Seth ZX12r UK
Expert Class
Posts: 238
|
posted March 10, 2007 06:14 PM
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=global+warming+swindle
Global warming video that screened in the UK channel 4 10/03/2007
Global Warming caused by Humans Is A Communist Agenda.
   
|
MadMike
Moderator
FEAR THE BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6579
|
posted March 10, 2007 07:30 PM
why did you post this in every section???
____________
200-MPH CLUB MEMBER!
|
Seth ZX12r UK
Expert Class
Posts: 238
|
posted March 10, 2007 07:47 PM
Because it will get taken off google and banned, pretty soon.
People need to watch it.
|
dougmeyer
Needs a job
moderated
Posts: 2713
|
posted March 10, 2007 11:42 PM
Shit, Seth. I like you more every day. A rare voice of reason. PIty that probably won't play in the US. Good piece!
Doug
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted March 11, 2007 12:22 AM
please don't spam the whole site with this seth. the film is not going to dissapear off the net "pretty soon". and if you are aware of the type of controversial videos that google video allowed to stay, you wouldn't expect them to remove this one.
i'll reserve comments about the film itself until i have watched the whole thing.
|
zx12dak
Expert Class
Posts: 103
|
posted March 11, 2007 07:53 AM
Very interesting!
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted March 11, 2007 12:16 PM
well the program does make some good points, and points out the seemingly obvious fact that some alarmists are overstating the problem, but much of what the interviewees say is equally bullshit. i aint no climate scientist or even well educated in climate science (on either side of the argument) but know false logic when i hear it:
1. "our co2 production is not causing global warming" we don't know that. the fact that the climate has had continual, significant swings in the past does NOT prove that we are not causing it now (but of course we cant prove that we ARE causing it either). by their own claims of our effects being minimal, it stands to reason that any effect we DO have on global warming would be (in the short term) overshadowed by normal fluctuations but may build up over time
2. "co2 is a tine percentage of the atmosphere" which is why even a small addition has the potential of drastic effects. nature tends ot have a pretty fine balance, and throwing that balance out by doubling the "miniscule" component of CO2 naturally in the amosphere would be pretty easy. again, this is just a POSSIBILITY, we don't know if this WOULD or WOULD NOT cause serious effects (or at least i don't)
3. "co2 increase does not cause warming because historyically it follows warming" but has there ever been a point in history when CO2 was "artificially" increased? the fact that co2 follows warming doesnt tell us that producing co2 is ok.
4. "anti-global warming groups want to poor nations poor" huh? first of all, who is forcing poor countries NOT to use oil or coal power? the kyoto protocol exempts developing nations. and kyoto is voluntary anyway. sure there are groups encouraging poor countries to grow alternative power sources, but what's wrong with that? we're also being encouraged to do the same in rich nations. as to why poor places (like the african hospital used as an example) have only solar panels, i imagine one of the main reasons for using that is it doesnt require infrastructure (fuel delivery in the case of the example). are we also going to say we are keeping poor nations back because they are growing cell phone networks instead of landline phone systems like we have? no, it just works better in their situation. those people who do say poor nations shouldnt be allowed to use CO2 producing power generation methods are of course being inhuman. but who's saying that and do they actually have any effect on the issue? seems to me this (#4) is not an issue.
on the other hand, some excellent arguments put forth by the film, primarily (IMHO) in finding a closer link between solar activity and climate change than CO2. THAT is some good scientific reasoning, and i for one can't find any fault with that argument. actually, scratch that, as http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf does present what _might_ be some strong counter-evidence.
here's some response to the video from people who know more on the subject than me: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414
what it all boils down to in my mind, is that we don't really know one way or the other. hell for all we know putting more CO2 into the atmosphere could save us from a coming ice age, or it could kill most of the earth's population wihtin a couple hundred years. i think anyone who claims they KNOW the end effect is full of themselves and/or rather closed minded and/or just plain stupid. i am very happy to say that this video DID make that point (that we don't KNOW) very well, tho if almost feels burried in suggestions that we DO know (that our actions dont matter). what i DO believe is that even if the CO2 issue is a non-issue, we should not run out and think that we can burn all the fuel we jully well want because fuel consumption puts things into our atmosphere alot nastier than CO2. looking at the horizon in LA should be all the proof we need of that (altho as obvious as that seems, i don't KNOW that to be the case).
i have to say tho, that despite this movie making some good points and pointing out many serious problems with the arguments put forth by those warning of global warming, it is overall no better in its tone than An Inconvenient Truth. It polarizes, and even worse politicizes, the issue greatly. it's so focused on blame and not nearly enough on trying to find the truth and a solution. givne what i've read about the way in which this film was made and the apparent history of the film maker, this shouldnt be surprising though. i'm gonna start spreading an agenda that says anyone with a reasonable, non-polarized, no-agenda message to deliver is silenced by the governments, corporations, and anti-whatever organizations of the world  oh yeah, have i mentioned that this film sounds as much as a conspiracy theory as An Inconvenient Truth and a whoel slew of people fighting either side of any number of topics?
PS. frankly seth, i find your "hurry up before google bans it" comments quite agravating, since that is the same kind of BS propaganda that global warming alarmists use. i don't believe you have any valid reason to believe that it will be banned do you? please don't play the same stupid games of those that would have us riding horses and living in small mud huts.
|
H2 to ZX12
Needs a job
two stroke power
Posts: 3674
|
posted March 12, 2007 05:18 AM
 Edited By: H2 to ZX12 on 12 Mar 2007 06:18
quote:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=global+warming+swindle
Global warming video that screened in the UK channel 4 10/03/2007
Global Warming caused by Humans Is A Communist Agenda.
quit huffing the nitrous 
|
Y2KZX12R
Needs a job
CompetitionCNC.com
Posts: 3762
|
posted March 12, 2007 08:40 AM
Didnt Al Gore invent global warming?
Or was that the internet?
____________
Y2KZX12R
CompetitionCNC.com
|
entropy
Moderator
Posts: 8671
|
posted March 12, 2007 10:04 AM
Like my Brother in Law in Fairbanks, Alaska says:
"global warming??? bring that mutha fukka ON!"
____________
This moderator uses moderation in moderation
|
Seth ZX12r UK
Expert Class
Posts: 238
|
posted March 12, 2007 11:38 AM
quote:
well the program does make some good points, and points out the seemingly obvious fact that some alarmists are overstating the problem, but much of what the interviewees say is equally bullshit. i aint no climate scientist or even well educated in climate science (on either side of the argument) but know false logic when i hear it:
1. "our co2 production is not causing global warming" we don't know that. the fact that the climate has had continual, significant swings in the past does NOT prove that we are not causing it now (but of course we cant prove that we ARE causing it either). by their own claims of our effects being minimal, it stands to reason that any effect we DO have on global warming would be (in the short term) overshadowed by normal fluctuations but may build up over time
2. "co2 is a tine percentage of the atmosphere" which is why even a small addition has the potential of drastic effects. nature tends ot have a pretty fine balance, and throwing that balance out by doubling the "miniscule" component of CO2 naturally in the amosphere would be pretty easy. again, this is just a POSSIBILITY, we don't know if this WOULD or WOULD NOT cause serious effects (or at least i don't)
3. "co2 increase does not cause warming because historyically it follows warming" but has there ever been a point in history when CO2 was "artificially" increased? the fact that co2 follows warming doesnt tell us that producing co2 is ok.
4. "anti-global warming groups want to poor nations poor" huh? first of all, who is forcing poor countries NOT to use oil or coal power? the kyoto protocol exempts developing nations. and kyoto is voluntary anyway. sure there are groups encouraging poor countries to grow alternative power sources, but what's wrong with that? we're also being encouraged to do the same in rich nations. as to why poor places (like the african hospital used as an example) have only solar panels, i imagine one of the main reasons for using that is it doesnt require infrastructure (fuel delivery in the case of the example). are we also going to say we are keeping poor nations back because they are growing cell phone networks instead of landline phone systems like we have? no, it just works better in their situation. those people who do say poor nations shouldnt be allowed to use CO2 producing power generation methods are of course being inhuman. but who's saying that and do they actually have any effect on the issue? seems to me this (#4) is not an issue.
on the other hand, some excellent arguments put forth by the film, primarily (IMHO) in finding a closer link between solar activity and climate change than CO2. THAT is some good scientific reasoning, and i for one can't find any fault with that argument. actually, scratch that, as http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf does present what _might_ be some strong counter-evidence.
here's some response to the video from people who know more on the subject than me: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414
what it all boils down to in my mind, is that we don't really know one way or the other. hell for all we know putting more CO2 into the atmosphere could save us from a coming ice age, or it could kill most of the earth's population wihtin a couple hundred years. i think anyone who claims they KNOW the end effect is full of themselves and/or rather closed minded and/or just plain stupid. i am very happy to say that this video DID make that point (that we don't KNOW) very well, tho if almost feels burried in suggestions that we DO know (that our actions dont matter). what i DO believe is that even if the CO2 issue is a non-issue, we should not run out and think that we can burn all the fuel we jully well want because fuel consumption puts things into our atmosphere alot nastier than CO2. looking at the horizon in LA should be all the proof we need of that (altho as obvious as that seems, i don't KNOW that to be the case).
i have to say tho, that despite this movie making some good points and pointing out many serious problems with the arguments put forth by those warning of global warming, it is overall no better in its tone than An Inconvenient Truth. It polarizes, and even worse politicizes, the issue greatly. it's so focused on blame and not nearly enough on trying to find the truth and a solution. givne what i've read about the way in which this film was made and the apparent history of the film maker, this shouldnt be surprising though. i'm gonna start spreading an agenda that says anyone with a reasonable, non-polarized, no-agenda message to deliver is silenced by the governments, corporations, and anti-whatever organizations of the world oh yeah, have i mentioned that this film sounds as much as a conspiracy theory as An Inconvenient Truth and a whoel slew of people fighting either side of any number of topics?
PS. frankly seth, i find your "hurry up before google bans it" comments quite agravating, since that is the same kind of BS propaganda that global warming alarmists use. i don't believe you have any valid reason to believe that it will be banned do you? please don't play the same stupid games of those that would have us riding horses and living in small mud huts.
Ok.
|
H2 to ZX12
Needs a job
two stroke power
Posts: 3674
|
posted March 12, 2007 12:46 PM
quote:
Ok.
powerfull rebutle
|
Megabyte
Pro
Posts: 1047
|
posted March 13, 2007 11:30 AM
Edited By: Megabyte on 13 Mar 2007 12:40
Times disses Al film as convenient stretch of truth
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=188169
The following book is available for free from a link at the bottom the New York Times Web Site.
Global Warming: why it is the Left's last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy... and how we can fight back .
For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems. National sovereignty? Democracy? Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.
Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left's manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes -- and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true.
Global warming is the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could "solve" it. According to the logic of the greens' own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government.
Horner details how today's environmentalists use strong-arm legal tactics -- and
worse -- against those who dare to point out the weakness of their arguments for global warming. Along the way, he explodes ten top global warming myths, carefully examines the evidence to determine how much warming there really is and what is actually causing it.
It's time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist: human beings are not the enemy. In breezy, light-hearted and always entertaining fashion, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism gives you the facts you need to do so.
____________
We First make our habits and then our habits make us.
|
Seth ZX12r UK
Expert Class
Posts: 238
|
posted March 13, 2007 11:42 AM
Denying human involvment in global warming is tant amount to being a holocaust denier these days.
|
H2 to ZX12
Needs a job
two stroke power
Posts: 3674
|
posted March 13, 2007 11:54 AM
quote:
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=188169
The following book is available for free from a link at the bottom the New York Times Web Site.
Global Warming: why it is the Left's last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy... and how we can fight back .
from the people who brought you "vote for us or they will take away your bibles and guns" and "Saddam is producing WMD and trying to build Nukes"
|
Megabyte
Pro
Posts: 1047
|
posted March 13, 2007 12:13 PM
quote:
quote:
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=188169
The following book is available for free from a link at the bottom the New York Times Web Site.
Global Warming: why it is the Left's last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy... and how we can fight back .
from the people who brought you "vote for us or they will take away your bibles and guns" and "Saddam is producing WMD and trying to build Nukes"
Typical tactic. If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger....What we need are the facts, and a willingness to go where they lead, not extremism, paranoia, and mis-truths.
____________
We First make our habits and then our habits make us.
|
H2 to ZX12
Needs a job
two stroke power
Posts: 3674
|
posted March 13, 2007 01:06 PM
what's to refute? baseless propaganda? even if the impact of reduced co2 production was marginally affective with regards to slowing the process of GW, the benifits of reduced air polution and dependency on foriegn oil (from burning 50% less gas and coal) would be more than worth the effort. It's amazing how well big business is waging the anti GW movement. They weren't sucessful enough with BSing everyone into thinking conservation methods would be too costly, so now we're hearing "they want to control the govt. so they can control us". One more little phobia for you to cling to while you thump your bible and sleep with your guns. Talk about controlling govt. Open you eyes and close your ears. Rush won't miss you
|
Megabyte
Pro
Posts: 1047
|
posted March 13, 2007 03:37 PM
quote:
what's to refute? baseless propaganda? even if the impact of reduced co2 production was marginally affective with regards to slowing the process of GW, the benifits of reduced air polution and dependency on foriegn oil (from burning 50% less gas and coal) would be more than worth the effort. It's amazing how well big business is waging the anti GW movement. They weren't sucessful enough with BSing everyone into thinking conservation methods would be too costly, so now we're hearing "they want to control the govt. so they can control us". One more little phobia for you to cling to while you thump your bible and sleep with your guns. Talk about controlling govt. Open you eyes and close your ears. Rush won't miss you
You're still attacking the messenger. How about having a logical debate rather than making it personal. You don't even know me or who I listen to. I'm not saying that the planet isn't warming and I certainly am not saying we shouldn't conserve or invest in clean renewable forms of energy. I'm 100% in favor of clean energy. I'm just saying lets look @ the facts. Al Gore says the seas will rise over 20 feet. The real science says it may rise 20 inches. Al Gore says CO2 causes Global Warming. The data shows that CO2 follows, not precedes warming trends. I'll gladly respond to any facts you'd like to present, but I'm done responding to your personal attacks.
____________
We First make our habits and then our habits make us.
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted March 13, 2007 10:01 PM
with all due respect megabyte, i'd say the piece you posted is pure propaganda. it doesnt present much if anything in the way of facts, and the tone of the piece, including the blatant exagerations for effect, makes it very difficult to take it seriously at all. Especially given that it's main argument seems to be about liberals using environmentalism to erode individual rights, yet the current republican administration has done a veyr significant amount of rights reduction in the name of security. point is, don't see much facts in that article.
as to facts about global warming itself.. i wholeheartedly agree, get to the facts, and the REAL facts, not the statistically massaged misleading "facts". but neither of the 2 sites of the debate (talking about the larger groups we all hear about in the media) seem to be interested in accurate facts. both the al gore movie and this movie prove that to me. but of course if humans were interested in accurate, unemotional facts, we probably wouldnt have war either so...
|
Megabyte
Pro
Posts: 1047
|
posted March 14, 2007 11:00 AM
freek,
Are you saying the New York times article or the reference to the book? I haven't read the book, and probably shouldn't have pointed it out before doing so. Have you read it? There is a lot of money being made off of the fears about Global Warming, and our lives are being affected by the fallout. This bothers me, and I think it should bother anyone who doesn't want to be manipulated. I do believe the NY times article makes a few good points about Al Gore's exaggerations, and as I surf the Internet, I'm finding prominent scientist who disagree with his facts. I fully support clean renewable energy, and believe we should all do our best to reduce pollution. It is unfortunate that we can't have this conversation w/o making it personal and polarizing. I guess this is what I resent the most.
____________
We First make our habits and then our habits make us.
|
entropy
Moderator
Posts: 8671
|
posted March 14, 2007 11:36 AM
Edited By: entropy on 14 Mar 2007 12:36
quote:
.... There is a lot of money being made off of the fears about Global Warming.....
BINGO, ding-ding-ding: we have a winner!!!!!
did you know that Al Gore makes $450,000 for each speaking engagement on Global Warming????
OK, I made that up  , but a buncha folks and organizations are making careers and piles of dough "spreading the message".
I don't trust those folks, nope.
MB, I'm with you. 
____________
This moderator uses moderation in moderation
|
H2 to ZX12
Needs a job
two stroke power
Posts: 3674
|
posted March 14, 2007 02:06 PM
quote:
Are you saying the New York times article or the reference to the book? I haven't read the book, and probably shouldn't have pointed it out before doing so. Have you read it? There is a lot of money being made off of the fears about Global Warming, and our lives are being affected by the fallout. This bothers me, and I think it should bother anyone who doesn't want to be manipulated. I do believe the NY times article makes a few good points about Al Gore's exaggerations, and as I surf the Internet, I'm finding prominent scientist who disagree with his facts. I fully support clean renewable energy, and believe we should all do our best to reduce pollution. It is unfortunate that we can't have this conversation w/o making it personal and polarizing. I guess this is what I resent the most.
maybe you should wear your leathers when you get on the computer posting on message boards, you seem to have thin skin  I really thought that there was more than enough sarcasm in my remarks to be recognized as humor. I don't know you so how could I make a "personal" remark. No offense intended, if there was, I would've said something like "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard" or "you're an idiot".
As far as the topic goes, at this point neither party is going to make accurate representations because they would pale in comparison to the other sides hyperbole, what do you expect from a bunch of attorney politicians? When you start to believe either side absolutely you've been hoodwinked. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.
|
Megabyte
Pro
Posts: 1047
|
posted March 14, 2007 07:17 PM
Yep,
Now that we've settled that, maybe we can focus the more important questions, like how do I make my 12 faster 
quote:
quote:
Are you saying the New York times article or the reference to the book? I haven't read the book, and probably shouldn't have pointed it out before doing so. Have you read it? There is a lot of money being made off of the fears about Global Warming, and our lives are being affected by the fallout. This bothers me, and I think it should bother anyone who doesn't want to be manipulated. I do believe the NY times article makes a few good points about Al Gore's exaggerations, and as I surf the Internet, I'm finding prominent scientist who disagree with his facts. I fully support clean renewable energy, and believe we should all do our best to reduce pollution. It is unfortunate that we can't have this conversation w/o making it personal and polarizing. I guess this is what I resent the most.
maybe you should wear your leathers when you get on the computer posting on message boards, you seem to have thin skin I really thought that there was more than enough sarcasm in my remarks to be recognized as humor. I don't know you so how could I make a "personal" remark. No offense intended, if there was, I would've said something like "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard" or "you're an idiot".
As far as the topic goes, at this point neither party is going to make accurate representations because they would pale in comparison to the other sides hyperbole, what do you expect from a bunch of attorney politicians? When you start to believe either side absolutely you've been hoodwinked. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.
____________
We First make our habits and then our habits make us.
|
stevewfl
Moderator
Posts: 27920
|
posted March 15, 2007 08:09 PM
this crap link made it to this forum too huh?
here is the republican's thoughts 
____________
2010 Concours14
'08 R1 YAMAHA
ZX14 gone!
CBR600RR track bike
|
fish_antlers
Administrator
The Truth is Out There
Posts: 21895
|
posted March 19, 2007 08:31 AM
All I know is that I got pretty tired of having to delete this link from EVERY forum...
If you have something you need spread around, let a moderator know...
spamming the site just pisses people off.
Okay.. now I'm gunna watch the video.
____________
What business is it of yours where I'm from, Friendo?
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC