Comments on: global warming swindle

By: WorldExplorer

WorldExplorer — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:38:51 +0000

Its a major problem, every country should work on ways to eliminate future damage to the ozone layer in finding more natural ways of living, natural products, etc.

By: Manuel

Manuel — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:55:14 +0000

Sir Nicholas Stern calculated the economic loss of Global Warming between 5% and 25% of the global GNP, that is in the order of the trillions (10 factor 12) of dollars. Its report was released on Davos. I cannot see how we could recover from such havoc even in the optimistic scenario. Any short term gain will be quickly offset by the medium-term consequenses.

By: AdamP

AdamP — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:29:32 +0000

The issue we need to address is whether or not we should even address global warming.

If doing so would cause noticeable economic setbacks, then the best way to save human lives might be to allow global warming and use the moneys derived from CO2-producing technologies to, for instance, fight AIDS in Africa, or even common malaria and sleeping sickness.

By: Jorge Aranda

Jorge Aranda — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:05:06 +0000

Yes Manuel, but what I meant is that the social debate need not discuss *whether* there is warming and *whether* we are causing it –these are scientific matters and there is near consensus on them. A social debate on how to address this problem is, of course, warranted.

By: Manuel

Manuel — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:32:43 +0000

The social debate is caused because the implications that the matter have got for all us. While inconsistencies in gravity law are fascinating, they have no immediate repercussions on our daily life (you will still falling after slipping on a banana skin). Furthermore, there is nothing we can do to stop the Earth of going around the sun every year. Global warming has got very close consequences for us in the immediate future, and there are some actions that we can do, hence the social debate. By the way, I was wrong about Dr. Molina, he had got the Nobel prize not for his studies in global warming but for his work on the reduction of the Ozone Layer (Does anybody remember that?, I wonder which will be the next media sensation while our ice caps are melting…)

By: Jorge

Jorge — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:33:14 +0000

And, finally, the documentary even falsified temperature charts to make its argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GISS-TGGWS-temp-data-comparison.svg
…which will give you an idea of the amount of distortion going on in the film.

(Sorry to keep coming back to it, but this topic is vital for us all)

By: Jorge

Jorge — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:28:40 +0000

As an additional note, you can check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception_and_criticism

From the link:
“Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists featured in the programme, has said that he was “completely misrepresented” in the film and had been “totally misled” when he agreed to be interviewed. He called the film “grossly distorted” and “as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two.”

By: Jorge

Jorge — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:54:21 +0000

As the scientific community explores a domain, any domain, there’s bound to be an academic debate. Even in seemingly stable fields (for example, the study of gravity) there are inconsistencies, unanswered questions, and once in a while, considerable paradigm shifts.

But the debate inside most of these fields does not extend to the rest of the community. We (those of us who do not, for instance, study gravity) only take those scientific elements for which there is near consensus, and we use them in our daily lives. Though there might be an academic debate beneath, there is no social debate in these topics. There is no point in having a social debate: we do not have the knowledge nor the resources that the experts have.

It should be like that with global warming. The overwhelming majority of people that dedicate their full lives to understand our planet’s weather have concluded that it is extremely likely to be caused by our own actions. I really mean *the overwhelming majority* –there are some skeptics, for sure, though less of them every day. Most undecided scientists a few years ago have shifted their stance and now back up the majority’s conclusion. For the larger part, the academic debate is not on whether CO2 influences the weather, but on how large will the damage to the planet and to our societies be.

There is still an academic debate, and there will always be one. But there should not be a social debate: we shouldn’t second guess the experts, and their instructions are clear. It even makes pragmatic sense: if we listen to the majority of experts and they are wrong, we will suffer a minor economic setback; but if we do not listen to them and they are right, we’re in for one awful ride.

A 75 minutes documentary might convince some lay people, but if the majority of experts remain unconvinced, that tells us something important about the gullibility of those lay people and the ease with which their perceptions are manipulated.

By: Manuel

Manuel — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:39:20 +0000

Martin Durkin is known for his innacurate documentals and should not be a reference. I will watch the video, but, since 1980, Carl Sagan predicted a possible greenhouse environment for earth due to an increase of CO2 and Sulfer Acid on the athmosphere, that after reviewing the outcome of the Venera’s project on Venus. Mexican Dr Molina won the Nobel Prize of chemistry I think in 1999 precisely for his works in the 80’s predicting Global Warming. My own studies in sustainability shown that, even with El Ni√±o and the increased Solar Activity, the change is too great. Hence I think the video will be no more than bollocks. With the rise of China and its amount of coal consumption, the greenhouse emissions won’t decline soon…

By: Tek

Tek — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 04:46:56 +0000

Wiki on Martin Durkin

Director of the Anti-Global Warming Film “The Great Global Warming Swindle ”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

============