The Great Global Warming Swindle?

[YmirGF]

No doubt all the merry Greeny Warming Weenies will find this documentary rather insulting and deeply offensive. Frankly, I thought it was great. You really need to watch this video and think about the actual science for a wee bit.


Taken from the ever delightful Little Green Footballs Website: March 10, 2007

The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Here’s UK Channel 4’s decidedly non-PC documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. I also rather enjoyed many of the comments that followed the 1-1/4 hour video. It pretty well nukes the non-debate over "global warming" and explains how it is a political monster that has little interest in sciences contributions to the movements pronouncements. I found the bits on computer models very interesting indeed.

*dons authentic Green resistent RF Flak jacket*

 

[MaddLlama]

Fantastic movie

 

[MysticSang'ha]

As a person who is an environmentalist at heart and who has over time come to accept the global warming theories, I have to say that this was a very well-produced video from the dissenting voices. So, Paul, you don't have to worry that I'll be throwing anything at you unless we're in a food fight.



Actually, I'm thankful that I've seen a sincere debate from both sides now from the scientific view (since I'm in no way a scientist LOL). However, this side in particular is very un-PC, I can certainly agree with that!



One could very well argue after seeing this documentary that the Right is filled with religious fundamentalist wackjobs and the Left is filled with environmentalist fascist wackjobs...........so, PFFFFT. Looks like we're screwed no matter who's in charge from the political spectrum.




I'm sure RFX and Pete will be very thankful now that you've introduced this to the forum. *winks*



Peace,
Mystic

 

[MaddLlama]

I think that the idea behind it is less of "let's point out the fundamentalists", but rather it's "let's focus on real science, instead of giving so much credence to politically motivated science". And, I think that is a fantastic idea.

 

[Mathematician]

Here’s UK Channel 4’s decidedly non-PC documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. I also rather enjoyed many of the comments that followed the 1-1/4 hour video. It pretty well nukes the non-debate over "global warming" and explains how it is a political monster that has little interest in sciences contributions to the movements pronouncements. I found the bits on computer models very interesting indeed.

Wait, what?

These are dissenting voices. The arguement has not been nuked. Show me one issue where scientists are in total agreement and I'll give you all my money for the rest of my life. We have scientists who espouse intelligent design -- granted their numbers are fewer, but you shouldn't try to sound like the issue of Global Warming (which is happening. The documentary never makes the claim that the Earth surface is not warming up) is dead.

Oh, and there already is a rebuttal out on the internet: http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf

 

[MaddLlama]

So, because they disagree it means we should just dismiss their position without considering it? It is a bit scary that people who are really into pushing global warming aren't interested in hearing any dissenting science. People say "the time for debate is over", well, excuse me, but I didn't hear any real debate.

One real question to consider is which side of the argument has good science, and which side of the argument has bad science. And, it's also important to find out if any portion of either of those sides of the argument are politically motivated.

Ten years from now, I predict that the news reports will be hailing the impending doom of another ice age.

 

[MaddLlama]

Wait, what?

These are dissenting voices. The arguement has not been nuked. Show me one issue where scientists are in total agreement and I'll give you all my money for the rest of my life. We have scientists who espouse intelligent design -- granted their numbers are fewer, but you shouldn't try to sound like the issue of Global Warming (which is happening. The documentary never makes the claim that the Earth surface is not warming up) is dead.

Global warming may be happening, but that isn't the issue at all. The changing of the earth's temperature is a few things that the current environmental movement completely ignores:
1. A completely natural phenomenon. The earth's temperature changes ALL the time. Civilization has adapted to the change, whether a rise or drop in temperature, and carried on. The world didn't end, and none of the catastrophic claims of the global warming movement are going to happen as a result of the natural climate cycle.
2. Not man-made. There is extremely little relationship between carbon dioxide and change in temperature. To day that global warming is caused by people is ignoring most, if not all, generally accepted climate science.
3. There really isn't anything we can do about it. The earth will do as it pleases, and I think it's the height of arrogance to claim we have some sort of control over the natural processes of the planets.
4. The whole idea is politically motivated. For me, that takes away a lot of it's reliability.

 

[Mathematician]

So, because they disagree it means we should just dismiss their position without considering it? It is a bit scary that people who are really into pushing global warming aren't interested in hearing any dissenting science. People say "the time for debate is over", well, excuse me, but I didn't hear any real debate.

One real question to consider is which side of the argument has good science, and which side of the argument has bad science. And, it's also important to find out if any portion of either of those sides of the argument are politically motivated.

Ten years from now, I predict that the news reports will be hailing the impending doom of another ice age.

"Dismiss their positions without considering it?"

Where did I say that? I would never want the scientific process compromised just because I support a particular theory.

"One real question to consider is which side of the argument has good science, and which side of the argument has bad science. And, it's also important to find out if any portion of either of those sides of the argument are politically motivated."

Sides are not politically motivated, but certain people are.

"Ten years from now, I predict that the news reports will be hailing the impending doom of another ice age."

Well, in the '80s and '90s there were skeptics, scientists included, who concluded that ozone depletion was not man-made either. We now see they were wrong. So I guess we'll have to come back to the issue in ten years, eh?

 

[YmirGF]

I think that the idea behind it is less of "let's point out the fundamentalists", but rather it's "let's focus on real science, instead of giving so much credence to politically motivated science". And, I think that is a fantastic idea.

Exactly. What disturbs me is how virtually everyone who is talking about "global warming" and the "green revolution" don't have credentials, of any kind, as a rule. Yet “Global warming” is now accepted as fact.

Everybody's an expert and we actually fall all over ourselves to listen to a political "has been" who has taken up “the just cause”, conveniently reinventing himself in the process. It just smacks of a pseudo religious movement where the well meaning folks just accept what they are told because they do not know the science. The new priesthood of doom makes it all sound right, even if the plot line in "An inconvenient truth" doesn't actually add up -- still it’s not like too many will stop to notice. There’s a planet to save “Damn it, Janet!” and what goal could be more worthy? Maybe if we are lucky Bono will make an appearance and sing us a heartfelt song. One can almost hear the heady strains of “Kumbaya” and by default, the goals are morally correct so it is of little importance if the science supports the thinking.
Heaven forbid. :beach:

 

[MaddLlama]

Exactly. What disturbs me is how virtually everyone who is talking about "global warming" and the "green revolution" don't have credentials, of any kind, as a rule. Yet “Global warming” is now accepted as fact.

Everybody's an expert and we actually fall all over ourselves to listen to a political "has been" who has taken up “the just cause”, conveniently reinventing himself in the process. It just smacks of a pseudo religious movement where the well meaning folks just accept what they are told because they do not know the science. The new priesthood of doom makes it all sound right, even if the plot line in "An inconvenient truth" doesn't actually add up -- still it’s not like too many will stop to notice. There’s a planet to save “Damn it, Janet!” and what goal could be more worthy? Maybe if we are lucky Bono will make an appearance and sing us a heartfelt song. One can almost hear the heady strains of “Kumbaya” and by default, the goals are morally correct so it is of little importance if the science supports the thinking.
Heaven forbid. :beach:

Hey now, I like U2

 

[Mathematician]

Global warming may be happening, but that isn't the issue at all. The changing of the earth's temperature is a few things that the current environmental movement completely ignores:
1. A completely natural phenomenon. The earth's temperature changes ALL the time. Civilization has adapted to the change, whether a rise or drop in temperature, and carried on. The world didn't end, and none of the catastrophic claims of the global warming movement are going to happen as a result of the natural climate cycle.
2. Not man-made. There is extremely little relationship between carbon dioxide and change in temperature. To day that global warming is caused by people is ignoring most, if not all, generally accepted climate science.
3. There really isn't anything we can do about it. The earth will do as it pleases, and I think it's the height of arrogance to claim we have some sort of control over the natural processes of the planets.
4. The whole idea is politically motivated. For me, that takes away a lot of it's reliability.

"Global warming may be happening..."

I just wanted to remark on YmirGF's post, which gives the impression that the scientists on the program discounted all aspects of GW.

Concerning your first three points, look at the link I provided.

I don't see where the common Green benefits from the issue of Global Warming. Of course there are (economic and political) profiteers on the Left; it's the case for most any issue, unfortunately. We have people associated with the "Right" doing the same thing -- do you honestly think the oil companies filling the politicians' and scientists' pockets aren't influencing the debate? What about the religious leaders who show themselves to be "never wrong?" You're smart, so I would assume not.

It's a matter of treading through the garbage on the "Left" and "Right" and finding the truth.

I'm glad to see a documentary that provides us with some dissenting scientists, but their findings are not immune to being questioned, and indeed the link I provided questions a lot of what is claimed.

I have my own concerns with GW. I'm afraid Greens will forget the other problems we are facing: Water shortage, rainforest depletion, GMOs.

 

[MaddLlama]

"Global warming may be happening..."

I just wanted to remark on YmirGF's post, which gives the impression that the scientists on the program discounted all aspects of GW.

Concerning your first three points, look at the link I provided.

I don't see where the common Green benefits from the issue of Global Warming. Of course there are (economic and political) profiteers on the Left; it's the case for most any issue, unfortunately -- do you honestly think the oil companies filling the politicians' and scientists' pockets aren't influencing the debate? What about the religious leaders who show themselves to be "never wrong?" You're smart, so I would assume not.

It's a matter of treading through the garbage on the "Left" and "Right" and finding the truth.

I'm glad to see a documentary that provides us with some dissenting scientists, but their findings are not immune to being questioned, and indeed the link I provided questions a lot of what is claimed.

My concern is that it looks as if the beginning of this whole thing is bad science - when you go into an investigation having already drawn a conclusion, that's not good science. A theory is different from a conclusion, and I don't think that all the evidence was considered before they threw this theory to the public.
You say their finding shouldn't be immune to questioning, and I don't disagree with you. However, I do think we should extend that non-immunity to the people who say it is happening. The idea that global warming catastrophe is so incredibly scientifically based that it is a fact that no one can question helps nobody.

In the 1970's, there were news reports extremely similar to what we see today on the earth's climate. The only difference is in the 70's people were made to be deathly afraid of a global cooling. What happened there? Did industry rise so much in 20 years that it forced the climate change to go in the opposite direction? Or, was there just little science and a lot of assumption to back it up?

 

[Mathematician]

My concern is that it looks as if the beginning of this whole thing is bad science - when you go into an investigation having already drawn a conclusion, that's not good science. A theory is different from a conclusion, and I don't think that all the evidence was considered before they threw this theory to the public.
You say their finding shouldn't be immune to questioning, and I don't disagree with you. However, I do think we should extend that non-immunity to the people who say it is happening. The idea that global warming catastrophe is so incredibly scientifically based that it is a fact that no one can question helps nobody.

In the 1970's, there were news reports extremely similar to what we see today on the earth's climate. The only difference is in the 70's people were made to be deathly afraid of a global cooling. What happened there? Did industry rise so much in 20 years that it forced the climate change to go in the opposite direction? Or, was there just little science and a lot of assumption to back it up?

A 1970 report talked about "Global warming." Look up "1970 Study of Critical Environmental Problems."

 

[MaddLlama]

A 1970 report talked about "Global warming." Look up "1970 Study of Critical Environmental Problems."

Read this 1975 Newsweek article

 

[YmirGF]

Read this 1975 Newsweek article

Well, I for one, definitely remember the talks with friends about Global Cooling theories, lol. Otoh, I don't recall hearing much about Global warming, other than in historical terms, until much later.

 

[Mathematician]

During the period between the 1940s-1970s, there was a drop in surface temperature. "Global Cooling" was premature, no one is arguing that. However, looking at the overall picture, you see that the temperatres have been increasing.

http://www.androidworld.com/Global_temps.gif

Using that same logic brought up in regard to GC, we can discredit skeptics since 7 years ago people said there was no evidence of GW at all.

 

[UnTheist]

Issues like this always tick me off. Let's just wait another 50 years without doing anything and see how it goes.

 

[YmirGF]

During the period between the 1940s-1970s, there was a drop in surface temperature. "Global Cooling" was premature, no one is arguing that. However, looking at the overall picture, you see that the temperatres have been increasing.

http://www.androidworld.com/Global_temps.gif

Using that same logic brought up in regard to GC, we can discredit skeptics since 7 years ago people said there was no evidence of GW at all.

As I believe MaddLlama pointed out Gene, no one is question that there is an increase in the temperature of the Earth. That is self-evident. I think the real disagreement is over what the true cause is. You say to look at the overall picture and I think I am saying, try looking at the really big picture. Likewise, I do not deny man has an impact on the whole enchelada however I suspect that "footprint" is much smaller than we have been led to believe. I guess the day I see folks parking their cars I might begin to believe they are really sincere about reducing their so-called "carbon footprints".

 

[PureX]

I think this completely misses the point.

We, as a species, are essentially crapping in our own house. This is a very stupid thing to do whether it happens to be causing a deadly disease at this moment, or not. So the issue isn't whether our crapping in our own house is causing a deadly diasease or not, the issue is WHY ARE WE CRAPPING IN OUR OWN HOUSE, AND HOW CAN WE PUT A STOP TO IT?

 

[MaddLlama]

I think this completely misses the point.

We, as a species, are essentially crapping in our own house. This is a very stupid thing to do whether it happens to be causing a deadly disease at this moment, or not. So the issue isn't whether our crapping in our own house is causing a deadly diasease or not, the issue is WHY ARE WE CRAPPING IN OUR OWN HOUSE, AND HOW CAN WE PUT A STOP TO IT?

Actually, the video claims that humans are not responsible for global temperature change at all. So, we're not "crapping in our own house".