TRAILER: Not Evil Just Wrong — new film challenging man-induced global warming

A common point usually brought up by people who don’t live near the ocean.

I live about 200 meters from the ocean and I'm all for it. Although, I don't think we're going to get it. Brent

35 Greetings and Saulations. May I speak for all anthrogenic global warming believers across the world, all of us one in spirit one in life, mind and thought? Thank you. First, let me give special praise & thanks to our envornmental prophet Al Gore - peace be upon him. And our the new planetary emissary/prophet/messiah of change & taxes, Barack Obama - peace be upon him too. The global cooling you see is but the silent moment of mercy offered by gaia our mother, as written by the propeht Al Gore, peace be upon him. This calm is but a moment offered for us to repent of our CO2 gluttony. If we squander this moment, then all the powers of the collective nations (hereafter: "the collective") and all the pleading of the prophet Al Gore, peace be upon him, will not hold back the fury that comes after. As is the eye of the hurricane is calm, so is the eye of anthrogenic global warming is cool. And soon, for the collective (remember that from above) the waters of the weeping poles of gaia will soon rush the face of the earth (well at least Daytona Beach, Florida; the Isle of Man (that's near the UK) and the northern pier of Iceland next to the Viking Inn fish market). But...if we faithfully tithe our carbon credits (payments by credit card or other debt instruments recommended), vote for "overarching" energy bills and either put up a photo of Al Gore (peace be upon him) and/or Barrack Obama (peace be upon him); or burn an ephigy of Valkav Klaus (the heretic Czech president), then gaia (and the prophets) will find it as a worthy propitiation. Amen. Any questions? No? K, thanks. ps. One caveat, the prophets may ask for more changes later, but don't worry about that just yet. JGuy

Quaggy: Since the globe is currently cooling, this is irrelevant, but: How much, according to GW sources, will the temperature rise in the next fifty years? How many inches of ocean level increase will this cause? How much costal land will this impact? SpitfireIXA

When I was young we had to do something about man-made global cooling. Global Warming is a fad crisis, and even the BBC (!!!!) is starting to question it. What happened to global warming? Even the BBC agrees that 1998 was the warmest year. Also, have you noticed what our hurricane season did this year? SpitfireIXA

quaggy @ 29

Good to see you have thought this through. Let me ask you a few clarifying questions: Where exactly are you going to get the money to start over?

That's my problem. But I can probably "find" some money by getting a job where the other 92% of the population lives. That seems like a good place to start anyway - don't you think? And being mobile, I(we) could quickly relocate to new jobs not far inland - where the new coastline has setteld (sea level rise would have a limit). Inlanders will soon prosper from increased agricultural yields. Many then seek to buy property on the new coast. Property values increase. Victims recover their losses...write books about their stories and retire. It would have worked for Lex Luther - if superman didn't stop him.

With 8% of the population of North America living in coastal areas, do you expect the insurance industry will be able to compensate everyone who lives less than X feet above sea level for their lost property? Or do you expect a government bailout?

I don't know what amount they would be able to offset. But they'd be able to compenate some of it. No need for government bailouts. Just allow those peopel to live tax free for ten yesrs. Consider it an overall opportunity cost for the poor parts of the world, and a step towards world peace. Socio-Dynamic notation: Global Warming --yields--> World Peace JGuy

PaulN:

Oh, you mean like hurricane Katrina?

No, more like the housing bubble that just burst, but hold that thought for a second.

I live on the Coast in South Carolina, and given that people aren’t just covered by any one insurance agency, I’m sure the burden would be better split among multiple providers than a single, inefficient federal source. It’s hurricane insurance after all, a very wide area of effect is expected and accounted for. The same reasoning applies to flooding.

I understand how insurance works and, it seems, so do you. So, ask yourself what happened to the insurance industry after Andrew in 1992. Then multiply that by 8% of the US population of 300 million. Do you actually believe that the private insurance industry has the reserves to compensate the loss of property (both residential and commercial) for 24 million people? So, Katrina or Andrew are not the model you should look at. I suggest the housing bubble because it is timely and we can see the overall effect of a drop in real estate values on our financial system. But for a government bailout, our banking system almost collapsed when real estate prices fell last year. Now imagine again when the real estate that those 24 million live and work goes to zero when it disappears under the sea. Granted that it will take place over a longer period of time, but I think you will get a sense of the magnitude of disruption to our way of life. It is way more than just, badda-bing badda-boom, renting a truck and moving to higher ground. And that is just the US. 10% of the world's population lives in coastal areas. That is over 600 million people impacted. Hey, but it is all good right? We'll be able to cultivate Siberia! There is no issues associated with putting alot of the world's food supply in Russia's hands. No siree, no problems at all. quaggy

All of my family lives near New Orleans and Baton Rouge by the way, and the government response was not satisfactory by any means. Let the government deal with what it was originally structured to do- take care of federal issues. Let the private sector, which has a great deal more flexibility and capacity for such events, deal with the personal issues including home & property. PaulN

Or do you expect a government bailout?

Oh, you mean like hurricane Katrina? I live on the Coast in South Carolina, and given that people aren't just covered by any one insurance agency, I'm sure the burden would be better split among multiple providers than a single, inefficient federal source. It's hurricane insurance after all, a very wide area of effect is expected and accounted for. The same reasoning applies to flooding. PaulN

JGuy:

But consider Florida. It has a very low average elevation above sea level. If I lived there, I’d still be pro-global warming. The benefits overall would far surpass any loss of beach head. So, if Florida flooded, hypothtically, then I’d just move inland.

Good to see you have thought this through. Let me ask you a few clarifying questions: Where exactly are you going to get the money to start over? With 8% of the population of North America living in coastal areas, do you expect the insurance industry will be able to compensate everyone who lives less than X feet above sea level for their lost property? Or do you expect a government bailout? quaggy

Quaggy @ 18

A common point usually brought up by people who don’t live near the ocean.

I live in San Diego. But consider Florida. It has a very low average elevation above sea level. If I lived there, I'd still be pro-global warming. The benefits overall would far surpass any loss of beach head. So, if Florida flooded, hypothtically, then I'd just move inland. It could be argued that global warming alarmist are being very seflish. Why? Because they are only thinking about the narrow, usually wealthiest, subset of the population that live near beaches..... Meanwhile, the vast majority of the population, that are on average poorer than beachfront landowners, are expected to be casually overlooked from the equation. JGuy

Hey quaggy, ever heard of something called the Archimedes Principle? Every heard that 2/3 of the volume of sea ice is below the water line? Every heard that ice is less dense than water? Am I getting through here? tragic mishap

Phinehas about Global Warming:

I live in Texas. I’m not worried.

I am willing to bet that Phinehas does not live in Galveston or Corpus Christi. quaggy

@Laughable I live in Texas. I'm not worried. I believe that slight warming, accompanied by a rise in CO2 levels, is just as likely to be beneficial for plant growth, mitigating famine instead of causing it. Warmer is better than cooler. Doesn't the history of the planet beare this out? Phinehas

Laugh @22

There are already famines because some land isn’t hospitable anymore.

Please list those famines occurring since 1998 which have been caused by land becoming inhospitable due to global warming. You should read Cool It by Lomborg. He explains the effects of global warming and cooling in clear terms. Your fear is significantly misplaced. SpitfireIXA

I said this on the other thread: If global warming were a crisis Al Gore would be screaming for a crash program to replace our coal plants with nukes and nobody would be preparing to rip down the hydro-electric power plants on the Klamath River. tribune7

Joseph: I say a warmer Earth would be a better place than a colder Earth. It's all well and good if you live in a place where the climate could stand to be another 1-2 degrees warmer. How about the people living in the Texas, the Middle East, Mexico, or in Northern Africa? There are already famines because some land isn't hospitable anymore, the world getting warmer will mean that some farmlands won't have a chance to grow. The people that live there will have to immigrate to an area with a cooler climate, and they might not be welcome there. It's not like the world is going to end if it warms a little, but there may be serious detabilization in certain areas if agriculture is no longer viable in those areas. Sure, the warming might make land previously too cold useable, but if it's across a country's border, or if the people can't afford to move there because their old land is now worthless, then there are going to be serious issues. Laughable

Monastyrski:

What makes you think there is a temperature at which the earth “should be”?

It's very simple actually- If we don't have that then there cannot be a charge of global warming.

You agree that the earth is warming.

It is warmer now than it was during the little ice age. That period- the little ice age- was devastating to us.

Do you also agree that might cause some problems?

I say a warmer Earth would be a better place than a colder Earth.

I guess where you don’t agree is that we might try to do something about it.

Declaring that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is like "ready, shoot, aim". I have already said that we need to control/ eliminate the soot that industries pour into the air and rid the waters of contamination. But beyond that there isn't anything else to do. Joseph

Readers might be interested in this post, by Professor John Brignell , entitled How we know that they are lying . It lists no less than ten criteria which serve as useful warning signs to laypeople that the science behind the hypothesis of dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming is bogus, and that society is being hoodwinked by an orchestrated scaremongering campaign. Well worth reading. vjtorley

Mona @4 No, Mona, there has been cooling since 1998. Global Temp Sources It is, however, good of your previous link to show the truly tiny degree of temperature change since 1850, now that the hockey stick warming fraud is dead and buried. We are talking less than 2C, which is mild compared to more ancient variations. Your link also does not show the temperature plummet occurring in 2008 -- coinciding with the disappearance of sunspots that year. SpitfireIXA

JGuy:

But…there are benefits to global warming… Don’t you agree? Take Siberia for instance, now, imagine all that frozenb tundra supporitng agriculture to feed more people.

A common point usually brought up by people who don't live near the ocean. quaggy

#13 [amended to highlight blockquotes] You asked Joseph, but I’d like to respond too.

What makes you think there is a temperature at which the earth “should be”?

Just guessing, but I think his point is that YOU are acting as if there is a “should be” temperature by opposing temperature changes. Also, my view, is that this is a trademark of global warming hysterics… or a “the sky is falling” mentaility.

You agree that the earth is warming. Do you also agree that might cause some problems?

I agree. And I agree it might cause some problems. For one, and asusming a warming trend, Prestone will not sell as much antifreeze…so, you might want to sell that stock if you’re holding it. But…there are benefits to global warming… Don’t you agree? Take Siberia for instance, now, imagine all that frozenb tundra supporitng agriculture to feed more people. A more temperate global climate would incur less frequent and less severe storm patterns. A warmer atmosphere would CAUSE more CO2 (not vice versa), and significantly increase global vegetation growth rates.

I guess where you don’t agree is that we might try to do something about it.

Yeah, we should figure out ways to accelerate global warming. But…being sane… I don’t think man’s activities can compete with the sun…. call me silly. JGuy

#13 You asked Joseph, but I'd like to respond too. What makes you think there is a temperature at which the earth “should be”? Just guessing, but I think his point is that YOU are acting as if there is a "should be" temperature by opposing temperature changes. Also, my view, is that this is a trademark of global warming hysterics... or a "the sky is falling" mentaility. You agree that the earth is warming. Do you also agree that might cause some problems? I agree. And I agree it might cause some problems. For one, and asusming a warming trend, Prestone will not sell as much antifreeze...so, you might want to sell that stock if you're holding it. But...there are benefits to global warming... Don't you agree? Take Siberia for instance, now, imagine all that frozenb tundra supporitng agriculture to feed more people. A more temperate global climate would incur less frequent and less severe storm patterns. A warmer atmosphere would CAUSE more CO2 (not vice versa), and significantly increase global vegetation growth rates. I guess where you don’t agree is that we might try to do something about it. Yeah, we should figure out ways to accelerate global warming. But...being sane... I don't think man's activities can compete with the sun.... call me silly. JGuy

Also Monastyrski, It might help if you read Andrew Sibley's post- particularly the evidence that suggests the climate from the dinosaur ages was higher than ours by 8 degrees Celsius, and how our miniscule contribution is well within natural variation. PaulN

That post was in direct response to Monastyrski, the quote from Gil was just to show something that he apparently ignored. PaulN

Joseph, What makes you think there is a temperature at which the earth "should be"? You agree that the earth is warming. Do you also agree that might cause some problems? I guess where you don't agree is that we might try to do something about it. Monastyrski

Monastyrski,

...the science behind global warming, which provides positive evidence that the earth is heating up.

From Gil,

Who said anything about denying that climate changes? (And, by the way, when did you last hear an ID proponent deny that evolution happens?)

There have been studies showing that the global climate trends of earth follow the exact same trends as other planets in our solar system that are not inhabited by life. These climate trends are contingent upon Solar activity from the sun. Global climate change is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we have any impact on it. Try not to misrepresent the argument. PaulN

Monastyrski, What temperature should the Earth be? You do realize that there was just a "little ice age" not too long ago, don't you? So yes, relatively speaking when compared with that period, we are warming. But what does that mean if we don't know what the temperature should be? Joseph

You're right Gil; global warming deniers would be more accurate. Have you studied the link I provided? It seems to show that there is no global cooling trend during the last decade, contra your claim.

ID proponents have developed discernment when it comes to unsubstantiated speculation masquerading as “science.” That explains the correlation.

ShawnBoy made a similar claim. Maybe it's true. On the other hand, one might also argue that ID is - at least so far - unsubstantiated speculation masquerading as science. I don't recall seeing any scientific paper make a positive case for ID. It's entirely anti-mainstream evolutionary biology. Unlike the science behind global warming, which provides positive evidence that the earth is heating up. Monastyrski

Who said anything about denying that climate changes? (And, by the way, when did you last hear an ID proponent deny that evolution happens?) ID proponents have developed discernment when it comes to unsubstantiated speculation masquerading as "science." That explains the correlation. GilDodgen

#4 I have the strong impression that ID proponents are more likely to be climate change deniers than other folks. I am sure that is true. However, the reverse is not true. Few climate change deniers are ID proponents or creationists. Mark Frank

Monastyrski: I have the strong impression that ID proponents are more likely to be climate change deniers than other folks. Assuming this is true, does anyone know why?

It's likely due to the I.D. proponents love and respect for science and their support for integrity and honesty in all of science, not just biology. On the other hand, the Darwinists and Global Warming alarmists are seemingly motivated by little more than their own personal agendas (world view preference, finances, etc.). ShawnBoy

Gil,

The computer models on which all the original global warming hysteria was based predicted that CO2 was the definitive driving force behind a warming trend, and that this trend would continue and accelerate as CO2 levels rise. However, there has been no global warming for the last decade; there has been cooling. This means that the computer models and the underlying hypothesis have been empirically falsified. That’s how science works. Behe shows in The Edge of Evolution what random errors filtered by natural selection can do in the real world. The hypothesis that this process can account for everything observed in living systems has been empirically falsified. That’s how science works.

At the heart of it all, a philosophical predisposition takes hold of the elite administrative sects of society which then disseminates to the public square. This philosophical predisposition takes precedence over facts and evidence as the cost of losing social control is tremendous- and this, unfortunately, is also how science works. However true hope will always remain in the minds and mentalities of those who take an objective stance in critical thought and logic therefore arriving at their philosophical conclusion not due to predispositions, but due to an unfettered reason and individual conviction. PaulN

"A lot of environmental activists still have not come to accept that the humans are part of the environment." So true and it points out something important. If you point to humans and say that we are the ones who did this, that it was a mistake and we should take responsibility for it, you are drawing a line between humans and the rest of life. I have to ask, what's so special about humans? Why are we the only species that should take responsibility and reduce our carbon footprint? tragic mishap

No Gil, there has not been cooling for the last decade. link I have the strong impression that ID proponents are more likely to be climate change deniers than other folks. Assuming this is true, does anyone know why? Monastyrski

There are problems for both sides from the fossil evidence. Supporters of climate change need to ask why human emmissions aren't part of natural changes in light of the fossil evidence of levels around 2000ppm. Or why should we care about global warming in light of what nature does? Sceptics, especially creationist sceptics, need to ask why global warming isn't a problem for human beings in light of the fossil evidence that suggest global temperatures 8 deg C warmer than today. Incidentally creationist models that explain the geological column in terms of a global flood, and ice age, can help explain why there might have been a markedly different structure to the atmosphere pre-flood. Not that there is agreement over how that works out scientifically, but it offers scope for research. Hockey stick assumptions are incidentally an invention for political reasons. I believe that higher CO2 emmissions may change the climate today, but it is much less than political scare mongering would imply. Andrew Sibley

There is a fallacy at the heart of natural science that often appears in natural history programmes. I have discussed this in my book Restoring the Ethics of Creation. On the one hand mankind is an evolved animal through natural selection and survival of the fittest, which implies we have no more responsibilty towards nature than a bacterium or ape; on the other hand it is wicked what mankind is doing to the environment because we are not just evolved apes. It does seem though that the science of global warming is being hyped for political reasons. The fossil record indicates the possibility of natural climate change with the fossil layers indicating CO2 levels of 2000 ppm and global temperatures 8 deg C warmer than today's levels - so mankind's small contribution is well within natural variation. The irony is that science uses millions of years of change only when it supports evolution, not when it can be used to consider climate change when supporters only use data of 1,000s or 100,000s of years. Today the evidence would suggest that there are various feedback mechanisms which are moderating the climatic effect of higher CO2 levels. What also needs to be considered is rainfall, and wind strength and other natural chemicals such as SO2 DMS, etc. It is a hugely complex area of study, but politicians are using it for their own ends. Why is that? Is it for taxation, social control or promotion of a religion of nature? I'll leave others to consider which one. Andrew Sibley

The computer models on which all the original global warming hysteria was based predicted that CO2 was the definitive driving force behind a warming trend, and that this trend would continue and accelerate as CO2 levels rise. However, there has been no global warming for the last decade; there has been cooling. This means that the computer models and the underlying hypothesis have been empirically falsified. That's how science works. Behe shows in The Edge of Evolution what random errors filtered by natural selection can do in the real world. The hypothesis that this process can account for everything observed in living systems has been empirically falsified. That's how science works. GilDodgen