Global Warming believers, I have a question for ya'...

[MichaelRW]

Here's a rebuttal to Algore's movie. I think it is worth taking a look at.

Must-See Global Warming TV

Thursday , March 15, 2007
By Steven Milloy
ADVERTISEMENT

As Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" becomes mandatory viewing for many U.S. school children and nears becoming the "official truth" about global warming, it comes as most welcome news that an absolutely gripping film rebuttal has made its international debut, much to the chagrin of true believers in man-made climate change.

Last week, the UK's Channel 4 premiered a 75-minute film entitled, "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Through interviews with prize-winning climate experts and others, this masterful documentary explains the origins of global warming alarmism; debunks claims of man-made global climate change; exposes the motivations of organizations, scientists and activists sounding the alarm; and explains why it's been extremely difficult, if not downright dangerous, for climate scientists to question global warming orthodoxy publicly.

The entire film, which is creating quite a stir among tens of thousands of web viewers, can be viewed online at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831.

According to the film, the origins of global warming alarmism had its roots in the 1970s-era fears of global cooling and an impending ice age, resulting from the 1940-1970 global temperature decline. Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin suggested at the time that man-made greenhouse gas emissions might offset the cooling by warming the atmosphere.

When Margaret Thatcher became UK Prime Minister in 1979, her mandate was to reduce Britain's economic decline. Thatcher wanted to make the UK energy-independent through nuclear power – she didn't like her country's reliance on coal, which politically empowered the coal miner unions, or oil, which empowered Middle Eastern states.

So Thatcher latched onto Bolin's notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide warmed the planet in a harmful way, thereby providing the perfect political cover for advancing her nuclear power agenda without having to fight the miners or Arab oil states.

She empowered the U.K. Meteorological Office to begin global climate change research, a move that eventually led to the 1988 creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations' group that has come to be the "official" international agency for global warming alarmism.

At about the same time, as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore explains on-camera, environmentalism became more extreme. By the mid-1980s, environmental goals – e.g., clean air and clean water – had become so mainstream that activists had to adopt more extreme positions to remain anti-establishment.

Then when the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, many "peace-niks" and political activists moved over to environmental activism, bringing their "neo-Marxist" political philosophy with them. As Moore puts it, environmentalism became the "new guise for anti-capitalism."

Global warming alarmism was thus borne from this combination of official British policy, environmentalism's rejection of its own success and political opportunism by "unemployed" left-wing political activists.

With such an inglorious heritage, it's no wonder the scientists in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" have little trouble dismantling climate myths.

Perhaps the most important bit of scientific knowledge presented is the actual relationship between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide.

In "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore disingenuously describes the relationship as "complex" while implying that higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels cause higher global temperatures.

But according to the geological record and data from ice cores, higher temperatures actually precede higher carbon dioxide levels by about 800 years. Twentieth century data support this idea in at least two ways. First, most of the 20th century's warming occurred before 1940, while most of the century's greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940.

Next, when manmade greenhouse gas emissions soared in the post World War II industrial boom, global temperatures declined until the mid-1970s, leading to the aforementioned global cooling concerns.

The Channel 4 program notes that ongoing temperature measurements contradict global warming theory. According to the theory, lower atmosphere temperatures should be warming at a much faster rate than those at the Earth's surface. In reality, however, just the opposite is occurring.

Then there's the sun – the gigantic yellow ball in the sky that climate alarmists want all of us to ignore in favor of minute emissions of an invisible gas that makes up less than one-half of one percent of the Earth's atmosphere. As it turns out, solar activity – unlike atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – correlates quite well with historic temperature changes, including through its effects on cosmic rays and clouds, as the film demonstrates quite effectively.

So why does the world seem to be caught up in the vise-like grip of a controversy that is contradicted by available scientific data and its own dubious heritage?

According to the scientists in the movie, there is an intolerance of dissent on global warming. Official government sanction of global warming opened the floodgates of funding to climate researchers, who previously worked in obscurity.

NASA scientist Roy Spencer says in the program that climate scientists need for there to be problems to get more funding. IPCC contributor John Christy says of climate scientists, "We have a vested interest in creating panic because money with then flow to climate scientists." University of London biogeographer Philip Stott says that "If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs."

The film also debunks the IPCC claim that the 2,500 scientists contributing to its reports also support its alarmist conclusions. One key IPCC contributor for example, the Pasteur Institute's Paul Reiter, threatened to sue the IPCC if the group didn't remove his name from a chapter with which he disagreed.

When I met Al Gore in January 2006 after a presentation of his climate slideshow, I asked him if he'd be interested in setting up a public debate between climate scientists. He declined – twice. At this point, I'd settle for a movie face-off – "An Inconvenient Truth" vs. "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

Let the public see both sides of the story and then we'll see who's believable and who's not.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

[pettyfan43]

 


WOW! BOY some people aren't gonna be happy with this...

NAH never mind... The people behind this won't be credible either. 

[Steve P.]

I damn sure don't want to TELL anyone what to think or HOW they should be thinking, so I will leave my .02 at the door.  I do have one question for all of you though. If it were NOT Al Gore at the head of the line  bringing this to light or making a ton of money, (how ever you may want to look at it), would you maybe have a different opinion?? If it were GW Bush as the head cheese cutter, would this be a different?

Sorry, that kind of looks like two questions.. It reallllly is only one just in a flip flop kind of term... 

[Khyron]

nope, even if it were GB, I would still think it's a crock. As I said, I don't play follow the leader.

[Ghoste]

Same here.  That's kind of the point I'm trying to make, I don't really care WHO is providing the theory or evidence and I don't care too much WHO is giving them funding.  I wold rather see as much evidence as possible laid out for me to form my OWN opinion.

[defiance]

That we can agree on.  Al Gore is a pompous, and probably hypocritical (though I have no knowledge of that myself) blowhard - he should not be the basis for anyone's opinion.  GW, incidentally, has lately begun to concede that global warming is real and influenced by humankind, though he still has reservations about what the solution may be. 

But neither of them actually know diddly about it, I'd bet. 

My guess is, GW knows (or at least his advisors know) he'd look foolish to continue to deny it (regardless of whether it's true or not), so he's making the minimum amount of concession he can, so he minimizes impact to his industry constituents.

Gore, on the other hand, is grabbing onto an issue that he can use to sway public opinion to his side.

I'd guess neither of them know, or care, what the truth is.

[pettyfan43]

Exactly, The biggest thing is, whenever there are alarmist theories that turn out to be a crock, 9 out of 10 times it is the leftists like Gore.

Say what you want but history bears this out. So if The President was doing this, he would probably be a democrat to begin with.


Sorry , but as I have stated several times, I can remember too many of these alarmist theories and a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon and making the end of the world noise too many times.

This seems awfully familiar. Boy who cried wolf anyone?

[Steve P.]

I was not looking to point out leftist or rightist. Many things can be said about each and this is not the place for it.

The thing I don't get is that many, many people just can't even be bothered to take a minute to look at the other side's point of view.  This I fear will be our distruction..

[defiance]

Anyway, I'll just say this and go away peacefully.

I truly hope you're all correct, and we're not bringing about terrible long-term climate change.  I'm sure we can ALL agree to hope for that.

[Charger_Fan]

"NASA scientist Roy Spencer says in the program that climate scientists need for there to be problems to get more funding. IPCC contributor John Christy says of climate scientists, "We have a vested interest in creating panic because money with then flow to climate scientists." University of London biogeographer Philip Stott says that "If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs."

I'd say that pretty much sums up the problem...those guys don't want to have to look for new jobs.

[Steve P.]

So you DON'T think we have a pollution problem??  Pollution is what it all boils down to..

Ask anyone from a major industrial city what the 70's were like.. Better yet, ask anyone from Long Beach..

Irregardless of who is saying it or trying to make us see it for what it is, we pollute like crazy even with the EPA.

I used to work for a major power company here in Florida. I worked in coal plants, co-gens. and nuclear power plants. I have seen first hand the crap that we put into the air. I used to have to wash my truck every day while leaving the plant from the acid loaded crap we put into the air. The plants all know what they are doing. They even publish todayS results in comparison to the 70's. We were normally within boundaries, but,,,, I can tell you from first hand experiences that the science does NOT allways work..
Many of the plants I worked on are and have been changing over to natural gas. 12 years ago I was in a meeting that was all about our plants pollution levels. Natural gas was decided on for a temporary fix as they knew then that our resources were causing us all harm.. The change was made in order to compete with cleaner fuels such as the Nukes.

Yes, we love our cars. No,,,,,,,,,,,,  NOBODY is going to crush your gas hungry mopar..  Yes, alternatives need to be looked at hard and put into play.

Many are using the excuse that it takes more power to build alternative energy cars. It costs more to buy that fuel. We have no infrastructure for the alternatives. Well, they would be right. FOR NOW.. Do you think all these gas stations were on every corner back in the day of the horse and buggy?? Or maybe they were all converted from wood, coal and water for the old steamers??  Not every step forward is a nice clean move and everything effects everything else.

Think about what we can do without making massive changes to our lives. We allready recycle.. I don't know anyone who can afford to buy all new stuff for our cars.. We can also recycle news papers and aluminum cans. Bottles, steal cans, plastic bags.. Many of us do that now. I do.. Why the hell not??

I am not trying to preach anything here. Just saying we do have a problem and rather than fight it we can do SOMETHING about it.. That doesn't mean you have to put Al Gore's picture on your refrigerator or on your bumper. I'm just saying we need to do something.

[John_Kunkel]

Allright cool, the fish jumped on the hook. Please feel free to disprove any of my alleged facts. You see, you're not understanding where these "facts" come from. BTW....

Credentials aside, any statements that can't be proven conclusively are merely opinions or conjecture. Since individuals with equal credentials might disagree with the stated "facts" they aren't facts.

Stated facts that agree with one's predisposition tend to be more credible than facts that disagree with one's predisposition.

[Steve P.]

So,,, who's got a good site for naked women on Mopars??

[bull]

Allright cool, the fish jumped on the hook. Please feel free to disprove any of my alleged facts. You see, you're not understanding where these "facts" come from. BTW....

Credentials aside, any statements that can't be proven conclusively are merely opinions or conjecture. Since individuals with equal credentials might disagree with the stated "facts" they aren't facts.

So is that an argument against the opinions expressed byt the scientists who blame humanity for global warming? Sounds like it.

[mikepmcs]

So,,, who's got a good site for naked women on Mopars??

I can email you one site with one naked woman on a 71 R/T.  Her name is Yana Cova(Jana in some circles), let me know.

M

[Steve P.]

So,, what?? You don't know how to IM?? ?? ??

[mikepmcs]

I don't want to get in trouble is all.   

You want it, send me your email address.  I'm   rmdracing@adelphia.net

v/r
Mike

[dodgecharger-fan]

So you DON'T think we have a pollution problem??  Pollution is what it all boils down to..

Ask anyone from a major industrial city what the 70's were like.. Better yet, ask anyone from Long Beach..

Irregardless of who is saying it or trying to make us see it for what it is, we pollute like crazy even with the EPA.

I used to work for a major power company here in Florida. I worked in coal plants, co-gens. and nuclear power plants. I have seen first hand the crap that we put into the air. I used to have to wash my truck every day while leaving the plant from the acid loaded crap we put into the air. The plants all know what they are doing. They even publish todayS results in comparison to the 70's. We were normally within boundaries, but,,,, I can tell you from first hand experiences that the science does NOT allways work..
Many of the plants I worked on are and have been changing over to natural gas. 12 years ago I was in a meeting that was all about our plants pollution levels. Natural gas was decided on for a temporary fix as they knew then that our resources were causing us all harm.. The change was made in order to compete with cleaner fuels such as the Nukes.

Yes, we love our cars. No,,,,,,,,,,,,  NOBODY is going to crush your gas hungry mopar..  Yes, alternatives need to be looked at hard and put into play.

Many are using the excuse that it takes more power to build alternative energy cars. It costs more to buy that fuel. We have no infrastructure for the alternatives. Well, they would be right. FOR NOW.. Do you think all these gas stations were on every corner back in the day of the horse and buggy?? Or maybe they were all converted from wood, coal and water for the old steamers??  Not every step forward is a nice clean move and everything effects everything else.

Think about what we can do without making massive changes to our lives. We allready recycle.. I don't know anyone who can afford to buy all new stuff for our cars.. We can also recycle news papers and aluminum cans. Bottles, steal cans, plastic bags.. Many of us do that now. I do.. Why the hell not??

I am not trying to preach anything here. Just saying we do have a problem and rather than fight it we can do SOMETHING about it.. That doesn't mean you have to put Al Gore's picture on your refrigerator or on your bumper. I'm just saying we need to do something.

You're absolutely right, but these issues have nothing to do with the temperature of the planet.

Let these issues and the possible solutions stand on their own.
Clean up your piece of the Earth. Make your life a little nicer.
Conserve some energy. Save yourself a few bucks.

Who in their right mind would argue against that?

[Steve P.]

Our pollution is directly a cause. Maybe not the only reason the Earth is heating up. Maybe not even much of a reason. It just goes to the question of : Why toss the candy bar wrapper out the window of your car when you can toss it in your own garbage can at home??

I'm just saying that if everyone does SOMETHING it is much better than NOBODY doing anything..

What's to argue that all of our cars pollute?? They do.. So does a cow farting, only the cow can't help it..

[73dodge]

Our pollution is directly a cause. Maybe not the only reason the Earth is heating up. Maybe not even much of a reason. It just goes to the question of : Why toss the candy bar wrapper out the window of your car when you can toss it in your own garbage can at home??

I'm just saying that if everyone does SOMETHING it is much better than NOBODY doing anything..

What's to argue that all of our cars pollute?? They do.. So does a cow farting, only the cow can't help it..

Dude I don't know how old you are, but I remember this from my childhood growing up in Cleveland.

The streets were dirtier until the we took responsibility for stop throwing our trash out the window, what ever you see now on the sides of the roads were 10X worse in the 70's. Yes people threw junk in the streams and creeks around here, I remember going do to play in the small creeks and streams around my neighborhood in the 70's and finding all sorts of tires trash and some cool cart parts thrown on the banks. But things changed people stopped dumping stuff into the streams and creeks around here and they got cleaned up. That's cool I applaud that and I admonish my kids not to throw their trash out the window, even chewed gum. The steel mills and smoke stacks used to belch tons of stinky smoke into the air in the 70's I remember driving north into Cleveland and knowing exactly were the steel mills were along the highway and having to hold my nose until we passed because of the pollution. But that changed they cleaned them up and put many of them out of business, Cleveland ain't in the rust belt for nothing. 

But that for the most part is gone today the air is cleaner and the trash for the most part is gone, heck they clean the highways once a year in Cleveland to pick up the trash. And all this did not come without a price by the way, thousands of people lost jobs in the steel mills around here because they were forced to clean up and the costs were so prohibitive that they had to close down because they could not comply with the draconian environmental laws passed by the government causing huge unemployment in the area. Anyway my point is this

We cannot sanitize the environment, there will be a certain amount pollution put into the air but the environment has shown an ability to clean itself. I am all for acting responsibly, to a point, but I know things are vastly improved in the last 35 years. And to those who think that the government should step in and force us to change by, enacting laws, forcing us to change cars or enacting a carbon tax know this. If you are willing to see millions of jobs disappear because of more and more laws piled on us by the nanny state then you keep bowing at Algores alter and keep believing that he has the truth.

[Steve P.]

I am headed for 46 years old.  I remember when things took a turn for the better in the 70's. One of the big things that changed what we saw first hand was garbage being tossed out the windows and dumped into any open area people could find. This all started with ads. on TV with an old Indian standing on the side of the road and a car drives by and dumps a bag of garbage at his feet. The Indian stands there with tears rolling down his face.   They also had ads. on every city bus and every garbage truck saying, (LET'S KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL).   I think we need those signs to reappear.

As far as the steel mills going out of business, well,, I can't say for sure what caused it. I can tell you that Many companies that put humongous amounts of crap in the water and air had to comply and survived it all. Kodak, Dupont, Xerox, Sybron, Rochester Products, Delco Products and a host of many other companies complied and made money. That's not to say that they are in the best shape today..   

Again, I am not jumping on any band wagon or stumping for anyone other than me, my family, my friends and the human race. Haha....  We all have responsibilities to eachother and the Earth.  I don't have the answers or I would be president. Oh wait,,     

A monster thing we all need to keep in mind is that stockholders run this country. If they are not making enough money to buy a small country every year they will sell out. That doesn't hurt them. It hurts us.

This country used to lead the world. Now, well let's just say I wonder...

[73dodge]

    Dr. Singer has served as Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmospheres; Chief Scientist for the U.S. Dept. of transportation; Deputy Assistant Administrator at the U.S. Environmental Agency; Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Dept. of the Interior; (First) Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami; (First) Director of the U.S. Weather Sat Center.......Shall I go on?

  Ya, this guys "facts" need to be "Interpreted" because he's obviously a whack job hack for the oil industry. Right?

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.

Care to try again?

Funny you will find something that agrees with your postion and use it to discredit this guy. BUT you have not bothered to discredit his research?


Why won't you aplly this logic to those scientist you agree with? How about we dicredit those scientists that take money from the Government who want them to find positions to agree with Global Warming?


That's the funny thing about liberals, when anyone that dares challenge their accepted dogma they attack the person and call them idiots, flat earthers, cave men, stupid or what ever.   

Really you liberals need to be more accepting of those you disagree with, learn to accept diversity of opnion and stop forcing your morals on everyone else. Remember we are all in this world together and we need to learn to get along with other, name calling and hatred is counter productive you liberals need to learn how to embrace diversity of opnion.....................


hahahahahahaha!!!!!

[defiance]

How can you possibly say the government WANTS global warming to be believed in its current state??  The administration has REPEATEDLY shown otherwise. 

Furthermore, I've said OVER and OVER and OVER in this thread that NO ONE on this thread can discredit, disprove, expand upon, or otherwise judge the validity of global climate research, any more than we can do the same for research into quantum physics.  We DO NOT have the education, experience, and understanding to do so.  Therefore the single determining factor has to be the credibility of the people you listen to.

Myself, I believe the credibility of the majority.  I'm perfectly willing to examine the credibility of the minority, and I truly hope to find someone in that minority whose credibility is without reproach - I'd LOVE to believe that global warming is a lie.  Unfortunately, every time I do research one such source, significant ties to some industry that profits from fossil fuel usage shows up.  No, that's not absolute proof that their work is biased, but it is a plausible source of bias.  And while I believe that there are some few governments who could be biased toward global warming, I cannot believe there could be many.  History has shown governments to be overwhelminglly resistant to pollution controls of any sort until pressure from the public grows severe.

Believe otherwise all you want, but I cannot see how you could accuse me of "ignoring logic and reason".

[Charger_Fan]

This all started with ads. on TV with an old Indian standing on the side of the road and a car drives by and dumps a bag of garbage at his feet. The Indian stands there with tears rolling down his face.   They also had ads. on every city bus and every garbage truck saying, (LET'S KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL).   I think we need those signs to reappear.

That was a good program & it got everyone in the nation to think twice before tossing out their garbage, so was Woodsy Owl. The funny thing is, I bet that campaign impacted kids the most...as a kid, I remember saying may times "give a hoot, don't pollute" as I made a conscious effort to get garbage in the can.

They should get another program like that going for the kids of today. It's amazing how much influence little kids can have when they tell adults "Woodsy says don't pollute, so put it in the garbage can!" I remember 10 years ago when we were having a semi-drought around here, they had a campaign on about water conservation & my kids were totally on it! My daughter would even scold us for using too much water to do dishes & cars HAD to be washed on the lawn, it was terrible!

[Big Lebowski]

    Dr. Singer has served as Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmospheres; Chief Scientist for the U.S. Dept. of transportation; Deputy Assistant Administrator at the U.S. Environmental Agency; Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Dept. of the Interior; (First) Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami; (First) Director of the U.S. Weather Sat Center.......Shall I go on?

  Ya, this guys "facts" need to be "Interpreted" because he's obviously a whack job hack for the oil industry. Right?

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.

Care to try again?

   Wow, you're good. You just proved beyond any reasonable doubt that this man S. Fred Singer sold out his proud credentials & lifetime of academic achievements for a cash kick back from the evil Earth destroying oil companies (that feed your Charger gas btw). Wow, I am impressed. Whew.

   And of course, the "only" scientists who are credible, are the one's who don't have tree hugging agendas, like the scientists who support organizations like The Sierra Club & Greenpeace. Your right.