Hmmm, is that temperature I see falling whilst CO2 levels are still rising? My head hurts...Right, the Google Video of that Man Made Climate Change 'Denial' documentary is now up on Google Video and it's also available as a torrent.
One heartening thing I noticed on the comments made on the Google Video version was how people are getting wise to some of the sock puppetry that goes on in Google Video, Youtube and other sites that permit user comments - people posting comments calling for Jihad using cheesy, stereotypical Muslim names, other people describing themselves as '7/7' or '9/11' 'survivors' and using that as mandate to insult or belittle others, stuff like that.
Maybe some of the posters are the real deal. Some are almost certainly not. What is amusing is that on Google version of The Great Global Warming Swindle someone posted this powerhouse comment worthy of a Guardian environmental journalist...
Sorry, I'm a climatologist and this is simply wrong. This documentary is lying.
only to be followed by several comments made by people praising the documentary who also claim to be climatologists and in one case 'the Dark Knight Batman'
Marvellous
edit: sadly, the Google Gods have now deleted the positive comments from people claiming to be distinguished Nobel prize winning climatologists and Batman but decided to retain the negative comment from the person claiming to be a climatologist - nice one guys
I've now watched the documentary for a second time and have spotted a few more inaccuracies and sneaky tricks employed by its producers but I won't be posting them. Plenty of other people will be doing that. Oh yes, yes they will.
The program was clearly intended as a polemic and in that respect no different to the much larger body of material put out by the Climate Change Lobby. It was made to challenge, to infuriate and to entertain and whilst I do not condone its sins they are no worse than those committed every day by the professional fear mongers.
-
And whilst on the subject of climate change 'denial'...
I doubt that many climate change 'deniers' believe that spunking away finite resources like hydrocarbons is a clever thing to do. Nor do I suspect that they think poisoning cute fluffy animals with toxic crud is great either. There are, as far as I can tell, at least two perfectly decent reasons to be opposed to Climate Change hysteria...
You might oppose it simply because you think the science is wrong, or exaggerated, and you have an aversion to wrongness
You might have a serious problem with how the response to the threat is being directed. There are some rather obvious parallels between the Climate Change issue and The War on Terror. If we collectively fall in line with the 'solutions' being advocated for these two Global 'threats' you can pretty much give up on increasingly old fashioned notions such as personal freedoms or civil liberties - and over a much shorter time-scale than most of us would have believed possible only a few years ago
Gaia loyalty cards heading our way soon? Sadly, telling Milliband to stick them up his arse was not a voting optionA lot of people are saying that even if Man Made Climate Change doesn't turn out to be such a big deal most of the measures being proposed to deal with it would be worth doing in their own right anyway.
Well, yes, that's sort of true
But there are a couple of problems with that point of view.
First off, I don't think people have really twigged where this Climate Change thing is going. Sooner or later, its more vociferous proponents will be pushing for some form of global government, population control initiatives, suppression of development in developing countries and maybe even confrontation with those countries which tell us what to do with our carbon quotas. Or do people really think that a few energy saving light bulbs and a bit more of our electricity from renewables are going to be enough to either change our climate or, more to the point, keep the Lobby and its backers happy? Come on. Some serious changes will be on the cards once we've been collectively softened-up enough.
Second off, if the Man Made Climate Change Lobby is wrong and the next major change in climate is both natural and inevitable we will have wasted precious time and resources on a pointless exercise, when we should have been focusing on preparing to adapt to the consequences of that change.
And for today's pop quiz, try reading this comment found underneath an abysmal on-line piece written by a Guardian environmental journalist and see if you can distinguish between the mindset of the ecofascist dickhead who wrote it and the mentality of your average, run of the mill, religious fundamentalist - paying particular attention to the delightfully sinister use of the word 'educate'. So much for the supposed collapse of organised religion...
To anyone needing to find out the truth about climate change just search George Monbiot on this site.
This thread is depressing. There are sound scientific truths agreed with by 99.9 per cent of the world's scientists on climate change.
The programme last night drags out tired old oounter-arguments by the bury-their-heads-in-the-sand brigade. The sadness is what their own children are going to have to endure.
Actually, if I had time and money, I would wish to take out a court injunction preventing Channel 4 or any other mass distributor of 'information' from having the right to broadcast total nonsense on THE most fantastically urgent nad terrifying problem the world has ever, ever seen.
The urgency now is to EDUCATE people on what's happening and create real substantial CHANGE. It is sad and depressing that at this critical moment in human history a programme inviting everyone to sneer and giggle at the genuine scientific evidence behind what is soon to become a catastrophic situation, is allowed.
I would like to sue the head of Channel 4 for manslaughter. Any person he has influenced by last night's programme to think - oh, that's all right then! I won't listen, I won't change, I'll just go on sneering about global warming whilst endlessly consuming, junketing around the world, spilling emissions into the environment at increasing levels, because I want I want I want I must have I must have I must have - deserves to be sued.
.
6 comments:
Hi Stef
When you have a moment do some googling around ROCs ... Renewable energy Obligation Certificates.
As a direct consequence of EU legislation the UK has to have a percentage of its energy supply classified as being renewable (ie windfarms, donkeys on treadmills etc ...). The mechanism for doing such, is by issuing an ROC to whoever can prove that the electricity they are generating is from a renewable source. Thus, the renewable generator is paid for selling the energy to the grid and also is paid for his ROC. (The market isn't that transparent; I think they went for GBP 45 per 1 MWhr in January). The purchasers of the ROCs are the generators who produced fossil fuel derived electricity; who, of course stick the bill to the consumer ie you and I.
By buying an ROC the fossil fuel generators can claim to be generating the statutory allocation of renewable electricity. If they don't have the required amount of ROCs by the end of the year; the generators are fined and the fine goes to whoever has the most ROCs; this has an interesting effect on the ROCs' prices.
So, whenever you see a factory with a windturbine (eg Nissan in Sunderland) you know that the consumer is subsidising their activities by the ROC mechanism.
Is anyone wise to this ...????
The situation described above is more apt to be described as an enviro-crime scene.
This comment on the google video was the best:
"Solar effects cannot account for current warming, neither can cosmic rays."
I am still far from certain what is going on, but some people are so stupid when they claim things with certainty they know nothing about. Must be some aspect of human nature.
A (sort of) proverb comes to my mind: "If stupidity would be painful, some people would be running arround screaming."
A nice thing I found from the googlevideo comments:
"That carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round - TRUE. The programme went on to state that this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC – NOT TRUE.
For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives *no proof* of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."
Hasn't this been the main argument? At least I think I remember this as the main arguement. If this guy isn't a cleverly disguised man-made-climate-change denier, then he is the best proof that something is foul in the IPCC.
In a rather perfect arc of logic I just watched "The Trap : What happened to our dreams of freedom". Wow, nothing for ages then great telly in abundance. These two programs have a lot in common. What I best liked was the rubbishing of John Nash, that socio-path is responsible for so much of our problems. When A beautiful mind was released every woman I knew beseeched me to see it but frankly it made me sick to see that cretin made to look like a hero - I just smiled appreciatively to be nice, they'd never understand.
@tony - a top quote from Michael Crichton
"I am certain there is too much certainy in the world."
re. the CO2 vs Temperature Ice Core data
The only thing these graphs seem to demonstrate is that warming periods start before CO2 levels rise and that CO2 may be a by-product of increased global temperature. Both of which contradict the simplistic view of GW sold to the public by the likes of Al Gore
GW advocates claim that the graphs are consistent with CO2 becoming a warming amplifier after a temperature rise starts.
Hmmm
But then the graphs have the bad taste to show temperature falling whilst CO2 levels are still rising which suggests, to me, that there is a warming/ cooling force which is stronger than CO2 levels (even if you assume CO2 is a significant factor)
@wolfie
LOL
I had exactly the same problem when that film came out.
The paranoid schizophrenic who brought us Game Theory? A romantic hero?
Post a Comment