The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming!

PopHistorian

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
If anyone needs a fast synopsis of how global warming can cause a rapid ice age, see the Mega Science series on the Science Channel (USA) episode called Fast Frozen Future.

(http:/)/science.discovery.com/tvlistings/episode.jsp?episode=12&cpi=87190&gid=0&channel=SCI

It reports on these ice cores and also seabed sediment tests that corroborate the two abrupt global shifts. The program made it clear that these rapid coolings happened in the midst of global warming. Not only are we on a natural upswing in warming, but human activity is exacerbating this extremely. They ended by saying that if enough ice melts and the ocean current "pump" stops, we could drop into the deep freeze in as little as ten years. If they are underestimating the impact of human activity, it could be faster than that.
 

Tigersoap

The Living Force
Check this article out

hxxp://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1999974,00.html


TITLE : UN's vast report will end the scientific argument. Now will the world act?

Three year study by panel of experts published this week will kick off tortuous negotiations on new emissions treaty to replace Kyoto agreement in 2012...

...The report raises the prospect of severe melting of Arctic ice this century and the Greenland ice sheet over the next few hundred years, but dismisses the common myth that a change in Atlantic ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream could plunge Europe into a new ice age. Increased global warming will swamp any small cooling effects, it says. The much colder Antarctic ice sheet is predicted to grow with increased snowfall to 2100, offsetting about 0.1m of sea level rise.
Well nothing to worry about then ;)
 

Ocean

Jedi Council Member
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/08032007/344/global-warming-swindle-exposed.html

The theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change have been largely ignored, according to a documentary being screened on Thursday night.

Changes in the Earth's climate may be better explained by the sun's radiation rather than the carbon dioxide emissions from our cars, homes and factories, argues Martin Durkin, whose film is being shown on Channel 4.

Swings in the planet's temperature took place long before the burning
(Advertisement)
of fossil fuels, say experts in The Great Global Warming Swindle.

So the "single-minded focus" on cutting carbon emissions may have little impact on climate change - but could stifle the development of poorer countries which cannot afford other ways of producing energy.

A number of "leading" scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus on the greenhouse effect were brought together for the film, said its producers.

It features nine professors from institutions including the space agency Nasa, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur and the universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

Speaking in the documentary, climatologist Tim Ball said: "The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have. They said if CO2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up.

"But the ice core record shows exactly the opposite, so the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong."

Increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and this alternate view is rarely heard, argue experts in the film.

Professor and director of the Earth System Science Center John Christy said: "I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true."
 

Ben

Jedi Council Member
I for one am slightly puzzled as to why the mainstream media have decided to introduce people to this idea, but I suppose it remains to be seen just exactly what spin they will put on it and what conclusions are drawn about what we should actually DO with this information.
 

Niall

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I've just watched the 'Great Global Waming Swindle' on the UK's Channel 4. As per usual with prime-time tv's cutting-edge researchy documentaries, I was left thinking, "is that it? is that as far as you're gonna go?! COME ON, there's soo much more to this than you're letting on!"

So much about the documentary was spot on - the fallacy of 'CO2 emissions' causing global warming, pointing to the sun as primary catalyst for weather pattern changes, highlighting how the politicisation of the issue coupled with the media-induced hysteria cultivated a self-reinforcing 'industry', nay religion, with its preachers and its heretics, how pressurising developing countries to take on solar and wind energy is tantamount to telling them they cannot have electricity - but I was left with a nagging suspicion that the program was tasked simply with killing the issue flat, reassuring skeptics that this 'global warming malarky' is all a load of hot air. Temperatures go up, temperatures go down. Ice sheets expand, ice sheets recede. Basically, move along please folks, nothing to see here! Nevermind the wealth of information indicating definite underlying change taking place on our planet, it'll be just business as usual... The devil is in the details as Ark likes to say, and TV doesn't do details.

Which got me thinking about this 'CO2 emissions' nonsense. From what I saw in the documentary, it is easily dismantled as a theory. Could it be that it is such a ridiculous proposition, that it was set up to be knocked down? In the process subverting people from paying attention to the signs?
 

Azur

The Living Force
starsailor said:
Which got me thinking about this 'CO2 emissions' nonsense. From what I saw in the documentary, it is easily dismantled as a theory. Could it be that it is such a ridiculous proposition, that it was set up to be knocked down? In the process subverting people from paying attention to the signs?
Or it could be a side-winder issue that is setup to introduce "helpers from space carrying gifts". That has made the rounds lately in the press, viz. the article about defense ministers saying "we need the alien tech to save ourselves".

Whether Global warming is natural or not, everybody seems to have side-stepped a REAL issue caused by man: uncontrolled pollution (not only greenhouse gasses) and it's devastating affects on humans and everything else alive, all in the name of producing trinkets. Every other child between ages 2 and 5 are asthmatic, it seems. You never saw that before (at least we never heard about it).
 

Isabel

The Force is Strong With This One
It appears that controversy is possibly flaring.

http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.pdf
Comment on the London Channel 4 TV film "The Great Global Warming Swindle (pdf)

“…I was led to believe that I would be given an opportunity to explain why I, like some others, find the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful….

“In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be
very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making---which is that global warming is both real and threatening."

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/durkinemails

These are “interesting" :)

Also, here –
http://griperblade.blogspot.com/2007/03/global-warming-swindle-is-ironically.html

the director’s – Martin Durkin - credibility is called into question.

“… The video was directed by Martin Durkin. Durkin's history is bad. He's basically the British version of John Stossel. In 1997, he produced a documentary, titled Against Nature, which was nothing but an anti-evironmental screed. The claims made in that video quickly fell apart as interviewees for the piece complained that they were taken out of context and misrepresented as critics of environmentalism…."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)
also addresses Durkin’s controversiality but the neutrality of the article is disputed.
 

OCKHAM

Jedi
Here is the only complete online video of the film, "The Great Global Warming Swindle". The link in the SOTT article did not work, and the google video has the timing off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

A few hours ago, the Independent posted this double-speak?

The real global warming swindle

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. By Steve Connor
Published: 14 March 2007

A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public.

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.

Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent.

Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate.

The main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.

One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.

Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere" temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.

However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

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

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.
 

Third_Density_Resident

Jedi Council Member
Okay, so now I'm quite confused. I watched the Channel 4 "Swindle" program, thought it brought up some very interesting points, and agreed with the misinformation relating to the 800-year lag of carbon dioxide levels behind temperature. However I got the feeling that the overall purpose of the program was to set up an anti-environmentalist, anti-conservation argument for the benefit of those who would just like to go on destroying the earth through deforestation, pollution etc. -- issues that are of great concern even if they DON'T cause global warming.

I saw a program "Against Nature", by the same person, Martin Durkin, a couple of years ago, and was appalled at some of the conclusions it was drawing. Once again, I felt it was making the same argument as the "Swindle" program was -- pollute, use pesticides, chop down as many trees as you want, don't worry about a little thing called "biodiversity" because there's no scientific proof it has any value, etc., etc. In this program "Against Nature", as has seemingly occurred in the "Swindle" program, information was presented misleadingly, dishonestly and often taken completely out of context. They even interviewed one woman while she was sitting on a toilet! At first I thought the whole thing had to be a parody of some sort, until I realised with shock that it was all genuine (or should that be IN-genuine?). I know for a fact that the people interviewed in this "documentary" were equally disgusted as some of those in "Swindle". The point is, this director, Martin Durkin, has a track record of dishonesty and disingenuity, and the fact that in the recent "Swindle" program he once again misled -- using outdated graphs from unreliable sources and then tweaking them -- not only reinforces his dishonesty, but shows, with clarity, that he has a definite agenda.

I DO believe that global warming is real. And I DO believe that there is a definite natural component to it. But I also am open to the possibility that humans may be contributing to it also (even if we contribute to only 1% of all carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year, and even though this TOTAL carbon dioxide makes up LESS than 1% of all gases in the atmosphere, and even if the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour which is present in amounts up to 5 times that of carbon dioxide). But if humans are not contributing to global warming, then we are certainly contributing to a whole range of other environmental disasters, some of which I've already mentioned, and which have been completely ignored by this latest piece of misinformation.
 

ArdVan

Jedi
Azur said:
Whether Global warming is natural or not, everybody seems to have side-stepped a REAL issue caused by man: uncontrolled pollution (not only greenhouse gasses) and it's devastating affects on humans and everything else alive, all in the name of producing trinkets. Every other child between ages 2 and 5 are asthmatic, it seems. You never saw that before (at least we never heard about it).
It's IMO to easy to say that children get asthma because of the pollution of the environment. Maybe. Maybe only a little part. Maybe it's even a complex issue.

When the German Democratic Republic ceased to exist at the beginning of the 90's the was some discussion about little children living in a more polluted environment than the West, but have having almost no asthma. A few years later after the fall the numbers of children with asthma in Eastern Germany started to rise.

The theory derived was, that the children's parents in the GDR did let their children play more with dirt at early age. The children were able to mess around with dirt, and of course sometimes eat some dirt, because they put their hands in the mouth. So the still unconditioned body defenses of the young children were activated and learned to fight against the real danger.

Now I remember that I loved playing in a sandbox with other children and especially pouring water into it to make wet sand. When we children came home we were of course very dirty and wet. Of course our parents complained sometimes but it was a normal thing to do.

So, is this kind of play still done, or isn't it so today, that the children aren't any more allowed to make themselves dirty. Mother is always running around cleaning everything to make it shine and proper. Cleaning here children's faces with towels and detergents. And if she doesn't do it, she will be accused by the neighbors of neglect.

Can you imagine a suburb with all those clean, shiny and overpriced houses, a group of children playing with dirt?

The babies bodies today have no chance to learn what they have to defend against. So no wonder that asthma is rising, IMO.
 

PopHistorian

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Just a couple of general, not-very-specific observations I made on global-warming controversy flaring recently. While web-searching on another topic I came across two new books that attempt to debunk it. Whenever I look at foxnews web site or turn on the channel they are presenting debunkers of global warming -- they are really pushing it hard as a "divisive left-wing idea." CNN today (no link on the site I could find, though) reported on a high-level break within the US Evangelical church, which is staunchly against any suggestion that global warming will make any difference to us -- apparently some are coming around to possible acceptance of it as real. I recalled one of the mothers in the Jesus Camp movie who home-schooled her child, drilling him to repeat why global warming was phony.
 

Azur

The Living Force
ArdVan said:
Azur said:
Whether Global warming is natural or not, everybody seems to have side-stepped a REAL issue caused by man: uncontrolled pollution (not only greenhouse gasses) and it's devastating affects on humans and everything else alive, all in the name of producing trinkets. Every other child between ages 2 and 5 are asthmatic, it seems. You never saw that before (at least we never heard about it).
It's IMO to easy to say that children get asthma because of the pollution of the environment. Maybe. Maybe only a little part. Maybe it's even a complex issue.

When the German Democratic Republic ceased to exist at the beginning of the 90's the was some discussion about little children living in a more polluted environment than the West, but have having almost no asthma. A few years later after the fall the numbers of children with asthma in Eastern Germany started to rise.

The theory derived was, that the children's parents in the GDR did let their children play more with dirt at early age. The children were able to mess around with dirt, and of course sometimes eat some dirt, because they put their hands in the mouth. So the still unconditioned body defenses of the young children were activated and learned to fight against the real danger.

Now I remember that I loved playing in a sandbox with other children and especially pouring water into it to make wet sand. When we children came home we were of course very dirty and wet. Of course our parents complained sometimes but it was a normal thing to do.

So, is this kind of play still done, or isn't it so today, that the children aren't any more allowed to make themselves dirty. Mother is always running around cleaning everything to make it shine and proper. Cleaning here children's faces with towels and detergents. And if she doesn't do it, she will be accused by the neighbors of neglect.

Can you imagine a suburb with all those clean, shiny and overpriced houses, a group of children playing with dirt?

The babies bodies today have no chance to learn what they have to defend against. So no wonder that asthma is rising, IMO.
I agree with you here. It is certainly is very more complex than meets the eye. I also agree that kids these days are "overclean". We've always had this in mind, from the start. It was one of the reasons we moved to the country. More stuff to do outside, with less concrete and cars.

But when I said pollution, I was also thinking of the polluted food. There are so many findings out there, including false ADD due to poor diet. An absolutely scary book to read, detailing the loss of nutrients in vegetables can be found here:

http:(slashes)www*amazon*com/End-Food-Industry-Destroying-Supply/dp/1569803021/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-4330028-7411127?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173929834&sr=8-1


Cheers.
 

Peto

Jedi
After watching the recent development with the documentary, it appears to me that the film is another move designed to set it up in order to knock it down with regard to global warming. The film advocates the "global warming as a natural cycle" camp but with phony data and misrepresented and out-of-context quotes. Then soon after, the debunkers come out in force, the guy who's been misquoted files a complaint, etc. and no one will pay attention to any further argument that the global warming is a natural cycle. How many times have we seen this patterns?
 

Third_Density_Resident

Jedi Council Member
ArdVan said:
It's IMO to easy to say that children get asthma because of the pollution of the environment. Maybe. Maybe only a little part. Maybe it's even a complex issue.
With regard to asthma, there is actually a strong link between vaccines and asthma and other respiratory illnesses. This is probably the main cause of asthma in fact, as it is with autism, SIDs, etc., etc.
 

stardust

Jedi Master
Asthma can be also an allergic reaction. And allergies are increasing.

It is sure that the immunitary system is not well prepared if it can't face since childhood to what is naturally in environnement. You can see some children in poor countries who drink every day very polluted water and even if they catch deseases - they still survive... If us, westerns, make that, I 'm not sure we could do so!

We have been learned to fight against bacterias, instead of learning how living with.
We are all carriers of staphylococcus for exemple. But these germs are not becoming pathogenic for all.

The question of chemical pollution is different, however. I don't believe we could make a mithridization of all this "soup"!
These products are like "aliens" for the body and it doesn't know what to do with, how react.
 
Top Bottom