Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Great Global Warming Swindle

March 13, 2007
Global Warming, Off Topic, Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Comments
Wow... cool video! One question though, the video said that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activities do. Is this correct? It seems like everything I've read says that humans release more than 100 times the CO2 that volcanoes do. Does anyone know of a link that can confirm this. Thanks.kallikak
March 19, 2007
March
03
Mar
19
19
2007
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Thanks, DaveScot, for drawing attention to this video. It answered many questions for me, including this one: "If green house gas warming is such a threat, why do alarmists draw so much attention to carbon dioxide and almost none to methane?" If the greenhouse effect really drove warming, methane would be the greater greenhouse threat and a reasonable point of focus for change. Why focus on cars, etc. far, far, far more than cows, etc., if the aim is to minimize greenhouse warming? The story and the CO2 drum beat was like an alibi that doesn't quite add up. But if the actual objective is to change human energy sources (e.g. Thatcher) or to oppose industrialization (e.g. environmental extremists), then it makes perfect sense that the focus would be on reducing carbon dioxide, not methane.ericB
March 15, 2007
March
03
Mar
15
15
2007
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
BFast, We who are so trusting and well meaning follow a corrupt and hypocritical elite. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000522/silverstein Read the above and ask did Al Gore divest his shares? I don't mind he owns oil stock as a rich, connected son. I do mind his mud slinging against others as if he's the Pope of Green-rich. He deserves an Oscar for a real life act, not his movie. Regarding GIM. He did not disclose the information to the public. The Tennesee paper published after the Follywood drooling. Bush's ranch in Crawford is more environmentally friendly than his home that chews up 20 times amount of electricity. 19 of us produce less pollution than him total. He's paying "Carbon offsets" to his own company. He didn't inform the media he founded the business, nor did he inform them his purchases benefit his company. It made for a nice, one-line snippy sound bite. I'd say that is an ethical issue. What are Carbon Offsets? How many trees for a plane ride? Instead of flying his private jet, take a commercial airliner like the rest of us 'uncaring' Americans who question global warming. He'd reduce CO2 much more by curtailing his exorbitant lifestyle. By cutting down his glorious crusade, he reduces his 'carbon footprint' and can buy more trees.
Savior Gore. Show me the way. Young man, buy C-OFFsets and be redeemed. Say two Hail Gores. Uhhhh wait. We found out Mr Green Gore - savior sir, you benefit financially from irrational fear of global catastrophe. You didn't tell us that you founded a company that will grow rich from people in fear. Gee... I didn't? Well, uh hey, did I tell you I own shares in Occidental? Buy an SUV and say two Hail Gores. Go my son, either way, Gore loves you.
Sigh... What's wrong with this picture? I'd say a whole lot. Truth is we do not know if we're in a cycle of warm/cold trends, if the sun generates trends, or if the earth's atmosphere reacts to reduce warming by increased storms. If history is an indication, our globe has gone thru many climatic episodes. There were by 'consensus' prior to now; no 'men', cars, factories, smokestacks around to cause the global warming. Yet it happened. Gore does not address these issues. They sluff it off like evolutionist sluff off lack of experimental data for macro-evolution. Polar bears? They've increased numbers! There are more today than in the past by tens of thousands. The hypocrisy continues... Gore's father was an Exective for Occidental Petroleum in which little Jr. received 250,000 shares as executor of his estate. Some reports have it up to 500,000 shares. He's rich due to oil money. Did he divest his shares? He's hedged his bets. He has money from both directions. Oil rises, or Green rises. Either way he is covered. Smart business. I like it. But I hate the deception upon which it is built. He is a Snake oil salesman... fear mongoring potential future catastrophe and ills to the sheep, while holding the magic Elixir. I do not trust such men to determine my freedoms or preach to me how our nation should act based upon his own actions and hypocrisy. It is obvious he has little morals. He is intentionally making money off of all this in the disguise that he is some "savior" to the left. Plus, almost any consensus being belched out from the UN is reason to be entirely skeptical. Overall, we need to get off of oil for the security of our nation. But Gore is a bonafide slicked down, SUV driving, Armani wearing, hypocrite and so is Follywood. Here's a suggestion or plea... Be honest. We don't know if the world is experiencing global warming due to men's industry. This may be a cyclical. The Sun may contribute to these cycles. We are not sure. We do know there is pollution which our activities do create. We do know for the future, we need to care for this world. And we also know that the freedom of the West depends upon independent energy resources. And by the way. I am starting a company to help invest in such ventures. Would you like to invest with me? And I am selling all my stock in Occidental since they treated the indigenous people of Columbia terribly. Instead, we get hypocrisy and ideological partisan politics. Bush has upped spending on solar power, biofuels, cellulosic, battery research, hyrdrogen fuel cells, and more. He did this without the vitriolic hate expounded on by those like Gore. He did this openly with known oil connections. Gore on the otherhand along with others categorize oil as the villain, though he benefits directly by hundreds of millions. That is the definition of a hypocrite. The worst kind. Do as I say, not as I do. And we, all 300 million Americans benefit daily due to cheap refined oil products in every single thing from plastics and makeup to gasoline. This nation is built upon the capacity for cheap energy. Our farmers produce the worlds bread basket that feed millions in Africa due to cheap energy. We need to be realistic. Stop making it partisan and hateful. Leaders like Gore are irresponsible and act as if they hold the light. When in fact they still benefit from the very dark oil in the ground.Michaels7
March 15, 2007
March
03
Mar
15
15
2007
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
bFast: This has got to be one of my all time pet pieve worst arguments. I would suggest that this shows that Gore believes in his message, and believes that investment can effect the outcome. So what.
On the one hand, you have an important point that Gore's choices for investment may simply reflect his genuine beliefs. Even if those investments were only for making a profit, not for solving the problem, there is nothing illegitimate about investing money where you think it might grow. It doesn't show that Global Warming is false. On the other hand, in many cases where money and profit are involved, we can and do raise questions about potential bias and a person's ability to be or to remain objective. If someone employed by the tobacco industry says smoking is not harmful, their objectivity may be called into question. In the video it was clear that even the hint of accepting money from industry was used to severly question the objectivity of anyone questioning global warming. Yet, who raises the same question about the money that flows to those willing to affirm global warming? Even if they began as true believers, if the evidence is against that view, would they be free and fully able to admit that? Is their objectivity compromised by the potential personal loss, if global warming goes bust? Its not an easy question, but it makes no sense to only ask it for one side of a controversy. The weight we give to "expert opinion" can be affected by conflicts of interest. Its relevant to trials, for example.ericB
March 15, 2007
March
03
Mar
15
15
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Tribune7: Interesting article but the author is incorrect in repeatedly calling it a BBC documentary - it was Channel 4. I don't think the BBC would be brave enough.Rowan
March 15, 2007
March
03
Mar
15
15
2007
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
Thomas Sowell's take.tribune7
March 14, 2007
March
03
Mar
14
14
2007
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
This video was fantastic! Thank you DaveScot. After a recent engine build, I got my 76' Trans Am fired up today. It should get about 8 mpg if I don't touch the gas pedal. I've owned it for 7 years now and many times people have kindly "informed" me of how I'm ruining the earth with it. I always thought they were morons but it's nice to see video confirmation of it.shaner74
March 14, 2007
March
03
Mar
14
14
2007
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Two really big take-home points from The Swindle are: 1) the Vostok ice cores show temperature increases leading CO2 increases in the past by 800 years. What happens is temperature rises first then hundreds of years later the warmer air causes the ocean temperature to rise and the ocean then releases dissolved CO2. Al Gore and his ilk deceptively lead you to believe that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures but the actual evidence from the past says that rising temperature causes CO2 to rise. 2) if greenhouse gases are the culprit in global warming then the temperature should be lower on the surface and increasing with height in the troposphere. Again, just the opposite is observed. Surface temperatures are the highest and decline with height. These observations alone condemn the CO2 hypothesis and point towards changes in solar flux density at the surface (fewer clouds reflecting light) or a darkening surface (black soot accumulation) absorbing more sunlight or the sun getting a bit brighter or all three combined. Almost anything *except* ineffecient greenhouse gases like CO2 can be blamed. But you can't wrest control of trillions of dollars worth of global economy by beating down poor nations for burning wood for heat and cooking instead of having electric power plants with clean air filters on their smokestacks or for using smokey diesel engines for transportation instead of clean burning catalytic converter equipped gasoline vehicles. No, no, no... the evil modern western capitalist tree cutting spotted owl hating world can't be smacked down for real pollutants that cause problems, gotta blame CO2 for that.DaveScot
March 14, 2007
March
03
Mar
14
14
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
The most fascinating part for me was the tidbit that the first push for global warming came from Margaret Thatcher trying to undermine the power of the coal miner's unions. Just goes to show the dangers of politicizing science - once you step away from the truth, anything goes...jimbo
March 14, 2007
March
03
Mar
14
14
2007
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Joseph CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's plant fertilizer. Estimates go up to 15% better crop yields due to increased atmospheric CO2 over the last century. Extended growing seasons in the north will raise that even more. Manmade CO2, what little effect it has had, is far more positive than negative. Now if you're talking real pollutants such as ozone, soot, and aerosols that adversely effect health and cause acid rain I couldn't agree more and no country has done more already to clean up its air pollutant emissions than the United States. If the greenies and assorted other anti-US whackjobs think we're going to hobble our economy to reduce non-polluting CO2 in response to their pseudo-scientific warming hoax they've got another think coming. Keep in mind the same morons who ruined the US nuclear power industry decades ago are the ones who are now carping about burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. If it weren't for these same harebrained alarmists we'd have most of our electricity coming from clean nuclear power plants like France today. I hate the gutless double-dealing French but that's one thing they did right.DaveScot
March 14, 2007
March
03
Mar
14
14
2007
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Michaels7:
Has it been mentioned yet that Al Gore created his own “Green Investement Company” back in 2004 in England? ... He’s banking on the Global Warming Buck Baby.
This has got to be one of my all time pet pieve worst arguments. I would suggest that this shows that Gore believes in his message, and believes that investment can effect the outcome. So what. I also know some who see those who come to believe that there is a God, and respond by accepting a particular religion. Because of their religion, they are dismissed even though this is the logical extension of their initial discovery.bFast
March 14, 2007
March
03
Mar
14
14
2007
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
DaveScot: CO2 emitted by humans as the driver of global warming is utter dreck. I agree. However I am torn by the fact that the pollution emitted by human activity is not a good thing for this planet. To me that is what is required- scientific data that demonstrates the harm that is coming for this polluation. And I think we have it in China- that is people with heart disease unrelated to cholesterol levels but related to air pollution.Joseph
March 14, 2007
March
03
Mar
14
14
2007
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
I'm ready to Bank on DARPA... I refuse to 'sucketh' up to Darwin. Even though I enjoyed the parody :) Hey Dave... can I go off topic a little and mention Gathering of Eagles links and Move America Forward? Verterans are meeting in DC to rally against anti-war protesters Hanoi Jane on March 17th. I met some of the Blue Star Moms in Dallas and many veterans this week for MAF. What an honor.Michaels7
March 14, 2007
March
03
Mar
14
14
2007
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Has it been mentioned yet that Al Gore created his own "Green Investement Company" back in 2004 in England? http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html He's banking on the Global Warming Buck Baby... Meanwhile, check out the cool research about our body-biology and cooling of blood thru this new Glove developed by DARPA. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/bemore.html
In trying to figure out why the Glove worked so well, its inventors ended up challenging conventional scientific wisdom on fatigue. Muscles don’t wear out because they use up stored sugars, the researchers said. Instead, muscles tire because they get too hot, and sweating is just a backup cooling system for the lattices of blood vessels in the hands and feet. The Glove, in other words, overclocks the heat exchange system. “It’s like giving a Honda the radiator of a Mack truck,” Heller says. After four months of using it himself, Heller did 1,000 push-ups on his 60th birthday in April 2003. Soon after, troops from Special Operations Command were trying out the Glove, too.
Maybe we can use the Glove to Cool the Earth? ;-) 1000 pushups at 60!Michaels7
March 14, 2007
March
03
Mar
14
14
2007
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
What's being overlooked in this discussion is the very salient point that if, in the face of clear-cut facts, clear-cut evidence, and the expert testimony of scientific investigators to the contrary, global warming is still being taken as the gospel-truth, then what chance is there to overturn Darwinian orthodoxy with arguments about missing links in the fossil record, when all's the high priests of Darwinism have to do is to invoke, as their great-grandaddy did, the "imperfection" of the geological record? What a daunting task we propose for ourselves!!PaV
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
Hey thanks for linking to this Dave. I saw this was on but now I can download it from Google Video and watch at my leisure. Awesome.Jason Rennie
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
In addition to mars, it seems that Jupiter, Triton (one of Neptune's moons), and pluto are all warming. See: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.htmlbFast
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
crandaddy The temperature of the world is never constant. It's always either increasing or decreasing. From 1940 to 1980 it was decreasing so much that any possible anthropogenic greenhouse warming was being welcomed as a possible savior. I believe that human activity has indeed accelerated the melting of northern ice and snow through the deposition of black carbon (soot) but those ice and snowfields have melted in the past before humans were burning fuels that throw soot into the air. It should be noted that the United States cleaned up its soot emissions starting with the Clean Air Act of 1963 and is not the guilty party today in any case. Whether this has contributed in any significant way to raising average global temperature is a valid question which has no definitive answer. One needs to keep in mind inconvenient truths such as Mars polar ice caps are melting right now too. Obviously that isn't due to human causes so this raises another valid question - what is causing global warming on Mars right now and is that the same thing driving the earth's warming?DaveScot
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
The documentary is very interesting, Dave. I always thought that the world is getting warmer but was unsure if humans were really the cause. On the other hand, I didn't know what the motivations for lying would be. This answers a lot of questions.crandaddy
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
I read Wunsch's equivication. I don't understand it. Either oceans release more CO2 when they are warm or they don't. If they do then the historic correlation between CO2 and temperature cannot used as evidence that CO2 causes global warming. It is that simple. His opinion is irrelevant in light of the facts he provides.Jehu
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
smidlee This statement from Wunsch was the most important thing he said. Too bad so few are following his advice: Wunsch at realclimate:In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise. CO2 emitted by humans as the driver of global warming is utter dreck. It's denied by all the actual data and model results. The IPCC report saying they're 90% sure of it and claiming a scientific consensus on that is going to destroy the credibility of a great many (if not most or all) scientists for generations to come. Wunsch knows it and is trying to remain objective and dissociated from the whole global warming brouhaha but that milquetoast protest over unwarranted, unjustifiable scientific alarmism isn't going to save him. Not even close.DaveScot
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
jradarp, Go to google video and put in "great global warming swindle" and it will come up. There are several videos listed but most are excerpts. The one that says 1 hr 14 min is the whole show. You have the option of downloading it to your hard drive but beware as it is very large. The ipod version was 295 megs and could be shown on a computer but the video will be at lower resolution. Others here may have a better suggestion.jerry
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
To be fair it needs to be noted that Carl Wunsch has complain that he has been misrepresented his views at www.realclimate.orgSmidlee
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
For DaveScot, Is this broadcast available on a CD-ROM or DVD? If so, how do I order it for use in my Church classes? Thank you, JRPagejradarp
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
If we could just get certain people to stop hyperventilating about CO2, we could reduce CO2 emissions...Jaz
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Yesterday morning the headline news was that Gordon Brown and David Cameron (the 2 people most likely to be future UK PMs) were competing to be the most serious on climate change. This morning the headline news was that the government were going to introduce legally binding CO2 targets, aiming for a 60% cut by 2050. Oh well...not much we can do but wait until we have a few cold years so that everyone goes back to worrying about global cooling. Hopefully we won't have completely shafted our economy by then.Rowan
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
I saw Burke's Connections series. Some of the best TV ever. "Riviting" is a good word for it. I second those who are saddened by his apparent cooption by the global warming chicken little crowd.BarryA
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
From one who loves warm weather, I would like to publicly thank the sun, the ocean, and all those cosmic rays, for warming the planet.mike1962
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
I would like to again recommend a book by James P. Hogan entitled "Kicking the Sacred Cow." In it he takes on global warming, Darwinism, and other issues where dissenters are run over by the bandwagons. He's an excellent writer and it's an easy, informative read.dacook
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Ok DaveScot, you've convinced me. 'Told you I was swayed by actual evidence.bFast
March 13, 2007
March
03
Mar
13
13
2007
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply