you knew the scientific facts, basis, and evidence surrounding climate change and/or global warming, you'd release that my comments were far less outrageous in content than that of those on that movie.
  • Reply 10 of 22
    Thanks man, I just used that video in my Blog. Also if you want everyone read my other blog enteries

    http://finalblink.blogspot.com/
  • Reply 11 of 22
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Huh. That's quite the single minded blog you have there.
  • Reply 12 of 22
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    whatever your dosage is, double it.
  • Reply 13 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Huh. That's quite the single minded blog you have there.



    well thats just my point of view, Ive heard the point of view of Al Gore and such, I just dont agree to that point of view, I think its just earth running a muck
  • Reply 14 of 22
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Finalblink View Post


    I think its just earth running a muck



    You don't inspire much confidence.



    "Amok" not "a muck."
  • Reply 15 of 22
    franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Finalblink View Post


    Thanks man, I just used that video in my Blog. Also if you want everyone read my other blog enteries

    http://finalblink.blogspot.com/



    You are most definitely suffering from the "intellectual ownership old codger syndrome" AKA IOOCS! RE: Figure 1, circa 1991! From the Washington Times no less! And a full 12 years of some temperature record from somewhere (?????????)!



    RE: Figure 2, circa ????! Same timeframe perhaps? No doubt! Source? Check this link out oh clueless bucko: Scientific opinion on climate change circa February 2007!



    And that's the biggest gripe I have with the web, lack of accurate sourcing (i. e. documented references with date of origin).



    It's 99% op-ed (e. g. blog-o-smear) and 1% factual (e. g. peer reviewed scientific journals)!



    Go figure! Now go away AGW Cylon Centurion!
  • Reply 16 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Huh. That's quite the single minded blog you have there.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    You don't inspire much confidence.



    "Amok" not "a muck."



    its just a typo brah, relax.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    You are most definitely suffering from the "intellectual ownership old codger syndrome" AKA IOOCS! RE: Figure 1, circa 1991! From the Washington Times no less! And a full 12 years of some temperature record from somewhere (?????????)!



    RE: Figure 2, circa ????! Same timeframe perhaps? No doubt! Source? Check this link out oh clueless bucko: Scientific opinion on climate change circa February 2007!



    And that's the biggest gripe I have with the web, lack of accurate sourcing (i. e. documented references with date of origin).



    It's 99% op-ed (e. g. blog-o-smear) and 1% factual (e. g. peer reviewed scientific journals)!



    Go figure! Now go away AGW Cylon Centurion!



    Dude chill out man, I just used that as reference that the temperature is always changing, the temperature during summer days hasnt always been 98 degrees, its always been changing, I was just using old material, the same way scientists use ice cores to reference back to centuries where they didnt document the climate. Thats all man.



    and yes it is my opinion, and yes I did use actual facts, okay its just my opinion. Respect mine the same way I respect yours.
  • Reply 17 of 22
    mydomydo Posts: 1,888member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Here's a whole website with a nicely organized list of climate skeptic objections and their rebuttals.



    I find it interesting to note, as I read these threads, that the same objections are endlessly repeated, often by new people, in slightly different ways, no matter how many times and in how many ways and how thoroughly they are refuted. That tells me that there is a great deal of disinformation being disseminated, and that much of it isn't even designed to hold up to close scrutiny, but rather to just keep things stirred, so that the idea of controversy can be kept alive.



    For instance, at the linked site if you look at section 3c, item 5, you'll find "CO2 doesn't lead, it lags" as one of the perennials.



    Yeaaaa ... still not enough for me. I think I need a text book to bring it all together. It shouldn't bother you that the "same objections are endlessly repeated" against warming when the same evidence is repeated for warming.



    I've always felt that this debate is best had in the scientific community and not in the world of politics or media/entertainment.
  • Reply 18 of 22
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mydo View Post


    Yeaaaa ... still not enough for me. I think I need a text book to bring it all together. It shouldn't bother you that the "same objections are endlessly repeated" against warming when the same evidence is repeated for warming.



    I've always felt that this debate is best had in the scientific community and not in the world of politics or media/entertainment.



    The problem is that depending on the outcome of the debate, some political action or regulation will need to take place that affects us all.
  • Reply 19 of 22
    mydomydo Posts: 1,888member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Outsider View Post


    The problem is that depending on the outcome of the debate, some political action or regulation will need to take place that affects us all.



    Yea I understand that but Al Gore, for example, is the worst person to present the science of global warming. 1) He's not a scientist and 2) He's prone to exaggeration. Also look at the UN. A political body that is prone to influence. I think the the independent scientific professional organizations should be more vocal in educating the public. Of course that takes a ton of money and that can only come from billionaires or the government. Politics all over again.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Finalblink View Post


    Thanks man, I just used that video in my Blog. Also if you want everyone read my other blog enteries

    http://finalblink.blogspot.com/



    I love how everybody in the world is reading your blog. (NOT)
Sign In or Register to comment.