The Biggest Hoax Of All Time?

Singing Gremlin

New member
Jan 16, 2008
1,222
0
0
cormacd12 said:
You're grandchildren are going to hate you, you ignoramus. There's a wealth of information on the internet about climate change, which is about as proven (if not quite as commonly accepted) as the theory of evolution.
Ah yes. As a word of advice, perhaps calling other people an ignoramus is a bad idea when you then claim the Theory of Evolution to be proven. There's a reason it's just a theory, and that is it's damn near impossible to prove. It's widely accepted and almost certainly the correct theory, I'll grant you. But it is not proven. Internet educated =/= an expert on the situation, let me assure you.

On topic... Yes, it is a real situation. No, it is not our fault.

Maybe, instead of delaying the inevitable with half-baked plans to flick the damn lightswitch, we should stop bickering and prepare for the consequences of the cycle's current and unstoppable course, since we can pretty much all agree on that. In two hundred years time I'll bet people would be more grateful for the governmental flood walls and storm shelters than the hippies who gave their prior generation some time.

Plus, even if the whole thing turns out to be bollocks they might actually be useful anyway, which is more than can be said for stumbling around in the dark because you forgot to buy some candles. (Which we'd set on fire so we'd stop burning fuel.)
 

li-ion

New member
Dec 19, 2008
121
0
0
goodman528 said:
1) Electricity generated from a coal plant is much cheaper from any other source. Whether you believe this fact or not is up to you, but go and find some reports to read, this is true.
The cheapest way of producing electricity is nuclear power if I'm not mistaken.
Danzorz said:
Nuclear power anyone?
I'd prefer fusion. And a mix of every other energy form backed by nuclear power 'till we get there. And of course constant evolution of existing technologies. Or new takes on exising ones like the electrostatic wind energy converter.
 

patriklus

New member
Apr 1, 2009
5
0
0
Okay. Here goes...

I havn't had a chance to read through all the posts so I apologise if this has already been brought up, but here's my 2 cents worth: everybody is saying that carbon dioxide is causing global warming, but what if it is rather an EFFECT of global warming? All sorts of graphs are being posted showing the link between CO2 levels and temperature and they're not wrong, but the conclusions drawn from them are.

Any zoology textbook will have a chapter on the ability for water to absorb or give off gases based on its temperature, and looking at this will tell you that the higher the temperature of a body of water gets, the more gases it gives off, and vice versa. So lets take the oceans, which just so happen to be QUITE large bodies of water. As the temperature of the oceans increases they release more gas, the largest percentage of which is carbon dioxide. It is a bit more in depth than this, but any scientist worth his/her salt will tell you the exact same thing. So does CO2 CAUSE global warming? I don't think so... Temperature increase = CO2 increase, not the other way around.

What I think causes global warming rather, is the sun. It has been proved that solar flares or "sun spots" generate the heat needed to upset our atmosphere. I don't know off-hand the sources to prove this, but if you can watch Al Gore's movie and believe it, then I challenge you to watch a movie called "The Global Warming Swindle". Some of you may have heard of it and it may have already been mentioned, but in that movie they give scientific proof (just like Al Gore) that global warming is happening but is in no way "man made". I used to be the staunchest supporter of the whole global warming thing, I would make people sick because I would just go on and on about it, until a friend of mine made me watch this movie. It literally turned my world upside down. So to all of you guys on the global warming bandwagon: watch Al Gore, then watch this movie, then make an INFORMED decision about what you believe, don't just take what you're told on face value, even this post.

Something I saw someone ask was why would scientists advocate man made global warming if it was untrue. Well I think I have the answer: MONEY!!! Let me put it like this: politician needs votes to be in power, so he finds the latest "fad" to get the people on his side. Ah! whats this? Man made global warming! Sounds good... But wait? How will people believe politician without proof? After all we aren't stupid. So politician lets it be known that he is looking for proof of man made global warming and is willing to pay lots of MONEY! After all, he wants to win doesn't he? Then you have scientist who is battling for funding for his research, he needs MONEY. So upon seeing that politician wants proof of this "man made global warming" he designs experiments and collects just the right data he needs to give the politician the proof he wants. Politician is pleased with the results, and so gives scientist more MONEY to give him more proof. Basically, the politician is funding the scientists research so long as he gives him the proof he wants. The minute scientist gives contradicting proof, POOF!, away goes the funding. Now imagine this on a much larger scale, with many more scientists needing funding and many more politicians (and others) having the money and wanting the proof. And now, years down the line, any scientist claiming to have evidence refuting man made global warming is labeled a "crack pot" and shunned by his fellow scientists, all because the snow ball has become to big to stop rolling.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that global warming is happening, it's just a bit egotistical to think that Man can effect it it any way.

Also, if you watch the movie, you will see that Mans total contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere is... wait for it... 0.49%!!! Thats 1 in every 200 parts of CO2 is man made! Half a percent...

Use it, don't use it...
 

patriklus

New member
Apr 1, 2009
5
0
0
Visit http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/ if you're interested. It has all the proof and more from scientific papers, among others, for what I've said above.
 

VincentMm

New member
Feb 13, 2009
107
0
0
TheLivingDaylights said:
The point I'm trying to make here is that nearly everything that happens is cyclical, and quite frankly, our control over these cycles is next to nothing.
I'll gladly give you that - what with it being true - but to deny that we're exacerbating the situation is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
The impact of the human race on this world is pretty major and we're certainly pushing the cycle forwards more quickly than nature intended.


Also: Anybody who is saying Global Warming is a myth because winter was colder... Are you freaking serious? Find out what it actually means ferchrisakes.
 

li-ion

New member
Dec 19, 2008
121
0
0
patriklus said:
Something I saw someone ask was why would scientists advocate man made global warming if it was untrue. Well I think I have the answer: MONEY!!! Let me put it like this: politician needs votes to be in power, so he finds the latest "fad" to get the people on his side. Ah! whats this? Man made global warming! Sounds good... But wait? How will people believe politician without proof? After all we aren't stupid. So politician lets it be known that he is looking for proof of man made global warming and is willing to pay lots of MONEY! After all, he wants to win doesn't he? Then you have scientist who is battling for funding for his research, he needs MONEY.
As a scientist myself (not in this field though) I take this as offense. Yes, of course money is an issue when doing research. Even scientist can't pay their rent when they have no money. But if your main desire is money you don't go into science in the first place. All scientists I know are idealists and do what they do because they believe in it. If you do it for the money you're really in the wrong place. And people who do it for money quit soon and go to some industry job instead. Much better pay. Therefore I think your claim of a conspiracy of scientists and al gore to rip of the public is plain wrong. After all: what's the point of doing research if you lie about your results? And the scientiffic community is very unforgiving to people who deliberately claim something wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that global warming is happening, it's just a bit egotistical to think that Man can effect it it any way.
But on the other hand it's ignorant to prematurely claim that man can't affect it in any way. If we can prevent a catastrophy it would be plain stupid not to, if we can't prevent it the worst that happened are more economic cars.
 

goodman528

New member
Jul 30, 2008
763
0
0
li-ion said:
goodman528 said:
1) Electricity generated from a coal plant is much cheaper from any other source. Whether you believe this fact or not is up to you, but go and find some reports to read, this is true.
The cheapest way of producing electricity is nuclear power if I'm not mistaken.
Depends on a lot of different factors. Most countries in the world not only does not have nuclear power, but are sanctioned against developing nuclear power. In countries with nuclear power, safety is very costly.

The cost of generating energy for the end user, has nothing really to do with the cost of producing energy.
 

super_smash_jesus

New member
Dec 11, 2007
1,072
0
0
Tich said:
Why would a percentage of carbon diaoxide as low as 0.04% cause global warming. Has anyone ever looked at that huge honking fireball we spin around as a possibility? That think sends out all the enrgy we get here on Earth. We're in it's atmosphere. So if you ask me, if we do need to research Global Warming, you have to look at changes in the corona of the sun. And not some futile component of air that is overshadowed by all other gases.
exactly, there is plenty of evidence that that the sun is causing the warming, such as the increase in solar flares directly correlating to the increase in temperature. More likely to be coupled with the increase in GH gases, but still, no one ever blames the sun.
 

bad rider

The prodigal son of a goat boy
Dec 23, 2007
2,252
0
0
Quick note to all check the great global warming swindle out by all means, but remember it's not impartial and is very controversial. Be aware of skeptisisms of the film before you quote it.
 

li-ion

New member
Dec 19, 2008
121
0
0
goodman528 said:
Depends on a lot of different factors. Most countries in the world not only does not have nuclear power, but are sanctioned against developing nuclear power. In countries with nuclear power, safety is very costly.

The cost of generating energy for the end user, has nothing really to do with the cost of producing energy.
I am talking about the price for the end user. AFAIK the reason why so many countries still cling to their nuclear power plants - even though the problem with disposal of the nuclear fuel rods is not really solved, we just bury that stuff somewhere underground and hope for the best - is that it's the cheapest way of producing energy. Despite all the cost for safety, disposal and the negative image that nuclear power has.
 

bad rider

The prodigal son of a goat boy
Dec 23, 2007
2,252
0
0
urprobablyright said:
bad rider said:
Why don't you tell us why and develope your ideas, personally I would prefer to hear your views on the subject while being given something to discuss.
my main point was that global warming is undeniable and not open for discussion.

And that, at the time of writing the post, I was sick of people getting their hard ons by arguing against it.
I got that, but saying something is Is undiscusable isn't up to you, also people do occasionaly make relevant and well thought out points. Its not fair, particularly to new users for people to shout what is and isn't discussable. Take your recent thread on religion, there is good ideas around debating religion mainly that it'll give new concepts to people who read through it. I mean I've got sick of the huge amounts of the threads but putting a stop to discussion on religions is counter productive, however arguing is pointless and completely irrelevant.

The point is discussion, don't get arguementative and remember that talking to people one to one can change there views and make them more aware in the process no matter how frustrating it gets. Arguing with people no matter what kind of arguement only helps those who read it and incites trolling and troll like posts and that isn't the escapist.
 

300lb. Samoan

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,765
0
0
li-ion said:
patriklus said:
Something I saw someone ask was why would scientists advocate man made global warming if it was untrue. Well I think I have the answer: MONEY!!! Let me put it like this: politician needs votes to be in power, so he finds the latest "fad" to get the people on his side. Ah! whats this? Man made global warming! Sounds good... But wait? How will people believe politician without proof? After all we aren't stupid. So politician lets it be known that he is looking for proof of man made global warming and is willing to pay lots of MONEY! After all, he wants to win doesn't he? Then you have scientist who is battling for funding for his research, he needs MONEY.
As a scientist myself (not in this field though) I take this as offense. Yes, of course money is an issue when doing research. Even scientist can't pay their rent when they have no money. But if your main desire is money you don't go into science in the first place. All scientists I know are idealists and do what they do because they believe in it. If you do it for the money you're really in the wrong place. And people who do it for money quit soon and go to some industry job instead. Much better pay. Therefore I think your claim of a conspiracy of scientists and al gore to rip of the public is plain wrong. After all: what's the point of doing research if you lie about your results? And the scientiffic community is very unforgiving to people who deliberately claim something wrong.
Whoa man, calm down: he didn't say YOU were taking money to falsify experiments... that's not even how this works.

There ARE those out there who get paid MAJOR cashola to conduct biased experiments and publish results that are designed for the benefit of certain benefactors. The coal industry does it, the tobacco and alcohol industries do it, and I'm almost certain that the environmental industry is doing it too. I don't, however, think that it's an Al Gore money-grubbing conspiracy: I think these people are genuinely concerned about the state of the environment and what effect our industries are having on it, so they produce this material as PROPAGANDA to garner more public attention. This in turn bolsters Al Gore's public image and reputation, which he is making a living off of. So for Al Gore it's not really a conspiracy, it's an out-in-the-open operation that puts him in the same profession as tobacco lobbyists and media spin-doctors. They all have different opinions, but they all figured out the same way of making money.

PS I voted for the 'I'm in between' category, but I essentially agree with the statement that global warming is happening; it's a natural process; our effect on this process is present but mild, and most likely futile. I'll admit that global warming is a hot-button topic that I know very little about: the chances of being killed on the street, eaten by wolves, or fucked by nuclear missiles from Iran and North Korea convinced me that I shouldn't waste my life reading into the endless void of Global Warming data.
 

300lb. Samoan

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,765
0
0
bad rider said:
urprobablyright said:
bad rider said:
Why don't you tell us why and develope your ideas, personally I would prefer to hear your views on the subject while being given something to discuss.
my main point was that global warming is undeniable and not open for discussion.

And that, at the time of writing the post, I was sick of people getting their hard ons by arguing against it.
I got that, but saying something is Is undiscusable isn't up to you, also people do occasionaly make relevant and well thought out points. Its not fair, particularly to new users for people to shout what is and isn't discussable. Take your recent thread on religion, there is good ideas around debating religion mainly that it'll give new concepts to people who read through it. I mean I've got sick of the huge amounts of the threads but putting a stop to discussion on religions is counter productive, however arguing is pointless and completely irrelevant.

The point is discussion, don't get arguementative and remember that talking to people one to one can change there views and make them more aware in the process no matter how frustrating it gets. Arguing with people no matter what kind of arguement only helps those who read it and incites trolling and troll like posts and that isn't the escapist.
Good for you. Saying something is indiscussable is totally against the open and intellectual vibe I get here at the Escapist. We can't be closed minded about things, or else we'll all become trolls and spend our days NO U-ing each other.
 

goodman528

New member
Jul 30, 2008
763
0
0
li-ion said:
goodman528 said:
Depends on a lot of different factors. Most countries in the world not only does not have nuclear power, but are sanctioned against developing nuclear power. In countries with nuclear power, safety is very costly.

The cost of generating energy for the end user, has nothing really to do with the cost of producing energy.
I am talking about the price for the end user. AFAIK the reason why so many countries still cling to their nuclear power plants - even though the problem with disposal of the nuclear fuel rods is not really solved, we just bury that stuff somewhere underground and hope for the best - is that it's the cheapest way of producing energy. Despite all the cost for safety, disposal and the negative image that nuclear power has.
It's impossible to estimate this sort of costs, because the firms involved are large, and the process involve is very complicated. The estimates in use are political, if you look hard enough you can find figures supporting whatever case might be. Also, there's variation between different countries.

The reason why I think coal is the cheapest source is because of how widely it is used throughout the world, and how simple it is.
 

ranc0re

New member
Mar 27, 2009
105
0
0
Agayek said:
D_987 said:
I guess your not planning to have children...
Not really, but even if I was I'd still have the same attitude. Every single thing will die, or end, eventually. Why worry about how it'll happen?
I couldn't be bothered to go past page three of this bullshit. Anyways, by your logic, it'd be alright for me to just leave a baby in a swimming pool? It's going to die in 80 years or so anyways, so who cares if it drowns in the pool? Phail.

OT: Who gives a shit whether global warming is real or not? General scientific consensus is that: 1. Yes, global warming is real. And 2. Yes, humans do have an influence.

Why does it matter if it turns out to be real or not? Would you really mind living in a world where thousands of square kilometres of forest aren't clear cut away simply for the sake of farming beef (one of the most environmentally devastating things to farm)? Or forcing factories to find cleaner methods in manufacturing their goods? Take a trip to Sudbury, Ontario, my friend. The city was once one of the most environmentally damaged cities on Earth. Sulphur destroyed all of the vegetation around the city. Pink granite rock was stained black, and is still a few centimetres deep into the rock (that's how shitty the air was). People still suffer from the adverse effects of living in that environment.

Would it be so bad if we made sure that things like that couldn't happen?