Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/07/2008 10:28:18 PM PST by Entrepreneur
The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet
Some people have asked me for copies of, or links to videos that provide an alternative view to Gore’s “consensus” on anthropogenic (i.e., man caused) global warming (AGW). A few of these videos have been broadcast in the United States (e.g., Glenn Beck, John Stossel), but most have not and probably will not be seen. Fortunately, we have the Internet to make these available.
Part I: Documentaries is available here
Part II: Lectures is available here
Part III: Debates
Glenn Beck Interviews Martin Durkin (6:07)
This short video is a set up for the following one. Glenn Beck interviews the producer of “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Beck asks Durkin what he can expect when Beck’s special on global warming airs. “Oh, welcome to hell,” warned Durkin. Based on the reaction he’s encountered, Durkin says he’s amazed any scientist would speak out in opposition the AGW theory.
Australian Broadcasting Company Debate About Swindle
The Great Global Warming Swindle was aired in Australia. Give the Aussies credit for showing the documentary and for assembling a balanced panel to debate it after it aired. However, Tony Jones, the moderator did a hit job on Martin Durkin, the guy who produced the documentary. Jones loves to make ad hominem attacks. Since Jones crafted his attack journalism so that no one had a legitimate opportunity to respond on video some extensive clarifications are required before the video links. These are below.
He notes that Carl Wunsch claimed his views were misrepresented. It’s hard to see how when you watch the documentary (he’s included in most of the versions making the rounds on the Internet). Apparently they cut a section where he bowed to the high priests of global warming dogma, acknowledging that global warming is occurring. He’s probably worried about future grant money and excommunication. Nevertheless, Wunsch was removed from the DVD release.
When the documentary aired in the U.K, 2.5 million people watched it. Channel 4 said 800 viewers contacted the network and the positive responses outweighed the negatives by 6 to 1. Tony Jones trots out one of those opposed to the documentary, George Monbiot who is presented as a “journalist.”
Monbiot (known in some circles as “Moonbat”) is hardly a mere journalist. He is a hard left advocate and protester. He’s proud of sit-ins where he led people to take over private property to prevent development.
Monbiot seems to have a grudge against Durkin. He’s attacked him repeatedly in the press and prepared his own documentary to counter Swindle. It aired the week before Swindle and immediately after the documentary. This hardly sounds like someone who popped an email to Channel 4 to complain about the documentary.
In his book, “The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order,” Monbiot advocates the destruction of capitalism. In “Heat: how to stop the planet burning,” he advocates energy rationing where everyone is given an “icecap,” which is our allowable emissions. He thinks air travel simply must end. In short, the guy’s got some very extreme views. While Brits may know this, Aussies may not. Jones doesn’t let his Australian audience in on Monbiot’s background.
Jones says British Channel 4 is “the station that likes to shock.” Wait, I thought it was Al Gore’s movie that was meant to shock?
Jones notes that Channel 4 had to make a public apology following, “Against Nature,” a Durkin documentary series about flaws in the environmental movement. The greenies were upset that anyone would criticize them so they organized a campaign to try and have the series censored. Channel 4 was part of the ITC network at the time. According to the ITC, “The ITC did not uphold the majority of the complaints. However, the programmes breached the Programme Code in respect of the failure to make the four interviewees adequately aware of the nature of the programmes, and the way their contributions were edited. The Commission directed Channel 4 to issue an on-screen apology to the individuals concerned.”
Sounds bad, huh? But then, why did Financial Times writer, Christopher Dunkley list it as one of the top ten TV highlights of the year? Dunkley wrote, "Against Nature is one of the most brilliantly successful and persuasive pieces of polemic it has ever been my pleasure to watch on television. Producer/director Martin Durkin sets out to show that while the greens may fancy themselves as folk heroes and rebels there is good reason to see them as timid and dangerous conservatives. The programme takes up jewel after jewel in the green crown and shows them to be fakes … Given the notorious inability of politicians to catch even the most important television programmes, it might be an idea if this one were loaded onto a cassette and screened on the Westminster monitors, on the hour, every hour, for a week or so."
It sounds to me like Durkin interviewed a few environmentalists without letting them know that he was doing an expose on the extreme views of some members of the movement and edited their long responses down to the most outlandish statements, letting their own words make them sound like idiots. This isn’t the best journalist practice, but it’s hardly unique. It’s standard practice for investigative television in the U.S. and, to be fair, there’s seldom room for long answers. Tony Jones must agree since he clearly edited Durkin’s answers in his interview with him.
Jones claims that the Durkin documentary, “Storm in a D Cup” made the case that silicone helped women prevent breast cancer. Not having seen it, I don’t know. However, if the documentary was as bad as Jones hints, why was it named “Best Science Documentary of the Year” by the British Medical Association? Why didn’t Jones include that tidbit?
Obviously, there must be more to the documentary than the simple claim that silicone helps prevent breast cancer. Yet, that’s all Jones mentions. Isn’t this selective editing the exact same thing Durkin had to apologize for in “Against Nature?”
A point/counterpoint on Durkin’s other work is besides the point. It’s merely an attempt to discredit Durkin and try to extend it to discredit the case made in Swindle. Jones is avoiding the argument of ideas and attacking the producer of the work.
Next, Jones hammers Fred Singer because he was director of the National Weather Satellite Service way back in 1962 to 1964. Maybe Durkin should have mentioned that Singer founded the National Weather Satellite Service and served as its first director. He says Singer is skeptical about many things, including the connection between sunlight and melanoma from the paper “Ozone, Skin Cancer, and the SST,” published in Aerospace America in July, 1994.
In the paper Singer reported the findings of Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Richard Setlow in the July 1993 “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” Setlow’s research suggested that UV-A may be more responsible for skin cancer than UV-B. Environmentalists, at the time, were attempting to have the SST (supersonic transport) banned because it would destroy the ozone layer. Singer advocated proceeding with deliberation, rather than rashly.
Singer concluded, “My general conclusion, based on a quarter century of involvement in the ozone controversy, is that policies should not be applied too hastily and might well benefit from a firmer science base. Furthermore, policies should be flexibly constructed so as to accommodate to a science base that inevitably undergoes change as new discoveries are made. While lip service is often paid to these principles, in practice they are outweighed by the precautionary principle (‘We must act now, even if we are not sure that this policy will do us any good’) and by the ‘public choice’ paradigm (‘Policies self-reinforce and entrench themselves as they build up constituencies;). The unfortunate outcome may be an unconscionable waste of resources, a consequent loss of public trust, and a real setback to the environmental effort.”
He also says Singer is skeptical about the impact of second hand smoke and lung cancer from the paper “The EPA and the Science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke,” published by the Tobacco Institute in 1999. To be fair, Singer critiqued the scientific method employed by the EPA and exposed fallacies in their economic analysis. His skepticism was limited to the EPA’s methodology and approach.
Singer wrote, “Skeptics should consider that whenever a tobacco firm makes a statement in regard to smoking and health, it is generally discounted by its critics because of the ‘special interest’ it holds in the issue. This is no less applicable to the ‘special interests’ of the EPA. The bureaucracies of the federal government are strongly interested in justifying budget increases and increasing the scope and importance of their assigned responsibilities. Yet that does not excuse disregard for the scientific method or sound economic analysis. EPA personnel have a duty to conduct the best science possible and report the results fully and honestly.”
Jones notes that Singer also was skeptical about the role of CFCs play in depleting the ozone layer, quoting his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives in 1996 (not something he wrote in 1999 as Jones reports) where Singer said, “Currently available scientific evidence does not support a ban on the production of chlorofluorocarbons.”
Tony Jones may consider this damning, but is it? Is it possible that the Montreal Protocol and the banning of CFCs is merely a precursor of today’s global warming hysteria?
In his testimony Singer concluded, “Promoters of the CFC-ozone depletion theory have insisted that governments take drastic action--even without firm scientific evidence--because if we don't do something now it will soon be too late. I disagree. If we don't know the extent of a problem--or if it exists at all--then we cannot be sure that the actions taken will have any beneficial effect.”
“We are flying blind on this issue, at a huge cost to the U.S. economy and ultimately to every American household. In less developed countries, absence of low-cost refrigeration--for food preservation and vaccines--could, unfortunately, exact an even higher price in human lives.”
Why does Jones try to discredit Singer with these three items? Maybe it’s too hard to go after his credentials. Singer’s not some quack. He’s got a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton, has written over a dozen books and over 400 papers. Check out his bio.
In Swindle, Durkin cites an article in the Wall Street Journal by Frederick Seitz that was critical of the IPCC. Jones criticizes its appearance because the article was written in 1996. He then attacks Seitz as being a “passive smoking and ozone skeptic.” He also founded and chaired the “right wing” George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank funded by Exxon Mobile.
The Marshall Institute is a leading think tank, just one that Tony Jones happens to disagree with. An organization cannot attract a Board of Directors like the Marshall Institute without being reputable.
Jones vaguely notes that Seitz got into trouble for publishing a paper refuting global warming that appeared like a National Academy of Science document. Actually, Seitz wrote a recruitment cover letter, lending his support to the Petition Project of nearly 20,000 scientists and climatologists who disagree with the need for drastic action to avert AGW. The petition was first mailed to a huge number of scientists and an accompanying paper was formatted to look like an NAS paper. This was the work of a staffer and it is doubtful Seitz even knew about it. Seitz is on record saying, “It was stupid,” to copy the NAS format.
Tony Jones fails to note that Seitz was the first fulltime President of the National Academy of Sciences, was President of the American Physical Society, is President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and is a recipient of the National Medal of Science. Even PBS considers him “an eminent physicist.” But why report information that makes him credible?
That’s all Jones can find wrong with Swindle’s experts? Jones is picking nits. Here’s the full list:
Professor Tim Ball – Dept of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
Professor Nir Shaviv – Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem
Lord Lawson of Blaby
Professor Ian Clark – Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Piers Corbyn – Climate Forecaster, Weather Action
Professor John Christy – Lead Author, IPCC
Professor Philip Scott – Dept of Biogeography, University of London
Professor Paul Reiter – IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris
Professor Richard Lindzen – IPCC & M.I.T.
Patrick Moore – Co-Founder, Greenpeace
Dr. Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA
Professor Patrick Michaels – Dept of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Nigel Calder – Former Editor, New Scientist
James Shikwati – Economist & Author
Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Director, International Arctic Research Center
Professor Frederick Singer – Former Director, U.S. National Weather Service
Professor Carl Wunsch – Dept of Oceanography, M.I.T.
Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Center
Paul Driessen – Author, Green Power, Black Death
This far, Jones has avoided the science, so he puts Professor Andrew Pitman, a climatologist from the University of New South Wales on camera to refute the fact that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. It’s pretty funny to watch this guy try to reason out how a minor increase in CO2 that’s well within historic levels is like the Ebola Virus. Really, can’t these guys come up with a better argument?
I guess not. Next, Jones calls on Dr. Mark Duldig, a Solar Physicist with the Australian Antarctic Division says that ozone is a small part of the atmosphere too and we know the effect it has blocking UV rays. Thus, a small level of CO2 has a big impact?
Hey, let’s not confuse things with the facts, like the fact that IPCC’s own “forcings” for CO2 are logarithmic, so that the impact quickly diminishes into almost no impact.
In his interview of Durkin, Jones makes a big deal about Durkin’s claim that the medieval warm period is warmer than today, claiming that he used an old chart and not the IPCC charts. Durkin fails to note that this chart came straight from the first IPCC assessment report, but does say that he’s not adding to the original, which is a famous chart by Hubert Lamb. It stopped at 1990, so Durkin left it alone. He’s trying to show the historical context, but doesn’t explain it well.
Durkin looks a little like the deer in the headlights. I presume that Tony Jones didn’t prepare Durkin for a hostile interview. I can imagine a Martin Durkin rather pleased that this Aussie is going to show his documentary and is flying half way around the world for an interview. At last, a positive interview, thinks Durkin. It must be positive. After all, the Aussies and the U.S. were the two lone hold outs on Kyoto and they were going to broadcast the documentary. Surprise. Tony Jones is doing a hit piece and Durkin’s ill-prepared.
Under attack by Jones, Durkin does say that he refuses to use the most recent IPCC charts because they brushed out the medieval warm period and little ice age (note: the IPCC dropped them from the latest assessment report). He’s entirely correct. Frankly, an extension of the charts doesn’t change things. Today’s temperature, 1998 notwithstanding, is still less than the Medieval Warm Period. It’s still less than 1934.
If Tony Jones wants to focus on selectively cutting off chart data, the IPCC gives him plenty of opportunity. See paragraph 1 on page 963 and the chart on page 964. Moreover, the latter appears to be purely fraudulent.
Tony Jones hammers on Durkin about the Temp & Solar Activity chart from Friis-Christensen & Svensmark. Jones turns to Stephen Schneider to refute it. He could hardly have selected a less credible source. Stephen Schneider is the guy who was quoted in Discover Magazine in 1989 saying, “We are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Jones claims the temperature goes up and solar activity declines after the date where Durkin stops. Jones provides his own animation to show a vast divergence. This divergence is a fantasy of extrapolation by Jones. Solar activity remains correlated to temperature, even when extended forward.
Jones did call Durkin on a gap in a graph, which Durkin acknowledged. It wasn’t significant and has been corrected. Jones shift tactics to point out how Durkin has corrected errors in the film. He asks why were there so many errors in the beginning.
Jones says, “You could make the case that the documentary itself is as changing as the weather.”
Showing good humor, Durkin laughs and complements Jones on his quip.
Jones changes tact again. He focuses on why Durkin pulled Wunch. Durkin claims Wunch called him saying he was being berated by peer scientists for appearing in the documentary and wanted to be taken out. Wunch denies this, but it seems credible to me. Also, Wunch’s part does not appear to have been edited much to me. He’s basically used to make the case that the oceans are big repositories of CO2, releasing it when it warms and absorbing it when it cools. Wunch also shows that it takes a long time to have an effect.
Greenie websites all over the Internet seem to feel that Tony Jones took apart Martin Durkin and thoroughly discredited Swindle. Not so. Jones presented his side, without real challenge. Unfortunately, he engaged in fallacious arguments, attacked people (not their message), and zeroed in on trivia. The documentary stands.
What if Gore were treated similarly to the way Jones treats Durkin?
Gore would be discredited for a history or lies and delusions of grandeur. Gore fantasized that he made major contributions to Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 acceptance speech. He said, “I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” He claims to have written the Superfund law.
No one would want to consider severely curtailing world economic activity on the basis of a guy who got a C- in the only economics course he took, got 488 out of 800 on his physics college board achievement test and 519 out of 800 on chemistry, despite benefiting from one of the nation’s top private prep schools. Who would accept the anthropogenic global warming expertise of someone who earned a D in his college course, “Man’s Place in Nature” and a C+ in his only other Natural Sciences course. Who would listen to the moral sermonizing of a man who got failed five courses in Divinity School before “dropping out,” setting a pattern. He was later, a law school drop out. What did Gore excel in? Apparently government. And we’re supposed to change our entire way of life based on this guy’s science?
Mysteriously, Gore seems to have parlayed his $1 million net worth into more than $100 million since leaving public office. The environmentalists worry about big oil influencing the debate. Maybe the rest of us should worry about big money influencing the debate in the form of carbon trading schemes, which Gore appears to be profiting from immensely.
You can’t attack the expert scientists in Gore’s movie because there are none. He’s the only expert. However, you can look at the people behind the movie. Take Laurie Lennard David. She’s an activist in a radical environmental group. Her children’s book on global warming has been proven fraudulent.
David founded another radical group that takes out ads accusing SUV drivers of being terrorists and the real reason for 9/11. The ads are so over the top that most television stations refused to air them.
She admits to yelling at people driving SUVs on the highway and has said, “These cars should just have 'pig' spray-painted on them.” Yet, she lives in a mansion and travels by private jet.
It’s okay when Laurie David lives in a mansion. You see the house is used “to gather hundreds of people for eco-salons." It serves the "greater environmental good."
As far as the jet goes, she does feel guilty. "Yes,” she said, “I take a private plane on holiday a couple of times a year, and I feel horribly guilty about it. I probably shouldn't do it. But the truth is, I'm not perfect." Not perfect, but very sanctimonious and pious.
David and singer, Sheryl Crow, toured the country in a “biodiesel bus” to sanctimoniously tell us how to live. On ABC’s Good Morning America, Crow crowed about their bus, “Isn’t it cool? We're just trying to cut down on carbon emissions. And we’re running on vegetable oil, basically. And most tours are trying to do that. Yeah, we’re just trying to go totally green, spread the message.”
But when they traveled from the SMU concert in Dallas to the Texas A&M concert in College Station, it seems Laurie David flew. And while there’s no record of other buses besides the bio-diesel, Crow’s normal tour entourage includes three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars.
Tony Jones liked to pick at minor issues with Swindle. There are major ones with Gore’s movie. In fact, it’s so erroneous, it’s been ruled unfit to show school children by a court of law. Bob Carter outlined twenty factual inaccuracies in testimony. Lord Monckton provided additional court testimony to the flaws in Gore’s movie. Monckton provided a more exhaustive list of 35 errors in a separate list. The “National Review” listed 25 errors. Marlo Lewis wrote an entire book outlining the errors in Gore’s movie and has made it available free. One wonders who anyone can take Gore seriously.
Enough set up…
AIT Producer Laurie David is Asked About Points From Swindle (8:00)
A CNBC reporter catches Laurie David, producer of Gore’s movie, during her “biodiesel bus” tour of college campuses. It’s not really much of a debate. The vapid have their limits after all. Watch it and you’ll find why most Greenies want to avoid debate. By the way, this takes place at Texas A&M, where Laurie David was seen jetting in, rather than taking the biodiesel bus from Dallas.
Robert Kennedy Calls American Energy Companies Traitors
How can this guy get elected? If companies don’t agree with his extreme views, he considers them treasonous. RFK Jr calls the American Enterprise Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute phony think tanks. He can’t believe that Exxon has given a whopping $19 million to causes he disagrees with (what does the government spend on the other side… $5-6 billion?). Kennedy says John Stossel is “lying and lying repeatedly.” He says the Arctic is melting, which has nothing to do with global warming (Check this and this and this). Kennedy either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or is lying himself. Kennedy also parrots the green line on glaciers, which is another deception.
Kennedy also refers to Admiral Woolsey’s support of his view, as though that is reason we should all bow to Gore. Here’s what Woolsey actually had to say about global warming in congressional testimony: “Although the point is not universally accepted, the weight of scientific opinion suggests that global warming gases (GWG) produced by human activity are one important component of potential climate change.”
What the military leaders say is a threat to national security is our dependence on foreign oil, which is entirely different than saying global warming is a threat to national security. Get it right Little Bobby.
Stossel appears on the show and makes Kennedy look horrible by comparison (i.e., a reasonable person contrasted with a lunatic). Stossel notes Kennedy claimed mercury and vaccines have poisoned an entire generation.
Glenn Beck Interviews RFK Jr (10:05)
More of Kennedy. Can you believe this man actually sits in our Congress, in America? AMERICA? Be very, very scared.
Notice how anyone who disagrees with Kennedy must be phony, on the payroll of “big oil,” and an industry thug. Beck calls him on it by asking how many global warming advocates get money from the Sierra Club. According to Kennedy, Sierra Club money is pure.
Intelligence Squared Debate
The motion is that “global warming is not a crisis.” Arguing for the motion are author Michael Crichton, MIT’s Richard Lindzen, and the University of London’s Philip Stott. Against the motion are the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Brenda Ekwurzel, the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies’ Gavin Schmidt, and Scripp’s Institute of Oceanography’s Richard Somerville.
The debate took place before the GISS was forced to revise temperature downward due to Hansen’s mistakes. Crichton takes apart notion of scientific consensus. Somerville makes the claim that CO2 is much worse than water, which is refuted. When Schmidt starts talking about cutting edge climate science, Stott raises cosmic rays, which Schmidt mocks.
Schmidt can’t seem to believe that anyone would opposed energy conservation, but his opponents do when it doesn’t make economic sense. Here’s an example. As one of the last bills he signed before leaving office, Clinton raised air conditioning efficiency standards 30%. How can that be bad? That’s good, right? Well, it depends. For someone living in a 1,500 square foot home in Topeka, Kansas, the new standard will save about $50 a year over the old standard. But the cost of the more efficient air conditioners is 40% more. The air conditioner won’t last long enough for the added cost to be paid back in energy savings. For anyone living in a climate with milder summers than Topeka, the savings are less, though the costs are the same. Because the costs are so much higher, many people are opting to repair old, very inefficient systems rather than replace them, dramatically reducing the projected energy savings since the old air conditioners are energy hogs. By mandating energy conservation, the government reduces consumer choice, which means the money can’t be used in other ways that would yield greater benefits.
Near the end, the debate shifted to the pure moral question. Those arguing the affirmative took the rational view that money was better spent on other global problems than carbon reductions. Those arguing the negative seemed to think there was plenty of money for everyone. Of course, only Crichton had anything close to a real job or a payroll.
Before the debate 30% of the audience agreed that global warming was not a crisis and 57% disagreed. After the debate, the opinion shifted so that 46% agreed warming was not a crisis, compared to 42% who disagreed. No wonder Gore won’t debate anyone and chastises anyone in the media who suggests there’s a need for a debate. Especially if one were to consider Gore’s recent political debating performances, he’d get smoked!
Debate On Larry King (8:23)
Bill Nye, Richard Lindzen, Julian Morris, and Heidi Cullen square off. Bill Nye says the gulf stream is going to stop. Richard Lindzen tries to keep from making fun of the guy by saying we’re scaring ourselves and Julian Morris talks about the costs and poor. Heidi Cullen says we’re seeing more droughts and heatwaves and the IPCC issued a big report, so there. Bill Nye pretty much admits he doesn’t know squat himself, though he says 100,000 scientists disagree with Lindzen. It seems like Lindzen has a hard time tolerating this idiot.
Debate on the Costs (7:49)
This aired on Sky TV in the UK. A financial analyst squared off against a Friends of the Earth talking head. The financial analyst noted that greenies overestimate costs of warming and underestimate any benefits. The FOE person fell back on some survey of 100 leading economists who support her view, stopping just short of saying, “The economics is settled. There is a consensus of mainstream economists. If you disagree, you’re an economics denier.” See a pattern here?
McLaughlin Report
Buchanan sees AGW as real, but a con that business will exploit to make money and governments will exploit to gain power. Tony Blankley brings up shale oil to counter that we will not run out of energy and makes the point that we will still be oil based. All of the money will be focused on marginal technologies with marginal effect.
Eleanor Clift feels that we are at risk of ending the planet. Buchanan broke out laughing at this. They debate the future of the internal combustion engine, with only Tony Blankley grounded in reality. Blankley is also the only one who seems to know that CO2 is not pollution.
Great links thanks
Bump for later reading.
bump & a ping
BFLR
ping for later reference...nice work here
Thanks for the pings, and bump for later reading. This is really an invaluable resoursce; thank you!
Find later
Global Warming on Free Republic
I thought RFK, Jr. was an activist, not a Congressman.
Holy Smoke that’s quite a piece. The problem is most people are quite willing to go along with the GW hysteria since it adds excitement to their otherwise dull lives.
Coming soon... "Part V: Humor"
Great work. Please ping me on Part VI if you’re keeping a list of pingees.
Marking for resource. Man, I wish I had enough time in the day to digest all this. A well-informed position on all-things anthropogenic GW is the best offense.
Thanks, E. Keep me posted.
Part III
Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
