PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE (Did GGWS present inaccurate information?)

Media Lens ^ | 03/13/2007

[Reaganesque]

The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility. In September 2006, the Times reported the latest findings from researchers writing in the top journal, Nature:

“Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. ‘The solar contribution to warming... is negligible,’ the researchers wrote in the journal Nature.” (Anjana Ahuja, ‘It's hot, but don't blame the Sun,’ The Times, September 25, 2006)

So, the Sun, our source of heat; our furnace, if you will; the thing that provides us with sufficient warmth that life may flourish on this planet and without which we would all freeze to death, couldn't possibly have anything to do with global climate change. Right. Talk about beggaring belief. Solar "proxies" were looked at over a period of 1,000 years. What does that mean? Satellites over the past 30 years? Which satellites? Communications? Spy? What? Add to this the fact that they simply dismiss it out of hand throwing out this quote and then quickly moves on to another topic.

What really convinces me that anthropogenic GW supporters are wrong, is their uncanny imitation of those in history who threw other scientists in jail or burnt them at the stake for disagreeing with the orthodoxy. Their arguments are highly emotional and utterly violate the Scientific Method. They shriek like the pod people from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" when they discover someone who dares to question their conclusions. And then there's the fact that they all come up with the same solution: Government regulation. More money into their coffers. More taxes. The world's Capitalists are to blame!! We must punish the Capitalists!! We need more government control of the means of production! We need Socialism!! That is the consensus they're really talking about.

The above author claims that Channel 4's show contained "the language of polemic and smear." And yet, in the "scholarly" rebuttal that follows, the author relies heavily on just that kind of language, citing journalists and true believers in the Anthropogenic GW community whose chief argument against those who participated in the film is "they're paid off by Big Oil." Then, the author really tips his or her hat at the end when he or she claims that Blair falsified pre-war intelligence. That's an argument from the Left. No objectivity there. This is agenda driven science, which is no science at all. Rationality and reason indeed.

[Blind Eye Jones]

I just had a "heated" debate with my daugher-in-law who watched the movie and whose first impression was that these guys are bitter. She took environmental science at college but couldn't really refute the movies claims, but said the scientists were nobodies or were wrong according to her textbook (which she will show me eventually). People can get very emotional about this stuff.

[NicknamedBob]

"People can get very emotional about this stuff."

That's one of the things that puzzles me. The emotionalism.

You'd think the world was coming to an end or something.

Global warming will expand the temperate zone and the growing seasons. It will unlock glaciated areas to agriculture. It will allow freer navigation in the Northern Hemisphere.

It's true that wide areas which are low-lying will have to be abandoned, but we will have centuries to accommodate the migrations.

It's not the end of the world. It's just change.

[qam1]

-- So temperatures go down but, in effect, go up? Temperature was being masked for 40 years? And how do they explain the rise in temperature before the 1940s when there was no great out put of C02?

It is BS, back then China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc weren't as industrialized as they are today, so there are actually more "sulphate aerosols" being released today in the world then there was back then when it was basically just us, yet the Earth isn't cooling.

THis photo was taken by NASA in 2005, of Aerosol pollution over Northern India and Bangladesh

[Names Ash Housewares]

"People can get very emotional about this stuff."

Clearly.

I mean I get emotional when people deny the moon landing say.

I am all for scientific process and proper handling of this issue, but many are quick to blame it on humanity and to jump to conclusions of future doom and demand drastic actions be taken. Or as with Gore, riding a political surfboard on the global warming caused by man wave. A wave he helps create and profits from. That is not science.

People with degrees hard earned can be quite condesending and judgmental when you challenge them.

I demand reasonable scientific proof humans cause it, and even then, nobody can predict the future, they cannot claim to know the things they do that have not happened yet. Nobody has that power. They cannot predict the next three days weather accurately, let alone 100 years. They blew the hurricane predictions last year too. How can we trust that crappy record of prediction?

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore

"over-representation of factual presentations" is clearly NOT science and truly manipulative politics of fear.

[qam1]

My mistake the photo is from 2001 not 2005. But the arguement still stands. Nothing in the 1940's-1970's approched anywhere near as bad as that.

[Exton1]

You got that right! This article is PURE propaganda. It is meant to deflect, and confuse the issue. What the Left does is try to confuse and bully. Look how they try to make it seem that they are pure and are not paid for their answers, and make a mountain out of a mole hill.
The following attacks Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels by mentioning some money they may or may not have gotten, meanwhile no mention is make of the BILLIONS spent by Socialist Governments to prove a manmade connection to global warming. “Journalist Ross Gelbspan noted that in May 1995, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities”
Another explanation of the flowing “I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby.” Is you don’t bite the hand the feeds you. If you’re getting BILLIONS to prove manmade global warming, you don’t attract or support those that disagree because you WILL get your funding close.

Like the other Manmade or Anthropogenic Global Warming pushers, this article STATES NOT FACTS. All it does is attack the messenger without substantiating there claims. When they can’t find a legitimate scientific fact they make one up. Look at this lie “In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere.” WELL KNOW? BY WHO? The term “sulphate aerosols” is a new made up term by the Global Warming pushers, which you will not find in any publication prior to about 1995. The problem is that Sulfates are salts that contain a charged group of sulfur and oxygen atoms: SO , the basic constituent of sulfuric acid. The biggest contributor of Sulfur is Volcano’s, but if they said that then they could not blame man, and again any global warming would be natural. Also, funny how they start in 1945 with the sulphate aerosols. Let’s see what happened big in the world around that time. Oh yea, WWII. In which just about all the worlds manufacturing was destroyed except for those in the USA. So, you see again it’s only the fault of the USA for Global Warming. Funny how they did not mention the big coal mine fire in China that has been polluting for about 80 years. Could it be that one its not in the USA, and two its natural?

Notice that Al Gores film is the total truth and the Great Global Warming Swindle (GGWS) is “deeply deceptive”? At the beginning they talk about the polar bears, but never state that GGWS was correct and Al Gore had it wrong. No instead of arguing facts they state “interviewees had also been misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes” making the makers of the film appear to be unethical and therefore nothing in the film should be considered. This is right out of the STALINIST hand book, by making the scientist in the film to appear to be either mislead or tricked, or worse paid off by big what ever the evil corporations du jour is.
The writers should be subjected to ridicule, and the readers should start to realize when they are being played by this Marxist propaganda.

[Brad from Tennessee]

Thanks TMAN.

[Dave Olson]

These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”. By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2.

There's something about this that doesn't make sense to me.

Energy doesn't just disappear. These particles wouldn't be able to brake solar energy without getting hotter themselves. Since these partcles come in direct contact with either the rest of the atmosphere or with the the earth itself, the heat they absorbed would get transferred to the earth anyway. So it seems to me that whatever heat that's missing from the solar energy that was "braked" would be made up for by the heat from these very particles.

[PizzaDriver]

Look at CO2 like a Stockmarket Analist would. It is a "trailing indicator". It confirms what HAS HAPPENED.

It has never been a valid PREDICTOR.

[seastay]

This article is more than deceptive it is looney, with comments like :

“The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.”

Or

“particles In the (atmosphere) have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”

Note they admit the data doesn’t show warming, even though they are arguing the data should show warming, and accuse the film maker as being deceptive, simply for pointing out the truth!

“We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments. Antarctic ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years behind temperature rises at specific times in the geological past.”

But in the the same paragraph it is stated

“the 800-year lag happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years”

Again they make the accusation that the film claim is deceptive, then they actually agree with the claim, there are 800 year lags between global temperature rise and CO2, which proves that in some cases temp rise could causes Co2 and not the other way around.

“Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic change in the Earth's orbit around the sun.”

But they also say that the films hypnotists that global warming can be caused by the sun is deceptive

“The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility”

So which is it , does the sun play a role in warming or not? Apparently they are very confused!

But here is the doozy:

” a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance.”

So If the relative masses of CO2 are irrelevant, assuming we can also talk about the additional gasses caused by humans, then what is all the fuss about? Laugh, You can’t make this stuff up, too funny, the mass of Co2 gasses which would have to also include those that are added by humans, are irrelevant now, only because it suits the relative goal to repudiate the movie, even thought it refutes their own claims at the same time?

[justa-hairyape]

The fact that this article cavalierly dismisses the idea that the sun may be the driving force in Earth's warming would seem to conflict with this more generally observed extra-planetary warming.

I am still trying to grapple with the fact that I am a member of a species that would even consider 'cavalierly dismissing' the sun.

Is our species really this dumb ?

[Turborules]

Thanks I will report back<;o))

[preacher]

The quote below is from:
http://www.junkscience.com/
It was on the home page Feb 2 2007. They archive their articles so it is probably there now.

My comment in the article: This is remarkable. It, the IPCC Working Group, is stating that the actual report due in 3 months will be edited to agree with the summary issued today (Feb 2)!

Article:

"As everyone is probably by now aware, Friday, February 2, 2007 marks the release of the IPCC's political document: Assessment Report 4, Summary for Policymakers. The media seem to be operating under the misapprehension this is equivalent to the release of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis -- this is regrettably neither true nor even close to the truth.

Bizarrely, the actual report will be retained for another three months to facilitate editing -- to suit the summary! IPCC procedures state that: Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15) -- this is surely unacceptable and would not be tolerated in virtually any other field (witness the media frenzy because language was allegedly altered in some US climate reports).

Under the circumstances we feel we have no choice but to publicly release the second-order draft report documents so that everyone has at least the chance to compare the summary statements with the underlying documentation. It should not be necessary for us to break embargo and post raw drafts for you to verify a summary of publicly funded documentation (tax payers around the world have paid billions of dollars for this effort -- you own it and you should be able to access it).

Reluctantly then, here is the link to our archive copy of the second-order draft of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. The second-order draft was distributed in 2006, 5 years into what has so far been a 6 year process and these copies were archived last May."

[mo]

reminds me of the great Dupont Freon Swindle of the 1980's......

[Enduring Freedom]

ggws left a mark!

now the charges of neo-conservative (what the phuck is that?) against the scientists

exactly as predicted - the left resorts to personal attacks and smears to support their lies

bury the cockroaches

[Enduring Freedom]

class, each planet in the solar system is now reacting similar to earth
what is it that is common among all the planets in our solar system?
is their some kind of link, commonality, association, that all the planets in our solar system share?
anyone?
anyone?

[Enduring Freedom]

this pig of an author is dripping with disdain for the iraq war, blair, and conservatives

the media is the enemy of truth, reason and freedom

this is war

[justa-hairyape]

About the only way the aerosol particles could contribute to cooling would be if they reflected light particles (solar energy) away from the planet. But as the earlier poster stated and demonstrated with an image, the Far East (population ~2 Billion) is pumping out more aerosol pollutants then us capitalistic Americans (200-300 million) did a few decades ago. So no warming should be occurring now if these aerosols caused cooling a few decades ago. Besides, if an increase in retained energy or heat was the primary affect we are currently experiencing, we should not be setting any new cold temperature records. Yet, we did here a few months ago. Also had snow on the ground for the first time in about 25 years. This was followed 4 weeks later by new heat records. Strange extremes indeed. My guess would be that energetic input is the primary current affect. Mostly caused by increased solar radiation along with some increase in human produced energy. So we have some general warming along with stronger extremes in winter and summer. I think in the short run perhaps dealing with the extremes is going to be more important then dealing with a slight warming trend which may not last very long.

[Enduring Freedom]

media lens casts a jaded eye at corporations

corporations, you see, are the cause of human suffering

as much credibility as co2 causes global warming

we are at war freepers, and it is time to attack these scumbags with extreme prejudice, relentlessly

ridicule these fools at every turn with questions like:

if this is the warmest since the 1800's, what caused the rise in temperature then? they didn't have suv's, did they?

when i was in school, i was taught that glaciers once covered much of north america, and even created the great lakes when they melted - why did the glaciers form, and why did they eventually melt? how did that happen without man's intervention in the past?

if the planet is too hot, why are some places like china getting colder? what is the right temperature of the earth? who gets to control the world's thermostat?