FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Stephen]

Just a couple of videos on the background of some of those involved in the global warming denial industry ... for those who think AGW is a conspiracy theory these should be a bit of an eye opener. The deniers play very, very dirty games in an attempt to confuse the public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

Nice propaganda, of which there is considerable on both sides! Unfortunately everyone has an agenda...

Quite simply, the data isn't there - this theory is just that, a theory - it is by no means scientific fact. Yet politicians have taxed us on the basis of it, have made money from it (Al Gore), and will continue to use this as an excuse to control their respective electorates. Following the CRU leak we've now seen evidence that the data is poor, heavily manipulated, and as one leading scientist said this month (Eduardo Zorita), "research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion". Yet 200,000 delegates will jet to Copenhagen next month, on planes emitting vast quantities of CO2, to save the World - give me a break...

The whole thing smacks of the hunt for Saddam's WMD...we apparantly had all the evidence we needed, and then what happened, we (the UK and US) invaded a Country, lost a load of brave servicemen, and found nothing.

Oh, and some bedtime reading:
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/the-trick/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/t ... est-paper/

[zweiblumen]

Just a couple of videos on the background of some of those involved in the global warming denial industry ... for those who think AGW is a conspiracy theory these should be a bit of an eye opener. The deniers play very, very dirty games in an attempt to confuse the public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

Nice propaganda, of which there is considerable on both sides! Unfortunately everyone has an agenda...

Quite possibly, but the denialist side is funded via big business and right-wing think tanks, as the videos show, the very same people who were involved in defending the tobacco industry are now spreading anti-AGW propaganda, that doesn't make them wrong per se, but it makes them extremely untrustworthy.

Quite simply, the data isn't there - this theory is just that, a theory - it is by no means scientific fact. Yet politicians have taxed us on the basis of it, have made money from it (Al Gore), and will continue to use this as an excuse to control their respective electorates. Following the CRU leak we've now seen evidence that the data is poor, heavily manipulated, and as one leading scientist said this month (Eduardo Zorita), "research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion". Yet 200,000 delegates will jet to Copenhagen next month, on planes emitting vast quantities of CO2, to save the World - give me a break...

And the science isn't there on the denialist side, we're not just talking about temperature records and hockey stick graphs but changes in wildlife patterns, acidification of the oceans ... how do deniers explain this? ... They don't even bother to try, hoping instead that the general public won't find out about that side of the argument.



The whole thing smacks of the hunt for Saddam's WMD...we apparantly had all the evidence we needed, and then what happened, we (the UK and US) invaded a Country, lost a load of brave servicemen, and found nothing.


Well at least we can agree on that, the WMD hunt was a total farce.

Oh, and some bedtime reading:
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/the-trick/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/t ... est-paper/

Why is this not propaganda?

[Gaz]

Just a couple of videos on the background of some of those involved in the global warming denial industry ... for those who think AGW is a conspiracy theory these should be a bit of an eye opener. The deniers play very, very dirty games in an attempt to confuse the public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

Nice propaganda, of which there is considerable on both sides! Unfortunately everyone has an agenda...

Quite simply, the data isn't there - this theory is just that, a theory - it is by no means scientific fact. Yet politicians have taxed us on the basis of it, have made money from it (Al Gore), and will continue to use this as an excuse to control their respective electorates. Following the CRU leak we've now seen evidence that the data is poor, heavily manipulated, and as one leading scientist said this month (Eduardo Zorita), "research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion". Yet 200,000 delegates will jet to Copenhagen next month, on planes emitting vast quantities of CO2, to save the World - give me a break...

The whole thing smacks of the hunt for Saddam's WMD...we apparantly had all the evidence we needed, and then what happened, we (the UK and US) invaded a Country, lost a load of brave servicemen, and found nothing.

Oh, and some bedtime reading:
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/the-trick/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/t ... est-paper/

So are you saying we shouldn't bother cutting down on CO2?

[Jensonb]

Just a couple of videos on the background of some of those involved in the global warming denial industry ... for those who think AGW is a conspiracy theory these should be a bit of an eye opener. The deniers play very, very dirty games in an attempt to confuse the public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

Nice propaganda, of which there is considerable on both sides! Unfortunately everyone has an agenda...

Quite simply, the data isn't there - this theory is just that, a theory - it is by no means scientific fact. Yet politicians have taxed us on the basis of it, have made money from it (Al Gore), and will continue to use this as an excuse to control their respective electorates. Following the CRU leak we've now seen evidence that the data is poor, heavily manipulated, and as one leading scientist said this month (Eduardo Zorita), "research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion". Yet 200,000 delegates will jet to Copenhagen next month, on planes emitting vast quantities of CO2, to save the World - give me a break...

The whole thing smacks of the hunt for Saddam's WMD...we apparantly had all the evidence we needed, and then what happened, we (the UK and US) invaded a Country, lost a load of brave servicemen, and found nothing.

Oh, and some bedtime reading:
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/the-trick/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/t ... est-paper/

Hypocrisy in action.

[Stephen]

So are you saying we shouldn't bother cutting down on CO2?

The planet's life giver, and something which the human race contribute just 3% to the global total...

I strongly believe we should protect the environment, but isn't it strange that at a time where CO2 is the new evil, there is little government or MSM attention made to the swathes of rain-forest (one of the largest CO2 sinks) cut down to grow bio-fuels - I think you'll realise, whatever side of the fence you're on - that something isn't right here.

Fact is, the AGW argument isn't based on sound science - it is just a theory - but it's one which perfectly satisfies the political agendas of many governments (tax, control etc). And then you hear that the new EU President wants to fund the EU solely based upon environmental taxes...so it's little wonder the other side of this argument isn't being heard.

Anyway - history will judge us all...

[Stephen]

Why is this not propaganda?[/i]

Because that is my opinion.

[zweiblumen]

Setting aside arguments over the science for a moment, in some ways we're not that far apart, I too believe that governments have used AGW as a means of extracting money from people - where I disagree is that I believe some governments are only paying lip service to climate concerns as they are too afraid of upsetting their friends in the oil industry to take any definite action (which is why I don't believe there will be any firm agreement at Copenhagen). In this world it is not governments who wield the most power but the large transnational corporations (including oil companies) who can topple governments in a blink of an eye. I find it frightening that companies such as Exxon-Mobil are richer than entire nations, in fact Exxon-Mobil was only narrowly behind Sweden in 2007 in the amount of money it made and it could have comfortably bought both Argentina and Venezuela with change to spare (comparing revenue with GDP for 2007).

[Rivelution]

George Carlin- Saving the Planet

[zweiblumen]

George Carlin- Saving the Planet

Interesting ... that was almost pure Gaia theory!

[Stephen]

in some ways we're not that far apart

I agree, and I'm happy to be proven wrong. But obviously (as I'm sure you'll agree) the science isn't settled (despite what Al Gore suggests). I just want to see a balanced argument, where a difference of opinion (based on research and analysis) isn't likened to something like holocaust denial (not a knock at you) - it's science, not religion after all.

The good news is that the main stream media here is picking this up now:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936289.ece

[racechick]

I was reading about this in the Sun day Times today. Now Im no scientist and I believe we should look after our planet and stop poluting it BUT the arguement as I see it that says earth is heating up is fimsy to say the least. The scientists that did the in intial research into climate change in East Anglia have been refusng to release reasearch data for a whole range of strange reasons:-

Oficial secrets act
Confidentiality
You have to be an academic to get the data

But they would release it to people who were supportive of their claim.
Now it turns out they have thrown it all away And the only research that remains is the altrred version where they discounted any anomolies. The graphs of the original research and the one they have based all their climate change work on look very different but now there is no real research to look at. They are saying 'you will have to trust us'. mmm trust them, after that lot of emeils. I dont think so.
There may or may not be climate change due to mans activities but it seems we are now just guessing that this is so. Oh and in the medievel times grapes grew in Britain.

Sorry if you lot knew all that. Ive given the non scientist version

[Stephen]

This is the worry racechick - much of the data is flawed, and the majority of scientific reports indicate global temperatures have fallen this century despite what our governments and MSM are telling us. And then, you have the climate models from the MET office suggesting practically the World's demise, the very same models which predicted a BBQ summer in 2009 (whoops...).

There have been some serious developments since the CRU hack - I doubt we've seen the back of 'AGW' just yet - but the counter-argument is being heard again, which can only be good for science and mankind.

[Jensonb]

Call me crazy, but I think I'm more trusting of the peer-reviewed work of trusted and experienced scientists worldwide (Who have no conceivable reason to conspire on some massive lie about this) than I am of either anonymous YouTube users making partially-informed propaganda by ignoring half the information and/or the people who watch those videos and then decide that these random anonymous people must know what they're talking about.

[Stephen]

Call me crazy, but I think I'm more trusting of the peer-reviewed work of trusted and experienced scientists worldwide (Who have no conceivable reason to conspire on some massive lie about this) than I am of either anonymous YouTube users making partially-informed propaganda by ignoring half the information and/or the people who watch those videos and then decide that these random anonymous people must know what they're talking about.

So you're suddenly against AGW then?

Much of the peer-reviewed science is critical of AGW, very little of the evidence supporting AGW is open to peer review - some of the most important evidence has even been deleted.

JB - don't be taken in by what the MSM are saying, consensus is a political term, not a scientific one. Open your mind and read some of the scientific arguments before making a decision. Here's one to start you off:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/070 ... 1161v4.pdf

[Gaz]

it can't do any harm to look at methods to stop CO2 going into the atmosphere.

Or cheaper more available fuels like fusion rather than relaying on a source of power thats not going to last much longer

Look at China and the "smog" whether that affects the earth or not its not healthy for the population living there.