The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Magnus]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257958,00.html . . . clearly.

I don't hate Gore - I would have voted for him given the alternative available. He just wasn't a very good choice IMO.

But then.. who is? He would have been a damn better choice than Bush.

As for the article, let's leave aside the fact that it's on Fox... I reckon carbon trading is b0ll0cks, but I think Gore was buying his electricity from a company using renewable sources (or it might have just been a co. which purchased offset credits -- bad). The article is crap though because it talks about Gore and his wife using 20x the electricity of the average American family, but it's not a family home, it's a mansion, and it's a home office, and he has staff there (security, office staff, whatever). If you totalled your electricity usage at home with your usage at work it would probably be about triple your home usage -- and Gore has several people working there (so I've heard).

The report on Gore's electricity usage came from the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research which is a Republican hit group anyway. I'm not sure what purpose slinging cheap shots at Gore is supposed to achieve, cheap shots about his rich lifestyle, his airline flights, etc -- that's a fact of American life and business, and an issue separate from global warming. Doesn't change the facts about global warming/climate change at all. It's pure shoot the messenger, thus try to discredit the message tactics.

[Back In Business]

It's pure shoot the messenger, thus try to discredit the message tactics.

You offered some articles that painted Martin Durkin in a bad light as an argument against the program aired this past week. I was just showing how pointless it is to attack a person just because they hold an opinion that you disagree with.

It is clear that there is solid scientific evidence against the popular theory of man-made global warming. What it comes down to is whether the small amount of CO2 produced by humans (relative to what is produced naturally) or the sun has the greater influence on our climate.

[xoggoth]

The way the issue is being hijacked by those with a vested interest is certainly a major concern and the program has made me much more sceptical about what I thought were scientific reports.

However, these antis also made a number of misleading comments on the program and gave a lot of supposed evidence which in fact proves nothing if you examine it carefully. I cannot be bothered to repeat the points as I bunged them on my blog earlier

http://www.xoggoth.org/pages/bloggoth.html#c4gw

[Magnus]

Right-oh, I've just downloaded the show using BitTorrent and watched it. Does Durkin think that solar intensity increases global temperature? Or is it cosmic rays that cause increased cloud cover that makes temperatures drop? Which is it hmmm?? He showed some spiffy graphs that prove it's either one or the other. Can't be both though can it?

Whereas the same spiffy graph which related CO2 levels to temperature was dismissed out of hand because he was able to infer a lag of 800 years between the level of CO2 and temperature. 800 years is a tiny duration for the scales of time involved.

There were about 6-8 scientists and others presenting their opinions. How is one supposed to know if what was shown in the episode is a true reflection of their opinions, given Durkin's history of selective quotations, and his agenda? Anyhow, I was intrigued by one particular interviewee (the co-founder of Greenpeace - Patrick Moore) so I googled his name. Look at what I found in the first page of hits! http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.html and http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/liar.html. Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmm.

Then the documentary went into la-la territory: the whole anti-CO2 campaign was due in the first place to Thatcher trying to break the coal-mining unions? WTF??? An equally lengthily drawn bow was the international greenie conspiracy to stop Africa from developing itself. ?? Double WTF?? Hilarious stuff.

Back In Business, you may think you caught me out by contrasting my attack on Durkin for his history of disinformation with my complaint against Fox News's and the Tennessee Centre's attack on Al Gore, but you didn't. I showed that Durkin has a history of producing documentaries that cannot be trusted, therefore we should be sceptical of his latest work. But the attacks on Gore had nothing to do with his message, just his own application of his own principles (the attacks being a furphy anyway, as I so successfully pointed out).

HTH

[Buffoon]

Right-oh, I've just downloaded the show using BitTorrent and watched it.

So all the previous slagging off you gave it was based on nothing!

Does Durkin think that solar intensity increases global temperature? Or is it cosmic rays that cause increased cloud cover that makes temperatures drop? Which is it hmmm?? He showed some spiffy graphs that prove it's either one or the other. Can't be both though can it?

Yes it can. Clouds not so much cool things as block the heating. An equilibrium is established between two effects, as anyone with the most basic of science knowledge understands.

Oh, I can't be arsed to bother with this lefty troll anymore.

[wendigo100]

It is a lefty trait to spout on about things they know nothing about. I call it "high horse in deep pit" syndrome.

[Back In Business]

An equally lengthily drawn bow was the international greenie conspiracy to stop Africa from developing itself. ?? Double WTF?? Hilarious stuff.

Do you find it funny that people in Africa are dying on a daily basis because they are denied access to "dirty" energy.

I'm sure you have something better to do with your life than post complete garbage on this forum - please crack on with whatever that is.

[DimPrawn]

The money now being wasted on a pointless C02 counting exercise could be usefully spent on clean water, shelter, immunisation and education in the 3rd world. Or even in Britain, which is heading for 3rd world status.

[Magnus]

You guys are on a hiding to nothing, when it comes down to it. Look at the people that deny climate change that is caused by humans, especially the ones in the USA that deny it.

Do you really want to mix yourselves up with people who believe in intelligent design? People who thought (and still do) that Saddam Hussein plotted 9/11? People who back torture? That's the side of politics that is trying to deny that humans are causing global warming.

Chat to you all tomorrow

[xoggoth]

Yeh B in B, but there is another argument, the GW believers think that the third world will be the main sufferers if significant GW does happen.

The big differences between now and say a few hundred years ago are population growth and national boundaries. At one time, tribes could have coped with major drought by migrating to where the rainfall was better but this option is no longer open to the majority of any country's population.

Unreasonable though it may seem (assuming that man made GW is a genuine threat of course) it could be argued that curbing fossil fuel use is in third world countries' best interests too.