The Great Global Warming SWINDLE!

No, we are no longer calling it a hoax, it's a full blown swindle... and the ones who will suffer the most are the poor..but what would you expect? The whole thing is driven by the left... who have an obvious agenda.

"there's an interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to those who are advocating it."

I would go as far as to call the movement 'Anti-Human'
- founder of Greenpeace
Watch and Learn

 

Watch and learn is a little strong, it is a rebuff of mainstream climate change thinking. It raises many good points and excelent questions that need answering. However, I still believe that we should continue to look at renewable sources and clean energy, oil will run out, and energy costs will increase with demand.

Just for the purpose of sourcing this documentary, it is a UK Channel 4 program. More on their broadcasting remit can be found on their website.

 

The "Learn" I was speaking of.. was in regard to:

1. "All men of science agree" - Lie

2. The motives and agenda for the lie
- and why more dont point out it's rubbish

3. Who is going to be affected the most

And did you know, prior to that, that temperature was leading CO2 levels, not the other way round?

Oil isnt going to run out.... and it makes sense to stabilize even CO2 emissions. It makes sense to use modern nuclear power.

 

I did not, what I would like to see is some of the scientists who support global warming to respond to that statement. The danger is that by embracing one argument, you automatically dismiss all items of another argument.

It is a finite resource, it will run out. Maybe not in the timeframe that is populally believed. We are beholden to OPEC for much of the oil demands. I would like to see the UK to have renewable sources of energy that do not rely on unfriendly forign governments for power. For economic reasons it is nearly cost effective for me to buy and install solar and wind power in my home than pay the electric company for it.

 

One of the most interesting aspects of this new attention to environmental conditions is how fervently and passionately the "right" is fighting suggestions that there is anything changing in the world's climate. Makes me wonder why. They certainly do not show this kind of attention when issues range from domestic spying to immigration.

When the possible worst consequences of people paying attention to the environment include recycling, coming up with another, more renewable fuel resource, and less dependency on foreign countries, makes me really wonder what the "right's" agenda is.

But then I realize, it's not that difficult to figure out.

 

Re: RE: The Great Global Warming SWINDLE!

Please quit feigning interest or concern in the poor. It is one of the worst cases of disingenuousness among too, too many on the right. If it were up to conservatives, the poor would have no school, healthcare, or means of transportation, just for starters.

 

RE: Re: RE: The Great Global Warming SWINDLE!

Aww... thanks for telling me how I really think and feel and putting me in my proper box.
why dont you taked the time to watch the entire 75 minute program and THEN come back and attack on those points!

You have no right to break in with attack on the expounder, while ignoring the issues.
I'm sorry reading me say that makes you angry but it just confirms to me that many liberals are self deluding idiots, afraid to face the truth.
Their glorious leaders dont really give a shit about the third world or the people in the thrid world. Unless it can buy them votes or power. That's been demonstrated time and again, books written about that, movies pointing that out ...and YOU attack conservatives!

And your post points out exactly what I say on the subject of why there arent MORE real scientists pointing out the bunk!
I cant figure out whether you REALLY believe what you write or you're protecting your mindset. Good to know you find me easier to figure out.

You MIGHT start by protesting anti-war activists using Pat Buchanan's all the way back to Sen Robert Taft's positions on what a conservative SHOULD think...the fact that both are/were "they deserve what they got, let em stay there and suffer" isolationists.

 

RE: Re: RE: The Great Global Warming SWINDLE!

Back to the subject stream:

The first oil stocks alarum was raised in 1917 which stated that reserves would reach the 50% depleted point in 1929. We have since, passed that threshold twice. I'm only speaking of widely disseminated (and acknowledged as 'accurate') 'break points'

If we are still around in 200 years, we'll still be pumping crude from the ground. We just wont be burning very much of it.

If there's any similarity of economies between creating your own power and getting it from the grid, that points out a distortion in the economies/cost/demand model.

We can save a lot of angst by just forgetting about 'wind power' right now. It's okay in remote rural regions, never happen in metro areas. Solar is a better bet, but what about that increased cloud cover when the Solar Cycle reverses?

But those turbine companies are still a good bet. Now the excitement is about modifying them to run on water currents. Out of sight, much more dependable flow, doesnt kill birds, or even fish... and not all that much more in maintenance.

No... the greens are right in some of their views. The easiest way is to cut consumption.

And VOILA... guess who is responding with ways to do that; The technical/industrial/marketing sector! If we converted 50% of all incandescent lighting to CFT, that would make a huge dent in power consumption... and it already has an economic payback to the consumer.
But it's hard to know what is to be believed when you look at websites comparing efficiencies. I see one that states 40 inch tube fluorescent are as, or more, efficient than current CFT's
I simply dont believe that... I've used twin 40 fixtures for decades, and it may be true, but doesnt seem like it to the eye.
Then there's LED lighting in which efficiencies are escalating at such a pace that there's significant improvement about every 9 months.
Shows breakthrough in high current LED chips Solid state phenomenon: higher current, lower relative output, they seem to have found a partial remedy.

 

Look, here's the overall point.. and I think a good summary of the views:

If we accept the Conventional 'Mainstream' Wisdom of Al Goracle and his cronies, that's just submitting to the same mindset as those who stood and cheered at Jimmy Carter's 'Malaise' speech.

Note: I just read that famous speech in its entirety {I suggest all you read it, too} and I am struck at the difference in the actual words and what I took from it when I watched it on TV. Not to mention that Chris Matthews wrote it!!!!

What I took away from that speech was doom and gloom. That we should do less with less. That is NOT what the words themselves say, but it was what I remember. And what many other conservatives point to as the thrust of his speech. And it's amazing to realize that if Ronald 'former General Electric corporate shill' Reagan had given it, it would have inspired me.

But what also strikes me is the promises not filled and warnings not heeded:

Sadly that is the most significant of the warnings not heeded!*

*And here is the most telling point

As it turned out, those narrow special interests he warned against trumped with their political hole card Jokers.
We have NOT built ONE refinery since then, we have built very few pipelines and every time we try to get a new electrical power transmission route approved, the narrow local interests deny it.
Certainly I cant think of a single domestic oil field opened.

We have let environmental interests advance dire warnings of despoilation and keep on crying about the sky falling despite them being proved wrong or even DEAD WRONG in almost every one of their pronouncements.

The Prudhoe bay spill was supposed to kill the eco-system of the local waters for more than a decade. It didnt.

The Alaska Pipeline was supposed to greatly affect the local Caribou population... and to be fair, it did. They LOVE it!

My final point is this... if the developed countries scale back on their expectations and dreams, what about the third world? How are THEY going to have the dream of a reasonable life? How will they achieve it?
By eating charity-donated and Foreign aid cake?

We are all in this world together and I refuse to re-adapt the short view I once had: "People get the government {and life} they deserve"

 

It is OBVIOUS you did not watch the program,. it points out THROUGHOUT how it's a swindle of our money and our standard of living... it points out that thousands of 'jobs' depend on the thrust of the argument being apocalytic in nature.
Please desist arguing the points until you have more than populist babble to respond with.
And it's really WORSE than a swindle, if only HALF the debunking in the program is supportable, these people are fucking with the global economy for the sake of votes, personal income and prestige.

If you take issue with any of those specific points made in the program, THEN I'll take your view seriously.

 

Because every point you make above is wrong... for instance the billions of dollars in research grant money sent to corporate academia in order to prove the pre-ordained conclusion

For instance, the Environmental movement is FAR from 'disenfranchised'... it has been hi-jacked by the same anti-capitalist groups that used to march for World Socialism. If you were paying attention to any news/political background, you'd have realized that long ago.
The former founder of GreenPeace made that case quite clearly and he pointed out EXACTLY when the focus of GreenPeace changed.
- - - -- - - - - - - - - -
Everytime I make a sweeping statement I'm called on it, and I should be.

But YOU are a liberal and the rules different for YOU! OTOH, I'm an evil conservative... everything I say is in the interest of some corporate suit. Note PCB's reaction.

When I point out reasonable factual information, I'm addressed with what you -and PCB- say above.

If you want to insist on your right to believe what you believe, that's fine... just dont apply a different standard to me. And dont post on my space unless you put in that disclaimer

You could put it on a 'hot-key', here's a suggested text:

"You're wrong, PF. I'm sure you are wrong, because it goes against the grain of my belief systems which I have spent decades nourishing.
People with more impressive credentials than you or I say so, PF. And since THEY are more qualified, they must be correct"


I think that would just about cover it... and it's pretty universal.

{added}
Oh.. wait. That's just silly. I have been conditioned to mentally insert that caveat every time I read your posts. So why bother.

-sigh-

For the rest of you... I'll point out again that 'swindle' is a nice term for it. It assumes speculative monies without serious damage to the one swindled.

Whereas it SHOULD rightfully be called extortion, because it is pointed out you have a FAR FAR better chance of getting a research grant on ANYTHING if you tie it to global warming and the foregone conclusions.

 

I've been out all day, but can't wait to get back to Petty's points when I am bored at work.

 

Alright Fog I'm going to invest an hour and a half and watch this thing. It better be good.

 

Well you'll be happy to know that even some of those appearing on there are howling.. claiming their views and statements were 'misrepresented' and they thought it was meant to be 'fair and balanced.. presenting both sides.

Here's the discussion:
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists

Now.. on first reading there's a LOT of jawing over how unfair and 'right wing' it is... they pay scant attention to the fact that it was no more 'spinnish' than 'An Inconvenient Truth' nor was it advertised as fair and balanced.

evidently the damned by association thing applies acroos the board.

The pressure to 'conform' to get grants, specifically alluded to in no uncertain terms meets the response: "Why would any professional do that?" "Why would the governemtn/any politician do that?"

But worse is the absolute waffling over the question of CO2 Lag to temperature.
First the argument is that 800 years isnt accurate, it's a little less... besides it is only a small lag over the total period of the cycle; then it's said that 'something else' kicks off the rise, then CO2 reinforces it.

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

But one thing NEVER answered satisfactorily, either in the article above or in the discussion on 'Swindled', is why the CO2 does not smooth the sharp transition downward in temp, if it is so much a feedback element. To the contrary, CO2 lags in both directions and keeps rising as the temperature falls.

Instead, the 'Many factors enter in" meme is used.. but the graphs shown dont support that.
And another spin.. "at some time the ocean has no more CO2 to give up"... doesnt make sense... the temp already started down hundreds of years before.

I have news... to the engineer, lag is lag - the period makes no difference if it's more than a few solar cycles. If you're going to use the term feedback, you have to follow the physical laws of feedback.

I'd be more than happy to change my mind if it wasnt for actual climate professionals waffling under the excuse that 'it's complicated' when the same simple question is asked over and over.

 

Pettyfog - I'm glad to see that you have come across the RealClimate website, as that is an excellent resource for information about climate science for all. You mention that:

But one thing NEVER answered satisfactorily, either in the article above or in the discussion on 'Swindled', is why the CO2 does not smooth the sharp transition downward in temp, if it is so much a feedback element. To the contrary, CO2 lags in both directions and keeps rising as the temperature falls.

Have you submitted this question to RealClimate? Since you said that you are more than happy to change your mind, I can only assume that you did and that their explanation was not satisfactory. I'm sorry to hear that as they usually do a great job.

 

Just watched it. I recommend.

Everyone should watch it, yes all of it, before going on a tantrum and trashing it. The same applies to an Inconvenient Truth. Watch both get, multiple sources, both view points.

A few things in the show which stick out at me;
-the history of the earth and its constant fluctuation in temperature, and constant fluctuation in CO2 and how the two don't over history corelate(lag in 800 years that p-fog keeping going on about)

-the CO2 as a pollutant concept, rather than the a part of the natural earth which is what they are, the documentary points out that Volcano's produce more CO2 every year than all the cars, planes, trains, & factories in the world

-history of global warming as a theory, as the scientific world freaked out in the 70's about global cooling one Swed talked about Global Warming and everyone called him nuts, now its the other way around, also the tie in with Thatcher seeking to promote nuclear power saw Global Warming as a way to do it put big money on the table to prove Global Warming, thing gained traction, more money available, media attention, and here we are

the censoring on the IICC report, and sensationalizing in other reports and speculation

- lastly the holding back of the industrilization of Africa, and the romanticizing of peasant life, Environmentalists and Western governments putting pressure on African countries to hold back on building factories, and using coal and oil but instead use solar power, something thats much more expensive and inefficient. Meanwhile hospitals go with out power, and life extremely low life expectancies continue

This reminds me of the far gone lefties successfully convincing African governments to ban genetically engineered food because there against genetically engineered food. The idea that any food is better than no food seems lost on them.

I have to do some more thinking before I complettly make up my mind on the industrialization vs. traditional lifestyle of third world debate. They both have there pros and cons.

I struggle to keep a float in a High School science class so its hard for me to judge the all the different info out there on global warming. However having seen both films this one provides far more voices and examples than “The Inconvenient Truth”. Its unfortunate that those who question global warming are immediately demonized. I'm open minded towards the subject, as of right now I lean to pfogs view of things. Environmental efforts I feel should be concentrated on clean water and air, and as GBFC says cutting back on oil consumption. I think Robert Kennedy Jr. exposes some of those issues in his “Crimes Against Nature” which is an excellent read.

 

Yes I did submit it... and you dont see it do you.

I qualified myself as an engineer with no cred in climate but pointed out those kinetic effects.

But others asked that as well.... and it's not answered.

Mind "Swindled" WAS a propaganda piece as much as anything. And simplistic.

And I think SOME factors just WRONG. Volcanos... I think RealClimate is right about that... it's not believable.

But why do the scientists whine about that... when they are guilty of doing the same?


RealClimate 'Swindled' comment thread
Another problem I have is the statement in that thread about Sun forcings, they comment on -and, rightfully, pooh-pooh- the earth orbit deviation factor but the greater influence of radiation changes is ignored. Both the direct influence and the effect on Cosmic Ray cloud formation.

And when the Mars' similar climate change is brought up, they disparage it in terms of "each planet has its own climatology" .
While responding to any inconvenient fact with "There are myriad complicated factors affecting.."
Ummmmm... and they complain about 'Swindled"!!!!
I'm sorry, I see evidence my own college experiences with 'academic experts' were not unusual and distinct. Any efforts to suggest that these guys arent "Political' and 'biased' in favor of their own viewpoint seems compromised.

Summary: Swindled is indeed a propaganda piece for Climate Change cynics... but that doesnt mean the points it makes are WRONG!

The Earth is warming... I dont think ANYONE disputes that. The question though is NOT REALLY how much of it is due to human influence but how much Humans can do to slow the effect, HOW it can be done, and at what cost.

Of course, I also dispute the effects on sea level and weather. The reality has never fit the model.