The great global warming swindle

[aaglo]

But CO2 is not the worst greenhouse gas, everyone knows that. It's not the CO2 I'm worried about, because all plant life will thrive in high-CO2 atmosphere.

Methane is a different matter, let alone carbon-monoxides and other poisons created by combustion engines - plus the lessening of small particles in the atmosphere ("cleaner engines" spew less and less particles in the atmosphere, thus lowering the cooling effect of tiny particles).

I think this document is a bit one-sided.

 

[bigfatron]

Oh, and the graph used to 'link' sunspot activity and global temperature got picked apart a few years back - turns out it is not great science after all:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

I understand the need to be sceptical of claims about climate change, but lets at least be equally sceptical about claims on both sides....
BFR

 

[Narz]

Thanks Dawgphood001.

Some more food for thought :

Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'

Ben Goldacre and David Adam
Sunday March 11, 2007
The Observer

A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

The film, shown on Thursday, was made by Martin Durkin. In 1997, he produced a similar series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which attacked many of the claims of the environmental movement.

Durkin said: 'Carl Wunsch was most certainly not "duped" into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said.'

Channel 4 said: 'We feel it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the scientists featured now has concerns about his contribution, we will look into it in the normal way.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

The director also did a documentary that argued silicon breast implants actually decrease the risk of breast cancer. His scientific advisor eventually walked off the project because they were distorting and ignoring her research.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/3/6/8814/25388

 

[aaglo]

Thanks Dawgphood001.

Some more food for thought :
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

The director also did a documentary that argued silicon breast implants actually decrease the risk of breast cancer. His scientific advisor eventually walked off the project because they were distorting and ignoring her research.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/3/6/8814/25388

Heh... a real champion of "how to do as much damage as you can"

 

[Goa]

Here is an article written by Lawrie McFarlane of the Canadian Times Colonist. He draws the parallels far better than I can:

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=b58a489b-5cc4-4167-9c8c-670e39ae1a12

It makes for an interesting and enlightening illustration of my perception of climate change response advocacy and the socialist agenda.

Just some comments on the article you linked:

- In the first few lines the author complains that the positive points on GW are to often forgotten. This might be right for the press, but if you read the IPCC reports, this isn't right. They clearly point out that countries of high latitudes will be winners of global warming.

- Than he brings the good old "some years ago you predicted an ice age" argument. Even if it is repeated again and again, it is a blatant lie that there ever was a significant number of scientists supporting this idea, and certainly not a consensus, so this argument definitely is worthless.

- Then these few lines:
" For socialism, at least in its early form, shared those same instincts -- distrust of private enterprise, animus toward wealth, the urge to proselytize and faith in big government. And like environmentalism, it marched under the banner of a superior morality."
There are of course some nutcracks environmentalists for whom this is correct, but most people I know (and myself) support a market based solution, with the very simple idea that you should pay for the externalities you cause. Otherwise said: If you destroy nature, pay for it. What's bad about that?
And if caring about the future and about the well being of my future grandchildren means "marching under the banner of a superior morality", I admit that I have to pledge for guilty. But again, whats so bad about that?

- Finally this one:
"It's this last characteristic, I think, that defines environmentalism. Saving the planet, like fighting wealth and privilege, is a moral proposition. It supersedes factual argument. Perhaps it also explains the lack of curiosity about climate change."
Sorry, but I'm an environmentalist, not because I like fighting wealth, but because I want to conserve wealth. And the last two sentences make me laugh. It's the scientists who are curious about climate change, and its the scientists who put forward factual arguments.

And one note about fear mongering: This article is fear mongering. It's built upon the communist scarce, something which seems to work quite well in North America. Take for example this sentence: " Industry will be shackled, with the stated goal of reducing harmful emissions." What other than fearmongering is this?

Greets, Goa

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

Yes, but an expert interviewee claiming that he's been taken utterly out of context does imply that something is false.

Sorry, but I'm an environmentalist, not because I like fighting wealth, but because I want to conserve wealth.

Ever notice that sometime people can say what you intend to say, but with fewer words? Goa, I intend to paraphrase this as my position, in the future. Thanks.

 

[Goa]

Open your mind. Lots of people stand to benefit

I'll make a short list of some groups who could benefit from pushing global warming

Scientists who need grants or have an agenda to push
People who sell "Clean Energy Credits"
The media who need another story to scare people
Politics- Kyoto, puts obligations on developed countries to curb their industry while other countries are not under equal obligation.
Alternative energy or clean energy technology industries

All kinds of people can benefit

And me again with some comments of this list:
If I would rephrase the question like this: "who has and had enough power and money to bribe thousands of scientists over more than 2 decades to put forward the global warming theory? ", would you present the same list?

Now let's go through the list:
"Scientists who need grants or have an agenda to push"
Grants are mainliy distributed by funding agencies, which are luckily quite independent, but still controlled by politics. So you are telling me that the people working at the funding agencies are either corrupted as well or to incompetent to see that they are cheated on? And the politicians who are controlling these agencies don't get it either? I think I don't have to remind you that the current US-administration is not known to be very much in favor of global warming theories?

"People who sell "Clean Energy Credits" "
Those are around since 1 or 2 years, so yes perhaps they now make profit, but they surely didn't have the necessary power to corrupt science.

"The media who need another story to scare people"
This is perhaps the only group of people where I slightly understand your point. But then may ask you: how did they do it? I mean I never even heard of one incidence where a media-company funded a research group. And don't you think that other companies like fox-news or like any other conservative newspaper would have reported about it?

"Politics- Kyoto, puts obligations on developed countries to curb their industry while other countries are not under equal obligation."
For me it seems quite logic that those who are the biggest causer of a problem make the biggest effort to regulate the problem. Quite simple, isn't it?
And by the way, you say in general "politics". Who exactly do you mean? All of politics, including US republicans?

"Alternative energy or clean energy technology industries"
Again, they are far from being powerful enough.

Do you really think your list is convincing?

Greets, Goa

 

[Goa]

Goa, I intend to paraphrase this as my position, in the future. Thanks.

Ok, I will send you the phone-number of my manager to discuss about the copyright thing .

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

This thread reveals more about the posters who participate in it than the actual subject.

Propaganda doesn't automatically make something false.

The purpose of the interview was to show that not all scientists agreed the warming is manmade. He took an interview with a scientist who apparently DOES believe that the evidence supports manmade GW, and edited him out of context in a way that the scientist feels is meant to strongly imply he does NOT support the idea of manmade GW. In other words he used shoddy journalism to fabricate a AGW denier out of an AGW supporter.

If you're trying to prove that unicorns exist, and your "proof" is a horse with a toilet paper roll duct-taped to its head, ya got problems.

 

[bigfatron]

Amusingly, a bit of research about the gentleman who fronted this documentary, Michael Durkin, reveals he is a close associate of the Revolutionary Communist Party among whose key contributors to his last programme on environmentalism were the guru and the science correspondent of 'Living Marxism'.

AFAICT the RCP wound itself up at the turn of the last century and its few key members drifted off into what can be best described as far-right anti-religious libertarianism. Their main ideas seem to be the theory that unfettered scientific development will bring about a utopia for humanity, a goal which is being prevented by 'liberal' and green groups that systematically destroy the dreams and lower the expectations of ordinary people. Their main 'policies' are unfettered research into genetic modification, stem cell and cloning, removal of any restrictions on personal actions (smoking, drug use, etc) and complete freedom of speech.

BTW, the RPC got about 0.02% of the UK vote in the last elections it fought - it was genuine lunatic fringe!

A strange man with a strange mix of beliefs....
BFR

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm just pissed they can't make a documentary about global warming without making a stand.

I saw half of inconvinient truth and walked out. That isn't about Global Warming, it's about Gore and how smart he thinks he is. (Really, the 'story' between slides is All Gore )

I haven't d/l-ed this one yet because it starts with calling it a swindle. if it's ripping things out of context it's nothing more than an opinion piece with clever editing. I will d/l it later when I get home, but because of the title I'm allready biased against it.

I want a docu: Global Warming: the facts.

Tough luck for me I guess.

 

[Murky]

Just curious:

Let's pretend global warming is a big fraud. What would motivate people to perpetuate this fraud?

Likewise, who benefits from "debunking" global warming?

Many of the anti-global warming scientist get their funding from big oil and other industrial polluters.

 

[carlosMM]

Wow, sonorakritch, equating intelligence agencies (the main US one having been shown to have been told what to ind by Bush) and peer-reviewed science - this really makes you a conspiracist.

 

[sonorakitch]

Wow, sonorakritch, equating intelligence agencies (the main US one having been shown to have been told what to ind by Bush) and peer-reviewed science - this really makes you a conspiracist.

Not a conspiracy theorist....a skeptic. A media and money driven skeptic.

Which is a good thing. Just because I am not convinced global warming is man made obviously doesn't mean it is or isn't true. But I cannot formulate an opinion on something that isn't plainly and illustratively evident; something I should have done with Iraq too.

~Chris

 

[El_Machinae]

Chris, I thought this would be a good question to ask you:

"IF you're not sure, then why not cut back on the (potentially) offending problem until the science is in?"

Such a strategy would have worked with regards to smoking (waiting for the lung cancer data to shore up), the ozone hole, etc.

 

[JerichoHill]

I'm pretty sure both sides of the debate are lying to me, and you, and everyone else.

 

[Murky]

I'm pretty sure both sides of the debate are lying to me, and you, and everyone else.

No doubt there are extremists on both sides of the debate. I think we should probably be skeptical of everything claimed that is not backed up with solid evidence. We should take global warming seriously at least as a precaution.

 

[Urederra]

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

I don't know, I recently demonstrated in one of the other Global warming threads that there wasn't a hole in the ozone layer at artarctica, and still many people believe there were.

Anyway, good find Ainwood.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I don't know, I recently demonstrated in one of the other Global warming threads that there wasn't a hole in the ozone layer at artarctica, and still many people believe there were.

Translation: You redefined "hole in the ozone layer" to mean "no ozone at all". This in the context of gas distribution in an atmosphere.

The Antarctic ozone hole is an area of the Antarctic stratosphere in which the recent ozone levels have dropped to as low as 33% of their pre-1975 values. The ozone hole occurs during the Antarctic spring, from September to early December, as strong westerly winds start to circulate around the continent and create an atmospheric container. Within this "polar vortex", over 50% of the lower stratospheric ozone is destroyed during the antarctic spring.

And:

The ozone hole is defined as the area having less than 220 Dobson units (DU) of ozone in the overhead column (i.e., between the ground and space).

 

[Riffraff]

Notice that scientists, while being trusted on nearly every other subject, are apparently lying and pushing forth an agenda the moment they discover something that might have a negative impact on the economy.

This is pretty much the only thing that makes this issue special - from nearly all other scientific discoveries, people have profited directly or indirectly. This time, people are asked to cut back on luxuries to avoid greater damage - and suddenly thousands of experts on climate change appear around the globe.