Watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” Here (Channel 4 Documentary)

Non kool-aid drinkers, this is what we have been waiting for. Those who either hate modern capitalist society, or who can’t get over their guilt over being materially successful, you’ll have to move on to something else:

Advertisements

28 Comments

Filed under Over-Environmentalism, Uncategorized

28 responses to “Watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” Here (Channel 4 Documentary)

  1. engrossing stuff. does this mean I have to stop revering Tim flannery?

  2. Ahh yes propaganda…it’s a beauty isn’t it how the use of propaganda can sway minds so completely. Bravo – same tactics used in this film with an even more incidious result. Oh, and as for heretics, aren’t those the ones that speak of environmental concerns? It is only in the last year that anyone not agreeing with President Bush’s agenda was/is considered a terrorist and global warming or any environmental concerns were not a part of that agenda. The argument against CO2 being a contributing cause in your little film is truly amusing…oh, was this meant to be for fun? The comparisons are so bogus it must be a clip for The Daily Show, that has to be it.

  3. queenmabsmuse: I can’t make out what you are trying to say through the disjointed grammar and twisted logic. But I can assure you, it’s not “my little film”. I would be very proud, however, if it were.

  4. flaggman: You can go right ahead and stick your head in your oil-sands but at the end of the day those of us in the northern climes are going to feel the greatest effects of climate change. There is no debate among thousands of respected, skeptical researchers in dozens of disciplines that global climate change is the result of human activity. There are, in fact, fewer that a dozen “scientists”, all on the payroll of oil companies or conservative “think” tanks, who refute the data and conclusions drawn from science. Data are not politics, though the conclusions drawn may have political ramifications. So don’t believe the scientists…but the data is unassailable.

  5. Recently found your site, great work!
    I added you to my blogroll (hope you don’t mind).
    Looking forward to more posts from you.

  6. Science is not a popularity contest. It doesn’t matter how many scientist support one theory or another. At the end of the day the evidence is what matter.
    There is a lot of troublesome evidence for the CO2-global warming link supporters.
    Anyway is as queenmabmuse says the changes will be first seen in the north, I hope they could come faster as the benefits in terms of spending less energy in heating and having a longer growing season will be a huge bonus for Canadians.

  7. ET

    Actually and factually, queenmabmuse, you are completely incorrect.

    There are many, not ‘fewer than a dozen, and none on any oil payroll’ scientists who disagree with the notion of AGW (anthropogenic global warming), who disagree with viewing climate change as linear rather than non-linear. Climate change has been a fact of this planet since its inception many millions of years ago. Human causality is a minor factor in this constant change.

    You may not wish to believe these facts and these scientists but that’s your decision.

  8. Who are these scientists, ET? Where are their papers and reports? I have been reading pages and pages of reports from the US governments own scientists (which were initially published and then diverted from public viewing). If there are numerous reports conflicting with the overwhelming information finally being viewed today, contrary to your viewpoint, where can I find them to read? I teach students to know the facts on all sides of controversial issues before forming an opinion. At times it is difficult to find clear unbiased information, but I try to practice what I preach. Both sides of the climate change discussion present information in a self righteous manner when politics are involved. It is a tough row to hoe, but I hope to not fall easily into that trap. I will address my views on my blog so I don’t continue to take space from Mr. Flagg.
    Are you all Canadian?

  9. Mario

    For those interested, there is a wealth of information linked to the original research at the Friends of Science.
    To further probe the issue (as in any debate when logic is applied) we can see what happens when the cautionary principle is applied in the following way; until we don’t know for sure there is a man-made effect on climate, we should not commit vast quantities of resources and impoverish the quality of life of everybody in the planet.

  10. Ownshook

    The logic in the video, along with the recorded history of our planet in regards to climate change, goes hard against the grain of those who believe, for whatever reason, that MAN is the cause of this problem and only MAN can reverse the trend.

    I have spend many many hours looking at both sides of the issue. Although I will not use such incredible assumptions such as “all” as some posters have, nor make this a political argument as some posters have or invoke the word “terrorists” as some posters have, I will simply say that the facts speak for themselves.

    The sky is falling crowd have made this political, have declared the “science is proven” and discussion is closed” and those such as Gore refuse to debate the issue publicly. What are they afraid of?

    REAL climate scientists have brushed aside the science, the skewed models, the inaccuracies, the blatant spin and other circumstantial evidence and have presented compelling and logical arguements.

    The mere fact that those the blindly follow that man is responsible but then invoke the precautionary principle stating “just in case” weaken their staunch position. Either you believe man is responsible or you don’t. The middle ground is no place for those that are crying for a massive change in the day to day lives of much of the worlds population.

    Regardless..there will always be those who give man too much credit that we can control the climate, perhaps to simply feel in control of something that we can’t control. The greatest weakness of man is the feeling of not being in control. Climate change has been occurring for ions and perhaps not being able to stop the inevitable is simply too much for most to accept.

    The false sense of security thinking if we control CO2 emissions we control our destiny…is simply a recipe for disaster. While too busy focusing on that we can not control, we fail to adapt to a changing world that will occur with or without us…and perhaps that will be our inevitable downfall.

  11. ET

    queenmabsmuse – It is exceedingly strange that you, who insist that you want to know ‘all sides’, don’t know anything about non-anthropogenic causes of climate change.

    And by the way, what does your question of ‘are you all Canadian’ have to do with climate change or science?

    For a rapid glimpse, go to wikipedia’s list of ‘scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming’.

    You can also google names like Tim Ball, and David Deming – all these will connect you with others.

    Science, the journal of the AAAS, has articles. For example ‘The heartbeat of the oligocene climate system’ Dec 22, 2006. Vol 314 p 1894-, by H. Palike et al, which discusses the ‘heatbeat’ variations of ongoing climate change.

    Have you taught your students about these climate change cycles? Such as the famous paleocene-eocene thermal maximum?

    I must say, that your verbiage doesn’t seem to display much interest in examining other conclusions. You seem to have moved out of the realm of science, which is always open, and into dogma.

    Ownshook has an important comment, that it is possible indeed probable that much of the ‘hype’ about human-caused global warming is really about our deep desire to control nature. If we insist that we caused it, then, we feel sure that we have the power to control it! In an historic period of world terrorism from Islamic fascism, – a feeling that we can control – something – is important. If we can’t control the terrorists, then we can control the apocalyptic weather!!! That’s called, in Freudian terms, a transference of the fear from one site to another site.

  12. Ownshook and ET,
    I just discovered that there were responses to my last comment…still learning the blogging world. I have responded on my blog. Again, I didn’t want to continue this discussion on Mr. Flagg’s website since I was a guest on his blog and my comments have caused some detailed discussion. That said –

    As for my comment on Canadian bloggers, it had nothing to do with the topic at hand, I was just surprised at how many blogs I’ve read recently that were Canadian …nothing hidden or insidious there but then curiosity did kill the cat. It has been a lot of fun discovering the blogging world for the first time…obviously I’m an older individual than many bloggers.

    I am not a science teacher. Surprise, surprise, I teach language arts and social studies to middle school age children. I teach research skills. If I read ET correctly, that will be enough information to place me in the insignificant sector alone or to plaster me to the wall with scientific rhetoric claiming I can’t be anything but a political wing nut and incapable of understanding the research presented. Under the circumstances, I have, contrary to popular belief, checked out some of the suggested websites and discussions. So far, there is a lot of factual evidence to explain changes in the earth throughout history (and before) but no refuting evidence to the obvious CO2 culprit in our current global warming. Which, based on scientific evidence (No Chicken Little here) that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is at record levels.

    However, by placing me into the controlling political sector, those trying to control uncontrollable terrorists, you have put me with the conservative right who are not, as a rule, ready to let go of their lifestyle to protect the future of our planet. And how estute of Freud to have predicted the use of “sites” before the invention of the internet!

    Finally, as I said on my blog, our planet’s future is, in many ways, in our hands. Polution is only a natural phenomenon when something like a volcano erupts. Therefore manmade polution IS something we humans can control. Polution does have catestrophic effects on our planet. If that isn’t obvious by having to rate air quality in most American cities…hmm,mm Canadian…clean air…polution blown somewhere else? Ah, but I digress. CO2 emissions can be controlled which can therefore contribute to preserving the planet. I, again, refuse to be indifferent on this issue.

  13. Oops, my apologies…it should have read “And how astute of Freud…” Wasn’t watching carefully enough. Must have been thinking of estate…(o;

  14. ET

    queenmabsmuse – if you teach research methods, then, you should know about false correlations, false causality, the requirement for both grounded data and logical relations, etc. Your arguments don’t reveal that knowledge.

    You say that there is a ‘lot of factual evidence’ to check out changes in the earth throughout history (and before)’. I presume you mean before humans? After all, the history of the planet includes the millions of years before humans appeared, and climate change has been a constant since the planet was formed.

    No, CO2 is not the ‘obvious culprit’ to climate change; there is a lot of evidence about this. Have you actually read the rebuttals? The universe is not a simple mechanical linear system; it is complex and non-linear. That means that there are multiple networked causes and results.
    Did you know that the earth has warmed up – and cooled down – long before humans appeared? Did you know that CO2 emissions are not solely from humans? These cannot be controlled, though the smaller amounts from human activities can be reduced by switching to non-fossil fuels or developing new technologies.

    Are you making the mistake of confusing CO2 emissions and pollution? I think you are.

    Might I suggest that you and your class take a look at the documentary that rebuts the CO2 myth – see above.

  15. Ownshook

    I concur ET. I have no idea how the topic of pollution ended up in a thread about CO2 although talking about pollution is talking about something about something that is proven to have an effect on the quality of our life and is something we can control…and should.

    I will say though….this has zero to do with the “conservative right” or any political belief and to simplify it to that, as the previous poster has done, is pure ignorance. Is this the type of people we have teaching our children??

    As for the refuting of the effects of CO2, there is plenty of non partisan and non-“big oil” information out there that does just that. It is becoming quite clear, amid the hysteria, that those that have attached their cart to the CO2 horse have picked a dud. It is great to not be indifferent…but holding steadfast to an idea that is quickly becoming a dinosaur, especially for those that teach our children, is simply blindness. A false sense of security may feel great..but will be useless in the end.

  16. You both make me laugh but I feel it is time to say adios with a final website I find reputable and in response to the following:

    I will say though….this has zero to do with the “conservative right” or any political belief and to simplify it to that, as the previous poster has done, is pure ignorance. Is this the type of people we have teaching our children??

    It does in the U.S. however, my political views don’t belong in the classroom and actually, I think showing both The Global Warming Swindle and An Inconvenient Truth would be useful in class for discussion and a lead into writing to present an opinion. I have no idea what kind of people are teaching your children.

    This is one of my sources http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/

    and I must say you didn’t read my blog or didn’t understand that I am aware of the changes in climate throughout EARTH’S history…it is taught in elementary school…at least those that still allow science to be taught. CO2 is a natural emission as well as a human produced emission…I DO know that, however, I do not choose to just go glibbly along with my life as if these human produced emissions are not polluting the atmosphere…what kind of a scientist doesn’t see that as a reality? And, as my friend said:

    Let’s just take a look at the obvious. Let’s take a look at the industrialization of the US alone over the past 100 years (yeah let’s look in our own backyard right up front). I’m no expert, but pumping all those gases into the atmosphere from the birth of the steel age… ya gotta wonder, that can’t be healthy? Isn’t it sort of like smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day then wondering why you wake up every morning hacking up a lung. Then there is the coal use in the 1930’s and 40’s that turned the air black and the major cities and industrial areas into a smudge on the face of the earth. We finally smartened up and realized that wasn’t too healthy for us either and therefore it must not be healthy for the earth, which by the way seems to be just as much a living breathing entity as we humans and every other creature that calls this planet home. But the all mighty dollar still drives some of the environmental decisions we make and we are still making mistakes. I’m not just talking about America now. We all do it. Let’s look at our friends in other countries (or should I say continents) like Mexico and the rest of South America slashing and burning the rain forests and dumping at will things that the average intelligent human being wouldn’t consider touching much less putting into their drinking water, food and air… but they dump it into the streets, rivers and landfills with the attitude of if we don’t look at it, it’ll go away… maybe some big wondrous cosmic being will just come down and make everything all better. Are we really that naive? And then there’s China and India fighting to get into the global race cutting every corner they can pushing harder and harder to get ahead . Why are they pushing so hard? Because they’ve allowed their populations to explode out of control and they’re living on top of each other. The only way to get free of the human wave is to put yourself above and beyond they’re reach. Who could blame them? We all want to live life like the Trump’s and some of us are willing to turn our backs on the nasty truth just as long as it doesn’t affect us. It’s like having a child with a drug addiction, we love them and ignore it until they come home one day looking like a meth freak, emaciated, covered in sores and dying of aids. Then we say “Oh my how did this happen”? But by then it’s too late. Maybe your blogging friends have been fortunate enough to have not seen the ugliness yet? After all it’s only everywhere you look… Open up your eyes! This is a mistake many are making sitting in our comfortable lives with our back to sea. It is a wonderful thing, if we continue to do it well we won’t see that sea level rising until it’s too late… but by then… WELL it’ll be too late. But not to worry, the good news is by then most of us will be gone.
    Quote – Unquote

    Okay, I’m done, “My words fly up, My thoughts remain below, Words without thoughts never to heaven go.” – William Shakespeare

  17. Ownshook

    queenmabsmuse…

    You talk about the earths climate…then rattle on about pollution and air quality. These two movies are about CO2…which is not pollution and is used by plants to make O2.

    You say it yourself: “I do not choose to just go glibbly along with my life as if these human produced emissions are not polluting the atmosphere”.

    You confuse the issue.

    We are talking about CO2 having a negative impact on the climate. The science is not solid in fact, information is pointing to other causes of the current warming trend.

    Talk about CO2.
    Or talk about pollution on our land, in our air and in our water.
    To put them all in one breath makes no sense and you sound like the many who believe controlling CO2 controls pollution. It doesn’t.

    In regards to pollution, I am on your side. That is where the attention should be focused.

    ….in regards to the rising sea levels….I hope you have educated yourself farther than the Gore movie. Even the IPCC calls the 20 feet predication a fabrication and has stated it is 20 inches at best. I hope you have also read the recent NY Times (not exactly a right wing rag) taking Gore to task for the hysteria.

  18. We are talking about CO2 having a negative impact on the climate. The science is not solid in fact, information is pointing to other causes of the current warming trend. – Ownshook

    http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/newsroom/

    Check out the articles on the amounts of CO2 rising in the oceans which produces a catastrophic effect and is man produced which, in this case, is a form of pollution or, if that term is too offensive, contamination…what term would you prefer I use for the levels of CO2 that is contributing to the exacerbation of global warming effects? You support living an anti “pollution” lifestyle but don’t see the connections it all has, one to the other. As for Gore’s film and the discussion about the amount the oceans will rise…it is all a projection of possibilities if nothing is done to at least help alleviate the results. At the core of all this discussion is why wouldn’t we want to take action against something that is effecting our planet in a negative manner anyway? This discussion is at a stalemate as you do not consider CO2 a contributer to the problem which IS proven…I’ve read enough to see the connection. What the ultimate outcome is…I don’t want to wait and see if I can do something now to alleviate the results later…we never take action as a people until our lifestyle is in crisis…my concern is for the future and what my daughter will have as a result of our nation of ostriches. I can’t just turn my back when the evidence is clear…what is the point of arguing on the CO2 and Gore’s film when we can see the negative change in our oceans as a result of the rise of CO2…that alone should inspire the population to consider the ramifications. Isn’t NASA a reputable website?…I have friends who are scientists at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institue where my husband was the ship captain of one of the research vessels for 15 years…how much proof do I need to have to prove that we use a finite source of energy to run our lives with a detrimental amount of emissions being produced by that same source of energy and CO2 is a part of that equation? Oh, and yes, I did see that information in the New York Times…interesting, still doesn’t refute the issue…great questions posed however. Always question but when the evidence is clear, take action.

    I respectfully agree to disagree…

  19. Ownshook

    Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Dr. James Hansen:

    “The focus solely on CO2 is fueled in part by misconceptions. Many other greenhouse gases trap heat far more powerfully than CO2, some of them tens of thousands of times more powerfully. When taking into account various gases’ global warming potential—defined as the amount of actual warming a gas will produce over the next one hundred years—it turns out that gases other than CO2 make up most of the global warming problem.”

    “”I am a little concerned about this, in the sense that we are still at a point where the natural fluctuations of climate are still large — at least, the natural fluctuations of weather compared to long-term climate change,”

    Nasa also states Mars is warming. Are we the cause of that as well?

    ———————–

    Look up the definition of “pollution” and you will see one keyword is “harmful substance.” Without CO2…there is no O2. Your usage of the word “pollution” does not fit when speaking of CO2 yet you were doing fine when you spoke about the air we breathe and our water sources.

    “when we can see the negative change in our oceans as a result of the rise of CO2” Besides the fact that the oceans absorb CO2, the change in the oceans are caused by an overall warming trend caused by sources including water vapor and other properties in the atmosphere including solar activity.

    Anyhow….

    Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.

    By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bearing Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America.

    Seems the world started to warm long before the industrial age…except in 1975 when the craze was global cooling.

    I agree…we are at a stalemate. I do look forward to Al Gore, who is the proponent of the hype, to actually debate the issue though. He refuses.

  20. CADNO

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

    James Hansen has also appeared on 60 Minutes[20] claiming that the White House edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening. He is unable to speak “freely”, without the backlash of other government officials. “In my more than three decades in the government I’ve never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public,” he said in one of his many public appearances.

    Hansen has said that the tipping point (also known as the runaway effect) is upon us, and that if in 10 years the human population is unable to reduce greenhouse gases, that the oceans might rise as much as 10 feet by 2100.

    There is a short clip in the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth that shows Hansen being questioned by Al Gore on May 8, 1989, at what appears to be a Congress meeting. Gore criticizes Hansen for apparently contradicting himself in a written testimony on global warming. At that point, Hansen reveals that the last paragraph in the testimony was not written by him, but added by someone else.

  21. Finally, words of reason. I shall put the Independent on my blogroll. Thank you, CADNO.

  22. Cando: if The Independent found a couple of errors in “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, so what? Plenty of errors have been exposed in Al Gore’s film and writings.

    As for James Hansen: so what? Last I checked, there were scientists from all over the world who question the science behind man-made global warming and upcoming climate catastrophies. So even if it were true that Hansen is under the influence of his employer, the US Government, so what? He’s just one man with a ridiculous story (the guy has granted over 1,200 interviews…some stifling!)

    Finally, queenmabsmuse: if CADNO’s posts are the voice of reason to you, then you’re really in the wrong place. Try the Daily Kos or Blogging Dippers.

  23. CADNO

    “The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find,” Mr Durkin said.

    je-je-je :o)

    Here is comment by scientist, Carl Wunsch, cheated and abused in Swindle :

    Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of “polemics”. There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value—clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

  24. CADNO: Again I ask, so what? There were dozens of people interviewed for that show. This scientist just sounds bitter because he disagrees with the conclusions (and because his colleagues are probably giving him the gears).

    I prefer to stick to facts and logic here. The irresponsible Manhattan-will-drown-and-it-will-be-the-NeoCons-fault crowd can go argue elsewhere.

  25. ET

    The National Post has a series, at the moment, up to sixteen posts, on ‘The Deniers’, outlining criticism of the AGW or anthropogenic global warming dogma and Kyotoism. It’s a very good series, edited by Lawrence Solomon in the Financial Post section.

    Covers everything from the false ‘hockey stick’ model, to the real cause of climate change (solar rays), to polar ice changes. It’s all science, no religious utopian or apocalyptic scenarios.

    I’d suggest queenmab take a look, but I don’t think she’s interested in science, data or facts.

  26. Pingback: Global Warming Denial: Science Demands It! « Flaggman’s Canada

  27. Muualla lupautua hammaslääkäri parisen varsova panu toimintamalli kanne ihmetyttää lyhytaikainen inkeri varmistaminen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s