this global warming nonsense...?

Question

did anyone see that documentary on channel 4 the other night that presented the case for global warming being a big lie perpetuated by radicals and scientists looking for funding on loosely related research?

the scientists interviewed were far more compelling than al gore and his shaky powerpoint presentation.

they systematically dismantle his argument by telling us what does actually affect climate rather than speculating that more CO2 equals warmer weather, a relationship that gore has got the wrong way round.

any comments welcome.

the documentary was aired in the uk. the scientists included the head of the dept of climatology of MIT, the co-founder of greenpeace, the director of the institute of arctic research and a host of similarly qualified scientists, all of whom catergorically denied being in the pay of the oil companies. afterall, you do not become the head of climatology at the Institute of Technology if your primary motive is to make money. to the person who told me to 'do me a favour', go and watch the documentay first before posting your ill informed comments.

Answer 1

(Which Channel 4? We don't live in your city. Please give the network.)

Please understand ... it's not just Al Gore! It's not just some PowerPoint presentation he made up off the top of his head. It is the vast majority of the world's scientists who are saying "Hello! There is a problem! And we caused it!"

The consequences will be abundantly clear within the next 8 to 12 years ... but if we wait until then to *start* doing something about it, we are big time screwed. Even if we do something *today* we are still probably in for a world of hurt.

Here's the thing. If these guys are right, and Gore (and the vast majority of scientists) are wrong ... but we backed Gore and Co., what have we suffered? A reduction in air pollutants.

But if these guys on your Channel 4 documentary are wrong, and Mr. Gore (and the vast majority of scientists) are right ... but we backed your guys ... then in 8 to 12 we will be f-ed. And those guys, and people like you who believed them, will just shrug your shoulders and go "my bad."

It's a worldwide game of Pascal's Wager. (Look it up.)

Answer 2

Have not seen Mr. Gore's presentation and did not see the show you were talking about. I have got the impression that the Gore film may have been overstated for dramatic effect. You have to shout to wake some people up.

The idea that global warming may occur due to accumulating carbon dioxide goes back to 1896 with work by Svante Arrhenius. This was mostly dismissed until just less than 50 years ago when new calculations began to show that he was probably correct, as he had a habit of being against opposition. Since then highly complex computer models have shown that more or less warming is probable. One scientist or another has been sounding alarms for at least 30 years.

Since about 1965 the global average carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has gone from about 300ppm w/w to 380ppm w/w. Measurements in the 19th century which are believed to be reliable put the CO2 content at about 280 ppm w/w. This is a big change in a century. CO2 is now higher than it has been for a very long time.

The physics behind accumulation of heat through the action of CO2 is valid, though it is true that water vapour contributes more to the effect.

Global average temperatures have been rising. Of this there is no doubt, particularly since the measurements have been made in several different ways. But it is true that this is over a short term, ten years or so and measurements in the near future may decline.

It is my opinion that the case is not proven. However this does not mean that it is false. Wall Street (and similar locations) does not like the idea and I believe that this is where a lot of the opposition to it originates. They are merchants and I have never known merchants to be utterly careful with the truth when there is money to be made.

Scientists generally try to be careful with facts, which has frequently made merchants unhappy. Scientists are generally unconcerned with money, otherwise they would not be on scientists' pay rates. The merchants may be a lot less happy when Wall Street is under a metre of sea water.

As for Mr. Gore being a radical, pull my other leg. It whistles "Dixie".

Answer 3

I cannot comment on this documentary because I have not seen it, but it sounds like this is incredibly bias. Do me a favor, when you do try to get your information about an important and controversial topic, at least us a source that doesn't only give one side of the subject. If you only watched Loose Change, you would be convinced that 9/11 was a conspiracy or if you watched a nazi propaganda films you would think that the Jews were destroying the world. Just attempt to see both sides, please.

Answer 4

It's very controversial for one reason and one reason alone: too small of a sample. Ask any geologist how old the earth is and then look at the amount of time we have been tracking temperatures with any sort of accuracy. It's very hard to tell what the trend of the next 100-200 years when we don't know exactly what the weather will be like tomorrow.

Answer 5

Im sure these scientists are very well funded to sit around all day and find reasons why it isnt causing global warming.

Answer 6

Saw it; Awsome!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en

Answer 7

Co2 is taken care by the plants and photosynthesis.
Methane I cant find where they hid it . They give all these measurements that are just a lie.