It's not enough to bash in heads, you have to bash in minds
            

The real global warming swindle

The recent ‘Documentary‘ on the UKs Channel 4 The Great Global Warming Swindle, seems to show compelling evidence that climate change is not caused by humans, despite the consensus in peer-reviewed journals, and what the IPCC say.

It all seems like compelling evidence to prove that humans are not responsible for climate change, but as is typical of climate change deniers arguments they massage the data, misinterpret facts, and arrive at the wrong conclusions.

In fact at least one of the scientists denying climate change in the documentary was ‘duped’ and his views were completely misrepresented.

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.

DeSmogDlog has done a “play-by-play” of the swindle which you should read as you watch it, assuming you actually want to watch it.

The real global warming swindle is the distortion of facts and censorship by politicians and oil industry shills.

6 Responses to The real global warming swindle

  1. 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

  2. @ John Jauregui

    You claim that “humans account for only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the biosphere annually” and recommended that if I search Google I would find plenty of links supporting your position… so i did. I first searched for “carbon cycle” but found those results to general (the carbon cycle is very complicated) so I narrowed it down and searched for “human contributions to the carbon cycle” and found several links, none of which supported your 1% claim.

    In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon.

    For more than 420,000 years the CO2 abundance in the atmosphere was bounded, oscillating between about 180 and 280 parts per million (ppm) over the glacial and interglacial periods. However, since the Industrial Revolution, the CO2 abundance has risen to 375 ppm and continues to rise according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001).

    Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have been increasing for about two centuries as a result of human activities and are now higher than they have been for over 400,000 years. Since 1750, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 30% and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 150%.

    and those were only on the first page, and reflect the data in peer-reviewed literature.

    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

    Care to provide a sources (peer-reviewed would be preferred) saying that cutting CO2 by 1/3 won’t be effective, or that the measures implemented to achieve that goal would be to costly (remember that the cost has to be measured against the cost of doing nothing). Also Congresswoman Pelosi and Senator Reid are affecting change where they can, the Europeans (and others) are doing the same. Climate change is a global problem and no one country is going to be able to solve it. It requires a global effort.

    Why are people compelled by politicians and the media to feel responsible and guilty for causing global warming?

    It may have something to do with the scientific consensus, and peer-reviewed large scale studies like the IPCC, or because those denying the problem (or that we are causing it) are frequently tied to big oil, and more importantly do not have the backing of peer-reviewed data. Don’t listen to politicians and the media for information on scientific issues listen to the peer-reviewed science.

    Google “blame, shame and guilt used as political controls”

    I did and all I got was verbatim copies of the post you left here.

    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

    Since “Unstoppable Global Warming” and “The Chilling Stars” are not peer-reviewed and neither of us are fully versed in climatology and the related fields needed to understand this very complex issue, I will trust the peer review process to filter out the junk science.

    Peer review… is a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field. The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.

    I have read State of Fear, and found it an enjoyable work of fiction, but if you do insist on taking it more seriously than a work of fiction, you should know that Michael Crichton did misrepresent the findings of peer-reviewed science to make his book more ‘believable’.

    Those party faithful that think this debate is over are sorely mistaken.

    The debate can continue, but only in peer-reviewed journals, for the rest of us who are not writing in scientific journals we are in no position to disagree with the scientific consensus, we simply do not understand the science enough to be able to disagree with it. For the rest of us the debate IS over.

  3. The ones most frequently using fear are the denialists, where they say our economy will be brought crashing down. As if a changing economy is the end of the world…

  4. Scruffy Dan said:

    It is interesting that you only directly post links from left-leaning newspapers instead of peer-reviewed articles claiming manmade CO2 will subject mankind to absolute catastrophe. The Stern Report and falling crop yields for Africa? Ha! I guess continent-wide cultural failure and piece-of-shit African Dictators such as Mugabe has nothing to do with it. I bet crop yields in Africa will fall regardless of Global Temperature. Images of Katrina? How about Galveston 100 years ago?

    Notice how the Gaians always suggest increasing government power to stop global warming. I guess Nuclear Power (fission now, fusion later) and advanced technology are Satan to them.

    Pay a tax, change the weather. The dumbass belief of the idiot-savant leftist.

  5. It is interesting that you only directly post links from left-leaning newspapers instead of peer-reviewed articles claiming manmade CO2 will subject mankind to absolute catastrophe.

    There are three problems with linking directly to peer-reviewed journals. First peer-reviewed journals don’t respond to mass-media ‘documentaries’ like The Great Global Warming Swindle; they respond to real science, yet the public needs to know that the Swindle does not accurately represent the science of climate change. Secondly the peer-review process is much slower than the news cycle, by the time an article appears in a scientific journal everyone but the scientists have moved on to other things. Thirdly peer-reviewed journals typically hide their content behind a paywall, so it is inaccessible to most internet users.

    Having said that I have linked to the IPCC report (which is peer-reviewed), as well as the Science article by Naomi Oreskes which quantitatively upheld the claims of consensus. When agreeing with the scientific consensus, the burden of proof is much lower than when one opposes it.

    The Stern Report and falling crop yields for Africa? Ha! I guess continent-wide cultural failure and piece-of-shit African Dictators such as Mugabe has nothing to do with it.

    Bad policy (from Mugabe or others) can also affect crop yields. No one has claimed otherwise, but that doesn’t mean that climate change wont also impact crop yields.

    Notice how the Gaians always suggest increasing government power to stop global warming. I guess Nuclear Power (fission now, fusion later) and advanced technology are Satan to them.

    I don’t know who these Gaians you speak of are, but environmentalists (myself included) don’t see advanced technology as Satan (though green technology still has real costs that must be taken into consideration); new technology will likely be a very important part of any plan to tackle climate change. My only issue with nuclear power is the nuclear waste disposal problem. There currently isn’t a good long term solution (it takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years for the nuclear waste to decay to natural safe levels). Many environmentalists are right wingers and in favor of smaller government. Concern for the environment isn’t a left wing issue.

    Pay a tax, change the weather. The dumbass belief of the idiot-savant leftist.

    Perhaps you should read-up on negative externalities, and come up with better way to deal with them. Most economists believe that a carbon tax is by far the most efficient way dealing with the negative externalities that have resulted in climate change.

Leave a Reply