Jump to content

Global Warming Video?


smokingwreckage
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Great Global Warming Swindle

 

OK, I'm hoping this ISN'T considered Beekeepers material, and so, please, keep it civil. I wanted to know if someone with some bandwidth could give me a run-down on this video. I'm told it's kind of the inverse of "An Inconvenient Truth" so I'm hoping that means it's apolitical and scientific...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for the link.

 

I really liked the part where the one scientists admits to being one of the people in the late 70s who claimed Global Cooling was going to have catastrophic effects. Nothing like a little egg on your face to make you look for the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to Google video and used the Download option. Took a good bit of time (the video is about 75 minutes long and almost 600MB in gvi format).

 

I watched it last night.

 

I have seen a few of the items in the video elsewhere - mostly concerning how the global warming crowd is quick to exclude from their models any contribution of the sun. Other researchers have shown the connection between the level of solar activity (sunspots, solar winds, magnetic field fluctuations) and cloud formation. From there, it is easy to show the relation between clouds and surface temperature. But when their conclusions are already set, they certainly don't want to actually look at the science. The pseudo-science of the manmade global warming issue has become the latest fanatical religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoking - I missed where you indicated you haven't seen it because of your bandwidth. Let me give you a review of it:

 

I started out watching rather skeptical, as I am of most things like this. I was happy to see that it while it took a stance against the current politics of global warming, it didn't do so with hype, but used science and history to show why they thought the mandmade global warming issue wasn't scientifically based. They discussed the history of the current trend, where the motivations and activists primarly come from, and what science says about the whole thing. In fact they specifically point out that for the last thirty years, there has been global warming, but that it seems to correlate to solar activity, as does the previous 40 years of global cooling - and they show where their evidence came from. They interview several people who are listed as authors of the UNs IPCC committee who issued the report on Global Warming, and you learn that just because these peoples names are on the report, doesn't necessarily mean they are 100% in agreement with it.

 

Overall, it confirms what I originally suspected - that the majority of the people who are screaming about man being the primary cause of global warming are NOT scientists, and that scientists themselves are divided on the issue, and money - lots of money - is involved. There is somewhat of a stance to the video, but it seems to be based on the history and science they cover, rather than a political motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not too impressed. I see it as a response to Gore's movie. As such it (not surprisingly) easily dismisses the most blatantly false info in Gore's movie. It is better than Gore's movie but same genre. IMO it is just the latest installment of the new trend of making partisan movies and presenting them as documentaries. Along the lines of Michael Moore movies and Gore's global warming movie. And it IS quite good compared to the rest in its genre of pseudo documentaries.

 

It must be noted that I've only watched the first half so far.

 

So far I don't feel it's very critical though. It addresses a tiny corner of the debate over climate change and then generalizes wildly. The arguments are mostly sound though. My major concern isn't with logical faults or plain lying (like is the case with Gore's movie), but rather with omission.

 

I'd like to discuss this in greater detail but I think it really should take place in Beekeepers. Overall it's good fun entertainment. But don't expect an unbiased presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't watch video for a good, in depth or even complete analysis. It can however be a good antidote for people who don't read, and have been alarmed by something they watched, and you can't seem to get through to them that you've Read a Lot About This And What They Saw Was Wrong. It frustrates me to deal with people who believe what they see on a screen, but sometimes I have to nonetheless, because they're decent, and even intelligent people, just not real good at info sorting/gathering.

 

But yeah, if I wanted to go into depth I guess I'd just do it in Beekeepers. The easily offended should note how generalised and nonthreatening this post has been!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My impression wasn't that it is superficial, but rather that it is as biased and manipulative as the videos presented by the opposing side. The main differences being better research, better presentation and that it's the sceptic side doing it this time.

 

Overall I'm tired of these kinds of videos, regardless of who's producing them. They claim to be part of the debate but aren't. They don't present any new arguments, but just present a very narrow section of fact to manipulate the general public.

 

This is a very important subject. The intro to this video alone gives it away. It's a manipulative political piece, nothing more. Just like the video it's a response to.

 

Hope I'm not drawing this topic into beekeepers, I'm kinda bad at judging these things myself, so if I'm getting near or crossing some line please do tell me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something to think about....

 

We record temperatures for official records (the kinds people check to see if temperatures worldwide are rising) at airports. It's simpler to do it that way since airports are concerned with the weather anyways, so the equipment is already there. Over the time period that people have been recording temperatures, the cities around airports have been getting bigger. It is well known that cities are the hottest areas on the surface of the planet, because the non-biological make up of the terrain absorbs heat and attracts and produces heat more than the surroundings. As the cities get bigger, the heat gets higher. And so the airports, often in or next to the cities, are reading an aberation - a quirky difference - in the global temperatures. It's like putting a thermometer on a heat register to check to see what the temperature in the room is.

 

Just food for thought. If you want a full course meal's worth of food for thought, I'd suggest reading Michael Chrighton's "State of Fear." Not his best work, but it's an entertaining read and it's chock full of things you can think about regarding global warming. You ought to be able to find it in your local library under fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its USA Winter Wrap Up report a couple of days ago. They entitled it "NOAA SAYS U.S. WINTER TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE" and state that the average temperature was 33.6 degrees F, which is 0.6 degrees higher than the 33.0 degree average from the previous 106 years. They also report that globally, the Dec-Feb winter timeframe was the warmest in recorded history since 1880.

 

So how does CNN report it? "Winter has been world's warmest on record" naturally. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of weird stuff goes on too. Like for example, all the world's deep-water ports have records of sea levels going back at least 50 years. But... and this is the weird bit... nobody is collating that to see if sea levels are rising. I hear, anecdotally, that the ports are measuring no variance in sea levels. I also hear repeated reports that sea levels are rising because volcanic island X or coral atoll Y are losing land to the sea, but isn't measuring sea level against geologically extremely unstable and even transient features a bit stupid?

 

Vejlin, did you see factual errors in the video? I personally don't have a problem with rhetoric per se, just with lies. That's really my problem with Big Al's Inconvenient Truthiness; not that it uses pitch and tone to get a response, but that it presents factual errors, false data, and presents correlations as causal, even to the extent that it claims correlations that don't exist and then claims the nonexistant correlations are causal. Nonetheless I have seen some pretty unjustified stretches of logic on places like Junk Science dot com, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No factual errors (atleast not ones I noticed), more very weird and illogical conclusions being drawn. Worst is IMO the conclusions left to the viewer. This is the oldest trick in the book, since you can't attack the program for the conclusions reached by the viewer.

 

Some of the stuff I find to be bad about this video:

 

1) It tries to portrait the global warming crowd as non-sientists who are driven by political motives, while the skeptics are the "real" scientists. Truth is that this could be turned around 180 degrees with no trouble. Both sides have both types of people.

 

2) Money. It is claimed that money and jobs are at risk should the global warming scam be exposed. Again this could easily be turned around 180 degrees. Are there not alot of money and jobs at stake should we actually try to dramatically lower CO2 emissions?

 

3) Searching the web I quickly found that atleast one of the scientists shown in the video has been mislead and feels abused. He feels his comments were edited to a degree as to be misleading and propaganda.

 

4) The viewer is left with an idea that the views and arguments of Al gore are representative of all climate researchers.

 

5) There is alot of talk about lag in a number of instances, but lag is only assumed to occur when it supports the skeptic cause. For instance the whole "well during this part of history when we were emitting alot of CO2 temperatures actually dropped"-argument assumes that the effects are instantanious. What happened to being critical and looking at lag? What happens if you shift the graph?

 

6) The alleged views of the global warming crowd is presented by skeptics. I'm left wondering if this is actually the views, conclusions and arguments of the global warming researchers. The typical receipe in this program is:

The alarmists think A. This is obviously wrong considering that B. The converse C must therefore be true.

 

Well how do I know A is actually stuff proposed by serious GW researchers and not just Al ? How am I supposed to react to statement B when it is presented as fact, without the opposition having a chance to disagree? And finally once you've shown A to be false it doesn't automatically follow that the converse is true. Most people are not nearly critical enough of bi-implications, this is abused heavily.

 

Facts are that nothing new is presented in this video. This is not a part of the scientific debate. It's a political piece. If I get the time I'll sit down and watch the video in its entirity and make a review. While I'm not a climate scientist, I do work with math and computer science and therefor I'm used to very stringent logic. It's NOT what I'm seeing in this video and it needs to be commented. What I'm reading on the web now is alot of "oh wow, this changes everything" just like you always hear after this kind of video gets released. It is aimed at the general public and it is manipulation, pure and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's NOT what I'm seeing in this video and it needs to be commented. What I'm reading on the web now is alot of "oh wow, this changes everything" just like you always hear after this kind of video gets released. It is aimed at the general public and it is manipulation, pure and simple.

It's the same thing on both sides of the issue Kim. Scientists themselves are deeply divided on the issue, and both sides are using manipulation. And money, lots of money is involved.

 

I get most annoyed that we, the general public, are arguing something science hasn't even decided on yet. And the only reason the video makes me happy is that is a good counterpoint to the tactics that were used in Gore's movie because it evens the balance back towards the center of the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...