Al Gore pwned - again

To be fair, Durkin also made a documentary on how silicone breast implants were good for your health.

But wait...he invented the internet? lol

funded by george bush

If you watch that documentary, without prior bias, then it's difficult to spot the CO2 effect in global warming IMO.

The scientists in that docu don't come off as Jerry Springer scientists.

Most of the scientists in the documentary have come out and said their quotes were misused.

Q. F. T.

The thing was a show developed for entertainment... and ratings.

Not for scientific insight.

Then that would make you retarded. OK the documentary has SWINDLE in the name so it has BIAS written all over it. You know Christians have very "serious" scientist that come on their shows and show very scientifically how the earth can only be 6000 years old and how dinosaurs lived with man. Do you believe that. You have to look at ALL the evidence. These anti-global warmed are not doing that.

They'll say "Well it's only gone up 1 degree in the last 100 years so see global warming is not happening" what they don't take into account is that in addition to greenhouse gasses we have also been putting up particles that also have a blocking effect on the sun's light which have counteracted most of the warming. Which makes the warming seem negligible.

Which is fine except over the last 30 we've made great strides in reducing these types of particles in the air. So there are less sun blocking particles in the air so now the warming doesn't have that counterbalance. So until we start finding ways of reducing CO2 I guess our best hope is that China and India keep using innefficient coal plants so they can put huge amounts of sunblocking soot into the atmosphere. Or huge Krakatoa, Mt St Helens, Pinatubo type volcanoes erupt every few years.

But how do you explain the massive rise in temperature from 1900 to 1940 then? CO2?

And the drop from 1940 to 1970?

Explain it to the retard.

Nothing in that docu made co2 look like the major factor in global warming. Nothing.

why - you're a retard

If you don't understand the fallacy in using a Fox broadcast as a scientific resource to dispute hundreds, if not thousands, of peer reviewed articles - you have more learning to do, imho.


On CO2...

Do yourself a favor.

Go to a library.

Look up "Venus"

Read.


Then come back, and we'll talk on the subject.

Until at least that point, it's a waste of time for us both.

Says the guy that defends AFF's zango use.

Piss off moron.

I guess you just owned yourself... by taking this "documentary" seriously and by watching fox news

I'm reading this instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle

Stop the condescending attitute please.

I can certainly see that some data might have been manipulated, but that still doesn't disprove everything he says. I'll have to read a bit further, it's a long page.

Fox news?? I don't watch that piss channel. I'm not even American and can't watch that PR channel.

I saw the docu on a climate theme night on National Television in Denmark - a channel accussed of being left wing.

Fox News... I would never watch that shit.

You'll have to excuse the attitude. No offense was meant, and it's late.

You see, this topic gets brought up nearly every other day.

And without fail, someone that's been uninitiated links the same movie you did.

Read up on Venus, and if you're still unconvinced, we'll give the discussion a go.

Its not a documentary, it's biased.

I google'd and got this:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Venus.htm

AIP is a reliable source or biased?

Anyway, main points are that Venus's atmosphere is causing the extremely high temperature? Right?
An atmosphere that mainly consists of CO2 and prevents any heat of leaving the atmosphere.

"Perhaps Venus had once enjoyed a climate of the sort hospitable to life, but as water had gradually evaporated into the warming atmosphere, followed by CO2, the planet had fallen into its present hellish state? In a 1971 paper, James Pollack argued that Venus might once have had oceans like Earth's It seemed that such a "runaway greenhouse" could have turned the Earth too into a furnace, if the starting conditions had been only a little different.(8*)"

But then I read this:

"Hart's calculations were riddled with untested assumptions, and many scientists denied that our situation was so extremely precarious. (Later calculations showed they were right — a Venus-type runaway on our planet is scarcely possible, even if we burn all available fossil fuels.)"

What the docu was saying was that human caused emission of CO2's part of the greenhouse effect was miniscule on earth. So is that incorrect?

Forget Al Gore, forget FOX news read this http://www.ipcc.ch/

IPCC is exactly who he's accusing of being political and not objective.

From the wiki document:

The IPCC was one of the main targets of the documentary. In response to the programme's broadcast, John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions. According to Houghton the program was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming", which he noted had been endorsed by the scientific community including the Academies of Science of the major industrialized countries plus China, India and Brazil) along with the IPCC. Houghton rejected claims that observed changes in global average temperature are within the range of natural climate variability or that solar influences are the main driver; that the troposphere is warming less than the surface; that volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning; that climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change; and that IPCC processes were biased. Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature, but then writes that the programmes assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC [is] NOT TRUE. For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."[3]

So he's agreeing that CO2 is driven by temperature and not the other way around, just like the program claimed. If co2 levels follows temperature ... uhm... how is co2 emissions caused global warming. Makes little sense.

Yes the program is one sided, yes it seems data was incorrect. But even if his points aren't valid, that does not make the theory of human caused global warming due to co2 emissions valid!

It's quite simple really. Just show evidence that human caused emission of co2 is causing global warming, and the debate ends.

I love the Global Warming flock of worshipers. They are like a cult.

So they are now using Venus as an example, and ignore mars and jupiter eh? lmao Here is what happened at least on mars and venus.

http://www.amotor.no/images/audi/q7/audi_q7_01.jpg


The retards use Venus as an example of man made warming where there is GASP no fucking men. Jesus fucking Christ.....

Are you for real??

Oops forgot to make it an image.




Still waiting on how a planet with no humans on it can be used to prove MAN MADE global warming......

How about you explain the more extensive rise in temperature just before the dark age.. it's called the Medieval warming period, and it made today's warming trend look like next to nothing... That came and went, brought flooding, harsh winters, etc etc to follow, but something tells me that industry wasn't really a major factor in the 1400-1500's eh? I suppose we farted the greenhouse gasses out to cause that, because it couldn't have possibly been a natural process, or anything. Ya, that's it.

People make me giggle. Anyone who buys into this "man caused global warming" thing really hasn't looked into the history of the cycles, they've just bought into the propeganda.

Farting is the major cause.

Everyone hold it in.

THe world is going to end long before man made effects on global warming are going to effect the World in a Ending way. If not by an Asteroid, then by other outer space factors.

haha.. I love the debunkers like pocketkangoroo who get their facts from little biased article they've seen somewhere.. never bothering to verify if those "facts" are disputed...

I hate propaganda!!!!!

FUCK FOX news

Jesus.. where do you people come from..

Did you bother to do any research on this documentary? Or do you just believe anything you see because it's on video? This video has been proven to have cherry picked their "great" evidence. It's nothing more than propaganda likely paid for by big oil.

Talk about a swindle.. well you got taken for a ride..

Haha.. guess YOU didnt go very far with your research didnt you? You read an article saying the The Great Global Warming Swindle Debunked and that was it uh? Case closed? No cherry picking on their part? No straw man arguments?

Btw.. tell us again how Big oil will suffer from the Big carbon tax? British Petroleum CEO is actually a big fan of man made gobal warming..

http://dieoff.org/page106.htm

If it's so crystal clear that co2 emissions caused by humans is the major factor behind global warming then post a link to the proof.

So many researchers, and so many people believe it to be true, so I'm sure the evidence is crystal clear. It must be, otherwise why is all that money pooring into research and co2 propaganda?

It's EXACTLY as mentioned in the documentary..

Express doubt about global warming and co2 and people will call you names and whatnot.

Show us WHY you think co2 emissions is the culprit, instead of the name calling.
It can't be that difficult.

Excellent counter-argument. Good work.

You seem to know all the answers, so what's the use of arguing with you?

Human caused global warming is all bullshit... it's all caused by dark spots in the sun.. already proofed by danish sceincetist... but the world choses to ignore it... the Co2/Global-warming business is making too much money.. and yes... big surprise... money rules the world...

I'm not argueing that co2 is causing global warming.

I watched that documentary that stated man is likely not to be the cause of global warming, posted it here, then people say it's a hoax because... well, because?? I don't know.

They just say scientists have been misquoted, graph has been misused, and the producer is a lunatic. They don't counter argue the claim that man is not causing global warming.

Even if all of the above is true, that doesn't make thier own argument any better.

Hehe, again here we go.

I'm just a skeptic. Just show me I'm wrong and we're all good!

I have no answers, I would just like to know if it's been proved that co2 is causing it.

If not. How the hell can co2 be such a big issue.

To quote myself...

http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=753376

Exchange "article" for "documentary" in the last part, and it sums up this thread.

I'm not really sure who AIP is, to be honest... but you can get the same information from over a thousand different sources I'm sure.

The point is that Venus receives about 1/4 of the radiated energy from the Sun when compared to Mercury (due to distance, mostly) , but is a lot hotter... approximately 400 degrees F more hot than it should be otherwise, because the CO2 (and water vapor) in the atmosphere work to keep that heat trapped in like a blanket. Lead would melt on the surface of Venus. No surface water can come close to existing there. All because of CO2 trapped in the atmosphere... the same gas that we're debating whether or not contributes to the of Global Warming on the Earth.. the same gas that we shovel by the megaton annually from our own crust into our atmosphere.

I'm not using Venus as a case study for what will happen to the Earth here - merely as a pointer to the effects of atmospheric CO2.

Of course, it's all still debatable but when you take into account apt analogies such as this, I think it's easy to begin to connect the dots.


First off, I'm not sure who you mean by "they."

The scientific community has been using the conditions on Venus as analogous to our own for quite some time. It's been the epitome of the "greenhouse effect" in our solar system for well over 20 years, at least, and the fact that you're saying "So they are now using Venus as an example" pretty much convinces me that, for you, this is a political argument and not a scientific one... because it's not "so now" - it's an analogy drawn regularly in works on the subject for the last 20 years.

All it tells me is you're not very well-read on the subject you now speak on.

The fact that it wasn't brought up in Mr. Gore's film (or maybe it was? I dunno - I still haven't watched it) doesn't mean it's not a valid point. There's no political platform with the issue - it just is. Science has many roads to walk down... many avenues by which to attempt to discover "truth."

The thing about science is you can't do what a lot of people now seem to - pick and choose the points you argue and the evidence you use. The job of science is to take it _all_ in, and provide an explanation that best fits all observed data.

And an overwhelming number of scientists in our time - people that spend 40+ hours a week running tests, and compiling unique research data on the subject - have come to the conclusion that what we're doing is affecting our environment.

I'm not here to debate politics, so, instead, I'd encourage you to forget that Al Gore is a supporter of this whole ball of wax for a moment, and do some independent study.

Otherwise, believe what you want - because I could care less who's championing what cause.

I've studied a bit on cycles... the oceanic conveyor, tree rings as climatic records, ice records, and all that jazz... the whole idea of global warming has interested me since the first time I saw that issue of Discover Magazine in the 80's with New York under water on the cover.

I don't think that man _caused_ global warming... but I do feel we're giving it a helpful nudge that the whole system probably works a bit better off without.

I'm not saying I'm right, but I will say that to dismiss the idea that it's possible is to blind yourself to the science, and to the opinions of countless peer-reviewed scientists. There's plenty of propaganda on both sides of the fence on this one... and to shut yourself out either way is to give in to it.

I think that people get sensitive about the issue because of a sense of guilt. Whether they know the science of the issue or not, the majority of people are being told by people a lot smarter than them (on the subject, at least), that "YOU are responsible for global warming."

If that's accepted by the individual, guilt could easily set in.

And if people have a feeling of responsibility over the issue, those that deny the possibility may seem irresponsible.

And irresponsibility over something that someone is taking what they feel is a shared responsibility over has a tendency to piss people off.

And pissed off people call other people names.

At least, that's how I figure these things devolve from time to time.

But anyways, giving you what you asked for - Venus. It's relatively the same size as Earth, and I still think it's the best pointer that CO2 in an atmosphere on a large scale increases the temperature significantly... and if can happen to such a degree there - why can't it happen on a smaller scale here?

I'm sorry I might not be able to continually debate this topic today... it's a weekday, after all... hope this discussion can continue without name-calling, etc.

But there you have my

is this the great global warming swindle? i've heard a lot of funny things about that 'documentary'

lol Most dont argue with the experts.. (they believe certain experts over others..) But mainly just point out certain falsehoods some of you take as facts... One might be that theres a “scientific consensus” that global warming is man made..

Heres the czech Prime Ministers perspective on it..
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19c...b5df10621.html

And heres a comment he made regarding the UN "concensus"...

"Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

http://newsbusters.org/node/10773


Another myth people like you believe is that those who push Man Made Global warming do not have an agenda if only to save us all while those who dont buy the Human factor link to global warming are ofcourse Big Oil and Bush who only think about money... right? So maybe you should enligten us on who exactly will ended paying the Global Carbon tax and who will actually COLLECT that tax..? It starts with a U ends with a N...

Of cause dinosaurs and man lived together.Haven't you ever watched the Flintstones?

Global warming is real, but it is a natural phenomenon as much as anything, and there have been lots of ups and downs in the last few 10,000 years.

Are CO2 discharges causing it? Know knows? Deforestation may be a bigger cause than industrial activity.

Al Gore is a charlatan.

dont worry..i do support your war of terror

pwned

lol

pwned

is that even a word outside of some 12 year old gamers?

Ehm, a tiny hint. Vaclav Klaus is NOT a scientist specialized in the environment. The same goes for Al Gore, George Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the economist whose article on newsbusters you link to, the guy who made the documentary this thread is about, etc.

Your implicit statement that there is no scientific consensus on the matter is simply untrue. Rather than argue the point myself, I will present you with a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...ific_consensus

Undoubtedly, you will still disagree. After all, your dissent stems from politics, not science. So, rather than looking things up for yourself and checking the sources, you will just say Wikipedia isn't reliable.

Something similar would happen if I were to point you towards relevant open access journals ( http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpid=78 ), so whatever I do here, I'm pretty much wasting my time.

So...... your logic is....... that conditions on venus prove MAN MADE global warming..... classic.....