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

[Fred Beloit]

LOL, can't you read or are you too busy to read? If you can find the time from your busy schedule, read Boris's word "unknown" abovein his comment above.

[Fred Beloit]

Oreg, please go to: http://physicsweb.org/world/20/2/2/1 to meet an MIT scientist who may fit your rigorous standards, as Al Gore seems to.

[Fred Beloit]

Correction. Link is http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/2/2/1

[Oregonian]

Not even close, Freddy.

I'll say it again: "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."

As I said before, good luck.

[Boris]

Fred,

We understand a lot more about present warming than we do about past cooling because we are here to study it. Saying we shouldn't act because there are some unknowns--especially in paleoclimatology--is faulty reasoning.

[Fred Beloit]

Let me understand, Boris. You used the pronoun we. Did you mean you and I or you and other researchers?

[Fred Beloit]

I have some news for you Oreg, the IPCC report you keep touting isn't really out yet. The version you have seen is the political version that had to be approved be nations of the UN. I am looking for some of the countries who had to sign off on it.

[Oregonian]

The IPCC has already published three assessment reports. Work on the fourth assessment report (AR4) is well underway.

The Working Group I report was published on February 2, 2007. Its key conclusions were that:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations
* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%

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

We're still waiting for your equivalent group of over 1,000 climate scientists, Freddy. Still waiting...

[Fred Beloit]

More news, Oreg. The membership in this exclusive group is open to all UN country members. The following, plus more, are members: Venezuela, Sudan, Cuba, and France. Some members are even friendly to the U.S. The IPCC was set up in 1988 because the UN wanted to recognize "...the problem of potential climate change." "The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data." I say again, they do not even monitor climate related data. So the UN made up their minds in 1988 that their was man-made global warming. They wanted to help sell it. Do you think they are objective now? You can find this and more interesting info at http://www.ipcc.ch/. Happy reading.

[Fred Beloit]

I'm waiting for your carefully researched thoughts, Oreg.

[Fred Beloit]

BTW, Oreg, I wouldn't tout Wiki as a final authority for anything. It is a useful source of info, but nothing more.

[Gary Maxwell]

The IPCC has already published three assessment reports. Work on the fourth assessment report (AR4) is well underway.

While true on its face, I would say that this was meant to obfuscate rather than clarify since it was posted as a reply to the statement that the report is not published yet.

Yes there were three previous reported, dated 2001, 1995 and 1990. The 4th report and the one for which the political summary is being liberally ( and I do mean that ) quoted from is not available as of yet.

[Gary Maxwell]

Remember how the Left went after Bjorn Lomberg after he published the Skeptical Environmentalist? They went after him with some trumped up charges, and ultimately were forced to back down. But it was a serious warning shot across the bow, trying to make sure climatologists did not even think about leaving the Climate Change reservation. I would say the intimidation has had an effect. Many wont say in public for fear of retaliation whatthey do admit in private.

Lomberg is scheduled to publish a new book on Global Warming this September.

[Oregonian]

So Freddy has now posted a third time and, still, he is unable to link to any sizeable group of scientists who question anthropogenic climate change. Imagine my surprise.

I've given you links to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents the consensus views of more than 1,000 active climate scientists from more than 100 countries around the world.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

I've also offered links to Sigma Xi, the international honor society for research scientists and engineers that has more than 60,000 members around the world.

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

And, heck, I'll even give you a link to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which has the most widely read peer-reviewed scientific journal in the world.

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/

All of these groups of scientists have examined the issue of climate change and have reached the same three, fundamental conclusions:

1) Sudden and severe climate change is taking place.
2) The underlying cause of the change is the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gasses.
3) Our best move to protect our ecosystems and our societies is to immediately begin taking action to decrease the production of those gasses.

Three times I've asked our friend Freddy to show us a comparable group of scientists taking a different position. Three times he's failed to find any such thing. The only "evidence" he's managed to give us is a single link to a single magazine article about a single scientist. That speaks for itself.

The evidence for global climate change is overwhelming and irrefutable.

[Gary Maxwell]

Irrefutable you say? Hmmmm well read and consider:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1457

[Boris]

"have some news for you Oreg, the IPCC report you keep touting isn't really out yet. The version you have seen is the political version that had to be approved be nations of the UN."

It's true that the summary for policymakers has been released and the full report is not due out until May. But the 4AR is an overview of all published science, so it's not like the IPCC is "hiding" anything. You can read it in Nature, SCince, Journal of Climate, Geophysiclal Research Letters and dozens of other journals.

The SPM is not a "political version." It is written by scientists and is a summary of all the working groups.

You guys have been wrong on just about ever issue so far this thread. I'd re-evaluate my scientific sources if I were you.

"So the UN made up their minds in 1988 that their was man-made global warming."

They made up their minds to study it and see if it was manmade. Making a conspiracy out of scientific inquiry is telling.

[Boris]

"As with previous IPCC reports, the summary is a political document written not by scientists but by officials"

Your link is pure garbage, Gary. Not that it surprises me. But take the point above from it.

Here's a list of the drafting authors of the SPM. Google them as see what govern ment depratments they work in.

***Warning! You might find actual science, evidence and research***

Drafting Authors:
Richard Alley, Terje Berntsen, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, Zhenlin Chen, Amnat Chidthaisong, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jonathan
Gregory, Gabriele Hegerl, Martin Heimann, Bruce Hewitson, Brian Hoskins, Fortunat Joos, Jean Jouzel, Vladimir Kattsov,
Ulrike Lohmann, Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno, Mario Molina, Neville Nicholls, Jonathan Overpeck, Dahe Qin, Graciela
Raga, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Jiawen Ren, Matilde Rusticucci, Susan Solomon, Richard Somerville, Thomas F. Stocker,
Peter Stott, Ronald J. Stouffer, Penny Whetton, Richard A. Wood, David Wratt

[LOL]

Richard Lindzen from MIT is the chairman on nearly every global warming skeptic panel. Hmm... why isn't global warming skepticism more broad?

[Fred Beloit]

"They made up their minds to study it and see if it was manmade." No, Boris. I quoted IPCC above: they wanted to "recognize" it, their words. If I set up a commission to recognize something, I believe it already exists. And, Oreg., you keep acting as if science is a democracy voting for something. While there are at times elements like that in scientific debates, you will not find a scientist who agrees to majority rule in science. So please stop asking me to participate in a voters game. Boris, what a department does adds a bit of the argument from authority to the issue, but that weakest of logical arguments would not satisfy a scientist. Speaking of argument from authority, are you a climatologist. I am, obviously, not. Finally, as I understand it, each government member of IPCC had to approve the scientists conclusions for this report. In that sense it is political.

[Fred Beloit]

Have to go now. Thank you all for an uncharacteristically polite discussion. Best wishes to all.

[Max]

If you missed the documentary, you can get it here.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.mininova.org/tor/612593

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

here is another one

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3635143/Channel_4_-_The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle.avi

[Yeomans Allan]

DON'T GET DISHEARTED

Climate change can be stopped. Global warming can be halted.

The only reason we are committed to climate change is because we are brain washed into accepting a commitment to powering society on fossil fuels. We can put world weather back together again. Our atmosphere is not humpty-dumpty. If our atmosphere was all water it would be just thirty feet deep. Carbon dioxide is like beetroot juice in a swimming pool. We are very aware of it but, if there is too much, we CAN get rid of it.

(For anybody interested in why hurricanes are more intense with global warming see how I usually explain it. It's on my web site.)

Let’s not kid ourselves; it’s impossible to stop Global Warming if we continue to burn oil, gas and coal. Ending global warming is both fundamentally simple and totally necessary. This is what I argue at my website. www.yeomansplow.com.au and in my book , PRIORITY ONE Together we Beat Global Warming . It's what I firmly believe. I have made the entire book free to read on line or download. Because ending global warming is so critical to us all.

Read the book reviews at www.amazon.com

I believe we must decide that ending global warming should be the immediate and urgent mission of all responsible environmental movements and that halting climate change should take precedence over the millions of minor environmental causes currently bandied around.

I maintain it is practical, economical and responsible for Western Societies to switch totally to biofuels for transport. As ending global warming is such an imperative we should do things like plowing up the Amazon Basin to grow sugarcane and oil palms. Do that and we could shut down every oil well on the planet. Is it really that silly? The alternative is to wait until climate change dries rain a forest into a tinderbox, and burns, and all that fabulous timber goes up in flames. Wood is God's own plastic, so let's harvest it. Let's use it.

Then we use nuclear energy for industrial power and close down all fossil fuel power stations. People ask: "What about the bogey-man of nuclear weapons proliferation?" Well from recent experience, if a rogue nation wants nuclear weapons, it's very hard to stop them, and still stay "sweet and nice". So as a policy, and to allay proliferation worries, we limit nuclear power to the countries that use it right now. That’s Russia, China, Japan, and the European Union, USA, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Argentina and probably a few others. That’s over 60% of the world’s population - around 3.7 billion people.

Worried about the tiny quantities of nuclear waste generated? Bury it under any deep 200 million year old coal seam, or dump it in the world's deep ocean trenches. And safely forget it forever. The so-called "waste problem" is an anti-nuclear fiction.

Lastly, we can easily sequester the existing atmospheric carbon dioxide overload, into soil. by increasing the humus and organic matter in the world’s agricultural soils To do this we go for organic type food and farming. It's all detailed in PRIORITY ONE. Do the arithmetic on tree planting, then the insanity of the concept becomes obvious, even just to slow global warming. To prevent additional carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere, each one of us would require a newly planted hectare (two and a half acres) of trees every thirty years - all with a promise never to be harvested for a hundred years. Just maintained!.

Do the above and the global warming problem is solved. And it's fool proof.

Let's not pussy foot around any longer. Fiddling with your air conditioner, turning off an extra light bulb and believing Kyoto will achieve anything at all meaningful, simply guarantees that violent hurricanes, terrible droughts and tornados etc, along with all the resulting misery and loss of life will continue. It will inevitably get progressively worse, and for centuries to come.

Think about all this first. Then please, start fighting ingrained ignorance now. Tell people to visit our site. It is certainly true that big oil has big money to throw around. Unfortunately for us, all we have at the moment is the internet. So let's use it.

Allan Yeomans