Video on global warming swindle

[Russell Kanning]

Ultra-liberals and ultra-conservatives really are more alike than different. I'm glad to count myself among neither group.

I am considered to be in both groups.

[mvpel]

For some reason I don't understand, this global carbon tax thing is hugely popular among the libertarian leaning people in Sweden. Even otherwise completely principled libertarians are all in favor of it, saying it's the most market-friendly solution to global warming. The "libertarian" argument for a carbon tax these people are giving is that there are two ways to go about things.

The first alternative is for governments to play favorites and ban certain products and subsidize others, in the name of "promoting" the most environmentally friendly solution. But politicians don't know jack shit, they have no idea which things are good for the environment and which aren't, and if they start passing laws it'll be a disaster. A carbon tax would instead let people use whatever products they please, the government would stay out of the marketplace and let the free market figure out which things were best... And then the countries would pay a carbon tax based on how many emissions there were.

They seem to be forgetting the third alternative: NEITHER. We don't pass laws, AND we don't introduce/raise taxes.

That's why it's so important to them to stifle any hint that their "consensus" is anything less than as complete and authoritative as the consensus that the sun revolves around the earth used to be.

Because if disastrous results from anthropogenic global warming is a foregone conclusion, then it's a foregone conclusion that we have to do something to prevent it if we can.  If it's not a foregone conclusion, then the carbon credits that Al Gore's foundation trades in eventually become worthless.

[Ruger Mason]

This film was an excellent example of documentary film making as an art form.  I was initially captivated by its argument.  However, some digging around the internet revealed to me that the film is substantially flawed, possibly to the point of fraud, with most of its key claims in doubt.  This is extremely disappointing because it will ultimately hurt the legitimate arguments of AGW skeptics, and add to the shrillness of the anti-science alarmists who see the AGW scare as their way to foist socialism upon us all.

Here is a link to Carl Wunsch, who was the MIT scientist in the film, who has attacked the film:

http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/

There are links on his page to various articles in the British press outlining some of the flaws in the film's claims, which are very serious.

[CNHT]

Common sense will tell you that teeny ant-like humans are not the cause of climate change of a planet whose course is directed by the other forces of the universe.

I don't care how flawed the movie is, global warming is NOT caused by HUMANS in enough volume to hurt the planet.

The total rise in temperture is a very normal 1.5 degree did they say? Geesh. That to me does not even consitute warming.

(As I look out on the acreage with the snow blowing on this 4th day before srping)

[Ruger Mason]

Common sense will tell you that teeny ant-like humans are not the cause of climate change of a planet whose course is directed by the other forces of the universe.

I don't agree that it is common sense at all.  We're not ants; we've created a substantial industrial society that has impacted the planet exponentially more than would happen otherwise.  We've molded the earth in innumerable ways.  While I am skeptical of AGW, I remain open to the possibility.  I have not seen enough science to convince me either way.

[CNHT]

There comes a point where when a group like the UN has proven to be just so evil, I would be opposed to them even if what they were doing was one small good thing. They have just made that bad of a name for themselves.

In this case they admit they want a 4% carbon tax to give the money to developing countries who would be exempt from Kyoto.
It's a way to redistribute the wealth.

In the early 70s it was an ice age we had to fear. What came of that? Nothing. Same as the Y2K scare...nada.

[powerchuter]

Common sense will tell you that teeny ant-like humans are not the cause of climate change of a planet whose course is directed by the other forces of the universe.

I don't agree that it is common sense at all.  We're not ants; we've created a substantial industrial society that has impacted the planet exponentially more than would happen otherwise.  We've molded the earth in innumerable ways.  While I am skeptical of AGW, I remain open to the possibility.  I have not seen enough science to convince me either way.

While I would agree that we have made positive and negative impact on the planet...
I am 200% convinced by the vast research that has been done...
That we are experiencing a cyclic period of warming...
Since there is no unexpected warming...
Humans didn't create it...

Just like we won't have created "Global Cooling" when the cycle shifts that way...

Duuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....

[Ruger Mason]

There comes a point where when a group like the UN has proven to be just so evil, I would be opposed to them even if what they were doing was one small good thing. They have just made that bad of a name for themselves.

In this case they admit they want a 4% carbon tax to give the money to developing countries who would be exempt from Kyoto.
It's a way to redistribute the wealth.

The UN and "carbon taxes" are all valid political concerns, but not germane to the scientific debate on AGW.

In the early 70s it was an ice age we had to fear. What came of that? Nothing. Same as the Y2K scare...nada.

Not relevant.

[CNHT]

There comes a point where when a group like the UN has proven to be just so evil, I would be opposed to them even if what they were doing was one small good thing. They have just made that bad of a name for themselves.

In this case they admit they want a 4% carbon tax to give the money to developing countries who would be exempt from Kyoto.
It's a way to redistribute the wealth.

The UN and "carbon taxes" are all valid political concerns, but not germane to the scientific debate on AGW.

In the early 70s it was an ice age we had to fear. What came of that? Nothing. Same as the Y2K scare...nada.

Not relevant.

No relevant? It's just another scare tactic to squeeze more money out of us. It's highly relevant!

[Ruger Mason]

No relevant? It's just another scare tactic to squeeze more money out of us. It's highly relevant!

It is not relevant to the scientific debate.  My main concern is that politics and all the evil that flows from it (including money squeezing) has so grafted itself into the AGW "debate" (such as it is), that we can scarcely pull them apart.  I see Inconvenient Truth and the Great Global Warming Swindle films as opposite ends of politicized anti-science.  But believe whatever you want.  I've made my point.

[dalebert]

I read the page you linked by the scientist upset about the use of his statements in the film and I understand him being upset. It's still only a tiny piece of what is flawed about the "evidence" presented. I've read a couple of books on the subject and have been following this debate for some time. What I keep seeing that leaves me with the same conclusion- doubting the alarmists, is this. They're case keeps being presented in extremely vague terms. It's as if they just want us to take their word for it. They're the scientists and we're just ordinary people who can't possibly understand this stuff and they all in agreement; case closed; end of discussion. When they do show data, they show only the data that supports their theory. They've been caught doing this red-handed in many cases in a way that's very disturbing when it comes to their credibility.

The counter-argument invariably is to show the actual data they used to come to their conclusions, and often to show more of the data, and then explain how they perverted that data to support their already unlikely (on the face of it) scenerio. In a book called "The Satanic Gases", a presentation was given showing a drastic rise in temperature in a short period of time and a chart was displayed. Some skeptics showed up and all they did was put out some flyers that expanded the graph to a few years prior and a few years after. The sharp rise they showed followed a matching sharp drop in temperature directly following a volcanic eruption. The temperature was just coming back to where it was before the event! This is just ONE example. The Global Warming case seems entirely built on these ridiculous perversions of data.

I watched a show that talked about glacier movement that was explaining why you see huge chunks of glaciers falling into the sea and how that movement was caused by glaciers getting LARGER and putting more pressure on a layer of water underneath them that caused them to slide. Whaaaat? I was blown away! They were presenting evidence that was counter to the commonly held belief that those glaciers falling into the sea was due to them melting from higher temperatures. I was so impressed with their ability to put aside the global warming bias and look at this objectively. But guess what. Immediately after presenting all this info, they then added, without anything to support it, "but we believe global warming is speeding up this process".

This complaining scientist sounds similar. He's got evidence that casts doubt on the theory. I admit that's all it does. It doesn't disprove it. And then he has a similar response, though a little more moderate. He says that it remains possible that the human contribution to CO2 can cause a significant climate change. Well sure. It's still possible. There's still no evidence of that and there's lots of evidence that makes it extremely unlikely, but it's still possible. For the sake of not giving amunition to the alarmists, I really wish the show had given his more complete opinion, but his response doesn't do anything for me. It still remains a far-fetched theory with no evidence. And it seems far-fetched enough to me that I find it disturbing how much of our tax dollars are being wasted on it. By now, with the amount of money they've had, they should have SOMETHING more to go on to justify continued research. If we're going to waste our stolen tax dollars on something, we can find real and bigger problems to focus on.

[mvpel]

Here's 18,000 years worth of global warming presented in a spiffy little animated GIF file:

[Friday]

It's over an hour long but if your interested in "global warming" you might like it. Darn smiley's erased my post but I hit contol Z, thanks to James! So anyways, big smiley!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=global%2Bwarming%2Bswindle

I just heard about this movie, but it doesn't appear to be available for free viewing online anymore.  Does anyone own a copy?  I'd prefer to avoid buying it for $20.  Thanks!

[Pat McCotter]

Here is an 8 part version of it.

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GaFrUFCVQg
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTeh6vXAPy0
Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVDHhIwrF9A
Part 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2V0peUVytY
Part 5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpRli6viXPk
Part 6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdvwP5SaFF8
Part 7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV9-hIWo4nE
Part 8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsObfXWW-ro

[Friday]

Ooh, thank you!