The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[banjo]

No Dear Banjo it s not proven science and it s dream world stuff. Worst it s a nightmare. It s misleading misinterpreted obfuscating personal agenda driven crap. Full of half thruths , flawed hypotization and based on the intentional manipolation of data. Please do not let this mount of sh**te projectile vomiting inducing joke of a 'documentary' be the basis of your (and other people out there) understanding of what anthropogenic climate change is. Investigate , debate question, but go to serious sources .

Simple proven results and experiments show its correct. If you let a sauce pan full of water boil on a very low heat it will warm up very slowly over time and give off c02, it will also cause a current in the pan with the hot water rising to the top and the cold to the bottom, when you turn the heat off the water is still warm and holds the heat for a long time after, ( just the same principle as larg heated water tanks holding heat to use later in the day ) this accounts for the lag afterwards of it getting cooler. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that, it's simple.
Many years ago they noticed that when there was activity on the sun the weather changed, so they wrote all the data down and the weather was forecast on this data.
I've never denied that the climate is changing, but how on earth can 0.015 co2 by humans do it, it can't simple.

 

[banjo]

I'm of the view that even if the commonly accepted opinion on climate change is wrong, that at the very least climate change is at least only partially attributed to mankind what is the harm in trying to prevent it?

Decades from now if the opinion is that we were all overly cautious on cutting emissions - won't that be better than the alternative?

I agree with you and most do, but we can't do anything unless you can cool down the sun.

 

[banjo]

So where you think it's caused by the release of carbon, or green house gasses.
That is just the scientists trying to explain what is causing it, and find possible ways we can slow it down.
The actual effect may be more direct we are converting energy to heat on a massive scale which is effecting global temp.

I also look at who has the most to lose if the burning of oil gas and coal is found to be creating long term problems for the world, which is the oil gas and coal industry's. They are some of the richest people on the planet, ask your self this are they agreeing or disagreeing on global warming.

Finally if you were in govermant would you fly in the face of current scientific thinking and risk not doing anything, and let's face it nearly all the goals set to fight global warming are good for everyone even if they have no effect on global temps, even if the earth is just following natural patterns.
It's still win win for us as we then live in a cleaner environment because of the changes we made.

It's dearer electricity for the poor, dearer fuel for buisneses, more regulations for engines that make them use more diesel than before ( fact ) and the worst of all many country's around the world are being stopped from having basic electric power, light and electricity, thus leaving them in the dark ages.
All I want is the truth about a subject and the public can make up their own minds.

 

[opininionated]

Yes actually , oceans do not like, are sensitive and react adversely to being polluted, their natural cycles being messed with and manipulated, like any environment really and human beings too for that matter.

how do you know the ocean doesn't like pollution?
When I pollute my body with alchohol, my body reacts adversely, it affects my natural cycles, and it messes and manipulates my mind...............

But I like it!

 

[banjo]

Global warming and climate shift is natural, the release of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases annually is something different entirely.

You can't tell me that mankind releasing all that carbon dioxide, NOx and methane isn't doing any harm. The oceans don't like being acidified, nor should we be drilling in the Arctic. Likewise we are draining natural aquifers and causing habitat loss. This cannot continue.

There will be alternatives to fossil fuels, and we the carbon age will be behind us. There is clearly a lot of money involved with the fossil fuel industry but the general scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is a reality.

You can argue however you like but the Chinese are putting in a lot of solar power and have the most ambitious nuclear power program the world has ever seen, all despite the fact they are sat on a mountain of coal themselves. Do you think they are investing in solar and nuclear fission for the fun of it?

I agree with some of what you've said but, the other stuff is pollution not global warming. Big companies polluting the earth is a different subject altogether.

 

[MickMoor]

When I first became interested in this, back in the early seventies, an ice age was predicted. Also, a large number of the earth's resources such as aluminium would have been used up. Wrong on both counts. Predictions about Brexit, Elections here and in the US, the economy, have been wrong, what makes these current predictions beter than any others? I lent the book to soembedy but can't remeber who. It makes fascinating reading.

 

[MickMoor]

The Limits to Growth. Club of Rome. Google will help.

 

[jerseycowsman]

Whether you agre with climate change or not, burning fossil fuels is disgusting habit just like smoking! There is no need for it, we have the technology and alternatives available

 

[Osca]

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Thanks Linga - now have a look at this -
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps...scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#7961542826d6

So not only is the 97% wrong - it is grossly wrong and arguably fraudulent - and this is pointed out by scientists who are included in the 97% !

Looking at a sample of published papers the originator, having a pro-man-made climate change agenda, has effectively included all the neutrals, don't knows and "yes but it's not relevant" opinions to swell his percentage. Since any balanced discussion would acknowledge that man can have some efffect on the world, however small and irrelevant, this pressgangs nearly every scientist into the ranks.

So this figure is a complete falsification, challenged by those whose scientific papers were used to produce it, yet it is still being posted.

 

[banjo]

Whether you agre with climate change or not, burning fossil fuels is disgusting habit just like smoking! There is no need for it, we have the technology and alternatives available

While it is correct that burning fossil fuels is dirty, it's still only a very very small percentage of anything, it's nothing in the big scheme of things.
Here's one for you, the lobby against it say cut down coal power stations to save fossil fuel and the planet.
Whats the point, they recon there us 50 years of coal and other reserves left, so if that's true it doesn't matter how quick or slow you use the reserves it's the same amount of pollution!
So it's not relevant, when it's gone it's gone and no more fossil fuel pollution.

 

[dstudent]

Simple proven results and experiments show its correct. If you let a sauce pan full of water boil on a very low heat it will warm up very slowly over time and give off c02, it will also cause a current in the pan with the hot water rising to the top and the cold to the bottom, when you turn the heat off the water is still warm and holds the heat for a long time after, ( just the same principle as larg heated water tanks holding heat to use later in the day ) this accounts for the lag afterwards of it getting cooler. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that, it's simple.
Many years ago they noticed that when there was activity on the sun the weather changed, so they wrote all the data down and the weather was forecast on this data.
I've never denied that the climate is changing, but how on earth can 0.015 co2 by humans do it, it can't simple.

Simple proven results and experiments show its correct. If you let a sauce pan full of water boil on a very low heat it will warm up very slowly over time and give off c02, it will also cause a current in the pan with the hot water rising to the top and the cold to the bottom, when you turn the heat off the water is still warm and holds the heat for a long time after, ( just the same principle as larg heated water tanks holding heat to use later in the day ) this accounts for the lag afterwards of it getting cooler. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that, it's simple.
Many years ago they noticed that when there was activity on the sun the weather changed, so they wrote all the data down and the weather was forecast on this data.
I've never denied that the climate is changing, but how on earth can 0.015 co2 by humans do it, it can't simple.

Dear Banjo I m using my phone right now with a very bad connection so as soon as I can get to my PC I will go over your points and also give my reasons why the video you ve shown is flawed and a misrappresentation of scientific data and theories.

 

[dstudent]

how do you know the ocean doesn't like pollution?
When I pollute my body with alchohol, my body reacts adversely, it affects my natural cycles, and it messes and manipulates my mind...............

But I like it!

I m sure u do @opininionated and so do I, but the hangover is a bit*h

 

[banjo]

Dear Banjo I m using my phone right now with a very bad connection so as soon as I can get to my PC I will go over your points and also give my reasons why the video you ve shown is flawed and a misrappresentation of scientific data and theories.

Fair enough any facts are welcome.

 

[jendan]

Whether you agre with climate change or not, burning fossil fuels is disgusting habit just like smoking! There is no need for it, we have the technology and alternatives available

You have not watched the end of the documentary;re energy/developement in Africa.

 

[Aceface]

The Sum warms the earth, (though geo-thermal and combustion also contribute & even body warmth on a macro level). Every square inch of the earth is affected as such. However, a significant proportion of this is reflected back into space. We are apparently now trapping more of the heat that should rebound back into space than we used to do, by the additional gases that are producing the greenhouse effect, we have released since the industrial revolution. It is non controversial as it is measurable. This equation has happened since the dawn of time once the earth had formed and cooled, The climate is always cyclical and dynamic, and we should be going, over the coming centuries into the next predicted "ice age" cycle which cycle roughly every 10 to 11 thousand years. I grew up watching World in Action etc in the seventies and the recurring themes were nuclear armagedan and how the world will change with the advancing ice sheets over the coming centuries. The Clash's brilliant "London Calling" of circa 1980 lyrics refer to "the ice age is coming", such was the perceived inevitability of it. However it was observed that what we should be seeing the start of, wasn't happening. Something was disrupting this apparently routine cycle, and thus the first explanations of this "Global Warming" were suggested. Few theories are perfect first time and are constantly adjusted as observation either endorses or negates the view. However, the change in climate we would expect to see over millennia are being observed over decades. Each side to a point of view or analysis should be equally funded for absolute equality of findings, but remember the coal, oil and gas companies have not disputed what is happening after their own commissioned scientific appraisals of what was being observed and it's suggested cause. It was a seismic event when George W Bush endorsed the theory of climate change as credible fact as he and his father had both been put in the White House largely due to being payrolled by Texas oil money
As for all scientists jump on the climate change band wagon because the funding is there, the heritic who can disprove or at least provide a better explanation to what is being observed will be the most famous man on the planet, he will be feted and will have Universities named after him, Nobel prizes and unimagined wealth showered on him.
I am sure the climate change theory which is now the current dogma will in time be proven through observation as not the completely accurate theory, but it will be seen as a pretty good stab at it. Basically climate is a big mathematical equation with some things trapping heat, minus the things which influence the trapping of heat.
Climate change science is a question maths, not gut feeling.

 

[Osca]

Wow I must have hit some kind of nerve there. Firstly the point was to watch the video I did, and it was excruciatingly painful, because although I tried not be judgemental and keep an open mind, it was clear to me how everything was been distorted to fit a specific agenda, starting from the bombastic title really.
Secondly my post was me being angry and really frustrated, my immediate reaction and thoughts about that video, I did not realise that I had to censor my feelings or thoughts, well if that offends you, I cant really do much about that can I? Like I cannot do much about how you chose to interpret my post and my use of the word Dear, which was meant in a kind and polite way.
But then you go on making judgements about me and calling me names, you don t know me I do not know you.
I will never presume/ assume or make personal comments and pass judgement on a person simply because on how they feel about a video. I might ask why they feel that way
If you read the end of my post you ll see that it is a plea to investigate to debate and question, considering that other people had posted messages covering most of the issues I had with the video, i did not think it was necessary for me to add anything else.
By the way I have been studying the environment, including the causes of Climate change and global warming for the past 10 years, I am very far from being an undiscerning ignorant climate change cult disciple.
Good night to you too

You were up even later than me last night posting that - I reckon I must have hit a nerve too!

I suppose if you believe in man is responsible for climate change, the tone of the video will be hard to swallow; but it is not claiming to be a discussion of both sides; it is trying to refute what it sees as a lie and in some cases science so bad that it becomes fraudulent - a scam.

It is worth following up some of the people included; the address to the House of Lords by the malaria expert is really interesting; one wouldn't think that the potential spread of malaria would be something to be misrepresented and fought over, or the balanced analysis of an authority in the field ignored and his input expunged from an important report because he points out that malaria is not necessarily a tropical disease and therefore not necessarily going to spread as as a result of global warming - yet not only was his input removed, but his name was used to support the false and innacurate information published in it's place. If this sort of falsification - this need for scientists to say the Right Thing or be over-ridden - has happened about something secondary to climate change itself, what has gone on with the evidence for or against the central argument? I get the impression that this video was giving scientists like this one a voice as the pro-man-made change lobbyists had denied them.

So dstudent, apart from the tone, what do you object to?
The point about the ice-cores and carbon dioxide release following, not causing, heating seems entirely valid.
The sunspot thing is interesting - are you saying it is wrong? Has it been credibly refuted?
The relative unimportance of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas as opposed to water vapour - hence the relative unimportance of man's tiny emission of it - that seems irrefutable.

As for calling you names - it was your attitude and response I criticised in general terms. If that feels personal, consider that a patronising "Dear" also feels personal, and a rubbishing of someone's contribution on the grounds of it being "vomit-inducing" etc. etc. seems judgemental. I suggest you go back and read your own first response and see how you would feel if you posted a video that seemed to be making a good point only to have it, and with it your own judgement, rubbished like that.

 

[opininionated]

I m sure u do @opininionated and so do I, but the hangover is a bit*h

Now that I can't disagree with!

 

[Dave645]

It's dearer electricity for the poor, dearer fuel for buisneses, more regulations for engines that make them use more diesel than before ( fact ) and the worst of all many country's around the world are being stopped from having basic electric power, light and electricity, thus leaving them in the dark ages.
All I want is the truth about a subject and the public can make up their own minds.

The truth about the subject is not available, but the changes that are happening are fact. The how and why are nearly irrelevant. We have to get past that, playing the blame games is so pointless.
Facts are still facts the world is warming, if it continues it will result in greater difficulties for our children.

The inequities in energy use around the world as you say are very unfair that doubles the reasons that those who can afford to pay more do so, undeveloped counties can then can do it the cheap way we did, If needed. We should be doubling down and paying the bulk of the money to search for new tech, if we want to let, the likes of India developed as we did.
So complaining about energy cost is like saying to India we don't care about effects of the world warming, we are not going to do our part. We want you to do it the expensive way so we can still have cheap energy.

I understand that you believe that we as humans aren't increasing global temperatures. But how can we not be......
I see it on my weather forcasts on the BBC when they say and temperatures in city areas will be a few degrees higher than in rural areas.
and we know as a fact that burning oil and coal releases heat and creates CO2.
Not I am not going to gamble that this is having zero effect on global temps, that natural effects are the only things at play, and again even if they were, it's still damaging to let global temp rise if we can do something to slow it, we should if that means business and people have to pay more for their energy use so be it.
Arguing about the causes is a smoke screen, which hides the true problems that temperatures are rising regardless of how.

Let's say it is natural and scientist think that by reducing our CO2 and our emitted greenhouse gasses we can slow or stop it. Are you saying we should not because it's natural? Because that's the position you seem to be arguing that taxing and increasing energy cost, so we do reduce our use is wrong.
Like I said their are billions of people's lives, and a lot of the worlds wildlife on this choice. If your wrong it's disaster, if I am wrong we get a cleaner world for our children to live in.
This is why arguing it's not our fault is pointless, as is complaining we are paying more for energy. Their is no real option until it's proven to be fully natural, and nothing we can do can effect it even if we try.

 

[jendan]

The Sum warms the earth, (though geo-thermal and combustion also contribute & even body warmth on a macro level). Every square inch of the earth is affected as such. However, a significant proportion of this is reflected back into space. We are apparently now trapping more of the heat that should rebound back into space than we used to do, by the additional gases that are producing the greenhouse effect, we have released since the industrial revolution. It is non contraversle as it is measurable. This equation has happened since the dawn of time once the earth had formed and cooled, The climate is always cyclical and dynamic, and we should be going, over the coming centuries into the next predicted "ice age" cycle which cycle roughly every 10 to 11 thousand years. I grew up watching World in Action etc in the seventies and the recurring themes were nuclear armagedan and how the world will change with the advancing ice sheets over the coming centuries. The Clash's brilliant "London Calling" of circa 1980 lyrics refer to "the ice age is coming", such was the perceived inevitability of it. However it was observed that what we should be seeing the start of, wasn't happening. Something was disrupting this apparently routine cycle, and thus the first explanations of this "Global Warming" were suggested. Few theories are perfect first time and are constantly adjusted as observation either endorses or negates the view. However, the change in climate we would expect to see over millennia are being observed over decades. Each side to a point of view or analysis should be equally funded for absolute equality of findings, but remember the coal, oil and gas companies have not disputed what is happening after their own commissioned scientific appraisals of what was being observed and it's suggested cause. It was a seismic event when George W Bush endorsed the theory of climate change as credible fact as he and his father had both been put in the White House largely due to being payrolled by Texas oil money
As for all scientists jump on the climate change band wagon because the funding is there, the heritic who can disprove or at least provide a better explanation to what is being observed will be the most famous man on the planet, he will be feted and will have Universities named after him, Nobel prizes and unimagined wealth showered on him.
I am sure the climate change theory which is now the current dogma will in time be proven through observation as not the completely accurate theory, but it will be seen as a pretty good stab at it. Basically climate is a big mathematical equation with some things trapping heat, minus the things which influence the trapping of heat.
Climate change science is a question maths, not gut feeling.

So you have basically said that any changes in climate are not caused by CO2,but by extra heat created by extra energy use?

 

[banjo]

Thanks if you've listened to the first vid, as I said before it's pretty detailed with facts that are proven.
This next vid is a follow on that about how facts have been deleated by nasa and e mails proving they have, including before and after graphs showing its been changed to 3 times as much warming since 2000 ( all made up )
If you click on the vid fast forward a few mins until the presentation starts by the ex nasa employee who talks in detail about the removing of data, very good.