The Great Global Warming Swindle

[worth]

This program aired in the UK on Chanel 4 this past Thursday March 8th. I was excited to see it when I heard about it.

I know there have been some heated dabates on this forum about Global Warming as this subject is very prevalent in our society.

The documentary itself addresses the relationship between CO2 levels and Earth warming trends, and also looks at "An Inconvenient Truth".

Comments made by the co-founder of Greenpeace were especially surprising to me.

It is 1 hour and 15 minutes long and can be found on torrent sites or on Google Video.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Program Website

I would urge anyone interested in the subject to watch the documentary as it is very well thought out and put together.

I would also encourage people to watch the video itself before responding in the thread, because the thread is about the video, and I think the discussion would be much more appropriate if we all saw the same presentation (video) before commenting on it.

Cheers!

[Devils'Advocate]

The producer is a right wing thorn in the side of the British environmental movement. He has put together a gaggle of scientists who have alternative theories and then claims that all the other scientists are lying, have been forced into lying, have been mislead, have been inept, so on and such forth.

In the end, the goal is to get just enough media attention to confuse the people of the world so that governments will get away with doing nothing.

A clear majority of scientists believe that human-created global warming is a threat and something must be done. But it only takes a handful to break consensus, confuse the public, embolden the anti-environmentalist right wingers and cause analysis paralysis so that nothing gets done.

AS AN ENVIRONMENTALIST that has been working on this issue on and off for 15 years, and as someone who has a lot personally vested in this issue (I have never owned a car and always walked, biked or bused to work; became a vegetarian primarly because of global warming, purchase my electricity from Bullfrog Power using only renewable sources, compost all organic waste to stop methane production at landfills)...... I think we should just give up now. The forces out there that want this issue off the table are just too powerful. And unlike with tobacco, the general public want to believe the dissenters.

We environmentalists are spending so much time and effort on this issue that we are going to lose on. Watching a "documentry" like this, reading the threads here... it's like losing a hockey game 9-1 and it's only the 2nd period. You would just rather someone cancel the game rather than continue. Sure, sure "the environment" is important in the polls, but that's what people throw out when there isn't any other big glaring issue. So 65% of Canadians say that Global Warming is an important issue to address... but when asked if they would be willing to pay more at the gas pump to fight global warming, that number drops down into the low 30s.

There are far better uses of time than beating your head against a wall.

[badnarik]

you could focus on the positive effects of global warming if it would make you feel any better. maybe we can stave off the next ice age.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

So 65% of Canadians say that Global Warming is an important issue to address... but when asked if they would be willing to pay more at the gas pump to fight global warming, that number drops down into the low 30s.

There are far better uses of time than beating your head against a wall.

That's the problem right there. A lot of people care, just not enough to actually do anything. We expect the government to do it all for us. When asked why he didn't drive a hybrid, a friend of mine responded that there was no incentive for him to do so. That it ended up being more expensive for him to help the environment. Now I don't know if he could afford a hybrid regardless and that's not the point, the point is that for the average consumer, we can't. The savings on gas are not equal to the added cost of a higher car payment. Sure, many people would love to own a hybrid but they can't afford to. Unless someone makes it affordable, people care more about keeping up with the Jones's than they do keeping the environment clean.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by badnarik

you could focus on the positive effects of global warming if it would make you feel any better. maybe we can stave off the next ice age.

Stave off the next ice age? You are aware that it is global warming that is likely to kick off the next ice age to counter balance the environmental impact of global warming. This is what is completely lost on people. We have a large impact on the eco-system, but the planet continues to work to maintain balance. We may push the planet to the point where it responds and triggers a natural response to the environmental changes we have forced, an in turn makes the vast majority of the planet inhabitable for life in the forms we know it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070310/...climate_report

http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/

Definitely a bunch of con artists looking to swindle the people of the world out of... what? Someone is going to have to explain what the benefit these people would receive, and from whom, for encouraging people to look after the environment and the planet we live on. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

[worth]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070310/...climate_report

http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/

Definitely a bunch of con artists looking to swindle the people of the world out of... what? Someone is going to have to explain what the benefit these people would receive, and from whom, for encouraging people to look after the environment and the planet we live on. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

That topic is discussed in the film I originally posted about.

[CrusaderPi]

I've got a question about global warming. And in particular carbon dioxide.


Since CO2 is a naturally occurring chemical. (We breathe it out, rotting vegetation, and so forth) What percentage of CO2 produced on the planet is caused by human industrial activity?

I've read a number for a semi-dubious source, but I'm wondering if anyone in internet land has any further insight.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070310/...climate_report

http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/

Definitely a bunch of con artists looking to swindle the people of the world out of... what? Someone is going to have to explain what the benefit these people would receive, and from whom, for encouraging people to look after the environment and the planet we live on. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

###, Lanny. Weirdly enough, it's the people whose agenda is much more obvious that in this case are accusing others of having an ulterior motive in this debate--as though thousands of scientists could have some highly secret agenda that they all agree on. Anyone who thinks that has never set foot on a university campus. The fact that widespread agreement on this issue exists is AMAZING--and should make everyone else sit up and listen.

But yeah, they're definitely a bunch of con artists. And thank god we have the unbiased and altruistic American Enterprise Institute to save us from those evil environmentalist swindlers. If they weren't out there questioning global warming science, why, something might have been changed by now!

And we can't have that.

[Vulcan]

I imagine industry's motivation is the same as you and I. Raising gas prices would hurt me and polution control would hurt big business. I don't like raising gas prices, I can't afford it and I already use as little as possible. If government would get off their butts and tax the hell out of gas guzzling SUV,s etc, maybe our unrenewable resources wouldn't be used as fast. The only way I can see industry becoming responsible is if all governments get on board because if Canada won't allow it the business just moves to the USA or Mexico.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The producer is a right wing thorn in the side of the British environmental movement. He has put together a gaggle of scientists who have alternative theories and then claims that all the other scientists are lying, have been forced into lying, have been mislead, have been inept, so on and such forth.

In the end, the goal is to get just enough media attention to confuse the people of the world so that governments will get away with doing nothing.

A clear majority of scientists believe that human-created global warming is a threat and something must be done. But it only takes a handful to break consensus, confuse the public, embolden the anti-environmentalist right wingers and cause analysis paralysis so that nothing gets done.

AS AN ENVIRONMENTALIST that has been working on this issue on and off for 15 years, and as someone who has a lot personally vested in this issue (I have never owned a car and always walked, biked or bused to work; became a vegetarian primarly because of global warming, purchase my electricity from Bullfrog Power using only renewable sources, compost all organic waste to stop methane production at landfills)...... I think we should just give up now. The forces out there that want this issue off the table are just too powerful. And unlike with tobacco, the general public want to believe the dissenters.

We environmentalists are spending so much time and effort on this issue that we are going to lose on. Watching a "documentry" like this, reading the threads here... it's like losing a hockey game 9-1 and it's only the 2nd period. You would just rather someone cancel the game rather than continue. Sure, sure "the environment" is important in the polls, but that's what people throw out when there isn't any other big glaring issue. So 65% of Canadians say that Global Warming is an important issue to address... but when asked if they would be willing to pay more at the gas pump to fight global warming, that number drops down into the low 30s.

There are far better uses of time than beating your head against a wall.

Yes, don't question dogma. The undeniable truisms are undebatable. To say anything against the ALL MIGHTY GLOBAL WARMING END OF THE WORLD THEORY will have you burnt at the stake as an anti-environmentalist right winger!!!!

Just shut up! Waters will be lapping at your doorway soon!

[HOZ]

All HAIL AL 31K GORE AND SAINT (don't mind the deisel monster bus) SUZUKI!!!!!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Yes, don't question dogma. The undeniable truisms are undebatable. To say anything against the ALL MIGHTY GLOBAL WARMING END OF THE WORLD THEORY will have you burnt at the stake as an anti-environmentalist right winger!!!!

Just shut up! Waters will be lapping at your doorway soon!

What a compelling argument. You clearly have a profound understanding of this issue that in no way comes from received wisdom from questionable sources.

[FireFly]

Here's a question while I'm thinking about it...

Exactly what was the average temperature in Calgary last year? What was it 5 years before that? 5 years before that? 5 years before that? I want to know the exact average temperature in Calgary every five years for the last.... well, however long we can go back that far. 100 years would only give me 20 numbers to look over. I want to know the exact average if possible. Maybe if there are specific years where it gets to the highest and lowest points during that period of fluctuation, that would be good as well. (I do recall hearing somewhere that 15-20 years ago we were in the middle of a cooling spell so I know it fluctuates.) I want to read this evidence with my own two eyes.

Not to say I don't believe, but I want to see it for myself. I'm a smart girl, I can read the evidence and if it's as scientists say, I should be able to come to the same conclusion, no?

[llama64]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Yes, don't question dogma. The undeniable truisms are undebatable. To say anything against the ALL MIGHTY GLOBAL WARMING END OF THE WORLD THEORY will have you burnt at the stake as an anti-environmentalist right winger!!!!

Just shut up! Waters will be lapping at your doorway soon!

This post made me laugh out loud. Kinda like that monkey drinking his own pee video.

Not enough evidence has been provided in this debate for a definitive answer. I think it's a good idea to start curtailing human emissions, but until it's economically attractive to do so, nothing will happen. It's an environmentalists pipedream unfortunately.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Well I haven't watched this video, but I will say that Channel 4 is more "FOX" than it is "CBC or BBC"... so perhaps one should view and consider the programming that they show with a grain of salt.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Just finished wading through the video and completing a cursory review of the production and the people involved. I must say, it was a slick presentation with a pre-packaged message ready for consumption by those who are not willing to take things with a grain of salt and conduct their own research. Here's my findings and opinons on the documentary (many comments jotted down during viewing and prior to researching the individuals in the film).

First of all, there are a lot of comments made that are obvious as hell, but made so as to attempt to cast the Global Warming theory as not being aware of these matters.

This film will prove that earth’s climate is always changing…

No kidding. As obvious as this is, I have a feeling that most people do not recognize this fact. We live in a dynamic system that is ever changing, but that does not preclude our ability as a species to have a negative impact on those changes and modify the changes for the worse. This film does not need to prove the earth's climate is alway's changing, one need only step out the front door to figure that out.


Everywhere you are told that man made climate change has been proved beyond a doubt…


Really? I have not seen this "everywhere", nor have I seen that presented in Global Warming theory. For a second there, I thought this was produced by FoxNews. The use of this obvious "appeal to the crowd" is a way of cohersing the viewer to one side or the other.


I don’t like to call it the environmental movement anymore, because its become a political activist movement (Patrick Moore – Greenpeace)…

Pot, meet kettle. Patrick Moore, himself, took the “environmentalist movement and turned it into a political activist movement”. This is the last guy who should be presenting any sort of "earth friendly" information. He succumbed to the power of politics and the money associated with corporate support.


We have to create a panic, because then money will flow to climate science…

Finally, an interesting theory as to WHY anyone would make the claim of global warming if no such thing existed. Not sure I buy the theory. I’m pretty sure that more money is spent by big oil in one hour of marketing than is spent on climate research. This doesn’t make much sense when you compare the scales of magnitude. The potential gain from scientific funding increases are a drop in the barrel to the potential losses of big oil. Fiscally,and politically, this is inconsistent.


Fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend upon global warming right now…

Fact of the matter is that there are more jobs in the carbon based economy than any other. Those jobs that rely on global warming theory are surpassed by scales of magnitude by those which rely on the carbon economy, one of the largest contributors to CO2 creation.

These are just a few lines early that left me shaking my head and wondering what type of production this was. As things started to roll, and the "experts" started to state their case there wer some things that really got to me. The science was interesting, but there were some very obvious holes in the argument. Take the following examples.

Warming and CO2 Production Disconnect

There is a time lag between warming and CO2 production (evidence in the ocean temperature)…

Okay, this is where this documentary completely loses its credibility IMO. They have nattered on and on about how there is no link between temperature and CO2, or that it is backwards, but here they say that the oceans must warm to create more CO2. Hello! Ocean temperatures are indeed rising, and having catastrophic effects on both the ice caps and the strength of storms berthing in the oceans. This contradiction really blows apart what they are trying to argue, especially when there is a lot of empirical evidence to support this argument.

What also really has me shaking my head is these “scientists” that sit there on camera and have the audacity to say that what we are doing is having no impact, because we see no direct impact today. What they are saying is that because they drive to work they should see an immediate increase in CO2 and global temperatures. They go to great lengths to point out that the post-WWII industrial boom had no significant impact, yet they fail to connect the dots that the build up of gases takes time, and then the effects take time to precipitate. It’s like when you go into the kitchen and turn on the oven. Your immediate action does not precipitate enough heat to start baking your cookies. Your initial action sets off a series of actions that heats the oven so you may bake your cookies. The failure to connect this basic principle has me wondering if these “scientists” are teaching for obvious reasons, they suck at what they do.

I really have to stay on this point as this is the crux of their argument. They point to a steady increase in temperatures during the early 1900’s, then a small period of decreases in temperature, shortly after 1940, then a dramatic rise to where we are today. They point to no link between CO2 emissions and temperature change because of this drop. I think they don’t know their history very well and did not bother to consider world conditions, especially from the industrial giants. This minor drop off in temperatures is “unexplainable” and “not linked to CO2 emissions” according to the film. If we follow the belief that what we do today will show up as a response in the atmosphere 20-30 years later, then the drop in temperatures can be linked directly to CO2 emissions and explained quite easily. That period of decline could very well be the atmospheric reaction to the Great Depression, when the industrial might of the world shutdown for almost a decade. This reaction may be just the opposite of what these “scientists” are hoping for, and not be the proof that Global Warming is a load of bull, but may instead be the proof that we are indeed the direct cause, and that our actions can reverse the trend.


The Sun Spot and Cosmic Ray Theory

Here are two different theories that are passed off to mean the same thing.

What I really did not like about this documentary is that is took these scientists, who all have dramatically different ideas of what is causing the environmental changes on earth, and positions them to be presenting the same case. That is completely false and highly inaccurate. The only thing they are in agreement on is that they are not SURE CO2 emissions are responsible for the impacts we see today. Each scientist presents a conflicting theory to the next. In other words, they can’t agree on what is causing anything, but they are certain that their data is right and not the other guy’s. So what is missing from this film to provide some balance? The science supporting the CO2 theory. This is never shown, and neither is anyone to question the claims of each of these scientists. Yes, this documentary looks damning on the surface, as all these scientists “agree” that CO2 emission theory is false, but the reality is that none of them can agree on anything either, so support for their claims is loose at best.

What is also lost in this is the fact that increases in greenhouse gases in conjunction with increases in solar activity are going to have a much greater impact on the environment than one or the other. Greenhouse gases trap solar radiation and increased solar activity increases solar radiation, so if there is an unnatural increase in one (CO2 emissions, as there has been over the past 100 years) the potential for the other (solar radiation increases) to have greater and potentially dire consequences increases dramatically. Gretzky and Lemieux were great hockey players and tore up the league apart. Put them together and they became an unstoppable force and ripped up the world. The combination of increased solar radiation AND increased CO2 emissions could have dire consequences.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Anti-development

This documentary also goes on to talk about anti-growth and an anti-development, which is 100% inaccurate. The “environmental” movement is NOT about being anti-growth or development, it is about developing and growing in DIFFERENT directions, ones that are cleaner and healthier for the planet and us humans. This arm waving is noting more than a detractor, attempting to scare people into falling in line with the position of the film. People are afraid of changes to their lifestyle, so by linking potential life-style change and the unknown with Global Warming, it immediately forces the average Joe to the opposition side of the theory. Also, by dragging in the African development debate into the same documentary, it again forces the Politically Correct set to feel uncomfortable in their skin and force them to the opposition side as well.

Funding Issues

This made me laugh out loud. The Global Warming theory is now all about making money for scientists! Money increased so this theory could be proved and continue to increase money into the scientific community! WTF??? What a brutal connection. Jesus, what’s next? 911 happened so law enforcement could get more money? Just plain stupidity!

Something that really bothered me was they turned around and brought up something that seemed to beat down their own cause, and didn't even know they did it. The producers attempted to use the 1974 BBC production, The Weather Machine, as evidence of their case. This production was about the cooling of the climate and the potential for a new ice age. But during the production of this documentary (The Weather Machine) Swedish scientist Bert Bolin predicted that man's creation of greenhouse gases (in the form of CO2) would counteract the cooling that was evident from the previous 30 years and that the planet would experience a dramatic warming of several degrees. His prediction of 30 years ago had come to fruition. This is the same stuff that Gore talked about in An Inconvient Truth, and what is happening today. IMO, they put a fully loaded gun to their head and emptied the clip. Stupid work on their part.


The most intelligent thing I head in this documentary was when Professor Phillip Stott (Dept of Biogeography – University of London) stated that “the moment politicians put their weight behind something and attach their name to in some way, of course, money will flow.” Yes, that is indeed the fact, and is indeed why the carbon based economy of the world is trying to buy CO2 emission theory. This is why good old oil barons, like Bush and Co., are the ones opting out of accords like Kyoto and such, and getting their political organs like the American Enterprise Institute to BUY them some science to counter consensus.


Frankly, this is a documentary that Michael Moore would be proud of. The producers take 20 different people, with 20 different theories, and attempt to present them as a unified cause. This could not be further from the truth. The ONLY thing these people have in common is their disbelief that CO2 emissions are responsible for the climate change. Taken as individuals, they each have their theories and believe everyone else to be wrong, including the other people presented in the film. This is not consensus. This is nothing more than a piece that attempts to shout down Global Warming theory by having multiple people come forward and say its wrong, but unable to agree on anything else themselves. That is what makes Global Warming theory so compelling, is that is brings people with diverse interests and diverse specialties together and finds consensus. If this documentary had done any of that, it would be a worthy film. In the end all it ends up being is a collection of people with dissenting opinions and no agreed upon answers or solutions.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Fially, I think the producers should chose their "experts" a little more carefully. Many of the people interviewed in this production have some serious skeletons in their closets, whether it be working for the wrong people, having your qualifications questioned or revoked, taking money from special interest to build a case, or just plain doing faulty work. Here's some links to those in the production that I found intersting.

Professor Tim Ball – Dept. Climatology – University of Winnipeg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272

The shadiest of characters and habitual liar, has received funding from less than neutral interests.

Professor John Christy – Lead Author IPCC

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_R._Christy

Professor Phillip Stott – Dept of Biogeography – University of London

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_Stott

Received huge funding from big oil interests.

Professor Paul Reiter – IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reiter

He’s an entomologist, not a climatologist.

Professor Richard Lindzen – IPCC & MIT

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

Received huge funding from big oil interests and is a Cato Fellow.

Patrick Moore – Greenpeace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29

Dr. Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader NASA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

Professor Patrick Michaels – Dept. of Environmental SciencesUniversity of Virginia

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels

Received huge funding from coal and energy interests and is a Cato Fellow.


Professor Ian Clark – Dept. Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Clark

Professor Fredrick Singer, Former Director US National Weather Service

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

Is a Cato Fellow and many of the bodies he is affiliated with receives huge dollars from ExxonMobil in support.

[eagle60]

Here's a little quiz to do with your ecological footprint. Obviously there are heavy flaws, but it does give an indication. http://www.myfootprint.org/