Frank StaheliThe Global Warming Swindle
What is worse than having blind faith in religion? It is the establishment of falsehoods, and then masquerading those untruths as evidence to encourage the masses to subscribe to your religion. Churches throughout history have used this tactic. Now, the priests and priestesses of global warming are doing just that.
What if something you believed in was shown to be demonstrably false? Would you still cling to your beliefs? There is a religion that is succumbing with ever more alacrity to increasing mountains of evidence against it. That religion is called the Church of Global Warming.
[coolplayer width="419" height="332" autoplay="0" loop="0" charset="utf-8" download="1" mediatype=""]
The Global Warming Swindle
[/coolplayer]
Global warming has become the church that brooks no dissension. We are persecuted for thinking we are allowed to doubt the global warming orthodoxy. Enter a new documentary, called The Global Warming Swindle, which interviews a plethora of scientists, expert in climatology, several of which were involved in the musings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Here’s what they say:
Patrick Moore, Co-Founder Greenpeace
I don’t even like to call it environmental anymore, because really it is a political activist movement. It has become the strongest force there is for preventing development in developing countries.
Nigel Calder, former editor of The New Scientist journal
The whole global warming business has become like a religion, and anyone who disagrees has become a heretic.
Ian Clark, Department of Earth Science, University of Ottawa
We can’t say that CO2 will drive climate. It certainly never did in the past.
Piers Corbyn, UK Climate Forecaster
None of the major climate changes in the past 1,000 years can be explained by CO2.
John Christy, IPCC Lead author
There is not a concensus of thousands of scientists. Many simply think that [man-made global warming] is not true. We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science.
Paul Reiter, who resigned in disgust from the IPCC
Look at the bibliographies of the people and it simply is not true [that the IPCC is an authoritative body]. There are quite a number of non-scientists. Those people who are specialists, but don’t agree…and resign, and there have been a number of them that I know of–they are simply put on the author list and become part of the world’s 2,500 top scientists.
Global warming is a great business with tens of thousands of people making their livelihood from it. When global warming becomes completely debunked, these people will be out of jobs. Global warming hinders industrial progress in the developing world. Climate change in the past is very natural, so why would we think it would be any different today? Co2 increased rapidly during the industrial boom of post WWII, when the average temperatures went down. Satellite and weather balloon data disprove the theory that greenhouse gas increase cause increase in atmosphere warming.
Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, relies on ice core surveys–Vostok found clear correlation between CO2 and earth’s temperature. In this he is correct. But Mr. Gore is incorrect in his analysis–experts have proven that CO2 is not an indicator of temperature, but is a result of temperature. Temperature fluctuation leads CO2 by about 800 years in every study that has been done on the subject. Thus the fundamental assumption of global warming fails.
Volcanoes produce more CO2 than all human sources. Bacteria and animals do as well. But biggest source of CO2 is the oceans. Oceans are so gigantic that it takes hundreds of years for them to warm up and cool down.
In the past, scientists were much more modest in their statements about their ability to predict the climate. All current models assume that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. Models include variables for twice as much CO2 heating than has actually occurred. As in nearly every other facet of our society, those scenarios which conjure up excitement are the global warming scenarios that are picked up by the media. Nigel Calder, journalist and scientist says that most journalism fails in its integrity when it comes to global warming. To him, the modern occupation “environmental journalist” is a conflict of interest.
What can it hurt to be on the safe side of global warming? It hurts the entire developing world. Nearly every country in Africa is dramatically behind in the technologies and comforts of life. Africans say that it does not make sense that the rich countries can still have their luxuries, but that the poor people must be constrained to live within their existing squalor, never being allowed to achieve the African dream.
It is immoral. Patrick Moore calls the fanatics of global warming “anti-human”.
I hereby apostatize, if I ever was a member, from the Church of Global Warming. And I have a clear conscience.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
The more I read about global warming the more convinced that we are in the midst of a global conspiracy. People do not give up their freedom unless they feel threatened. Fear and mass hysteria is a powerful weapon. Governments and tyrants have always used it to control the masses. This conspiracy is not just designed to exhort money from the United States, but its ultimate design is to bring us down. The world is turning against us because we will not go along with the extortion.
One of the hallmarks of a conspiracy is to silence and destroy anyone that gets in the way of it. Right now there is a witch hunt for any scientist that dares to question global warming. Science has always been about questioning things, but now scientists are forbidden to speak up without having their careers ruined.
I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means. I have never subscribed to the usual one world government, trilateral commission, and black helicopter type conspiracies. This time it’s different because I can see with pure clarity that things are not right and the road we are being lead to is the road to bondage. The danger of global warming is not the climate. It is mass hysteria and the loss of our freedoms and very way of life that is in real peril.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Frank,
I would ask you where you got all those quotes. Certainly you didn’t research them yourself. In the spirit of integrity, what is the source of all those quotes?
Understand you are making a claim that contradicts science. We all depend on sources. What is yours?
Tks
Cliff
March 11th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Cliff,
Watch the movie. They say it themselves.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Admittedly the documentary is long (1 hr 15 min), but it will be well worth your time to get another perspective from scientists, some of whom took part in IPCC, who believe that current global warming studies alleging man’s culpability are not scientific.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I will not watch the movie until I know who made it, what scientist endorsed it, and where the money went.
Do you know?
March 11th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Cliff
Here are some scientists that are trying to take back science that has been “hijacked” by opportunistic politicians and left wing organizations.
Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
“Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”
Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”
Claude Allegre, one of France’s leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming. is now questioning the “science” of global warming.
These are certainly not dupes for the oil industry.
Sources:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
March 11th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
An increase of CO2 can only deprive political windbags their required oxygen for reasonable blather.
‘Tis an good thing, Co2 I say, we need action, it would seem that plants will be the beneficiary of increased CO2, they grow well in such.
It is way past time for the vegetables to lead us, the carrion eaters, being our most recent form of leadership has failed us.
Where can a man buy extra carbon credits?, I, and algore, need them to fly his jet around, that carries some 20,000 gallons of fuel. ‘Tis a glorious age we live in.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Proof of what warming has done to past human activity, and it began in earnest some 12,000 years ago. Fascinating.
http://www.wonderfulinfo.com/amazing/ramayb.htm
March 11th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Read the Mahabaratta translations…, people flew in spacecraft called Vimanas, and they were armed with weapons, seemingly rockets, and even weapons that contained “all the power of the Universe”.
Lord Silva and Lord Krishna, I think, fought it out for supremacy in this ancient incarnation of “Indian History”. From what i hae read it was a nuclear battle. Crazy stuff, and now the archeological remains to substantiate the existence of a high order civilsations.
Wonder what they said and did when the bridge succumbed to global warming.
It would appear nothing, and we are still here dammit.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:00 am
Establishment of falsehoods is worse than blind faith in religion. Someho reminds me of the admin rational for war in Iraq.
What if something you believe in was shown demonstrably false? WMD, anybody?
A church that brooks no dissention…Wow do we have models of this in our recent history? Let me see. Maybe I’m dumb or something.
When you strip the environmental, the political, the economic, all you have left is the religious. Were Mother nature gearing up to shrug her shoulders and trim our population, how is than any worse than letting george bush have his war? You can’t shake Her hand? On the Grand scale, all this, ALL THIS (sweeping hands) is only a comma. What the hell. Our liberties, the direction we take, who we vote for (or why) all just a silly assed comma. If any of ya’ll are debunking ‘Global warming’ so as to free up fear energy to combat Fascism here in the flat fifty, on with it then. Otherwise I got no time.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:43 am
Cavaet,
Well said. Our efforts will be better served to fight against something real (Bush’s incompetence) than something false that just makes thousands of Chicken Littles a whole bunch of money.
Cliff,
I don’t find your excuse for not watching the documentary very convincing. One of the major points of the movie is just where the money (and power) is going–to the people who can conjure up all kinds of scary scenarios that have no basis in fact. One of the other points of the movie is the absurdity that the scientists in the documentary are speaking out against the “conventional wisdom” in an effort to make money. The movie is provided free to the public. I don’t think its goal is to make money. I challenge you to watch the movie and refute the points.
Tell you what–if you promise to watch it, then I’ll promise to watch “An Inconvenient Truth”. ;-)
March 12th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Here’s the divide: Who has seen which movie?
As far as how or what we spend our money on, I for one take great offense at how the great axis of cheney has worked the loopholes of hali-burton to glomb on to the vast share (this includes future generations of taxpayers), and may even preclude financing fixes for troubling developements even when they are small. S’pose we have ta ’stay the course’ none the less, even though it’s a bald faced lie, saturated in blood and misplaced valor.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Speaking of movies, we’re living a redo of ‘Bonzo goes to Washington’, which incidently, was one of only two movies I have ever walked out on in my entire life. The other one was some perverted peice of trash about how the Nazis treated some of the captured jewish youth in shangrila. You get the picture.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:45 am
You know, Frank, you’re right. We don’t need to change anything because our air is pristine, politicians never lie, Earth is our landfill and our children don’t have to worry because everything will last forever! Never mind, everybody- carry on.
Of course, a lot of global warming is propaganda. It’s the most effective propaganda since “Silent Spring” which was also true. This is a war to save the planet and propaganda is a staple of war. But what’s the difference between buying the propaganda on Iraq and the propaganda on global warming? Let’s see, cleaner air, cleaner energy, natural resources last longer. Iraq…
McLuhan’s principle of the “medium is the message” applies here. The medium is global warming, the message is clean up or die. Global warming, true or not, has awakened us to the importance of stewardship of the Earth- rich, poor, G-8 countries and the Third World. Pollution hurts the poor more than anyone. If preserving the Earth for future generations is what you’re really opposed to, then save us time and write about that.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Ken,
I’m glad you admit that it is propaganda (word origin: propagating the faith through rumor, etc.). You ask:
The answer: Not much. Both sets of propaganda are boatloads of crap.
You’re making a very invalid assumption with your response to my post. I think it is extremely important that we are good stewards of earth. Environmentalism, not global warming, “has awakened us to the importance of stewardship of the Earth”. Patrick Moore mentions in the documentary that he left Greenpeace because they had become nearly entirely politicized because there was nothing controversial anymore, because so many people had come to realize the importance of being stewards of the environment.
The documentary also makes the point that “Pollution hurts the poor more than anyone”. But it also says that we generally have more pollution at a lower level of subsistence. Only when we reach a higher subsistence level can we take advantage of the free market technologies that allow us to reduce pollution.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Based on my experience dealing with national environmental groups, I have to say that their leaders love hype and scare tactics. My belief is that the truth is frightening enough. Remember the “nuclear winter” scare? Some people thought that the prospect global nuclear war wasn’t alarming enough, so they spun out a climate change scenario.
Now we have these climate change computer models that predict global warming due to CO2. You can tweak the models however you want to get any result you want. I believe environmentalists have latched onto this because they think the rest of us have to be scared before we’ll think about energy efficiency, pollution and conservation of natural resources such as forests.
I wish the big environmental groups would give people more credit. We don’t have to be scared to listen to reason. Anyway, after so many false scares most of us are getting skeptical. I know it works for Bush, who never forgets to mention 9/11 every couple of minutes– but his credibility is slipping too.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Frank: This is about winning and losing- or in this case, whining and losing. This is the way war and politics are played. The questions in a democracy are: 1) Is the cause worthy in the eyes of the majority and 2) Does the reality/outcome justify belief in the cause? It’s a classic propaganda battle and I hope you and the others here visit my blog to see my response to your article.
http://schreinervideo.blogspot.com/
March 12th, 2007 at 10:10 am
The lies in “Silent Spring” have killed millions, and the lies concerning global warming will kill millions in the 3rd world. It is already happening. Liberals cry crocodile tears about the deaths in Iraq, but don’t seem to care about hundreds of thousands dying in Africa because environmental groups are keeping them from developing. On one hand activists have their hands out to get money they claim is for the poor in Africa, (which seldom if ever actually gets to the people they claim to be helping), but on the other hand they are doing everything they can to stop developing countries from developing. The left has romanticized poverty in Africa and fully believe that it is wrong to bring people living in huts into the modern world. The entire idea smacks of elitism and racism.
See no evidence against global warming
hear no evidence against global warming
speak no evidence against global warming.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Ken,
I’ve responded in more detail on your site. I agree with you about such things as James Dobson’s propaganda machine and his misplaced values. But I do not agree that it is okay to lie to someone to support a supposed greater good, as you state on your site.
I agree with Richard. We don’t have to be lied to. We don’t have to be hyped or scared to make a positive difference. As he said “I wish the big environmental groups would give people more credit. We don’t have to be scared to listen to reason.”
March 12th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
here’s somthing for you: http://technologyreview.com/blog/duncan/17555
March 12th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Thanks. I got your response. To paraphrase mine from my blog: “Truth? We can’t handle the truth. Americans prefer a good story told well. The global warming story’s got it all: drama, disaster, racing against the clock, technology. Why do think Hollywood loves it?” As for being lied to, I repeat: why do you expect environmentalists to play fair when nobody else does? Believe me: from my 30+ years in the media, I can tell you with authority. People will not even hear you until you smack them over the head (your word is “scared”). And they won’t retain or understand what you’re saying (your words “listen to reason”) until you repeat it over and over again (Bush, 9/11, WMD, etc.). If you want to win, you play the game. We can clean up the environment. Let’s not overstep and try to change human nature.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I can agree with this part of what you said as regards a lot of people:
On that, sir, you are completely correct! Unfortunately… But how did it get that way?
March 12th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
“We can clean up the environment. Let’s not overstep and try to change human nature.”
Sorry, Ken, but we will never “clean up the environment” without “chang[ing] human nature.”
March 12th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Frank: “Well, when a man and a woman love each other very much…”
Outraged: Let’s not get too ambitious. Remember, what’s driving Corporate America’s push into alternative energy is not climate change but a chance to make a buck (39% increase in venture capital toward alternative energy this year). The key to environmental change is economics. To the people who run the world, if it doesn’t make economic sense, it doesn’t make sense. We need to be as greedy about our environment as we are about our businesses and families. It’s up to people like you and me to be altruistic and make people feel good and right about it. It’s up to the money people to really make it all happen. You know- Republicans.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
C’mon guys, I made three, count’em, three of my most astute and reasoned comments, Plus blue, highlit references, that woulda shoulda sent me and all the rest of us to the rock and roll hall of fame, and when I last saw them they were being ‘paused for moderation’. Now, no sight of em. WTH.
March 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I’m with Ken on one point. Environmentally-friendly proposals have to make economic sense. It’s the most shameless kind of propaganda when Fox News talking heads like Neil Cavuto accuse environmental groups of pushing an anti-capitalist agenda. It would be more correct to say pro-consumer and anti-corporatist. Marxists wanted to re-make human nature– environmentalists have no such aim.
I still think it’s a mistake to hype environmental catastrophe, because credibility is important. In his academy-award winning performance, Al Gore asserts sea levels will rise 20 feet in the near future when the scientific consensus is four to 35 inches over the next hundred years. This gives ammunition to the other side.
March 12th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
[...] for his apparently premature, and I can only assume, emotional, knee-jerk reaction of praising The Global Warming Swindle without first engaging in a bit of simple Internet [...]
March 12th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Sorry bout that Cav, they got caught in moderation. I guess “Here’s something for you” tends to precede porn offers
March 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Cliff, thanks, but now I’m exposed. They might not have been all that great. Not porn tho.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
This was fun. Too bad propaganda’s not the point. This is about saving the Earth. Is there any legitimate argument against it except beachfront property in Utah or The Rapture?
March 13th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“The more I read about global warming the more convinced that we are in the midst of a global conspiracy. People do not give up their freedom unless they feel threatened. Fear and mass hysteria is a powerful weapon. Governments and tyrants have always used it to control the masses. This conspiracy is not just designed to exhort money from the United States, but its ultimate design is to bring us down. The world is turning against us because we will not go along with the extortion.”
Substitute “global warming” for “war on terror” and you might have a point, Ken.
What kind of freedom are we giving up, Ken? The right to pollute as much as we want? I consider it a chance to do our part to make the world a better place. By driving less, I’m doing everyone’s lungs a favor — even if you don’t touch the issue of CO2 and global warming.
March 14th, 2007 at 6:23 am
Ken, the Earth will save itself, and if you are an atheist, it has no life or consciousness, so it can’t care, and doesn’t need “saving”.
It’s a dust mote, spinning through the heavens, with a few reductionist entities, that change from time to time, eating it.
March 14th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Here’s what one of our neighbors is saying:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5433368
March 14th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Ken S,
Interesting article. I thought it was interesting that he pointed out that “carbon dioxide particles linger in the atmosphere for at least 200 years”. This is the point that Tim Flannery makes in his book “The Weather Makers” that I read about one third of last night (I’ll have a report on that in more detail here later). I thought alternatively suggested possible scenarios were interesting in the Trib article as well: warmth may extend growing season in Utah, or increase range of parasites such as the mountain pine beetle.
Jenni,
I agree with you that we can substitute “war on terror” and Ken B’s description is apt. I do agree with Ken B that ill-advised politics resulting from exaggerated threats take away our freedoms in any instance. But I agree with you (and think Ken B probably does, too) that we should “do our part to make the world a better place. By driving less, I’m doing everyone’s lungs a favor — even if you don’t touch the issue of CO2 and global warming.”.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Pay a tax, change the weather. I don’t think so. Humans account for only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the biosphere annually (Google: carbon cycle). Congresswoman Pelosi’s and Senator Reid’s plans for regressive new carbon offset and green tax legislation are designed in concert with UN and Kyoto Accord mandates. The goal is to reduce human CO2 production by 1/3. How high would new carbon offset taxes on transportation and heating fuels need to be to motivate you and everyone else to cut back by 1/3? At best that level of taxation will reduce annual CO2 production by a mere 1 percent globally. Not much mitigation or hope there. Certainly 1% is not enough to make a difference in the perceived problem of anthropogenic (human) global warming gases. The impact of such draconian tax measures can only be imagined. However, it does beg the question, “If humans can’t really be expected to make much of an impact on global warming gases, how can they possibly be blamed for warming in the first place?” Why are people compelled by politicians and the media to feel responsible and guilty for causing global warming? For the answers, Google “blame, shame and guilt used as political controls”, read “Unstoppable Global Warming” and “The Chilling Stars” for the scientific facts and “State of Fear” for the political dynamics behind this renewed eco-tax controversy. Those party faithful that think this debate is over are sorely mistaken. It’s a little late, but welcome to George Orwell’s “1984â€. Watch -ïƒ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU