By What is with these eco-facists? Do they really think this kind of video will get people to join their green faith? As you can see below the group which is subsidized by Australian taxpayer money was forced to apologize:
Sorry.
Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.
With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website. We won’t be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet.
2:34 pm on October 3rd, 2010 1
Dim-Witt writes another comment calling someone an Eco-Loon.
6:48 pm on October 3rd, 2010 2
Jesus! While I disagree on your general position on global warming/climate change, that video was a bridge too far: I feel the same way about that one as I feel when Christians bomb abortion clinics (Christian upbringing, y'all) – what an embarrassment.
1:08 am on October 4th, 2010 3
Aren't we supposed to run out of oil soon, anyways?
10:15 am on October 4th, 2010 4
AGW is a faith now, the evidence has been defrauded but no one is wanting to take the political fall out over it. There is just too much money to be made by perpetuating the myth then by actually doing research.
11:26 am on October 4th, 2010 5
#2
I guess you are too young to have watched any Monty Python. British humor can sometimes be very harsh and biting.
9:55 am on October 5th, 2010 6
What's the truth about global climate change?
1. not happening
2. happening but not caused by carbon dioxide
3. happening, caused by carbon dioxide but not human activity
4. happening, caused by carbon dioxide released by humans, but nothing to worry about
5. happening, caused by carbon dioxide released by humans, and we had better do something about it
6. other. Please specify.
10:14 am on October 5th, 2010 7
Most likely number 2. The Earth has a natural climate cycle that it follows. Unfortunately this cycle is longer then we've been recording temperature. We started recording during a low point, so for most of the modern history temperatures have been slowly climbing in a rhythmic cycle. Eventually it'll start to cool off again and then people will be crying about global cooling.
The problem is the currently politics have mixed with climate science. Its worth so much more money to have your research support AGW the to have your research not support it. If it supports AGW then you get more grant / research money and your name published in a magazine, if it doesn't support AGW your dismissed, ostracized and otherwise have your career ruined.
And the biggest lie is that there is some sort of consensus in the scientific community. AGW supporters completely made that one up, their definition of consensus was "all those who agree with us" and their version of peer-review was review only by those who support us and vice-versa. When you get into it its pretty sick to see science perverted in this way to make a bunch of people money.
11:23 am on October 5th, 2010 8
Global warming is occurring because the nasty assed Japs are killing all the whales and seals around the Dokdo Islands. If you have ever been to Dunkin Donuts in Korea, you should know – Dokdo belongs to us!
4:26 pm on October 5th, 2010 9
Midevil Warm Period. Google it.
9:21 pm on October 5th, 2010 10
Indeed, Leon! Dokdo belongs to America.
9:53 am on October 6th, 2010 11
someotherguy 8, doesn't burning coal and oil put more carbon dioxide in the air? Doesn't carbon dioxide absorb infrared light?
1:52 pm on October 6th, 2010 12
Glans you and the animals of the world breathing and later decaying produce more CO2 then hydrocarbon fuels. Something many modern-pop eco's like to forget. If you ~really~ want to cut down on CO2 production then you need to start killing off the world population and burying their bodies in tar pits and under mountains. And after this you need to shut down most of the factories that produce all that nice stuff you like to use, including that computer and "green" car. Then the CO2 from stuff like fuel can be looked at.
Of course none of that would change the global temperature one bit. Both the worlds CO2 levels and temperatures have been significantly higher then now and life actually flourished. During the MWP the world experienced a very warm period, this was before modern industry and mass use of hydrocarbon fuel, the atmosphere CO2 was lower then currently and the world was still warmer. A few million years ago the atmospheric CO2 levels were a few hundred times what they are now and the world experienced more biological growth then ever before. So the equation of CO2 = death is false. Also the equation of CO2 = higher temperatures has ~never~ been proven. The primary green-house gas is not CO2 not even close, its H20 and then methane. CO2 has a very small impact if any impact at all.
There was lots of research into it until it became profitable to "go-green" then politics took over and side tracked the research. To the point that scientists were actively working to manipulate data, ostracize anyone with an opposing view, even working to hide and remove historical facts. Nearly all current "climate science" reports are based on a set of data from the IPCC that itself is based on extrapolation of data from reports based on manipulated weather station data.
Data from world weather stations was altered aka "corrected" to reflect what the research's wanted it to be, if a weather monitoring site reported data that was outside the manipulable range it was discarded. Basically any data that didn't agree with what the compilers wanted it to be was discarded.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking…
Then that finalized data was fed into weather models that were designed to ~always~ produce a hockey stick out-of-control prediction. The models used were forced to be released to the world under a Uni of Pen investigation. The code in the models was found to manipulate the data and disregard positive / negative signs for change. Meaning if an area is -1.5 degrees then last year it was instead read as +1.5 degrees. Ontop of it all the coefficient factor used to determine the effect of CO2 was made up, really they just stuck a number into the formula and called it a day. No research to determine the proper coefficient (its still not known today), just used a number they thought would make sense and give the effect they wanted.
And ~that~ is what pass's for climate "science" today. That is the source for all those commercials you see about the world getting hotter or saving the planet. And the whole thing is bought hook line and sinker by a population that is more concerned about buying the next *must-have* product or staying *in-style* then by determine the truthfulness of their information sources. Who is quick to spout "facts" they heard on TV, or their friends told them, or they heard from this one news article.
FYI, if the atmospheric CO2 worked anyway like the AGW people swear it does, then we wouldn't be here having this conversation as this planet wouldn't be inhabitable. Inputting the CO2 data from the Jurassic period has this planet turning into Venus like conditions and completely unsuitable for life as we know it. What the greenies don't like to mention is that CO2 doesn't stay in the atmosphere for a long time, it gets dissolved into the Oceans and is used as fuel for part of the Ocean life cycle. Because of this run-away CO2 emissions (a required component for the hockey stick effect) simply don't happen.
We can go on and on about this stuff because of how distorted reality has become. Its so bad because its taking away attention / money from real pollution threats that need to be solved. CO2 isn't the problem its all the other crap we're putting in the air that will kill us much faster.
7:12 pm on October 6th, 2010 13
someotherguy 12, the carbon dioxide released by animals, fungi, and bacteria comes from carbon which is already on the surface of the earth. Burning coal and petroleum increases the carbon up here. And carbon dioxide does absorb infrared, does heat the atmosphere.
Previous major climate changes occurred when there were no people or only thousands. We've had minor climate changes affecting millions of people. What we're looking at now is major climate change affecting six billion people. See the flooding in Pakistan? Imagine it ten times worse, in Bangla Desh. Imagine New Orleasn permanently flooded. Etc.
You can forbid the carbon dioxide to absorb the infrared, but it will defy you.
2:53 am on October 7th, 2010 14
#8,
Or is it caused by space aliens? (sound of horns)
#12,
Yes, bacteria produce a lot more CO2 than we do, just as rivers and lakes only hold a very small percentage (1 or 2 percent) of all potable water (most of it is underground)…It doesn't change the fact that we're polluting the hell out of the Earth.
And, frankly, I think we're wasting petroleum (most plentiful source of hydrocarbon we have) by using it as a fuel.
4:58 am on October 7th, 2010 15
Are all Canadians a little stupid?
…or just the ones who don't realize the incredible benefits and advantages Canada would possess if all the fear-mongering worst-case global warming scenarios actually play out to be true?
As nationalistic as Canadians are, it is very strange they aren't doing everything in their power to ENCOURAGE global warming… burning their tuques or double-carbonating their beer, eh.
Instead, like a dog licking the boot that kicks it, most Canadians are hyperventilating about global warming, making sacrifices and putting their national interests behind those of less sincere countries which would be adversely affected by global warming.
I swear… Canada is like the sincere and likable but goofy fat kid who will actually go and check to see if "gullible" is still in the dictionary or not.
I think part of the problem is a confusion with atmospheric CO2 which, at the worst, encourages plant growth and very real pollutants like PCBs and stray plastic bags… which have all been lumped into the same category of importance by agenda-driven politicians backed up by naive do-gooders.
Or, maybe, the Canadian government is in on the scam… meaning they know it's all bullcorn… but they have yet another excuse to increase taxes, enlarge intrusive government and further divide the classes…
…and the poor Canadian citizens just believe what they are told to believe and gasp about what they are told to gasp about.
I'm just teasing you, Teadrinker… but even with the snark removed, the basic point is very valid.
Why do Canadians care about global warming?
6:46 am on October 7th, 2010 16
ChickenHead 15, maybe Canadians done't want their country overwhelmed by a hundred million climate refugees from south of their border.
10:55 am on October 7th, 2010 17
@14,
I completely agree with you that we're polluting the hell out of the planet and need to clean up our act. This insane nonsense over CO2 is just diverting attention from the real pollution to some get-rick-quick scheme. And yes we need to get away from hydrocarbons because they are in limited supply. Although we do have the technology to create hydrocarbon fuel so we can always just create more. Its horrifically expensive energy wise to do so. Mother nature takes tens of thousands of years to convert carbon hydrogen and oxygen into oil and gas using natural heat and pressure. For us to do that on a timely scale means we gotta generate the heat and pressure, not terrible efficient. Hopefully people will stop being idiots and we can build more nuke plants, especially if they use Gen IV designs for molten salt and the thorium fuel cycle.
@13
The sheer ignorance of your statement is mind boggling. I don't often call people ignorant, but this I'm willing to many an exception for. This is a prime example in how a little bit of science mixed with 30s sound bites makes for a really bad formula. How is the CO2 coming out of your mouth different from the CO2 coming out the top of a power plant? Its still CO2 and its still going into the atmosphere. The carbon in the CO2 came from stuff you've eaten just like the carbon in the CO2 from the power plant came from hydrocarbon fuels.
~ALL~ things absorb infrared radiation to some extent or other. Infrared radiation is just light emitted within the infrared range of the EM spectrum which is slightly below the visible spectrum. After absorption the excess energy is spit back out usually in the form of more infrared radiation. This is how hot things get hot and how heat transfers over convection. This is like saying dihydrogen monoxide is the most lethal substance on the planet responsible for tens of thousands of deaths every year. CO2 represents a very ~very~ small part of the atmosphere, the planet has had 10 times this much CO2 in its atmosphere before and it didn't burn up or do half the things the AGW alarmists say will happen in the next 20 years. Also notice how that "date of our death" keeps getting bumped up and the "urgency" level keeps rising. At first the theory said there might be some problems in a hundred years, then it was 50, then 30, now its 10 or less. Its an attempt to get legislation passed that would allow the AGW supporters to create a new industry worth trillions of USD. Its science being misused for greed.
And that is the problem with all this mess. The insanity is so loud that its drowning out actual real research. There are people out there who are genuinely wanting to know how the atmosphere works and are trying to figure it out. But every time they try to do research or release data that doesn't agree with the "the world will end soon unless you give us all your money" line their silenced and ostracized. Everything presented to the news industry and to the general population has been manipulated and corrupted as to give everyone the appearance of "the world will end unless you give us all your money". Anyone disagreeing is labeled and derided. That is the sign of a cult mentality not of actual logical reasoning and critical thinking.
Is the world getting warmer? Yes its getting warming.
Is the warming being caused by humans? Nothing has demonstrated that it is.
Is the warming part of a natural cycle of the world? Most likely, work towards this end has been stunted by the AGW crowd.
Has the world been hotter in the past? Yes and it resulted in a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity.
Has the atmospheric CO2 levels been higher in the past? Yes and again it was during a time of unprecedented growth and prosperity.
And one of the biggest misconceptions in the world.
Is the total ice mass on the planet going down? No, as ice in one area melts ice in another area is building up.
Will total ice mass going down result in the oceans rising and killing everyone? No most ice is already floating in the ocean and thus has already displaced its mass worth of liquid water. The only melting ice that could cause oceans to rise would be ice sitting on top land mass's, the majority of which is in Antarctica. The land ice in the Antarctic hasn't melted anytime in recorded history.
12:25 pm on October 7th, 2010 18
someotherguy 17, aerobic organisms recycle carbon that's already on or above the surface of the earth. Using fossil fuels brings up additional carbon from below the surface. That's why the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. And it absorbs infrared strongly.
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
By comparison, nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to infrared.
A climate that was OK for dinosaurs might not be so good for six billion people depending on agriculture, industry, and stable societies.
The ice of Greenland and Antartica is melting even as we speak.
Be that as it may, I conclude that the consensus of the ROK drop community is that climate change is real and fossil fuels have nothing to do with it.
8:30 pm on October 7th, 2010 19
Poor Prospects for New Climate Meeting
by John M. Broder and Elisabeth Rosenthal
WASHINGTON — With wounds still raw from the chaotic United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen last December, negotiators are making final preparations for next month's meeting in Cancún, Mexico, in a surly mood and with little hope for progress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/world/americas/…
10:18 am on October 10th, 2010 20
Climate change is very real because the earth is very old and our understanding of it only is only 100 years old. We try to use very old ice samples and fossils but that information is patch work at best.
And BTW the carbon in fossil fuels came from the surface originally tens of thousands of years ago. Just like the carbon your body happens to be made out of.
As for the supposed "consensus" let me dispel that myth right now.
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
Petition physically signed by over 31,487 scientists with 9,029 being pHD level. The qualifications were that your degree be a Bachelor of Science in one of the fields of climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, or biological.
The UN's IPCC report, the one that started the entire AGW scare is backed by 600 scientists, all approved and picked by the IPCC. They include many people who stand to receive substance monetary gain through either research grants or direct business contributions through AGW legislation.
Recently the British royal society rewrote its statement on climate change. It went from "unquestioning consensus" to highly uncertain, also they took out many of strong wordings about certainty and death for the world.
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1617-royal-society-b…
And last, a very prominent physicist resigns from the American Physicist Society over the scientific corruption apparent in the APS over AGW. The senior APS management violated its own charter / constitution in order to keep climate debate out of the APS and to maintain monetary grants and research funding.
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-re…
The get-rich-quick scheme is failing and failing quickly. They could maintain it for so long by locking down on research and not letting and dissenting views come to light and thus give the appearance that all was well. Now that its been demonstrated that various entities were doing this, all sorts of discussion is taking place and its turning out there wasn't a consensus at all. The only thing people can all agree on is that more study / research is needed and that it must be transparent and free from political machinations and policy.
You base your policy on scientific research, not your science on policy.
10:27 am on October 10th, 2010 21
Except from one of the above reports.
"'The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of
the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13…
I still can't believe your stuck on that infrared part. Do you even realize what that means? Energy is radiated in 360 degrees on three axis. Any energy absorbed must be radiated immediately afterward, either in the original spectrum or in an adjusted spectrum depending on the material. Any energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule would have >50% radiated directly upward, with >50% being in a generally downward angle. What makes a greenhouse has a greenhouse gas isn't its infrared absorption but how it releases that energy. And this goes for all emitted energy not just infrared. Methane is ~80 times or more worse then CO2 and we're emitting large quantities of it every day. It also tends to stay in the atmosphere longer. If your going to worry about a green house gas, worry about methane not CO2. The only reason people aren't freaking out about methane is there isn't much money to be made taxing / selling it.