'The Great Global Warming Swindle' -- Video Here

The Bible doesn't mention GW, as it doesn't mention things like cloning. Obviously these weren't issues Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had to deal with. Every translation will say something different about the Earth and how we're supposed to treat it. Ann Coutlier [or whatever] apparently claimed that we're supposed "to rape the Earth", or something to that extent.

I find the diversity of opinions about the truth behind GW on a Prius forum surprising. I guess some people really are in it for reduced gas mileage. I'm not saying that the diversity is bad, just interesting.

According to my AP Biology teacher, these scientists are 90% sure about their conclusion and in the scientific community, that's about as sure as they'll claim. Just because the issue has been blown up recently doesn't mean it's a passing trend; I firmly believe this is the most pressing issue of my generation and indefiably the hardest to solve.

They complain about environmentalists hurting 3rd world countries; do you know what GW will do to them? One of the effects is the spread of disease [malaria, for example] in such countries. Environmentalist and humanitarian go hand in hand.


On a lighter note, the ads at the bottom of the page are for 'Ice, Ice Baby' videos, lol.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rainydysandmondys @ Mar 13 2007, 06:12 PM) [snapback]405093[/snapback]</div>

What I find amusing is that environmentalists are charged with having an agenda that is self-serving and anti-people. Yet the people who claim such things are usually the ones exploiting people and resources and causing the most harm. Wth mindset drives those kind of people?

 

Exactly! I was once told, "I care more about starving people in Africa than cutting down some tree." People don't understand that the environmentalist's goal is to help the entire world. Environmentalists do it for people; not to make everyone miserable now because they can't drive a huge car, but to ensure that there is a future for the planet as we know it. I don't understand what underlying motive people think environmentalists have.

 

You seem to be on the same page so you might enjoy this article by Paul Hawken. Its a bit old now but the knowledge is viable regardless.

This also ties in with my earlier discussion with Dberman about how to change our economic system for the betterment of everyone and everything.

Natural Capitalism ~ Paul Hawken

 

Wow, that was a great article. Thanks for sharing!

I've heard [could be strictly rumor] that McDonald's is considering having the drive-thru connect you to someone in India who will take your order, then the order will be sent to the worker at your location who will make it for you, because it's somehow cheaper. Parts of that article made me think of that; a billion dollar company still tries to cut corners in its greedy quest for more. I won't get into everything else McDonald's does, but yeah.

We're more than materials. This planet is more than individual success and so much more than money.

 

you heard right. This is mentioned in Thomas L. Friemdans book "The world is flat" It is pretty good book.. long, extensive but worth the read IMO.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rainydysandmondys @ Mar 13 2007, 10:38 PM) [snapback]405130[/snapback]</div>

They're not "considering," they're doing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Mar 11 2007, 03:02 PM) [snapback]403826[/snapback]</div>

There was a detailed reponse to the TV programme in the Guardian recently. It was by George Monbiot who has for many years written on this subject and his most recent book is HEAT - HOW TO SAVE THE PLANET FROM BURNING.

Read his article on:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...2032572,00.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adam1991 @ Mar 11 2007, 01:19 PM) [snapback]403833[/snapback]</div>

How's this, let's all just stand back and watch. In a hundred years we can argue about who was right. And if climate scientists were right, and something should have been done and wasn't, oh well.

For the record, the fact that CO2 influences global temperature was understood in the late 1800s. Science is now in its third century of a "fad".

The irony, of course, is that you haven't published your refutations in a peer-reviewed climate scientific journal. You're hiding your hidden deeper understanding of science from humanity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rainydysandmondys @ Mar 13 2007, 06:12 PM) [snapback]405093[/snapback]</div>

The diversity is artificial. The handful of belligerent rednecks you see on this forum aren't prius owners, they're here purely for political antagonism. One has to wonder what kind of people dedicate their free time to being social irritants. You won't see this "diversity" in a Ford F-series forum.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxo @ Mar 14 2007, 08:42 AM) [snapback]405276[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the Guardian article link. That's certainly the best response to this film I've read yet. It takes apart the film's specious claims thoroughly, and comes to a damning conclusion:

Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.

But for the film's commissioners, all that counts is the sensation. Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited - such as Durkin. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the controversy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 14 2007, 07:15 AM) [snapback]405318[/snapback]</div>

I have been following climate change closely for several years now and it looks like the Guardian article does its own "cherry picking". I found the film to be compelling in its discussion of a number of points::
- the co2 lag in past temperature reconstructions
- the effect of water vapor, which is very poorly modeled at present, to my understanding
- the effects of solar which are also incompletely understood

The Guardian article doesn't touch on the first two and attempts to imply that the solar issue is settled (it isn't). It is also worth noting that the article is written by ... George Monbiot. So here is what Wikipedia says about him:

"George Monbiot (born January 27, 1963) is a journalist, author, academic and environmental and leftwing political activist in the United Kingdom who writes a weekly column for The Guardian newspaper...

...Monbiot’s most recent book, Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning, published in 2006, focuses on the issue of climate change. In this book, Monbiot argues that a 90% reduction in carbon emissions is necessary in developed countries in order to prevent disastrous changes to the climate."

No pre-set agenda there, huh?

However, some of his comments are interesting and I think it behooves journalists on both sides of the issue to tell a balanced story. Clearly, this film provides an important counterbalance to Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." However, I would like to see a filmmaker/journalist honestly tackle both sides of the issue in one complete film (or article).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Mar 14 2007, 12:25 PM) [snapback]405562[/snapback]</div>

I recomend you look at the two articles on RealClimate or watch the debate between Christy and Schmidt coming up soon. Getting scientific information from a newspaper is always a risky proposition.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rainydysandmondys @ Mar 13 2007, 08:39 PM) [snapback]405106[/snapback]</div>

I have noticed a certain tendency to throw everyone into the extreme bucket. Just because someone is concerned about the environment and voices such concerns, does not make them an extremist. If you think that the users on this forum are extreme, you have another thing coming. I know of *real enviro nutters" in my county who would easily argue any of these issues with a decisive and often derisive tongue. They sound mad, they know facts (or at least present well) and they can put up a good fight. I don't want them here, simply because they are distorting the issues too much. <_<

So I would like to ask that the GM/GCC doubters would keep the discussions fair and civilized. We are all on this forum because we are not extreme, but openly share our commitment for a better environment by driving a super efficient car.

The reason you post here should be to invite civil discourse. If you want to simply be a banner bearer, and don't care about hearing and considering other opinions, may I suggest that you opt to use a blog with the comments option set to OFF or perhaps the internet monologue: aka a web page. This goes for the pro and con posters alike!

Now where is my organic, fair trade, shade grown, hand milled, bicycle distributed, solar hot water brewed, calming chamomile tea in a non toxic glazed ceramic mug? :huh:

 

Was that in reference to me?

I'd say there was a fair amount of discussion with the topic of people-accusing-environmentalists-of-not-caring-about-people. It was mentioned earlier about what environmentalism does to third world countries. Forums are for discussion and opinion sharing. I was doing both. I didn't intend to be "a banner bearer" or what have you.

Oh and believe me, I make plenty of such statements on my blog and keep the comments on [albeit, it's friends only, but yeah]. I wouldn't hesitate to do so in any public form either.

Sorry...?

 

Nope I had some other posters in mind

Perhaps I should have started my reply post with: I agree with you

 

I somehow missed this article in the Independent a month ago (apologies if anyone posted it here already).

Evidently, the graphs in the film are mostly either "made up" or use innaccurate/outdated/truncated data. The filmaker's explanation:

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said...

Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this newspaper's inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/...icle2355956.ece

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Mar 14 2007, 08:45 AM) [snapback]405301[/snapback]</div>

Gee, you caught me. I really wanted a Prius, but the dealership wouldn't sell me one unless I aced a 100-question test on AlGor's movie. Thanks for exploding the myth that anyone not wearing hemp, recycling their own excrement in the backyard vegetable garden, and torching SUV dealerships would ever be allowed to buy a Prius.

 

Re: 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' -- Video Here

Great post Amped!!!!