The great global warming swindle

[theimmortal1]

Socialists are using global warming as a means to pass their socialist agenda. Higher taxes and much more government regulation are the obvious starting points. Clearly, their are people that are truly worried about global warming but there exists a large portion of people that are simply using global warming as a means to create a socialist paradise.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Like I said, waste away, pollute, and destruct. Water, and electricity are cheap anyway. I also hope for disease, war, and other things so we can have maximum chaos. It would be rather exciting.

So, like, death and destruction is good? Living in northern Uganda, or the Sudan, or North Korea is exciting? Maybe you should try it out.

 

[Babbler]

Socialists are using global warming as a means to pass their socialist agenda. Higher taxes and much more government regulation are the obvious starting points. Clearly, their are people that are truly worried about global warming but there exists a large portion of people that are simply using global warming as a means to create a socialist paradise.

Maybe; but it has no bearing on the validity of global climate change.

 

[Pokurcz]

Sonorakich

"I am typically a skeptic with these things. There is one occasion where I was not and I regret it: Iraq. In 2002, the media and political machines began, rather suddenly, to indicate Iraq posed a serious threat with hordes of WMD's and if we humans didn't combat it, we were finished.

Needless to say, to me there are extreme parallels."

As Gothmog has written time and time again, your mixing politics with science, here your even equating politics with science.

The start of the Iraq War has no parallels with the global warming situation. The Iraq situation was all about politics and strategy, global warming all dough it has a political side it is about science and in science there are rules much stricter than those in politics. The political side is of coarse necessary for the scientifical studies to be transformed in to hands on action.

As an example, in politics it is possible to bend facts for ones aims in a way that in the world of science would be similar to refuting the laws of gravity. The rules of science are so strict that that would be quite impossible because of the scientific community and its constantly vigil mechanisms that do not allow unscientific results a long lifetime.

Now Global Warming has actually been discussed in the scientific community for several decades and and further new findings have elevated the quality of the data to an extent that there is no room for speculation if global warming will happen, it has, as a matter of fact, for quite some time been a matter of discussing when and how much and now new data has narrowed the numbers down considerably.

Your mistaking It is not difficult to perceive your predicament, for the issue is hard to grasp for a lot of people whilst most of us are not scientists, including myself; but I have more trust in scientists then in politicians. For politics to be as clear as science man would have to grasp all the intricacies of the human mind and furthermore develop a foolproof liedetector.

 

[sonorakitch]

Sonorakich

"I am typically a skeptic with these things. There is one occasion where I was not and I regret it: Iraq. In 2002, the media and political machines began, rather suddenly, to indicate Iraq posed a serious threat with hordes of WMD's and if we humans didn't combat it, we were finished.

Needless to say, to me there are extreme parallels."

As Gothmog has written time and time again, your mixing politics with science, here your even equating politics with science.

The start of the Iraq War has no parallels with the global warming situation. The Iraq situation was all about politics and strategy, global warming all dough it has a political side it is about science and in science there are rules much stricter than those in politics. The political side is of coarse necessary for the scientifical studies to be transformed in to hands on action.

As an example, in politics it is possible to bend facts for ones aims in a way that in the world of science would be similar to refuting the laws of gravity. The rules of science are so strict that that would be quite impossible because of the scientific community and its constantly vigil mechanisms that do not allow unscientific results a long lifetime.

Now Global Warming has actually been discussed in the scientific community for several decades and and further new findings have elevated the quality of the data to an extent that there is no room for speculation if global warming will happen, it has, as a matter of fact, for quite some time been a matter of discussing when and how much and now new data has narrowed the numbers down considerably.

Your mistaking It is not difficult to perceive your predicament, for the issue is hard to grasp for a lot of people whilst most of us are not scientists, including myself; but I have more trust in scientists then in politicians. For politics to be as clear as science man would have to grasp all the intricacies of the human mind and furthermore develop a foolproof liedetector.

Thank you for your response, but I must illustrate one important element which you do not include, and thus in my opinion invalidates at least some of it:

science and politics, while not the same thing, rely on the same thing to survive.

In this sense, the Iraq debacle and global warming is exactly the same analogy when contesting the media treatment and sensationalism. In one instance, evidence which led certain people to believe a certain thing was introduced as near-fact (by the media). In the other instance, evidence which leads certain people to believe a certain thing is happening is now being introduced as certain fact. This is what troubles me.

You are right, global warming has been discussed for decades. Global cooling was too. Evidence presented in the blockbuster hit "An Inconvenient Truth" is as credible as the evidence presented in "The Great Global Warming Swindle". There is an enormous movement only in the last year or two which has turned this science into broad fact...something that should not be done until we are absolutely sure.

And for the record, while science in the pursuit of truth is nothing like politics, science in the pursuit of money is exactly the same.

And the money is what it is all about. Iraq. Global Warming. Paris Hilton.

~Chris

 

[Narz]

Like I said, waste away, pollute, and destruct. Water, and electricity are cheap anyway. I also hope for disease, war, and other things so we can have maximum chaos. It would be rather exciting.

That said (or smileyed), I don't hope for too much suffering for humanity. Suffering helps people learn certainly but unfortunatly the ones who need to learn are often not the ones suffering (for example, it's very easy for politicians to start a war because they're not the ones experiencing the misery of war).

As for the video, I can't debate their science because I certainly am not a climate scientist.

I generally question conspiracy theories though (admittedly I wasn't always so through in my questioning) and these guys are claiming a conspiracy (to silence global warming dissenters).

If the solar spot data vs. climate change graph is truly spot on I'd be inclined to rethink my previous ideas on global warming.

However, I have issue with their political view of "progress".

I agree that there are far too many people living in poverty in the world today. However, the problem is overpopulation not lack of electricity. It is NOT impossible to live a comfortable and happy life without electricity, look at the Amish for example. However, when you're living in a town so crowded you have to do your cooking indoors, then it becomes a problem.

I agree with the movie makers that Solar & Wind power will not solve the world's energy problems. But the fact is all the people in the 3rd world CAN'T live like Americans. It's simply not possible. In twenty years Americans will not be living the way we are today. The bulk of China will never live to have the lavish wasteful lives that Americans do now. Oil & coal will not save the third world (as the authors seem to suggest), inexpensive oil & coal or on their way out. The party's over so to speak and those who haven't already arrived are too late.

There are also many other issues besides global warming that stem from industrial pollution. The fact that an automobile running in a closed (not even air tight) garage will kill you in less than an hour (perhaps even quicker than that, I haven't looked it up) should tell you something.

Industrial progress does not equate to human progress. There's more to progress than being able to stay up to 2AM (Imagine the horrid life where you actually have to go to sleep a few hours after dark, one of the interviewees insinuated).

I read somewhere that during the conquest of America, many whites who were prisoners of the Native Americans were reluctant to return to "civilization", some even had to be dragged back. Whereas the Natives would all delightedly run back to their tribes with not a second look back.

My point is not that industrial society is necessarily bad (though it is destructive is a multitude of ways) but that industrialization is not the answer to the world's problems (it is the cause of most of them) and that even IF CO2 doesn't directly cause global warming pollution is still a major issue that we have to deal with.

3rd world people need skills to survive and thrive in a sustainable way. Matter of fact, so do we in the West. In a number of years, maybe fifty, maybe seventy-five, the world will run out of recoverable oil. Decades before then we'll be feeling the effects. Experts agree that the idea of solar or wind power taking over the workload of the industrial world (or even a small African hospital) is a joke. This is the major issue of the 21st century. Transferring our infrastructure to run on sustainable power (and simplifying it, curtailing our wasteful lifestyle as much as possible).

I read something about possible innovations that would allow nuclear power plants to reuse their nuclear waste. That would certainly be a good thing, killing two birds with one stone. Improvements in technology to create more efficient solar panels and storage batteries would be great as well. However, I consider myself a realist in thinking that none of these small improvements will be able to save the day. We still have too much hubris and lack of political will. I, for one, am not saddened by a PowerDown future. Industrial civilization has lived the life of a spoiled child. A creative one no doubt but still, horribly, horribly spoiled. It's time to grow up, shed the parts of ourselves (culturally) that no longer serve us and learn to live in harmony with the natural homeostasis of the natural world. Or, if we will be destroried by it. The 21st century will certainly be eventful. I, for one, am excited to be a part of it (far more so than if I thought it would usher in nothing more but new, fancier consumer goods). I genuinely hope humanity makes it and grows wiser in the process.

 

[Narz]

Also, what about ocean acidity? This is more of a threat to human life than global warming, IMO. The video didn't even touch on that.

 

[ainwood]

These comments fairly-much sum-up my views on all of this.

I am saying that smart people study such things and you must review their arguments and evidence.

The political stuff I wont comment on here. That has nothing to do with the science.

Unfortunately, in todays political climate, we are unlikely to get a purely rational, unbiased scientific analysis & opinion.

Like it or not, the IPCC has become a political organisation. Like it or not, there are people who will make money out of global warming, and they have signed-up scientists to support their cause. Like it or not, there are people who will make money out of disproving global warming, and they also have signed-up scientists to support their cause. There are scientists who find that their views on this issues are reflected in whether they get research grants and in who is willing to employ them.

 

[pboily]

My question: why are so many on here so willing to jump on the global warming bandwagon.

I'm not sure why you are calling this a bandwagon. Global Warming "discussions" have been around much longer than the 1 year it took to turn the political discourse into everything-is-about-Iraq: I remember them taking places when I was a wee lad at school.

P.S.--I am a political whore, not a scientific one. It is difficult for me to debate the science...

This is part of the issue, I think, and why some of us "jumped" on the AGW bandwagon but not on the Iraq one: the validity of political decisions remain very much up in the air, well after the decision and its consquences have been established.

For instance, in spite of our most valiant efforts, we still have not produced a "proof" that free-market economies are better than planned-economies, and by "proof" I mean something that would satisfy a scientist, the way GW has been "proved". It's pretty darn clear that the soviets' approach didn't work, if only because they are not around anymore, but it's no proof.

Science is actually pretty hard, and most humans are not idiots: we have a feeling that we can get a pretty good handle on what is going on around us if we just use our noggin. When it becomes too "abstract" or too hard to comprehend, it is much easier to rely on the same kind of "evidence" that proves that free markets are better, our common sense.

EDIT: well, I haven't actually answered anything.

 

[sonorakitch]

I'm not sure why you are calling this a bandwagon. Global Warming "discussions" have been around much longer than the 1 year it took to turn the political discourse into everything-is-about-Iraq: I remember them taking places when I was a wee lad at school.

I also remember the global warming discussions and ideas eminating from both sides in the scientific community. You must admit, however, that only in the last year has it permeated our media; every single day there are headlines proclaiming the end of world as we know it (so to speak). I am a regular listener to the BBC World Service, and it has become ridiculous the number of stories about this fish or that iceberg. It chillingly reminds me of 2003.

And remember too, Iraq was discussed following the last day of the first Persian Gulf War. I also remember in college witnessing debates about the no fly zones and scud missiles. In 2003, Iraq wasn't exactly new either.

My real premise is the saturation given to both stories by the media. It will certainly poison the scientific debate over global warming; a debate that is critical in finding out the truth.

~Chris

 

[Pokurcz]

Narz

Probably because not many people know about ocean acidity being on the rise and of its threat to ocean ecology, so there was no reason for them to complicate matters for themselves and getting in to science.

Liked your post.

 

[Narz]

Oh thanks.

 

[monidique]

I also remember the global warming discussions

~Chris

Your argument, in fact, is that since "Iraq" turned out te be a failure and mistake and a lie, climate change is not happening. Yeah, sure, it's not exactly what you said, yet it is the impression it should leave. I think it is worthless, for reasons allready discussed.

 

[sonorakitch]

Your argument, in fact, is that since "Iraq" turned out te be a failure and mistake and a lie, climate change is not happening. Yeah, sure, it's not exactly what you said, yet it is the impression it should leave. I think it is worthless, for reasons allready discussed.

Sorry, I should have included a translation into Dutch so you could understand it better.

Because you have missed the point.

~Chris

 

[Ball Lightning]

I also remember the global warming discussions and ideas eminating from both sides in the scientific community. You must admit, however, that only in the last year has it permeated our media; every single day there are headlines proclaiming the end of world as we know it (so to speak). I am a regular listener to the BBC World Service, and it has become ridiculous the number of stories about this fish or that iceberg. It chillingly reminds me of 2003.

And remember too, Iraq was discussed following the last day of the first Persian Gulf War. I also remember in college witnessing debates about the no fly zones and scud missiles. In 2003, Iraq wasn't exactly new either.

My real premise is the saturation given to both stories by the media. It will certainly poison the scientific debate over global warming; a debate that is critical in finding out the truth.

~Chris

Wrong. Sort of, yes there are hundreds of news items which are doom and gloom, but if you look at ALL the SCIENTIFIC reports in the last 10 years 100% of them are saying GW is a major threat and is caused by humans. I watched a documentaly about the 'other' side. There are about 15 scientist who haven't written a report or done anything for 15 years, who are being paid millions of dollars to do false studies, which have been proven to be false.

 

[sonorakitch]

Wrong. Sort of, yes there are hundreds of news items which are doom and gloom, but if you look at ALL the SCIENTIFIC reports in the last 10 years 100% of them are saying GW is a major threat and is caused by humans. I watched a documentaly about the 'other' side. There are about 15 scientist who haven't written a report or done anything for 15 years, who are being paid millions of dollars to do false studies, which have been proven to be false.

And every intelligence agency in every developed country in 2003 concurred that Iraq had WMD's!

Aside from that, to claim that every scientist who means anything has jumped on the bandwagon is utterly false. Dr. Richard Lindzen hasn't done anything in 15 years? Spend some time away from CFC and read about Dr. Claude Allegre...he is an interesting one (perhaps the most respected scientist in geodynamics. Fact is, there are many scientists who disagree with the concept you accept so quickly.

And then, of course, today...the plot thickens:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml


~Chris

PS-- You are wrong for indicating the scientists portrayed in THe Great Global Warming Swindle are nothings.

 

[warpus]

Socialists are using global warming as a means to pass their socialist agenda. Higher taxes and much more government regulation are the obvious starting points. Clearly, their are people that are truly worried about global warming but there exists a large portion of people that are simply using global warming as a means to create a socialist paradise.

Right.. a socialist paradise.. with fuel-efficient cars and clean drinking water.

Thank you for the comedy right before I crash

 

[CaptainF]

That said (or smileyed), I don't hope for too much suffering for humanity. Suffering helps people learn certainly but unfortunatly the ones who need to learn are often not the ones suffering (for example, it's very easy for politicians to start a war because they're not the ones experiencing the misery of war).

As for the video, I can't debate their science because I certainly am not a climate scientist.

I generally question conspiracy theories though (admittedly I wasn't always so through in my questioning) and these guys are claiming a conspiracy (to silence global warming dissenters).

If the solar spot data vs. climate change graph is truly spot on I'd be inclined to rethink my previous ideas on global warming.

However, I have issue with their political view of "progress".

I agree that there are far too many people living in poverty in the world today. However, the problem is overpopulation not lack of electricity. It is NOT impossible to live a comfortable and happy life without electricity, look at the Amish for example. However, when you're living in a town so crowded you have to do your cooking indoors, then it becomes a problem.

I agree with the movie makers that Solar & Wind power will not solve the world's energy problems. But the fact is all the people in the 3rd world CAN'T live like Americans. It's simply not possible. In twenty years Americans will not be living the way we are today. The bulk of China will never live to have the lavish wasteful lives that Americans do now. Oil & coal will not save the third world (as the authors seem to suggest), inexpensive oil & coal or on their way out. The party's over so to speak and those who haven't already arrived are too late.

There are also many other issues besides global warming that stem from industrial pollution. The fact that an automobile running in a closed (not even air tight) garage will kill you in less than an hour (perhaps even quicker than that, I haven't looked it up) should tell you something.

Industrial progress does not equate to human progress. There's more to progress than being able to stay up to 2AM (Imagine the horrid life where you actually have to go to sleep a few hours after dark, one of the interviewees insinuated).

I read somewhere that during the conquest of America, many whites who were prisoners of the Native Americans were reluctant to return to "civilization", some even had to be dragged back. Whereas the Natives would all delightedly run back to their tribes with not a second look back.

My point is not that industrial society is necessarily bad (though it is destructive is a multitude of ways) but that industrialization is not the answer to the world's problems (it is the cause of most of them) and that even IF CO2 doesn't directly cause global warming pollution is still a major issue that we have to deal with.

3rd world people need skills to survive and thrive in a sustainable way. Matter of fact, so do we in the West. In a number of years, maybe fifty, maybe seventy-five, the world will run out of recoverable oil. Decades before then we'll be feeling the effects. Experts agree that the idea of solar or wind power taking over the workload of the industrial world (or even a small African hospital) is a joke. This is the major issue of the 21st century. Transferring our infrastructure to run on sustainable power (and simplifying it, curtailing our wasteful lifestyle as much as possible).

I read something about possible innovations that would allow nuclear power plants to reuse their nuclear waste. That would certainly be a good thing, killing two birds with one stone. Improvements in technology to create more efficient solar panels and storage batteries would be great as well. However, I consider myself a realist in thinking that none of these small improvements will be able to save the day. We still have too much hubris and lack of political will. I, for one, am not saddened by a PowerDown future. Industrial civilization has lived the life of a spoiled child. A creative one no doubt but still, horribly, horribly spoiled. It's time to grow up, shed the parts of ourselves (culturally) that no longer serve us and learn to live in harmony with the natural homeostasis of the natural world. Or, if we will be destroried by it. The 21st century will certainly be eventful. I, for one, am excited to be a part of it (far more so than if I thought it would usher in nothing more but new, fancier consumer goods). I genuinely hope humanity makes it and grows wiser in the process.

Great post!

 

[bigfatron]

Finally a reasonable, concise and credible affirmation of my understanding that the global warming bandwagon is the biggest boondoggle of our time.

Thank you Ainwood.

~Chris

Unfortunately for that view the support behind this 'documentary' is already starting to unravel.

One of the leading scientists quoted on the programme is a bit pissed about it:
'Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.'

Not only that, but the film-maker has form:
'Any complaint would provoke a crisis at Channel 4....it had to make a rare public apology after the Independent Television Commission convicted previous programmes on environmental issues by the same film-maker, Martin Durkin, of similar offences - and is already facing questions on why it accepted another programme from him.

The commission found that the editing of interviews with four contributors to a series called Against Nature had "distorted or misrepresented their known views".

A neat summary of the programme=maker's approach, according to Professor Wunsch:
'Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".

He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument."'

Like Gothmog says, don't accept the propaganda from either side, check out the science.
BFR

 

[ainwood]

I'm glad you put that final line in there.

Propaganda doesn't automatically make something false. And as far as I can see, the director does appear a bit unethical (reminds me of Michael Moore!), but again, that's really an ad hominem attack.