Communists don't want you to believe in global warming
<div class="IPBDescription">Really, no joke.</div>Thought this was just hilarious <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
UK documentary about global warming being a hoax
And yet the show is entirely filled with <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece" target="_blank">disproven science </a> and conspiracy theories.
Well turns out the show's producer is a diehard Communist
A longtime member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and the group Living Marxism
Lol, posted a rebuttal to this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0qlXDkRKxE&mode=related&search=" target="_blank">on youtube</a>
but it's not quite as funny as the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=martin+durkin+Communist" target="_blank">fact that Martin Durkin is a flaming Communist </a> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
UK documentary about global warming being a hoax
And yet the show is entirely filled with <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece" target="_blank">disproven science </a> and conspiracy theories.
Well turns out the show's producer is a diehard Communist
A longtime member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and the group Living Marxism
Lol, posted a rebuttal to this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0qlXDkRKxE&mode=related&search=" target="_blank">on youtube</a>
but it's not quite as funny as the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=martin+durkin+Communist" target="_blank">fact that Martin Durkin is a flaming Communist </a> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Comments
Man, how amazingly right you are!
EDIT-
Jupiter and Mars are experiencing same/similar climate changes as we are.
Earth's magnetic field has decreased by 7%-10% over the past ~150years. This will increase amount of radiation received from the sun and thus will increase temperature.
How do you explain previous ice ages and whatnot?
I dispise al gore even more now for his foolish crusade.
Not to mention, it's kinda fun to call that documentrary not just <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece" target="_blank">disinformation</a>
But "Communist Propaganda" ! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
_
<!--quoteo(post=1616079:date=Mar 21 2007, 07:24 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jimmeh @ Mar 21 2007, 07:24 PM) [snapback]1616079[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Jupiter and Mars are experiencing same/similar climate changes as we are.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhm, nope.
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192" target="_blank">That ones been debunked.</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1616079:date=Mar 21 2007, 07:24 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jimmeh @ Mar 21 2007, 07:24 PM) [snapback]1616079[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Earth's magnetic field has decreased by 7%-10% over the past ~150years.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hrmm, new one on me. <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282336.html" target="_blank">I'll give that a look.</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1616079:date=Mar 21 2007, 07:24 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jimmeh @ Mar 21 2007, 07:24 PM) [snapback]1616079[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
This will increase amount of radiation received from the sun and thus will increase temperature.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it does increase the vulnerability to solar rays apparently. Good to know.
But all the sources I've seen have shown <a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666" target="_blank">decreases in solar radiation since about the 1940's.</a>
<img src="http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
<!--quoteo(post=1616079:date=Mar 21 2007, 07:24 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jimmeh @ Mar 21 2007, 07:24 PM) [snapback]1616079[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
How do you explain previous ice ages and whatnot?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well normal ice ages happen over a course of about 100,000 years.
Real catch is we have almost double the CO2 now than we've ever had in 650,000 years.
And we gained it all within the last 150 years.
And so far we're experiencing warming about <a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335" target="_blank">10x faster </a> than what could be considered Natural.
_
Got any more?
The magnetic poles switch periodically on a rather short geologic time scale, and I don't really see any particular reason why the magnetic field should just suddenly die off instead of just switching (...so I have no idea what the fear-pandering descriptions in that ultimately useless article are getting at). I do think it's exciting to think that I might bear witness to a rare geologic event (...if Yellowstone also blows, all the cooler).
The simple use of referring the entirety of that program as disinformation is a bit of a disservice. While it may not be the most scientifically accurate 'documentary' out there, it does bring up some particularily valid points about research in environmentalist fields. The "writing a paper about squirrels compared to writing a paper about squirrels and the relation to global warming" bit I find particularily relevant.
I also like how Al Gore's <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NIGG3O0&show_article=1" target="_blank">house</a> uses twice as much electricity in a month as the average American home does in a year, so zomg, global warming's not real because a spokesperson isn't completely forthcoming. I'm still trying to figure out how the program narrator's political affiliation has anything to do with global warming and any potential (or lack of potential) merit that the show had.
Also, since you seem to be the resident environmentalist, I'm wondering if you'd happen to have a reliable graph of global mean temperature to a period further than 1860/1880 that I always see. I don't want any of those .2 degree incremental vertical scales either that you see on almost every graph (they're like an inch high, totally unnecessary graph manipulation, just like in the video (here I'd like to point out that your first and second links in the original post point to the same video and you don't have the source video in there)). I'm hoping for a graph with clear definition and sources (not like the useless wikipedia ones, that have lines covering useful portions/huge swaths of color).
I'd also like to ask why you expect me to trust someone named Coby Beck with no apparent educational environmental training? How he attributes global mass extinctions simply to global warming is also a bit absurd to me, instead of linking it to other viable theories, like superpredators, disease, astronomical activity, geologic events or even the destruction of a food web (...secretly I also wonder if there might have been a civilization of trilobites that destroyed their world in a flurry of nuclear exchanges, only to leave us with the remainder, particularily funny if you think about it - who says humans are the first intelligent life on Earth? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> ).
I know this isn't the discussion forum or anything, but referencing weblogs as sources is not a very efficient way of proving validity.
I'd like to throw my opinion out there, and state that, while global warming is happening, it is most likely not an entirely human-driven occurence (more than likely human-accelerated), and that the world generally has intrinsic little nuances that allow it to maintain or reobtain equilibrium. I very much doubt global warming's ability to make humans extinct, but still assert that recycling and waste management are the best means of resource use and the best, most efficient means of avoiding any potential collateral damage that global warming may cause (heck, even if it was completely natural, but still threatened the wellbeing of developed countries they'd still want to combat it).
These have been the two major points of contention on global warming.
Both are currently in favor of those suggesting man made global warming caused by CO2.
_
1. The IPCC supports the hockey stick chart, where the mid holocene era wasn't that warm globally.
(Rather than the McIntyre & McKitrick papers which desperately try to say otherwise)
<a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/14/01828/236" target="_blank">http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/14/01828/236</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy</a>
2. The IPCC report takes in the NEW debugged tropospheric data taking into account since the <a href="http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf" target="_blank">April 2006 CCSP report</a>. The show, uses the OLD data puported by the likes of John Christy.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_tem...re_measurements</a>
Even the largest skeptics admit that if tropospheric warming is larger/quicker than surface warming,
then greenhouse caused climate change could be a reality.
The new data shows exactly this.
_
Here's the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/18/hannity-pathetic/" target="_blank">explanation</a> of that whole Gore issue.
Oh noes! He spends too much buying expensive Wind power.
Technically, he's not allowed to install solar panels, because solar panels are regulated like diesel generators in Tennessee where he lives. And he'd have to put solar panels on the groundfloor, where they wouldn't work.
That and Senator Inhofe is rather childish ;D
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/gore-boxer-inhofe/" target="_blank">"No! Stop! If you aren't play my game, I'm not listening, noooo"</a>
The simple use of referring the entirety of that program as disinformation is a bit of a disservice. While it may not be the most scientifically accurate 'documentary' out there, it does bring up some particularily valid points about research in environmentalist fields. The "writing a paper about squirrels compared to writing a paper about squirrels and the relation to global warming" bit I find particularily relevant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the science they talk about is based off of disproven and outdated information. Hows that?
And as far as the relevance goes toward funding.
With the new climate report, you have <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/" target="_blank">Exxon offering $10,000 for any climate scientists to write a papers against it</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=1616199:date=Mar 22 2007, 07:33 AM:name=UltimaGecko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(UltimaGecko @ Mar 22 2007, 07:33 AM) [snapback]1616199[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I'm wondering if you'd happen to have a reliable graph of global mean temperature to a period further than 1860/1880 that I always see.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well here's a <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/graph.png" target="_blank">temperature chart comparison of NASA versus the one they used in this show "Swindle".</a>
Ironically, Swindle claims their source is Nasa, but it's not. Theirs actually came from some obscure medical journal.
They also failed to mention that the <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/page/2/" target="_blank">1940-1970 cooling trend </a> was caused by industrial sulfur pollution.
Hrmm, but a longer chart.... lemme go dig that up.
Alright here we go
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221</a>
<a href="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm" target="_blank">http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBYhalxjez0" target="_blank">Gore actually showed these data sets pretty effectively (youtube).</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1616199:date=Mar 22 2007, 07:33 AM:name=UltimaGecko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(UltimaGecko @ Mar 22 2007, 07:33 AM) [snapback]1616199[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I know this isn't the discussion forum or anything, but referencing weblogs as sources is not a very efficient way of proving validity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/" target="_blank">RealClimate</a> is webblog of actual climate scientists. In particular one of the contributors is the one who designed the "hockey stick" study, which is pretty much THE big issue left in the climate debate.
<a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics" target="_blank">Grist's Climate Debate Reference?</a>
Yeah, it's not that relevant, but it's well crossreferenced to more legitimate sources of info.
They keep it pretty proffesional, since it's a news organization running the blog.
We may be contributing to carbon dioxide, but what needs carbon dioxide as part of a chemical process? Photosynthesis. We also have been using up more and more lumber and deforestation rates are only now beginning to increase.
Okay, you guys site information dating from no earlier than the 1900's. Don't you suppose your estimates would be a little closer if you had something going back a little farther? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure.
Here's a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBYhalxjez0" target="_blank">presentation of going back a lot farther.</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1616246:date=Mar 22 2007, 01:06 PM:name=Sephiroth2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sephiroth2k @ Mar 22 2007, 01:06 PM) [snapback]1616246[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
How do you explain the fact that entire areas that are now lush forests were once vast deserts, and vice versa? If you look at the globe you see a general ring around the equator of green tropical area with deserts around the cancers. If entire areas change like this, would that not indicate the equator traveling across a different land? Do you think Antarctica was <i>always</i> at the South Pole?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, climate change happens naturally.
Both due to the atmosphere changing, and to location of the magnetic poles changing.
But Natural change hasn't happened this quickly in 650,000 years recorded history.
It's about 10x too fast to be Natural.
<!--quoteo(post=1616246:date=Mar 22 2007, 01:06 PM:name=Sephiroth2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sephiroth2k @ Mar 22 2007, 01:06 PM) [snapback]1616246[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
We may be contributing to carbon dioxide, but what needs carbon dioxide as part of a chemical process? Photosynthesis. We also have been using up more and more lumber and deforestation rates are only now beginning to increase.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well technically trees don't have that much of an impact on climate unless they are in the tropics.
The major source of carbon sequestration is algae in the ocean.
Trees grow linearly and converts sunlight while absorbing CO2 at an effeciency of 1-2%
Algae grows exponentially and convert sunlights while absorbing CO2 at an effeciency of 6-8% or more
Also trees while they can absorb CO2,
depending on their location they can actually have negative effects on climate since they can trap heat,
and prevent sunlight reflection.
<a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/planting_trees.php" target="_blank">http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/planting_trees.php</a>
Algae? Most of it just gets sent down to the ocean floor.
Where it stays there until the whole ocean heats up.
You mean <i>one</i> Communist doesn't want you to believe in global warming.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I'm sure there's plenty of them in China who would also be against acknowledging it ;D
And if it were still around the USSR.
Two of the least environmental nations in history :o
_
Pretty much, Environmentalism doesn't function all that well without Democracy.
Unless it happens to be in the interest of some dictator.
But thats usually not the case, especially with today's globalized market.
Well, I'm sure there's plenty of them in China who would also be against acknowledging it ;D
And if it were still around the USSR.
Two of the least environmental nations in history :o
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever heard of the USA? Apparently they're quite non-environmentally friendly.
Ever heard of the USA? Apparently they're quite non-environmentally friendly.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, in terms of carbon
But in terms of pollution, US also has some highly developed laws and protections.
Only in a Democracy could mere people sue a massive conglomerate for pollution :O
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#United_States" target="_blank">But the important ones are ignored</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Only in America could mere people sue a massive conglomerate for pollution :O<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fixed.
[...]Pretty much, Environmentalism doesn't function all that well without Democracy.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1616262:date=Mar 22 2007, 03:56 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jimmeh @ Mar 22 2007, 03:56 PM) [snapback]1616262[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Ever heard of the USA? Apparently they're quite non-environmentally friendly.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
That's what you get when the fine is actually cheaper than staying within the law. Solution? Less mollycoddling of corporations.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope.
The trick with raising the fine is that there's usually ways to get around it.
For instance if it's a 1 billion dollar fine.
The company is then free to spend a couple million to fight it, and reduce it.
Especially when you include bribes, both legal and otherwise.
_
Hrmm, so to take another different route on this discussion
Assuming CO2 caused Global Warming is real.....
Coal and Nuclear aren't gonna cut it.
1. Offering up access to nuclear plutonium for all nations of the world would be a security nightmare.
Not to mention, nuclear gets more subsidies per year than all renewable energy programs combined.
Just the security costs alone, it can't be that economical when it's free market cost is considered.
-
Besides which, Yucca Mountain isn't going to open up until atleast 2017, at the *earliest*.
And they've already exceeded the storage capacity originally agreed upon for the contract.
And, Nevada what with all it's relatively new found money,
isn't gonna take too kindly to flinging a bunch of nuclear waste just an hours drive away from Las Vegas :O
2. Coal isn't going to be a solid way forward either
While more effecient plants can help reduce the CO2 to some degree
I don't really see "Carbon Sequestration" actually working.
(i.e. They can put it down there, but have very little way to make sure it doesn't leak back up)
And even if it does work, there's no way anyone outside the G8 is going to do it.
Since obviously it'd just be cheaper not to do it.
That means China, Inida and Latin America.
_
Ideally we'd start using some of the technology popping up within the last few years
3. Solar panels are getting to the point that in 2008 they will be as easy to produce as newspapers of teeshirts. Requiring 10th the capital and materials cost to produce.
4. In the lab scale, they've figured out a way to drastically up the effeciency of solar panels.
Instead of being limited to just 1 electron for 1 photon.
They've shown with UV light they can get as high as 7 electrons per 1 photon.
(Not much UV in normal light, unless it's in outerspace)
But hell, they could easily double or triple the effeciency of the solar panel, for just the mere cost of some specialized metal dust.
5. High density solid-state electrical storage is coming <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
No longer are we gonna be limited to batteries which wear out before they can pay for themselves when used on an industrial scale. This means it may be possible to use ONLY renewable energy for all our electricity needs.
6. While BioFuels kinda suck, Algae BioFuels kinda don't suck.
Mainly because it shares none of the downsides of conventional biofuels.
Doesn't need farmland, and what little water it needs can be low quality, salty, and easily recycled back into production. Grows so fast that it doubles in mass every 3 hours, or quicker.
Also can block about 30% of the CO2 coming off of fossil fuel power plants by having it munch on the exhaust. (As well as 85% of the Nitrogen, which tops some of the best nitrogen filters on the market)
And besides which, it makes marketable product for all it's services <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
China's actually probably going to surpass the US in about 2 years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both true,
But the catch is, China isn't gonna do jack unless the US does.
And even then, they might not do anything.
Catch being, China is a big country.
Distributed generation, and REAL cost of energy (not the fake subsidized one) would be quite in their favor <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-gilbert2jul02,1,7788831.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true" target="_blank">If only ghei sex caused global warming</a>
"Global warming isn't trying to kill us, and that's a shame. If climate change had been visited on us by a brutal dictator or an evil empire, the war on warming would be this nation's top priority."
Get ready do have countless future generations with limited brain power due to global warming...
Seriously though, I don't really care what you call it, or what people think they can predict about an entire planet in the future. Pollution is never a good thing. You shouldn't have to label a cause and create all sorts of potential disasters to curb it. It's sad that people care more about global warming than just plain polluting. How about less emissions so we have clean air for our future? Theres definitely some pretty promising things with automobiles not using expensive gasoline. When they come out with a new fuel standard or energy source that is easy to convert to from gasoline and other waste creating processes, what then will they blame global warming on? What will happen when we do all we can to decrease the global temperature, and it still increases? I will laugh when this happens.
Both true,
But the catch is, America isn't gonna do jack unless China does.
And even then, they might not do anything.
Catch being, USA is a big country.
Distributed generation, and REAL cost of energy (not the fake subsidized one) would be quite in their favor <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spot the difference!