More debunks of the climate change swindle propaganda
The Great Global Warming Swindle film is a malicious hoax. I've compiled a few more links for those wanting to wade into the litany of lies and misdirection used in the film:
Green Business News: What firms should do about "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
The Independent: The real global warming swindle
And here's some interesting history concerning Channel 4's lack of standards:
CHANNEL 4 SAVAGED BY TELEVISION WATCHDOG OVER GREEN STITCH-UP
And, of course, my previous posts, which contain more important links:
Climate scientist says he was duped
Monbiot dissects the climate change swindle propaganda
There's lots more out there. I understand it's being re-shown this week with some small changes made. I can't wait.
4 comments:
I still love the comment in the show where they claim that volcanos put out more ghg's than man. That peice of pure rubbish was completely debunked years and years ago.
Also the fact that they had Tim Ball on is another dead give away, the NRSP and FOS groups he runs with have stated openning that they only wish to muddy the waters of the debate so to stall any action on GW/GCC.
I could rip into Tim's loose use of scientific data and studies where he purposely misrepresents the fact to mislead the read, but why bother.
I say all GW/GCC deniers should be forced to live on the ocean fronts of the world.
Hey Zorph... can you get me a piece of beach front property in Florida before spring break? I would really appreciate that!
I can't imagine why you worry about stuff like the Swindle when you have al "20 foot sea level rise" Gore supported by Mark Hulmes interesting take on science:
"This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity." the guardian
For the greater glory of climate change hysteria it's more than enough to just make things up. Al does, Mark approves, good enough for me.
Jay,
All that Hulme is saying is that having thousands of scientific papers proving man-made glonal warming lying around doesn't do any good when the public is being mislead by liars. Influence is what makes policy. Has the Channel 4 fraud of a 'documentary' been influential? Absolutely.
The challenge for greens like me -- and I see this debate every day in green circles -- is to try to figure out how to explain the consequences of global warming in simple terms people will understand, without overplaying or underplaying it, while also trying to deal with the shifting ground of what is known, what is probable, and what 'could be'.
As for the facts... During the last interglacial period (LIG), when the Greenland ice sheet was melted, research says that sea levels were 3.4 metres higher due to that (just under 12 feet). More research has the rise being anywhere from 4-6 metres when other ice sheets are added in, which sets the currently predicted upward limit at 20 ft.
Just so you know, there is evidence that Greenland is warmer today than it was during the LIG.
But, no, all this hard work is just hysteria. It's far more reasonable and logical to bury your heads in sand and make unfounded pronouncements about the view you truly can't see.
The denialists jumped the shark a long time ago.
Post a Comment