Britain's Amazing Hypocrisy

I thought I'd have to research it, but it's all in one short article. A campaign has begun to censor The Global Warming Swindle, due out on DVD.

Ward has also complained to Britain's media regulator, which said it was investigating the matter. British broadcast law demands impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy -- and penalties can be imposed for misrepresentations of fact.

Meanwhile:

As for the former vice president, Gore has been hired as an adviser to the British government, which plans to send copies of his film to schools around England.

Even big fans of Gore acknowledge important errors in his film and many insist they are much more in number than just these. But that isn't a problem for the British government. (chirp chirp)

There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores -- not with the naked eye -- and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering whether Gore got this notion, and I hope he'll correct it in future versions of his slideshow. Another complaint is the juxtaposition of an image relating to CO2 emissions and an image illustrating invasive plant species. This is misleading; the problem of invasive species is predominantly due to land use change and importation, not to "global warming". Still, these are rather minor errors. It is true that the effect of reduced leaded gasoline use in the U.S. does clearly show up in Greenland ice cores; and it is also certainly true that climate change could exacerbate the problem of invasive species.

Comments

[TomB]

"I notice you have to go back 10 years."

NW, I WAS QUOTING FROM A STUDY YOU POSTED!

Go back and read your previous post. You'll see this in that cut-and-paste dreck:

***3.1 Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997.***

That was from YOU not me. You posted that as "proof" of consensus.

For God's sake read what you post!!!

[nowinger]

I posted it because its a list of reputable studies and reports on climate change, I never said or inferred that eveything on the list supported global warming as caused by carbon emissions, which I would have thought was obviosu since it has a link for DISSENTING organizations.

[TomB]

Uh, NW, you were the one attacking me for pointing out that the study didn't support what you implied it did. Face it, you saw something that said "consensus", and threw it up, hoping it would stick, without even reading it. How else to explain your "I notice you have to go back 10 years" comment? You didn't even realize you had listed it in your previous post.

"it has a link for DISSENTING organizations."

How can THAT be!? So much for consensus.

Thanks for (inadvertantly) proving my point.

[nowinger]

Again, I beg you to read the definition of consensus. It doens't mean that 100% of studies or scientists say the exact same thing, that would be virtually impossible. What you did was ignore the recent studies and statements, the OVERWHELMING majority, that support global warming as manmade in order to find something that disputes the consensus. That is intellectually dishonest, but all global warming deniers are intellectually dishonest since the facts aren't on your side, all you can do is mistake them, take them out of context or out and out lie.

I'm done here. Go ahead and declare 'victory' and post about how you 'proved' there is no consensus, that's what you deniers do every day. Declare victory, then when your lies are debunked, you move on, find something else to lie about and do it all over again.

[TomB]

The problem with you is you aren't serious. All this handwaving about "consensus" proves it. When you have administrative bodies, be they political or scientific, you essentially have bureauracracies, and those tend to stifle dissent. I posted a long list of INDIVIDUALS who are skeptics, because that is the true measure of a consensus, not papers delivered by a committee.

I said you weren't serious, and your inability to answer my questions proves it. "Google it" is a standard non-answer answer when someone is stuck, but what I showed above is that you never even bothered to "google it" yourself! You proved it again when you threw that wiki cut-and-paste up as proof only to have me point out that some of your proof actually said the opposite, despite your claims of consensus.

If any more proof of your unseriousness is needed, your response "I notice you have to go back 10 years" it the icing on the cake. It proves, without a doubt, that you didn't even read your own, earlier post. I was essentially quoting you, and you debated your own post!

Some might see this as piling on, but it is a perfect example of the hysteria surrounding global warming. NW was told in the media that there was consensus, so by God, there MUST be consensus. How sure of his world view is he when he can tell me to google 'global warming consensus', expecting the results to be chock full of proof, only to have it show the EXACT OPPOSITE. There is no thought in that position, only emotion and a slavish devotion to the mainstream media.

[seekeronos]

I think TomB just dropped the "TomBstone" on Nowinger-dinger's case.

Or as they might say in "World of Warcraft" land:

"PWNED!"

I loved the way Nowinger-dinger-dangle-doo went and backtracked, obfuscated, and summarily dismissed any further arguments against his case, but didn't even review the junk he posted... just as many liberals do when their "evidence" has holes wide enough to drive an Iowa class battleship through.

[TomB]

Thanks seek. Looking back I think I was a little hard on NW.

But I rode him so hard to illustrate a point. I was debating the 2nd Amendment over at PW a few weeks ago and made the rather obvious (at least to me) statement that "(T)here are many, many cases of armed citizens stopping or mitigating a shooting." Someone jumped all over me and asked me to provide "four or five" links of guns being used to stop a potential shooting. Of course, in the span of a few minutes he was deluged with links and pasted stories of literally hundreds of cases, all recent. He actually apologized and said he had no idea guns were used for self defense so much and, living in New York City, little wonder.

The point being that he, and NW, are so sure of their world view that they will happily call out someone on an issue without researching it themselves. NW illustrated that when he invited me to google 'global warming consensus', only to have almost all of the first 2 dozen results show anti-consensus views. But he was SO SURE that there is a AGW consensus, that he figured the information would find itself, just like the NYC guy believed the gun control crowd without a second thought.

[nowinger]

Just as I thought, declare victory, ignore the actual evidence and call it a day. It doesn't matter what you say, what lies you tell or what kind of old, outdated, incorrect or misstated information you post. As the list of organizations I did post clearly shows the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is clear, the world bodies that support it are on record.

The scientists are tired of the global warming deniars and so are starting to correct misinformation much more quickly and speak up when their views are taken out of context. You will find if you look closely that many scientists the deniers routinely cite are not deniers, they agree that global warming is cauesd by carbon emissions but they take issue with the high end of the predictions.

You all are exactly the same, you prove my point again and again. The link I provided listed NUMEROUS examples of consensus documents from world rekowned bodies.

You ignore all of that, click on the link I provided for dissenting opinions and then claim I don't know what I'm talking about.

Why didn't I just edited out any reports that didnt' agree with the consensus? Because I don't need to, the rest of the reports speak for themselves.

Dumb as dirt.

[TomB]

Ah, you're back.

"Dumb as dirt."

Oh, don't be so hard on yourself. You're just having a bad day...

Before I go any further, a question I should have asked earlier. Why did you tell me to google 'global warming consensus' when almost all of the results are anti-consensus?

Isn't that "dumb as dirt"?

[templar knight]

Give it up, nowinger, you're outclassed, and looking more like a bum every time you post. You're losing badly, it's best to take your own advice, and cut your losses.

[TomB]

"As the list of organizations I did post clearly shows the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is clear, the world bodies that support it are on record."

Here are the comments of a member of the IPCC, a contributor to the latest report:

"Aynsley Kellow, the head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania who was recently involved in contributing to the latest IPCC report...

Even though he has participated in the IPCC process (he was a referee for Chapter 19 in the IPCC’s report, which covers ‘Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment’), Kellow is exasperated by the way in which critical responses to chapters are dealt with. He has noted elsewhere the criticisms he made to the IPCC about the way in which negative effects are overstated and the ability to adapt is understated. Yet he says: ‘I’m not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.’ "

"Now, even though Kellow has expressed public disagreement with the summary for policymakers, and the chapters that it flows from, he will still be listed as having taken part in the process - with the implication that he agrees with the final reports and is one of those thousands of experts who have apparently shown beyond all doubt that climate change will wreak havoc on the world."

"For Kellow, the IPCC process is hopelessly politicised. ‘The scientists are in there but it is, after all, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientists are there at the nomination of governments. Governments fund the exercise and sign-off on it ultimately’..."
_____________________________________________________

Of course NW will scream. "But that's only one guy! Consensus!!!"

But there are indeed many more who have participated in the IPCC report, and don't agree with the conclusions.

[seekeronos]

*thud*

Nowinger-thinger's wee little noggin gets another TomBstone dropped onto it... :)

[Kilo]

""please tell me how one determines the difference between a real scientist and a false scientist?
where does one study to become a false scientist, as opposed to the real ones?""
Posted by: charles | Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Well for starters if satellite data from 1991 suggests that sunspots are responsible for increased temperatures, but then this data is found to be the result of errors in 2004, then you cite the erroneous data in 2007 as still being an explanation for increased temperatures, then you're not a real scientist. You're just clearly full of shit.
http://tinyurl.com/yrncwp

As for what you would study in order to be able to operate with this kind of disregard for truth in science, I would suggest the "Smoking isn't addictive/dangerous" PR campaigns of the 80s and 90s. As many have already pointed out, there's a lot of similarity going on.

[TomB]

Kilo, how about a scientist that writes a computer program that, no matter the data input, always yields the same "hockey stick" graph?

[templar knight]

Yep, typical liberal smear, if you don't believe AGW, then you are akin to the evil tobacco executives, who had a financial interest in their position. The financial position in the AGW debate goes to the AGW proponents. Hmm...interesting.

Oh, by the way, Kilo, I see you didn't comment on TomB's posts. Cat got your tongue?