Anti-Global Warming facts (Vanity)

The climate *change* industry is now a $200 billion dollar a year (and graowing) industry.

How much profit did Exxon/Mobil make last year? (2006)

About $40 billion. So the profits of one company were one-fifth of the so-called "climate change industry" total revenues (if your information is correct, and I'm not botherig to check).

What is my opinion now, of the AGW scientists who are profiteering from their lies??

In 20 years everyone will be so clear on who's lying now that it will be pitiful. In 10 years, it will probably be obvious. To me, it already is.

See post 51 again. The link there makes a very strong statement about who's being honest and who isn't. I excerpt the following:

"We defend the right of people to be sceptical, but for C4 [BBC Channel 4] to imply that the thousands of scientists and published peer-reviewed papers, summarised in the recent international science assessment, are misguided or lying lacks scientific credibility and simply beggars belief.” (Alan Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council, Brian Hoskins, University of Reading, Jo Haigh, Imperial College London, Myles Allen, University of Oxford, Peter Cox, University of Exeter, Colin Prentice, QUEST Programme, letter to the Observer, Sunday March 11, 2007;"

How a PR firm helped establish America's cigarette century

"These people would be central to the development of an industry scientific program in step with its larger public relations goals. Hill understood that simply denying the harms of smoking would alienate the public. His strategy for ending the "hysteria" was to insist that there were "two sides." ... This strategy -- invented by Hill in the context of his work for the tobacco industry -- would ultimately become the cornerstone of a large range of efforts to distort scientific process in the second half of the twentieth century."

And here's a little rewrite of a subsequent paragraph:

"During these meetings, both staffers and oil/energy/transportation executives continued to voice the conviction that the industry's entire future was threatened by the environmental and scientific findings linking increased atmospheric CO2 to global warming and the consequent widespread public anxieties about environmental degradation and the potential for future environmental damage." Because of the serious nature of the attack on fossil-fuel energy and the vast publicity given them in the daily press and in magazines of the widest circulation, a hysteria of fear appears to be developing throughout the country," ...

Ultimately, he concluded, the best public relations approach was for the industry to become a major sponsor of climate research. This tactic offered several crucial advantages. The call for new research implied that existing studies were inadequate or flawed. It made clear there was "more to know,"and it made the industry seem a committed participant in the scientific enterprise rather than a detractor."

AEI Letter Offers $10,000 Payments Only For Views Critical Of The IPCC Report

-hundreds of scientists have asked to have their name removed from that bogus IPCC political consensus report, many of them have been intimidated, and you know it.

And your tobacco industry comparison is ludicrous; as is your argument that Exxon is the bogeyman, merely because they made record profits selling an artificially scarce product we all need: fuel for transportation, while tobacco is an unneccesary recreational addictive drug.

But I've seen your fellow proponents of AGW say we are "addicted to oil", so I guess this is the tact your side has chosen to take. By the way, AlGore is worth more then 100 million dollars now so he's been making record profits too.

But I don't see you questioning his gains, or how he obtained them in part, with his fraudulent "documentary".

"In 20 years everyone will be so clear on who’s lying now that it will be pitiful. In 10 years, it will probably be obvious. To me, it already is."

I guess my lying eyes deceive me, when I read about record cold temperatures in places that were supposedly going to get WARMER.

-And yet more evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming:
It snowed in Baghdad yesterday, the first time in 100 years.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5huPkYk4bGVvo1Sa1tWeH-tgENiFw

BAGHDAD (AFP) — “Light snow fell in Baghdad early on Friday in what weather officials said was the first time in about a 100 years.

Rare snowfalls were also recorded in the west and centre of Iraq, plunging temperatures to zero degrees Centigrade (32 degrees Fahrenheit) and even colder, an official said...”

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5huPkYk4bGVvo1Sa1tWeH-tgENiFw

Have your son ask for the criteria used for the sites making the list.

“Time was, people warning the world “Repent - the end is nigh!” were snickered at as fruitcakes. Now they own the media and run the schools. How’d that happen?”
By Alan Siddons

(Question’s for your son and his teachers to chew on)

Why must the AGW crowd assume change will be horrible for humankind? In all situations some will lose, some will gain.

What is the perfect temperature for earth? Why?

If the perfect temperature is defined by allowing the maximum number of people can live comfortably, won’t this contribute greatly to overpopulation and further environmental harm?

If we can control the temperature, who decides what the temperature should be? What will we sacrifice in freedom to the group controlling the temperature?

Are we talking a UN based world temperature maintenance organization? Will they be armed soldiers? What enforcement powers will they have? Where will funding come from to pay for enforcement?

If energy use is the primary factor for consideration by the group controlling the earth’s temperature, won’t they decide who gets energy and who does not?

We’ve seen rationing of health care when it is government controlled. Would the USA’s energy be rationed by a world wide enforcement agency, because we have used more than our share already?

If an organization controls a country or a person’s energy use, do they need any other powers? Isn’t this the ultimate tool for complete and total dominance of a country?

If egalitarian energy use is the goal, will a developing country get subsidies for energy used and a world power pay many times current rates so as to equalize outcome?

I guess my lying eyes deceive me, when I read about record cold temperatures in places that were supposedly going to get WARMER.

Timely, then:

Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica

You can't understand global warming from weather variability. You can understand it by examining climate trends.

with his fraudulent "documentary".

I have seen zero evidence that his documentary was fraudulent. And if you start posting the list from the judge in Britain, there are multiple responses to that.

On the other hand, it's clear that tobacco companies paid scientists to produce and disseminate research findings which cast doubt on the links between smoking and cancer. It's also clear that oil companies have paid for similar "science" regarding climate and CO2. By the way, Steve Milloy used to be a tobacco company PR man before he moved on to climate, and he's equally trustworthy on both subjects.

>”I have seen zero evidence that his documentary was fraudulent.”<

-Oh, C,mon. Sea level rises of 20 feet?
Ocean conveyor belts being shut down by global warming??
The bogus story about all the polar bears dying???
How about his *implying* that stronger storms like Katrina were caused by global warming????
There were no major storms in 2006, the year after Katrina. But all sorts of bold predictions were made about 2006 being worse then 2005. Now, AlGoreites chaulk it up to "weather variability". More fraudulent BS.

The 35 inconvenient *errors* are far more believable then AlGores “truths”

-and the biggest fraud/lie in his movie is his implication of mosquitoes/malaria being a tropical insect/disease is a HUGE lie, as anyone who lives in Alaska will tell you.

-malaria outbreaks have been recorded in the northern areas of Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, (all areas close to the artic circle) waaaay back prior to the start of the 20th century

Sea level rises of 20 feet?

This is the scenario if the Greenland ice sheet collapses. He provided data on why this is a possibility for the 21st century, a likelihood with BAU warming in following centuries. From the response published in the Washington Post:

"Scientists agree that the melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels around six meters. The movie does not give a timescale for when that melting might occur. There are uncertainties in the scientific community about the timescale, but this uncertainty does not negate the need to seriously consider these scenarios when considering solutions to the climate crisis. IPCC estimates a sea level rise of 59 centimeters by 2100. However, they exclude any water contributed by the melting of Greenland or Antarctica because they don't know when either could happen."

Ocean conveyor belts being shut down by global warming??

Again from the Post response: "Simulations described in the latest IPCC report show a slowdown in the circulation by roughly 30 percent by 2100. Again, there are uncertainties, which were a bit lengthy to describe in a feature film documentary, but the future of the ocean conveyor really depends upon how quickly we take actions now to reduce the pollution that causes global warming. Multiple scientists have claimed that we cannot exclude the possibility of the disruption or shutdown of the Conveyor."

The bogus story about all the polar bears dying???

" Polar bears only exist in the Arctic and hunt and live on the ice. Where there is not enough ice, they are required to swim. The US Minerals Management Service (part of the US Department of Interior) reported new research in December 2005 about increased polar bear mortality due to reduced sea ice. At the same time, a study by the US Geological Survey and the Canadian Wildlife Service was previewed showing a major polar bear population drop (22 percent) in Hudson Bay in Canada--which was also believed to be linked to sea ice decline. Since 2005, more research has emerged in this area. In addition, Arctic sea ice decline was the lowest ever measured for minimum extent in 2007. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is now considering an Endangered Species Listing for the polar bear in part because of the impact that human-induced climate change is having on their habitat."

Scientists say drowned polar bears ominous

How about his *implying* that stronger storms like Katrina were caused by global warming????

"The film is careful not to ascribe any single weather event to climate change. However, in the film Mr. Gore does state, "There have been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger." He based that claim on research published in peer-reviewed journals from Dr. Kerry Emanuel, and several others, who have found a link between an increase in sea surface temperature and an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. Since then, further research has strengthened the science in this area with regards to a link between human-induced climate change and hurricane intensity. Mr. Gore has never addressed the issue of climate change and hurricane frequency."

The quoted responses are from An Inconvenient Truth: Team Gore Responds

I repeat: I have seen zero evidence that the documentary was fraudulent.

Supporting links:

The Misdirection of Gore

An error is not the same thing as an error

Even though I've never seen it (and I don't need to), the discussions of it with regard to the British judicial decision indicate that it there are points in the documentary that are not fully explained, and others which are overly dramatized. It's not a scientific paper; it's a documentary about a presentation designed to both explain the problem and catch/keep the attention of the audience. And that is what it is. But it does not appear to be fraudulent, anywhere.