The Great Global Warming Swindle

British television recently aired a documentary on the subject of Global Warming.

Perhaps a better description would be the biggest political fraud ever perpetrated known as 'human induced global warming'.

It's something that should also be aired on American television, but the chances of that happening are extremely low.



(Video - 1 hr 16 minutes)

EDIT: Video has been removed from YouTube as in now back on Google... for now.

Madman - I was just about to start a very similar thread.

Global warming, and the human-induced fraud I feel is the greatest threat to our current way of life. If people like Gore get their way, they are going to legislate this country back into the 19th century - bulldozing current coal fired plants, cripling industry that brought this country to it's current standards, making gasoline powered vehicles prohibitively expensice to operate...

The global warming debate needs a vocal and well educated oppostion. Please read, question and inform yourself on this subject - then advocate against these drastic steps.

"Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 Years" (Avery and Singer) is a good starting point. It shows in actual non-political science, that global climate change is a natural and cyclical process, with very little or more probably no influence from carbon dioxide.

From there work on debunking all the myths and pure bullshit presented by Gore - when you really look at it the whole freaking movie is one big lie trying to force it's viewers into going green by scare tactics.

I'm all for responsible environmental practices, but that is where I draw the line: responsible, not stupid.

Good post, Madman.

Edited for the one spelling mistake I caught so far.

never in a million years would i figure to see Mr. Burden in agreement with the Mr. Madman. I wonder if you can see the cyclical warming in the fossilized remnants from mining? That would be interesting.

Yeah I know, but when you are right, you are right.

And remember coal mining is under attack as part of this BS too. I tell people all the time - hey I'll stop mining if you are willing to give up all your stuff and go back to living in caves throwing rocks at stuff for food.

I also say, "We can stop using coal for power generation. I'll go get my chainsaw, you grab yours and lets go mow down virgin land the size of Texas to prepare for solar and wind power. We can use all those trees for paper. No problem - no more coal, but no more forest."

I mean for the love of gawd, how are we gunna make electricity? Solar and wind requires new land to be cleared (can't use farmland or we won't have anything to eat) and HUGE amounts of land at that. Hydroelectric ruins fish runs, wind kills birds... Nuclear power will turn us all into mutants...

Coal power is amazing. Small land disturbance for short periods of time followed by reclamation. You can't get any better than that.

There is after all a major issue both you and I are in agreement.

The level at which this fraud has been totally ingrained is beyond scary. I won't call it scientific fraud because people of science are themselves in a somewhat "state of fear" regarding their jobs and careers due to the success of the political fraud and political aspirations of the perpetrators.

It is sad that the danger of so-called "global warming" has nothing to do with science, climate or warming.

Climate science is now a "climate of fear".



Climatolgist Timothy Ball has stated....

"I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint."

.............

How about ol Dr. Hedi Cullen of the weather channel wanting to remove any accreditation for meteorologist who don't subscribe to the global warming theory. She claims she wants to open the discussion yet wants to remove credentials of those who disagree. I can not tolerate the channel anymore since they keep referencing the impending Global Warming Catastrophe coming our way.

Bottom line is it is all about power and who wields it.

Just to play devils advocate on one point here...no trees would need to be cut down for solar generating stations in the deserts of Nevada, TX, AZ, NM, CA or UT...and the amount of birds that wind power kills is fairly minmal, and hydro plants using tidal changes also has a very minimal impact on wildlife...you're deluded in the head if you think coal is a BETTER option than the rest of these...a different and perhaps equal option to others in some respects but not all...

That's a decent documentary. I'm only about halfway through it, but I'll watch the rest soon. I'm a little skeptical given the events concerning the director's previous documentary Against Nature, but this one is worth a watch.

I guess one thing I'd like to point out is that people who practice "green living" aren't necessarily "Global Warming" fanatics. While it's true that the two ideologies often go hand-in-hand, you can certainly "live green" without being a Global Warming believer. Example: recycling your newspaper doesn't make you "carbon-neutral" but it is a step towards "living green."

Oh, and secondly, in regards to Branden's comments about how we're going to meet energy needs: as you noted, pretty much every method of generating power/oil/gas/etc have negative aspects. Personally, I think conservation of energy can help alleviate rising energy demand - programs like EnergyStar cert. appliances, high-E windows/insulation, recycling of aluminum and glass, etc. The amount of energy this country throws away each day is frightening.

I think you're right on with your point about many of these alternative energy sources and their minimal impact. You wouldn't have to cut down trees here for wind power either, because there are no trees.

Some of the biggest inhibitors in switching to these types of power souces are uptime and controlability. The wind blows like a bitch out here but I still see wind turbines sitting at idle often. Power companies aren't making any money if the wind isn't blowing, the sun isn't shining, etc. It would be worse still if it was a high demand day, and couldn't provide power to its customers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?pagewanted=print

And the NYT agrees.....

Ha, not just energy... we are extremely wasteful in general. And I am plenty guilty myself!

I'm not smart enough to figure out what percentage of global warming is natural and what percentage is not, but I do know that if anyone thinks that global warming will stop if we eliminate polution is on crack. Hello??? Remember the ice age? My Xterra had nothing to do with the end of that! Eventually the sun will fizzle out anyway and then they'll all be bitching about it being cold and dark again...LOL!

The ice caps on Mars are melting at pretty much the same rate as those on earth.

Lets all step back and do the math on that.

Well, yes and no (I do appreciate a good devils advocate thought).

While there is plenty of desert in the southwestern United States (no need to cut down trees as you stated) this is still virgin land, unused until the placement of a solar array or wind station. Utilizing this land for these generation techniques would still effect the land and alter the animals and plants that use it until the station is gone.

We already have enough problems with environmentalists trying to preserve and keep pristine land pristine. Turning over these huge areas would increase land use in other areas - in other words, you still have to alter that landscape and use that land, when we all know land is scarce and we only have so much to "play" on already.

Then there is the problem with storage and transmission of solar power. Even if we did tear up half the unused NV desert, it would only be able to power some of the Western US at best - there would be no way to get it across the country. Along with this we would still need conventional spinning reserves to make up for power spikes, cloudy days and nights.

Wind power also uses a huge amount of area - again the deserts of the SW would work, but the same problems persist - storage, transmission and still days.

With both these technologies there are hidden problems ranging from effeciencies and costs, to manufacturing and disposal.

Efficiency of wind and solar is low (I believe in the 20-25% range, but I am not sure). Costs of both are currently high - 4 to 5 times the cost of coal.

Manufacturing of solar panels required extensive materials and even some hazardous and toxic chemicals. Wind power requires large amounts of materials as well - steel, copper... Either way we are still gunna have to mine these materials.

So I am a big fan of coal, especially gasification and clean coal techniques. Cheap, plentiful... Reclamation and land use following depletion of the reserves. A quick fact - more land is currently used by airport runways in the US than by active mining operations.

My two cents - invest in all techniques possible including research into gasification and clean coal techniques, but don't bulldoze current power generating stations, and don't just research solar and wind. They are promising, but will never completely replace coal and nuclear power.

I'm not following the logic on this one. Can you elaborate a little further?

I'm probably one of the few on this board that has seen the martian ice caps with my own two eyes thanks to a nice telescope. The martian ice caps vaporize completely but reform when that hemisphere's winter returns.

It's those damn mars rovers.

Seriously, I can see both sides to the debate. On one hand doing anything we can to improve efficiency, reduce emissions and conserve non-renewable resources is a good thing. There's the arguement that the people who believe global warming is anthropogenic put forth, that if they're wrong, what do we lose, we just get a cleaner environment.

The problem in my mind is two fold. First off, the alarmist way that this is being fed to the public is unethical, and I do not believe that the ends justifies the means. Second, the economic cost has to be considered. There are some easy and inexpensive (most actually save money) ways we can become more responsible in our energy consumption that do make sense, but there's also a lot of very expensive ways that have a low total positive effect on the environment because a lot of these things may save energy when you use it, but cost more to produce and dispose of.

The alarmist is just as extreme and irresponsible in my opinion as the person who simply doesn't care, and the alarmist who says do as I say, not as I do is the worst of all.

We have to look at rationally first at the small things we can do to reduce our waste first and foremost. Simple things like switching to more efficient light bulbs, turning them off, adjusting the thermostat when you're not around, adjusting power saving settings on your home or work computers can have a huge impact when applied on a large scale.

The idea that we are in such a dire situation that the only option is to make drastic changes is flawed. First, the effect of any sort of warming is frankly unknown. What we're being told is that it no doubt will be catastrophic, an assumption that is more likely to result in panic induced support of drastic measures than the truth that we don't know what effect if any would be noticed. Proponents are grasping at straws to show that the weather is becoming more extreme, but they ignore when their predictions fail (last hurricane season) and selectively choose things. How long do you think people have been saying "Weird weather lately." We notice the weather when it's odd... we ignore it when it's normal.

There's also the human ego at play. Humans want to believe that we are in control of a situation. If global warming is man made, it's more comforting for our ego than if say, the sun is causing it. It's hard to admit that in the grand scheme of things we're increasingly insignificant when it comes to the operation of our planet, solar system and universe.

Sadly this whole issue has become anything but rational. Irrational and irresponsible actions whether done in the name of improvement or in apathy both serve only to hurt our current situation.

We need to bring common sense back into the issue, because I don't think anyone is against more responsible energy use. There is a lot of common ground that can be developed here, and doing that would be much more productive than the current non-solutions like Kyoto, alarmist propaganda, and refusal to accept anything but the current line.

Finally, to finish my little novella here, it would benefit us to separate more the idea responsible energy use and climatic change. There are benefits beyond climate we get from the former. When it comes to the latter, I don't care what percentage of certainty the folks who did the UN report have that global warming is anthropogenic, whether you believe it's 10% or 90%, the fact is the planet's climate has fluctuated greatly on both macro and micro levels in the past. It makes sense that it certainly will again. The focus should be on adapting to those changes by exploring different options in agriculture, building design, and land utilization, instead of assuming that we can keep on the same path, and reduction of CO2 is the savior.

Great post Coop.

You touched on a couple really good points. Including this one:
You can't get much more right on then that.

I also agree that Kyoto is crock. Estimates put total costs at 150 billion per year after 2012 - that is a HUGE amount of money. Could you imagine what we could do with that money? AIDS, cancer, high-yield crop research... (It is estimated that 70 - 80 billion per year would be enough to offer ALL third world peoples access to basic healthcare, water and sanitation.)

Imagine what we could be studying and learning instead of wasting money on just the research of global warming. As Madman's movie pointed out there are at least 10,000 jobs related to the research alone - I wish we could muster 10,000 more scientists for lung cancer (that way they could cure it before I die from cigarettes) I am not saying we should stop altogether, but the alarmists have accomplished one thing - throwing huge resources behind this - which IMO would have been better utilized elsewhere (think renewable energy and clean coal technologies).

Stumbled upon this article today.

It certainly is a good example of the frustration I have with these scientists refusing to take alternate theories seriously. They seem to have a very dismissive attitude, and are very defensive when anything contrary to their ideas are suggested. This goes against what I always was taught science should be.

To me if other bodies are exhibiting warming trends as well, a common cause certainly is a possible culprit, and certainly shouldn't be dismissed as 'nuts' as Dr. Long is quoted as saying in the article.

This article obviously takes a stance in presenting the story, but the alternative evidence still comes across as interesting.

Fuck it. One day aliens from outer space are gonna destroy life on earth as we know it. Then the Earth will have a chance to recover and the select few who were able to escape and survive will repopulate the earth once again.

The Weather Channel went political a while back. That was the entire reason for bringing this Heidi Cullen on board in the first place.

Her call to discredit all meteorologists who don't subscribe to the politics of global warming is a clear example of the "Stalinist" tactics being used by those who are vested in advancing the politics of global warming. All dissent must be crushed and eliminated.

Science is no longer involved when dissent is being crushed and eliminated. Science is supposed to welcome dissent and skepticism.

But then again we are talking about Global Warming. It's taken the form of a hybrid poltical/religious movement. A movement where skepticism is NO longer allowed. Heretics are to be treated as Torquemada treated heretics 500 years ago. Political dissidents are placed in a cultural and career gulag.

I'm super serial...