the great global warming swindle

So someone passed me a link and here is my take on the first 6:30 of “The Great Global Warming Swindle“

I did quick wiki research on the people & points as they came up.

1. General
   • On scientists reaction to the film (including those portrayed in it)
   • Wiki on the whole skeptic shebang :
   • Wiki on the individual scientists :
2. Tim Ball:
   • Dispute over academic credentials
     • * Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote in an April 23, 2006 letter to the editor of the The Calgary Herald in reply to an editorial by Dr. Ball: “… he does not have the academic background and qualifications to make serious comments on global warming“.
     • Public appearances
       • In The Great Global Warming Swindle Ball’s affiliation was incorrectly given as the University of Winnipeg’s Department of Climatology rather than the Department of Geography. The affiliation could also be misinterpreted that he was a current professor even though he retired in 1996.
3. Shaviv
   • the guy work as a scientist – and he believed in global warming because “I believed in what the media had to say”
     • why not pick up a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL and do some research – aren’t you a RESEARCHER? To me that discounts him immediately —) Does Warren Buffet believe something about a company because that’s what he reads in the tabloids? Come’on — your a scientist involved in climate science.
4. Lord Blaby
   • 
   • * 2007: Chairman of Central European Trust (CET). Clients include: American Express, Bank of America Barclays, BNP Paribas, BP Amoco, Bristol-Myers Sqibb, British Telecom, CGNU, Cygna, Cisco Systems, Coca Cola, Compaq Computers, Dow Chemical, E.I. du Pont de Nemours,General Electric, Glaxo Smith Kline,k GTE, IBM,Lehman Brothers Holdings, Lockhed Martin, Merck, Microsoft, Mitsui, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Sara Lee, SBC Communications, Société Générale, Sun Microsystems, Texaco, Total Fina Elf, Unilever, Xerox, Yamanouchi. (CET Website)
   • Really – I don’t think more on this guy even needs to be said …
5. Corbyn
   • Corbyn’s predictions are based on what is called “The Solar Weather Technique.”[5] The technique “combines statistical analysis of over a century of historical weather patterns with clues derived from solar observations.”[1] He considers past weather patterns and current solar observations, drawing correlations between cosmic radiation and cloud cover. This work has been criticized by some scientists who claim that such variations cause minimal impact on the Earth’s atmosphere. As Corbyn refuses to publish his methods in any journal, scientists are further critical of his methods due to the low probability of his results
   • 
   • Here’s a piece on it … (I didn’t read it)
     • FS: “Why does no one else use your method?”
       PC: “Because it’s a secret!
       • Yes – Science at its best! LOL!
6. Christe
   • In an interview with National Public Radio about the new AGU statement, he said: It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.
     • hmm… very skeptical that we were involved …
   • also — in the film it states he was the “Lead Author” of the Ipcc – misprepresentation
     • He was a key contributor to several IPCC reports, participating with lead authors in the drafting sessions, and in the detailed review of the scientific text.
7. The next bunch of guys seemed to be more interested in the process then the results ..
   • they basically don’t like gov’t involvement with science -so to speak; or they go with the idea that climate is so complex that CO2 is such a small factor – we can’t even know that we know.
     • Ok .. but why not bet on the safer, less toxic way? I’ve seen what cutting emissions drastically does first hand (Bogota – where now all taxis, trucks and most buses and a large % of cars run on natural gas – the air quality increase there is non-debatable. In a valley type city formarlly covered with soot and smog (think LA on a bad day) – it is now a very pleasant place to breath)
8. Patrick Moore (greenpeace)
   • This guy is the biggest fraud around.
     • Greenpeace is a MULTI-Million dollar machine — not to mention that he is pro-nuke! An active salmon farmer (a guy who is supposed to be saving animals has a business killing them?)
     • Just listen to the my man paul watson – founder of greenpeace who left to form my favorite group – the sea shepherd society …
       • The Truth about Greenpeace and Whaling
         Commentary by Paul Watson
         Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
         • “It does not matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
           – Dr. Patrick Moore, President of Greenpeace Canada 1981
         • Enough is enough. The Greenpeace fraud about saving the whales must be exposed. For years, I have been tolerating their pretense of action and watching them rake in tremendous profits from whaling.
         • Greenpeace makes more money from anti-whaling than Norway and Iceland combined make from whaling. In both cases, the whales die and someone profits.
           con’t
   • Public Interest Watch also investigated the payments made by Greenpeace Fund, Inc., whose exact status it has questioned in previous reports. This organization, a 501(c)3, exists solely to pass funds along to other Greenpeace organizations, as Public Interest Watch found when it investigated its affairs for 2000. The watchdog concluded that Greenpeace Fund, Inc. was “a shell corporation established for the purpose of enabling tax-deductible contributions from big donors and from foundations to flow illegally to Greenpeace, Inc. and Greenpeace International.” This “shell corporation” paid nine employees $418,022 in 2001, more than the Sierra Club Foundation did to its top officers. Moreover, as Public Interest Watch points out, some of these employees “received additional compensation from Greenpeace itself (Greenpeace, Inc.).“
9. Michaels
   • A number of prominent scientists have criticized Michaels’ research conclusions.
     • John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, “Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians… He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.”
   • Tom Wigley, lead author of parts of the report of the IPCC and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, was quoted in the book The Heat is On[23]: “Michaels’ statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels’ testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading.”[24]
   • Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute, said: “Pat Michaels is not one of the nation’s leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence.”[25]
   • He has received financial support in research funding and consulting fees from the fossil-fuel energy industry.[9]
   • He is a fellow of the Cato Institute and edits the World Climate Report, published and funded by the not-for-profit organization Greening Earth Society created by the Western Fuels Association.
   • Critics
10. Montage about how the warming industry is huge, and this is all about keeping jobs
    • well, let’s look at who has the most jobs to lose — the Global Warming ‘Industry’ or the fossil fuel industry? hmmmm…
    • 
11. Calder
    • Discusses politics again -
    1. • “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”[1]
         • This may be true, but has no bearing on climate change …

11) Concept “Keen to kill the african dream”

• 
• This is a great propaganda piece because it is easy to see and agree with — it is the hubris of the west to tell the Africans – “no, you can’t have dishwashers, go wash your plates in the river and dry them in the sun”
• However 3 points
  1. What does it have to do with climate change?
  2. We want their resources and the fossil fuel industry will use climate change to keep them down. The same way we are keeping other countries in constant turmoil to extract natural resources (pick one).
  3. While it may be totally hypocritical for us to push developing nations into difficult paths that are self-sustainable, I believe in the long run it is the right way to develop. Why mess up their exosystems with belching coal plants when we now have the technology to do it without the byproducts. IMO the africans are upset because they are comparing their development with ours – and there we are certainly ahead(?) of them – this is a debatable topic (do we have the moral right to tell developing countries how to develop – basically nation-building), but should not be used in the context of climate science.

---

At this point I got tired of watching and think I’ll move on to more productive things.Just ask yourself

• do you feel that human’s are effecting the environment?
  -
• have you noticed first hand changes in the world?
• do you think things will get better if we do not change the way we operate?

and then

• Even if the “great global warming theory’ is a ’swindle’
  • do you think the world will be better as a result of actions that people are taking because of it?

~ by septemous on May 19, 2007.