Has anyone watched The Great Global Warming Swindle yet? I had meant to buy the DVD, but have found in on YouTube. Watching it now.
Printable View
Has anyone watched The Great Global Warming Swindle yet? I had meant to buy the DVD, but have found in on YouTube. Watching it now.
Aren't you always complaining about propaganda?
How is it propaganda when you disagree with it and insightful when you don't?
and I don't even think that GW is that big a deal.
"you libtards and your propaganda"
"hey... look at this great article from newsmax!"
Thing is, this documentary has put together the same things I have been saying for years, and more. I understand the sciences and this is not propaganda. So you understand what they say?Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
You can watch the first 30 seconds and tell it's just propaganda, just like Al Gore's movie was. Would a serious documentary resort to such childish sarcasm? I'd bet a watered down propaganda film meant for laymen conservatives to gobble up would though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'm not going to pretend I know all the minutia of the science behind it because I doubt very many people do (even you). I'm for going green not because I think the polar bears are gonna die off... I'm for it because I don't want San Antonio looking like Los Angeles in the morning.
All I know about global warming is that that giving a bunch of money to the government will make everything better. At least according to cap & trade.
Matt Welch in Reason, on the widely implied *hazard* of inaction.
I guess if that's all you watched, you can assume that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
That first 30 seconds is showing the propaganda of others, and ends with "It's not true."
Learn more about the filmmaker from Australian (sic?) tv:
Obtuse is the only word that comes to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'm tired of all the global warming propaganda. We need to just do whatever we want, the Earth will self-correct and adapt on a cosmological timescale. Worst case is we destroy all life permanently and end up like the thousands of other barren and lifeless worlds.
The atmosphere only contains 3% CO2 and we humans only contribute 3% of that 3%, or 0.09%.
That people have been led to believe that this will cause environmental catastrophe is definitlely one of the greatest swindles of all time.
They have to pass legislation quickly before the public realizes they've been had. Just look at the global temperature anomaly of the past 10 years.
Suckers.
This proves what?Quote:
The atmosphere only contains 3% CO2 and we humans only contribute 3% of that 3%, or 0.09%.
Is ten years a statistically significant portion of the data?Quote:
They have to pass legislation quickly before the public realizes they've been had. Just look at the global temperature anomaly of the past 10 years.
I wasn't aware that the question *what have you done for me lately?* clinched the argument for anti-AGW forces. What a mighty blow for your side. Kudos.
Good thing this board has *experts* like D to help me keep my head screwed on straight. I might have been in temporary danger of having a real thought in my head, instead of just a headline.
Whew.
That was close.
(Goes back to his regularly scheduled *Storm in a D-Cup* programming.)
A left wing "denier"
:sleep
You can't win politically on the science for or against. People don't understand it.
Vague appeals to unstated prejudices work much better.
Or, they only pretend to.Quote:
You can't win politically on the science for or against. People don't understand it.
That's why people are so easily duped. It's just too bad that the media is a willing advocate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I feel the same way about you and your train, D. You hopped on the anti-AGW short bus, instead of the AGW short bus. Big whup.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Even if you turn out to be completely right, the scorn you cast on others on this topic is gratuitous and completely unearned.
A rather indifferent reader such as you has little right to call others out for lack of scientific rigor IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I used to be on the AGW bus, but I've changed my mind based on years of researching this topic on my own.
Once you're convinced that the IPCC is a political organization (as well as the National Academy of Sciences), convincing yourself of anything anti-scientific is easy.
Years of researching. And you post Penn and Teller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Like you yourself said, most people are lost on the hard science.
Penn Jillette was at the first Earth Day in 1970. Were you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurster
I don't care what the IPCC is. All I know is that their predictions have already been wrong.
This guy is doing good work to point out the flaws in surface temperature measurement in the US. Kinda like how a kid will put a thermometer to a light bulb to fake a fever.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Crafty. You dabble in propaganda, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
What? I was three years old. This relates to what, please?Quote:
Penn Jillette was at the first Earth Day in 1970. Were you?
You have this annoying habit of redirecting the poster with a nonsensical question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I could just post my 127 bookmarks on the subject, but I don't think most people will invest the time do read them all.
Quote:
My question to you is, do you deliberately misdirect people, or is this an unconscious tic?
Please. I do respect you, but this is making that hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole the Lemming
The video you link here is the propaganda. It will take me time, but I am going over it. If you took the time to verify anything they said in it, you would realize you are a fool for believing it.
Please stop drinking the Kool-Aid and do some fact checking. This make you look real foolish.
WH,
Does it bother you that short-term predictions of the IPCC computer models have already been erroneous?
Does that give you more or less confidence in their long-term predictions?
i thought the science was settled?
:lmao
global warming is the new black and it's fading quickly
Well, your familiarity with the source material barely shows in your own posts, and if people are as dumb as you and I say they are, having previously gleaned no benefit from your posts, what good will following the links do them?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
For all the good they've apparently done you, I reckon I'll pass on the bookmarks too.
The sky is falling, The sky is falling.... Run for ur lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
It does not bother me. I do not care that your adversaries use it to support their case. The crappy cap and trade bill bothers me. The rationale for it, not so much.
I do not care about the accuracy or inaccuracy of IPCC's long term predictions. Climatology is young, the world it describes is staggering complex.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I don't set a whole lot by computer climate modeling, personally. Certainly not to predict the future.
I don't hold the bad guesses against them as much as you apparently do, but then again, I'm not betting on the proximate outcomes.
Unless the bet paid off, it seems rather conspicuous to rub in the *win*.
Here are some quick findings from the propaganda you posted WH:
Carl Woontz
The video only says it was cut out that he did believe global warning was a threat. So what. The Great Global Warming Swindle is only addressing antropogenic global warming.
George Manbiot (The Guardian) gives opinion, no facts.
1997 apology for against nature. Who cares? So the channel was forced to apologize. It doesn’t say why. If it was for false information, then why didn’t they say that? Could it have used their data and facts and presented it differently than their opinion holds?
1999 Storm in a D cup… As for silicone implant reducing breast cancer. I would love to see them show a clip in context. A fact about this subject is that implants help diagnose breast health, therefore reducing loss of breasts or late stage cancer. They make it easier to diagnose and treat at earlier stages. I’ll bet his words were out of context. Wiki says this:
Frederick Singer… CFC depleting the ozone, sun and skin cancer…Quote:
Durkin also produced 2 documentaries for Channel 4's science strand Equinox. In 1998 he produced "Storm in a D-Cup" which argued that the medical dangers of silicone breast implants had been exaggerated for political reasons and highlighting evidence that implants may even carry medical benefits; and in 2000 he produced The Rise and Fall of GM.
This is misconstrues from a 1994 paper Singer wrote titled “Ozone, Skin Cancer and SST.” He does not say sunlight doesn’t cause cancer. Some quotes:
Quote:
The links between the release of CFCs into the atmosphere and the most serious concern, an increase in the incidence of skin cancer, particularly malignant melanoma, are as follows:
1. CFCs, with lifetimes of decades and longer, become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and release chlorine.
2. Chlorine destroys ozone catalytically, and thereby lowers the total amount of ozone in the stratosphere.
3. A reduction in the ozone layer results in an increase in ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth's surface.
4. Exposure to more solar UV radiation leads to a huge increase in skin cancer rates and hundreds of thousands of additional deaths.
Each of these steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently substantiated, and may even be incorrect.
Quote:
The Skin Cancer Scare
Finally, much of the driving force behind the policy to phase out CFCs has been the fear of an epidemic of skin cancer, particularly malignant melanoma. But unlike basal and squamous cell skin cancers, which are easily cured growths caused by long-term exposure to UV-B, melanoma rates do not show the characteristic increase toward lower latitudes, where UV-B is strongest. (European data on melanoma actually show an increase toward higher latitudes.) And indeed, recent laboratory experiments have now established that melanoma rates are not likely to depend on exposure to solar UV-B radiation.
In a unique study, published in the July 1993 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Richard B. Setlow and colleagues at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Long Island, New York, tackled the problem of the cause of malignant melanoma. They conducted their experiment on specially bred hybrid fish that are extremely sensitive to melanoma induction. Groups of such fish were exposed in the laboratory to radiation in narrow wavelength bands in the UV-B and UV-A region. In this way, the researchers measured the "action spectrum" (sensitivity of melanoma induction as a function of wavelength). They concluded that in natural sunlight, 90-95 percent of melanoma induction may be caused by wavelengths greater than 320 nanometers--the UV-A and visible regions of the solar spectrum. But UV-A is not absorbed by ozone, and therefore, melanoma rates would not be affected by changes in the ozone layer.
As for Second Hand Smoke and Lung cancer, I know that the biggest study ever done says there is no connection. Read his material for yourself. Here is his paper:Quote:
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.
THE EPA AND THE SCIENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE
Notice how they attacked the argument over the font of the paper, but nothing about the facts other than others disagreed.Quote:
OMG… At 8:23, they interview a guy that saysI agree, and thing this guy was misquoted here. If his claim was that a tiny amount of Ebola would kill you, and increasing the dosage would do the same, he may have been saying that CO2 in larger amounts has no more effect than a tiny amount.Quote:
This idea that the amount of something is proportional to how important it is, is clearly silly. For instance, if I injected you with a little Ebola virus, that’s a tiny tiny amount of something, but it would have an immense impact on you, and you would die. So the amount of something is not in any way proportional to the amount of impact it might have. Carbon dioxide’s the same.
What, you didn't like *Storm in a D-Cup* ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The rest of it I never vouched for, WC. I didn't even watch it all.
The business about selective presentation of graphs was pretty damning, I thought.
I have been giving mature consideration however, to the idea that breast implants may reduce the incidence of cancer.
What do you say, profe?
I'm just disappointed in you for bringing propaganda into a discussion. That video, like "An Inconvenient Truth," is propaganda that people easily believe who do no research themselves. Nobody here will win an argument with me about Antropogenic Global Warming, because it only exists to a small fraction of what is claimed. The video I linked in post #1 is an accurate portrayal of the facts. All the facts are easily verified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Why? You do it all the time.Quote:
I'm just disappointed in you for bringing propaganda into a discussion.
They make early detection easier. That's how it reduces deadly cancer, by early diagnosis. The implants make a mammogram far easier to properly read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
No I don't, or should I say it depends on what you mean by "propaganda." Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it propaganda, in my view. When I say propaganda, rather than the strict definition, I mean a form of misconception. Facts can be classed as propaganda going by the strict definition of the word, but how many people call facts, propaganda?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
How reasonable and concise. Deadly cancer.
Thanks for getting the conversation (momentarily) back on track, profe.
I'll go along with your *facts are propaganda* thesis, WC. That would make all points of view propaganda too. I believe something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Just because the other side gets "the science" wrong, doesn't make you right, or even necessarily more reliable than your adversary.
In principle, everyone can be wrong.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
"My propaganda which only shows one side of the story isn't propaganda! Your propaganda which only states one side of the story IS propaganda!"
Grandiose.Quote:
All the facts are easily verified.
No, they're not.
If they were, this thread wouldn't exist.
DarrinS, who's been studying this topic for years, proves yet again that he either can't or won't answer simple, direct questions that posters put to him.
His method is anti-Socratic. The questions all lead to wrong turns.
The student must intuit the mind of the master, zen masterishly, without any help at all from the master.
It's a weird abortion of Socratic questioning.
What's the fun in giving answers when you can simply pose more questions?
bitch.
When the student reaches the same conclusions as the master, his own eyes will be blinded by the insight he receives, the better to guide others on the path of true enlightenment...
A typical DarrinS post impersonates the object of its disdain.
He holds his own impersonation up for public ridicule, while maintaining an ironic and superior aloofness from his own handiwork and what it implies. In advance, he is prepared to pick off any questioner as being impertinent.
*I never said that...*
It'd be nice if Darrin just told us what he really means, rather than continually hiding behind banners and bookmarks and, uh, artistic conceits.
No proof but some idiots watch a freaken movie that Gore made or reads a book and they act as if it is real. So fucking ridiculous. You people should be ashamed of yourselves for believing this nonsense and even more important voting for the leader of the free world because he may change the light bulbs in the White House. Go Green. Grow up tree huggers!
That happens. It's pretty douche-y no matter who does it.Quote:
No proof but some idiots watch a freaken movie that Gore made or reads a book and they act as if it is real. So fucking ridiculous.
I used to believe in AGW and didn't even question the science, etc. I've lived in Southern California and have seen the smog first-hand, so it all made perfect sense to me. But then it started to get weird. By that, I mean that it started getting rammed down our throats. Why the hard sell? I always get suspicious when I get the whole "What will it take to get you in a car TODAY" treatment. Then came Al Gore's Oscar-winning Power Point sci-fi docudrama. Watching those Oscars, with Leonardo Dicaprio saying "You are a true champion for the cause", I got the feeling I was watching a Scientology convention. Then, there was a distinct, but subtle, terminology tweak from "global warming" to "climate change". Hmmm. And anyone who questions the science of consensus is labeled a "denier". Is that anything like being a holocaust denier? It's very insulting.
So, I still drive a car that gets good gas mileage. I still recycle. I turn off lights when I'm not using them. I'm not wasteful, in general. I just don't buy into the hysteria.
Nice post, D. :tu
No pimpslap necessary. That's a straight up opinion. Short, clear and personal. That's much more personable than your pomo-irony gargoyle, IMO. I could begin to agree with you a little bit, now.
lol at you chumps getting taken on the greatest human manufactured scam of this century.
Please don't be so gullible in the next life. WH, find yourself one of dem' der' big city fancy words to play off the embarrassment.
I don't know. Are you carrying their brief?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Or were you slyly comparing the consensus on climate to denying the holocaust?
Personally, I'd rather be labeled a flat-Earther than a denier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Dennis Miller pretty much sums up my feelings on the religion of catastrophic AGW.
I'm not sure what you think I've fallen for.Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfAGun
I'm a declared agnostic on the AGW question, and leave the field to the putative experts. I will be dead when the definitive science is written.
I think I hate AGW threads almost as much as I hate 9/11 threads, and in a very similar way.
I don't think they're similar at all. There are intelligent people on both sides of the AGW argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Eh, Dennis Miller.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I guess he was just a placeholder for Tony Kornheiser.
No doubt. My own observation went to state of mind...Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
In all frankness, I'm rooting for heavy casualties on both sides.
The Obama Inquisition on climate change
Quote:
Barack Obama promised to return science to its “rightful place” in government, but at least on climate change, it seems that Obama has the Inquisition in mind as the government model. When a dissenting voice at the EPA warned that the global-warming theories on which Obama had predicated his policies were falling apart, the administration did not champion a scientific approach to the debate. Instead, it took the ages-old method of silencing the scientist, as Kimberly Strassel reports:
[O]ne of President Barack Obama’s first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, “As administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that “the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over.”
Except, that is, when it comes to [Alan] Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an “endangerment” finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it — even if Congress doesn’t act.
Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. “We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA,” the report read.
The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from “any direct communication” with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” …
Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.” Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.
Carlin’s comments didn’t “help the legal or policy case” for the Obama administration? Actually, Carlin’s scientific analysis undermined the entire reason for those legal and policy choices. The effort to silence Carlin didn’t come because the EPA and the White House could easily refute the analysis. They silenced Carlin because they couldn’t refute it.
Now that Carlin has blown the whistle, the Obama administration has embarked on another ages-old strategy: character assassination. They have dismissed Carlin as an economist, when he actually has a degree in physics — from CalTech. They have derided his work as “sham science,” even though it relied on peer-reviewed studies. They’ve done everything but actually use the scientific method to rebut Carlin, which demonstrates the commitment they have to the “rightful place” of science when it comes to policy in this administration.
Michelle has done great work on this topic, and has a video of Carlin speaking earlier this week. Be sure to keep up with the story there.
Inquisition. Is that a technical term?
Here's the EPA analyst whose report was suppressed.
His report is a complete crock of shit. It has absolutely no scientific merit. Its not a peer reviewed analysis. Have you read it Darrin?
Hmmm
Here's a draft. Check it out.
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
Word. Al Gore told me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Why do you believe it is a complete crock of shit?
Be specific.
By the way, it's a little difficult to be peer reviewed when your boss doesn't allow peers to review it. Wouldn't you agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Thanks. I'll read it.
This guy has worked for EPA for 38 years. I guess we can't smear him as a "hired gun" for big oil.
Yet somehow its out.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Its contradictory. It concludes the earth is cooling yet it also concludes the earth is warming due to the sun. The basis for its conclusions consist of internet blogs and other non scientific data. Its not a good document in the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
The EPA is a big organization, he's not a scientist. He's an economist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Does a degree in physics from Cal Tech count?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
The global temperature record of the last decade is not subjective, would you agree?
When you see continued rising of CO2 and a declining average temperature, you have to stop and think about it.
Context and variability. This is why people who are not scientists have a tough time with this subject. No, the temperature record is not subjective, but even if the earth is somehow cooling now then why would they conclude that it is both cooling and cite a study attributing warming to the sun? Its a grab bag of ways to try to discredit climate change theory, thats why.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Further more, the earth can still be warming and display a lower average temperature over a decade.
To make you a scientist? No. Its a great accomplishment, no doubt. But he's an economist.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Does this preclude him from being able to understand data and use rational thinking?
I get sick of this whole "he/she is not a scientist" bullshit. Anyone can be a scientist. Children are natural scientists. I think what you are referring to is pedigree.
What's ironic is that it was two Canadian economists, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who managed to thoroughly debunk the infamous "hockey stick" graph by Mann, et. al. They showed that Mann's algorithm turned random white noise into hockey stick graphs.
Ok fair enough, but he didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
He didn't what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Comparing the validity of economics and climatology, as sciences, is like trying to decide among tadpoles which are the most perfect frogs.
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I must of missed that episode. I don't remember that one.
No one was doing that, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
From 10,000 feet up, it was pretty hard to tell.
Here's the entire report:Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Suppressed Report
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Good one, WH. Happy 4th. :toast
Would Galileo buy global warming?
Skepticism is the critical tool of science
FOR 2,000 years, the scientific debate was settled. The ancient Greeks had studied the skies, and had determined by the 4th century before Christ that the Earth was the center of the universe.
The heavenly bodies rotated around the Earth in little wheels. Except for a few geocentric deniers, most scientists agreed, and in addition, the Holy Scripture said so.
They had proof. Using their calculations, they could prove where the planet and the Moon and the Sun would be at any one time.
True, these bodies did not exactly circle the Earth in concentric circles, but there was an explanation that was long and too complicated to go into here.
Then along came this troublemaker, Nicolaus Copernicus. He was a mathematician and an astronomer in Poland, and he came up with a whole new set of calculations that had the Earth rotating the Sun.
This was in the 1500s. After he died, his theory got Galileo Galilei in a whole lot of trouble.
Galileo supported Copernicus' theory, which put him at odds with his fellow scientists and the Catholic Church.
Scientists at that time had no power.
The church was another matter. It had a lot of power, and church officials at the time believed that the Earth did not move (it is in Psalms), and that to say otherwise was heresy.
For more than 15 years, Galileo fought the church. But in 1633, Galileo finally recanted and said the Earth was the center of the universe.
In 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret and officially recognized that no, the Earth is not the center of the universe.
READ THE REST OF THIS FINE ARTICLE:
http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/donsurber/200907030296