Friday, March 30, 2007

Global Warming - Alternate View

In the interest of full disclosure and because I am not afraid of an open forum of ideas, please check out The Great Global Warming Swindle at my buddy Scott's blog. Scott's a nutty pro-business anarchist (lol), but I like him anyway because he's at least honest and consistent in his skewed worldview. And, painfully, we occasssionally agree on something ... just not in this case.

Check out his post before continuing because I don't want to taint you with my take on the video ....


Alright, all done? 75 minutes later, or maybe you skipped through it. My complaints:

- like other anti-global warming adherants, Patrick Moore, to a large part, lets commerce dictate his science -- He's a paid mouthpiece for the timber and plastics industries.

- Several of the scientists that actually appeared in the video have questioned the manner in which their interviews were used and taken out of context, most notably that of Carl Wunsch: - Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".

He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument."

- "Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon." - from PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

- Scientists appearing in the video have received funding from and have been expert witnesses in court cases for: Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal, Sun, Edison Electric Institute, the largest utility trade association in America, Western Fuel Association, coal companies, fuel lobby’s Global Climate Coalition

- There are many distortions and misrepresentations in the film that have caused even the original channel that aired it to distance itself - Channel 4 Distances Itself From Documentary

For more problems with the program, check out Deconstructing Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle


Reasic said...

Hey there, dbackdad. Thanks for the link. I've also got other posts on the "Swindle" documentary, including a full rebuttal, much like inthegreen's.

I'd be glad to answer any questions.

CyberKitten said...

I really don't 'get' Global Warming skeptics... To me it's obvious that the Climate is changing (fast) and that we are at least partially responsible for it. Naturally there are people who pass off the blame onto other things as this absolves them from the responsibility to do anything about it. If they can fudge the issue long enough it'll become the problem of their children and grandchildren to sort out. Some people refuse to see what is happening right in front of their noses and will continue to do so until the worlds oceans are lapping around their ankles - without them being on the beach.

dbackdad said...

CK said, "I really don't 'get' Global Warming skeptics" -- Unfortunately, I think that I at least partially do. It's not really about the science. It's about their antipathy for anything that might be associated with the "left" or liberalism or the environment.

Even if one were to give credence to the skeptics' "science", how they react to it is even worse. For example, let's say you had a persistent stomach ache (say, for a month) and weren't sure if it was your diet or a sign of something more serious. You wouldn't keep putting off doing something about until you had "better data" or "conclusive proof". You would go to the doctor, take the best possible advise, and would make any changes that you had control over. Because if you waited, you would risk getting to a point where any changes you made would have no effect. Basically, that is what global warming skeptics are asking us to do ... just wait. Should we have waited on the hole in the ozone layer? No. Did changes we made have an effect. Yes. Let's make changes while we still can.

Another problem is that there is another faction that props up the skeptics not because they don't believe the warming is happening, but rather because they're driving that locomotive straight into the Rapture and want to do anything possible to make it go faster.

Reasic said...


I think you've described the skeptical community very accurately, at least as far as I understand it. There are conservatives (or Libertarians), who are just naturally opposed to anything that could possibly be conceived as "liberal". Then, there is the fundamentalist Christian, who is opposed to anything scientific because of previous arguments about evolution. That's very simplified, obviously, but I think it accurately describes much of the skeptics. Understanding this can help one realize how people could defend such ridiculous arguments.

Scott said...

You've all missed the point greatly. I don't care to speak for conservatives or libertarians but for myself my natural inclination to oppose an Al Gore is based not on the fact that he is "Left" or liberal (which he is not at all) but rather that he is a politician. And before you accuse me of being simply anti-Gore, that opposition would also go for anyone who seeks to use the Federal Government as a tool to "fix" global warming.

Of course the Left has already won this debate. National sentiment is that the Feds should do something about climate change (and if not the populous majority than certainly the outspoken media and intellectual minority), my only hope is that when King Obama or King Gore, or whomever "we" decide *SHOULD* rule over us, starts "fixing" global warming they call it the War on Global Warming or the War on Climate Change. That way it will line up nicely with other social problems people have used the Federal Government to "fix" like the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror. My guess is Gore/Obama/Clinton's campaign will have the same effect that those programs do.

G-d knows we mere citizens can't figure out anything for ourselves.

Reasic said...

If Al Gore is your stumbling block, I think you're missing out. Al Gore may raise awareness, but when it comes to finding out real verifiable data or research on the subject, Al Gore is not who I turn to. I think you should set him aside and actually examine the science before you make any determinations as to who to trust. By the way, if you're going to distrust a politician, I would think you would want to choose someone like Inhofe or Rohrabacher. Gore may not always be correct, but those two are nearly always wrong. They have proven time and time again that they haven't got a clue about how our climate works.

This is not a left/right issue - it is a scientific issue. Scientific research supports AGW.

It's not that "mere citizens" can't figure anything out for themselves. It's that they wouldn't if they didn't know about it. An awareness must be raised so that people understand what we're dealing with. Everyone is free from that point to do their own research and figure out the truth.

Scott said...

If Al Gore is your stumbling block

And before you accuse me of being simply anti-Gore, that opposition would also go for anyone who seeks to use the Federal Government as a tool to "fix" global warming.

This is not a left/right issue - it is a scientific issue.

If only that was true.

Science isn't debated on the floor in congress unless it's to restrict someone's rights or to ask the federal government to steal from citizens to pay for research.

If it was simply an awareness campaign privately funded by concerned scientists, I'd have no problem with that. It's not at all. It's largely a political movement brought on by the Left's secular theocracy to impose their idea of morality on everyone else. Or even worse, the disgusting Luddites who push "sustainable development", which is a romantic myth that has NEVER happened, on the third world. When the technology they want to FORCE underdevolped areas to use can't even me implemented in *DEVELOPED* areas due to financial constraints.

Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!