This is an absolute must see!
A level-headed, common-sense answer to many of the wild-eyed claims that man (i.e., Americans) are destroying the world.
One of the most eye-opening revelations is the lead author of the IPCC says he disagrees with many of the claims in the report and that scientists must use scare tactics to have money flow thier way.
It spells out how it's turned into a religio-political big business.
It's a story of censorship and intimidation and outright lies.
Check it out!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
On Thursday the 8th, the UK TV Channel 4 aired a programme titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". We were hoping for important revelations and final proof that we have all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time. We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed [Update: a full letter from Wunsch appears as comment 109 on this post]
So what did they have to say for themselves?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
... and I wonder why that is ...
Is it a case of desperation... ??? Railing against the torrent? Clambering to escape engulfing seas .... (oooh ... sorry to be getting Scary there... children... please avert your ears..... oooogy booogy booooooooogittty!!!) ... ?
Or is it a case of true frustration of those who are so absolutely sure of their... rightness...? Desperate to reach a sensible ear ... to hear the reason in their call???
I certainly have my opinion as to which case rings truer... as I am sure anyone else who is curious may have one (for opinions are indeed free to be had)
But that brings me to a question I have: How does one Know what is "right" ... ???
What is the process that someone...anyone... goes through to arrive at "right" ... ??? ... Does one ever truly ARRIVE at "right" ? or, rather, does one only ever APPROACH "right" (for isn't the domain of absolute "RIGHT" left to god alone? (or some such concept) and not to be annexed by mortal beings of flesh and bone? ( Interestingly, that is why mathematics can be such a rewarding/satisfying endeavor: anyone can solve an equation and get a "right" answer... to reveal a truth... revealing what was already there...)
By the way, for those dealing with personal ... hubris issues... (heeeoooobrrriss) ... I will clarify the difference here between "right" ... the direction (like my right toe hurts (actually, it's my left toe because a horse stepped on it a week ago but I'll go with right for the sake of this explanation) ... AND "right" the qualitative descriptor (as in ... yes, that feels just right...yes put it right there.... (ooops, was that another use of the word "right" ? ehhh, let's skip that one for now, alright?)
From what base does one start with to determine "rightness" ???
What does one use to measure up against???
Is it personal desire? ... "I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it!!!"
Well... That certainly can be powerful ... and can feel like that is it... But that just doesn't do the trick...
What about those beliefs that one just knows is "right" ...
Well... if one thinks about it, why would anyone hold a belief if they didn't think it was "right" ...
Well ... there has to be some system of openness... right?
To measure what one holds as seeming to be "right" with what seems to work as "right" in the immediate world and beyond.
So... "I hold a belief that seems right to me as a ... working hypothesis... or theory ... and I will choose to hold on to that belief until it is dis-proven, that is ... proven not to be right..."
But, in measuring one's belief for its "rightness" one must be open to input...
But in being open to input ... one must be careful in what to accept as real and relevant...
So ... How does one determine what to be open to?
So ... Really ... How DOES one determine what to accept as worthy information?
... as relevant and accurate?
Is it Volume??? ... I Really don't think it is...
I would say that source and context are very important ... fidelity and continuity are important too... and, without saying, there is validity and accuracy...
but there is smell too, amazingly ... if it just smells rotten and out of place ... it does deserve caution and a red flag ....
Chris Akins ... your stuff fails to meet any reasonable standards to be considered seriously ... (if you skipped down just to read the end here, you really should go back and read the rest).
But also, the icky, gooky, venemous, kookieness of your stuff just doesn't smell right... as it were... and its volume is just annoying...
What if, what if, what if?
Let's concentrate on what is and an optimistic view of what can be.
How much are you being paid by Exxon to support an industry with no future,and why do you put so much faith into material that's bought and paid for by the very industry that's days are numbered?
What exactly is the agenda of someone like yourself, who takes a public stand against common sense, advancement of technology, cleaner environment, and massive economic expansion? What are YOU gaining by doing your small part to stand in the way of progress?
When your children are adults, and have children of their own, are you prepared to tell them that you were one of those few who was left standing directly in the way of cleaner, alternative energies, long after the evidence of global warming was validated?
If your children and grandchildren are forced to face a world where 40% of the population is dying of thirst, and horrible storms and tragic drought kills millions upon millions, while wars over water kill yet millions more, will you be proud enough to admit to them that you took part in sealing this fate for them?
Or, would you rather stand in front of them and say "I didn't agree with the global warming theory, but I didn't want to be one standing in the way of what was clearly a better choice...alternative energy sources."
Which agenda are you really serving, Chris? The oil industry's, or your children's?
No, I'm not paid by anyone, unlike the scientist who openly claim they must use scare tactics to keep money flowing their way. Watch the admission of the IPCC lead author on that point.
For forty years you all have been claiming we are 10 years from certain doom, and it has been proven wrong every time.
I'm all for alternative energy and promoting new technologies, but I'll have no part and will fight against extreme scare tactics built on exaggerations and lies that lead to policies punishing undeveloped nations and the poor.
I'm actually a huge advocate of nuclear energy and feel we need more of these plants to help offset our energy crisis.
I will not allow my child to be made to feel she is the cause of global warming, when the evidence shows it's natural. I will not allow her to sacrifice a quality of life that benefits herself and those around her (if something is good for someone and harms no one, how is it bad?) because of teachers who try to guilt her into that mindset.
Instead, I will raise her to be a responsible, tax-paying citizen to make responsible decisions based on several factors and not in a vacuum (kinda like the guns and butter economic model).
Also, are we going to drown to death or die from dehydration and water wars? I keep getting mixed messages.
Also, why is CO2 now considered a pollutant when in the 1970s everyone found it harmless?
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976918857
It's your article about Luntz. My comment was concerning his reversal on global warming and his push on renewable energy.
David: "if it just smells rotten and out of place ... it does deserve caution and a red flag ....
Chris Akins ... your stuff fails to meet any reasonable standards to be considered seriously ... (if you skipped down just to read the end here, you really should go back and read the rest).
But also, the icky, gooky, venemous, kookieness of your stuff just doesn't smell right..."
I sometimes don't re-visit my posts, even when questions/challenges are posted.
Actually, I didn't really see anything in the article that was new. He's saying the same thing I have: extremism turns people office, truth is somewhere in the middle, embrace solutions, etc.
Steve is someone I could sit down and have a beer with. When you're in Tallahassee next, look me up. I'll buy.
Do you smoke cigars? :)
You seem to have a talent for mis-reading things...
I said nothing about extremism,
I posed no 'what if' senarios ...
I questioned the sudden cacophony of items you have posted and its cause,
I discussed the process one goes through to arrive at a belief,
And I concluded that your stuff lacks merit to be considered seriously, lacks appropriate understanding of context, and in short, has no value of credibility.
But mainly its just annoying...
You have very little original material... which in itself is a concern ... and very little original thoughts or analysis...
Chris: "He's saying the same thing I have: extremism turns people office, truth is somewhere in the middle, embrace solutions, etc."
How much energy can you put into solutions if you don't really think there is a problem? I've seen any number of "skeptics" on Gather and elsewhere say they're not for pollution, but when push comes to shove, they (and you) say they're (you're) not going to make any sacrifices.
Indeed, many of the solutions I forsee have little sacrifice involved, but promise economic growth through extremely exciting innovation. There are, however, vested interests, who have little interest in change, and they have been stalling for decades.
Now, if you sincerely want to discuss solutions, I'll look forward to that discussion.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/