3/10/2007
The great global warming swindle
This is a wonderful documentary brought to you by - of all places - the BBC. Channel 4. According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn’t your fault … and there’s nothing you can do about it.
We’ve almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they’ve got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.
Thanks to Justin at Right on the Right, and Jo’s Cafe, The Speck Blog
March 10th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Encourage people to see the video “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.
Here is an easy URL to remember to see the program. Pass it along to friends and family.
http://gorelied.notlong.com
March 10th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Cool. Thanks!
March 10th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Lets hope people wake up before the Goracle takes over the world..good post Cao!:)
March 11th, 2007 at 6:54 am
You can also download the video (AVI or XviD) via BitTorrent:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-global-warming-swindle.html
March 11th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
This video is great!
March 13th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Gore: The Song. Updated, Swindle Edition!
http://www.telecosmsongs.blogspot.com
http://www.stambosongs.blogspot.com
March 13th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
actually by channel four.
It’s interesting but misses much significance evidence from the last 30 years.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
have a look.
I’m not discrediting the programme though, I though it was fantastically imformative. We should challenge the norm BUT be careful.
Christina
March 13th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Environmentalists’ position, as the founder of Greenpeace pointed out in that film, is not ‘the norm’.
I have no idea what the difference between the BBC and Channel 4 is…maybe you could fill me in. At this website, they say it’s the bbc. Take a look.
Even someone at the Huffington post said it was the bbc. Heh.
global warming | The Huffington Post
But this BBC produced documentary, ” The Great Global Warming Swindle,” is surely worth the time of anyone still considering human caused global warming as …
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/global-warming/ - 28k - Cached - Similar pages
March 13th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
This documentary is nothing but right-wing propaganda. It’s already been debunked.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
That’s a little extreme, don’t you think? “Rightwing Propaganda”? The only thing that is “rightwing” about it is Greenpeace’s founder talking about how the socialists resumed their communist utopia dream after the fall of the wall, by picking up on the green causes and doing things like getting rid of chlorine, an element from the periodic tables.
The arguments you present are rather flimsy and weak, like the one about the ice cores.
Richard Alley is in the EMS Environment Institute and the Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. He says at Science Magazine:
All the movie is showing is that there is no ‘consensus’, and that the IPCC ’scientists’ are funded so they’re rushing to squeeze the models into the conclusions. So now, as Lindzen and others pointed out, in order for someone to fund their research, all they have to do is mention global warming in their application for funding.
There isn’t anything ‘rightwing’ in that assumption; it’s completely correct, and backed up by scientists around the world.
And there is more, but I don’t have time to entertain your ridiculous leftist politicized climate BS.
USA Today: Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening
Antarctic cooling, global warming?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:56 am
The Great Global Warming Swindle was commissioned by UK’s Channel 4, which has nothing to do with the BBC.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:08 am
okay, thank you. I’ll change that.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I watched the documentary. It’s not about there being no consensus. It specfically states that the current popular theory that CO2 is the dominant forcing is all wrong, and that, instead, it’s solar activity that is driving our climate. These assertions are not based on fact, and the data and charts that were used have been found to be erroneous.
I’m not trying to be nasty here. I know you’re just looking for the truth. That’s all I’m doing. I’ve researched it, and I’ve found that many claims made in the documentary were not based on fact. One scientist has even claimed that he was lied to about the intent of the program and quoted out of context.
So, if anything, I’m skeptical of the documentary - not current prevailing global warming theory.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Have been found by you to be erroneous?
And who are you?
The ‘consensus’ opinion has been alleged by people like Al Gore, and the IPCC report, when, in fact, it’s hardly the case.
Your allegations just further bolster the Al Gore position, regardless as to your poorly worded sentence ‘it’s not about there being no consensus’. The ‘consensus’ on warming is something we’re just supposed to blindly buy into, and it’s really getting to be hilarious to me how hysterical some people are about it, based on little fact, and even less scientific evidence to bolster what they’re trying to illustrate.
To imagine that the little bit of ‘greenhouse gases’ that humans put into the air has any effect on a dynamic system like the weather is odd, considering how during the industrial age when manmade CO2 was on the rise, temperature went down and we went into a ‘little ice age’. There was a warming period before there was an industrial age, and before man was putting CO2 into the air, but people don’t seem to have a clue about that, either.
For more on the ‘consensus’ that doesn’t exist, click here at the business media institute, where Amy Menefee talks about the American Bar association’s environmental law conference where journalists allege there is a consensus.
A fixation on ‘consensus’…did you get that? And you’re denying the ‘consensus’ contention that would muzzle dissenting voices on the subject? You’re participating in that muzzling dissent, calling it ‘rightwing propaganda’. The only propaganda we have here is that of the socialist variety and you’re helping to propagate it.
Click here “Global warming melting down for J.R. Dunn at the American Thinker–and here “Warming To Failure”.
Click here for cnews, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The Global Warming Swindle, as Licia Corbella reviews in that article,
And you poo-poo them as…’rightwing propaganda’ but say you’re not trying to be nasty? lol
You’d better chase after the New York Times, too…“From a Rapt Audience, Calls to Cool the Hype”…lol
Yeah, you’re a genius, all right. You’re smarter than all the scientists who had something to say in that movie, I guess. Everyone is dumb but you, and we’re supposed to buy it because you said it.
March 17th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Actually, North America is using more C02 than we’re producing:
“I will concede, the measurements are not perfect, they are just pretty good; they come from Science magazine, and they are the best numbers currently at hand - American today is apparently sinking more carbon out of the air than it is emitting into it. What’s doing the sinking? In large part, regrowth of forests onland that is no longer farmed or logged together with faster growth of existing plants and forests, which are fertilized by nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide “pollutants.” - Peter Huber, “Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists!”
What’s rather amusing to me about the Arctic warming is how they change the definition of Arctic in order to produce favorable results to the lie of global warming. They actually redefine the Arctic circle based on climate, so it’s always changing. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) [global warming enthusiasts] expanded the Arctic Circle by 450 miles in all directions, expanding the Arctic by about 50%, adding 3.9 million square miles, 2/3 of which is under the ocean. But they use their measuring stations on land to determine the temperature.
March 17th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
This is a very interesting blog. I love to see people argue their “talking points” as if someone was actually paying them to do so.(now there’s a thought) It just amazes me to see how we blindly subscribe to the research of the so-called “experts” as if they completely immune from corruption. The so-called experts have hit and missed far too many times to rely blindly on them. What is the absolute truth? I do not know, but what I can say is better safe than sorry. We spend billions of dollars on auto and life insurance just in case and are considered the wiser for it. Let’s use some of that good judgement when it comes to the life of our Planet.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:11 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 “1984”. Watch–>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
March 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Being a ’skeptic’ because your research doesn’t prop the propaganda means fewer dinner party invitations…and you’re right, Jon, about the people who argue “for” the global warming hype being ‘paid’. That’s the crux of the issue. This is flat out a political movement; there’s no getting around it. So as much as they’re hauling out ’science’ to back their theories, it’s really science that’s been manipulated to fit the theory, which doesn’t really fit into the definition of science at all. It fits more into the definition of propaganda.
But all of that aside, the greens behind this are crazy scarey The stuff I’ve been reading that they’ve said is practically unbelievable to a regular normal person.
That’s pretty sickening…
Four legs good, two legs bad.
So in other words, the more hysterical you are, the more attention you’ll get? Ever heard of the kid who cried wolf? To intentionally lie makes me wonder about what you said right there about who gets the funding: it’s the people who mention global warming in their research application.
MIT’s Lindzen shares those same concerns.
If the science is all phony, then I think the discussion is over, and it should be pointed out that this is a political - not an environmental movement.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Some comments specifically on the part of the show that addressed climate charge and the Third World: This portrayed an extreme environmentalist view point on climate change and inaccurately applied it to developing nations. It poorly addressed how the reducing the impact of climate change practically pertains to developing countries and completely ignored the effects - current and potential - of climate change on people there… Or maybe they were just being tongue-in-cheek; I never really understood British humour, smiley faces are as sophisticated as I get
But anyways, as someone working in renewable energy in Nigeria, I found many of the assertions and arguments to ring particularly false to the reality on the ground. These four points in particular:
- “The polices being pushed to prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the world poorest people.” The only part of the Kyoto Protocol’s climate change policy that directly affects developing countries is the opportunity for partial sponsorship of clean energy projects in developing nations through carbon trading schemes such as the Clean Development Mechanism. CDM has been estimated to free up around $10 billion for clean energy projects in developing nations. The issue with CDM is that Africa is currently getting a meager share as governments like China and India’s were more able to organize to access this funding. I don’t think that’s quite the “disastrous effect” Paul Driessen alleges. Since there are no proposed policies that I’m aware of requiring Africans to limit their CO2 emissions, I’m not quite clear what policy he’s referring to…
- The implication that all renewable energy, particularly solar, is too expensive and inadequate. (via one improperly sized photovoltaic system!) The claim that renewable energy is three times more expensive than conventional grossly oversimplifies energy costs in Africa - where cost per unit energy can be many times that of North America. For instance, the convention in Nigeria is that anyone who can afford it buys a generator as a backup power source since the grid is only up about a third of the time. The office I’m working estimates they spent the equivalent of 10 bucks a day on fuel alone or about $50/week. Since we installed a $6000 solar system 2 months ago, we’ve only had to use the gen once (when the grid was off for a week straight). So our PV system will pay for itself in a little more than two years while most of the components (excluding the batteries) are supposed to last for 15-20 years. However, the majority of people don’t have that much cash to put up at the onset and interest rates are 18-30% here… assuming one could get a (very scarce) loan approved for something as uncommon as a PV system. So solar is too expensive much the same way buying a house is too expensive compare to renting - it actually can be cheaper in the long term but only if people can access loans. Granted, there are quite a few other issues with solar, but it’s deceptive to claim nobody in Africa can afford it.
- Africa is being told by climate change activists “Don’t touch your resources” Well yes, they’re right that Africa has oil. But no one, not even environmentalists, would or could argue that Africa shouldn’t benefit from it. Let’s just be practical about who is currently benefiting from those resources. In Nigeria, only one thousandth of the oil produced here is used by Nigerians. And the profits from the exports mainly go to the international oil companies and very rich politicians. The current climate change movement is not playing an even incremental role in keeping Africans from benefiting from their resources, especially compare to the (incredibly complex) economic and political systems that have evolved over the past two centuries. Please, let’s be realistic - if this is seriously a concern then climate change is the wrong scapegoat.
- Energy infrastructure in developing nations is being [though I’m assuming they meant ’should be’ ] restricted to wind and solar as part of the global warming campaign. No one is actually advocating this. There are certainly people encouraging alternative energies to be included in a diverse energy mix and for very good reasons: Africa is still expanding its energy infrastructure which making both grid connected and decentralized alternative energy option cost-competitive in some situations. However, since these technologies aren’t as well-established they may not otherwise be considered. Diversification of non-fossil fuel energy also makes nations less vulnerable to fossil fuels’ unpredictable costs. Most developed nations planned their infrastructure in an era when fossil fuels were assumed to be endless and benign. Now they have a host of issues because of it. Shouldn’t developing countries learn from this and use it as an opportunity to develop better than the West? Due to the vastly different situations pertaining to North American and African electricity development the ‘We’re slow at adopting alternative energies and it’s even more difficult for them to’ line doesn’t necessarily hold. But that’s not to say that renewables, especially solar, don’t have some major challenges in order to be effectively utilized. (Detailed post on that here: http://my.ewb.ca/home/ShowPost/14177 ) Some of those challenges do require large scale action, but not one simple solution (that would make the topic too easy and uninteresting
March 18th, 2007 at 8:09 am
“The polices being pushed to prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the world poorest people.”
Who said anything about Kyoto?
- The implication that all renewable energy, particularly solar, is too expensive and inadequate.
You can’t argue that solar energy is renewable.
- Africa is being told by climate change activists “Don’t touch your resources”
Who’s talking oil? Africa also has gas, forestry, water, ferroalloy and coal wealth.
- Energy infrastructure in developing nations is being [though I’m assuming they meant ’should be’ ] restricted to wind and solar as part of the global warming campaign.
Who says nobody is advocating this? The greens are saying we can’t drill for more oil, it’s dangerous for the birds. We can’t support the logging industry because it destroys natural habitats for spotted owls. This might not be true in Africa, but pick your African-centric endangered species to force into the environment hysteria model, then. There is always an environmentalist response to using any natural resources, no matter how abundant or renewable.
Four legs good, two legs bad.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Before you think further about this documentary, know this about the director. Martin Durkin was previously in the Revolutionary Communist Party and then its offshoot Living Marxism. They believe in a crazier religion than Scientology, in which we all come from a planet freaking named Zarg and you are either a nob or yob. I had to go look this stuff up, it just got more and more interesting. Heh, it’s really strange what cult like groups believe.
He has also made a number of debunked documentaries, purposely misled his interviewees, then edited/distorted their views. In fact, one of the main scientists on this very special has already stated he was grossly misrepresentated among other things. Whether you believe in global warming or not, this source cannot be trusted.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:21 am
Martin Durkin is now a libertarian. I’m not sure how “libertarian” and “living Marxism” are connected, by I will endeavor to find out. I’ve seen people say that “Living Marxism”, the magazine, is a right leaning libertarian magazine. huh.
It seems to me that a ‘reformed’ revolutionary communist is the best kind, I see no indication that he is still one; the documentary says a lot, and I gather he’s made other films - that hardly seem representative of a revolutionary marxist position on environmentalism, particularly today.
David Horowitz is also a reformed leftist…I’ll have to see what else I can find about Durkin…
You could discredit the founder of Green Peace by using the same rhetoric; it’s the communists who’ve taken over the green movement and these guys more than ever - recognize it, and are in a unique authoritative position to comment.
Daryl Baker wrote:
April 12th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Cao, what do you mean by this: “You can’t argue that solar energy is renewable”?
Yes you can, because it is.
I suggest the lot of you take some time to obtain some information from a reputable source: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229&gclid=CMTDlourvYsCFQXtlAodSFGnwQ .
It is simply obsurd to argue that there is no consunsus that climate change is happening as a result of human activity. It is the advocates of mindless economic development with no regard for the planet on which we live (and do not command) who fund this hysteria of doubt surrounding the issue: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
April 12th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Of course it is.