To those who believe man is responsible for global warming - what is your defense against this?

Question

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

I know you won't watch it, even though you insist that you are even-handed in your research.

LOL - "usmale" didn't even watch it - that video is 73 minutes long, and the question was posted only a few minutes ago.

lfcmatt: another person too lazy to watch the video, yet insists he is a good researcher.

Answer 1

The opening part of the video they state how politically incorrect it is to oppose the the theory of man made global warming and he is correct. This film is proof. . As for Karl Wunsch he is paying the penalty for being a heretic. He believes that the science is not clear. Just listen to this interview. http://www.cjob.com/shows/adler.aspx?mc=62757

But there are a lot of good points. The deception of Al Gore in claiming there is a correlation between co2 and temperatures when co2 lags temperature. Al Gore being the politician that he is made this claim because he knows who blindly people follow facts without checking for accuracies.

Then you have the point of the sun spot theory.There is also the belief that it is not humans but the sun that contributed to the earth's warming. Scientists long held this belief and would measure the sunspot activity going back centuries. Sunspot activity strongly correlates with levels of Carbon 14 and Berrylium 10 isotopes found in tree rings and ice cores. Therefore, accurate, long term reconstructions of sunspot activity can be made with low margins of error. The reconstructions of sunspot activity correlate strongly with almost every reconstruction of global temperature.

A recent paper by Dr. Jan Veizer of Ottawa, Canada, based on dozens of studies and his own research of 40 years, concluded that solar activity has been the “climate driver” for billions of years. While the climate can be affected by the many factors , it is the sun and its effects that have caused changes in climate for 4 billion years. Dr Veizer first set out to prove that CO2 was historically what caused changes in climate, but noted, “Personally, this last decade has been a trying period because of the years of internal struggle between what I wanted to believe and where the empirical record and its logic were leading me.”

Do you think this person arrived at his conclusion from some blog? He arrived at his conclusion because he found there is a better correlation between sun spot activity and temperatures than co2 and temperatures. This is from his own work and scientific journals. More info here:
http://www.geocraft.com/wvfossils/refere...

Take the basic premise that increases in co2 will increase temperature. From the start of this century co2 levels were increasing slowly and then started to shoot up during the late 50's. So according to the theory, temperatures should have risen at a slow and constant rate until 1960 and at a faster rate after that.

In reality temperatures started to increase at around 1910 and rose steadily until 1940. It then fell until 1975. It rose until 1998 and has been constant ever since. According to the co2 theory temperatures should not have risen as fast during the early part of the century and they should not have fallen for three decades during the mid century.

The sun spot theory correlates better up until 1960. Then temperatures kept falling but sun spot activity kept rising. But during the same period of time there were strong La Nina (cold water ocean currents) events that kept temperatures low, after the La nina events subsided temperatures started to rise again to match the sun spot cycle.

No educated person will make the claim that global warming is a myth. What people dispute is the question does increases in co2 cause temperatures to rise? and if so, by how much?

There is also the belief that it is not humans but the sun that contributed to the earth's warming. Scientists long held this belief and would measure the sunspot activity going back centuries. Sunspot activity strongly correlates with levels of Carbon 14 and Berrylium 10 isotopes found in tree rings and ice cores. Therefore, accurate, long term reconstructions of sunspot activity can be made with low margins of error. The reconstructions of sunspot activity correlate strongly with almost every reconstruction of global temperature.

A recent paper by Dr. Jan Veizer of Ottawa, Canada, based on dozens of studies and his own research of 40 years, concluded that solar activity has been the “climate driver” for billions of years. While the climate can be affected by the many factors , it is the sun and its effects that have caused changes in climate for 4 billion years. Dr Veizer first set out to prove that CO2 was historically what caused changes in climate, but noted, “Personally, this last decade has been a trying period because of the years of internal struggle between what I wanted to believe and where the empirical record and its logic were leading me.”

Do you think this person arrived at his conclusion from some blog? He arrived at his conclusion because he found there is a better correlation between sun spot activity and temperatures than co2 and temperatures. This is from his own work and scientific journals. More info here:
http://www.geocraft.com/wvfossils/refere...

Take the basic premise that increases in co2 will increase temperature. From the start of this century co2 levels were increasing slowly and then started to shoot up during the late 50's. So according to the theory, temperatures should have risen at a slow and constant rate until 1960 and at a faster rate after that.

In reality temperatures started to increase at around 1910 and rose steadily until 1940. It then fell until 1975. It rose until 1998 and has been constant ever since. According to the co2 theory temperatures should not have risen as fast during the early part of the century and they should not have fallen for three decades during the mid century.

The sun spot theory correlates better up until 1960. Then temperatures kept falling but sun spot activity kept rising. But during the same period of time there were strong La Nina (cold water ocean currents) events that kept temperatures low, after the La nina events subsided temperatures started to rise again to match the sun spot cycle.

This theory has its critics. The evidence is empirical (cause and effect). There are still a lot of questions to be answered. But global warming theorists claim that the correlation is irrelevant and that the graph stops a certain year. During the 90's we had el nino events

But that is the nature of science. Scientists are by nature sceptical. You do not prove a theory. You put it out and others attack it, and if it withstands scrutiny the theory becomes accepted.

But you have to wonder. In 1988 Newsweek published an article on global warming saying all scientists agree. That was before the study of climate change even began. And when scientists started to question the theory, they were immediately attacked and their motives were questioned. Just the notion of unanimity is outrageous. To say with certainty that co2 causes temperature increases you have to answer questions like what are the effects of the sun, the oceans (they do not even know what causes, el ninos and la ninas), how much co2 do humans produce. Global warming theorists say that the cooling in the mid century was due to sulphates, which act as a cooling agent. Then you have to produce studies that prove sulphates acts as a cooling agent.
Temperatures have fluctuated through out earth's history, what caused those to fluctuate. So to believe the notion of unanimity is to believe that all of these questions and many, many , many more were answered in a few years.

The reason why they are claiming unanimity is because they do not want you to question the anomalies like the mid century drop in temperatures. After all who are you and I to question the consensus of scientists. If they say it is true it must be true. But I can assure you, scientists are questioning the science, and you should be also.

Then take the point that the U.N. is a political body with political agendas. Here are three sites that support this point:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story...

Answer 2

Why bother fearing global warming? That's the path backwards.

Remember the 1970s and the fuel economy laws and the smog laws, and people went "No no this is outrageous it's going to make cars worse?" Yeah there were some teething pains early on, but look at cars now!

They are better in every way. Your average Lexus sedan has more horsepower than 2-ton musclecars had in the 60s. Cars handle better, they're safer, more comfortable, more reliable, more fun! Oh yeah, and they get great fuel economy and the skies are cleaner. Who would want to go back!?

This is how Americans do things.

So why fear and loathe global warming? It's going to be a catalyst for some amazing leaps in technology that, as usual, will make us the envy of the world.

Answer 3

exciting question. properly, to start with, you base your opinion on the defective theory that that is 'scientific consensus'. there isn't. in fact, there won't additionally be a 'majority' consensus any further. there's a becoming consensus that international warming and climate substitute has little or not something to do with guy's activities because of the fact the present variety in average temperature has been down for a number of years now. So, common premise is defective. Secondly, technology isn't a democracy. you do not vote on the belief of gravity. As you assert, you the two settle for or reject based on your information, undemanding experience and your materials of counsel. For a time, the 'majority' theory the Earth became flat and as we talk we hit upon that those interior the 'minority prestige' have been top. solid difficulty we did not blindly settle for many folk opinion, huh? ultimately, your determination to get a vaccine or not impacts merely you. What you advise by making use of our acceptance of international warming is that all of us are pressured to get vaccines. If the government bases regulations, taxes and regulation on the theory that we are the reason for international warming or maybe that international warming is undesirable, then all of us pay. we can not choose out of this technique. On a particularly distinctive subject count number, i'm worried with a sparkling environment. i'm worried with being a to blame steward of the Earth. however the perspective and lengths that the international warming alarmists are taking us are a techniques previous accountability. Their attitude, just about without superb compromise, is unfavourable. as an occasion, the alarmists could have us generate electricity completely on wind and image voltaic power. The technologies isn't yet there and could by no skill be. those materials are particularly vulnerable and unreliable. The alarmists won't entertain advancing technologies in coal or different fossil fuels and maximum extremely, they gained't entertain using nuclear power, the main precious and the cleanest gas source we've. Nuclear power does not something to make a contribution to international warming. 0. And however the international warming alarmists won't even entertain the potential for its use. This tells me...right here MY intestine at artwork...that they have yet another schedule.

Answer 4

I have watched the first four parts of the Global Warming swindle, and it is all twisted facts. On the hockey stick graph of temperature and CO2, they zoom way in on one area that proves their point, but forget to show the ENTIRE chart. If they did, it would be obvious that the current CO2 is way above the usual because temperature and CO2 are related, temperature will follow.

Also, they interview like 4 crazy wackos and edit the footage so that they can get them to mean things they don't. They also lead you on in so many different ways.

That video has no scientific evidence backing it. I think they show two charts and no numbers in the first four parts. Only the opinions of a couple of random people.

Furthermore, Global Dimming disproves the 40's-80's cooling stage. Global dimming is the when the influx of particles into the atmosphere by human causes, which decreases the amount of sunlight that hits the Earth. So, while global warming was still warming the planet, during that time, global dimmingg was cooling the earth Earth.

The movie does bring up a couple of good points, but then again, the Inconvienent Truth brings up better points that can counter the twisted views of the makers of the video.

Answer 5

There is a large amount of serious scientific research into this subject and it points to human infered effects from not only greenhouse gas release but also the removal of natural carbon sinks such as rain forests.
The program you have link was discredited before airing and the maker made an newspaper apology for the film.
Study that have been published this year make even stronger cases for global warming being effected by humans such as the UN's IPCC fourth assessment report report.

It was on here in the UK 2 months ago on Channel 4, I watched it then.

Answer 6

I have seen that all the way through before. In fact I have posted links to in many of my answers here. I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it. It is not a science video, it is a political video. Just like Al Gore's movie is not science, it is political. The two are just opposite political opinion movies on the same topic, neither of which deals with the science in any real way.

Answer 7

Interestingly, I just watched this totally for the first time. These people previously answered pretend to have the slightest idea what they are talking about. They are like 5 year olds who think they now know the nature of the universe. Global warming is an obvious political farce. When you have comments like "fumes" etc. , it really demonstrates that what you are dealing with is has nothing to do with science. It is a political movement turned into a religion gone berserk.

Answer 8

Bill, having seen this mockumentary twice myself, perhaps I will be deemed worthy to comment on it. The whole thing has been discredited and refuted by scientists so many times now people should be embarrassed for even mentioning it. In fact, one of the scientists involved in the film (Carl Wunsch) is now demanding that he be removed from the show entirely, saying that he was mislead and deceived into thinking the show would be a scientific, unbiased look at the theory. Further saying that had he been informed as to the true nature and content of the film, would never have agreed to appear in it at all, calling a piece of 'outright propaganda'.

You can read Mr. Wunsch's letter to Channel 4 here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

And a short article debunking the whole film here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

RealClimate is a Blog run by fifteen highly qualified climate scientists currently doing research in the field. So you can lay to rest any doubts you may have about the site's credibility.

Answer 9

The programme was meant to trap gullible people into falling for the controversy, looks like you've fallen for it. Don't take my word for it ask the producer of the programme himself, send him an e-mail to gw at wagtv.com his name's Martin Durkin - you might also want to Google him. But I guess if you want to beleive the nonsense in the programme you'd best not e-mail of Google him as it might shatter your dillusions.

Just for the record - I have watched the programme several times, it gets funnier each time I watch it.

Answer 10

watched this before and this is BS. Hows the weather where you are? How's your breathing? I know you won't research ti because you think you know it all ready but here is a website to look at. http://www.davidsuzuki.org

Answer 11

Bill-
I watched the entire video.
Excellent!
The scientific data is presented clearly and accurately, with out bias.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely this will change the attitudes of those who have already made up their minds on this issue regardless of how many facts you present them..........pity.