the great global warming swindler - MUST SEE TV

[greenman3610]

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/010659.php

Earlier this year a British TV channel broadcast a fraudulent "documentary" called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - by Martin Durkin - which propagated the notion that man-made global warming is a lie and a scam. Numerous scientists have written about how this documentary blatantly misrepresented the scientific data. The latest development on this swindle by Durkin is an interview that Tony Jones of the Australian TV channel ABC conducted with Durkin. This is must-see TV. Here are the two sections that were posted by DeSmogBlog. Make sure you see both and you'll get a very good picture of the charlatans that constitute the core of the global warming denial movement and their modus operandi. Also makes you wish you had real TV journalists in the U.S. who would give the global warming denial movement the treatment it deserves.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Was this broadcast on a BBC channel or on a Rupert Murdoch channel?

I very strongly suspect the latter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Neither - it was on Channel 4

Which is run by a non-shareholder corporation - if it makes a profit (it's funded by advertising), it has to plough the money back into programme making, or film making (look at a lot of British films over the past 20 years or so, and you'll see 'Film Four' or similar in the list of financing companies).

Channel 4's charter tells it to be 'alternative', and it sometimes puts out deliberately controversial things like this.

[The Cleaner]

2. I actually watched that video for amusement...

their main contention was that "there is no evidence CO2 in the atmosphere is related to climate change." :eyes:

Another stupid thesis is that the warm period in the 1500s or so actually fomented a complex culture in the arts.

[krautrocketK12S]

3. global warming

You conflate the issue of pollution with man-made global warming. They are separate issues. No one denies that we have caused pollution. However, it is highly questionable that we have caused global warming. Global warming preceded CO2 increases by 800 years. The increased CO2 is coming out of sea water, and even so, it is an insignificant contributor to "greenhouse gasses", especially compared to the contribution made by water vapor. Furthermore, there is NO evidence that rises in CO2 levels would actually be harmful.
No one denies that temperatures are above "normal" in many locations. Cities, airports, and parking lots are heat islands, and are constantly growing. CO2 levels are not a factor in this. It is a FACT that solar energy emission levels are not constant. It is also a fact that temperatures are rising on other planets and moons in our solar system. Only an idiot could claim that this is because of burning fossil fuels on earth. The global warming hysteria serves only to destroy the middle class and enrich the "feudal lords".

[Richard Steele]

4. Just drop another ice cube in the Koolaid and all is well, right?

[The Cleaner]

5. It is obvious you are getting your info from the wrong sources.

You are simply parroting ALL the anti-global warming nonsensical arguments.

[Richard Steele]

11. bear in mind, he wants Ron Paul for President. That should hint at where he gets his "info". nm

[Jim__]

6. Global Warming was predicted based on the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Global Warming is now happening, largely following the predicted patterns.

In 1988, James Hansen testified before Congress that Global Warming was not a future phenomenon, but was actually occurring. The same people who are now making the claims that you are citing, at that time, denied that Global Warming was taking place. Those people can no longer deny it's taking place, so now they deny it is man-made.

Of course there have been instances of Global Warming in the past that have not been caused by increases in atmospheric CO2. That, however is not an argument against atmospheric CO2 being a potential cause for globle warming. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. What do you think is the effect of increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Why would we suppose that predicted changes that occur are not occurring due the reasons coted in the predictions?

Sorry, but Global Warming skeptics have been proven incorrect over and over again over the last 20 years. They've lost all credibility on the topic.

[The Cleaner]

7. A second reading of your post warrants another response:

So...you think global warming is caused by:

Ocean evaporation (explain then the sudden rise in temps the last decade and a half.)
Other planets are getting hotter suddenly (proof?)
Cement heat islands in cities (as if it's not getting warmer in the countryside?)
Solar energy is fluctuating (and has caused our earth to warm?)

And then this gem: only an idiot could believe in global warming? Insulting board members with your first post, BAD FORM DUDE. And as far as destroying the middle class, you have only your worshipped leader to thank for that, yes, Bush.

Good day to you, and enjoy your short stay.

[The_Commonist]

8. Yawn...

You lost me at "only an idiot."

[SoonerPride]

9. "it is highly questionable that we have caused global warming"

No, it is not.

An overwhelming majority of climate scientists from every country on the planet have each, independently, come to the conclusion that anthropomorphic global warming is real and increasing. WE ARE THE CAUSE. Plain and simple.

You are wrong.

Welcome to DU, though I suspect you are a freeper.

[Clark2008]

10. And no one is arguing that there weren't periods of global

warming before humans. What we're saying - and what ALL legitimate scientists agree with - is that human-generated CO2 emissions are making it WORSE.

Did you even SEE the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth?" Or are you just mimicking right-wing talking points? In the movie, Gore explains that, yes, there were always periods of global warming, but not to this extent.

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. bu$hco="feudal lords". Who's the idiot?

[unpossibles]

14. pretty much every argument you make has been debunked several times

do some research.

The planet thing? Not true, and not studied on a large enough scale. For instance, on Mars, the temperature was claimed to have risen over the past 2-3 Earth years as cited by the deniers. That is about one Martian year, and also fails to account for the normal swings in Martian temperature caused by dust storms. Completely different conditions.

As to the sea water argument, even though it's true that there are natural causes of CO2 release into the atmosphere, we are not helping matters as we reduce the amount of trees and other green growth that will absorb the CO2.

And there have been many studies, and even some very recent ones, which have debunked the solar activity one as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

<snip>
'No Sun link' to climate change

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

...
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.
(more at link)




This should settle the debate, except it's not really a debate so much as a tantrum.

I don't honestly expect you to stick around long enough to do anything but try to disrupt, but if you are honest, read some more and varied information on what you are posting. And back to your initial point, let's suppose that man-made GCC is wrong - why spend so much energy fighting attempts to create a less-polluting industry and lifestyle? Where's the harm?

Here's a Pascal's Wager sort of thing applied to GCC that I found interesting.
http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

I won't hold my breath that you will actually try to educate yourself on the issue however, so... enjoy your stay! :D


(edited for Monday mistakes)

[hatrack]

15. Pathetic. Would Polly the GOP parrot like some facts instead of bullshit?

1. "The increased C2 is coming out of sea water . . . " Uh, no. It's being absorbed by sea water, hence the drop in pH for the Pacific Ocean - that's the entire Pacific Ocean - of 0.026 in the space of a little more than a decade. IOW, an increase of about 25% in acidity in a geological eyeblink.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFMOS21C1598B

2. "Furthermore, there is NO evidence that rises in CO2 levels would actually be harmful."

Ever hear of the Permian Extinction? You know, the one that wiped out about 90% of life then on Earth? I didn't really think so, but here, let me assist you:

"To solve the puzzle of how those conditions may have affected climate and life around the globe, the researchers turned to the Community Climate System Model (CCSM). One of the world's premier climate research tools, the model can integrate changes in atmospheric temperatures with ocean temperatures and currents. Research teams had previously studied the Permian extinction with more limited computer models that focused on a single component of Earth's climate system, such as the ocean.

The CCSM indicated that ocean waters warmed significantly at higher latitudes because of rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas. The warming reached a depth of about 10,000 feet (4,000 meters), interfering with the normal circulation process in which colder surface water descends, taking oxygen and nutrients deep into the ocean.

As a result, ocean waters became stratified with little oxygen, a condition that proved deadly to marine life. This in turn accelerated the warming, since marine organisms were no longer removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

"The implication of our study is that elevated CO2 is sufficient to lead to inhospitable conditions for marine life and excessively high temperatures over land would contribute to the demise of terrestrial life," the authors concluded in the article."

EDIT

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/higher_temperatures_cause_prehistoric_extinction.html


3. "Only an idiot could claim that this is because of burning fossil fuels on earth (sic)."

Here's a little primer from the American Institute of Physics. Or are they not politically reliable enough to suit you?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Of course, these links and articles will only help if you, in fact, can read. If your skills are limited to horching up the little Rushie Bushie talking points like so many rhetorical hairballs, I'm afraid I can't help you.

[Subdivisions]

16. Thank you, hatrack. As for your comments troll:

[RedEarth]

17. Well, your avatar is appropriate....

[Subdivisions]

12. I watched this very docucrap just a couple of days ago as

they crapped their shit about CO² not being a cause of global warming and that GW is caused be natural cycles of the Sun, http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html">which is actually in a cooling phase right now.

No matter what they say, the fact is that humans are pumping all kinds of crap, especially CO², and that is the cause of the increase in mean average global temperature. Don't believe it, just look at a green house. Same thing. Think the ice on Greenland can survive in a green house?

That little piece of propoganda was paid for and approved by Big Oil, et al.