MovieChat Forums > The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007) Discussion > Let's say they are 100% correct in this ...

Let's say they are 100% correct in this film...

posted 17 years ago by only_myschly
26 replies | jump to latest

If Al Gore is all wrong and CO2 has nothing to do with global warming etc, does that REALLY make polluting right? Does that REALLY mean we can use as much oil as possible?
If polluting doesn't affect global warming, that's great! However, that doesn't mean that polluting is harmless, and definitely not to be encouraged.
Oil is non-renewable, and very efficient. Oil will eventually run out, and we're not even close to replacing it.
Oil is used for food-production, electricity, and fuel for vehicles. Basically everything that makes life easy is possible because of oil.

If we invest in renewable sources for electricity etc, and reduce our dependence on oil, we will:
-Save oil for an (several) eventual future crisis.
-Not have to depend on unstable governments to access oil (Middle-east anyone?)
-Help the environment.

How's that negative? People will loose their jobs is the only possible negative aspect, but will they really? Replacing oil with new technology will generate a lot of jobs.

However, what if this film is wrong, and Al Gore is right?
-Millions of people will die
-Millions of people will have to relocate
-Millions of people will get a worse living-standard
-Oil will be harder to access, harder to transport, and will be desperately needed
-The future generations will never live in the luxury we in the west now experience
-We will cause damage to the earth and ecological systems that will take many many years to repair, it's even possible.

I think it's worthwhile to stop driving SUVs', drive with a catalysis, try to avoid oil-use as much as possible, use energy saving light bulbs etc.

Better safe than sorry I say.

[–] ElectricEye 17 years ago

I was talkin to someone about this earlier in the week. I was saying "Ok, so this doesn't mean that it's ok to pollute, drop garbage, use water in excess... we must take care of our planet, our home: but let's do it for the right reasons: communion with it. We need the planet more than the planet need us. let's do it out of conviction, not fear."

And I say: definitely, not fear.

Protective, Detective, Electric Eye

[–] nerodavie-1 16 years ago

Just about everything humans do is becouse of fear in one way or another.

[–] uncleosbert 16 years ago

speak for yourself.

most of what i do is out of hope, not fear. it's a far happier way to live.

[–] ramsrule2000 16 years ago

When has Al Gore ever been right about anything?

The Weatherman on TV can't tell me if it's going to rain 10 days from now, but he can tell me that we're all going to die in 10 years due to Global Warming?

Yeah, right.

What's more arrogant - thinking that Man created Global Warming, or that Man can do anything to reverse it?

The Sun does not burn at one constant temperature. It fluctuates.

I remember in the early 70's being told that unless we change out ways, we were all going to freeze to death.

Same arguments are being used now, only they are claiming warming, not cooling.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me...

More lies and fear tactics from the environMENTALists.

Man-Made C02 isn't enough to affect the Earth's temperature, no how, no way.

only_myschly wrote:
"Better safe than sorry I say"

Did you say that too when the US invaded Iraq looking for Nukes?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

And unlike Al Gore's documentary, this documentary wasn't ruled by the British courts to contain a disclaimer that a dozen claims in the movie are flat-out lies.

[–] TheJerkStoreCalled 16 years ago

Of course it's not okay to pollute. That's not the message this documentry is trying to do.
The media has gone out of its way to brand anyone who doesn't believe Global Warming (or at least the Al Gore version of global warming) is against the environment.
I agree with Gore in the sense that there's too much pollution, but I don't agree with his methods of putting the entire planet into a panicked frenzy to meet those goals.

[–] deadfish2000 16 years ago

I'm sorry, but I read your response and whilst I don't agree with your point that global warming isn't actually happening it wasn't until the end when I realised you were a complete moron.

'Did you say that too when the US invaded Iraq looking for Nukes?'

Do you even listen to the News or do you just pick up what’s going on in the world by word of mouth... now I for one do not agree with the war in Iraq, but at no point was it about nuclear weapons.... the official spiel was weapons of mass destruction or as the media liked the shorten it to 'WMD's.

Maybe moron's a little harsh... just misguided.

[–] SCanfield20 16 years ago

Ha ha, what cracks me up is the fact that in the film they address "precautionary action" towards the field of global warming. I guess the poster of this topic wasn't paying attention at that point.

And to the person above me, what do you think Nuclear weapons are? It was shorthanded to "Weapons of Mass Destruction" so they could go after nukes, ALONG with any other bomb they could classify as having high destructive power. Still, they found none. What point are you making?

[–] deadfish2000 16 years ago

There is a difference between weapons of mass destruction and nukes. No government accused Iraq of having nukes... just some how became public opinion that Iraq had nukes.

[–] only_myschly 16 years ago

How do you connect "Better safe than sorry I say" when it comes to a fairly simple way of potentially saving humanity from the biggest natural disaster in a very, very long time, to me supporting a complete bull**** war which anyone who watches/reads any other news than the mainstream US-media?
I live in Sweden (but I'm an American), so I've seen Swedish, European, and American reports and opinions on both the Iraq-war and Global Warming, and I must say that it's quite alarming that Fox News isn't considered a satirical program.

[–] j-smiffy 16 years ago

Nukes come under WMDs as far as I'm concerned. Its just a slang word so nobody decided to use it, thats probably what they actually mean.

Stop Radioactivity

[–] leo_bartels 16 years ago

Just incase you have not heard. The makers of this film have removed all uptodate info due to lawsuit threats from the people they interviewed due to the filmakers missreprisenting what they said. the film is now barely 45min long and all info it contains is many many years old.
Where they missreprisented people. Most scientists agree that we are fighting the global warming thing wrong, we need to realise that global warming is only one small issue when it comes to our distruction of our planet. there are massive vortexes (thats right vortexs) of garbage in our oceans and they are absolutly massive. We are draining our peat bogs (which filter CO2 and when drained release houndreds of years wearth of CO2) distroying our oceans (fido plankten is a majore polution filter).
The filmakers took snipets of facts like these that should show global warming as only part of the problem and cut them to prove that global warming is not man made.

P.S I actualy do agree that a good portion of warming is due to our curent location in our galexy including our position in regards to the sun and the fact that our magnetic feild is in a depleated state at this position amongest the celestial bodies.

However how do you justify distroying the only planet that can sustain humane life that we know of??? Even if we only keep it clean cuz its prettyer that way, isn't that a good enough argument. Due you leave garbage in your living room using the excuse that it will not kill you? I don't think so.

[–] uncleosbert 16 years ago

"When has Al Gore ever been right about anything? "

hello friend, al gore is what we call "a celebrity". you put him in movies so that people might actually go see them.

no one besides idiots like yourself believe that his credentials have anything to do with science. even a stopped clock is right twice a day. furthermore:

"And unlike Al Gore's documentary, this documentary wasn't ruled by the British courts to contain a disclaimer that a dozen claims in the movie are flat-out lies. "

that is not what was ruled in britain. also, this documentary has the unique honor of having one of its major players threaten legal action after he saw how his words were perverted:

In his letter of complaint to the film-makers cited above, Carl Wunsch writes:

“I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the ‘Global Warming Swindle’ is deeply embarrassing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

“At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.”
http://ocean.mit.edu/%7Ecwunsch/papersonline/channel4response

that's a real scientist who is really pissed off. who's getting fooled here?

[–] Monsoon-Moon 16 years ago

Ramsrule:
Ofcom has just ruled that the Great Global Warming Swindle misrepresented scientists views and opinions - including former UK chief scientist Sir David King.

Neither Inconvenient Truth or GGWS were close to impartial. It's a shame that we can't see more comprehensive and unbiased documentaries on this crucial issue which will effect us all, either environmentally or economically.

[–] CoolClones 16 years ago

Better safe than sorry?

That line is used to justify the Police state that we in Britain now live in. The invisible enemy of Al Quaeda has given politicians new powers based on fear and authoritarianism and GLOBAL WARMING is just the next stage of it.

Screw ALL of the steps that we are now being TOLD to make. Leave the lights on and the taps running.

What you are failing to grasp is that the polluters are the ones who have made all of the money out of it. In this, I include all the neuvo rich and posers in £55,000 Range Rovers that do 8MPG. Their money, as with all prosperity comes from an economy run on cheap energy.

The Rich do most of the polluting yet it's the poor who are squeezed by higher prices and pushed towards conservation.

You can't tell me that the rich won't still be driving around in Humvees when the working class are reduced to commuting on bicycles.

There is no answer. The Market system insulates those with money from any concern. They will continue to have heated swimming pools in the winter and short haul day trips to Paris every weekend.

The markets must crash and fiat currency be made worthless in order to stop the real polluters. THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

What will happen is that one day Oil will be £1 Million a barrel until it's finally all gone. The Markets will suck out and sell every last drop to save their own interests.

"There must be some way outta here" said the Joker to the Thief.

[–] uncleosbert 16 years ago

ok fruitcake, but that's always the case.

when you're ready to start improving things instead of bitching about those horrible horrible rich people who have driven the evolution of every piece of technology ever invented, i'll be over here. wealth is not the problem.

the truth is, we wouldn't even know about any of this stuff, if america and the russians had gotten along. our fear of each other drove the space race which resulted in the satellites we've used to study the climate. HOORAY COMMIES! HOORAY MASSIVE SPENDING! HOORAY ARBITRARY HATRED!

sometimes we succeed despite ourselves. that's the way out. quit worrying about what the rich are doing and get on with fixing whatever you can.

[–] dances_with_ninjas 16 years ago

The original poster summed it up perfectly.
I believe global warming is happening, that it is largely man made but that the "Day After Tomorrow" style portrayal is either attention grabbing ploys by environmentalists or to get nice shocking pictures and quotes to sell newspapers and grab viewers.

But even if this wasn't true, I'd still strongly advocate alternate renewable energy sources.

Also the "Its to deliberately stop them developing" conspiracy is completely insane and doesn't even bare discussion.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AtheistRevolution 16 years ago

Well the problem is we can change fuel that we use to heat and transport somewhat fast.

But here is the the real problem,almost everything we use is made out of oil. Crayons,glue,plastics,rubbers,dyes,eye glasses,antiseptics,etc. You can replace the fuels in cars and even how you power your house. But finding new ways to develop everyday products is going to be the biggest problem.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] sawyertom 15 years ago

Then I think Al Gore, Patrick Kennedy and all the other globtrotting celebutards need to stop flying their private jets all over the world adding to the carbon footprint more than an SUV ever will. if they can't practice what they preach, and live modestly, they have no business telling others how to leave and to conserve.

[–] jon-gwynne 15 years ago

If we invest in renewable sources for electricity etc, and reduce our dependence on oil, we will:
-Save oil for an (several) eventual future crisis.
-Not have to depend on unstable governments to access oil (Middle-east anyone?)
-Help the environment.

Fair enough, so why waste money on the Kyoto Protocol which, even if Al Gore is right, will only reduce global temperatures by a fraction of a degree?

Why not spend that money developing alternate energy sources?

-
A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. - David Mamet

[–] moveny 14 years ago

Fair enough, so why waste money on the Kyoto Protocol which, even if Al Gore is right, will only reduce global temperatures by a fraction of a degree?

Why not spend that money developing alternate energy sources?

Well, John, the whole point of any climate protocol, agreement or legislation (Kyoto or otherwise) is to provide incentives to the market-driven development of alt-NRG sources by taxing carbon-based forms of energy production. And yeah, it will cost money, at least until the sustainable forms of energy production reach a critical mass where economies of scale and competition forces start to kick in in a substantial manner.

Your rationale might be good for a centrally managed aconomy (i.e. a communist one), but in a market based economy the government cannot decide what is produced or not. Just influence the outcome through policy.

And for the record, I think communist economies are vastly inferior to market economies, just in case some conspiracy theorist was ready to pounce on my post.

[–] jon-gwynne 14 years ago

Still, the US government funded the Space Program in the 60s and put a man on the moon. What's wrong with funding the development of alternative energy technologies?

-
Fox News: We lie, you panic!