I take no pleasure in hauling my friend Frank to the woodshed 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 sleuthing.
Simply googling “global warming swindle debunked” would have quickly revealed this movie to be the highly polished piece of propaganda that it is.
Whether by following the money trail, checking the false credentials of some of the scientist in the movie, noting the outrage by others who were mislead and misrepresented, acknowledging the extensive use of hyperbole, or the subsequent apology by the TV network that aired it, one is quickly forced to reach the singular conclusion that this movie is pure junk.
Almost from the very outset, the method and intention of the movie was transparent starting with the suggestion that any criticism of the science of global warming is “dangerous” that “politicians no longer dare to express any doubt about climate change”?
So suddenly even George W. Bush was capitulating to political pressure in his last SOTU when he admitted global warming is real? Hmmm.
…or that “apocalyptic warnings” are a conspiracy to prevent third world countries from developing and by the very same”lefty” types that have been working so hard to help them, that the green movement wanted to keep Africa in poverty? Please.
The whole thing stank from the beginning.
But for me, the most egregious tactic was the logic trick, the one Ken Bingham uses religiously, that the link between CO2 and warming has not been proven. There are lots of things we cannot fully explain, like evolution, gravity, and inertia, but I doubt very much if Ken is willing to risk the lives of his children by not buckling them up in the car.
If we were really willing to be the kind of society that refused to be guided by overwhelming evidence by grasping the tiniest of uncertainties, we would be – well…screwed.
Do the work gentlemen. Forgiveness is in the offing.
THE GREAT CHANNEL FOUR SWINDLE
Last night Channel Four kindly gave an hour and half and a large budget to the international network of professional climate change deniers. ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ was a propaganda gift to the various vested interests who seek to undermine the fragile political and social will to take action on this global action.
From – Climate scientist ‘duped to deny global warming
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.
“Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg.”
An Emeritus professorship is an honour that Ball neither earned nor deserves. U of Winnipeg insiders say that the university administration has specifically asked that Ball stop advertising himself as such. Clearly, to no avail.
#1 by Anonymous - March 12th, 2007 at 17:31
OF course there is warming, it has been going on for 12,000 plus years. What in the hell is anyone trying to prove? That WE are doing it? The ample evidence is that without us it warms just fine, on and off, all the time. For millions of years.
What is this effort about? It is really about two fleas discussing the habit of the dog they live on. I figure it is about establishing a global tax. Screw that.
It is quite stupid to proclaim it is all us, when ample evidence that defines the sources of warming, including our own. The science that supports ist is junk, si the reason is political.
#2 by Cavæt - March 12th, 2007 at 19:42
When in the past 12,000 years have we crowded the place with upwards of 6 billion people, many of whom envy US? Tipping points of global significance will be coming hot and heavy, whether it’s clean water, clean air, agricultural methods or just the half-life of our trash. So maybe there’s some scientists who, for lack of consensus around CO2’s role in climate change, that doesn’t mean there’s no merit to the agument whatsoever.Taking that position would be foolhardy. To think that things can just keep going on and on, higher and higher (as tho that were desirable), is just not born out by those 12,000 years of history. Dinosaurs never did perfect the automobile or nuclear waste disposal, though they had a much longer run than I presume we’re going to have. Still, they are gone for the most part, and so too will we be. Which is not to say that there are not the sterling minds, the growth in process and anticipating problems, so as to provide an opportunity for an attempt to overcome some of our wrong turns. It just means that we will be better served if we could just let go of some of our pet activities, activities that enable the more corrupt among us to profit at the expense of the others. We’ll see.
#3 by Cliff Lyon - March 12th, 2007 at 20:09
Dear Anonymous,
If the evidence of human causes is junk science, so is the science that runs your F-150, your wide screen TV, this Internets and your ability to spout nonsense with the backbone of a jellyfish.
May the power grid that supports the unintelligent life on this board never go down for too long.
#4 by Ken Bingham - March 12th, 2007 at 22:08
Cliff
Please just answer me this one question. With the vast amounts of carbon dioxide the oceans, volcanoes, animals, bacteria, decomposing vegetation, and everything else, how exactly does the relatively insignificant amount of carbon dioxide that humans contribute to the overall carbon in the atmosphere push the Earths climate over the edge?
#5 by schreinervideo - March 13th, 2007 at 07:00
BTW: thanks for doing the heavy lifting on this one, Cliff. I don’t mean to discount your efforts to debunk the debunkers. But my point is: if one is looking for ways to get out of being environmentally responsible, say so. Don’t argue over lies this and liberal that. At least Ann Coulter is honest on this one. “Rape the earth. Who cares?” I believe is her direct quote. I disagree with her point but at least it’s honest. The rest are just noxious emissions.
#6 by glenn - March 13th, 2007 at 07:27
This is hardly the warmest it has ever been in Earth’s history Cliff.
We would have to go back to when there were no humans. No one disputes warming, just the reason it is happening.
When algore spews and drives around in a jet, burns 240,000 KW a month in his mansion, eveyone should question the reason WHY he spouts. The Great White Lie.
Thar she blows!!
Cliff what about your POS 6 cylinder isuzu, ever consider that that contributes at least 50% more emission than a 4 cylinder? It’s really simple. Maybe buy a thermal window or two. Otherwise you and algore are full of hot, CO2 filled air.
ICE engines is very fixed science in a closed system, not at all like analysis of a system as complex as earth and all its inputs. Not one person here has addressed ANY of the facts that point to global warming as being cosmic driven, or from decomposition of Earth elements itself.
I do not expect answers to these scientific queries from poli sci majors.
BTW, anyone want to comment on the India-Sri Lanka bridge, that was inundated some 10 millenia ago? Answer that. Meanwhile look out, cluck, cluck, the sky is falling.
Most of the European internet is powered by NUCLEAR, a zero emmission method. 80 odd plants in France, 60 plus in Germany. Their trans run on it also. Pretty soon they will be using the power to compress air to run vehicles. You have to come to the US and Utah, to be confronted by coal burning, 6 cylinder dinosaurs to listen to abject hypocrisy joined with specious science.
Please address the reality that all planets solar system wide, are warming simultaneously. Otherwise, who cares what anyone says about why warming? The vast majoraty of scientists thought the world was FLAT, and that we were the CENTER of the Universe, in their day. The government(church) threatened Galileo with his life for his findings that all “science” of the day was total BULLSHIT!
I only hope that this stupid global warming orthodoxy stays in it’s place. The universtites and not in the hands of policy makers flying around in jets that carry 25,000 gallons of kerosene.
Ken in order to do the heavy lifting on this pile of BS, you will need a fuel cell, or a nuclear power plant. A coal filthy coal burner out on the Swell, lights and warms your house. Buying energy credits is just another form of colonialization, where the rich buy the “right” to pollute. The 3rd world should justly tell global warming policy freaks, to fuck themselves.
#7 by Frank Staheli - March 13th, 2007 at 07:34
Cliff,
A previous comment I made on this thread has not come through yet. Is it being held for moderation?
Ken,
1. I define heavy lifting as actually watching the video and debunking the claims rather than cavalierly dismissing all global warming opponents by saying there are only about 5 of them and that they are the same guys that said smoking was not harmful to your health.
2. I assume your statement “if one is looking for ways to get out of being environmentally responsible, say so” is directed at me (if not, I apologize). I am not looking for ways to get out of being environmentally responsible. My entire claim is that the global warming advocates are doing just that. You admitted as much on the “Global Warming Swindle” thread by stating “As for being lied to, I repeat: why do you expect environmentalists to play fair when nobody else does? “
#8 by Cliff Lyon - March 13th, 2007 at 07:48
My Dear Friend Ken,
The question is not how much CO2 is contributed by humans, but the fact that the sudden rise in CO2 is *caused* by human activity. Unfortunately for those who would rather deny the fact that global warming is caused by humans, we have only science upon which to rely for the answer.
You are not going to like this because it is pretty scientific.
If that doesn’t work for ya, here are some pictures. ZFacts
Finally. It is clearly true that a massive volcano could be catastrophic. So what?
#9 by glenn - March 13th, 2007 at 07:49
I have likely burned more fuel on a per capita basis than 99.5 % of the worlds population. I don’t conserve, I don’t recycle (all recycling in Germany is done at the dump, no reason for 2 sytems independent, dummies).
I enjoy being on top of the energy heap, I don’t have a wit of conscience about it. No one else does. Good lip service to it though. i especially like the way those who a green, do fringe activities to ameliorate how they fell about their contribution, as opposed to what their contribution really DOES!
Me, fuel the boat, damn the River, Let’s go to Powell!!
#10 by Cliff Lyon - March 13th, 2007 at 07:54
Frank,
I am so sorry about this. It happened to Cavaet too. I’m looking for a solution.
It wasn’t in moderation. It must have gone to Askimet Spam but I can only see the most recent 20 or so and we are getting over 1000/day, so I’m afraid its lost.
#11 by Nephi - March 13th, 2007 at 08:00
Ken B. Asks:
Ken,
The answer lies in the logical fallacy of your question to Cliff – you assume that your conclusion is correct. Specifically, you assume that the CO2 released into the atmosphere is “relatively insignificant” and, therefore, could not possibly have an effect on the environment.
The fact of the matter is, however, that the amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere over the past one hundred years are not “relatively insignificant.” Indeed, it is now these amounts are sufficiently significant to have caused a rise in the average global temperature – and the correlation between the two is remarkable.
The fact that the increase in levels appears insignificant – e.g., is relatively small – is of no consequence. As an example, revisit your high school or college chemistry class and redo the experiements on chemical equilibrium of solvents and preciptation of solids therefrom – indeed, very small “relative” changes can lead to profound events.
If you are going to get headstrong into this debate, Ken, take a refresher on some of the scientific aspects of the argument, rather than merely repeating talking points or logic arguments that are based on false premises.
#12 by Cavæt - March 13th, 2007 at 08:07
I have written of solar flare, sunspot activity as well as tectonic plate drift in regards to the climate change issue. I will not discount human impact nor that that impact can be modified, nor that if we continue consuming and polluting we may very well have to say bye bye.
Ken Bingham. I wish to apologize for bad rapping you. Your concerns and questions are every bit as valid as anyone elses, even though I often disagree.
Climate change aside for a minute, I wonder if anyone here would connect these dots? The white house connection to DOJ firing state level staff who either wouldn’t let up on prosecuting Repub crimes or wouldn’t lean on Dems harder, or the other repub appointed staff who did conduct efforts supportive of admin ie, sabotaging Dems or going easy on Repubs; Our attorney general lying to congress about the why of these actions and his role in other whitewashes of bush’s past; Haliburton shifting its woulld headquarters to Dubai; The Libby verdict, and the VP’s connection to ‘the crime’; george bushes comment about being a dictator and battling to the bloody end. Is it as the blessed rope suggests, all over for us?
#13 by Ken Schreiner - March 13th, 2007 at 11:51
Frank: I’m sorry- I never mean anything personally here unless I’m attacked at which time I spring like a cobra. I think most Americans share your opinion. But they accept propaganda as protocol in the arena of public debate (”don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see”). I see the division in the climate change debunker argument in your and Glenn’s responses. Frank, you don’t like being lied to but agree with the sentiment. Glenn doesn’t believe any of it, doesn’t care and never will (see NRA). Frank’s opinions are in line with most Americans’ in the latest polls: “warming” to reality. Glenn is going the opposite direction with Ann “Rape the Earth” Coulter. Fortunately, there’s lots of information out there to help us make up our minds. But don’t expect the propaganda to stop. It’s just begun. And either way, the ultimate truth is going to be unpleasant.
#14 by Frank Staheli - March 13th, 2007 at 12:52
Ken S,
Apology accepted, but not needed.
I as well mean nothing personal by my comments. I am a magnet for a good debate, and I feel like the opportunity for debate is passing us by as we discuss ancillary issues.
I REALLY AM NOT dogmatically stuck to my opinions. I’ll admit that I have preponderantly studied the anti-Global Warming side of the debate. But I am looking for substantive counterpoints that will challenge my comfort zone and perhaps make me expand it a bit.
#15 by glenn - March 13th, 2007 at 13:29
Of course our CO2 inputs make a diffrerence, right down to the morning dump. What Ken is saying is that natural inputs as warming has increased FAR exceed what we are putting in.
Will it cause climate change?, yes, does growing rice?(methane by product)yes, does growing cows? Yes. Does flying around in a jet blathering with 25,000 gallons of kerosene aboard contribute? Yes.
WE HAVE IMPACT. However, the Earth is seemingly unconcerned.
Has anyone looked at the geometric curve in CO2, as warming from the last ice age increases natural inputs of CO2 and methane? As ice melted due to “Unexplained” warming, so did human population and agriculture. Also did releases from thawing earth and decomposition.
When will it dawn of humanity that we are too a natural phenomena, that may well have absolutely no control over ourselves?
There is more than enough ample evidence to support that we have no control. Let me begin with ancient history………..Recognize if you can’t stop your own stupid behaviors, how can you lead anyone else to believe in your bullshit?
Now can we agree that we aren’t going to do shit about it and get on to more important issues? Who cares about warming, address simple pollution. Which comes from each car you own. To talk about anything else while living as we do is to be a complete ASS!
#16 by Aaron Cowan - March 17th, 2007 at 17:00
Hi,
I just wanted to address a few points, because rightwingers are so giddy about this documentary. First off, isn’t it odd that it’s almost exclusively right-wing, evolution-denying, fundamentalist types who are buying into this. Naturally, any time science disagrees with their view they dismiss it as hogwash, but wait for something to come along which supports their view and they’re all over the place touting it. Could it be because it told them everything they want to hear, just like Fox News does for them in the US?
However, all spin aside, I think it would be hard to deny that the concentrations of CO2 have skyrocketed since the industrial revolution, and saying that this is merely a “coincidence”, which is not substantially related to our dumping of 6.5 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, beggars credibility. It’s also, BTW, rather hard to deny the satellite images which show massive pollution clouds over large parts of south Asia, over many major cities and over rainforest areas which continue to be burnt and cleared.
Some people like to make diversionary excuses, pointing out that decaying vegetation and cow waste, for example, produce significant amounts of methane as well, which is an order of magnitude more insulative than CO2. But humans are the reason that we have so many cows and so much decaying vegetation as well. At present, we are not taking steps to deal with CO2 or methane, so diverting onto either point makes no sense.
As to the claims that human actions are too insignificant to affect the globe, 400,000 years of ice cores establish that the present concentration is higher than it has ever been. Again, it’s rather difficult to accept that this change, which has occurred in the last few hundred years of industrialization is merely the accidental timing of natural events.
#17 by republog - March 17th, 2007 at 18:23
I am with glenn on this one, I will take the SUV you take the Rope
#18 by The Blessed Rope - March 18th, 2007 at 06:38
No one is arguing warming, it is simply that if you want to do something about it, START AT HOME!
The ramping up politically is so much bullshit, especially when you KNOW no one will do anything about it, besides charging you more money for what you have all been doing, and will continue to do.
#19 by Kent J - March 19th, 2007 at 12:59
One of the more unfair arguments is the “paid for by the oil companies” argument. It is basically an ad hominem argument. This documentary said that the US Government spends 4 billion on GW research. Whatever. Its clear there is TONS of money spent from all sides on the environement and it is clear that fear works best to get MORE money out of anyone. Citizens and shareholders alike give up their birthright if you apply enough fear.
Its been warm before. It will be warm again.
#20 by Karl LaFong - May 6th, 2007 at 02:11
On March 13, 2007 at 07:27 (AM) glenn wrote the following NONSENSE concerning the number of nuclear power plants in Germany:
“… 60 plus in Germany”
For your information, glenn, at the end of 2005 there were 17 nuclear power plants in operation in Germany. You can confirm this yourself (if you can read German) at
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk
and at the reference cited
http://www.bdi-online.de/download/Anlage.pdf
I think that we can all be pretty certain that since then those efficient German engineers did not build and bring into operation 43+ nuclear power plants.
Either write facts or start your own lies and propaganda blog.
#21 by The Blessed Rope! - May 6th, 2007 at 17:40
Actually, there are 19, in 14 locations. The amount of power they generate is up to 35% of electricity generated. 55% is produced by burning coal.
#22 by kevin - March 6th, 2008 at 15:30
Well I agree Aaron. But we are fucked sorry, China is now burning as much oil as we do. WE are screwed God bless, even though may not be a god i am a homo.
#23 by joe - January 5th, 2010 at 16:36
the real question is wheres my social security ive paid into all my life,why is this government 13 trillion dollars in dept,why do we believe in any solution pollitions may come up with wether there is a problem we gobal warming or not big brother with surley dance around the sollution.