Just to underline the development of co2 in the past and today.....the tiny red line on the right is the development of the past years (bmp image).
And some other attachments for you, thats not all solar wind.
The last diagramm shows the full diagramm ( i like to show full diagramms) which some scientists referred in the film, there you can see that in late 20th century(1980) the correlation is not there (sorry its only in german).
Datas differe and is author dependend and on the age of publication.
Ah, that was good, we made loads of cash from customers that were panicking after Christmas day realising they need updates and make sure they are not affected, emergency service, emergency price
I urge everyone to watch both films, go and look up the science for yourself, go and look up the arguements and counter arguements, and then draw your own conclusions from that. Don't just watch one of them and take it as the truth.
If you can't be bothered to search for yourself then use Wikipedia, it has all the arguements and counter arguements, with the links to studies backing them up.
BTW sorry shotglass if i drew the wrong conclusions from what you said, i was responding more to Als generalisation of your post.
Sure, why don't you just call me ignorant. What I actually meant, well, you can't say what to believe, anyone could make up some statistics and put any numbers they like there. Wait a sec and I'll show you :P
9 out of 10 people posting in this thread like cheese, I am an important scientist so I am right.
Actually 5/10 people prefer artificial cheese so his findings are totally incorrect, I am more important than him so I am right.
Both of them are wrong, nobody likes cheese because I don't like cheese and I should know, I'm from the media after all.
Something like that Blackout? Its hard to know what to believe because your always relying on other peoples research and opinions, and the majority isnt always right either
My personal opinion is that we are having a bad effect on the enviroment, although the majority of that is from over exploitation of natural resources to fuel the massive population growth in developing nations. The Earth will be ok no matter what we do because nature is cleverer than us, the thing we need to do is save civilisation and ensure our progress as a species is safe.
Yes I know that was meant as a jokey sarcastic responce to Als post, I apologised for that in a previous post, sarcasm isnt always an easy thing to express in text. I studied German at school, I only know a few swear words and I can't even spell them!
I looked the word up before I posted, mis-spelling million as milliard doesn't make sense so I checked. The comment that you couldn't spell million was intended as a sarcastic joke, sorry if you interpreted it as an attack on you in anyway.
I was trying to say that theres strong arguements for both sides and that we should research both before drawing personal conclusions and expressing them here.
Sorry, my sense of humour is a little warped at times
Yes, that's what I mean. It's not a fun feeling when you don't what to think when you know you should. But it seems that all people in this thread can agree that environment should be protected. Which is great.
Anyway enough of all that...now, the latest study on global warming by the captured Chinese scientist in our attic. It proves that LFS makes Earth cooler
I'm sorry chaps, but any of you that watched the Channel 4 "documentary" and believed it should take it with a mountain of salt. The producer, Martin Durkin is just a sensationalist - apparently desperate to get his name in lights.
Make a cuppa, read this page: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php (should be titled "Pure Propaganda - The Great Global Warming Swindle"). The article goes through the figures the program used and compares them to a wider picture.
What's most interesting for me are the quotes from the scientists featured on the program:
"I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled." (Carl Wunsch). You can read his response here: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response
I don't know if there is or isn't global warming. I won't be paying attention to this kind of "journalism" though.
Christofire have you watched those BBC 2 programs about conspiracys? They are almost as bad, coming to conclusions while ignoring some very key points.
Like the whole 9/11 conspiracy one they used no actual science, just the opinions of random people then got some shrink to say if you think its a conspiracy your just mentally ill (basically saying we want to believe that a small group of people can't do these things, and its to satisfy some mental need we have)
I have seen videos on youtube posted by complete idiots who just scream about the USA being awesome that produced better arguements.
Thats why I said earlier, I don't trust the media at all...we should all have died from SARS or Bird Flu by now according to them.
I have this deep, innate suspicion of anything produced by mainstream media outlets (except by SBS TV down here, though they're not really mainstream). Considering that the major US media outlets, distributing info to 300 million people are owned by five men and it's almost as bad in Oz, surely you can't expect anything they produce to be impartial.
I definitely think it's best to avoid any "documentary" that's basically bought and paid for by the fossil fuel lobby (aka the Republicans).
From the above Media Lens article:
Just the phrase "neo-conservative" should set off a few alarms...
Clearly this POS is a propaganda piece, a knee-jerk reaction to Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth. Right-wing media hit-men are great at this kind of shit - don't hit back with your own honest research (because if it was honest & impartial it would more or less match up with your opposition), just throw in enough doubt & half-truths to keep people confused and split down the middle so the discussion cannot proceed. Forget that your material might be utter bollocks, it'll act as a doorstop to meaningful, honest discussion and the pirate bastards who own you can continue harvesting the world behind the scenes. Don't try and argue the case, just throw gravel in the gears and slow down the discourse so you can grab what you can while you can.
Warming and cooling are natural cycles of this planet's climate but aren't that well understood in the public mind because they can last millenia and aren't regular like the seasons more or less are. Most scientists (real ones who are chasing facts, not bribed/soulless salesmen in lab coats who are just spruiking for oil companies) will tell you that the question is not whether warming is actually happening, but how severley the activities of humans are affecting it. The general scientific consensus seems to point to us not actually causing the warming, but quite probably making it more severe than it would've been without us.
Documentaries like the above hit-piece should be taken with a giant lake of salt. A few tons from Lake Bonneville oughta do it.
Yes, whenever we speak of an ecological balance, or of saving the planet, its not often aknowledged that what's really meant is a balance that favours continued human activity - not so much saving the planet as conserving an economy in which we are comfortable.
This is why questions of 'nature' are always political, cultural, and economic questions and why, Hankstar, you are so eloquently right to sound a warning over that documentary. There are no right or wrong answers to this conundrum, only solutions that benefit one class over another, one country over another, one ideology over another.
The planet will exist until the sun exhausts the hydrogen at its core and expands to engulf most of the solar system. Not being conscious, it doesn't care what we do in the meantime.
Planet itself may be so long, but what about life on planet? There is already areas that our actions have made lifeless, we can easily destroy half of life from planet in less than one generation. We can make living on planet rather difficult.
We have pretty damn good area to live in here Europe, but go to visit some other places and see how people won't have clean water to drink, how plants will die and how desert will cover more and more area. Go to safari to Africa and compare that to time before WW2 what you can read from books.
We sure have changed a lot and it does matter what we do, after 50 years at least I still like to get clean water from tap and I would like to see trees and lakes as I do now.
In my opinion we're actually looking at 2 issues and people are getting very confused trying to apply one argument to them both.
1: The mess we (humans) are making of the planet.
2: "Global warming tm" or to be more specific "Whats going on ?"
Most of the arguements here address problem 1 and most of them are intelligent ( except nuclear power, can you say NUCLEAR WASTE and HALFLIFE ( no, not the game those of you in the back row ))
Anything we can do to clean up the mess we are making and ensure EVERYONE has the basics of enough food and water and education really should be our focus as a race ( Humanity in total )
Problem 2 is a bit more complicated, CO2 levels DO NOT reflect expected outcomes. Global warming is a great buzz phase and it's making lots of money for certain people but it is a theory, that is open to challenge as are all theories.
It must also be remembered that scientists are unsure how the sun actually works.
The nuclear sun theory IS NOT PROVED, in fact it has huge holes in the theory, as an example to explain the lack of neutrinos from the sun they magicly transform themselves into something else on the trip from sun to earth.
If we don't understand how the sun works then how can we understand global warming ??
Hi. Years ago, I used to work in the field of environmental remediation.
Know what that is? It's a fancy assed way of saying toxic trash man.
I don't know about global warming and co2 emissions being related
they might be they might not. Anyways, i'll say this. we're going to slowly run out of room to safely dispose of the crap we make now. Not just nuclear and biological wastes, but heavy metals. to be honest, nuclear and bio wastes should be a non issue. we just don't generate enough at this time. but chemical wastes is a whole other story. when you think of every thing from nail polish to dirty brake fluid to heck, even dirty dish water being generated and most of it not regulated for disposal, a couple of fluorocarbons or an unstable isotope or two seems like small potatoes.
Also, I wish alot more thought would be used by Gov't.s concerning environmental laws. most are Knee jerk reactions that do more harm than good.
Like lead in paint. The banning of lead in paint in modern times is based on paint formulas not used since the 1950's. Lead used to be a pigment, used in white paint. it was later used as a drier and a bonding agent? (hence less lead used) but they banned it. And they replaced it with a chemical that's a carcinogenic. (!!! can't remember the name)
I don't have any trust for so-called environmental groups either. To me, they are the left-wing equivalent to televangelists and fundamentalists.
But I wouldn't hold a bunch a stock in this documentary either. I mean, who came up with the money to produce this? LOL I bet it wasn't Greenpeace.
I dunno, We still need to come up with cleaner more efficient ways of doing things. Global warming or not, if we don't come up with something soon, about 3 or 4 generations down are going to feel the effects.
There's a book I read a few years back called "Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things", by an architect (William McDonough) and Chemist (Micheal Braungart). For me it was a great way to start to think about what should happen to things after they pass their use by date, and designing consciously to make recycling of industrial products and wastes easier.
If any of you guys are chemists or designers, I really recommend it.
edit: re- global warming. It does seem very hard to get straight facts. The deception from both sides of the argument can get pretty heavy. If we wanted to be intellectually honest, it would maybe be best just to say 'don't know'. To dismiss the whole argument as green propaganda is unjust IMO. But not being able to question theory is unfair as well. The truth, like most things, lies somewhere in the middle (probably ).
Actually there's a third issue and that really concerns me, its the manipulation of these situations by the lobbyists and politicians in order to gain power/money from the common folk by exploiting their ignorances, feeding in to them little bits of the story as best fits their cause. That's what I really despise.
