Documentary: "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

guys keep it clean with out the name calling and all the other bs. This has been a good debate but it is sliding downhill fast. Keep it clean or loose it.

Global warming threatens planetary survival through destruction of wildlife habitats,flooding of coastal communities, and extreme weather conditions. It is brought on by emissions of carbon dioxide and the more potent methane and nitrous oxide from animal agriculture,which create a "Greenhouse effect."

Animal agriculture produces more greenhouse gases than automobiles also livestock farming pollutes the water more than all other activities combined.Just a little food for thought.

Thanks Robert. Guess that clears everything up.

Someone that might disagree with Robert.

www.sciencedaily.com/upi/...arming.xml

Hey Shed!

Sorry man, I got a little heated last night. I wasn't trying to offend anyone. I'm just really passionate about this debate, and sometimes have to learn how to keep it in check. Plus Rug wasn't here at the time, and frankly, I was just lonely! lol! So in fact it's Rugs fault for having to spend some 'quality time' with his girlfriend! lol! Anyway, I hope you come back!

I've kind of spent the last couple of hours reading through some of the links posted here. Wow! The one that interested me the most came from Rug, and I highly reccomend it as a facinating theory, that hasn't surfaced here yet.

nov55.com/gbwm.html

Forgive my bumbling as I am still trying to wrap my head around it but I will try to summarize it.

Experiment #1:
Fill your bathtub to the top with HOT water, close the door, and come back in one hour.

Experiment #2:
Fill your bathtub to the top with LUKEWARM water, close the door, crank your thermostat to the max and come back in 3 hours.

In the first case the hot water will quickly influence the temperature of the room. In the second case the temperature of the room will have little to no effect on the lukewarm water in 3 times the time.

The point is that a warm body of water has a much larger influence on atmosphere in an enclosed setting, than apmosphere has on a body of water in an enclosed setting.

The thesis behind this link is that within the Earth' center there are 'hot spots' in the magma. (If you take an orange, basically, its skin represents the crust of the Earth. Lower or thinner areas of the crust are under the oceans, and the higher or thicker areas are our continets.

What his theory is, is that fluctuating 'hot spots' within our liquid core, migrate from being beneath thicker areas of the crust (our land masses), to the thinner areas (our oceans). When they are situated beneath our oceans, they heat up, thus influencing the temperature of the atmosphere.

It does seem to make alot of sense if you even have a layman's knowledge of plate tectonics. Just look at a map and observe the Hawaiian Island chain. They are situated over a very thin area of crust, thus the constantly erupting volcanos. What always confussed me was that if the crust was thin, why wouldn't it be one solid island. 'Hot spot' migration in correllation with the natural shift of the Pacific plate would explain a chain of islands and not a single one.

Very interesting idea. I hope I summarized it OK. There's way more too it than that but....

www.farmusa.org.

So what is your point Robert? We should stop raising animals to eat?? Stop hunting?? Wipe out all the animals that fart/belch??

At any rate, it has nothing to do with global warming.

Ruts...Interesting read...I haven't read it all yet though.

I will respond to your question first. I never saaid a species a day so not sure where your getting that from.

Here is some info...

www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1596740.htm

web.archive.org/web/20041021105033/www.amnh.org/museum/press/feature/biofact.html

archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/23/green.century.mass.extinction/index.html

For a Canadian spin read thru the species listed...
www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/default_e.cfm

If old species are going extinct, are new and better species filling those niches? Is this not evolution?

The only evolution that has happened is that we that caused the majority of the extinction listed in SARA. Not sure if Darwin's theory involved hunting species to extinction and destroying habitat...I guess if you mean a new species filling the old niches meaning humans..your right.
For a species that according to some on this webpage has not had that much of an effect on the planet....Seems we have to a lot of species.

Here is a list of species that have gone extinct since I have been born.

www.unep-wcmc.org/latenews/extinct.html

"I have human history on my side to prove your wrong....Delepletion of natural resources, extint species and polluted fresh water. One species everyday proves you are naive and wrong. Maybe read a little and you can educate yourself." - Shedcrazy, 03/16/07 - 12:23am

"I will respond to your question first. I never saaid a species a day so not sure where your getting that from." - Shedcrazy, 03/17/07 - 9:56pm

No worries about it though.

"Yet most scientists agree that human activity is causing rapid deterioration in biodiversity. Expanding human settlements, logging, mining, agriculture and pollution are destroying ecosystems, upsetting nature's balance and driving many species to extinction." - from - archives.cnn.com/2002/TEC...index.html

So how does this link to CO2 causing global warming. Sounds like the major species extinctions are being caused by habitat loss, competition from introduced non-native species, and pollution in poorer countries. Separate issue from AGW.

Not sure if I ever said anything about humans not having any impact on the environment. If I did, I was wrong. Humans have and continue to have an impact on the environment around them but I think we are getting much better (particularly in industrialized countries) and the Earth has shown an amazing resilience at healing its wounds from pollution inflicted in earlier years...great lakes etc.

Will a changing climate affect species success and failure? I think it would be naive to assume that climate change would not favour one species over another.

To get back on topic though the question is "Is the climate change caused by humans and more specifically by increasing CO2 levels?" The answer is no. There is too much evidence against climate warming being caused by CO2 or greenhouse gases for that matter.

Is the climate change caused by humans and more specifically by increasing CO2 levels?" The answer is no. There is too much evidence against climate warming being caused by CO2 or greenhouse gases for that matter. Your ignorance has blinded you.Sober up and we can then talk.

Global warming threatens planetary survival through destruction of wildlife habitats,flooding of coastal communities, and extreme weather conditions. It is brought on by emissions of carbon dioxide and the more potent methane and nitrous oxide from animal agriculture,which create a "Greenhouse effect."

Robert, when you go fishing is your favourite method to slowly motor along in the boat while letting your hook drag along behind you? Just asking.

First off...mis-quoting and using little bits of quotes is what I expect from most of the other side not you but whatever....
Your closer to your friend Gore than you think....:lol

If you had read the post I was trying to answer Tree Guy's constent question about why people would think he was Naive by thinking that one species (humans) could have an affect on the planet/climate. I was stating a history of the human species footprint on the planet. We do effect the planet in a negative way everyday.....We do use natural resources everyday and pollute...if you want me to correct what we do everyday...feel better???

The last post was off topic but you and Tree Guy asked the questions...man oh man....:rollin

So back on topic....sorry for the sidestep but it was asked... I will try and use quotes more to make sure we are not confused on what I am talking about!!!

Will a changing climate affect species success and failure? I think it would be naive to assume that climate change would not favour one species over another.

Totally correct....We are making it perfect for humans...Well and some cockroaches....

"Is the climate change caused by humans and more specifically by increasing CO2 levels?" The answer is no. There is too much evidence against climate warming being caused by CO2 or greenhouse gases for that matter.

Well I disagree......Most evidence is very marginal and even a lot of info posted here states it will help increase global warming just not sure at what extent. I think this statement is as guilty as everyone you are acussing of being dishonest. If there was "too much evidence" then we wouldn't be having this conversation .

It's funny how much we do agree on. Essentially humans are bad and our climate has recently (200 years) warmed up somewhat. We also agree that there is an elevated level of CO2 in our atmosphere. We also agree that mankind is adding 'bad stuff' to our land, our waters, and our atmosphere.

Where we disagree is on the extent of man's effect on global warming.

Your side is saying is that the increased CO2 levels are what is causing the greenhouse effect to warm the planet up, and unless we significantly reduce our output, there will be some potentially dire consequences. A cause/effect, action/reaction argument that recent statistics (1-200 years), at first glance, seem to back up.

Our side is saying wait, maybe there are other, more significant factors at play here and statistics from within 200 years mean nothing in comparison to the overall age of the planet. Maybe the reason we are warming (in addition to increased greenhouse gasses) has something more to do with the natural cycle of Earth in releation to the ice age cycle, oceans warming, CO2 making up far less than 1% of our atmosphere, our orbit of the sun, solar activity, etc, etc. If it was as simple as what your side is claiming, why is there so much dissent and debate within the scientific community?

I understand how 'Greenhouse effect' makes perfect sense to alot of people. Many, many people have actually set foot in a real greenhouse at their local garden center and witnessed first-hand how warm they are.

What I am saying is, have you ever been in a greenhouse at night? Kind of illustrates my point.

I think the majority of people on both sides are very close in what they think or believe is behind global warming.

I doubt either side will ever be able to completely prove if it is right or wrong. I like to side with caution and do our part to reduce a very likely potienal problem (in mind!! and several thousand scientists). They are a lot of scientist studing the data and stats that are a million times better than me and still believe in it....

I am sure IPCC members won't be on this site and look at this conversations and go..."WOW, I never thought about looking past 200 yrs of data...or stepping into a greenhouse at night......we must be wrong"......

I agree with what you have said but I think you really are getting hung up with the 1% percentage by thinking it is too small of a difference. But I doubt I will ever convince you otherwise!
I do disagree with you on one comment:

If it was as simple as what your side is claiming, why is there so much dissent and debate within the scientific community?

Debate is good but like I said before there are thousands working on this problem at IPCC...And there has been a select few that have left. That happpens in most big forums over personnel differences. The only scientist that has been pointed out to me and on this site still believes in GW just not at the extent she once thought. So I am not sure why you made this statment unless your counting yourselves in the scientific community (Which is fine by me ). But I am still only get a handful of people in total!!!:rollin .

I think the simple answer is to say that greenhouse gases don't affect our climate and to carry on....

Hey Shed!

I think it is obvious that I am not a part of the scientific community! :lol However I am someone who started his education with that intent in mind (I choose a different road eventually). I still remember how studies and experiments are conducted, and nothing is 'true' in science, so to speak, until the experiment has been repeated, repeatedly!

Anyway, you are right, there are alot smarter people than us working on this. Unfortunatly there has been some much rhetoric and propaganda spewed by both sides, that it is hard for the average person to wade through, especially with a degree of bias in the media.

That is in large part why I have been accused of 'riding Rug's coattails'. I'll check out almost all of the posted links (amongst many, many other sources), but I prefer to NOT add to the crap out there. I'm am trying to absorb as much information from BOTH sides as possible, then couple it with my own personal knowledge of science, and navigate where I stand from there, I'm trying to come in here as an average human. It kind of explains some of the inconsistancies in my posts. I'm learning, and my position is evolving accordingly.

When all is said and done, I have personally changed some of the things in my life in order to leave a smaller 'footprint'. I know many people who have done the same. When you think about it, as outdoorsmen, we are ALL on the same side, just with different opinions.

Environmental awarness is at an all-time high in the public eye, and governments, business, and individuals world wide are starting to at least try to be cleaner. We may never solve the argument, but if that is the side effect of rhetoric and propaganda and questionable science, then we are all better for it!

Well here is why AGW alarmists won't debate deniers. They lose.

Check out the before and after debate results.

ker-plunk.blogspot.com/se...e%20Change

Oh and it's a pretty interesting blog this guy has from the land "Down Under". Feel free to read some of his other articles.

And you have to read this interview! It is hilarious.
ker-plunk.blogspot.com/20...ience.html

Just don't want it to end do you?

Even the US is moving on....it might be time you do...

www.enn.com/today.html?id=12411

I am glad countries and scientist are looking at ideas to counter the economy is crashing folks.....

Here you go Tree Guy...some people are looking at the Sun and Ocean...You prefer these ideas than cutting down greenhouse gases for your economy???

www.enn.com/today.html?id=12414

Just sharing some amusing articles with a bunch of friends sitting around the fire Shed. Errr, I mean sitting around the solar powered lantern shaped like a campfire.

it has been enjoyable!

Very interesting anyways....

Hey Shed, I was pretty much debated out, but I just finished reading that link you posted for me! Do you remember my last post where I said smarter people than we, were working on this? Now I'm not so sure!:eek I'm hoping you posted that for some comic relief?:lol

Yes I thought you might enjoy it with all your other Sun and Ocean talk.....You going to start making your own sun shade???:rollin

Your the one that wanted to work on other ideas and ther you go....be careful what you wish for!!! I think I will stick with trying to reduce grenhouse gases.....Even I would have a hard time debating huge sun shades!!!

If you can't laugh at your side you are in trouble....

Thanks Shed!

That was almost as amusing as talking openly about my now pregnant sister (she's doing well and says hi)!:rollin

All kidding aside, I've been in a greenhouse in the day, and I've been in a greenhouse at night. It's warmer in the day!

What I'm saying is, that you can put as many 'greenhouse' gasses into the atmosphere as you want, (and the gas we are talking about constitutes about 0.038% of our atmosphere) but without the sun there is no heat. Our sun is the single most pivotal influence in the global temperature of our planet, and to not study how it effects us is pure folly!:eek

Maybe they turned off the heat!

As stated before....and maybe more. I would think that there are scientist studying the sun. The point is we have no control over it but we do have control over emissions.

It's like defensive driving....You can't control the road conditions, you can't control the weather (I know bad example considering the topic) and you can't control other drivers....BUT you do your best to control your own driving.

Shed,

I agree 100%. However, if your house was too hot, would you open one window in your basement, or would you just turn down your thermostat?

What warms your house, closed windows, or a furnace?

:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :lol :lol I think the three of you need email.:rollin :rollin :rollin

Hey sonny101,

We are here to both amuse and educate. I am not an expert by any means but have learned alot from this thread! We are doing this to try to educate more than just ourselves, and that's why we 'keep on keeping on'.

This has been a great thread, sonny, and if (maybe you have) you take the time to read it front to back (including links), there has been some good information posted here.

This has been a great thread, sonny, and if (maybe you have) you take the time to read it front to back (including links), there has been some good information posted here.

You dum ass i have read the hole tread front to back I stand by my post use email its getting old .That hill your standing on isnt so big .PS thats 101 sonny to you .:rolleyes

Well I guess I should congratulate you on managing to live to be 101!:rollin

My only question is, if you have read the 'hole' thread back to front, why is it that the best post you can add to it is calling me a 'dum ass'? If it's getting old to you, stop reading it!

As I have said before, contribute or don't.:rolleyes

Check it!

www.coxandforkum.com/arch...01066.html