The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Bart007]

Is Global warming occuring because humans iin the 20th century are filling our atmosphere with enormous amounts of CO2? Or is it politicians manipulating the voting public using fear?

Yes, we are experiencing global warming. It is caused by changes in radiaition output in the sun. It is not caused by humans emmiting CO2 in the Atmosphere.

Al Gore is completely wrong, over 18,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition rejecting Al Gore's claims that humans are the cause of Global warming.

Most probable cause of the recent global warming is changes in radiation from the sun.

We are currently undergoing global warming, this has been ongoing since 1900 AD. We just came out of the mini ice age that occurred from 1370 AD until 1900 AD. We have a ways to go before we reach the global temperatures that we had 1,000 years ago. Greenland was actually green back then. Perhaps it was the more violent storms on the Atlantic that delayed the discovery of America by Europeans until 1492 (aside from the viking explorers and settlers that came to Greenland and North America).

In the medieval global warming, England was wine country, the Vikings and Sweden had population explosions and they necame world powers. Greenland was green and the vikings had settlements on the coast of Northern Greenland. There was a mini ice age before and after the Medieval warm period. Prior to the dark ages ice age, there was a Roman warm period that was much warmer than the temperatures today.

Some politicians and their allies tend to replace science with scare tactics in an effort to rally people behind them and thereby influence election outcomes.

here: watch, listen, learn, and enjoy.

[Katsuro]

Yes, humans are not responsible for global warming so we should continue polluting the planet and adding to the problem.

18,000? I don't know how many scientists there are in the US, but I suspect 18,000 is a very,very small minority. Also, were all those 18,000 in relevant fields of scientific study? And how many of them were Christian "scientists"?

[Confused]

While I am the first to say I can't stand Al Gore and still think he doesn't warrant practicing law let alone running a government, I will have to say that while Global Warming may be in part due to natural causes, we can't distinguish how much of it is from nature and how much is from man. We can't deny the impact that pollution can play. But in reality, we may just be postponing the inevitable if the majority of the warming is due to nature.

[methylatedghosts]

If the world is supposed to be warming up, why then, did we have icebergs float up past Dunedin, NZ from Antarctica? Wouldn't they have melted.....????

This was in late November/early December. Thats summer for us

[bernee51]

If the world is supposed to be warming up, why then, did we have icebergs float up past Dunedin, NZ from Antarctica? Wouldn't they have melted.....????

This was in late November/early December. Thats summer for us

If the earth was not warming they may not have broken of the ice shelf in the first place.

[Goat]

If the world is supposed to be warming up, why then, did we have icebergs float up past Dunedin, NZ from Antarctica? Wouldn't they have melted.....????

This was in late November/early December. Thats summer for us

No, because of the mass of the iceberg.

It is because of the warming that the number of icebergs are increasing, since the antartic shelves are breaking up.

It take a while for something the size of texas to melt

[WelshBoy]

Bart,

My first contention is that I can't understand WHY the politicians would be manipulating the public. What is their motive? Since governments have to expend vast sums of money in public campaigns, in changing our energy consumption habits and introducing renewable energy sources (amongst other things), if their was actually no benefit I would find it hard to understand why the governments would do so.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?

[QED]

Bart,

My first contention is that I can't understand WHY the politicians would be manipulating the public. What is their motive? Since governments have to expend vast sums of money in public campaigns, in changing our energy consumption habits and introducing renewable energy sources (amongst other things), if their was actually no benefit I would find it hard to understand why the governments would do so.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?

There's a very considerable motive: The political situation in the Middle East is a serious issue for the security of the economy in the West. Dependency on this region and the former USSR for oil supplies is a strategic nightmare for European and American Governments. I strongly suspect that the public is being manipulated in ways that will get them used to the measures required to reduce energy consumption and accept the levies that will be necessary to secure "home-grown" energy.

Politicians always prefer to tell a half-truth than an outright lie and in this case they have the perfect opportunity. Industrially produced greenhouse gasses will have an effect on climate, but one that is easily swamped by what the Sun is doing. The underlying cause of the current phase of global warming would be virtually impossible to disentangle from the natural cyclic variations due to solar radiation. The mean global temperature naturally has its ups and downs which, since being monitored, has closely correlated with solar activity.

Ironically there's a conceivable danger in reducing the burning of fossil fuels: The particulate matter (soot etc.) generated by the burning of fossil fuels has been shown to filter out some of the sunlight and hence offset the effects of the warming. This effect has been identified as Global Dimming. This could actually be ameliorating the effects of increased solar radiation. I think this just goes to show how complex this subject is and how it needs to be addressed with an impassionate, apolitical approach.

[Furrowed Brow]

Bart,

My first contention is that I can't understand WHY the politicians would be manipulating the public. What is their motive? Since governments have to expend vast sums of money in public campaigns, in changing our energy consumption habits and introducing renewable energy sources (amongst other things), if their was actually no benefit I would find it hard to understand why the governments would do so.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I think you need to ask whose money they are spending? Then ask yourself if politicians could not raise taxes what is the purpose to them? Then ask yourself if a taxation system, whilst needed for all the obvious reasons, is not also a form of power. The larger the politicians budget the more powerful they become. Then ask yourself once that money begins to get spent, how many people are employed directly or indirectly by that spend. Do they have a personal investment in seeing that spend continue.

It dawned on me only recently that we are undergoing a political sea change. It was only a small matter. I pay £1200 year council tax. Approximately 5% of my gross income. This money goes towards many things. Collecting my refuse being one. Thus I pay for this service. And I vote in local elections for who I believe will spend my money best.

However, I now have a green bin, a brown bin, and three separate boxes for paper, glass, and plastics. If the wrong item goes in the wrong box or bin I get a letter threatening future fines. Remember this is a service I pay for through my taxes. Not only that I have to place all my boxes and bins on the edge of my property. Otherwise it will not be collected. Now on the edge of my property people passing tend to put their own bits of rubbish in my bin. Which is a good thing because they are not littering. Though they can be careless as to which bin or box they drop their litter. And then I get another letter from the council threatening a fine.

My moment of epiphany came when I suddenly realised that my local council was no longer there to serve my interests, but I existed to serve their purposes.

What turns my growing collection of bins and boxes into an Kafkaesh insanity is that I have learnt that all our refuse is then processed, is eventually all put back together. The separation of refuse is being forced by government targets. But their is insufficient reclamation infrastructure in place; and to top it off, there is also some doubt over whether attaining the necessary infrastructure will create another set of environmental problems that offset the ones it would put in place to resolve.

I pointed this out to a council worker, who smiled, then told me to make sure I had the right rubbish in the right bin/box or I'd get a fine.

Here endeth the rant.

[QED]

Don't get me started on council tax FB. My bill is a third of my current pension Someone somewhere has deemed that my lifelong plans to tend a moderately large garden in retirement is something that is only practical for an elite few in our modern society.

But what about the Swindle? Do you think Bush would have begun conceding his Texan Birthright to Fossil Fuels if it wasn't for the overriding politics of international oil supply?