The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Please Free Canada]

Then why was the graph included in the first place? And why "fluff" the data?

With warming trends throughout the solar system why won't the global warming crowd even acknoledge the possibility that the warming may be caused by the sun and not humans.

[theservant]

mars is melting

[Faith Hope and Love]

EXCELLENT documentary! I'm sure I saw some of these "dissenters" interviewed on Fox News Channel last night ... hope they air the whole documentary, repreatedly!

I hear the very relevant profiteers of "The Great Anti-Smoking Swindle" are getting more nervous daily, too

It's about time all these fearmongering political activists got their come-uppance and had their gravy trains derailed! STOP governance by fraudulently-created crisis!!

[rwebb]

Then why was the graph included in the first place? And why "fluff" the data?

With warming trends throughout the solar system why won't the global warming crowd even acknoledge the possibility that the warming may be caused by the sun and not humans.

1. "Warming trends throughout the solar system"?? So you're saying that despite hundreds of years of direct observation and countless careful scientific studies, our understanding of terrestrial climate is uncertain and untrustworthy -- and for evidence of this, you rely on our current knowledge of extraterrestrial climate theory?

2. Of course the climate models take into account solar radiation, and of course the sun may well play a role. But that doesn't disprove the human causes. In fact, it only makes it all the more urgent to get our emissions under control and avoid making a bad situation even worse.

[hunterofvoters]

Then why was the graph included in the first place? And why "fluff" the data?

With warming trends throughout the solar system why won't the global warming crowd even acknoledge the possibility that the warming may be caused by the sun and not humans.

1. "Warming trends throughout the solar system"?? So you're saying that despite hundreds of years of direct observation and countless careful scientific studies, our understanding of terrestrial climate is uncertain and untrustworthy -- and for evidence of this, you rely on our current knowledge of extraterrestrial climate theory?

2. Of course the climate models take into account solar radiation, and of course the sun may well play a role. But that doesn't disprove the human causes. In fact, it only makes it all the more urgent to get our emissions under control and avoid making a bad situation even worse.

Climate models? Would those be like the statistical correlation between storks and babies?

Galton and Pearson's introduction of the coefficient of correlation was soon dampened by skeptics who ridiculed it with anecdotes about a positive correlation between the number of stork's nests and the number of live births with the moral that statistics proves that storks deliver babies. Statistical textbooks, separated from logic, repeated the mantra that 'correlation does not imply causation,' neglecting to add that the correlation is also the constant companion of causal relationships, i.e., that the correlation is necessary, but per se not sufficient determinant of causality. <a href=http://www.visualstatistics.net/East-West/Preface/Preface.htm>Just One Example</a>

So, if statistical models predict that storks deliver babies, climate models that use the same statistical techniques, could predict that humans are causing global warming. Both are just as stupid, but both are just as statistically valid.

[Please Free Canada]

Then why was the graph included in the first place? And why "fluff" the data?

With warming trends throughout the solar system why won't the global warming crowd even acknoledge the possibility that the warming may be caused by the sun and not humans.

1. "Warming trends throughout the solar system"?? So you're saying that despite hundreds of years of direct observation and countless careful scientific studies, our understanding of terrestrial climate is uncertain and untrustworthy -- and for evidence of this, you rely on our current knowledge of extraterrestrial climate theory?

2. Of course the climate models take into account solar radiation, and of course the sun may well play a role. But that doesn't disprove the human causes. In fact, it only makes it all the more urgent to get our emissions under control and avoid making a bad situation even worse.

You can't tell if the human element accounts for 90% of the warming trend, or 80% or 50% or 25% or 1% or .1% or .0001% or even less than that.

I've seen scientists on TV in the past state that when Mt. Pinamentumbo (sp?) blew about ten years back it had a greater impact on the atmosphere than all humanity combined since the start of the industrial Revolution. Mt Saint Helen's had a similar impact. That is only two volcanos in the last 30 years. How many blasts like these has there been in the last 100,000 years. Humanity probably does have some impact but nothing close to Mother Nature.

Also you are saying temperature reading from around the solar system are unlikely to be accurate. Well at least these are based on modern technology on satellites sent into space. You and your GW crowd are basing possible future temps on ice core and tree samples from only certain parts of the planet to get an ESTIMATION of what the temp might have been in the distant past. If these estimations are off by only 0.5 of a degree their whole analysis is flawed. You guys are screaming that GW is based on irrefutible science but as we have seen in the avalanche of evidence brought about in the last month that GW may very well be a nature occurance that humanity only plays a very small role. There just is not enough evidence to make radical changes in our economy to prevent something that we very well may have no control over.

I don't know how old you are but it is a good thing that people like you were not listened to back in 70s when irrefutible science was screaming about global cooling and scientists wanted to cover the ice caps with black soot to help prevent global cooling.

[theservant]

morris(sic) strong

he is the key

[theservant]

i promise you

the sun does not revolve around the earth

[J.B. Stone]

[J.B. Stone]

mars is melting

[OC]

In an interview with Grist Magazine, when asked about his film: do you scare people or give them hope?

Mr Gore replied:

I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual solutions on how dangerous it (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

[styky]

Global Warming Swindle
By Thomas Sowell
Thursday, March 15, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Thom ... ng_swindle

Britain's Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It has apparently not been broadcast by any of the networks in the United States. But, fortunately, it is available on the Internet.

Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global warming hysteria is.

These include scientists from MIT and top-tier universities in a number of countries. Some of these are scientists whose names were paraded on some of the global warming publications that are being promoted in the media -- but who state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them.

One scientist threatened to sue unless his name was removed.

While the public has been led to believe that "all" the leading scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats -- and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were "consulted," but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.

There is no question that the globe is warming but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there were any automobiles and before there was as much burning of fossil fuels as today.

None of the dire things predicted today happened then.

The British documentary goes into some of the many factors that have caused the earth to warm and cool for centuries, including changes in activities on the sun, 93 million miles away and wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Kyoto treaty.

According to these climate scientists, human activities have very little effect on the climate, compared to many other factors, from volcanoes to clouds.

These climate scientists likewise debunk the mathematical models that have been used to hype global warming hysteria, even though hard evidence stretching back over centuries contradicts these models.

What is even scarier than seeing how easily the public, the media, and the politicians have been manipulated and stampeded, is discovering how much effort has been put into silencing scientists who dare to say that the emperor has no clothes.

Academics who jump on the global warming bandwagon are far more likely to get big research grants than those who express doubts -- and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities.

Environmental movements around the world are committed to global warming hysteria and nowhere more so than on college and university campuses, where they can harass those who say otherwise. One of the scientists interviewed on the British documentary reported getting death threats.

In politics, even conservative Republicans seem to have taken the view that, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em. So have big corporations, which have joined the stampede.

This only enables the green crusaders to declare at every opportunity that "everybody" believes the global warming scenario, except for a scattered few "deniers" who are likened to Holocaust deniers.

The difference is that we have the hardest and most painful evidence that there was a Holocaust. But, for the global warming scenario that is causing such hysteria, we have only a movie made by a politician and mathematical models whose results change drastically when you change a few of the arbitrarily selected variables.

No one denies that temperatures are about a degree warmer than they were a century ago.

What the climate scientists in the British documentary deny is that you can mindlessly extrapolate that, or that we are headed for a climate catastrophe if we don't take drastic steps that could cause an economic catastrophe.

"Global warming" is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible.

[MikeR]

The Great Global Warming Swindle and Obsession are 2 of the most revealing and important documentaries of our time.

Watch them if you haven't already!

[rwebb]

You can't tell if the human element accounts for 90% of the warming trend, or 80% or 50% or 25% or 1% or .1% or .0001% or even less than that.

No I can't, but then I can't tell what the climate is like on Mars either. That's why we have climate scientists.

I've seen scientists on TV in the past state that when Mt. Pinamentumbo (sp?) blew about ten years back it had a greater impact on the atmosphere than all humanity combined since the start of the industrial Revolution.

No you haven't. Volcanic eruptions account for less than one percent of total CO2 emissions, and anyone who tells you otherwise is not a scientist -- even if he says it on TV. I posted more details on this myth here:
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2//view ... 035#901035

Also you are saying temperature reading from around the solar system are unlikely to be accurate. Well at least these are based on modern technology on satellites sent into space.

On the other hand, we have WAY more satellite data on Earth's climate than on other planets.

You and your GW crowd are basing possible future temps on ice core and tree samples from only certain parts of the planet to get an ESTIMATION of what the temp might have been in the distant past.

On the other hand, we have virtually NO information about the climate of other planets in the distant past.

If these estimations are off by only 0.5 of a degree their whole analysis is flawed.

Not really. The data from hundreds of years ago is merely corroborative. But if it were true, then how much more flawed would be claims of extraterrestrial climate change, with no long-term data whatsoever?

You guys are screaming that GW is based on irrefutible science but as we have seen in the avalanche of evidence brought about in the last month that GW may very well be a nature occurance that humanity only plays a very small role.

I'd be interested in learning what this "avalanche" consists of. I hope you're not referring to the Channel 4 documentary. I haven't seen it yet myself, but according to the reports I've read it contains nothing new and nothing that hasn't been refuted many times over.

There just is not enough evidence to make radical changes in our economy to prevent something that we very well may have no control over.

IMHO you have the burden of proof on the wrong side. We have no business making radical changes in the composition of the atmosphere, as we have indisputably been doing for the past half century or more, unless we know with certainty that it will NOT cause serous harm.

I don't know how old you are but it is a good thing that people like you were not listened to back in 70s when irrefutible science was screaming about global cooling and scientists wanted to cover the ice caps with black soot to help prevent global cooling.

I'm old enough to remember the 70s. Nobody was screaming about global cooling (except the tabloids maybe), nobody claimed "irrefutable evidence", and nobody was ready to "cover the ice caps with black soot". There was concern about climate change in general and some understanding of the basic mechanisms involved, namely the warming effect of CO2 and the cooling effect of sulphates and particulates. The problem was that at that time nobody knew for sure which effect would predominate, so although many scientists warned against pollution in general, no reputable scientist would have claimed to know exactly what the net outcome would be.

Now we know. In fact, there was a cooling effect from various pollutants, which probably offset the warming effect to some extent from about the 1940s to the 1970s. Since then we have controlled sulphur and particulate emissions to a large degree, leaving only the greenhouse gases, hence the dramatic rise in temperatures in the last couple of decades.

[Please Free Canada]

Quote:
I've seen scientists on TV in the past state that when Mt. Pinamentumbo (sp?) blew about ten years back it had a greater impact on the atmosphere than all humanity combined since the start of the industrial Revolution.

No you haven't. Volcanic eruptions account for less than one percent of total CO2 emissions, and anyone who tells you otherwise is not a scientist -- even if he says it on TV. I posted more details on this myth here:
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2//view ... 035#901035

Yes in fact I have seen this on television. I didn't mention CO2 you did but more than just CO2 impacts our environment. Your own post stated that that one volcano had an impact on the Global Temps for years following the eruption. That is only one single event but Mother Nature was able to effect temperatures for years following.

On the other hand, we have WAY more satellite data on Earth's climate than on other planets.

Yes that is true in modern times. When we look back 1000 years we are not nearly as accurate and the probability of error increases the further we go back. And the chances that errors are made in temp estimates from a thousand years ago are very likely.

Quote:
You and your GW crowd are basing possible future temps on ice core and tree samples from only certain parts of the planet to get an ESTIMATION of what the temp might have been in the distant past.

On the other hand, we have virtually NO information about the climate of other planets in the distant past.

So you agree that we don't have accurate temperature reading from Earth in the distant past.

Quote:
If these estimations are off by only 0.5 of a degree their whole analysis is flawed.

Not really. The data from hundreds of years ago is merely corroborative.

So you agree that the evidence of past temperature is definately not certain. Based on that future projections are extremely undependable since the data from the distant past is undependable.

Quote:
You guys are screaming that GW is based on irrefutible science but as we have seen in the avalanche of evidence brought about in the last month that GW may very well be a nature occurance that humanity only plays a very small role.

I'd be interested in learning what this "avalanche" consists of. I hope you're not referring to the Channel 4 documentary. I haven't seen it yet myself, but according to the reports I've read it contains nothing new and nothing that hasn't been refuted many times over.

All you have to do is be brave enough to search the net a read some differing opinions and you will find tons of site refuting the IPCC and the whole GW theory. Here is just one link here on FD that refutes a lot of your thinking http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=75077

Also it is nice to see you admit that you didn't watch the Channel 4 documentary as it merely proves that you are scared to think for yourself and you let others make decisions for you.

Quote:
There just is not enough evidence to make radical changes in our economy to prevent something that we very well may have no control over.

IMHO you have the burden of proof on the wrong side. We have no business making radical changes in the composition of the atmosphere, as we have indisputably been doing for the past half century or more, unless we know with certainty that it will NOT cause serous harm.

Wrong the burden of proof is on those who wish to destroy our economy and way of life to prevent something that most likely is not occurring. Why should 5 million people in Canada alone lose their jobs for a weak theory. Why should people accept a huge drop in living standards when the evidence is so soft that humans are doing any significant harm to the atmosphere. Of course we should always seek cleaner technologies however there is no justification for devasting our way of life of this.

I'm old enough to remember the 70s. Nobody was screaming about global cooling (except the tabloids maybe), nobody claimed "irrefutable evidence", and nobody was ready to "cover the ice caps with black soot".

The mainstream magazine Newsweek is just one of many places stories of the Global Cooling fenzy was written about. In 1975 Newsweek wrote climatologists supports covering the Arctic icecaps with black soot

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.

Newsweek Link to Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Now we know. In fact, there was a cooling effect from various pollutants, which probably offset the warming effect to some extent from about the 1940s to the 1970s. Since then we have controlled sulphur and particulate emissions to a large degree, leaving only the greenhouse gases, hence the dramatic rise in temperatures in the last couple of decades.

Countries like China the world's largest polluter still don't have serious controls on things like CFCs and sulpher so why are we not in a cooling trend. The theory on why the cooling trend ended in the last 1970's only holds water if you assume that China doesn't exist. Again very weak science has been used to explain the end to the cooling trend by the GW crowd.

As it stands right now there just isn't the evidence out there to warrant any sweeping changes in our lifestyles and unless you GW people never set foot in a vehicle again and never again use electricity generated from coal than you have no right to suggest that anyone else change their life to satisfy this very weak theory of Global warming.