Global Warming Conference

JimiTime wrote: »

Pangs of Distress my friends. Let those who have ears listen. Man will govern himself to his injury. All the things prophesised about the world must and will come to pass. Global warming seems to be the means in which all the things Jesus told us would happen are happening. Earthquakes, natural disasters etc. Don't misquote this though, I'm not saying God is causing it, rather God knew that this would happen when Man seperated himself from him.

But isnt the country most responsible for it (US) governed by a self confessed christian

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Or a Nobel Peace prize winner who is firmly entrenched in the business of anti-carbon use. Who aslo operates a huge house and himself has a bigger ecological footprint than some small countries.

Al Gore (it sounds like him you're talking about) is not the icon on this side of the Atlantic that he is in America. Nobody cares. His hypocrisy, if hypocrisy it is, is irrelevant to us. and anyone else who takes climate change seriously.

Hero Of College wrote: »

Question: What made all the ice melt during the last ice age???

"overwhelming scientific consensus"....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:..tunrs out to be pretty bloody underwhelming!!!!

EVERYBODY should have a look at THIS:

The greenhouse effect caused the ice to melt, but it was not anthropogenic.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a fraud. Here are some lies:

1. “Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories and cars and planes and other sources of man-made carbon dioxide put together.”

This is simply wrong, as the most basic fact-check would have established.

2. The closing statement was as follows: “There will still be people who believe that this is the end of the world. Particularly when you have, for example, uh, the chief scientist of the UK telling people that by the end of the century, the only inhabitable place on the Earth, will be the Antarctic and it may, humanity may survive, thanks to some breeding couples, who moved to the Antarctic, I mean this is hilarious, it would be hilarious actually, if, if, if it weren’t so sad.”

These are not the views of the chief scientist, Sir David King. They are the views of James Lovelock. Singer appears to have confused them. Again, even a cursory fact check would have established this.

3. Almost every graph in the film was manipulated. In some cases, the time-line was extended beyond the available data, in others the curve had been smoothed to the extent that it became misleading. It looks as if these instances were deliberate attempts to fit the data to the argument.

4. The credentials of several of the scientists in the film were inflated. The worst example is Tim Ball, who is described as “Professor Tim Ball, Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg”. As far as I can discover, there is no Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. In fact he was a Professor of Geography at that university from 1988 until he retired in 1996. He has not since held an official position there or at any other university. Nor has he been granted an emeritus professorship.

Then there are the distortions by omission:

5. There is the suggestion, for example, that the standard climate model cannot explain the relative cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s. Any reputable climate scientist could have pointed out that the mechanism - global dimming - is well known and consistent with the models.

6. There is the claim that as rising temperatures, as shown in the Antarctic ice cores, pre-date rises in CO2, CO2 cannot be a driver of climate change. Again, as I suspect both you and Durkin knew perfectly well, this too is explained by the models.

7. There is the deliberate evasion of the question of funding. The film asks the contributers who have NOT received funding from the oil industry whether or not they have, and they reply in the negative. It does not ask Fred Singer, who HAS received such funding. It claims that Pat Michaels came “under attack from climate campaigners” for “conduct[ing] research which was part funded by the coal industry”. In fact, as the most cursory check would have shown, he came under attack for acting as a paid advocate for the coal industry, without declaring his interests. If you want documentary evidence for this, I can send it to you. But, again, your fact checkers - if there were any - should have found it.

Who was the scientific adviser on this film? Who were the fact-checkers? What qualifications did they have?

source: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/01/correspondence-with-hamish-mykura/