The sham called "global warming"

Palomar · 2007-03-08 07:36:33

Ann Coulter slams (again) liberals and global warming:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20070301/c … hemeattofu

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming"

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it.

Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl

-*-

And a friend posted elswhere:

It's taken ten years, apparently, but finally a group of elite dissident scientists from some of the world's most prestigious seats of learning have managed to persuade Britain's Channel 4 to air a documentary challenging humanity's contribution to global warming.

See THIS SITE.

RESEARCH said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by UK scientists.
A recent United Nations report said humans were very likely to blame for global warming and there was "virtually no doubt" it was linked to man's use of fossil fuels.
But sceptical climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.
In fact, they claim global warming could be caused by increased solar activity.

In all things scientific, it's important to differentiate between cause-and-effect and simple associations.
If two things happen, one after the other, does that mean the first event caused the second? No. The two events may be unconnected, and may both have been caused by a preceding event as yet unrecognized.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised carbon dioxide levels.
But University of Ottawa professor of paleoclimatology Ian Clark claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

[My emphasis added]

We've been presented by the Global-Warmists with a superficially convincing case that elevated CO2 levels are causing Earth's atmospheric temperatures to rise.
But Professor Ian Clark's claims cast doubt on the cause-and-effect connection between CO2 and temperatures.
If what he says is true, a different trigger may in fact cause both CO2 levels and global temperatures to rise, and his claim that temperatures rise before CO2 levels makes the situation even less certain than we've been led to believe!

[I'd like to throw in a possible explanation for the temperatures going up before the CO2 levels.
Earth's oceans have a great deal of CO2 dissolved in them. But they can hold more CO2 when they're cold than when they're warm.
What if a presently unknown factor periodically causes the oceans to warm up, in turn causing them to release CO2 they can no longer contain because of the extra warmth?
Just a thought.]

The article goes on to say:

The program also highlights how, after World War II, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell.

This alone indicates to me that a direct cause-and-effect relationship between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures is not as simple and clear-cut as they say it is.

"THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE"

In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

I'm inclined to agree with that.

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

Another bunch of scientists who'd better be of independent financial means. :evil:
They're gonna need to be!

'I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,' says an emminent earth science expert. 'Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.'

At yet ANOTHER SITE reporting on this program, they comment:

Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don't believe you - it's taken 10 years to get this commissioned.
"I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys.
"It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.
"It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.

I think this reference to legitimate scientists being "bad guys" means that scientists who heretically cast doubt on man's role in global warming will be seen as evil (i.e. in the employ of Big Oil) and persecuted by the congregation of the true political faith of 'green globalism'.

Professor Paul Reiter's comments:

He said the influential United Nations report on Climate change, that claimed humans were responsible, was a sham.
It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of scientists who disagreed with the findings and resigned from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by Government appointees.
The CO2 theory is further undermined by claims that billions of pounds is being provided by governments to fund greenhouse effect research, so thousands of scientists know their job depends on the theory continuing to be seen as fact.

They also mention the religious aspects of global warming:

"At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous."
In the programme Mr Calder said: "The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don't agree, you are a heretic."
He added: "However, I think this programme will help further debate and scientists not directly involved in global warming studies may begin to study what is being said, become more open-minded and more questioning, but this will happen slowly."

I would love to see this program but I doubt it will be aired here in Australia. Our media are almost exclusively controlled by left-wing trendies and man-made global warming is the accepted faith here.
What are the chances of this documentary getting past the censors in America? :shock:

John Creighton · 2007-03-08 21:42:36

Hey Cindy,
nice collection of links. I never new you were from Australia. I might buy it and see if any of my co-workers want borrow it. It might help with their deprogramming. lol. I’ve been extra concerned about the fanaticism of the eco-zealots sense around September because there has been much more political noise about Kyoto in Canada lately. I don’t think the liberals pro-kyoto stance is going to help them in the polls. They didn’t get it done when they were in power and the opposition is offering practical solutions while resisting the economically destructive policy of Kyoto. Well, you are waiting or the documentary you might have some fun reading some inconvenient facts about Al Gore and David Suzuiki.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257958,00.html
http://no-libs.com/?p=1473
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/ … 5-sun.html
http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-forum/ … hichpage=1

----Al GoOre and David Suzuiki, profits for profit.

Palomar · 2007-03-09 07:04:20

Hey Cindy,
nice collection of links. I never new you were from Australia.
... Well, you are waiting or the documentary you might have some fun reading some inconvenient facts about Al Gore and David Suzuiki.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257958,00.html
http://no-libs.com/?p=1473
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/ … 5-sun.html
http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-forum/ … hichpage=1
----Al GoOre and David Suzuiki, profits for profit.

Hi John: The friend I quoted is from Australia (I'm USA). I'll check the links and refer them to him. Thanks.

John Creighton · 2007-03-09 22:00:51

Here are some scenes from it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Aetu6MQJuI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-LPN9PkLK4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri4ZsyF2dDI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwGyjNmeWq0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZRJRig6bKc

I got them from here:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=onebush333

John Creighton · 2007-03-09 22:14:06

This is interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCQoW30v … ed&search=

dicktice · 2007-03-10 13:15:48

Well, I don't know what all this proves, except that everyone has an opinion about the future of Earth's atmospheric condition. Being rather elderly, I take the short term view: if every urban centre presently suffering from inhabitant debilitating smog conditions--caused by commuter automobile puffing out exhaust gases while they idle in traffic tie-ups roughly three times a day with their internal combustion engines running--were magically transformed into gas/electric hybrid cars ... the city smog would be gone.

John Creighton · 2007-03-10 15:51:40

Well, I don't know what all this proves, except that everyone has an opinion about the future of Earth's atmospheric condition. Being rather elderly, I take the short term view: if every urban centre presently suffering from inhabitant debilitating smog conditions--caused by commuter automobile puffing out exhaust gases while they idle in traffic tie-ups roughly three times a day with their internal combustion engines running--were magically transformed into gas/electric hybrid cars ... the city smog would be gone.

Hybirds only get 30% better gas milliage.

Grypd · 2007-03-10 18:29:31

In some ways we can use the greenhouse scare to promote space and the use of materials found to improve life down here on the Earth. We have always needed a source of PGMs and this can only be found extraterrestial.

John Creighton · 2007-03-10 21:45:26

In some ways we can use the greenhouse scare to promote space and the use of materials found to improve life down here on the Earth. We have always needed a source of PGMs and this can only be found extraterrestial.

What kind of fuell cells do you propose?

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm

dicktice · 2007-03-10 22:08:57

Well, I don't know what all this proves, except that everyone has an opinion about the future of Earth's atmospheric condition. Being rather elderly, I take the short term view: if every urban centre presently suffering from inhabitant debilitating smog conditions--caused by commuter automobile puffing out exhaust gases while they idle in traffic tie-ups roughly three times a day with their internal combustion engines running--were magically transformed into gas/electric hybrid cars ... the city smog would be gone.
Hybirds only get 30% better gas milliage.

John, I'm surprised you don't seem to get it. Gas milage is a red herring. It's pollution in traffic tie-ups that hybrids--and later, plug-in hybrids--will eliminate. And,of course, some added fuel economy may even be gained by not idling the gas-burners when stopped, and advancing metre-by-metre in six lanes of parallel gridlock on electric power alone ... but that's only peanuts, compared with the cost savings that the cleaning up of city air will produce worldwide by the simple elimination of engine-idling while stopped in traffic.

John Creighton · 2007-03-10 22:38:24

John, I'm surprised you don't seem to get it. Gas milage is a red herring. It's pollution in traffic tie-ups that hybrids--and later, plug-in hybrids--will eliminate. And,of course, some added fuel economy may even be gained by not idling the gas-burners when stopped, and advancing metre-by-metre in six lanes of parallel gridlock on electric power alone ... but that's only peanuts, compared with the cost savings that the cleaning up of city air will produce worldwide by the simple elimination of engine-idling while stopped in traffic.

You could be right since an idling hybrid can dump some of the power back into the battery. There are still conversion inefficiencies. Do you have some studies to back this up and do they refer to current vehicles or imaged futuristic vehicles? Anyway, I want more public transit and cities should raise the property taxes to pay for it instead of asking for money from Ottawa.

dicktice · 2007-03-11 18:23:37

Sorry, but I thought it was obvious: hybrid cars don't idle in traffic tie-ups. And with the advent of plug-in hybrids--if commute distances permit roundtrips on single overnight charges--no internal combustion at all. The time is ripe, and if the Detroit Three don't drop the plug-in hybrid ball, they might still survive this decade.

John Creighton · 2007-03-11 19:28:20

Sorry, but I thought it was obvious: hybrid cars don't idle in traffic tie-ups. And with the advent of plug-in hybrids--if commute distances permit roundtrips on single overnight charges--no internal combustion at all. The time is ripe, and if the Detroit Three don't drop the plug-in hybrid ball, they might still survive this decade.

My understanding of hybrids are they have an internal combustion engine that runs at constant speed and it dumps excess power into the battery which is used for when you have to accelerate quickly. Also when breaking some of the power is dumped back into the battery. I suppose if you have a big enough electric motor and battery it could be configured to shut off the internal combustion engine when the battery is high enough. So is it true that all hybrids shut off the internal combustion engine during rush hour? Can you give an example of a specific care and describe some aspects of its cost and performance?

dicktice · 2007-03-12 09:56:50

Well, after Googling the mass of mostly commercial info available today by searching the topic "Hybrid Cars" I found the following most entertaining--

[Quote] Hybrid Vehicle Technology: Theory Of Operation Through 5 Driving Modes
Welcome to Hybrid theory 101. Hybrid cars operate differently depending on your current driving modes. We can divide your typical driving into 5 different modes. Your hybrid car acts differently in each of these 5 driving modes, in some modes the electric motor is operating, and some models the gasoline engine is operating, and sometimes both are operating. Knowing how your hybrid vehicle operates under each mode is crucial to getting the most gas mileage, and minimizing emissions output. Of course the car makers don't tell you this, they just make it sound like you always get super high gas mileage like a Bingo free spot, no matter how you drive, but that may not be the case. Here are the 5 hybrid vehicle driving modes and their theory of operation:

1) Full Stop: At a full stop, like at a red traffic light or stop sign, the gas engine usually shuts off to eliminate idling, and reduce emissions. The electric motor is now ready to propel the car when push on the gas pedal. This is usually pretty seamless, and you might not even notice without seeing it on the power monitor indicator. In crowded cities with lots of stop and go traffic like the opening scene of Office Space, this can save you a lot of fuel.

2) Low Speed/Initial acceleration from a stop: First of all, I should point out that being a scofflaw maniac driver, I never drive in this mode. Starting from a stop, and driving in a normal sane, just-like-your-grandmother acceleration from the stop line, the electric motor usually propels your car, powered by the electric motor's battery pack. This type of downtown stop and go traffic is where you save the most fuel with hybrids, counter intuitive to normal gas engines, where you burn the most fuel. The electric motor works up until about 15 MPH without any help from the gas engine. The gas engine turns on and off as needed while you drive. I have zero patience for losers at stoplights. If you have a life to live and a lead foot like me, your hybrid SUV will be less efficient in this mode, because flooring the accelerator will demand extra power, causing the gas engine to kick in. This eliminates the fuel savings potential offered to you by your electric motor during this driving mode. Also, if you spend all day in stop and go traffic, the constantly used electric motor battery may discharge quicker, causing the gas engine to turn back on to charge the battery. So your fuel economy savings for hybrids may really only benefit you in a much more narrower range of operating conditions than the car makers will admit. Moral of the story: If you don't drive your hybrid car like you are supposed to, don't expect to get the advertised fuel economy.

3) Heavy Acceleration: This is my personal favorite mode of operation. This mode quickly puts a lot of forward distance between you and the aforementioned losers at stoplights, stuck there during indecision attacks when the light turns green. Here your power comes from both the gas engine, AND the high torque electric motor, typically through some type of power splitting device. During this mode, you probably will not be saving as much fuel as you expect from all the advertising.

4) Highway Driving: This is where the fuel efficiency of Hybrid cars and SUVs works counter intuitive to what you would expect. The reason is that in this driving mode, the car is typically powered only by the gas engine, which may be charging your electric motor battery pack at the same time. So the electric motor is not typically contributing during highway driving, meaning your hybrid vehicle is just another gas guzzling, car at highway speeds. If you are a highway commuter that drives an hour to work each way on the open highway with no stop and go traffic, a hybrid vehicle will probably offer you little fuel savings.

5) Braking, Coasting and Deceleration: When you brake or coast, forward kinetic energy that in standard car normally gets dissipated as heat is instead converted to electric energy. This is accomplished by using the old reliable spinning electrical motor in it's other role, now as a generator to charge the battery pack. This is why hybrid cars never need to be plugged in, despite old wives tales you might hear. This process of charging the battery is known as regenerative braking.

6) Backing Up: Ok I lied, there's a sixth mode, but who really counts going in reverse as a driving mode? In reverse the gas engine does not operate, the electric motor does all the work. Not that this will add huge amounts of fuel savings for you. I drive about 50 feet max in reverse on a daily basis. Now maybe if you're Burt Reynolds... [Unquote]

If you wish know further, try Googling "Serial" and "Parallel" and "Plug-in" Hybrid systems under Wikipedia. Also, the progress, pros, and cons, of Lithium-ion battery development. It's like 1900-1910 all over again in the automobile industry just now! Back then the motivation was horse-shit piling up in the cities; today it's "air-shit," otherwise known as smog.

Grypd · 2007-03-12 16:03:11

Fuel cells reguire a certain amount of platinum group metals and it is one of there most limiting factors both in making and cost.

Not to mention a lot of pollution reduction equipment relies again on Pgms so if we could find a source (especially since Pgms are getting harder and harder to find) and can get it back to Earth within a reasonable price then that is a financial reason to be in space and will lead to other better things.

SpaceNut · 2007-03-31 20:41:18

So much for there being just one side to global warming.
Climate report maps out ‘highway to extinction’; Dire predictions includes loss of species, increasing scarcity of water

A key element of the second major report on climate change being released Friday in Belgium is a chart that maps out the effects of global warming with every degree of temperature rise, most of them bad.
Despite that dire outlook, several scientists involved in the process say they are optimistic that such a drastic temperature rise won’t happen because people will reduce carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.

Sydney goes dark in global warming gesture; Australian city of 4 million residents kicks off energy conservation campaign

Throughout the city of about 4 million people, residents turned off the lights for one hour in an event organized by environmentalists and supported by Sydney city officials, the New South Wales state government and thousands of businesses.
Leaked excerpts of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N. network of 2,000 scientists, say average temperatures in Australia could rise 6.7 degrees by 2080, bringing more wildfires, floods, drought and storms.
Rising sea temperatures is already causing more coral bleaching on reefs such as the Great Barrier Reef, the report warns.

dicktice · 2007-04-02 08:44:00

Fuel cells reguire a certain amount of platinum group metals and it is one of there most limiting factors both in making and cost.
Not to mention a lot of pollution reduction equipment relies again on Pgms so if we could find a source (especially since Pgms are getting harder and harder to find) and can get it back to Earth within a reasonable price then that is a financial reason to be in space and will lead to other better things.

Typically, just when irreconcialable limitations appear to spoil our fuelcell dreams, we have the prospect of the "non-polluting sugar-based fuelcell" to give us hope. It's on Google--and it's sweet!

John Creighton · 2007-04-02 22:14:00

Fuel cells reguire a certain amount of platinum group metals and it is one of there most limiting factors both in making and cost.
Not to mention a lot of pollution reduction equipment relies again on Pgms so if we could find a source (especially since Pgms are getting harder and harder to find) and can get it back to Earth within a reasonable price then that is a financial reason to be in space and will lead to other better things.
Typically, just when irreconcialable limitations appear to spoil our fuelcell dreams, we have the prospect of the "non-polluting sugar-based fuelcell" to give us hope. It's on Google--and it's sweet!

That is such a huge breakthough.

Stormrage · 2007-04-11 08:59:47

Global warming isn't something that you can simply hide. I doubt that Crazy left wingers have such a control of the world that they can force the entire scientific community to shut up and manipulate the media to follow them expect for one or two crazy people. Channel 4 has been known to produce "controversial" programs. That channel is really sad. It would do anything for ratings. Example. The racism in this years Big Brother.

Anyway. I have always believed in global warming. What i really hate is people who spout global warming has if it is a new fad. They only believe in it because the media has picked it up. I really hate these people. Seems that global warming is the new fad after Poverty in Africa in 2005.

Personally in my opinion. Nothing can be done about it. People talk about how China and India are polluting the world. Yet Ironically USA burns more in a day then China and India can dream of. Last statistics i saw said that USA uses 80 million barrels of oil a day while China uses 20 million. All the FUD about climate change won't work.

You won't stop people from flying. You won't stop them from driving. If Tony Blair does introduce the Carbon Tax. That will be the Poll Tax of these ages. Introducing unwanted taxes killed Margaret Tatchers career and harmed the Conservatives in the UK irreparably forcing them to come up with an idiot who emulates Tony Blair.

I think we should focus on increasing the efficiency of appliances and engines while at the same time storing Carbon Dioxide.

Josh Cryer · 2007-04-11 15:42:22

John Creighton, may I ask one question? Since when was it wrong to profit from green technology? I think Al Gore isn't being a hypocrite here, I think he's being a darn fine capitalist. Too bad those at Fox News can't comprehend this.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-25 19:43:28

Then again the documentary critical of the theory that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases before it is released on DVD shoule be label science fiction and not fact.
Scientists want edits to warming skeptic's film; Documentary aired on British TV, and is about to go to DVD

Milhouse · 2007-05-02 11:32:07

"You must have 1 posts before you can post URL's/Links."
I am not a spammer! I am a human being!

Milhouse · 2007-05-02 11:32:37

Here is a link to the entire film:
http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/60640
Think for yourself. Don't blindly follow Chicken Little.

Number04 · 2007-05-02 14:26:14

Honestly, why would anyone fight this?

Can you say that polluting less would be a bad thing? That car exhaust is healthy? Humans might not be 100% responsible for global warming, or it may not even be happening. But, instead of cleaning up the planet the US is currently fighting an “un-winnable” war.
The economy will not crumble if we start pushing green technologies. If done in a positive way there is very little downside when you consider that if we continue like we are we will all eventually be living on garbage, fresh air will not exist and fresh water will have to be manufactured.

But hey, your choice.

Milhouse · 2007-05-03 07:16:36

I don't think anyone will argue that pollution is good. But in my opinion CO2 is NOT a pollutant. And to spend billions of dollars with the aim of lowering our CO2 production would be criminal. There is a long list of much more worthy causes to be considered. I object to the use of misinformation, fear and shame as means to move this 'crisis' to the top of that list.
Remember how we got dragged into this unwinnable war? WMD = misinformation and fear. It's a very dangerous combination. It leads to bad decisions.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-03-08 07:36:33

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#2 2007-03-08 21:42:36

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#3 2007-03-09 07:04:20

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#4 2007-03-09 22:00:51

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#5 2007-03-09 22:14:06

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#6 2007-03-10 13:15:48

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#7 2007-03-10 15:51:40

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#8 2007-03-10 18:29:31

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#9 2007-03-10 21:45:26

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#10 2007-03-10 22:08:57

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#11 2007-03-10 22:38:24

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#12 2007-03-11 18:23:37

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#13 2007-03-11 19:28:20

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#14 2007-03-12 09:56:50

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#15 2007-03-12 16:03:11

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#16 2007-03-31 20:41:18

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#17 2007-04-02 08:44:00

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#18 2007-04-02 22:14:00

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#19 2007-04-11 08:59:47

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#20 2007-04-11 15:42:22

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#21 2007-04-25 19:43:28

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#22 2007-05-02 11:32:07

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#23 2007-05-02 11:32:37

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#24 2007-05-02 14:26:14

Re: The sham called "global warming"

#25 2007-05-03 07:16:36

Re: The sham called "global warming"

Board footer