HA!HA! Love it now this is a movie clip that all kids should see.
Simple straight to the point which natural climate change is,unlike the soothsayers like Gore say,they try to make the climate and the science of the climate too hard for the average Joe to understand.
Oh Jim you dont even know YOU are being manipulated,this is the sad part about all of this people really caring about the environment or saying they do and not even doing their own research,just blindely following the sheeple in front of them.
There is no conspiracy theory here my good man only a conspiracy fact that the United Nations have conspired with actors the likes of Al Gore and grant hungry scientists to justify their existence.The likes of Al Gore dont care about you Jim they feed of you like cattle fodder.I mean no disrespect in my coments,all I ask is open your eyes to the fact that we have always been manipulated to achieve the self proclaimed elites end goal one world government.Geoff
What a completely ridiculous video link, Ray. So chock full of fallacies and misrepresentations - almost every denialist canard in the book. And some really new bizarre ones. Where to begin? From the very beginning, a very good place to start :-)
1) Nonsense statement no1: Politicians have got together with scientists to cook up global warming to rort money out of them. Any evidence of this conspiracy? Of course not, because it is completely and utterly batsh*t insane. For your info, Ray, the science of the greenhouse effect has been known to scientists since the mid 19th Century? Were politicians in on it then, when Svante Arrhenius did his first calculations on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere? Did they think "hmmm... that's a good one, let's keep it in our back pockets until 1990 and then we're scare the crap out of everything with it."? Look, if you're prepared to believe that scientists are in on some grand conspiracy then you'll believe anything. My suspicion is that all the denialists around here decided that they didn't like the idea of humans actually changing the planet a priori (oooh, Latin word), so they then discard the idea and then frantically search for any chaff of an idea that supports their (rightard) ideology.
2) Scientists were first "scaring" us with global ice age and then decided to switch to warming. Erm, no. Scientists never said there would be an ice age in the next 50 years or something. They said that from forecasting the orbital cycles we were heading for an ice age in the next 20 000 years. A meta-study (ooh, sciency word) was done on all the climate change papers published in the '70's and 7 of about 100 papers were on global cooling as opposed to global warming.
3) "Inflict total control over grown up and take their money away forever". Oh come on. Are you serious? Newsflash! Governments have been doing that for ages. Ever heard of taxes? Around 40% of your money goes to taxes in this country. Why would changing the way that we source our energy or charging (a bit) more for environmentally degrading energy sources suddenly condemn us to money-grabbing governmental slavery? Get a life.
4)"The major greenhouse gas, water vapour, had no potential for raising revenue". Oh, pathetic. Never heard that one before. Water is the major greenhouse gas in the lower atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere, where it counts, the major greenhouse gas is CO2. That is why changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere makes a difference to the heat balance of the planet. Duh. And another thing that I love about this "revenue raising" argument - what do governments generally do with revenue? Generally, it gets invested back into the country in a variety of ways. That's what the normal taxes you pay do, so why do you think that a "carbon tax" or ETS would be different. In fact, the CPRS is specifically designed to re-invest all the income from carbon credits back into the economy. Any suggestions Ray, on the location of this money black hole into which all the "stolen" "carbon tax" money goes?
4) "So carbon dioxide was chosen because they saw an opportunity to penalise all the people who had houses and cars". Ok, this is now totally bizarre. As noted above, it has been known to science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas for about 170 years. Did "they" (whoever that may be) decide 170 years ago to start a conspiracy? If so, why did it only come to prominence in the last 20-30 years? Why would a government want to penalise all the people with houses and cars? This government does its best to give as much stuff as possible to people with houses and cars (think baby bonus and other middle class welfare). Now why would they need to think up some excuse to take it all away. Tosh.
5) "took no notice of how happy the penguins are because their ice sheet was growing". Wrong. Again. Surprise. The penguins are not happy in the South Pole (some species are on the brink of extinction) and the ice sheet is not growing. In fact, latest satellite measurement have shown that the South polar ice cap is losing mass at an accellerating rate.
6) "Natural variations (in the sun) were responsible for temperatures across millions of miles of space". Bwah ha ha ha ha. Firstly, space is a vacuum so there is no "temperature" in space. I know you deniers won't accept this but we actually know a lot about the sun and it's effect on earth's climate. I know that in your echo chambers around the blogosphere you've convinced yourselves that the "IPCC doesn't take the sun into account". I know this. But, at the risk of repeating myself, THE SUN IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. Do you actually believe that PhD scientists would not think about that glowing hot thing in the sky when tryinng to work out where the earth's energy is going? Fact is, there is no way that the sun can explain the changes in temperatures for the last 30 years. The record hot years of the last few years have all taken place when the sun has been at a minimum. A common denier refrain is that the change is "natural". The measured change in the surface and atmospheric temps over the last 30 years equates to BILLIONS of MEGAJOULES of energy. We need a mechanism to explain the increase in energy and the sun just does not do it. Suck it up.
7) "the secret emails". I knew it, it had to come. Funny how the denialist echo chamber has kinda forgotten about that storm in a tea-cup. But a mere month ago. Now it's all about the Lindzen paper. Emails are generally between two or a few people. So yes, they are by their nature, "secret". Of course, the "emails" do nothing to change the overwhelming evidence of climate change. I'm sure the guys at CRU would be impressed to hear that they are the secret bosses who rule the world! Hilarious.
Okay, so I think we can safely consign that to the scrapheap of denialist claptrap.
What fascinates me about you denialists, is that you claim "it's about the science, show us the science". But you give yourselves away by nonsense like this. It's not at all about the science for you, is it? It's completely, 100% about the politics. Shame.
Okay, would you care to "explain" the science? Let's hear you take apart the science of the greenhouse effect? Jim is actually taking the logical approach to this. I suspect that Jim doesn't understand all the details behind climate science. Neither do I. But Jim, being a reasonable bloke, defers to those who know more than him. He listens to what the world's scientists have to say. You, on the other hand, are too arrogant for this. You would rather listen to a bunch of charlatans and shills.
Geoff, you clearly don't even have a rudimentary understanding of how science works. Scientists do not "prove" things. Proofs happen in mathematics. The IPCC haven't "proven" anything and nor could they. What they have done is collect data, put forward hypotheses, test hypotheses, and on the basis of the tests come up with a "theory" which best explains the data. And by theory I mean here an explanation which has powerful predictive and explanatory powers. The best "theory" at the moment is that the "observation" that the earth is warming is explained by an increase in the concentration of CO2 which is being emitted by man. Simple. That is what the IPCC says.
Still regurgitating the hockey stick, are we Geoff? Get over it, the hockey stick was NOT "disproven". There have been LOTS of hockey stick reconstructed using a variety of proxy measurements and mathematical tools different from the original Mann 99 one and they all show the same thing. Deal with it. And anyway, the hockey stick says nothing about the current enhanced greenhouse effect.
Also the common denialist lie about "temperature rise before CO2 rise". Go and do some research, mate. This effect was PREDICTED by none other than HANSEN about 10 years before the data emerged demonstrating it. What does that tell you? If you have an ounce of nouse that will tell you that climate scientists do have a clue what they're talking about. The initial temperature rise in a post-glacial warming is due to orbital effects. This warming results in a release of CO2 which further drives the warming. Simple.
Who cares about an Inconvenient Truth? It was a populist video made to increase awareness about a critical issue in layman's terms. It was never sold as the last word in climate science. I couldn't give toss about Al Gore either. Let me re-iterate that you people give away your politics with your frankly creepy obsession with Al Gore.
Would you care to actually address any of the points I raised, rather than throwing up lame rhetoricals?
Gregory, Gregory, Gregory. Welcome Mate! Jim was probably getting a bit lonely!
The reason I no longer take Jim to task is that whenever he couldn't answer one of my questions, he became very personal and quite unpleasant, accusing me of all sorts of unfounded things and insinuating I was benefiting from poor people having to sell their homes on the waterfront.. Not sure where he got that from, so rather than reply and get personal, I chose not to enter into a debate where nothing would be contributed.
However, if you want to see my thoughts on Global Warming and a lot of other relevant concepts, take a look around here, and then look at my own website. There's a bit of light reading there that will take you some months to get through, with all the links to the various scientific reports, documents and so on. No, you won't find a hockey stick, except in jest, but you will find some good solid science on the matter.
However, I take it from this and your other post to me here that, like Jim, you already have your mind made up.
So you can have a choice, of debating the issues rationally or getting abusive - and your decision will also determine how much credibility you are given here, and your level of acceptance. There are MANY people on Agmates not so green and some with VERY green credentials, even more so than my own, and they and their contributions are all very welcome. Viva la difference. All contributions can add incredible value to a debate and IF that is the intent, very often, much good comes from it. "No two minds come together without creating a third, more powerful force". However, every opinion, if presented rationally, bears consideration. But leading with abuse doesn't win friends, and it's unfortunate Gregory, that this was your entry point.
However, I'm a reasonable person, I don't take much personally, and am willing to accept you as a believer of something I'm not, and which I believe has been scientifically debunked thoroughly by much more scientific minds than mine. I look forward to further, perhaps more balanced contributions from you, as I'm sure we all do!