Sky News: Debate on global warming, 13/10/2006

[TheTempestSpark]

How did all these predictions turn out? lying shower of wankers

[PonguigPeopinn]

For most of earths history it was much much much warmer than it is today. Earth is still recovering from an ice age, we should expect some warming for this.

Scientists who make valid predictions of catastrophic climate in the future manage to do so without any basis on CO2, indeed they base it mainly on sunspots, and expect us to enter a cooling over the next 100 years.

[ScientificalnessUSA]

In 1905 the state of Georgia (U.S.) had orange groves. They no longer do. Indeed, commercial citrus farmers have forsaken Volusia County, Florida (Daytona Beach are) because of the unusually high number of hard freezes since the early 1980's.

[irishmale4u739]

at least we will get to see this last world cup

[juscurious]

Listen to the qualifiers: Could be, Might, may, etc. The answer is they don't know. It hasn't warmed since 1998 and so the Global Warming propagandists are now desperate. Time is running out on this scam and they know it. Every day more and more people are beginning to doubt this fraud. Soon it will collaspe altogether. I hope the damage is not too great.

[MRMILO57]

Please understand, it's the constant reminding of this climate change theory that is upsettiing to most people.

Just about all of the worlds population have much bigger issues to worrie about.

All these environmentalists should take a step back, stop and think about how people really feel about it.

P.S. there's a very large number of people in Australia, 30 years plus that don't want to know about climate change. They have much bigger personal issues to deal with.

[SarahDe93]

no body should have "bigger personal issues" to deal with.

[MRMILO57]

SarahDe93 .....your only 15 yrs old, you don't have mortgage, everything is payed for by your parents.

I see why you have the attitude you have, I was like that when I was your age, but in the real world.

People paying the mortagage and bills to keep there home is much more important than this climate change theory.

[JonThm]

The wordl started cooling in 2005: Now is teh worst winter fro 18 years. Weather eh!

[masameus]

I've read some of Ben-Ami's articles about economic growth. He continually retorts the tired old argument that the bigger societies become the better because then they'll be able to fight poverty and protect the environment more efficiently. It is clear that educated people like him do not for a minute believe this kind of nonsense. They know perfectly well that it is growth that got us where we are now and that the only way to mitigate the problems would be to target their cause, i.e. growth.

[Hoser95842]

Nice to see that the host is so unbiased and open to new arguments.

[JonThm]

GW - dangerous nuclear ficiton!

[FartheadOgre]

Wow it's just like the U.S. media. A valid point is brought up of potential global disaster and the Capitalist changes the topic to shit.

[JonThm]

More CO2, more life on Earth. More nuclear power, more death on Earth!

[timo1595]

Bad news for fearmonger Gore and Hansen. Nasa has addmitted that 1998 has not been the warmest year in USA since late 1800's. The warmest year is 1934.

[EasyEs]

True. But they whined that it was only for the USA. Which was 50% of the worlds data points and we don't count South America, Africa etc. CO2 emissions scenarios have little effect on climate its all about feedbacks which few people understand. The world could on fire and we would only have to build one nuke plant and friends of the Earth would say no.

[dikstr]

Germana's presentation is typical of those whose primary speech modality is 'um - ah', which she uses frequently to try to collect the loose ends of her spacey rationale.

[LenGarc]

The sheeple who are worried about global warming are so easily manipulated. Some people make such good slaves. How a self serving blow-hard like Al Gore can scare you into anything I will never understand. Go ahead send him your money, sell your suv, turn off your air conditioning, go hide in a closet and worry about rising sea levels. Last time I checked the shoreline was in the same place it has always been. 20 years ago these same pide pipers of propoganda warned us of the coming ice age.

[LenGarc]

This global warming scare was fabricated by the "enlightened elites". A global crisis needing a global solution. The UN will be given authority over the laws of all countries. Like Al Gore, these globalists have sold their souls and betrayed humanity. "A New World Order" is being prepared incrementally. They will succeed since people are thoroughly brainwashed by the media. The goal of these elite is to enslave the world thru total control of the finances of a micro-chipped population.

[02Hurnella]

Thats called paranoia. Got one reasonable shred of evidence?

[cebollarodriguez]

I don´t remember exactly the sources, but i recommend you this web page: mitosyfraudes(dot)org ("myths and frauds"), It is in spanish, but it has a very complete english version.

[grooveboy73]

'I am more worried about climate change than I am about any human conflict' Hans Blix

[grooveboy73]

'He got the science right' gavin A Schmidt, Climate Modeller Nasa Goddard Institute New York

[grooveboy73]

Since when in the US have tyou taken foreign policy directions from the Czech Republic?

[cebollarodriguez]

Isn´t it a "GLOBAL warming"? You are leaving very clear that your only have political intentions.

Michael Griffin did not retract what he said.

Grooveboy, only liars use phrases like "Listen to the truth"...

[grooveboy73]

And fools whove taken in ~$20,000,000 of propaganda from Exxon. Listen to Nasa. listen to American Academy of Sciences. Listen to the truth.

Expose Exxon dot com

[grooveboy73]

Why dont you argue with your own Nasa and the American Academy of Sciences, and harvard and yale - they all agree with man made climate change science. You foolihs foolish person. Find out the truth people: expose exxon dot com

[cebollarodriguez]

"I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change..."

[cebollarodriguez]

"...First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take." (NASA Chief, Michael Griffin)

[grooveboy73]

Micahel Griffin has now retracted his comments. He is also politically appointed by thegovernmnet to Nasa, the same Nasa that James Hansen, the leading climatologist in the world says has been censoring him. Search for James Hansen. Watch his interview.

[daytimegabe]

Dude, DDT is not "highly toxic". It screws with bird eggs that's why it was banned. If particular, it was a problem for condors and bald eagles (California and the US's state and national birds respectively). If it'd been some gutter bird that it killed, then we'd still use it.

[vksharma20]

Global warming is biggest hoax ever perpetrated on world by ex-commies and liberals. Similar hoax about DDT cost millions of lives, so people should be beware about this one.

[Custador]

Are you taking the piss? DDT was invented and used by the US government and turned out to be extremely toxic - how is that a "commie plot"? SO many hicks on this damned site it scares me....

[macroscope]

I'd love to hear them explain exactly how a minor temperature increase would kill coral reefs? That makes no f cking sense.

[wardah86]

macro abc did a special on it the other day.. warmer temperatures turn the coral reefs white and inhabitable. look up the abc special its probably on the net somewhere..

[darinmad]

global warming is the real conspiracy

[magnusea]

Actually, the key thng here is to let politicians regulate before any proof of man made GW and the ferrytail och catastrophe. This is a very uncomfortable mass hysteria!

[magnusea]

I also believe in the global Warming ... as a conspiracy. BTW global warming creates more humidity in the air, and greener desserts. Thats the case in Africa right now! But actually I don't believe in the AGW at all. It can be quite cool this century. Google on "sunspots" and "Svensmark" and you will see data and theory that simply expains climate change of all times. IPCC has so far explained nothing scientifically well. I was "green" in the 90th but disliked weak GW theory.

[tush00]

Goggling sunspots doesn't explain GW. This is not proof at all. This is a case of, I read it on the net, so it 'must be true'. Unless it is scientific published research, then your theories don't have any backing Sunspots have been dismissed in the scientific community. Sunspot activity has declined since 1980, according to the 'sunspot theory', this would mean a decline in global temperatures. This is not the case, as temperatures have been rising.

[magnusea]

"Goggling sunspots doesn't explain GW". No, smarty professor. Google sunspot is no proof. Wow! Google is no proof to anything, but to learn about real science shich is proved is smart to do. (Oh, gosh!) I haveread the crucial documents of most and all crucial proof, but its too little space here to support them. Do your own research, but Svensmarks "cosmoclimatology" is a good point to start with.

[tush00]

What? This is nonsensical. The only thing in this statement that makes sense is "do your own research".. already have... and it all shows that CO2 is guilty.

[magnusea]

Not at all! Not the data. The data is everything. The normal talk has been CO2 and scientists has said "probably". But the data is extremely weak for CO2. Data sensationally and unambigiously supports another theory. Read "Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges"

Google on the string! Url sin't allowed here.

[magnusea]

Sunspot has not declined since 1980. We are in a low 11 year cycke now, so in that respect it is below avarege and any 11 year high point last centuries, but that is a non relevant propaganda argument of course. I know that some stupid "CO2-debaters" say ther is no correlation the last 30 years in sunspots and clouds, but the last 30 years is the only data we have and we have perfect correlation with lower clouds (<3000 m) and a certain CR.

[tush00]

Your argument is flawed, and still make no sense. I think it is you that is 'stupid'

[magnusea]

Okay.

[magnusea]

I think that You either lies about that sunspots has declined or repeat lies. I don't think that is smart. Check the facts, even if you think that is stupid...

[magnusea]

Apparently You don't got a clue since you don't seem to understand my comment about 11 year cycle and don't has checked that NASA:s data with 92 per cent CR-cloud correlation. "This is a case of, I read it on the net, so it 'must be true'." No, this I have followed the climate science since 1993. This is the science astrophysics uses right now (since not fully a year ago). These who calls ppl stupid may are!

[tush00]

No Magnusea, the way you write makes no sense... "These who call ppl stupid may are". The term stupid first came into it, when you brought it up to describe CO2-debaters. Ironically, you have described yourself.

[tush00]

Cosmoclimatology' - this old old argument appears again. Svensmark is very vague on the lack of any trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays. I cannot explain this on youtube, and cannot be bother to there 'convert' you. However, anyone that wants to know why this is wrong, should go to real science and search 'Cosmoclimatology' - tired old arguments in new clothes

[magnusea]

"vague on the lack of any trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays" The 11 year suncycle is a new discovary which CO2-pollitically scepticala (u might are one?) sometimes don't even recognize.

[tush00]

This is not an old discovary (sic), but one old one, which has be proved to be incorrect. How about you go to the link I suggest Magnuesa.

[magnusea]

All you did was to misinterpret a Real Climate statement of old theory in a new name, or? You are wrong. Part of the correlation discovery is old, all new cerrelation and the CR-cloud experiment discoveries enables the new theory. I agree with all astrophysicists that i have heard comment on the (sunspot)-CR-climate connection, that the data is unambibiously correlating very well. I have read all real climates objections. Can't see your link. What shall I comment? Re-post!

[magnusea]

The cosmology part in the cosmoclimatology is extremely new. But the data ther fits all in perfectly unambigiously well too. Nir Shaviv has done most of the work. You probably hate him and like that many accuses him for being financed by Exxon...

[magnusea]

One messure it is by length in sunspot suncycle, numbers of sunspot and intensity of sunspots also affect cosmic rays. This together (vauge? doesn't matter!) correlates directly with CR and clouds also very well correlate. Climate correlation unambiguously on 100, 100 000 and 1 000 000 000 year scale. BTW: Cosmoclimatology not old or an argument but new science used by astrophysics, paleologists and biologists since just recently.

[nicomacdonald]

topperharley12585 has posted a link to an entry in the Fallacy Files: Logical Fallacy: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, confusing causation and correlation -- a common mistake made in the climate change debate. This is an interesting reference, but if references are to be posted here an explanation of the reference and its relevance should be included.

[topperharley12585]

fallacyfiles(dot)org/cumhocfa(­dot)html

[JohnDeBunkTest]

He wants to solve the problem by changing the subject.

No one is suggesting we need to drop other problems off the list, but we do need to begin taking this global warming issue seriously and change our life energy choices.

[nama1995]

i totally agree with you, i am not an environmnetalist but i no what ur talkin about. The thing is it seemed like the 2 opposing parties were just insulying each other. 'pesemist' and stuff.

[theinquisitor]

Nuclear power is the way forward, the danger of which is massively exaggerated. It produces NO greenhouse gases. Compare the small dangers to the dangers of global warming. I think that we need a resourceful society, but our resource use must also not be making things worse. I don't understand why anyone is against nuclear power now.

[wardah86]

it produces a lot of nuclear waste, where will that all be dumped off??

[TheS3xiness]

Gobal Warming is a big SCAM!!!!

[Richard482]

Why a scam. Global warming is an intelligent conclusion of evidence from scientific studies by experts in the field .

[TheS3xiness]

lol experts in the field,studies,evidence? yea, government funded scientists just like the government funded scientist claim about ice age in the 70s. your a dumbfuck!

[wardah86]

government funded? a lot of these scientists have been crying out about global warming from decades ago, when no one else had any idea about it, and when they didnt recieve any government funding. In most cases the government is against the idea of global warming because they have to spend extra money to make the changes in order to reduce immissions, etc. and long story short it is infact you that is the dumbfuck.

[TheS3xiness]

right....do some research about your gov. project call HAARP. They is modify the weather, and just do some research about operation northwoods,operation paperclip,mk ultra,gulf of tonkin incident.The FACT is your the DUMBFUCK!

[wardah86]

ok. all this global warming outcry is saying is to conserve energy and the amount of waste we give out. I dont see why, (even if it MAY be something the government made up) trying to improve the conditions of the planet is such a bad thing? why are you so opposed to the idea? all these scientists are saying is that we should be careful, look at the rainforests, droughts, weather changes, you'd be blind not to see those.

[TheS3xiness]

theyre distracting you from whats really happening. Like North American Union,NAFTA, I bet you never even heard of it. And its rarely on the NEWS, Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith takes up 28% air time. Yea, thats AMERICAS NEWS. Go watch your t.v. and go back to sleep sheeple.

[wardah86]

first of all... I'm not American, nor do I live in the damned country. I know what all those unions are, I dont know about your educational background, but I actually have one.

[wardah86]

I'm Canadian, and our news isnt about anna nicole and all that other garbage. Furthermore, I really don't think you need the news to tell you that something is going on with the environment, people have noticed changes, Canadian winters are not the same anymore. I dont know where you're from but I just don't see how anyone could deny the issue of Global warming. Anyone can say that ANY topic on the news is meant for distraction, but some topics are quite a reality.

[wardah86]

and... are you 14? must you swear like a child when you're trying to get your point across?

[nicomacdonald]

I am not sure who the reporter is.

[indiebridget]

who is the reporter on this show?

[alexcs19]

Paula Middlehurst.

[philtrium]

Great to see a sensible approach to our generations problems. That is that the richer and more developed we are the better equipped we are to adapt and provide solutions to climate change. Whereas the environmentalists would have us going backward and living less!

[wardah86]

Yeah you're right. Rich countries are better at providing solutions to climate change, but it is third world countries that contribute largely to global warming. Consequently, it is the rich countries that keep the poorest countries poor, decreasing the likelyhood of them investing their money in global warmining solutions when they have greater problems, like poverty and disease to spend their limited amount of money on.

[wardah86]

I wouldnt really say environmentalists are trying to get us to "live less", but living in developed countries increases our materialism and has us thinking we need to consume with out any thought as to how our consumption effects the world. We will be living a lot less once global temperatures rise. People fail to think long term, and are far too concerned about what they'll have to give up now in order to have a better future later.

[wardah86]

one more thing. We may be richer and more well equipped to build for example higher walls against floods and move everyone inland, but billions of people around the world arent as fortunate as us to have enough money to protects themselves from global warming cotastrophe's, perhaps we should be thinking about them as well and not just ourselves, which is probably one of the biggest problems these days.