Global Warming Swindle

[yinekka]

The Great Global warming swindle: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&hl=en

 

[scott1228]

Also here:

youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

Everyone that saw Al Gore’s propaganda film needs to watch this. In fact, everyone needs to watch it, because what certain politicians intend to do is use false science to increase government control of our lives.

 

[Researcher]

Regarding global warming what has been missing from the equation has been any sence of reason. The earth is dynamic and has always been changing in many ways, one of which is temperature. There will be times when the earth warms and times when it cools. What is really a very difficult question to answer is what impact is man having on this dynamic.

In my opinion, I do accept that data that I have seen that overall the temperature of the earth is rising. I do believe that the activities of man can be contributing in someway to this change. How much though I have no idea. I do feel that to be a responsible member on this wonderful planet we need to do what we can to minimize our negative impact. We need to be good stewards to hand on a beautiful planet to our children.

Could we already be too late to save the earth from global warming? I doubt anyone will be alive to find out. We will find a way to kill each other first.

 

[MikeWM]

Everyone that saw Al Gore’s propaganda film needs to watch this. In fact, everyone needs to watch it, because what certain politicians intend to do is use false science to increase government control of our lives.

Why would they bother? They can - and do - already do just about whatever they want by invoking the spectre of terrorism.

Also, you could say the same thing about ‘Loose Change’. Although at least Loose Change doesn’t do stupid things like saying environmentalists think their fellow humans are ‘scum’ and want Africa to suffer for no apparent reason.

Mike

 

[Strummer]

Interestingly, I find a similar behavior amongst those to pooh-pooh Global Warming as those take only the most literal interpretation of Scripture. They look for data which appears to support their pre-conceived bias and once such data is found, they cease their investigation and declare themselves wise and righteous.

What puzzles me further is this conspiratorial mindset that is project upon those who declare Global Warming as an issue. “They’re just saying it to maintain governmental control.” “You know you can’t trust government funded studies.” etc. Frankly, I’d rather see the evidence both sides produce and weigh the arguments. This video is over an hour long and I don’t have that much contiguous free time just now. But then I only first screened Inconvenient Truth just a few days ago, so my GW education is only just begining.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The way a scientific theory works is that if it fails ANY of the tests, then the whole theory flunks.

So, what has happened is that the sceptics have found lots of problems with the data and arguments of the AGW proponents. The sceptics don’t have to prove ANYTHING.

The sceptics have simply demolished the arguments of the proponents.

Argument over.

In any case, Mr. Gore has already publicly stated that it isn’t a scientific issue; it is a “moral issue”. So even if the science goes away, the liberals want it because it fits into their non-God religion.

Interestingly, I find a similar behavior amongst those to pooh-pooh Global Warming as those take only the most literal interpretation of Scripture. They look for data which appears to support their pre-conceived bias and once such data is found, they cease their investigation and declare themselves wise and righteous.

What puzzles me further is this conspiratorial mindset that is project upon those who declare Global Warming as an issue. “They’re just saying it to maintain governmental control.” “You know you can’t trust government funded studies.” etc. Frankly, I’d rather see the evidence both sides produce and weigh the arguments. This video is over an hour long and I don’t have that much contiguous free time just now. But then I only first screened Inconvenient Truth just a few days ago, so my GW education is only just begining.

 

[Strummer]

So, what has happened is that the sceptics have found lots of problems with the data and arguments of the AGW proponents. The sceptics don’t have to prove ANYTHING.

The sceptics have simply demolished the arguments of the proponents.

Argument over.

AFAIK, this is not true. Skeptics have poked at some of the findings but the essential data still stands. What remains to be found is a relatively unimpeachable explanation of the data which should result in rather reliable predictions. The “problems” I’ve seen so far come from a misunderstanding of the conclusions or an outright ignoring of particular factors. “Demolished” is simply an incorrect characterization. All science needs to be looked at with skepticism; that is the basis of the scientific method. But finding flaws of analysis or raising questions is not demolishing, it is polishing.

In any case, Mr. Gore has already publicly stated that it isn’t a scientific issue; it is a “moral issue”. So even if the science goes away, the liberals want it because it fits into their non-God religion.

You misrepresent Mr. Gore’s intent here almost to the point of calumny. His point was, given the scientific findings (as he sees them) as the issue affects all of humanity, it goes beyond mere scientific inquiry and becomes a moral issue. This ridiculous “non-God religion” piffle is nothing more than an attempt to use poltical bias rather than cogent analysis to win an argument.

The way a scientific theory works is that if it fails ANY of the tests, then the whole theory flunks.

This statement shows a gross lack of understanding of science and the scientific method. Scientific theories are modified all the time. The planets were believed to be encased in crystal spheres, later that was modified to circular orbits and later that was modified to eliptical orbits. Each step was an improvement, not a castigation, of the original theory as more and more data became available and more observation and experimentation was performed.

 

[MikeWM]

AFAIK, this is not true. Skeptics have poked at some of the findings but the essential data still stands.

Indeed (as you pointed out later). When Einstein came up with Relativity, that didn’t in essence made Newton’s Laws of Motion ‘wrong’ - even though indeed for some things (travel close to the speed of light), Newton’s Laws are not good enough. They are still good enough to send a man to the moon and get him back safely. The problems with Newton’s Laws exist and we know about them, but we don’t just throw them in the bin.

Mike

 

[2shelbys]

Interestingly, I find a similar behavior amongst those to pooh-pooh Global Warming as those take only the most literal interpretation of Scripture. They look for data which appears to support their pre-conceived bias and once such data is found, they cease their investigation and declare themselves wise and righteous.

What puzzles me further is this conspiratorial mindset that is project upon those who declare Global Warming as an issue. “They’re just saying it to maintain governmental control.” “You know you can’t trust government funded studies.” etc. Frankly, I’d rather see the evidence both sides produce and weigh the arguments. This video is over an hour long and I don’t have that much contiguous free time just now. But then I only first screened Inconvenient Truth just a few days ago, so my GW education is only just begining.

Your comment exposes bias. Both sides of this debate are loaded with people who can be described in the way you note.
Funny that it is only those on one side who are ever accused of it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Your comment exposes bias. Both sides of this debate are loaded with people who can be described in the way you note.
Funny that it is only those on one side who are ever accused of it.

But so far as I know, only one side in that debate is trying to silence the other side, to get people who disagree fired or decertified.

 

[Al_Masetti]

AFAIK, this is not true. Skeptics have poked at some of the findings but the essential data still stands. What remains to be found is a relatively unimpeachable explanation of the data which should result in rather reliable predictions. The “problems” I’ve seen so far come from a misunderstanding of the conclusions or an outright ignoring of particular factors. “Demolished” is simply an incorrect characterization. All science needs to be looked at with skepticism; that is the basis of the scientific method. But finding flaws of analysis or raising questions is not demolishing, it is polishing.

You misrepresent Mr. Gore’s intent here almost to the point of calumny. His point was, given the scientific findings (as he sees them) as the issue affects all of humanity, it goes beyond mere scientific inquiry and becomes a moral issue. This ridiculous “non-God religion” piffle is nothing more than an attempt to use poltical bias rather than cogent analysis to win an argument.

This statement shows a gross lack of understanding of science and the scientific method. Scientific theories are modified all the time. The planets were believed to be encased in crystal spheres, later that was modified to circular orbits and later that was modified to eliptical orbits. Each step was an improvement, not a castigation, of the original theory as more and more data became available and more observation and experimentation was performed.

Nope. Not polishing.

Gore & Co. can’t have it both ways.

Personally, I like the idea of the Earth riding on the back of a giant tortise.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nope. Not polishing.

All science needs to be looked at with skepticism; that is the basis of the scientific method. But finding flaws of analysis or raising questions is not demolishing, it is polishing.

How can it be polishing if scientists who do not toe the party line get fired, demoted, or de-certified?

 

[2shelbys]

But so far as I know, only one side in that debate is trying to silence the other side, to get people who disagree fired or decertified.

Exactly.

 

[gilliam]

Global Warming Awareness Walk Braves Snow Storm…**

Researchers Question Validity Of A ‘Global Temperature’…

**Scientist who alleged Bush administration muzzled him – did 1,400 on-the-job media interviews…

 

[StMarkEofE]

One question still has to be answered:

If Al Gore feels so strongly about his “Global Warning” theory why does he refuse to debate the issue with learned scientists and climatologists from the other side??

If he is correct that we will be seeing catastrophic consequences in the near future because of the so-called CO2 increases his arguments would be a slam-dunk for believability in any discussion with the opposition.

Now that he is on Capital hill to deliver his side of climatic changes to both houses WILL HE BE CHALLENGED or will he get fluff questions by the democrats as well as republicans who view him with awe?

Here s the problem in a nut shell: He has never been challenged face-to-face with the opposition because HE WONT ALLOW IT.

He says it, we have to believe it and that is that? Baloney!

 

[Al_Masetti]

Since Congress is so interested in having folks testify under oath, would that include Al Gore and Jim Hansen?

 

[Al_Masetti]

I just received this by email. It may be of interest to those who want to read the arguments about AGW.

[Oops. The link to the Lord Monckton report dropped itself.]

I can’t get a link to work. So visit Google and type in “Lord Monckton report” and it will come up.

---

Attached is Monckton’s corrections to IPCC & “An Inconvienent Truth” plus, the challenge to Al Gore:

Lord Monckton’s resounding challenge to Al Gore reads as follows –

"The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous”, to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing.

“Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet. God Bless America! God Save the Queen!”

?

 

[manualman]

If anybody cares, I just attended a conference related to my profession: civil engineering and hydrology. We base our designs on statistical projections of rainfall. Historically, those projections have assumed a stationary climate, but recently some have argued that we should project an increase related to global warming.

One of the speakers at the conference was Dr. Derek Winstanley, PhD. Chief of the Illinois State Water Survey and adjunct professor at a couple universities. His PhD is from Oxford and is in climatology.

I figured it was going to be dry as toast. I woke up instantly when he showed the actual individual IPCC temperature model projections. They looked like a bowl of spagetti. His conclusion: “Interesting, but worthless.” Yup, those are quotes.

This is a guy with a stable state job. He gets no funding from evil industry and needs fear no grant blacklisting (since his ISWS position frees him from typical professor grant raising requirements). In other words, he has the tragically rare luxury of REAL academic freedom.

Note that he doesn’t call global warming BS. Just that the current temperature models are worthless for determining future trends and certainly for making major policy decisions. In his opinion, the historic data and feeble models do not PROVE humans are changing earths climate.

I went up and asked him afterwards if he felt that political pressures were influencing funding of research on the topic of global warming. He didn’t even blink before saying it was so. Anyone with a history of asking too many questions or challenging the prevailing opinion on global warming is having a very difficult time getting research funding. This is an ominous trend in a world where research funded by “private industry” is considered tainted, regardless of how rigorous the prepublishing peer review is. My summary: only those who have drunk the kool-aid get funded.

Wake up folks. This is a power play. The screeching is NOT coming from scientists of genuine repute. Real scientists ARE noting a possible warming trend, but look beyond the abstract of their papers and you will find that the science is WAAYYY too young to be making massive policy changes over. The guys pushing for massive economic and policy changes are politicians, lawsuit lawyers, and professional activists. They are generally NOT the guys with thick glasses and the awkward social skill who know the real story.

Here’s a link to a short paper of his: geo.msu.edu/glra/PDF_files/workshop%20report/05.%20Appendices/Appendix%201-%20Invited%20talks/04.%20Winstanley.pdf

 

[Al_Masetti]

It’s been a week since this was posted.

No one on the AGW side has responded.

Perhaps folks aren’t really interested if facts get in the way of a good freeforall.

Or if facts get in the way, period.

[sigh]

[don’t get me started]

Great Post, by the way!

:banghead:

If anybody cares, I just attended a conference related to my profession: civil engineering and hydrology. We base our designs on statistical projections of rainfall. Historically, those projections have assumed a stationary climate, but recently some have argued that we should project an increase related to global warming.

One of the speakers at the conference was Dr. Derek Winstanley, PhD. Chief of the Illinois State Water Survey and adjunct professor at a couple universities. His PhD is from Oxford and is in climatology.

I figured it was going to be dry as toast. I woke up instantly when he showed the actual individual IPCC temperature model projections. They looked like a bowl of spagetti. His conclusion: “Interesting, but worthless.” Yup, those are quotes.

This is a guy with a stable state job. He gets no funding from evil industry and needs fear no grant blacklisting (since his ISWS position frees him from typical professor grant raising requirements). In other words, he has the tragically rare luxury of REAL academic freedom.

Note that he doesn’t call global warming BS. Just that the current temperature models are worthless for determining future trends and certainly for making major policy decisions. In his opinion, the historic data and feeble models do not PROVE humans are changing earths climate.

I went up and asked him afterwards if he felt that political pressures were influencing funding of research on the topic of global warming. He didn’t even blink before saying it was so. Anyone with a history of asking too many questions or challenging the prevailing opinion on global warming is having a very difficult time getting research funding. This is an ominous trend in a world where research funded by “private industry” is considered tainted, regardless of how rigorous the prepublishing peer review is. My summary: only those who have drunk the kool-aid get funded.

Wake up folks. This is a power play. The screeching is NOT coming from scientists of genuine repute. Real scientists ARE noting a possible warming trend, but look beyond the abstract of their papers and you will find that the science is WAAYYY too young to be making massive policy changes over. The guys pushing for massive economic and policy changes are politicians, lawsuit lawyers, and professional activists. They are generally NOT the guys with thick glasses and the awkward social skill who know the real story.

Here’s a link to a short paper of his: geo.msu.edu/glra/PDF_files/workshop%20report/05.%20Appendices/Appendix%201-%20Invited%20talks/04.%20Winstanley.pdf

 

[Ender]

Like dandelions in the spring, global warming arguments pop up everywhere. In this case it is being used to argue that, since the polar ice cap is melting, the US needs to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS was a bad idea when it first appeared in the 70’s and has not improved with time. Kyoto is not the only bad idea being pushed by bad science. This article originated at Stratfor (an organization doing “strategic forecasting”) but their site requires an ID and password.

navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=10818

Ender