Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ParisInAKilt

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Recommended Posts

Ma faither loves mounting the high horse on this one. "Man made global warming is a load of crap etc."

I keep threatening to buy him a wind turbine for Xmas (just a wee one obviously).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

Ma faither loves mounting the high horse on this one. "Man made global warming is a load of crap etc."

I keep threatening to buy him a wind turbine for Xmas (just a wee one obviously).

 

"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years." Mark Twain

:lol:

Your dad could be onto something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years." Mark Twain

:lol:

Your dad could be onto something.

Alternatively, he could be full of shit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely happening

Are we partly or mostly responsible - i wasnt sure

However when Science says they are more sure we are than with smoking causing cancer then you cant ignore it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

It's definitely happening

Are we partly or mostly responsible - i wasnt sure

However when Science says they are more sure we are than with smoking causing cancer then you cant ignore it

Some of the most damning evidence is the change in the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 14. Carbon in oil, gas and coal is pretty much exclusively C12, and the increase in atmospheric carbon has been all C12,  suggesting that it’s all come from previously ‘locked up’ Carbon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

My dad regularly refers to the figures in this video as proof that humans have minimal impact on the changing climate...

 

Multiple lines of BS in that. First up,  CO2 is now about 400ppm compared to 280ppm prior to the industrial era. So the increase in CO2 is nearly 30%. That’s very substantially attributable to human activity, which can be proved by the change in isotope ratios. So his first premise, which he bases the rest of the statistics on, is fundamentally wrong. 

What he’s done is confused the total amount emitted with the amount remaining in the atmosphere. The one grain out of 33 is broadly correct for total emissions. However,  there’s an equilibrium in the earth’s processes, which mean that it’s capable of reabsorbing 32 grains a year. So there’s an extra grain left in the atmosphere each year. Over a couple of hundred years, that builds up, increasing the total amount. 

Its a deliberate sleight of hand or misdirection where he’s confusing different figures to massively, and falsely, underplay the effects.

It also has to be noted, he’s not a climate scientist, he’s an engineer by trade. Specifically a mining engineer. A coal mining engineer. So to present himself as some kind of neutral party is dishonest in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious question would be before the industrial revolution how did C12 carbon get into air as CO? and how do we know those sources haven't increased production?

I know everything else, just couldn't answer that question myself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, phart said:

The obvious question would be before the industrial revolution how did C12 carbon get into air as CO? and how do we know those sources haven't increased production?

I know everything else, just couldn't answer that question myself.

 

C12 comes out of volcanos, and other natural emissions. Animals breath it out, some comes out of the ocean, some is released by erosion, etc.

It’s C14 that’s the difference really. It’s radioactive, with a half life of about 6000 years. So after 48k years, 99.5% of the C14 in a sample will have become C12.  So anything locked up long enough to become oil, gas, coal or rock will be entirely C12. 

C14 is constantly produced in the atmosphere. C12 is bombarded by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere and some of it is changed to C14. This is done at a constant rate, but in the upper atmosphere only. 

All of the extra CO2 pumped out by man is in the lower atmosphere. So none of the additional CO2 is converted into C14. 

Edited by biffer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, biffer said:

Multiple lines of BS in that. First up,  CO2 is now about 400ppm compared to 280ppm prior to the industrial era. So the increase in CO2 is nearly 30%. That’s very substantially attributable to human activity, which can be proved by the change in isotope ratios. So his first premise, which he bases the rest of the statistics on, is fundamentally wrong. 

Interesting response cheers. There's no doubt the industrial age has bumped up levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, but mention that and you get hit with "there was 10 times more CO2 in the atmosphere in prehistoric times" (I'm guessing it was a slightly less hospitable place back then)...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Interesting response cheers. There's no doubt the industrial age has bumped up levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, but mention that and you get hit with "there was 10 times more CO2 in the atmosphere in prehistoric times" (I'm guessing it was a slightly less hospitable place back then)...

 

It might have been for us and loads of other species, but it could be argued that all that fossil fuel being trapped underground was an unnatural accidental occurrence at that CO2 levels should really be far higher than they are. If the CO2 levels had stayed as high as they were, then the evolution of the planet would probably have taken a very different course? Us nasty humans might never have evolved at all? Humans burning them is just helping to restore the natural balance to what it should have been in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only managed to watch about a third so far but one thing it says that should be easy to check is that while temperatures and co2 levels are clearly correlated what Gore did not tell you is that temperatures lead co2 by (from memory) about 800 years on average. That is the temperature increase or decreases and 800 years later the co2 does the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the big problems the climate change "scientists" have, is to try to persuade folk that their theories are correct, or even have a high probability of being correct. I am a scientist (and I have been for more years than I like to remember) and they haven't managed to convince me yet. I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they haven't convinced me. I have an open mind on the subject.

When I hear some of them say things like "The science is settled" I just know that they are not real scientists and I'm not sure if I should waste my time listening to them any more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m incredibly skeptical, and I know that’s partly because of my nature and how I view politics, I’m defintely attracted to the conspiracy side of all of this but I recycle, don’t own a car, cycle, don’t eat much meat blah blah.

Watching this I couldn’t believe that it was on mainstream TV 10 years ago. No chance now and I don’t think that’s just because of the science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

One of the big problems the climate change "scientists" have, is to try to persuade folk that their theories are correct, or even have a high probability of being correct. I am a scientist (and I have been for more years than I like to remember) and they haven't managed to convince me yet. I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they haven't convinced me. I have an open mind on the subject.

When I hear some of them say things like "The science is settled" I just know that they are not real scientists and I'm not sure if I should waste my time listening to them any more.

 

Sure the BBC said that it was a “settle science” and wouldn’t be reporting on alternative view points etc 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, biffer said:

C12 comes out of volcanos, and other natural emissions. Animals breath it out, some comes out of the ocean, some is released by erosion, etc.

According the documentary humans account for 6.5 gigatonnes per annum. Volcanoes alone are higher than all man made co2. Animals and bacteria = 150 giga tonnes per annum. But they are not the biggest. Rotting leaves dwarf that and the oceans dwarf them all again. This was made in 2007 so no doubt the human output is higher now but still... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We have the replication crisis and that's epicentre is the social sciences that use large scale modelling as well. Ed Teller (physicist) has made the same complaint too much models not enough experimentation. Plus the data needs a sweep through to get rid of all the anomalies as well.

Anyway even if one assumes it is all correct anyway, i still don't trust decision makers not to try and enrich themselves from it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thplinth said:

According the documentary humans account for 6.5 gigatonnes per annum. Volcanoes alone are higher than all man made co2. Animals and bacteria = 150 giga tonnes per annum. But they are not the biggest. Rotting leaves dwarf that and the oceans dwarf them all again. This was made in 2007 so no doubt the human output is higher now but still... 

Yeah, that’s production per year. Absorption per year goes up a little when the extra that we put into the atmosphere is there, but not all of it. That bit extra per year accumulates. So even if there’s only one giga tonne not being absorbed each year, over time that’s a substantial amount more CO2 hanging around. The known, provable qualities of CO2 absorbing and re-emitting energy at different wavelengths, then leads to a heat imbalance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phart said:

 

We have the replication crisis and that's epicentre is the social sciences that use large scale modelling as well. Ed Teller (physicist) has made the same complaint too much models not enough experimentation. Plus the data needs a sweep through to get rid of all the anomalies as well.

Anyway even if one assumes it is all correct anyway, i still don't trust decision makers not to try and enrich themselves from it anyway.

Aye, I was trying to remember the terminology that they used. "Quality controlled and normalised" or something like that? When they just removed loads of data that they didn't like the look of, and then destroyed the raw data so that nobody could check their working. To me, that isn't science, that's just manipulating statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many folk on this thread have actually watched this I wonder. I would agree it is well worth watching.

I knew they were taking the piss manipulating data (and that was much more recently) but I had no idea how bad this was/is. 11 years ago this was shown...wow. Look at what has happened since. It did not even make a dent. As PIAK says you'd never get this aired now.

If it is true that the temperature change leads the CO2 level change by 800 years then how could you possibly say CO2 levels are driving temperature levels. If anything it is the opposite. This is total bullshit if that is true and they are very clear that this has been proven in the ice core data over and over (this was 2007 remember!).

It is apparently solar activity that really drives temperature change not CO2 (never mind man made CO2). The guy Piers Corbyn I think (sp?) is pretty blunt about it at one point. "Solar activity drives temperature change and CO2 has nothing to do with it" or words like that.

edit: Plus it has got some really illuminating history as to how this all came about and how the IPCC started out and why and how it snowballed out of control. Never seen any of it before. Very interesting. (Believe it or not Thatcher is partly responsible.)

 

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Channel4's remit back in the day was that it did not have to produce balanced programmes, but instead had to broadcast ones of opposing views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...