The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warning Swindle is available on Google Video. It's about an hour long and includes more science than Al Gores silly propaganda film. All the points are the same as were made in State of Fear, discussed below.

The producers don't pull any punches. They go after the science community, the UN, NGOs, and even Margaret Thatcher. The documentary interviews a host of scientists who list the various flaws in global warming theory. But the documentary holds out special disdain for the press (to my great delight). It is all too clear that the media is in full pump priming mode when it comes to Global Warming.

But the most interesting parts of the film are centered around the anti-development, neo-Marxist roots that are fueling the movement. A disillusioned founder of Greenpeace says that after the ecology movement rightfully convinced people in Europe and America to focus on the environment, they were forced become ever more shrill to keep their movement alive, spawning the kind of polemics we see today. The result is a weird anti-human, anti-capitalist movement which will keep the world's poor in poverty.

If this whole thing weren't so dangerous, it would actually be funny. But it's hard to laugh when you see poor women burning wood in mud huts only miles from UN conferences where Ivy League educated NGO conferees discuss "sustainable development" with African kleptocrats. Rather than laugh, it almost makes you want to cry.

One can only hope that the Global Warming movement will someday be seen as the bunch of hucksters that they are. I just hope it doesn't cost a lot of people in the third world their lives in the meantime.

5 comments:

Anonymous

4:30 AM

Here is an url that you can send to friends and family that will direct them to the video "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

http://gorelied.notlong.com

For more information on the documentary you can go here.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

Terrence McCarthy

3:43 PM

I live close to the Atlantic, and can hear the waves crashing at night. It's one of life's more beautiful sounds. I have no idea who's right re this issue, but I hope Al Gore's wrong. That sound may ( Or may not ) be getting louder sooner than later. Bad news for the south coast of Rhode Island, the coasts of South Carolina and northern Florida.

Terry #1 up in those western Connecticut hills should be safe.

If this gets through, I figured the coment thing out, Jake.

Terry #2

Terrence McCarthy

3:47 PM

but I'll keep working on my spelling

JP

9:05 PM

Here is Steve Forbes's view of the issue. He can explain the straight dope on any topic in six or eight paragraphs as well as anyone I've ever read...

An Astounding Fantasy

"The Academy awards ceremony may have hailed Al Gore as a prophetic hero, but history will treat him as the personification of an incredible delusion: the idea that carbon dioxide emissions fundamentally affect the Earth's weather patterns.

While much of the media treats this theory as catastrophic fact, the fact is it ain't--it's an unproved theory. Over the last few decades carbon dioxide emissions have risen, and there has been a slight increase in the Earth's temperature. Ergo, goes the theory, it must be cause and effect and--ergo, ergo--we must take draconian measures to reduce the emissions, even if that means sharply cutting our standard of living and massively increasing bureaucratic controls over our lives.

Green socialism has now replaced the Red variety.

As near as anyone can figure, the Earth's surface temperature increased 1 degree Fahrenheit in the 20th century. But about half of that increase came before 1940, when carbon dioxide emissions were a fraction of the level they are today. Temperatures declined slightly after 1940 until the mid-1970s, even though emissions were increasing. In the real world this would be pretty flimsy proof of a cause-effect relationship. But human beings are prey to hysteria and delusions. Gore-ites have taken to calling doubters of their apocalyptic vision "global-warming deniers," a demagogic allusion to "Holocaust deniers." Doubting climatologists are often hounded in government and in academia.

You'd never know from all the shrill hullabaloo that weather patterns have been changing for about as long as the Earth has existed. From about A.D. 900 to 1300 the Earth's temperatures were even warmer than they are today, which is one reason Greenland was named Greenland. Southern England in those years was a wine-growing region. Last we looked, however, there was no evidence of knights in shining armor having ridden around medieval Europe in SUVs. Then from about 1300 to the mid-1800s there was a mini-ice age. Famines in Europe were far more frequent because of the colder weather. Since then the weather has gotten warmer.

Experts still don't know for sure what has caused the Earth's ice ages. In the mid-1970s, for example, the media was full of stories about an impending ice age. Models used to predict Gore-ite futures have been unable to predict past weather patterns.

But weather does respond to changes in the solar radiation activity of the sun. It also appears to be affected by slight changes in the tilt of the Earth. As for carbon dioxide emissions, their impact is, at worst, minimal. In fact, even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledges that pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space, which has a cooling effect. Yet Gore's vividly illustrated, award-laden documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, treats us to images of the seas rising by 20 feet. However, the UN's latest report has revised downward--from 36 inches to 17 inches--its estimates of how much the seas are going to rise in the next 100 years.

We are told that global warming is putting polar bears on the road to extinction, even though the overall polar bear population today is higher than it's been in decades. Glaciers? Despite Gore-y images of them all rapidly melting away, the inconvenient truth is that many of them are expanding.

This hysterical belief in unproved theories is not new. For centuries Europeans and, later, North Americans believed in the existence of witches. In the 1970s most experts were convinced the Earth faced imminent mass famine. In the first half of the 20th century many educated people believed in eugenics--the theory that human beings could be improved if "inferior" people with low IQs were forcibly sterilized (or, in the case of the Nazis, exterminated). In the late 1920s Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said during a case involving forced sterilization, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Thankfully, despite all the widespread misconceptions about weather, we are not going to submit to Gore-ite socialist global government regulations. In fact, some good may come out of this: a major push for nuclear power--a proved, ultraclean, nonemitting energy producer."

Paul

6:14 AM

Best of the Web Today - March 13, 2007

By JAMES TARANTO

You've Just Gotta Believe!
Back in 1988, Time magazine named "Endangered Earth" its "Planet of the Year." In a letter to readers, then-publisher Robert L. Miller explained that Time had concluded it was time to give up on old-fashioned objective journalism:

By August Time knew it was no longer enough just to describe familiar problems one more time. "The new journalistic challenge," says managing editor Henry Muller, "was to help find solutions, and that by definition meant international solutions." So we invited a distinguished group of scientists, administrators and political leaders from five continents to a Time conference charged with producing a tough but realistic action program.

The issue excerpted a speech delivered at the conference by then-Sen. Al Gore of Tennessee, who dismissed all dissent:

There are areas of uncertainty about the greenhouse effect and the dire nature of the ecological crisis we face, which are seized upon as excuses for inaction. This is a psychological problem common to all humanity. If strong responses are needed and yet there is some residual uncertainty about whether you are going to have to make those responses, the natural psychological tendency is to magnify the uncertainty and say, "Well, maybe we won't really have to face up to it."

But the fact that we face an ecological crisis without any precedent in historic times is no longer a matter of any dispute worthy of recognition. And those who, for the purpose of maintaining balance in debate, take the contrarian view that there is significant uncertainty about whether it's real are hurting our ability to respond.

Gore, of course, went on to serve eight years as vice president and lose the 2000 presidential election before retiring from politics to make a full-time career in the "global warming" business. This year his alarmist movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar for Best Documentary.

Now, more than 18 years after Time decided to abjure objectivity, the New York Times has decided to practice it. "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype" reads the front-page headline in today's Times science section:

Part of [Gore's] scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

"I don't want to pick on Al Gore," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data." . . .

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

"In an e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate," the Times reports. Shades of "fake but accurate"?

What's clear from the Times piece is that, far from the "consensus" the media usually describe on global warming, there is a broad range of views among scientists. Almost two decades after Gore flatly claimed that "we face an ecological crisis without any precedent in historic times," we don't know if that is really true. Kudos to the Times for introducing some perspective.