Chuck Gould wrote:
On Mar 27, 8:46�pm, Jack Redington wrote:



Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you
have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you
ask about are answered in the film.

made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin

� - more information on it can be found athttp://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swi...

Jack Redington- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



I'm extremely comfortable with a diversity of ideas. As should we all
be. If we automatically reject every idea because it's new, we will
stop learning.

I don't think their ideas are all that new. These have been around for
20 some odd years. They have just been suppressed. When one can't create
a argument against an opposing view, the actions have - on this subject
been not to allow the view to be debated and discussed. Or to discredit
the messenger when one has no basis for discrediting the message.

I wonder how many of the big TV networks will pick this up and air it ?
I watch a two hour long program on one of the big TV networks that was
suppose to be on global climet. But ended up being on polution in
general. For some reason they just could not seem to locate anyone who
would not say that man was not responsable to the earths climent cycles.


My objections a

1) one sided (as was Al Gore's)

I can agree that they are only voicing their side. But one of the
problems with this debate all along is that we have been bombarded with
one sided material from goverment funded scientist saying that we as
people are having a big effect on climent. Yes I beleive that man has no
or little effect on the global climent. But I still watch programs and
read material from those whom I do not agree. Apparently you do not
agree with this, as you have such a passion for what you beleive. But
not the time to watch a 75 minute program that has a opposing view.

As I had stated before we need to have a real discusssion that is not
just from political whores who suck funds from the public feeling bin.
And these guys have the courage to stand up against the massive
political enviromental machine. They have more guts then most. They did
not hide who they are and what they really think. But have got their
point accross without the mainstream media being able to stop them. And
they didn't wear masks.

2) hand picked scientists all in perfect agreement regarding every
detail. (scripted) A genuine mix of experts will perhaps agree in
general principle but be of different opinions regarding the details.

As are all the documentaries that disagree with them as noted above. I
wonder what would happen if the billions of dollars provided to the
scientist that are at least saying they beleive man is controling the
worlds climent just stopped being avaiable ?

If the political winds changed how many would abandon their position
just got find a way to the money. No way to really know of course. The
people in this program are holding or have held some high level
positions in the field of earth science. I am sure the goverment is
going to be jumping at the chance to drop some of these billions the US
goverment is spending to further their research.

3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing
indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985

Maybe inconsistent with the folks who get their money from these
goverment programs and or grants. It does not mean their data is incorrect.

Cheers.

Jack Redington

On 28 Mar 2007 00:13:37 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

On Mar 27, 8:46?pm, Jack Redington wrote:




Your big object to this is it does not go lock-in step with what you
have been told. I did watch the whole thing. Many of the questions you
ask about are answered in the film.

made by documentary-maker Martin Durkin

- more information on it can be found athttp://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swi...

Jack Redington- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I'm extremely comfortable with a diversity of ideas. As should we all
be. If we automatically reject every idea because it's new, we will
stop learning.

My objections a

1) one sided (as was Al Gore's)
2) hand picked scientists all in perfect agreement regarding every
detail. (scripted) A genuine mix of experts will perhaps agree in
general principle but be of different opinions regarding the details.
3) inconsistent argument, as noted, regarding CO2 being a trailing
indicator and the statement that the climate cooled until 1985


BTW, the EPA site you referenced in another message was informative. It
doesn't have the 'world is ending' approach taken by so many others, nor
does it lay global warming at mankind's feet.
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

On Mar 28, 9:17?am, John H. wrote:


BTW, the EPA site you referenced in another message was informative. It
doesn't have the 'world is ending' approach taken by so many others, nor
does it lay global warming at mankind's feet.
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

Nor does it entirely exclude man as potential contributor to the
accelerating trend.

Anyway, you asked for a source that closely reflected my opinions
about the issue and I'm glad that you found that one informative.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 27, 4:56?am, John H. wrote:
Provided without comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U
--
***** Hope your day is better than decent! *****

John H

I watched the first 25 minutes.

Far be it from me to say whether the current warming trend is caused
by man or not, but the producers of your film flagrantly contradict
one of their key initial arguments somewhere around the 21 minute
mark. Prior to this point, they emphasize that the global climate
cooled during the post WWII industrial expansion, with temperatures
actually falling a bit from 1945 to the mid 80's.

At the 21 minute point, (where the narrator states "Al Gore's film was
right, there is a correlation between CO2 and global warming"), they
really begin playing the audience for stupid. They follow up the "Al
Gore's film was right" comment with an observation that the
relationship between CO2 and warming is that CO2 levels begin rising
only *after* the climate has been warming for an extended period of
time.

Your film doesn't seem to dispute that CO2 is rising. It doesn't
dispute that global temperatures have been increasing. It does suffer
a logical meltdown when it tries to simultaneously claim that the
earth was cooling until 1985 *and* that rising CO2 is an effect,
rather than a cause of global warming and is an indicator that lags by
decades, or even centuries. According to the hypothesis presented, we
should now be just barely able to detect any increase in CO2 resulting
from the warming that began in 1985. In fact, the levels of greenhouse
gasses are increasing at rates unprecedented in modern history-
something pretty inconsistent with a theory that elevation of CO2 and
other gasses occurs naturally after every extended period of global
warming.

What does this have to do with boating? Perhaps a lot. This week I'm
investigating a situation where environmental extremists nearly shut
down our recent boat show. I discovered that a City of Seattle
ordinance makes it illegal to discharge soap into a storm sewer system
or directly into a body of water.
The ****er: the city politicians had enough sense of self preservation
to write in
an exemption for "the private washing of automobiles and trucks",
thereby allowing the owners of a million automobiles in this area to
dump soap and cleaning chemicals into the storm sewers (which drain to
lakes and the sound) without fear of consequence. Their rationale was
that they would also encourage people to use commercial car washes,
(which recycle wash and rinse water). Nobody operates a commercial
boat wash with a water recycling
system, and owners of larger boats have no option except to wash them
in their slips. Everybody washing a boat with soap is technically in
violation of the law, but because there are so few boaters in the
population there is little fear of political backlash. Much of the non-
boating public assumes that only rich SOB's own a boat in the first
place, and nobody cares if they have to suffer a bit- it only serves
them right.

If the global warming thing gets up momentum, we could very easily see
regulations that curtail the discretionary use of fossil fuels. Boats,
RV's, ATV's,
private planes, etc may someday have to apply for a "trip permit" and
make a case that a specific use is business related rather than a mere
pleasure trip.
Or, perhaps we'll see a tax of $1 or $2 applied at the fuel dock with
the excuse that the proceeds will go to combat global warming caused
by boat exhaust. In reality, of course, the proceeds of such a tax
would only support a large group of new government employees which
would create plenty of CO2 discharge as they jaw-jack about the
problem and accomplish almost nothing.

As far as your film goes; never put blind faith in any presentation
that includes only one side of an argument or where the opposing
viewpoint is characterized by the presenter rather than described by
the opposition. (Radio talk shows do this all the time. A liberal host
will say "Conservatives all believe......." and of course the
conservative hosts are quick to tell you what "Liberals all
believe....".)


Very few people deny that the earth is warming up. It appeared that
most of the dozen or so scientists they rounded up from all over the
world to make the film you posted also agree that the earth is warming
up- but they deny that human activity could have any influence on that
warming. My unscientific opinion is that the earth has a natural
heating and cooling cycle that we would be powerless to control and
that organisms will adapt to changes (or become extinct) as the
climate gradually shifts. It is also my opinion that if there is any
chance we have interrupted or accelerated the natural heating and
cooling cycle we just may have created a situation where organisms
will not be able to adapt quickly enough. We need to remain open to
the possibility that man has altered our climate and study the
evidence objectively. Turning this issue into a BIGOIL vs. the Greens
political crap fest does us all a disservice. We shouldn't look for a
political answer (on either side) to a scientific issue.

Any idea who sponsored or produced your particular propaganda piece?
Al Gore took credit for his.


I agree with allot of your observations. One point, carbon dioxide is about
the weakest greenhouse gas in all the gases that are listed as greenhouse
gases. It's 1/20th as effective as water vapor. Water vapor as clouds
during the day reduces earth warming and as high altitude clouds at night it
has greenhouse effects.

Such a weak greenhouse gas in sufficient quantities might and probably does
have an effect. Any increase in earths temperature due to the Sun warming
the earth (most probable) or carbon dioxide warming will be amplified by
water vapor. In the documentary cooling by water vapor induced clouds
during the day can be influenced by sunspot activity. In most cases of the
suns cycle without sunspots the water vapor acts to cool the earth. With
sunspots there are reduced clouds and water vapors role is primarily as a
greenhouse gas. We recently went through a sunspot cycle ending in 2004.