The Swindle
I thank Phelonius for the referral, Kelly for the link. Everyone should see this (and come to their own conclusions):
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
posted by John | 11:34 PM
18 Comments:
Well, like I said in an earlier post, it is not so much that I think that these guys have written the "gosphel" of science either, but their objections to the global warming alarmists, I think, merits some considerations.
Alarmism aside (which I've identified and obviously have a problem with), is global warming caused by human industry or not?
Here is an interesting break down of climate and the various
"forces" acting on it.
Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
I'll let you decide.
Based on the things I have seen and read, it is my unimportant opinion that human industry, at best, can only be an aggravation to what are actually longer and permanent global cycles. The medieval warm period, for example, just simply cannot be a result of human industry. There were too few of us and we were still 99% agrarian. It was a great time to be alive as a human as well, if the population explosion was any indicator.
An exxon lawyer
A french politician
newpaper articles from the 1920s
some vague reference to a masters history thesis
and now ...
A film by noted communist and anti-environmentalist Martin Durkin that misrepresents, omits or makes up key tenets of climate science and the people that study it.
I'm certain you don't but If any of you ideologues actually care about the facts ..they are out there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_%28television_director%29
So let's take a score on this debate so far....
You can't explain why 2 quadrillion pounds of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere should be considered a natural occurence
You can't explain where the extra energy all that CO2 absorbs magically disappears to
You can't explain any other natural phenomena would cause the currently observed warming
10s of thousands of the best and brightest scientist in the world can....
since you can't seem to address any of the critical issues here and the science is so clear I think its safe to say this debate is over.
Even with all the scientific references I posted its painfully obvious you all have no interest in actually understanding the facts concerning global warming. So I'm not going to waste anymore time however I must say I have learned one important thing - facts are irrelevant to ideologues who have predetermined "truths"
"You can't explain any other natural phenomena would cause the currently observed warming."
First explain why the earth was so warm during the medival warming period. What caused it?
Good question, Kelly. I eagerly await the answer from the host of experts.
Even so, I find it interesting that we have acknowledged that CO2 production by humans is not a real good thing to have around. We still get to the central question of what that actually does, and if question the formula of the alarmists then you are: An exxon lawyer, A french politician, newpaper articles from the 1920s, (or the source is from)
A film by a noted communist and anti-environmentalist.
Personal research that I have done was evidently vague and inconsequential, so I let that be as it is.
I think there has not really been a debate here. There have been ad hominem attacks and there has been the claim that there is no argument. Any suggestion that there is an opposing view is discredited by saying 'those people over there have no idea what they are talking about.'
That is not debate, that is just noticing that one group says one thing and the other group says something different.
The film I brought up talks about the amounts of CO2 that humans produce, and then goes on to talk about various other sources and their relative values. But, instead of addressing that question, we will just label the source as a Commie Anti-environmentalist, and that solves the whole problem.
I suppose that noting that the coldest time in the 1800's was known to coincide with an absence of sun-spot activity is a commie pinko conspiracy written by criminal elements. To further note that the earth has been steadily warming ever since that time (along with an increase in sun-spot activity) is, no doubt, a big-oil/tobacco company conspiracy written by apostates that want us all to fry in our own body fats when we go to the beach.
For myself, I do not discount the real possibility that human activity can have an effect on the climate. I am still open to both sides of this thing, as long as it is done in a scientific way and not made into a political debate.
Well, I've learned a lot from this series, and I thank my good guests for the spirited debate and much information which I was hitherto ignorant of.
I have argued the same point that Phelonius addresses. I would like to see scientific evidence (one way or the other).
At this point the arguments are very politically directed...on both sides.
Well how about this as a thought: mayhap it is impossible to look at something like the global warming issue *without* politics involved?
The thought makes me sad. Since things cannot be changed overnight, is it so bad to want to wait until all sides have presented arguments before we have to choose between this political party or that political party in regards to something like this?
I don't think Neo thinks much about me as a person, but I do appreciate his (her?, I do not really know) courage in presenting what he thinks of as indisputable evidence as well.
To Neo's credit, he did provide many links to the scientific evidence.
Perhaps the reason we cannot look at this without politics is because it affects how we live our lives.
Learning about the stars and the moon, for instance, does not affect us to the degree that the global warming issue does.
Neo did provide a lot of links, and those were fun to go through. It just turned out that he would accept none of the links that we provided.
Neo said:
"A film by noted communist and anti-environmentalist Martin Durkin that misrepresents, omits or makes up key tenets of climate science and the people that study it."
Durkin responds:
"The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?"
And:
"My name is absolute mud on the Internet; it's really vicious," adding "There is no good scientific basis for it but the theory continues to hold sway because so many people have built their careers and reputations on it."
["Durkin goes on to reject his opponents' position that the cooling period observed post Second World War was caused by sulphate aerosol cooling"]: "Thanks to China and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then. Why isn't it perishing cold?" [He concludes by saying that the Global Warming alarm is] "wrong, wrong, wrong."
"Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing."
Meanwhile, his critics fixated on a mislabeling of dates (nitpicking) which nevertheless took nothing away from the point of Durkin's argument.
Durkin's annoyed, colorful reactions to his critics are not those of an exposed charlatan, but of one sticking to his convictions (after exposing charlatans).
One of the reasons that the Libertarians oppose the fantastic expansion of governmental powers expounded by the GW Alarmists is that once a bureaucracy gets entrenched, it will never go away. The establishment that is already in place across the globe is only the beginning, and the attacks on people that question the Man-made warming scenario are one of the results of an entrenched mindset that sees one of its purposes as being self-preservation. Self-preservation is the hallmark of bureaucracy, and growth is a logical result of that effort to keep power.
We already have the likes of John Edwards out there promising that if he gets into office we will have taxes on carbon output. What are the likely results of that? Firstly, there is a definite rise in the already high costs of energy production and , as a result, the usage of energy. Carbon taxes can ostensibly extend to the manufacture of automobiles, the costs of growing and transporting foods, fueling the travel industry in its various forms, heating and cooling our meagre domiciles, and so forth. If you think that the exporting of our industry is bad now, just wait until the US imposes this thoughtless tax on our manufacturing sector.
Secondly, anytime there is a rise in taxation, the inevitable result is that there are fewer products and services available and at higher costs. If people have fewer dollars to spend, then they will cut back on their spending, and overall taxes available to the cities and states fall. When demand falls for consumer goods, the prices on those things eventually rise as production falls to keep pace with the lack of demand and the higher (artificial) prices. Things like the housing markets and automobile production have already demonstrated this principle many times. People lose jobs and manufacturing moves to places where there are fewer price restrictions on labor and materials.
Thirdly, the loss of personal liberty is tremendous. Not only are there fewer choices to make in selecting goods or services, but there are proposed laws on the table that would look into taxing individual citizens for their 'carbon footprint.' What makes that even scarier than just another tax is the question of just who decides what a carbon footprint IS and what should it COST? How much carbon do I emit when I mow the lawn? Since I work out of my house, I drive very little, and I already pay the county for my truck that is wildly disproportionate to my actual usage.
The purpose of this small rant is to focus on just ONE aspect of the Alarmists' agenda. It is, again, my humble opinion that while a cleaner environment is always desirable, having a draconian 'political solution' to a problem that is still disputed is merely a power grab by a federal government that is already way over-done.
JB, WELL SAID!!
I tend to feel the same way about the government and all.
The purpose of taxes is NOT to control people. I don't mind being taxed to provide an education for my children, or to keep our roads in reasonable condition. But those are provided for by the STATES.
The federal government really has very little is should be responsible for. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Also:
There is a "test" out here on the net that tells a person at what age they should die so as to not use more than their 'share' of the resources and such.
Out of curiosity, I took this test. I would have had to die at under 4 years of age.
They don't take into consideration that I HAVE to have a big vehicle to transport all these kids. Some say, "well, why did you have so many kids?"
To which I say, "Yo momma should have had one less kid."
This planet was MADE for us.
I make no appologies for my stand.
Well, Kelly, if you subscibe to that, you're obliged to be a good steward.
Post a Comment
<< Home