BBC: The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Rick Deckard]

Rather telling that you assume I "have a problem" with any of the data.

I was simply presenting a link without the ridiculous pitch that musictomyears felt it necessary to include.

Now I see why he felt he could get away with it.

*sigh*

Well, *sigh*, you seem to 'have a problem' with something - although, I've little idea what that 'something' is.

Is the video more propaganda? Probably.

All I'm saying is that it's a more convincing than the argument Al Gore has put forward.

If you've ever read any of my other posts on this forum, you'll see that I have a pretty dim view of todays science and scientists - the whole business of science seems to have been privatised. An organisation (either political or private) starts with a 'conclusion' and then funds a bunch of eager scientists to put focus on the evidence that supports that conclusion and to downplay evidence that contradicts that conclusion.

If there's no 'dollar value' in a particular scientific field then the research isn't funded. If I was being really cynical I would suggest that pharmacutical companies are more interested in developing drugs that relieve symptoms than finding cures for the diseases that cause those symptoms. The flipside to that is whole industries spring up around issues that become 'flavour of the month' - once that happens, the whole thing snowballs because those involved become 'blinkered' in their efforts to secure more funding.

Anyway, I think most can see that both sides of the 'global warming' debate are distorting the data to support their argument. This is bound to happen when politicians get involved with science. Is it really a coincidence that the 'Nuclear Power' brigade are pushing for more sites in the UK and Europe?

I suppose a positive aspect of all this debate is the possibility of suppressed energy techonologies re-surfacing - whatever happened to cold-fusion, zero-point energy and water 'cracking'?

 

[auntiegrav]

Well, *sigh*, you seem to 'have a problem' with something - although, I've little idea what that 'something' is.

Is the video more propaganda? Probably.

I suppose a positive aspect of all this debate is the possibility of suppressed energy techonologies re-surfacing - whatever happened to cold-fusion, zero-point energy and water 'cracking'?

I think another slight possibility is that more people will start looking into who is giving them data, and a slight reduction in Blind Faith in Systems could occur.

The debate over Global Warming is really just an example of how hard we can work to ignore our consumption. Regardless of the effects of CO2 or whether we are going to deplete petroleum reserves, humans need to take a hard look at what is really NECESSARY for our lives, and what our lives are going to be FOR. It is completely ridiculous to think that consumption for the sake of 'creating jobs' or changing the chemistry of our atmosphere for the sake of 'economic growth' can be rational behavior in a finite system. It reeks of religious procreation for the sake of out-procreating other religions.

Would we be much better off with 'free' energy of some type? Not for long. When our consumption of other necessities (water, local and regional biomass, living soil, predatory fish, boobaroo, etc.) reached a peak, it means that we only have one iteration of growth doubling (rule of seven) until these things are not available for most of the population.

Regardless of the argument, our consumption has doomed us to collapse already. The Revolution won't be televised, but it will be exploited.

 

[Rick Deckard]

It's a pity we can't prove re-incarnation - if those that are the biggest polluters thought that someday they might come back to the planet they help to ruin, then perhaps they'd change their ways...

 

[musictomyears]

It's a pity we can't prove re-incarnation

Actually, we can... Sort of!

Reincarnation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.sinor.ru:8104/~che/birthmarks.htm
Dr. Ian Stevenson's Reincarnation Research

auntiegrav, I agree with you that "the debate over Global Warming is really just an example of how hard we can work to ignore our consumption". The underlying problem is much bigger than global warming. Even if CO2 has nothing to do with it, there are still many areas where our mindless consumption habits will, and already do, prove disastrous. Overfishing, cutting down of rain forests, air pollution... It is a long list. Add to that the unresolved issues concerning nuclear waste, and the release of genetically modified organisms, and it is enough to make one want to despair.

Perhaps the only good thing coming out of the misconceptions about CO2 and warming is that the consumerist majority might finally begin to question their habits, and rearrange their priorities. For every problem there is a solution, we only have to look for it.

 

[Yakuzablitz]

I don't know enough of the scientific facts/theories to put my support towards one side of the debate or another, though my sympathies lie more "green" than not. However, in an effort to further the discussion on this documentary, here's an article in The Guardian critiquing it:

George Monbiot on The Great Global Warming Swindle

One interesting thing to note is that one of the scientists that appeared in said documentary, Carl Wunsch from MIT, states that his comments were taken out of context and he was misled as to its purpose. Also, the director (Martin Durkin) has previously directed an anti-environmental movement documentary that was widely criticized for the way the director misled interviewees and twisted what was said in their footage. So, I guess I'm trying to point out that the director definitely approached this material with a strong bias already in place, as well as a demonstrated propensity for distorting factual material.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I could claim that Carl Wunsch is doing a u-turn because he's being given a 'carrot' or threatened with a 'stick' or that he was a 'double-agent' working with the other group in an effort to discredit this group - I would have made it up of course, but if enough people spread it around other people might start to believe it.

Also, the director (Martin Durkin) has previously directed an anti-environmental movement documentary that was widely criticized for the way the director misled interviewees and twisted what was said in their footage. So, I guess I'm trying to point out that the director definitely approached this material with a strong bias already in place, as well as a demonstrated propensity for distorting factual material.

Well, yeah - each side immediately launches rebuttals and accusations as soon as the other presents a contradictory argument. As soon as politicians get involved the debate is all about personalities. It's pathetic really. I mean, it's fine saying that 'so-and-so' was criticised previously for doing this or doing that, but where was the previous critiscism coming from and is it coming from the same group again?

Why does it have to boil down to one biased propaganda film versus another?

Why don't they have an open debate about the data with both sides of the argument being put forward?

 

[Yakuzablitz]

Well, it seems like Carl's statement used in the documentary was only a small part of a much longer and more balanced discussion of his findings. I know I would be pissed if I gave a long and nuanced explanation of the scientific work I had done and the views it had led me to, only to find that editors had taken a snippet of what I said and inserted it where it supported the slant of the documentary.

When I referred to his previous anti-environmental documentary being criticized, it wasn't just pundits who attacked it - it was interviewees who appeared in the documentary itself and were displeased at how their testimony was twisted to support the director's views. This seems relevant to the discussion in that the director appears willing to go to extreme lengths to put forward his version of "the truth."

 

[Rick Deckard]

Well, when someone gives an interview, don't they get any say about the final 'cut'? Are they not shown the finished product before it goes out? Aren't they being a littlle naive to think that they *wouldn't* get edited out of context? The news agencies do it all the time...

...perhaps Mr. Kimball can tell us the score about the rights of the interviewees versus the rights of the producer/editor...

BTW, in the CH4 film, some of the contributors to the IPCC report were claiming that their input has been distorted and their concerns about the conclusions had been omitted - do they have a valid grievance too?

(BTW, don't take anything I say personally - I'm playing devil's advocate here, because I'm less than thrilled by the actions of both groups)

 

[Yakuzablitz]

I might as well throw out there that, while there may be no hard science linking humanity's CO2 output with a rise in global temperatures, I still believe it prudent to deal with those emissions ASAP. If all this talk of global warming and the pollution that arises from our excessive use of fossil fuels leads to more research into alternative energy sources and increased energy efficiency in our homes, businesses, and factories, then it was a debate worth having (regardless of who's ultimately proven right or wrong).

 

[Rick Deckard]

I might as well throw out there that, while there may be no hard science linking humanity's CO2 output with a rise in global temperatures, I still believe it prudent to deal with those emissions ASAP. If all this talk of global warming and the pollution that arises from our excessive use of fossil fuels leads to more research into alternative energy sources and increased energy efficiency in our homes, businesses, and factories, then it was a debate worth having (regardless of who's ultimately proven right or wrong).

I totally agree - but what bothers me *enormously* is the amount of people cynically taking advantage of the situation - there are so many companies jumping on the 'green' band-wagon it makes me sick. The UK Government can't wait to take more taxes out of our pockets - will those extra taxes go to solving 'green' issues? They're not saying.

 

[Yakuzablitz]

That's a good question Rick, and would be well-worth knowing. Just from having seen all the crap that Sacha Baron Cohen gets away with in his incarnations as Borat and Ali G, it doesn't appear that interviewees always know what they're getting themselves into. You have to admit though that it's extremely deceitful to use only a bit of what an interviewee says when it's not representative of their actual views.

 

[musictomyears]

George Monbiot's article is an example for below-the-belt reporting, and presenting opinion as fact.

In the documentary, there were several leading scientists that agreed on the time lag between rises of temperatures, and rises in CO2 levels - this is what the scientists said. I fail to see how that can be quoted out of context. Either there is a 800 year delay, or there isn't.

Monbiot completely lost me when he engaged in this polemic:

"Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data."

None of this rant has anything to do with the issue at hand. Science requires a consensus on methodology. Change the method, and you change the science. Just look at a couple of examples he chose for ab-use: When scientists ignore pools of molten metal under the Twin Towers, and other indicators for controlled demolition, their scientific results become tainted. Therapists that use homeopathy in the way Samuel Hahnemann did, often have good success with this form of treatment - if they wouldn't, their clients would go elsewhere.

Monbiot is basically telling us that he has run out of good arguments, but relies on slander and cynicism. His method has nothing to do with science.

 

[Rick Deckard]

You have to admit though that it's extremely deceitful to use only a bit of what an interviewee says when it's not representative of their actual views.

Yep - but this is what newspaper editors do all the time - they cherry pick aspects of a story that they want to emphasize. Buy ten different newspapers and get ten different versions of the same story. Which one is 'the truth'? Well, the core of the story is true, but the detail is spun to support an agenda.

 

[idontunderstand]

I see this whole issue as very simple.

1) Is it a good idea to pump the air we need to breathe with millions of tons of toxic chemicals each year?

2) Is it a good idea to pump millions of gallons of toxic waste in the water we drink, and share with animals who live and also use the water.

3) Is it a good idea to find a cleaner and more elegant solution to the worlds energy problems, even if there was no global warming.

1) NO
2) NO
3) YES

 

[Rick Deckard]

I see this whole issue as very simple.

1) Is it a good idea to pump the air we need to breathe with millions of tons of toxic chemicals each year?

2) Is it a good idea to pump millions of gallons of toxic waste in the water we drink, and share with animals who live and also use the water.

3) Is it a good idea to find a cleaner and more elegant solution to the worlds energy problems, even if there was no global warming.

1) NO
2) NO
3) YES

Good points, except I don't think anyone here is 'pro-polution', we are talking about the causes of global warming...

...the problem is that anyone who doubts the cause of global warming is CO2 is assumed to be in favour of polution - that's a very distorted logic and is typical of a polarising issue such as this.

 

[musictomyears]

Let's say that it turns out CO2 doesn't cause global warming, and that the media and the entire global warming bandwagon has to reverse course. What is going to happen next? Will people forget about environmental concerns, and pretend everything is just fine? Air pollution was a big problem, long before global warming came along. Yet, for decades, it was virtually impossible to interest a significant number of people in the subject. I have been called a luddite, or worse, several times. Nowadays, the same people who would have made fun of tree-hugging greenees, want to lecture me on "the need for reducing greenhouse gases, for otherwise we are all going to die".

Sometimes you wonder.

 

[pleione1]

Hi people, unconditional LOVE is purpose of our life ... more info on www.angels-light.org

 

[idontunderstand]

Good points, except I don't think anyone here is 'pro-polution', we are talking about the causes of global warming...

...the problem is that anyone who doubts the cause of global warming is CO2 is assumed to be in favour of polution - that's a very distorted logic and is typical of a polarising issue such as this.

I agree with you Rick,

I wasn't implying that people with a different view are pro pollution. But whatever the root reasons of global warming, be it natural cycles, or man made causes, Our fossil fuels as you are aware will not be around for to much longer.

The need for new clean energy is looming on the horizon. My main principle is to do as least harm to the environment as possible, and be responsible for what we put into the air and water. If mother nature is going through a cycle which we can only watch as it happens, it does not absolve us of our responsibility for our own actions in regards to climate.

Cheers!

 

[Rick Deckard]

Let's say that it turns out CO2 doesn't cause global warming, and that the media and the entire global warming bandwagon has to reverse course. What is going to happen next? Will people forget about environmental concerns, and pretend everything is just fine? Air pollution was a big problem, long before global warming came along. Yet, for decades, it was virtually impossible to interest a significant number of people in the subject. I have been called a luddite, or worse, several times. Nowadays, the same people who would have made fun of tree-hugging greenees, want to lecture me on "the need for reducing greenhouse gases, for otherwise we are all going to die".

Sometimes you wonder.

What happened to the 'new ice age' that was coming in the 1970's - has that now gone away?

What happened to the problem of 'acid' rain in the 1980's - has that now gone away?

What happened to the hole in the ozone layer in the 1990's - has that gone away?

Seems to me that this latest 'bandwagon' is just one of many...

...and what if China says "f*ck you" and carries on using coal and oil in ever greater quantities. What then? Is that when the US and the UK sends in the troops? After all, the future of the planet is at stake and that's an even better reason to invade a country than "weapons of mass destruction"...

 

[musictomyears]

Is that when the US and the UK sends in the troops? After all, the future of the planet is at stake and that's an even better reason to invade a country than "weapons of mass destruction"...

Yup, that's basically the line of thinking people like Alex Jones propose. Isn't it rather strange that governments and corporations suddenly jump onto the global warming, scare-mongering bandwagon, after uniformly rejecting the idea for decades? It is as if they met up and decided, "Hey, let's not fight this idea anymore, let's use it to our advantage. Let's use it for increasing taxes and surveillance, and for sanctioning the odd "rogue" regime we didn't like anyway. Let's make people feel bad about using energy, let's make them feel really guilty and depended on our advice. Let's tell them we are going to save the world."

And then you see a parade of full-time do-gooders on telly, like Bono and Bill Gates and Al Gore, shaking hands with Bush and Blair, making each other compliments, and the public thinks: "Hallelujah, that's cool. They are doing something about it. They are not evil ba$tards after all". And the press and the other media make sure nobody looks at the net result of all the humanitarian grandstanding - which is pretty much zero.