More On The Global Warming Scam

lgf points out an upcoming documentary, don't wait for it to win any academy awards.

On Thursday March 8, the UK’s Channel 4 is airing a documentary that promises to ruin The Goracle’s day, by honestly examining the international left’s newest article of blind faith: The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Also see his discussion of Crichton's book at top link - and don't miss this either. Al Gore, the Eco-Profiteer.

I took it out of my post below on Gore's grand plan for socialism, but two of the top tier Republican candidates for President say they are on board with Global Warming. We need a genuine conservative unafraid to confront the Liberals on any premature moves on global warming. We could end up placing our economy at a disadvantage just as India, China and others come on line.

Comments

[Jon G]

Would that be by this guy?

In 1997 television producer Martin Durkin from the TV company Kugelblitz made a series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which targeted environmentalists, presenting them as 'the new enemy of science' and as comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible, the series argued, for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World. (Crimes against Nature , The Revolution Has Been Televised )

Channel Four had to broadcast a prime-time apology after Against Nature drew the wrath of the Independent Television Commission which ruled, 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.'

[Phoenix]

There is something better from the savant, Michael Crichton - a speech he gave about global warming. It is excellent. (I don't know how to link it and probably wouldn't if I could...) It's far more on-target than what is up at LGF, and it takes the complexities of the issue down so that you come away wondering what all the hullaballoo is all about. That is, until you find out what's pushing Mr. Gore.

Last line of your post is too true, Dan.

[Buzzy]

I'm reminded of a comment by Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, who stated: "It's become so complicated, there's so much snake oil around the whole subject... the best comment that was ever made was by Michael Crichton in his book State of Fear: 'I am certain there is too much certainty in the world'. And I am certain that he is right."

Moore left Greenpeace because of what he termed a socialist takeover of the ecology movement. He speaks out against "fear mongering" and the use of ecology to further purely political goals.

The fact that the ITC (defunct since 2003) took issue with "Against Nature" maybe you should note that the ITC was a politically left organization that used fascist tactics to crush any opinion contrary to their own. Probably shades of things to come when Gore burns down the Reichstag and puts himself into power here.

[Jon G]

Fascist? Hardly. ITC was a government organization charged with regulating Channel 4.

You can read what climatologists actually think of sci-fi novelist Crichton here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

[nova]

And when I was a kid a person who said one day man would go to the moon was called crazy. Some still believe we never did go to the moon.

[Phoenix]

Just tried to find the Crichton speech about global warming. Googled him and came up with so many hits that I couldn't find the exact one I wanted. Anyway, it's worth a check to click on any of the sites.

Hey, Jon - don't limit yourself. Crichton has written plenty of non-fiction.

[LOL]

http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2005/02/01/schmidt-fear/

good rebuttal of Crichton's STATE OF FEAR here, by one of the men he interviewed at NASA for research.

[Captain Joe]

One wonders if the carbon offset scams are also being used to illegally gain tax credits for those who buy them and if those who sell them are properly taxed. Sounds almost like some grand ponsi scheme.

[LOL]

"In summary, I am disappointed, not least because while researching his book, Crichton visited our lab at the NASA Goddard Institute and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I suppose we didn't do a very good job of explaining matters. Judging from his bibliography, the rather dry prose of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not stir his senses quite like some of the racier contrarian texts. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, Crichton picked fiction over fact."

Crichton did his studying in medicine

[Zifnab]

Conspiracy of scientists! They're trying to make us know stuff!

[Gary Maxwell]

I posted this paragraph below on the other thread and right on cue JonG showed up with his post trying to smear anyone and everyone. Come Monday several townhouse memos will circulate and the lefty blogs will throw up some smack and it will be like the monkey house at the zoo, a real dung flinging exercise. You don't state your considered opinion when the dogma is in conflict if you know what's good for you.

You be the judge, better yet wait for the howls of and screams of indignation. They will be along shortly and an indicator of how close this documentary might be to the correct theory. Can the Green left tolerate a true debate on the facts? History is not giving us a warm feeling but lets see, although Boris is likely a quick preview.

[Phoenix]

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html

Here it is. Had to dig through miles of email to find it. Read it. It's good.

[Gary Maxwell]

Best term I have heard for these eco freaks:

Watermelons

Green on the outside but hidden on the inside? Red to the rind.

[Phoenix]

Conspiracy of scientists! They're trying to make us know stuff!

Posted by: Zifnab |

Really. As opposed to just believe stuff.

[LOL]

how come the majority of climatologists believe in the global warming theory?

[Oregonian]

Dan should really work up a Grand Unified Theory for conspiracies and try to tie the global warming scam to the martians at Roswell and the second gunman on the grassy knoll.

[LOL]

I'm sorry guys but the conservative movement backed creationism and said homosexuality was a choice. In fact, the majority of conservatives still hold to this. You can't all of a sudden become the party of science when you've been against it for so long.

[Barry]

LOL, they don't.

Crichton on the global warming farce: Aliens cause Global Warming

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

[LOL]

I see, the right's "scientist" of note on climatology is an M.D.

I just posted a rebuttal of Crichton's book by a NASA climatologist

who's likely to know more about climate science? idiot

[Buzzy]

Listen to the Goreacle sheeple, buy his carbon offsets and know that the Goreacle will do what is best for his pocketbook and the collective. All bow to the Great Goreacle, he shall do all your thinking for you. Submit or die.

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" George Orwell 1984

[Zifnab]

"who's likely to know more about climate science? idiot"

My philosophy is let them believe what they want. At this point, enough people are informed that it doesn't matter anymore no matter how hard these nuts scream.

Which actually reminds me of an old eco-joke.

"Would we cut down forests if trees could scream?"
"Probably, if they didn't shut up."

[ApplePie]

Buzzy,

I saw Patrick Moore give a lecture 13 years ago. He was once an militant environmentalist and now shills for any corporation who will throw him cash. I remember in his lecture (I believe he was shilling for MacMillan-Bloedel at the time) that he thought clear-cut logging was a great practice because it would make it easier for bears to find berries and that the clear-cuts became pretty meadows. Seriously. I remember the question period following had many professors and ecology grad students questioning Moore's evidence and ethics. I have never seen any speaker take such a beating.

[Purple Avenger]

I wouldn't get too excited about NASA climate claims. The source code for the govt's model's I've looked at was pretty sloppy and ignored cumulative rounding error.

[Buzzy]

The fact that Moore understands that harvesting farmed tree acreage is sustainable and has led us to where we have more trees in North America than we did a century ago while the move to use less wood in building etc. produces more CO2 as an industrial process for making steel etc. and to having fewer trees to sequester CO2 doesn't make him a shill for the lumber companies. If you wish to look at it in light of Al Gore's carbon offset scam you would see that Weyerhauser etal. have provided more "offsets" than these scamster companies Weird Al hypes ever will.

[noen]

"You be the judge, better yet wait for the howls of and screams of indignation. They will be along shortly and an indicator of how close this documentary might be to the correct theory."

The true measure of a theory is how well it explains experimental facts. "Howls of and screams of indignation" have exactly zero to do with the truth or falseness of any theory.

"Can the Green left tolerate a true debate on the facts?"

Sure we can, but how we are supposed to take seriously people for whom elementary HTML and "the Google" are just too much?

"I don't know how to link it and probably wouldn't if I could.."
and
"Googled him and came up with so many hits that I couldn't find the exact one I wanted."

If you are going to debate the facts, don't show up unarmed.

[LOL]

dan riehl is a lazy thinker. If the conservative groupthink told him to believe in global warming he would. He is only against us because his handlers tell him too. And the dittohead commenters follow along gleefully in the same fashion.

None of them are arguing the science. Few of them actually cite climatologists. Why is that?

[benrand]

Since the majority of these "carbon offsets" seem to be dedicated to paying people to plant trees, where the hell do they get planted?

Outside liberal strongholds with gigantic houses in places like Malibu and Beverly Hills?

Outside John Edwards massive new house?

Outside Gore's four huge mansions?

Anyone have any ideas? Or is this really all a bunch of bullshit...

[Buzzy]

benrand, they aren't planting trees, none of the companies selling these scammy Al Gore "carbon offsets" owns the huge amounts of land to plant the thousands of trees they've sold.

The good side of all this is once people start asking where the trees are and finding out that there aren't any this house of cards will topple and Al Gore's name is solidly linked to the scam. He'll be lucky to stay out of jail let alone have an ounce of credibility left.

[TheSpartan]

Michael Crichton? Not only is he a bad writer, he's a worse "scientist"...I better be careful or he might call me a baby raper with a small penis...

[Fred Beloit]

"Michael Crichton? Not only is he a bad writer..." Some would disagree with that statement, Spart. It is like saying Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley were bad singers. Perhaps one could hold that view, but they made millions by singing and many thought they were very good at it. Same with Crichton. In this opinion you seem to be in the minority. Doesn't make you a bad person.

[Fred Beloit]

Now concerning the "science". Do you happen to know what the average temperature was in Chicago in the 13th century? No? Neither do scientists. They have an idea whether it was very cold or very warm. Was it, though, just right, as in the three bears? They don't know. You know why? Because they don't know what just right is. Most people seem to think just right means just like last year or when they were young. I would like to know what your idea of just right is, Spart.

[Raging_Dave]

And yet none of the people who come in here, insulting the blog's host and demeaning any who don't share their religion of global warming can explain why Mars is heating up. Or why Greenland was warmer in the 5th century than it is now. Were there SUV's when Eric the Red landed in Greenland? I guess so, because that's the only explination the religious eco-cults seem to have for today's global climate activities.

They can't explain the warm periods during the Dark Ages. They can't explain the little Ice Age during the 12th and 13th centuries. They can't explain the warmer period during the 15th century. Hell, they can't really explain anything that's happening today, they just demand that we take it on faith. It is their religion.

If you dare to contradict the Left's religion, be prepared for the smears, insults and various other verbal diarhea that's going to come your way. Just look up in the comments at LOL and noen for confirmation.

[Oregonian]

Sorry to be so blunt, Freddy, but you're an idiot.

No climate scientist is making the claim that one temperature is inherently better than another. The danger of climate change is not that the planet will go to a "bad" temperature but that the change will occur faster than ecosystems and humans can adapt. There's no reason why the current sea level is the "best" level, but there will be an enormous (and expensive) disruption of human life around the globe if sea levels rise by half a meter as current models predict it might.

Turn off Rush and go read what the climate scientists have to say about global climate change. You might learn something.

http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

[Fred Beloit]

Just so, Dave. It is the nature of the beast.

[TheSpartan]

In this opinion you seem to be in the minority. Doesn't make you a bad person.

Actually I would guess I'm in the majority on this one too. Does selling lots of books make one a "good" writer? Is Crichton therefore better than Dickens? James? Steinbeck? Selling a million plus books at airport bookstores doesn't make you "good" just cheap and accessible.

[Raging_Dave]

Did Crichton actually sell more books than Dickens or Steinbeck? Just curious here.

[TheSpartan]

Considering the volume at which he cranks them out I'd bet on yes, I suppose I could replace Crichton with Stephen King (though he's a much better writer than Crichton).

[Fred Beloit]

Well Oregonian, you've just proven Dave's point about verbal diarhea . Thank you. But I must respectfully disagree. First, you must confront the question of man-made global warming, which you have not so far. Tell me, and Dave who raised the point, if we have had ice ages, what caused the warm ups that followed them? Then tell us why the current warm up (but from what standard?) is man-made but the others were natural. And a little warm-up will be very good for Gore's bank account. Instead of screaming about it, why not just invest money in the scheme, like Al? And if the current sea level is not "best" why are you concerned with a one meter rise? By the way where did you get one meter and by when? I've read about millimeter increases in the tens in 40 years. While you are at it, can you explain how anyone can measure the depth of a spot in the ocean to within 10 millimeters what with wind, waves and tides?

[Gary Maxwell]

He said 1/2 a meter or just over 1 foot. Hell lakes around here rise and fall a lot more than that without much consequence. Al on the other hand said something like 20-30 feet. Manhattan does not submerge on a foot rise in the ocean. Sorry to inject some sanity.

[Fred Beloit]

Right, half a meter, very roughly 1&1/2 ft.

[Fred Beloit]

That's over 458 mm.

[Fred Beloit]

It is ominously quiet out there. They must have gone to the Kos site to recruit help.

[Boris]

"Tell me, and Dave who raised the point, if we have had ice ages, what caused the warm ups that followed them? Then tell us why the current warm up (but from what standard?) is man-made but the others were natural."

Do you really want an education?

The cause of all glaciations is not known--but most are due to orbital fluctuations--the Milankovitch cycles. So orbital forcing also caused the warmups, but they were aided by CO2 rise--thus CO2 is referred to as a feedback to orbital forcing.

Now, the CO2 increase since the mid 1800s is entirely human caused. We know this because of the basic formula for burning fossil fuels and from analysis of isotope ratios (fossil fuels have a different ratio of C14 I believe) as well as other lines of evidence. Co2 is known to be a greenhouse gas. So an increase in CO2 will cause global warming. As the globe warms, chnages in water vapor and albedo (among other things) will cause further warming. How much is not known. IPCC estimates that a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial levels will cause between 1.5 and 4.5 C of warming.

[Oregonian]

Freddy, I've already posted links to the IPCC. Other than taking you by the hand and walking you to a public library, there's not much more I can do to get you to the scientific information.

You, on the other hand, have yet to post a single link at all.

Show us a comparable group to the IPCC. Show us 1,000 professional climate researchers with advanced degrees in their fields who publish their work in peer-reviewed journals and who have doubts about anthropogenic climate change. Don't show us a novelist or some random skeptic with a PhD. Show us a significant body of actively researching climate scientists who disagree with Al Gore.

Good luck.

[Boris]

"He said 1/2 a meter or just over 1 foot. Hell lakes around here rise and fall a lot more than that without much consequence. Al on the other hand said something like 20-30 feet."

Apples, meet oranges.

The IPCC estimate for sea level rise by 2100 is 30-78cm, but higher levels can't be ruled out because of unknown ice flow rates.

Gore stated that if the Greenland ice sheet melts, sea levels would rise by 20 feet. He gave no timetable for this.

[Gary Maxwell]

Does it bother anyone besides me that the UN panel is titled:

Intergovernmental Panel...

And why the release so far precedes the actual study and release of the underlying data?

So a bunch of governments involved, maybe nothing but sure raises the antenna a bit, and should probably immediately raise at least a question with anyone who wants to discredit a scientist based on who pays his salary, and we got no data to sort through to see if we would come to the same conclusion.

Plus I am now hearing rumors of scientist resigning from the IPCC with complaints about how it was run and the results not representing a true consensus. Anyone else hear this? Can it be confirmed or is it that, just a rumor. I would be interested to hear.

[Gary Maxwell]

Between 1 - 2 feet of rise within 93 years. Any confidence levels stated, and what about margin of error? I would think statistics would imply that at least some chance exists in a normal distribution for no rise or even a fall given the length of time involved and the relatively small rise forecast.

Man these guys should take the local area weather forecast job, cuz they cant get two days out right more than around half the time.

[Oregonian]

Again, no links - no data - no scientific evidence.

All Gary has to offer are "rumors" and vague conspiracy theories.

Meanwhile, scientists are increasingly united in saying that climate change is caused by humans and needs to be addressed immediately.

http://www.sigmaxi.org/about/news/UNSEGReport.shtml

"About Sigma Xi
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society is an international honor society for research scientists and engineers, with more than 500 chapters and 60,000 members in North America and around the world. The society sponsors a number of programs that promote science and engineering and also publishes American Scientist magazine. Sigma Xi's administrative offices are in Research Triangle Park, N.C. www.sigmaxi.org "

[Fred Beloit]

Thanks, Boris. So the causes of global cooling (glaciation) are unknown. In the 1970s (when industrialization was underway for over 100 years) glaciation was thought to be a threat by many climatologists. This turned out to be wrong. Now many climatologists say global warming is a threat. This could turn out to be wrong because the causes of cooling are unknown, but some think it caused by orbital fluctuations, which are ongoing. Increasing industrialization causes more particulate mater in the atmosphere. This "darkening", as we know from volcanic eruptions, causes cooling in the atmosphere. The sun's addition to the Kelvinic temperatures innate in the atmosphere fluctuates and may be a significant factor in temperature change, up or down. There is not enough certitude in this kluge to warrant trillions of dollars of economic loses that some economists predict it would take to make the draconian changes in spending required to attempt, I say attempt, to change the earth's climate. Until more evidence is found I oppose those draconian measures. Do you favor more use atomic energy, Boris?

[LOL]

huh? the causes aren't "unknown". We just aren't climatologists. Maybe instead of trying to play this "gotcha" game, you should read about it from scientists?

You won't though. Conservatives despise hard work generally. They would rather just pretend to be scoring points