How you were swindled from the truth - the great global warming swindle lies debunked for good

I hate to say i told you so - but the latest interview with producer of the great global warming swindle (aired yesterday in Australia) Martin Durkin shows how this man not only based his movie on poor science but how he purposely decieved us by changing graphs and data and removing any pivotol information that conflicted with the movies theories. Even worse one of the scientists who made comments was known to be comprimised in his views as he received research funding from Exxon!. The movie was obviously made for shock value just for marketing hype and designed to take advantage of open minded people like you and me. This is truly a shameful day for investigative reporting.
click here to watch the interview video with martin Durkin

Mod Note: Please do not simply post articles/videos in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events or issues, please post an introductory paragraph, a link to the source, AND your opinion, twist or take on the item.

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 7/13/2007 by Gools]

I was going to watch that, but that new series 'Sea Patrol' was on, and after that was the Footy Show, so I never got round to it.

Am I just simply the model for humans with regard to our planet? We put the present/our entertainment ahead of everything else. It's sad, but unavoidable.

[edit on 13/7/2007 by watch_the_rocks]

Cheers, I heard those from down-under had the 'pleasure' of exposure to Durkin's polemic. I'll watch that later.

I heard it has undergone substantial revision, with the misrepresentation of Wunsch removed, graphs corrected but still missing important information, and new questionable stuff added.

Here's a Lateline interview with Carl Wunsch on this 'documentary', haven't watched it myself yet, but meant to be worth the effort.

www.abc.net.au...

UFO...

So...do you like the article or not? Are you for or against human-caused global warming?

Yeah, he fudged a few things in there. It's just amazing however how Al Gore didn't recieve any sort of attack mongering for his disinfo distortions like GGWS did. You should have seen the wikipedia talk age melodrama that unfolded from the pro-GW camp over that thing

[edit on 17-7-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Well, checking your link, all you seem to focus on is that Gore said that there is a close relationship between CO2 and temps - which there is - but that he didn't mention that CO2 lags temps - which it does during glacial cycles.

However, he did say it was a complicated relationship

I think there are more important issues with Gore's film, mainly about overstating the case in some instances (particularly hurricanes & storms). The lag stuff is really a red-herring.

[edit on 17-7-2007 by melatonin]

He was pretty clear about the CO2 DRIVING the temperature. I have clips of him reiterating this same rhetoric, and even 2020's "Last Days on Earth" program copied him almost word for word in their scaremonger fest.

What are you suggesting about the glacier melt phenomenon? There's no way that could have an effect today could it?

[edit on 17-7-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I can only go by Inconvenient Truth, which was also what your thread focused on.

He says during the 650,000 year data:

"the relationship is actually very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others. And that is when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperatures get warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside"

OK, sounds a bit amateurish, but he's about right. He doesn't say CO2 causes glacial warming, just that when there is more CO2, it gets warmer, which it does. CO2 contributed as a positive feedback. Just like water vapour is now. And I know you accept WV affects climate

So what did he say before that, and what was he referring to?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So what did he say before that, and what was he referring to?

well, he said a lot of things before that, and I don't think I'll transcribe it all, heh.

He was referring to the 650,000 year data for temperature and CO2.

forget about Al Gore, this guy could not care less about ecology:

Gore and his guests at the weekend ceremony dined on Chilean sea bass - arguably one of the world's most threatened fish species.

Also known as Patagonian toothfish, the species is under pressure from illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities in the Southern Ocean, jeopardising the sustainability of remaining stocks.

www.news.com.au...


i am usually reluctant to shoot the messenger, in this case, considering that almost all of GW is based on selective perception and media rally i dare to say that, had Al Gore stayed out of the GW debate, none of this would have been taken so seriously.

the actual texts do not seem to mirror alarmism anyway, it's usually only the 'exective summaries', which are, err, amended, ie. tampered with, by leading bureaucrats. read f-ex:

www.epw.senate.gov...


remember when the IPCC report came out, a two week period was denoted to re-writing the txts to better suit the political summary, which had been released before. very damning, imho.

The thing is though, that i dont think limiting CO2 was the main objective of the presentation.

I respect Al Gore, he's one of my Idols because of his capacity as a speaker, and he is the god of powerpoint.

But i think that besides limiting CO2 emissions, Al Gore was trying to raise awareness of the effect mankind has on this planet.

When the CO2 limiting craze goes down, there will be alot of talk of "why stop now" and investigation into limiting harmful emissions and creating earth friendly power sources.

The affirmations of these things were:

1) The amount of times the inconvenient truth was bought (if you havnt yet, get it. Its realy interesting)
2) The amount of people who turned off their lights in 'Earth Hour' ( im not sure if this was only Sydney or not, but i remember stargazing in the middle of the city that night, it truly was lifechanging)
3) The turnout and ratings of the Liveearth concert.

But yeah, Al Gore may overstate his point, but he does it for emphasis. I have studied ancient Roman and Greek Orators, i have a great admiration for people who have the ability to speak with passion and convince others with their words. Al Gore is one of the greatest orators i have ever seen, rivalling people like Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus of ancient Rome.

These things like the inconvenient truth are made to change peoples ideas on how they influence the planet. Ive been changed, i know many others who do too.

The thing is though, that i dont think limiting CO2 was the main objective of the presentation.

I respect Al Gore, he's one of my Idols because of his capacity as a speaker, and he is the god of powerpoint.

But i think that besides limiting CO2 emissions, Al Gore was trying to raise awareness of the effect mankind has on this planet.

When the CO2 limiting craze goes down, there will be alot of talk of "why stop now" and investigation into limiting harmful emissions and creating earth friendly power sources.

The affirmations of these things were:

1) The amount of times the inconvenient truth was bought (if you havnt yet, get it. Its realy interesting)
2) The amount of people who turned off their lights in 'Earth Hour' ( im not sure if this was only Sydney or not, but i remember stargazing in the middle of the city that night, it truly was lifechanging)
3) The turnout and ratings of the Liveearth concert.

But yeah, Al Gore may overstate his point, but he does it for emphasis. I have studied ancient Roman and Greek Orators, i have a great admiration for people who have the ability to speak with passion and convince others with their words. Al Gore is one of the greatest orators i have ever seen, rivalling people like Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus of ancient Rome.

These things like the inconvenient truth are made to change peoples ideas on how they influence the planet. Ive been changed, i know many others who do too.

Originally posted by Long Lance
forget about Al Gore, this guy could not care less about ecology

I wish people would, but many seem to think the whole integrity of climate science revolves around him and his actions.

ckimate science does not revolove around Gore, perception of climate science does, to an apparently large extent.


let me post a snippet of the NAS 2001 report:

The NAS report was wide-ranging and generally informative about the state of climate science. It stated that, “Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).”

Let me repeat that: “Considerable uncertainty in current understanding.” “Estimates should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments.” Does this sound like solid support for the consensus view? Surely there must be more. Well, in fact there is.

Under the headline “The Effect of Human Activities,” the NAS addressed the potential impact of anthropogenic emissions on the climate system. Here’s what it said: “Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes in the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.”

Again, that’s worth repeating: “Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability.” “Uncertainties in the time histories of various forcing agents.” “Cannot be unequivocally established.” I read numerous press accounts of the NAS report, yet I failed to come across reporting of this quote. Is this what the consensus peddlers have in mind when they assert that everything is “settled”?

The NAS also addressed the relationship between climate change and aerosols, which are particles from processes such as dust storms, forest fires, the use of fossil fuels, and volcanic eruptions. To be sure, there is limited knowledge of how aerosols influence the climate system. This, said the NAS, represents “a large source of uncertainty about future climate change.”

By any conceivable standard, this and other statements made by NAS cannot possibly be considered unequivocal affirmations that man-made global warming is a threat, or that man-made emissions are the sole or most important factor driving climate change. It certainly cannot provide the basis for the United States Congress to adopt economically harmful reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

taken from www.epw.senate.gov... (bolding by me)

science is rarely black&white, whenever it is portrayed as such, chances are it is being instrumentalized:

It is not surprising that alarmists want to fabricate the perception that there is consensus about climate change. We know the costs of this would be enormous. Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates estimates that the costs of implementing Kyoto would cost an American family of four $2,700 annually. Acknowledging a full-fledged debate over global warming would undermine their agenda. And what is that agenda. Two international leaders have said it best. Margot Wallstrom, the EU’s Environment Commisioner states that Kyoto is “about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide.” French President Jacques Chirac said during a speech at the Hague in November 2000 that represents “the first component of authentic global governance."

(same source)

in clear terms: the first means planned economy, because there can be no doubt that such 'levelling' would be done by dictat from people whose only real skill is self-promotion (politicians), the latter is incompatible with sovereignity. no matter what the climate, this plan is being executed as we speak and presentsa far greater danger than 1.5C warming over a century ever could.

whether certain documentaries are using 'reverse scare' along with unsound arguments and outright deception or not adds little to the conversation, after all it's unlikely that media outfits would place a 'sceptic' view for any other purpose than to fail.

Originally posted by Long Lance

science is rarely black&white, whenever it is portrayed as such, chances are it is being instrumentalized:

....

whether certain documentaries are using 'reverse scare' along with unsound arguments and outright deception or not adds little to the conversation, after all it's unlikely that media outfits would place a 'sceptic' view for any other purpose than to fail.

The first thing to note is that is not actually a snippet from the NAS report, rather it is Inhofe's BS.

Second, the cherrypicked quotes are from a report 6 years old. Looks like Inhofe decided to trawl through a scientific report looking for the word 'uncertainty', ignoring all else.

Third, none of the quotes actually say anything surprising. Science doesn't provide absolutes. So, there are uncertainties that could lead to adjustments up or down, we will never be 100% sure that GHGs are the major cause of warming, there are uncertainties about future predictions. Even 6 years later these apply, they probably will 100 years from now. We will just have a little more certainty.

The problem here is that the likes of Inhofe and many others are deciding that because there are uncertainties, therefore, we should ignore the evidence we do have. Thus, in other parts the 2001 NAS report says:

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."

"The [United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change's] conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"

But he appeared to have missed these statements...

www.gcrio.org...

But, I see this has this turned into a criticism of climate science, as usual...

[edit on 18-7-2007 by melatonin]

i see two distinct patterns, the first is that something is dismissed because it's 'too old' even if that means just 6 years. this trend is interesting to say the least.

a recent example www.abovetopsecret.com...

..because, in its essence, such a stance undermines your own data and arguments, just wait for the 'expiry date'.

the second is quite clear, though, the speech is in all likelyhood going to contain correct quotes - iwo, if there's a passage about 'major uncertainties' chances are it's not going to be slightly inaccurate.

as i said, the actual texts usually do not contain what is broadcast in public, and the reasons for that go byeond self-reinforcement ofnews stories, otherwise it'd have died off after two weeks.

[edit on 18.7.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
The thing is though, that i dont think limiting CO2 was the main objective of the presentation.

I respect Al Gore, he's one of my Idols because of his capacity as a speaker, and he is the god of powerpoint.
...
But yeah, Al Gore may overstate his point, but he does it for emphasis. I have studied ancient Roman and Greek Orators, i have a great admiration for people who have the ability to speak with passion and convince others with their words. Al Gore is one of the greatest orators i have ever seen, rivalling people like Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus of ancient Rome.

These things like the inconvenient truth are made to change peoples ideas on how they influence the planet. Ive been changed, i know many others who do too.

So then you're a great admireor of propaganda and propagandists?

That's what he is and what that film is.

To be fair I myself am a propagandist, however there's a fine line I draw and I refuse to engage in disinformation, unlike Al Gore.

Originally posted by Long Lance
i see two distinct patterns, the first is that something is dismissed because it's 'too old' even if that means just 6 years. this trend is interesting to say the least.

..because, in its essence, such a stance undermines your own data and arguments, just wait for the 'expiry date'.

Only if you think scientific data is written in stone...

Obviously, you don't see the conflict. I agree there are uncertainties, so would every scientist involved in this stuff. Yet, the only way to increase certainty is to collect more and better data. Which is what scientists do.

So, to criticse a comment that says knowledge in 2007 is a better guide to the current state of understanding than 2001 is pretty remiss in a dynamic area of science. 6 years is a long time in science, climatologists are working every day to reduce these uncertainties.

Almost all measures and results contains a degree of uncertainty. So to ask for unequivocal data is just rubbish. That's not the way these things work. We can say likely, very likely, almost certainly, but not unequivocally.

the second is quite clear, though, the speech is in all likelyhood going to contain correct quotes - iwo, if there's a passage about 'major uncertainties' chances are it's not going to be slightly inaccurate.

as i said, the actual texts usually do not contain what is broadcast in public, and the reasons for that go byeond self-reinforcement ofnews stories, otherwise it'd have died off after two weeks.

I don't question that the NAS report contained those quotes, but what I'm saying is that Inhofe has cherrypicked particular statements that make the scientific uncertainties more an issue than they are. Yes, there are uncertainties, the predictions from models show this very clearly.

However, that doesn't mean the scientific evidence should be ignored, which is what he wants.

ABE: Took me a while to find it, but this is the playbook that Inhofe, Bush et al in the republicans have been playing from:

www.luntzspeak.com...

Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate

Focus on scientific uncertainty and doubt. Just like the Tobacco companies.

And there always will be, scientists rarely ever deal in absolutes.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Long Lance
forget about Al Gore, this guy could not care less about ecology:

Or maybe he does:

But the fish enjoyed by the Gores were not endangered or illegally caught.

Rather, the restaurant later confirmed, they had come from one of the world's few well-managed, sustainable populations of toothfish, and caught and documented in compliance with Marine Stewardship Council regulations. The Gores' spokesman, Kalee Kreider, admitted that the fish has been on the menu, but said: "The Gores absolutely agree with this humane society and the rest of the environmental community about illegally caught Chilean sea bass.