On Mar 14, 1:21 pm,

On 13 Mar 2007 03:08:03 -0700, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au>
wrote:

On Mar 13, 10:53 am,

This is excellent.
It exposes the global warming madness for what it is and the political
activist bastards who run it for what they are.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+gre...

Such transparent rubbish.
Executive summary:
"Science is a big conspiracy!"
"95% of all climate scientist disbelieve *me* - so obviously its all a
government/media conspiracy!"

There are alternative views - there is a spectrum of possibilities -
there are guenuine areas of disagreement amongst real scientists about
the extent of the contibution from anthropogenic greenhouse gas and
the rapididy of the changes etc - but the alternative "dissenting"
view from the extreme end that says mankind has done nothing to the
environment represents ~5%(or less) of the scientists and they get
~50%(or more) of the media air time and ~50%(or more) of the support
of government.
(Actually in the USA and Australia it has been very hard indeed for
scientists to get anyone in government to take the issue seriously -
but the point is the depiction in the film of the dissenters being
lone crusading hero/geniuses against the establishmnet and the media
is the exact opposite of the true situation that it is almost
funny.The film presents a sort of "mirror world" where the true
situation has been reversed.))

The real situation is that the climate skeptics have been getting the
government jobs and money (and the money of vested interests like
energy and transport etc) and the attention of the media for the last
30 years and its starting to move the other way.

This is propaganda from the (recently) loosing side who want to do the
Black Knight bit.

Which parts of the film other than the one Yang points out in another
thread <Ping atheist@home> do you dispute and why?

I spent about 2 hours yesterday typing a reply (via google groups) and
the computer ate it.
I am ***** !

I'll try again but I doubt it will be the masterpeice of eloquence,
wit and brillance that I crafted yesterday.
8-(

Mark.

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:52:38 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:

<

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:53:12 -0500,

This is excellent.
It exposes the global warming madness for what it is and the political
activist bastards who run it for what they are.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle

Might want to hold off on this one.
New information indicates the film, or at least parts of it may be
total *****.

But I can't find where. I've looked at a debunking site or two and they're
pretty weak. For instance, in trying to explain the CO2 rise lagging
behind
the temperature rise by 800 years, they say we don't know what *started*
the
temperature rise, but that CO2 rise explains the continuation of the rise
in
temperature. WTF? If you don't know what started the temperature increase,
on what basis do you accuse CO2 for its continuation? Why couldn't it be
the
mysterious thing that started the temperature rise that maintains the
temperature rise? If you don't know what it is, how can you dismiss it as
an
explanation? That's completely bogus logic.

And going to the sources for the graphs involved in the show seems to do
nothing but support the show's contentions. They insist the graphs don't
match as much as the show insists they do, but I see little difference.

There may be some bogus things in the video like the street signs implying
past climates, but the graphs and CO2 lag are enough to grab and hold my
attention.

Pretty much all the Global-warming denial claims got debunked here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:52:38 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com>
wrote:

<

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:53:12 -0500,

This is excellent.
It exposes the global warming madness for what it is and the political
activist bastards who run it for what they are.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+gre...

Might want to hold off on this one.
New information indicates the film, or at least parts of it may be
total *****.

But I can't find where. I've looked at a debunking site or two and they're
pretty weak. For instance, in trying to explain the CO2 rise lagging behind
the temperature rise by 800 years, they say we don't know what *started* the
temperature rise, but that CO2 rise explains the continuation of the rise in
temperature. WTF? If you don't know what started the temperature increase,
on what basis do you accuse CO2 for its continuation? Why couldn't it be the
mysterious thing that started the temperature rise that maintains the
temperature rise? If you don't know what it is, how can you dismiss it as an
explanation? That's completely bogus logic.

And going to the sources for the graphs involved in the show seems to do
nothing but support the show's contentions. They insist the graphs don't
match as much as the show insists they do, but I see little difference.

There may be some bogus things in the video like the street signs implying
past climates, but the graphs and CO2 lag are enough to grab and hold my
attention.

Pretty much all the Global-warming denial claims got debunked here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:52:38 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:

<

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:53:12 -0500,

This is excellent.
It exposes the global warming madness for what it is and the political
activist bastards who run it for what they are.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle

Might want to hold off on this one.
New information indicates the film, or at least parts of it may be
total *****.

But I can't find where. I've looked at a debunking site or two and they're
pretty weak. For instance, in trying to explain the CO2 rise lagging behind
the temperature rise by 800 years, they say we don't know what *started* the
temperature rise, but that CO2 rise explains the continuation of the rise in
temperature. WTF? If you don't know what started the temperature increase,
on what basis do you accuse CO2 for its continuation? Why couldn't it be the
mysterious thing that started the temperature rise that maintains the
temperature rise? If you don't know what it is, how can you dismiss it as an
explanation? That's completely bogus logic.

And going to the sources for the graphs involved in the show seems to do
nothing but support the show's contentions. They insist the graphs don't
match as much as the show insists they do, but I see little difference.

There may be some bogus things in the video like the street signs implying
past climates, but the graphs and CO2 lag are enough to grab and hold my
attention.

Pretty much all the Global-warming denial claims got debunked here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:52:38 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:

<

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:53:12 -0500,

This is excellent.
It exposes the global warming madness for what it is and the political
activist bastards who run it for what they are.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle

Might want to hold off on this one.
New information indicates the film, or at least parts of it may be
total *****.

But I can't find where. I've looked at a debunking site or two and they're
pretty weak. For instance, in trying to explain the CO2 rise lagging behind
the temperature rise by 800 years, they say we don't know what *started* the
temperature rise, but that CO2 rise explains the continuation of the rise in
temperature. WTF? If you don't know what started the temperature increase,
on what basis do you accuse CO2 for its continuation? Why couldn't it be the
mysterious thing that started the temperature rise that maintains the
temperature rise? If you don't know what it is, how can you dismiss it as an
explanation? That's completely bogus logic.

In one part of the film it was stated that a rise in C02 follows a
rise in temperature.
I don't know.
Could it be that a prolonged and continuous rise in global temperature
leads to an increase in the number of things that produce C02?
C02 producing life forms for instance?
If the C02 rise lags behind by 800 years couldn't that be how long it
takes for the increase in C02 producing elements to be substantial
enough to show up?

And going to the sources for the graphs involved in the show seems to do
nothing but support the show's contentions. They insist the graphs don't
match as much as the show insists they do, but I see little difference.

I got this from one site that wants to debunk the film:
"For a really accessible example of humans impacting the climate, we
just have to look at the impact that the lack of airplane contrails
had on temperature in the US after 9/11."
Now come on.
Who decided that the lack of contrails had an effect on temperature
and how could they decide that any change in temperature had anything
to do with a lack of contrails for so short a period of time?
<Last I read climatoligists had only suggested the possibility they
have any effect and it was almost like an offhand remark>
And why would it just affect the temperature in the US?

There may be some bogus things in the video like the street signs implying
past climates, but the graphs and CO2 lag are enough to grab and hold my
attention.

There were a number of things that caught my attention and I haven't
been able to find anything yet in which the other scientists involved
in the film have recanted anything they said.
I'm fifty-nine damned years old and I've been exposed to every God
induced and manmade apocalypse to come down the pike in all those
years.
Consider: Whether its religion, politics or pesudo science we are and
all have been doomed to cosmic cataclysms, including drought and flood
plague, pestilence, earthquake, famine and massive storms....nature
going wild in other words for thousands of years.
<I remember when atomic bombs were going to cause everything global
warming is supposed to be causing now and those who made the claims
"had science on their side." Unfortunately despite the fact that it
was b.s. it scared some people half to death>
And I do know this, man is just as prone to magical thinking and
sometimes violent territorial defense of his true beliefs as he always
has been.
And crowds will fall in line and follow the most absurd of beliefs
because thats what crowds always do.
And they always believe its the truth they are following.
This is one of my favorites by Kahlil Gibran commenting on the madness
of crowds.

Once there ruled in the distant city of Wirani a king who was both
mighty and wise.
And he was feared for his might and loved for his wisdom.
Now, in the heart of that city was a well, whose water was cool and
crystalline, from which all the inhabitants drank, even the king and
his courtiers; for there was no other well.
One night when all were asleep, a witch entered the city, and poured
seven drops of strange liquid into the well, and said, "From this hour
he who drinks this water shall become mad."
Next morning all the inhabitants, save the king and his lord
chamberlain, drank from the well and became mad, even as the witch had
foretold.
And during that day the people in the narrow streets and in the market
places did naught but whisper to one another, "The king is mad.
Our king and his lord chamberlain have lost their reason.
Surely we cannot be ruled by a mad king.
We must dethrone him."
That evening the king ordered a golden goblet to be filled from the
well.
And when it was brought to him he drank deeply, and gave it to his
lord chamberlain to drink.
And there was great rejoicing in that distant city of Wirani, because
its king and its lord chamberlain had regained their reason.

I wonder how many scientists decided its better to have a drink than
to be ridiculed, cursed for blasphemy and be forced to listen to the
crowd constantly shouting "Crucify him, crucify him?

<The crucifixion of Christ if you recall was about politics to the
powers in control at the time; It was only about religion to the crowd
that had been convinced that religion was all it was about>

Not much changes but the names.

atheist@home#1554