|
Please login to reply
| 5 of 5 |
|
|||||
|
[#22421]
Written by: uberbernie [14/03/2007, 19:18] |
|||||
|
i am a 3rd year geophysics student. first off i would like to say i dont believe that global warming is a human created problem. that was my belief before i watched this documentary. it is clear to me that co2 has a very minimal role in the current period of global warming. first off because greenhouse gases are not the only mechanism for heating the earth. furthermore of the greenhouse gases co2 is not actually a very important greenhouse gas. the most important greenhouse gas by far (over 95%) is water vapour. methane is also far more important, and a host of other gases. the fact is most of the co2 produced each year is not anthropogenic and infact of all the co2 produced each year about 9% is produced by humans, the rest coming from organic life volcanoes, the ocean etc etc. now if you think carefully about this the amount of co2 we are producing is 9% of 0.0054% of the atmosphere thats 0.000486% (less than half of 1000th of the atmosphere) now compare the effect that would have to the........... sun!! the utterly huge themonuclear reaction thats happening all the time. and the important thing to understand is that the sun is dynamic its constantly in flux and hectactly changing, both its magnetic and thermal outputs (which both effect us directly). thus is is not a huge cognitive leap to understand that it is going to heavily effect our planet accordingly. i know it is a common thing for people to feel that humans have a special place in the universe and have a say over most things that we are presented with. but the fact is when you are dealing with something the size of the sun we feel very insignificant. and so we should!!!! now all of the theories presented by global warming are on the assumption that co2 drives warming of the planet. when infact it is shown that through geolgical history that this is not the case as well demostrated in this show that rising/falling co2 levels are driven by the temperature. i.e the changing temperature effects the co2 levels far more than co2 effects the global temperature this is because as the oceans heat up due to the sun they release co2 (just like how cola goes flat if you heat it) therefore the co2 levels will closely match the temperature. however as correctly pointed out in the show the co2 levels follow the temperature rises and are therefor obviously not the cause of the rise in the first place. just so there is no more confusion co2 does not harm the ozone layer. it is cfc's (chlorofluorocarbon's) mainly found in aerosols and as coolant in fridges that damages the ozone and is completely different to co2 my last point is co2 is not a pollutant it is a natural gas and you certainly dont go around polluting everytime you breathe out do you? |
|||||
|
[#22487]
Written by: Sub-Zerus [14/03/2007, 22:54] |
|||||
|
no se ingles pero al que quiera intentar leerlo le vendria bien... estoy cansado de leer post de gente que no tiene idea de lo que habla... dice q es mentira seguramente xq piensa que no les va a pasar nada pero no es asi... esto va para los "yankees" que creen que estan salvados de todo... si uds y su gobierno sigue con las medidas que toma nos vamos a morir todos... "the us goverment sucks... and the worst is the people that suport it and vote... remember this when natural catastrophes ocurr in american ground" |
|||||
|
[#22600]
Written by: Cill [15/03/2007, 09:16] |
|||||
|
i don't know what the reality of the situation is. i hope i will in the future, so until then, i am willing to listen to both sides of the argument. i have read many posts on here saying that those who don't "know" or who "refuse to believe" are morons. sounds at best, extremist, at worst, ignorant. one poster actually asked why this program even got aired. the new censorship i assume. disagree and you are silenced. ironically, this is what environmentalists accuse governments of doing. now these people might be proved correct at some time but, including links to obviously "impartial" sites is not the way to convincde people that you are correct, nor is calling non- believers morons, (sort of like calling someone a heathen, savage or infidel), nor are messages such as: if you want to know all about co2 or climate change and its causes, go to e.g., w w w.enviro warrior treehuggeranticap.c o m most posters who claim to "know' the facts know nothing more than what they have read and/or been convinced of by articles they have read. the most research done by the vast majority of them is no more than clicking on an enviro site which has its own agenda(neo-marxist or anti-capitalist or anti- somethign else), or reading all the "facts" about it on wikipedia. we are always warned to not believe the hype. don't accept what you hear without checking it, question your leaders, etc.. why do people so willingly and easily accept the theory of man-made global warming but not the opposite position? it's propaganda either way. i suppose it is easy for people to dismiss certain information if it doesn't come from a "politically correct" source, however, the source doesn't always make the information right or wrong. there are a lot of things wrong in the world that humans have sole responsibility for but i am not convinced yet, that this issue of man-made global warming is one of them. my mind is still open though. p.s. eztv, i love the site. keep up the good work. |
|||||
|
[#22612]
Written by: cabarete [15/03/2007, 10:06] |
|||||
|
simple we were 2 billion with out consuming energy resources we will be 9 billion soon all consuming heavy... common sense tells me that we ara on the wrong path. my house and business runs from solar power, i'm doig my 2 cents.. are you?? |
|||||
|
[#22633]
Written by: crimson [15/03/2007, 11:59] |
|||||
|
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. |
|||||
|
[#22710]
Written by: landaishan [15/03/2007, 20:39] |
|||||
|
:{ maybe i believe in global warming again after reading crimsons post ugh im so confused! :~) |
|||||
|
[#22875]
Written by: Cpt_Sunshine [16/03/2007, 12:46] |
|||||
|
currently i am an undergraduate student at university of toronto who has been accepted into graduate school and is fully expecting to start research in remote sounding atmospheric physics. one of the things that surprised me most about this documentary were the number of canadian scientists who made appearances as climate septics, mainly because i have never heard of any of them, or read or seen reference to any paper they have published. i tried for about 10 min to find dr. tim ball contact information from the university of winnipeg to find out that he has been retired for 11 years!! certainly not on the cutting edge of climate science, i did a little more research and found this... http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball  so if these are the only "scientists" they can find to support there theory, it really shows how absurd they are being |
|||||
|
[#22881]
Written by: spevman [16/03/2007, 13:42] |
|||||
rotflmao!!!!! |
|||||
|
[#23273]
Written by: cla [19/03/2007, 07:04] |
|||||
|
ok folks: it seems that there are a few people out there who actually do not have their head up their asses on a few subjects. for the rest... a few basics: most of the bad info these days comes from college campuses which have become the most bigoted censorship-born places where the \"marketplace of ideas\" is only allowed if you agree with the majority of those present. they are totally hypocritical. that said, it\'s no wonder an aberration such as the widespread and ignorant belief in poppycock like human-influenced global warming even gets dignified, much less glorified.] now, both barrels to the argument: 1) it\'s impossible according to the laws of physics. 2) it\'s not relevant because it happens in cycles not based on human interaction. ok, now to the children in the audience: boys and girls, once upon a time people lived on the earth and we didn\'t have any modern stuff at all! i know that this may shock you, but yes, your grandpa\'s grandpa\'s grandpa didn\'t have any vehicles to ride in, or any machinery to avoid manual labor with, or anything you lazy bastards take for granted. there were no factories, industry, or anything else for that matter. guess what, we have totally solid proof not disputed by any meaningful scientific agency anywhere that the earth\'s mean temperature went down, and then went up again far more so than what was measured in the last few decades. so, here it is boys and girls: the earth actually globally warmed all by itself. humans had no \"modern\" means to influence it whatsoever, and yet it happened. go ask your teacher to research a relatively recent period in our time referred to as \"the little ice age\" and see if he/she can find that in the history books, assuming he/she can read. from what i see on college campuses as tenured professors, i wouldn\'t take that for granted, children! yelling and screaming yes, but reading, not necessarily. maybe instead you should get off your internet and actually do this research yourself, because remember, most of the internet is just pretty pictures that say whatever they who designed the site says, there is no regard for truth or accuracy, just slick looks, etc. the wackoes keep talking about \"millions of tons of carbon\" \"we\" put into the air. guess what? that\'s a) virtually nothing, considering the earth\'s atmosphere is millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of tons, and thus merely millions is so far down in the noise, we literally don\'t have the technology to measure just how little it is! scientists will tell you that for anything in a gas, measuring stuff to parts per billion is just about as low as we can go, yet, for that statement to be meaningful, we would have to have instruments that are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as sensitive as exist! can you say scam, boys and girls? notice also that it\'s \"carbon\" and not carbon dioxide? that\'s because stupid people think that when you say \"carbon\" you are referring to the image of smokestacks spewing soot. co2 is odorless, colorless, and used by plants to turn it into oxygen, the stuff we breathe. \"physics, it\'s not just a good thing, it\'s the law\" explains the rest: if you theorize the entire planet become industrialized equally [which it\'s not] and spent 24/7 putting those millions of tons of carbon into the air to momentarily put sanity aside and entertain these fool\'s notions, and did all of that for 100 years, you might raise the mean temperature of the earth by one degree! since we are only presently capable of doing a mere fraction of that, maybe you can draw your own conclusion that the present noise is a scam playing on your guilt, fear and other fud factors. another little thought: tell me how, if it matters so much, giving money to the likes of putin and russia for \"carbon credit\" exchange is actually helping anything, except of course to line the pocket of putin and russia? if al gore is correct, he is a damn hypocrit since he is the one leading not by example, but instead by elitist snobbery. let algore take the public plane, not the corporate jet if it really matters! carbon credits is just a part of the scam to separate fools and loot. either it matters or it doesn\'t. money changing hands in lieu of leading by example should clue you into you are being had. some scientists who actually measure these things notice that we are currently in the tail end of global cooling. yes, the expected trend is to yet again have some warming for the next few decades, and then it will yet again start cooling again, and there\'s literally nothing we as ego-tripping humans daring to compare ourselves to overwhelming natural forces can do anything about it. much of the bull comes from \"scientists\" who don\'t act very scientifically, i.e., they instead of using facts, use feelies. i don\'t mind that they have personal politics to the left, but that doesn\'t mean we \"feel\" our way through these decisions. there are far too many vocal groups that just want to sound off on how they feel; they don\'t have the facts. here\'s something for those of you still reading this, since i assume the kiddies have already branded me some form of one-man right-wing conspiracy by this point. there are discredited research agencies how have already been reprimanded for falsifying data in fraudulent reseach studies. they are good at one thing: computer modeling fraudulent manipulation. in essence, tell them what you want as an outcome, and they will make you a computer program that will make the outcome look real cool on a simulation. in the case of the global warming lie, they used farfetched notions and \"feedback\" factors that simply do not exist in the real world to guarantee the outcome while ignoring literally thousands of legitimate factors that would prevent the paid-for hysterical outcome their backers wanted. so, the so-called computer simulation is rigged to lie; fools believe computers regardless of this, and this is how you get politicians onboard with this nonsense. back to al gore for a little bit. his propaganda film makes you feel sorry for a polar bear that has to swim. well, guess how polar bears get to eat? they swim for and kill seals! their natural habitat has constantly shifted for untold thousands of years, as they try to stay at the edge of where the ice melts to find seals, etc. and al forgot to show you the area a few hundred miles north that is freezing up. global means global, not cherry-picked areas where natural melting is happening. some idiots believe that natural disasters are caused by global warming. the disasters, like hurrican katrina are merely the convergence of available factors at the same time. new orleans was hit by a more fierce storm in 1954, hurricane camille. it will likely be hit again, such is the geography of the us gulf region. no need to drag warming into it; this is seasonal and predictable. and if warming has to do with it, where was the storm the year before katrina? and why was this last summer not producing another katrina? simply because you have to be utterly stupid to connect these! some idiots thought the northeast usa had a mild winter was warming. the second half has already set new cold temperature records in some of this very region. they simply cannot grasp the larger concept: global temperature has nothing to do with recent isolated events. all of this was predicted years ago, partly due to the changeover from the \"el ninio\" effect to the \"la nina\" effect. these cycles also reverse periodically. one thing isn\'t gonna reverse: the money that flows towards russia and gore from fools who swallow this crap isn\'t cycling back any time now! cjl |
|||||
|
[#24894]
Written by: Meberl [26/03/2007, 18:00] |
|||||
|
it depresses me and i am scared, how people even here at eztv, who are familiar with the internet and the possibility of cross-referencing information, who in general should have a higher education and a general sense of observation fall for such cheap propaganda... as i am from europe it reminds me of a time in the past were false science was used to do terrible things and so few people tried to look it up or question what they heard or saw. maybe some of you should stop watching so many good eztv releases and start using your brains again |
|||||
|
[#24897]
Written by: Meberl [26/03/2007, 18:09] |
|||||
|
i still want to thank eztv for the great work they are doing, i believe it is important also to see such documentaries to engage in discussion and to get afterwards the right message across, although it is hard work and still a long way to go... |
|||||
|
[#40272]
Written by: Boggibill [11/06/2007, 14:19] |
|||||
|
seriously, it is obvious that we are causing global warming. after thinking about it for a while it kinda make sense. and this is very, very good. and here is why: first of all. i have to ask you, have you ever seen a polar bear? they are huge and horribly scary. in a place called svalbard they have begun to die out, and that is good. now, we don't need to be afraid of getting killed and eaten by these hideous animals anymore every time we go to bed. but then again, i don't live there so i don't really care about the polar bears. and this is exactly the reason all of you anti-global warming idiots want to stop this process of making the world a better place. now let me tell you something (and this is a fact). here where i live, we can have 3 meters with snow in a winter, and personally i would like to see that go away. with global warming, we actually have a chance, now we have found a way to prevent snow in the winter, and cold winters of course. now when this is said. i would recommend everyone to start poisoning this world, and help us turn up the heat here in north norway. give us some god damn long sought for heat! ps! i bet you people against global warming like to think about babies freezing to death!! you should be ashamed of yourself. |
|||||
|
| 5 of 5 |
|
|||||
