Don't let truth stand in the way of debunking climate change »
Posted by: Aidenag 1 year, 5 months agoThe problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies on people whose findings have already been proved wrong.
Read Full Story at environment.guardian.co.uk
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 67
-
-
0%
Aidenag1 year, 5 months ago
Again with the 2 wrongs make a right theory. By that logic, every single thing is ok, so long as its been done in the past by someone else.
And your wrong on the Moore getting a pass by the media. Even my local liberal news(komotv.com) gave that weeks of coverage.. I dont thing anyone missed the interview of Heston bitching about how he was misquoted and taken out of context by Moore. Or the mass amounts of rebuttel coverage Walmart got.
Reply -
100%
disraeli1 year, 5 months ago
David,
What are you looking for? Absolute probity by those whose job and livelihood depend on producing movies, programs or columns whose distribution is enhanced by controversy? A left winner content creator in the stocks each time a right wing content creator is pilloried and vice versa?
Reply
-
-
0%
DanmLiberals1 year, 5 months ago
You know, I really don't know why Conservatives want to fight about this. THe earth is in trouble and they are sitting there smirking at the people who want to help fix it.
I think the debate breaks down to helping clean up the environment. The earth might not getting warmer because of us, but the fish dying off, animals becoming extinct and geography being changed are because of us. Why don't people like RUsh Limbaugh see that. Have Conservatives gone so far right that they want to help destroy the earth because they can't agree with Liberals.
It's a pretty sad world when you can look at the paper and see that commercial fishing will cease to exist in 40 years and Michael Savage say's something stupid like, " hahah Im going to put three engines on my boat and make sure I take a bath in motor oil". What are these people thinking? BUt on the other hand, Liberals will talk about it and do nothing.
Reply-
100%
Aidenag1 year, 5 months ago
Funny you blame the "Left" for politicizing global warming, and yet if you were to ask ANY major scientific body which side interferes with thier work most.. They reply with the exact opposite. And mention the Right Wingers.
Oh well, like the Title of the article says lol
Reply -
100%
deathray1 year, 5 months ago
David, you're using specious logic to rationalize your position.
Reply -
100%
sinophil491 year, 5 months ago
It sounds like you have not seen the movie that Gore made. The basic premise is not political. The data is generated from hard core scientific studies.
- The CO2 and oxygen isotope content in ice core samples from Antartica that go back 650,000 years
- measurements of Arctic ice thickness by USN submarines
- deep oceanic temperature and current analyses,
- measurement of volumes and surface areas of polar caps, glaciers, mountain snow packs, large lakes
- other data I can't recall
The movie appeals to everyone to help, to conserve. It is not the fault of the left or the right. We ALL over-consume, drive too much, waste too much.
The conservatives,however, have not listened to the message. They have made the messenger a target, simply because he is a Democrat. It is conservatives that have politicized the issue, merely because it is Gore that brought the message. It is amusing that you used the word "shooting" to mean voicing differing opinions.
Reply-
0%
sinophil491 year, 5 months ago
You are totally intellectually dishonest. Watch the movie, study the data, make an honest assessment.
How about all the profit made by all the industries that profit from downplaying or even denying the existence of global warming?
Here's a list for you to chew over - the oil companies, tire makers, auto makers, chemical industry, fertilizer makers, energy generating companies, timber industry, mining, defense industries, fishing, and even fast food companies. Millions of acres of the Amazon have been cleared to raise more cattle to produce hamburgers to fatten the butts of Americans.
Exxon alone had a $32 BILLION profit in 2006. So you tell me who has more incentive - those who preach global warming and environmental responsibility? Or those who deny global warming and want no controls so that they can maximize their BILLIONS in profits. If environmentalists make a few bucks - so what? It is trifling compared to Major industries run by idiotic conservatives like you.
Reply
-
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
0%
spkguy1 year, 5 months ago
"The issue is not conservation of the environment, the issue is with the politicization by the Left."
David, it is how you perceive the issue itself, because you choose to make it in your mind a left/right, liberal/concervative, Democratic or Republican issue, what side of the fence you believe the issue falls on is your choice. I can tell you first hand that I know many people who are, what most would consider conservative minded people, and who are pro-environment, and I also in turn know people that most would call a liberal who are not pro-environment. After all if there really is global warming its our problem (mankind that is) isn't it. I believe that it is more important to be prudent and to error on the side of caution on this important issue.
Reply -
100%
jeffery11 year, 5 months ago
DamnLiberals,
Anti-environmentalists, and they are both conservative and liberal, do not believe that we have an obligation to consider our impact on our environment for at least one of three reasons:
- God created the earth to endure any number of people and to support whatever we do to it
- We only have an obligation to meet our desires and the free market will control any and all damage we could possibly do
- We are too small to affect such a big thing
I personally think that we, as Americans, are so selfish in our world view, as evidenced by our capitalistic and free-market paradigms, that we have trouble accepting that it is not all about "me" but about our obligations as individuals to others.
Reply
-
-
100%
x00000000091 year, 5 months ago
The fact of the matter on global warming is weather patterns are non-linear; that is, the climate changes and is unpredictable. Global warming is just an excuse for people like Al Gore to try and trick the government into giving them money in the name of science. Look at the poverty year of 1816 for example. The whole year was cold, frost, snowing even in June. What is that suppose to be lack of industrial pollution? This year might be warmer than normal, but who's to say that next year the climate will be back to equilibrium. Why are they so hung up on blaming industry when there are so many other reasons the climate could be abnormal that are not even mentioned as a probable cause?
Reply-
100%
sinophil491 year, 5 months ago
And denying global warming is just a trick for big industries to get government and the public off their backs so they can dirty up the air with no conrols whatsoever. Come on. Scientists do not become millionaire moguls on government or foundation grants. Gore will probably make a few million bucks of the movie and lectures.
Industry giants, on the other hand, will make many, many BILLIONS from denying global warming or their major contribution to the danger.
You say that Gore is "tricking" the public so he could make some money. Therefore, we should not trust him
Big industries stand to make billions from denying global warming. Are you saying that you would trust THEM???
Who do you really think is the greater "trickster?"
Reply-
100%
x00000000091 year, 5 months ago
good point. We shouldn't trust either of them, but to force industry to spend $X millions is going to not hurt them. It hurts the consumers. They just mark the price up on their product to cover the cost of the extra cost of business. Then what happens is the consumer goes to wal-mart and buys the same product imported from china at a cheeper rate because they don't force their industry to follow the strict regulations as ours. The US economy then collapses because no-one buys American from high prices, workers get laid off, and anyone left working get taxed more to support the people laid off. Maybe the solution then would be to make an import tax on a product by product bases adjusting the consumer cost to American standard costs and keep the money in the us, but the politicians are the only real winners their putting extra money in their pockets with the extra tax revenue.
Reply
-
-
100%
sinophil491 year, 5 months ago
You do not really understand climate change. It is not one individual year, or one cold or hot spell. It is the average of conditions of temperature, humidity, particulate and chemical matter, and solar radiation over an extended period of time over a large area. The day to day or year to year variations within that period of time are merely weather changes.
Of course there are many reasons for climate changes - solar flares, CO2 variability, volcanic and tectonic activity, orbital variations, etc. But these have existed since the earth's creation.
What has changed is that the CO2 content in the atmosphere has risen to levels never seen before these past 650,000 years. All the natural factors have NOT changed. The only other major factor that has emerged now is industrialization.
You can say that natural factors have driven up CO2 levels like before; but it is industry that has pushed it up even further than ever before to its current record highs.
Reply -
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
x0000000009:Why are they so hung up on blaming industry when there are so many other reasons the climate could be abnormal that are not even mentioned as a probable cause?
There is only one reason for global warming or cooling to a 99.99% certainty.....the sun and it's activities.....
http://www.john-daly.com/solar.htm
Friis-Christensen and Lassen had extended the solar cycle length/temperature correlation back to 1580 AD (removing any possibility of coincidence) and have demonstrated that reduced neutron particle bombardment during solar maxima has the effect of reducing global cloud cover by up to 4%, more than sufficient to warm the earth by the observed amount due to less reflection of solar radiation by clouds, as evident from the stong correlation.
Reply-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
It is almost inconceivable that the Sun can maintain the high levels of activity experienced during the last four solar cycles indefinitely into the future. This would suggest future global cooling, making discussion about Greenhouse somewhat academic.
This explanation for the claimed warming this century is more credible, given the Sun is our heat source, whereas natural greenhouse gases can only recycle existing heat.
To Conclude ...
The Earth has certainly warmed in the last 100 years, although not as much as suggested by the IPCC. However, the Sun has also been hotter during the same period, so that some, if not all, the warming is attributable to the more intense solar activity this century and to the shortening of the solar cycles themselves.
If indeed there has been warming, it is clear the Sun did it, not mankind or greenhouse gases.
Reply
-
-
0%
Dharma1 year, 5 months ago
X000000000009-wasn't 1816 the year after some huge volcano and the whole earth was colder because of upper atmosphere pollution?
Reply
-
-
100%
invest071 year, 5 months ago
Global Temp change is real in Florida: The state is getting colder.
Citrus is an important ag crop that is cold sensitive. The fruit is damaged at 32 degrees F and the trees are damaged at 29 degrees F.
In 1890 there were commercial citrus grove throughout all of Fl and coastal GA and SC. By 1960 the north line was Macintosh, FL. By 1980 the north line was Leesburg, FL. Today the north line is Kissimmee, FL.
The north line of commercial citrus ahs moved over 250 miles south since 1890 due to progressively colder winter temps.
Maybe one of you Chicken Littles can explain to me how temps are warming but my state is getting colder.
Reply-
25%
Aidenag1 year, 5 months ago
@invest07
Your talking about Seasonal weather, not Climate change.. That would be the best and easiest way to explain it. Seasonal weather spikes are normal, the key is to look into the year round average of your region. You will see overall its warmer than it was 30 years, 50 years, 100 years ago.
A good example is Seattle, we have been known for decades to be the temperate lovers destination of choice. Never below 30 degrees, never above 100 degrees. Last decade that has changed. we almost hit 10 degrees(before windchill) this winter, and we broke 100 over the summer. We also had a new record for the most days of rain in a row. and a record for the most days without rain.. ALL in 2006.
Overall though, 2006 was the hottest year for us ever. Even with the cold streak, hurricane force winds, massive snowfall, and tons of rain.
Reply-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
Aidenag: A good example is Seattle..ALL in 2006
All of that happened because a huge high pressure blocking anticyclone area over the western part of the USA from the SF Bay Area to southern Baja Mexico centered on San Diego. The heavy rain and other abnormalities in weather in the US northwest, were the consequences of a complex blocking system that affected the whole of North America.
It has been proved, beyond any doubt or speculation, that the sun's magnetic cycles have a decisive influence over important climatic events such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation. The amount of cosmic rays entering Earth's atmosphere, which determines the formation of clouds, and the North Atlantic Oscillation. All these powerful factors, interacting within a very complex system such as the atmosphere, makes the role of CO2 as the main driving force behind global warming, each day more insignificant and meaningless.
Reply
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
Actually the worldwide temps are getting cooler.....the only places that show any warming are the cities....It is accepted that global temperature has risen by 0.5° C in the last hundred years. Yet during the last fifty years the temperature has remained approximately at the same level, even though 70% of the anthropgenic carbon dioxide contribution was injected into the atmosphere during this time. From 1940 to 1970 the temperature fell, and according to satellitite data available since 1979, which are in good accord with balloon data, the trend in the lower troposphere has remained decreasing at -0.06° C per decade.
A joint investigation by American, Russian and Canadian scientists shows that the surface temperatures in the Arctic region are going down. They fell 4.4° C in winter and 5° C in autumn.
Reply -
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
invest07: Orange crops
In January 1981, The Times of London published a headline: HUNDRED DIE WHILE COLD GRIPS THREE CONTINENTS, and reported the difficulties caused by strong snowfalls in Spain and southwest France, plus a "more than usual" bad weather in Japan and a state of emergency declared in Florida, after two days of severe frosts provoked serious damage to crops (tomatoes, citrus, and sugar cane). At this point it is worth noting that the "frost lines" (isotherms), the southern limit of frosts, annually drawn by the US Weather Service show that they have been gradually moving 150 kilometres to the south for the last 50 years or so - from Jacksonville to Orlando. You cannot grow oranges north of Orlando if you want to have a decent crop.
Reply
-
-
0%
NelsonR1 year, 5 months ago
@invest07 - Agree with your article except, "A good example is Seattle, we have been known for decades to be the temperate lovers destination". Now you are just a little bit north of where Lewis and Clark wintered and they were so elated to leave that part of the world, they almost ran at a steady pace. Too mush rain and fog. You can't even swim in the ocean or you will develop icycles where you don't want them. Anyway thats only my opinion but I am amazed that you like slugs and mildew.
Reply -
catstevensComment removed: User banned.8 Replies
-
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
Well it was from the guardianUK which is usually unreliable....
Reply
-
-
0%
LuciferBoy1 year, 5 months ago
ENOUGH OF THIS TRENDY SUBJECT. I WANT TO KNOW WHERE DID THE ACID RAIN SCARE GO? DID IT GO AWAY BECAUSE IT STOPPED BEING SEXY TO THE HACKS THAT USE FEAR TO SHFIT WEALTH? DO YOU THINK THAT RED CHINA WILL STOP POLLUTING THE EARTH IF WE STOP OUR GREENHOUSE EMMISIONS? INDIA AND CHINA GET A PASS ON PLLUTION. FARMERS IN NEW ZEALAND ARE NOW PAYING A TAX ON THE GAS FROM THEIR CATTLE. RIDICULOUS!
Reply-
100%
ind061 year, 5 months ago
I don't know what Red China will do but I do know that not polluting the air we breathe is a good idea. I don't have any control over what China does but I can and do take steps to reduce my "carbon footprint" and they are remarkably easy and painless.
If Red China and India get a pass that's unfortunate but I don't think it means that we should all get out there and pollute the planet as much as we can.
I don't understand why anyone would think clean air is a bad idea especially if a large percentage if not an outright majority of the scientific community believes a global catastrophe is on the way.
Are people so certain that they're correct, so absolutely sure that global warming doesn't exist that they're willing to gamble the future of millions, possibly their own children just for the right to smugly day "I told you so?"
Now that's ridiculous.
Reply
-
-
100%
IEnot4me1 year, 5 months ago
Acid rain! Where did it go? Who cares? It's a natural part of pine forests (or is it Spruce?) Either way the tree huggers won't succeed.
Great Lakes mercury contamination! Remember it? Don't remember Barry Commoner? He was big TIME on the cover of TIME in the 1950's.
Clean air and no smog. Los Angeles had it when only Indians aka Native Americans lived there. (BTW In Canada Indians are now identified as First Nation). Try living in Northern California where they burn wood for heating houses. The sky looks like a war zone.
Global warming! Maybe, but not very likely and certainly not man made. Remember the Flat Earth, Eugenics, Canals on Mars?
This whole thing is a crock reminiscent of the Blind Men and the Elephant.
Reply -
50%
amazed1 year, 5 months ago
My biggest argument with the global warming crowd is either
"you believe in human caused global warming or you hate the earth and want to just trash it".
That's ridiculous. I admit that I am taking Al's chicken little scenario with a huge grain of sale (especially in light of his own behavior in the face of impending doom), BUT
I am doing all that I can FEASABLY do to reduce my carbon footprint and other polluting actions. Am I perfect? Of course not, but I will do what I can without bankrupting myself. I drive a small car-when it's time for a new one, I will probably get a hybrid--if the batteries seem to be holding up-by that time, the Prius' should be going on 8 - 10 years old.
This attitude of you must believe or you hate the earth is concerned has to go. There is room for disagreement. And, by my observation, many of us who are NOT true believers behave more "greenly" than many of those crying chicken little driving there SUV's two blocks to get milk.
Reply-
0%
ind061 year, 5 months ago
((I am doing all that I can FEASABLY do to reduce my carbon footprint and other polluting actions. Am I perfect? Of course not, but I will do what I can without bankrupting myself. I drive a small car-when it's time for a new one, I will probably get a hybrid--))
You are describing actions that Gore asks you to take at the end of the film, the idea being that to make a large effect it only takes many people making small changes. Changes that will put off a global catastrophe, or, if you insist, simply make the planet a cleaner and healthier place to live. I applaud your actions amazed. More power to you.
Reply-
89%
amazed1 year, 5 months ago
((You are describing actions that Gore asks you to take at the end of the film, the idea being that to make a large effect it only takes many people making small changes. Changes that will put off a global catastrophe, or, if you insist, simply make the planet a cleaner and healthier place to live. I applaud your actions amazed. More power to you.))
Actually, if you listen to him and read his book, he calls the internal combustion engine the biggest threat to the world, and many of the actions that he is calling for (as well as many other global warming disciples) would decimate our economy, while China and other countries get a pass because they are "developing" -- Kyoto Treaty. Meanwhile, he buys carbon "credits" (from whom? some people in a third world village with no electricity who sold it to his carbon credit company?)and continues on his merry way. It's ridiculous.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
amazed1 year, 5 months ago
My biggest argument with the global warming crowd is either
"you believe in human caused global warming or you hate the earth and want to just trash it".
That's ridiculous. I admit that I am taking Al's chicken little scenario with a huge grain of sale (especially in light of his own behavior in the face of impending doom), BUT
I am doing all that I can FEASABLY do to reduce my carbon footprint and other polluting actions. Am I perfect? Of course not, but I will do what I can without bankrupting myself. I drive a small car-when it's time for a new one, I will probably get a hybrid--if the batteries seem to be holding up-by that time, the Prius' should be going on 8 - 10 years old.
This attitude of you must believe or you hate the earth is concerned has to go. There is room for disagreement. And, by my observation, many of us who are NOT true believers behave more "greenly" than many of those crying chicken little driving there SUV's two blocks to get milk.
Reply -
0%
CovalentBond1 year, 5 months ago
Did anyone read this article from the NY Times yesterday? Even Al Gore's backers say there are many inaccuracies in his movies and speeches about global warming. But his backers say his heart is in the right place. Not an exact quote, I just boiled down everything his backers said.
But I don't care if his heart is in the right place junk science is junk science. You can do a lot of damage with good intentions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.h
Reply-
100%
CovalentBond1 year, 5 months ago
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
"Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet," Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. "Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change."
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.
Reply-
0%
CovalentBond1 year, 5 months ago
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. "I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company," Dr. Easterbrook told the group. "And I'm not a Republican.
from the NY Times yesterday
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
CovalentBond1 year, 5 months ago
Unlike a lot of us here and surprising for the NY Times this article seems balanced. Both sides are articulated.
Many here who don't like what I say attack me. And won't discuss my points. You may notice most of my negative votes are against comments with name calling in them.
Reply
-
-
0%
DeadHead131 year, 5 months ago
"If you demonstrate someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him."
Excellent article. Excellent.
Reply -
0%
pelachile1 year, 5 months ago
Of course the article does not talk about the mosquito guy, or the guy who predicted the weather using solar data. Also fails to mention Patrick Moore, Roy Spencer and 6 or 7 other prominent scientist who claim that the math and assumptions of scientists preaching globally warming have also been debunked.
Science is not a consensus. Global Warming is not science it is religion.
Reply
Submitted By:
Aidenag
Photographer by day, news junkie by night. My main areas of interest are politics and the environment. If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Market for Oil Trading
- 1.0 - Agrobacterium&Morgellons Disease, A GM Connection?
- 1.0 - Palin aide put on leave in firing flap
- 1.0 - McCain Flip Flops On Abortion Pledge
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
