Liberals, after seeing The Great Global Warming Swindle, do you still believe in man-made Global Warming?

Question

OK, Libs, here's the challenge. Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" video, and give me your reaction. I don't want to hear generalities. Talk specifics. Gore's movie was based on junk science, and he laughingly mislead people by showing footage of completely natural events, such as glaciers melting (they do every summer). Liberals, this is your chance to prove that the term "Liberal" is not some ironic joke. Liberals used to be open minded, but I rarely see that here in Yahoo! Answers.

http://blip.tv/file/227958

Now, after watching this video, who wants to (figuratively) smack Al Gore on the head with a solar panel? Aren't you furious at him for trying to dupe us all?

OK, idiot Libs like Redsoxer are just reinforcing the notion that all Libs are intellectually (and otherwise) lazy. He has shown no indication he even watched the video. He is just an embarrassment to Liberals everywhere. C'mon people, are you too lazy to watch a simple video, or does it have to have Michael Moore's name attached to it?

You Libs just crack me up! Silverbullet, your pompous attitude is undercut by your total disregard for educating yourself. Why don't you take the time to watch this video? Are you that lazy? You are exactly what Conservatives detest, the close minded Liberal, who talks about the free exchange of information and right to express opinion, but is intolerant of any opposing viewpoints. WATCH THE VIDEO.

Libs, Libs, Libs, you are just cartoonishly ignorant, and by your own choice. Once again, a Conservative has generously offered to educate you (for free!) but you choose blissful ignorance. Polar bears drowning, glaciers melting. WATCH THE VIDEO YOU LAZY PEOPLE. Did you know that EVERY PLANET in the solar system is experiencing "global warming"? It is periodic increases in solar radiation. Did you know that in earth's history, the level of CO2 has been FAR HIGHER than today, with no corresponding increase in temperature?

Have you forgotten from history that during the Middle Ages the temperature across Europe was so warm that they planted grapes in London? That Greeland was so warm it allowed for crops to be planted and livestock to be grazed?

For the blanking love of God Libs, just watch a simple video. You don't even need to read. That should suit some of you just fine!

So far "Bob" is the only person who has even attempted to honestly answer this question.

People who have already posted, you want to amend your answers with some indication you have watched the movie? You want to explain how the earth had multiple times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with no corresponding rise in temperature?

Don't muddy the water with bloated explanations, just answer the question.

Answer 1

I've seen it. It's bad science. Proof:

It is simply a political statement which distorts science. The director has a history of putting out misleading stuff. In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with Nazis. Channel 4 had to apologise publicly for the misleading stuff in that one. The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

"Pure Propaganda"

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

Explanations of why the science is wrong.

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

History of the director.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right. This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way. If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information. They also have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming. The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

So, why did Channel 4 broadcast it?

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

Answer 2

Well, I tried to watch it, but this Liberal must have a slow Internet connection, because it sounded too choppy.

But I still want to chime in anyways.

Here's the deal, no matter whether a film or a political party uses junk science or not, we, the general public, aren't going to be able to know for sure who's telling the truth. I mean, the public can't be expected to a) know the theories concerning a particular field of study, and b) be able to evaluate the body of evidence.

All we can do is watch, try to learn, and maybe wonder about why one side is saying what their saying.

So, do I think that Al Gore is lying? No. He's been the green candidate for a long time, even back when it wasn't a very popular issue. And he's not particularly popular, even now. If he was just a slick manipulator, I would expect him to be, well, slick.

Now sure, there are some issues with "An Inconvenient Truth," such as using video of glaciers calving and implying that it is the actual melting of the icecaps. But I think that can be put down as showmanship rather than dishonesty. Kind of like airbrushing model's photos before they appear in "Cosmo."

Opponents to global warming often seem to have other interests, particularly pro-business and anti-government regulation. It makes their motives suspicious. And it doesn't help when they say their strongest argument is that we don't know for sure. I can "not know for sure" myself into disbelieving just about anything, can't you?

Also, the part of the documentary I saw before giving up on the sound made it sound like people were absolutely sure about global warming. While some people might be in that camp, I think many more are like me, and know some details of any scientific theory can change. Don't we still watch the daily forecast, even though it only predicts "the chance" of rain?

Well, that's all I can think to say. Give me you're thumbs down and pick a conservative for best answer, cause I need to get some sleep. Take care.

Answer 3

I just started watching it. I'm about 30 seconds in and there's already bad science.

Historically CO2 has followed temperature change. Whoever these people are that are being interviewed are claiming that therefore CO2 can't cause global warming. This is a fundamentally stupid argument. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that we know causes global warming. Its global warming potential has been measured. The reason it didn't initiate global warming in the past was because there was no source emitting vast amounts of CO2. Now there is - humans.

This is a very simple logical argument. If the film opens up with this completely stupid argument, I'm not holding my breath for some good scientific evidence.

A few more minutes in and damn, this thing is boring. I wish they'd stop getting sound bytes from the few same old scientific skeptics that are always quoted and get to some damn science.

Oh wow, global climate has always changed? Well gee, I didn't know that! Now I'm convinced!

Another minute later and that's it, I'm done. The movie claims that the MWP was warmer than today. That's total bullcrap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I guess this answers my question about where all the misinformation from global warming skeptics comes from. What a terrible propaganda film.

The funny thing is that skeptics criticize Gore's movie for showing the "hockey stick graph" with the MWP de-emphasized. This film does the exact opposite - falsely amplifies it. How ironic and hypocritical.

Answer 4

Blank, I'm surprised you don't know about the medieval warming period. To be fair I'm not sure if MWP is such a great argument. The premise is that if there were warming periods in the past that were not connected to CO2 emissions than our current warming trend can't be connected to Co2 emissions as well. That doesn't hold water, if you know what I mean. Just because CO2 didn't drive temperature in the past doesn't mean it isn't driving temperature today. I think the better argument is the content of greenhouse gasses. The most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, or just plain old H2O. So how about preventing water from turning vapor? That would be the most logical solution to stop the greenhouse effect. All this focus on CO2 doesn't make much sense, when you think about it. EDIT: To Dana, Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. You can contribute to Wiki. I can contribute to Wiki. Someone who never finished high school can contribute to Wikipedia. The edits that end up there are from those who are always editing the material and have the most time to spend to sit on there **** writing articles on wiki. I encourage anyone to experiment and put something silly on a Wiki page and see how long it stays there (even years later) To Dana, Evidence shows that CO2 follows increase temperatures, not the other way around. Ice data shows a lag of CO2 behind warm periods. That makes complete sense as conventional chemistry had always considered water vapor, or simple h2O as the driver of greenhouse gases. This is why heat must come first and not the other way around. Heat produces vapor from oceans which in turn chemically attracts the other gasses to produce the greenhouse effect. Therefore something else must be producing the intial heat. Could it be the sun? Also the eventual result is a blocking of solar heat which in turn should produce a cooling. This is a natural process of nature. Like all the other gases, CO2 is absorbed and recycled by nature. So it makes sense that ice samples will show more CO2 in periods following heat periods because CO2 has condensed with the water vapor during times of cooling. Anyway, to have any real greenhouse effect you need atleast a 80 to 90% concentration of H2O. Otherwise we'll need to re-define greenhouse effect. Perhaps they are already doing it. Insane science we have these days. EDIT: To 3DM, What Dana is trying to explain to us is that the greenhouse effect is causing the greenhouse effect. If that makes sense.

Answer 5

I'm watching the video now.

I watched something different a few months back I think on Discovery channel. Where scientist were studying ice core samples, and investigating how humans survived during times of extreme climate change.

The focus was not on GW. But the science was plain to me. Just as the plates shift and continents move; Just as the moon slowly moves further away from the earth; the earth has changed sometimes dramatically over its long history.

I read recently that the temps on the other planets within the solar system are also rising.

I have no problem with cleaning up after ourselves. I have a BIG problem with the political machine forcing doctrine upon us, that will lead to enforcers that insist on large cost out of pocket, and a heaping change. That may or may not matter.

Again, cities that have a dome of haze . . . need to work on their habits.

If the UN or any country wants the human race to alter our lives to such a great extent, they must come up with a financially viable option.

My opinion is that we should focus our efforts on surviving an extreme climate change. Because like it or not, the earth has a way of throwing curve balls . . .

Answer 6

Gore is irrelevant. That doesn't make global warming a myth.

Did you

a) skip
b) sleep through
or
c) fail

your science classes in high school?

------

1. Just because some silly things have been said in the name of 'saving the planet', doesn't mean that the basic facts aren't true. I don't pay much attention to what is said in the mass media, because journalists as a rule are not scientifically literate, and most of what you see in the papers was in the scientific journals years ago. I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth", nor do I feel the need to.

2. There HAVE been significant temperature shifts in the past due to CO2, resulting in drastic changes in the planet's flora and fauna. Did life survive? Yes. Millions of individual species did not. Of course those episodes were not caused by human activity. That doesn't mean that we CAN'T have an impact. Other planets are experiencing greenhouse warming, notably, Venus. We can't live on Venus. That's the point. We can't stop the sun or an asteroid from doing us in, but I'd like to think we're smart enough not to do ourselves in.

3. You seem to be concerned about the economic dislocations that might result from emissions reduction. That's nothing compared to what we could see if we don't deal with the problem. Being green doesn't mean living in tents and herding sheep. There are a lot of ways to generate energy with reduced or no emissions. As with anything else new, jobs will be lost, jobs will be created. As an example, if we'd devoted appropriate effort to the process in the 50's we'd have clean safe nuclear energy by now, quite possibly fusion based. Instead, we figured out how to build reactors, and put off the issue of spent fuel and decommissioned plants until "later".

4. I'm not a big government fan. However, there are things that the free market economy can't and doesn't do well. Long term thinking is one of them. Caring about the community as a whole is another. The invisible hand does a pretty good job of allocating resources, but if business were left to its own devices, we'd still have slavery. Apparently you also skipped reading "The Jungle" in high school.

5. There are economic consequences to any course of action, or inaction. Dealing with them early can make them less severe. We will probably run out of fossil fuel before we reach the tipping point, but what will we do then for raw materials for things like plastics? You don't think moving all of the worlds agricultural belts around because of weather changes will cause severe economic problems?

6. Energy companies themselves can give you pretty good totals for the amount of CO2 we're dumping into the atmosphere. Its possible to make pretty good estimates of how we're impacting the carbon cycle via deforestation. The numbers are there. The warming effect can be demonstrated in the laboratory. There ARE unknowns concerning the damping effect of the oceans. Even that results in changes to ocean currents, generating other weather changes.

We are changing the climate. We don't know the end result 100% for sure. God gave us a brain and free will, presumably so we'd use it to act on the best available information. Of course we could grovel, pray, sacrifice a couple of goats, and go back to business as usual, trusting that He won't be pissed because we didn't use our greatest gifts.

Answer 7

You might want to have a slight bit of scientific knowledge before you go rambling on about how wrong someone else's theory is.First off, yes glaciers melt some each summer.With that said there is no denying that glaciers are depleting at a much more rapid pace then they were even just 20 years ago.They are also not recovering like they used to in the winter months.The fact that they are starting to find tons of polar bears dead in the water who have drowned to death is also a pretty big warning sign.The Ice has melted so much that the distances the bears travel each year has gotten to far for many to survive the trip.Being in denial about the problem is exactly why mankind will be extinct in the next 100 years.Conservatives will be responsible for the end of civilization for not acting now.You can't act when its too late but your a hick Bush supporter so i don't expect you to have any intelligence in this matter.

As far as you saying its all myths,water levels have already risen in some places.In Indonesia theres already houses submerged underwater that used to be on the coast.The fact is global warming is very real and scientist all over the entire world agree 100% that its caused by man.The only people you can find that deny its a problem are conservative voting scientist in the US and Bush supporters.Republicans have never been a very bright breed.If their president says global warming is a myth they accept that as fact before they will accept it from the mouth of a scientist.The only educated people who vote republican are rich men who want tax cuts and could give two craps less about the rest of the world.The rest who vote for him are rednecks who think the liberals have some conspiracy to take all their guns so they can't go squirrel hunting anymore.Laughing at a liberal when you are a conservative is kind of like a 1,000 lb guy telling a 250 lb guy he needs to lose weight.

Answer 8

Anyone who watches The Great Global Warming Swindle and can't immediately see that it's complete garbage quite obviously knows nothing at all about climate change.

I'm sorry, but by citing Swindle you're demonstrating that you're completyely ignorant of the subject so how can you possible pass judgement on something you know nothing about?

Answer 9

Question the motives of the producers but not the motives of the UN for trying to keep scientists names on their list of experts until law suits are threatened.

Give Big Gay Al an award for misreading the chart he used to drive his point home about the connection between CO2 and global warming but be careful not to mention that the scientist who did the research and created the chart and is interviewed in this 'questionable documentary', states that what he found was the opposite of what Gore claimed the chart represented.

You are dreaming if you think devotees of the Holy Environmentalist Empire will be open minded.

Answer 10

Conservatives is best on environment solving.

Bush and his team promote Corn and other none effective for ethanols while Sugarcanes are much more efficient and could produce at least 3X more ethanol per acre compare to corn.

Bush and his brilliant minded advisers want fuel efficient vehicle for us all to help improve environment but never invest a dime in funding to stimulate entrepreneurs come out with solution challenge corporations. He throw the free money into the pocket of big companies that produce no real result.

Conservative is great.