GameBanshee Forums

We celebrated recently, in concerts all over the world, at the magical date 7-7-07, the discovery of the inconvenient truth: carbondioxide is a global killer!

Earlier, this was discussed on these forums:
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak ... hlight=co2

However.. I think I may have something to show you guys, which some of you perhaps have already seen, and some haven't... I think it's interesting enough to share. It's a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and due to size (approx 73 minutes), it has been fragmented into 8 parts by youtube. Collect them all, adventurers!

It will tell you the tale of how global warming is maybe just a hype like the predicted ice age just 30 years ago. It will tell you how many, many scientists are biased in their research, and how the IPCC is not as credible as they would like to appear to be. And maybe most alarmingly, it will tell how we are dictating the 3rd world, Africa in particular, that they can't use the (cheap reliable) resources they need so desperately, because of conclusions on research on the relationship between CO2 and global temperature, which were.. well... -wrong!

If you dare watch, and all you know is mr. Gore's story, this here is an intruiging documentary that WILL alter your view on the cause(s) of global warming. [This is the REAL inconvenient truth, I'm afraid. -don't read this sentence if it offends you in such a way that you can't move beyond what I'm saying here and all you have to criticize is me...-]


Part 1 to 8:
YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 1 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 2 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 3 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 4 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 5 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 6 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 7 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 8 of 8

lythium wrote:This is the REAL inconvenient truth, I'm afraid.

Ah... such expertise in our midst, no doubt we should feel truly blessed by your omniscient presence.

Apologies for the sarcasm, but seriously, around here it's rather unwise to claim absolute knowledge on any given subject...especially one as contentious as this, given that the evidence points overwhelmingly to the reality of Climate Change.

Incidentally..
To date, Martin Durkin, the "documentary's" director has also made:
Against Nature - which asserts that environmentalists threaten the economy and personal liberties.
Storm in a D-Cup- which claims silicone breast implants are beneficial to womens' health and actually help to prevent breast cancer.
Modified Truth - which argues in favour of genetic modification

and of course, this most recent film

Hmmm.. anyone else smell an agenda here?

Frankly, this guy's work sounds about as credible as the sort of bunk regularly regurgitated by Fox News.

dragon wench wrote:Ah... such expertise in our midst, no doubt we should feel truly blessed by your omniscient presence.

Apologies for the sarcasm, but seriously, around here it's rather unwise to claim absolute knowledge on any given subject...especially one as contentious as this, given that the evidence points overwhelmingly to the reality of Climate Change.

Right, so maybe you should take a bit of your invaluable time to see the documentary..

It is inconvenient when you were just convinced by Gore's story, and then you get a whole different view in this documentary.. That's inconvenient.. I'm not saying which is true. I'm just giving you another view... Don't bitch on new members, it's impolite and I do not claim absolute knowledge. I'm deeply annoyed by your reply. Really.

lythium wrote:Right, so maybe you should take a bit of your invaluable time to see the documentary..

It is inconvenient when you were just convinced by Gore's story, and then you get a whole different view in this documentary.. That's inconvenient.. I'm not saying which is true. I'm just giving you another view... Don't bitch on new members, it's impolite and I do not claim absolute knowledge. I'm deeply annoyed by your reply. Really.

I saw it some time ago, and I consider it to be unsubstantiated bunk, with a flawed research methodology, driven by an obvious agenda.

And when you make a statement like "This is the REAL inconvenient truth, I'm afraid," with the word "real" in upper case letters for emphasis, you most certainly are claiming absolute knowledge.


Oh, don't worry, it are not just new members at GB who are challenged when they make assertions like this, you aren't being singled out for special treatment here.

Why do I feel like the Fox network just invaded this board?

You seem to think that people here are somehow products of single minded brainwashing by Al Gore, disputing several other sources of information.
Many people here are educated, intelligent and know how to take in multiple sources of information.

Global Warming have been a topic in many countries, not in the least in the EU, long before Al Gore started to get involved. For several years, countries outside the US of A have taken the (possible?) threat to our planet quite seriously, because we *know* people are forced to live here in 40-60 years, in the mess previous generations have created.
So to come here and say people have been swayed by Al Gore is like coming here and saying the automobile is just a phase and has no future. It is ignorant. The environment have been discussed in this country for many years, as long as I can remember back.

So get into the 21th century and actual try to take a look at more then one source of information before you start attempting to uncover the "convenient truth", because right now - you come off as single minded as those you try to target, if not worse. "We" are not the USA, and single minded propaganda does not work here.

lythium wrote:Right, so maybe you should take a bit of your invaluable time to see the documentary..

It is inconvenient when you were just convinced by Gore's story, and then you get a whole different view in this documentary.. That's inconvenient.. I'm not saying which is true. I'm just giving you another view... Don't bitch on new members, it's impolite and I do not claim absolute knowledge. I'm deeply annoyed by your reply. Really.

It is also impolite to just jump into a forum and tell people "This is the REAL inconvenient truth, I'm afraid." as if it is a matter of fact other then your own subjective opinion - so yes, you do claim absolute knowledge in your post.....

Xandax wrote:Why do I feel like the Fox network just invaded this board?

You seem to think that people here are somehow products of single minded brainwashing by Al Gore, disputing several other sources of information.
Many people here are educated, intelligent and know how to take in multiple sources of information.

Global Warming have been a topic in many countries, not in the least in the EU, long before Al Gore started to get involved. For several years, countries outside the US of A have taken the (possible?) threat to our planet quite seriously, because we *know* people are forced to live here in 40-60 years, in the mess previous generations have created.
So to come here and say people have been swayed by Al Gore is like coming here and saying the automobile is just a phase and has no future. It is ignorant. The environment have been discussed in this country for many years, as long as I can remember back.

So get into the 21th century and actual try to take a look at more then one source of information before you start attempting to uncover the "convenient truth", because right now - you come off as single minded as those you try to target, if not worse. "We" are not the USA, and single minded propaganda does not work here.



It is also impolite to just jump into a forum and tell people "This is the REAL inconvenient truth, I'm afraid." as if it is a matter of fact other then your own subjective opinion - so yes, you do claim absolute knowledge in your post.....

OH COME ON! It's just my view here! I think this is much more inconvenient to learn about than Al Gore's "turn off the lights you don't use" message... Because when we're all motivated to use solar power, that's good, and I'm not saying we shouldn't do research into sustainable energy sources, but to attack the third world with Gore's "truth", which has become populistically accepted all over the place, is just dominating the developping countries, not helping them. And how can you say anything without being convinced it may be true?? And how can you say I am considering only one side of the story????? And what do I have to do with Fox news? Am I a heathen for not believing everything Gore has to say? How is that scientific?


EDIT: sorry, I'm taking it personal here.. Guess I feel personally attacked... I shouldn't.. What I should say is: I'm just giving a new perspective on things that I feel most of the people are now taking for granted. Take it or leave it. It's a gift. And a fine gift, but that's my opinion, now watch it, if you care, and see if you like it as much as me, and if you don't, well, guess what, you're entitled! Yeah!

lythium wrote:OH COME ON! It's just my view here! I think this is much more inconvenient to learn about than Al Gore's "turn off the lights you don't use" message... Because when we're all motivated to use solar power, that's good, and I'm not saying we shouldn't do research into sustainable energy sources, but to attack the third world with Gore's "truth", which has become populistically accepted all over the place, is just dominating the developping countries, not helping them. And how can you say anything without being convinced it may be true?? And how can you say I am considering only one side of the story????? And what do I have to do with Fox news? Am I a heathen for not believing everything Gore has to say? How is that scientific?

To be quite frank here, but who cares about Al Gore? This debate has been going on for years, long before Gore went into it as publicly as he's done over the last period of time.
Global warming is not a new phenomenon, and along side other inconvenient truths such as holes in the ozone layer and a decreasing amount of fossile fuels have been discussed and attempted countered for many years in many countries.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the entire ozone layer debate which bears tremendously resembles to the current Global Warming in the USA. However there as well for a number of years, did the industry try to discredit all research into the cause and effect of the ozone layers holes, until conclusive evidence were found between the amount of CFCs gasses and the lack of O3.

Gore is just a minor figure in the entire debate and a late participant on top of that. However, last I looked even the Bush administration now recognizes that a problem exists with Global Warming and CO2 in the air.

And CO2 is at the highest percentage in several hundred thousand years as being charted by ice drilling on Greenland and the North pole (but I guess they are just Al Gore's manipulation). That alone should be a nice indicator of something amiss. And the only major thing happened over those years are human civilization.

As I said - this debate have been taking place in other countries then the US for the last 30 years, and many countries have already started making a shift to more permanent and clean energies forms, and making plans for how we can help to preserve the planet for future generations. Despite the lateness of the USA.

And if you truly where/are interested in an open debate about this issue, I'd suggest you do not just throw around statements such as "This is the REAL inconvenient truth" and other such subjectivities. You could have taken an objective route, a less biased and subjective route, but you jumped in claiming Al Gore was/is wrong by pointing to a very biased program looking more to be fabricated for the job. (Hence my reference to the Fox network)

As someone who has studied the evidence of climate change at degree level, I have to say that if you study records from the last 100 years or so together with geological evidence dating back as far as the times of the dinosaurs, there is a long history of climate change on this planet and all the evidence strongly suggests that the planet is currently heating up.

There are many theories regarding why, the most popular being that man-made "Greenhouse Gases" are causing global warming. Another is that the planet goes through cycles, the increase in Carbon Dioxide etc. is a natural process and that eventually we will reach a peak and then the temperature will fall again as we head towards another ice age, and then it will rise again ... and so on.

One thing I would like to point out though is that you cannot say that something is an "absolute truth" or a "real truth" as it is all theory. However some theories have a lot more evidence supporting them, and there is overwhelming evidence supporting Global Warming. The planet is heating up, the question is are we speeding up this process?

Also, not everything in a documentary is trustworthy, just like not everything governments say is trustworthy. I could make a documentary saying that the Earth is changing shape and is turning into a cube because the chimpanzees are secretly aliens that are changing the shape of our planet ... but it doesn't mean its true.

mr_sir wrote:As someone who has studied the evidence of climate change at degree level, I have to say that if you study records from the last 100 years or so together with geological evidence dating back as far as the times of the dinosaurs, there is a long history of climate change on this planet and all the evidence strongly suggests that the planet is currently heating up.

Actually, you don't even need to go that far back in history tofind evidences. At leas here, if I just look the temperature, rain and snow records of last ten years or so, I can clearly see the heating in those records. For example, last couple of years have been the dryest in long time. Coincident? Possible, if it was only that. But, as those couple of years have also been the hottest during summer, and least cold during winter times, it's rather obvious that the climate is warmer that before. And that's a fact no one can deny.

Also, what if the Global Warming was lie? That would mean that not only US is behind it, the rest of the world as well. And that would make a conspiracy theory too big to hardly be a possible.

And just a side note, which one should I really believe:
a) Group of thousands of scientists around the world
or
b) A person, whose reputation is from earlier documents rather suspectable, and who claims the Global Warming is just a big fake?

Xandax wrote:And CO2 is at the highest percentage in several hundred thousand years as being charted by ice drilling on Greenland and the North pole (but I guess they are just Al Gore's manipulation). That alone should be a nice indicator of something amiss. And the only major thing happened over those years are human civilization.
(...)
And if you truly where/are interested in an open debate about this issue, I'd suggest you do not just throw around statements such as "This is the REAL inconvenient truth" and other such subjectivities. You could have taken an objective route, a less biased and subjective route, but you jumped in claiming Al Gore was/is wrong by pointing to a very biased program looking more to be fabricated for the job. (Hence my reference to the Fox network)

Gosh....

Listen...

I'm giving you and a couple of others, who are interested, an opportunity to gain something which we have been losing a lot the last couple of years: nuance.

Yes, I am aware of Gore's arguments, but I see in this documentary some very strong counter-arguments which I think are wise to consider. I do not care much about an open discussion myself, I just wanted to share what, in my view, is a very valuable piece of work, but if you want to discuss among other members, that's fine, don't let me stop you. What bothers me is that I seem to be personally attacked for thinking this documentary, that I have taken the time to share with everyone, is closer to any kind of "truth" than the very popular documentary/movie that the people have come to love over the last year or two. (including me, until last week) And so when I say I have reason to believe this documentary is inconvenient for those who thought Gore's piece was the solution to all problems, then I do wonder why I get (violently) attacked. Because it is not a respectable way of dealing with people who open their mouth.

And just in case I shock you by saying I'm not very interested in engaging in a debate, it's because frankly -A. I don't know much about the environment (have not studied it at a degree level, for instance), apart from what I see and hear in the media (Al Gore and recently this documentary) and -B. neither do you (tho unlike me, I suppose you still haven't seen the documentary I supplied for your viewing pleasure, because if you chose to see it, you wouldn't have typed the bit about the dramatic increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, which is undoubtedly true, nor does it disagree with the fact the climate is warming, but it's the "fact" of CO2 being the CAUSE of the global temperature increase that is challenged in this documentary, not just by the documentary's director, but a number of people including top scientists (that is; scientists on IPCC's list of respectables), and they come with compelling arguments, IN MY VIEW.

Again, I'm not saying this is THE truth, it's just a version of the/a truth, and I suggest you arm yourself with it, add it to your intellectual luggage and progress your knowledge, or reject it on rational grounds, instead of attacking the messenger, just because (you say) he claims to know the absolute truth. When someone claims to have the absolute truth, you can just respectively disagree, maybe come with some arguments, if you choose, but you do not welcome him to the 21st century as if he's a backwards single-viewing idiot who bases his statements on plain WRONG information.

Don't forget that people can be wrong, even when they're living right in the 21st century and if they enjoy a high level of education and they are considering all points of view. They STILL can be wrong. You're making it seem to me that you have to be backwards to be wrong. I do not ask for a preference treatment, I ask for a little more respect. And if you think you can't give that, then that's really your problem.

That said... I see now that this has become some kind of lesson in respecting other people and dealing with them appropriately and that was not supposed to happen.

Just, please do watch the documentary, I think it's really good, honestly and it may give you some new useful insights. And THEN respond with content-related stuff, so please don't make assumptions, based on the director or the idea that it is anti-environmentalist propaganda, because you'll see it's more subtle.

Or don't watch this documentary.. It's still your life and your choice, dear reader.

Then, I'm rather curious, why do you even response to the posts in this thread?

First of all, yes, I watched those links. And no, still I think it's very badly made.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is clear signs that something like global warning is happening. You don't need to be a scientist to notice those.

Also, just a friendly hint, don't say someone isn't specialist in something if you aren't 100% sure. You just can't know if someone of us is specialist in this specific field.

Then, about the "attack" made towards you: No one has actually attacked you personally. They have tried to explain why IN THEIR OPINION the document you posted is not true. And also, you quite clearly stated in your first post that the document is the real truth, so you can't deny that.

Kipi wrote:Then, I'm rather curious, why do you even response to the posts in this thread?1

First of all, yes, I watched those links. And no, still I think it's very badly made.2

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is clear signs that something like global warning is happening. You don't need to be a scientist to notice those.3

Also, just a friendly hint, don't say someone isn't specialist in something if you aren't 100% sure. You just can't know if someone of us is specialist in this specific field.4

Then, about the "attack" made towards you: No one has actually attacked you personally. They have tried to explain why IN THEIR OPINION the document you posted is not true. And also, you quite clearly stated in your first post that the document is the real truth, so you can't deny that.5

1 Because I am motivated to share this with you, it inspired me to think differently and with more nuance. And nuance is a highly prized good, in my opinion. I use this forum to share with you.

2 Well, that's fine. I obviously did like it and I'm sure some other people will too... Well, I hope.. But maybe I'm wrong.

3 If you watched the documentary, you must've noticed it agrees with this observation?

4 Okay. If Xandax is a specialist in this field, he can slap me in the face and forever refer to me as chimp and I'll apologize for my daring assumption. How about that?

5 Okay, yeah, I did state that, sorry mate, but you can still disagree! No hard feelings.

1 Because I am motivated to share this with you, it inspired me to think differently and with more nuance. And nuance is a highly prized good, in my opinion. I use this forum to share with you.

I think this documentary was rather interesting. It attempted to show how the whole idea of "CO2 influencing the climate change" originated and how it was politically driven to the point of absurd. So far, I fail to see anybody here actually presents any arguments against the facts and theories featured in this documentary. Unfortunately, I perceive arrogant attempts to humiliate a new member for the somewhat awkward choice of words. Can't say I am very much surprised.
I don't think the analogy with Fox news is remotely relevant.

EDIT: the documentary presents an interesting opinion of several prominent scientists.

lythium wrote:And just in case I shock you by saying I'm not very interested in engaging in a debate, it's because frankly -A. I don't know much about the environment (have not studied it at a degree level, for instance), apart from what I see and hear in the media (Al Gore and recently this documentary) and -B. neither do you (tho unlike me, I suppose you still haven't seen the documentary I supplied for your viewing pleasure, because if you chose to see it, you wouldn't have typed the bit about the dramatic increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, which is undoubtedly true, nor does it disagree with the fact the climate is warming, but it's the "fact" of CO2 being the CAUSE of the global temperature increase that is challenged in this documentary, not just by the documentary's director, but a number of people including top scientists (that is; scientists on IPCC's list of respectables), and they come with compelling arguments, IN MY VIEW.

Lythium, you can't have it both ways. Either you want people to see the film, and leave it at that, as you did in your "A," above, or as in "B," jump in and discuss specific points about global warming. But don't jump in and discuss, and claim at the same time that you don't want to do so.

And I wouldn't expect people to just say "Sure, we'll do it!" here in SYM. It isn't the way the place has ever worked. While not an unfriendly group, people who promulgate ideas are expected to explain their motivations for making recommendations, and to debate actual details of any issue you bring up. We like debate.

For anyone who cares to see the film, or at least Google it, there are numerous challenges of bad fact-checking and "rigging" to Durkin's material. Barring anyone who's actually seen it, that might be a point to start a lively debate about relevant side issues. Feel free to have fun on both sides.

Again, I'm not saying this is THE truth, it's just a version of the/a truth,

Then you are claiming it has truth in it, and as such, you advocate it, and open yourself to debate on the subject. Expect no less, here, but please realize that this is the way SYM usually operates on controversial ideas. People from all walks of life, in various countries, pull it to pieces, examine it, nudge it, test it, and whack the hell out of it. Unless you're personally attacked--which is against the rules, and won't be tolerated--you can expect to be challenged on the points you've raised.

Please don't hesitate at the edge of the SYM waters, and protest that you don't want to jump in after moving forward and back. You've already made a splash. You won't find the waters unfriendly.

Lythium,
it was not actually my intention to personally attack you. Rather, as stated, I was reacting to the way you framed your assertion. As Fable explains, here in SYM, people will critically dissect almost anything of a serious nature, and nobody takes sweeping statements like the one you made at face value

However, on topic, I did do some more digging around on this film. My sense is that there is far more going on behind the scenes than meets the eye, and it definitely does appear that a certain manipulation of the data has occurred.
I freely admit that MediaLens have their own bias, but nonetheless, [url="http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php"]this article[/url] is worth checking out, simply for some of the background details.

I would also like to point out that Carl Wunsch, one of the professors interviewed in the film, has considered legal action because his comments were grossly distorted... Incidents like this just don't bode well for the film's credibility.

Curious that you posdted this a couple of days after that bogus documentary was exposed as being fraudulent Lythium.

Their selective use of data that they twisted to meet their targets, the way they completely ignored any evidence that contradicted their 'findings' and their general un-scientific approach to the subject makes one wonder what their agenda is, and who might have financed it.

galraen wrote:Curious that you posdted this a couple of days after that bogus documentary was exposed as being fraudulent Lythium.

Their selective use of data that they twisted to meet their targets, the way they completely ignored any evidence that contradicted their 'findings' and their general un-scientific approach to the subject makes one wonder what their agenda is, and who might have financed it.

Do you have any details on the recent exposure of this "documentary" being fraudulent? The reason I ask is because I haven't seen that much, in terms of recent stories, over here, and I know this was a UK/Channel 4 production, so I'm guessing it's been more in the news over on your side of the pond.
Though, I did find [url="http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html"]this article[/url] in The Guardian.

The only other story that I could find quickly on the saubject is based on the sme story BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'No Sun link' to climate change, but the 'documentary has been challenged by many scientific groups, including some that, as the Guardian pointed out, some that were duped into participating and had their contributions distorted, edited and used completely out of context.

Channel 4 has a track record or broadcasting crack-pot documentaries unfortunately. Their 7 o'clcok news programme is usually very reliable, but that is produced by a different company (ITN), but much of their other content is to say the least, un-eliable. What else can one expect from the company that gave us 'Big Brother' and other such tasteless junk.

Basically, if a story breaks that is attributed to a Channel 4 production, take it with a very large chunk of salt.

Wikipedia gives a solid account of all aspects of the controversy.

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia