The Great Global Warming Swindle

Forgive me for not doing the research on this, but I seem to recall watching a show a few months back on the lawyers and experts that the anti-global warming proponents had aligned. Interestingly enough, they were many of the same people that the big tobacco companies had hired to fend off their attackers.

It might have been the fifth estate or W5.

Edit: It was the Fifth Estate. Here's the link http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

[Caged Great]

Whether or not the data in the movie you mentioned is accurate, it still would not hurt to clean up our collective act.

I equate our polluting of the air, as the same as when we would dump chemicals in lakes and rivers...

I'm hoping that we can develop new technologies that would be more green.

Also, for something sort of related to this, did you know that the original light bulbs that Edison made still work today, They had a larger filament than they do now so they last longer... say 100 years... Think of the amount of polution caused by making that many bulbs...

[Bill Bumface]

Nice posts Lanny. Thats a very well put together rebuttle that I'm guessing no one will be able to touch unless they start saying that you are a hypocrite just like Al Gore because you don't live in a solar powered house.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Nice posts Lanny. Thats a very well put together rebuttle that I'm guessing no one will be able to touch unless they start saying that you are a hypocrite just like Al Gore because you don't live in a solar powered house.

The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good about it and what's bad about it equally
________
TOYOTA WIKI SPECIFICATIONS

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Whether or not the data in the movie you mentioned is accurate, it still would not hurt to clean up our collective act.

I equate our polluting of the air, as the same as when we would dump chemicals in lakes and rivers...

Exactly.

I'm hoping that we can develop new technologies that would be more green.

Nuclear*cough*nuclear*

[RougeUnderoos]

I don't know about any swindle, but it's 8 o'clock at night and it's 15 degrees in Calgary.*

Funny thing too -- it's finally dark. Took long enough.


*I know the retort to this so don't bother

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ah the Ole Lanny ad hominem attack.

Any affiliation with big oil will discount any facts of figures or thoughts you may have. As we know big oil his all hell bent on the distruction of the earth. No one in big oil would ever choose this option;

Produce oil in a way that is enviromentally sound.

Nope. Nada. NOT.


Only rational enviromentalists please. i.e. Only those that adhere to dogma!

YOU ARE DOOMED!!!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know about any swindle, but it's 8 o'clock at night and it's 15 degrees in Calgary.*

Funny thing too -- it's finally dark. Took long enough.


*I know the retort to this so don't bother

And its like 20 above down here...with the most messed up winter ever.

Something has changed, because I remember 10 years ago having more snow than this.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The producer is a right wing thorn in the side of the British environmental movement.

Watching a "documentry" like this, reading the threads here...

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

Al Gore is just as "left wing" as this guy is right?

Watching a "documentary" like an Inconvienient Truth is any better?

I don't want to bother getting into an argument over globabl warming because I agree that it is like beating your head against the wall when talking to "environmentalists" and I have read a lot of the crap posted already and know they aren't changing my opinion and aren't going to change their opinions because it is not worth it.

This may be right wing propaganda but it certainly is no worse than the propoganda spewed by Gore and his buddies in an Inconvienient Truth.

Also thanks for not driving, one less car on the road to slow me down in my gas gussling SUV.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by 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/

I got a score of 4.2 hectares footprint. MY score for food was 2.8. I like my meat. Canada's average is 8.8.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by moon

Also thanks for not driving, one less car on the road to slow me down in my gas gussling SUV.

Yeah, ef everone else. Somehow, that seems to sum up the attitude of every right winger I run across.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Yeah, ef everone else. Somehow, that seems to sum up the attitude of every right winger I run across.

Generalize much?

[moon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Yeah, ef everone else. Somehow, that seems to sum up the attitude of every right winger I run across.

Sounds like a solid philosophy to me.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I got a score of 4.2 hectares footprint. MY score for food was 2.8. I like my meat. Canada's average is 8.8.

I got a score of 9.1...

But the thing is, I don't own a car or drive anywhere much (other than to Flames games and soccer games....) otherwise I take the bus.

Don't really understand their ratings.

[CrusaderPi]

Here's a fun trick. Do this 'test' where you live in Canada, and do one when you live in India. Seems, to me, like they are trying to get to believe something.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Generalize much?

Ok, I'll change it. It sums up every right wing attitude I run across.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Ah the Ole Lanny ad hominem attack.

That's not an ad hominem attack. Calling you a horse's ass with the IQ of a can of peas unable to comprehend the subject matter is an ad hominem attack. Disclosing the interests who paid the individuals to do their research, and who they have written position papers for, is extremely relevant to the discussion. Just as anyone who works for Greepeace would be considered bias, and their opinion wide open to criticism and second guessing, anyone who works for an organization that would benefit greatly from the generation of such an opinion as those produced by these individuals, comes into question. The fact that these individuals have received funding either directly, or indirectly through the "think tanks" they work for, is extremely important. Cato and AEI are well known for their willingness to pay substantial amounts for opinions that will support their ideologocal position, which brings said reseach into question.

Any affiliation with big oil will discount any facts of figures or thoughts you may have. As we know big oil his all hell bent on the distruction of the earth. No one in big oil would ever choose this option;

Produce oil in a way that is enviromentally sound.

Nope. Nada. NOT.

To date there has been no way devised to produce oil in an environmentally sound fashion. None. Nada. And big oil shows no indiciations of wishing to find a way either. They would prefer to grease the political mechanism to bend or ammend the rules which would allow them to exploit sensitive areas or not clean up those areas they spoil with their exploration or extraction.

Only rational enviromentalists please. i.e. Only those that adhere to dogma!

YOU ARE DOOMED!!!

Is there a chance that you will grow up at any time in the future? Is there a chance you will ever answer the content of the post rather that run into a stream of rhetoric that is close to incomprehensible? Focus on the content of the post and do your best to ATTEMPT to poke holes in it. Seriously, if these "experts" are so credible you should have no problem in lining up a plethora of supporting documents that would prove they have not been tainted through a relationship and do not create biased opinion for profit.

I think the fact that you refuse to try is more than enough proof that you know deep down that these guys are dirty and their opinions are indeed biased and invalid. If not, I'm looking forward to a well thought out and supported rebutal. Something tells me you'll disappear from this thread completely now, or come back with more rhetoric or an ad hominem attack (your normal modus operandi).

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

If not, I'm looking forward to a well thought out and supported rebutal. Something tells me you'll disappear from this thread completely now, or come back with more rhetoric or an ad hominem attack (your normal modus operandi).

If HOZ's post history is any kind of guide, you might as well settle down with a nice cold beer, because you'll be waiting a while.

I think it's funny that his first contribution to the thread was to attack Al Gore (whom no-one other than him had brought up at all) and then he accuses you of using the "ad hominem" fallacy.

I think we should all pitch in and get HOZ a nice dictionary of rhetorical terms and their actual meanings.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think we should all pitch in and get HOZ a nice dictionary of rhetorical terms and their actual meanings.

Or maybe we can try and find him some game tapes instead. He's quite the expert when his imaginary friend sends him those magical game tapes.



Did you get a chance to watch the documentary? I thought it was very slick and an excellent job of packaging a pre-determined position. Was it as transparent to others?

[someguy51]

Originally Posted by 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/

That webpage seems to be broken right now...Too bad I was interested in trying it.