http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The...Warming-Swindle (http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle)
http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.

2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:

Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere
Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!

3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.

But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!

I imagine that in the not–too–distant future all the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute, 1997).

I thought this documentary was well presented as well.


Climatology and climatologists is a very new academic field and mostly made up by computer programmers with little or no relevant background. Climate models are produced and simulate climate predictions on 30 - 50 years of climate data (with little or no standards) meanwhile climate has been going on for millions of years. The real climate records are hidden in millions of years of geologic evidence and the facts and theories made by geologists are largely not supported by popular belief and therefore not accepted.

The days of real scientific research are gone: theory, research, methodology, conclusion and peer review.

Now it is political drive, funding and accepted belief by the scientific community at large or your wasting your time.

Before Global Warming the big global scare was population boom and the ability to feed ourselves. Well that was a farce. All over the earth people are eating well, living longer and generally speaking we have never lived so well. (there are exceptions to this such as right now in the Sudan, but these issues are politically driven)

The largest problem we face today as a species is mass stupidity and the ability to think for ourselves.

Einstein is rolling in his grave!

Even if there was truth that our greenhouse gases were the problem, it would not matter. The human race would not be willing to give up our cars, A/C, growth, or anything else until it would be too late. We would rather go down with the ship than to change our life styles.
Interesting piece.

Richard

I read in the 1970's the big scare was the earth cooling and us entering another ice age....
of course, being only age 30 I wasn't around for most of the 70's to confirm this......

I have a couple things to add to this, I havent viewed the documentary yet but will.

When the permafrost melts as it is doing in Siberia, it will release far more C02 and methane then produced from all human activity.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500.html

Another issue that makes me go hmm is the melting of the northern passage. A first in the short period that we have been keeping records.

I read in the 1970's the big scare was the earth cooling and us entering another ice age....
of course, being only age 30 I wasn't around for most of the 70's to confirm this......[/b]

As a person from the 70's I heard the very same thing. As I understand 1972 was the coldest since the last ice age. I can remember growing up in Michigan and we got snow and cold from late November through April and sometimes into May. And I mean snow for the entire winter. I guess those days are gone.
Richard

I have a couple things to add to this, I havent viewed the documentary yet but will.

When the permafrost melts as it is doing in Siberia, it will release far more C02 and methane then produced from all human activity.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500.html

Another issue that makes me go hmm is the melting of the northern passage. A first in the short period that we have been keeping records.[/b]

I don't think anyone is disputing the world is getting warmer but, is it because of human activities or just a natural part of the planet ageing.

Richard

Unfortunately, most of the world will not listen to this logical reasoning. Its far more politically correct to run around yelling "the sky is falling"

This world has a lot of problems, but global warming is strictly a political winfall if you ask me.

FishHog

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The...Warming-Swindle (http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle)
http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.

2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:

Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere
Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!

3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.

But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!

I imagine that in the not–too–distant future all the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute, 1997).[/b]


ANYONE who believe in Global Warming must also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

Complete Rubbish!

Natural Solar Cycles. Nothing man can do about the sun....except get a Tan. :D

Even if there was truth that our greenhouse gases were the problem, it would not matter. The human race would not be willing to give up our cars, A/C, growth, or anything else until it would be too late. We would rather go down with the ship than to change our life styles.
Interesting piece.

Richard[/b]
Now that's the truest thing I think I've ever read here.

Unfortunately, most of the world will not listen to this logical reasoning. Its far more politically correct to run around yelling "the sky is falling"

This world has a lot of problems, but global warming is strictly a political winfall if you ask me.

FishHog[/b]
I certainly agree that the majority won't listen to logical reasoning. See the quote above.
I really fail to see how you could think that global warming is a political windfall. That makes no sense whatsoever.
If we would start to follow Kyoto protocols it would be a huge economic windfall, because the savings in energy though conservation and alternative fuels would be huge.

The sad part is, North America is going to be left way behind economically because of Bush and Harper dragging their heels on this. Europe is already years ahead in both, and they're going to reap the benifits.

The problem in North America, it seems, is we have too many people who are willing to bury their head in the sand, or who'll be distracted by the garbage on Fox News.

The sad part is, North America is going to be left way behind economically because of Bush and Harper dragging their heels on this. Europe is already years ahead in both, and they're going to reap the benifits.[/b]

You have got to be kidding me! Signing onto Kyoto and enforcing it (or any treaty like it) would destroy the U.S. economy, and throw us into a depression that would make the Thirties look like a walk in the park. The United States produces aproximately one-fifth of the worlds GDP! Obviously that requires an enormous amount of energy, which means that limiting our CO2 production has an incredibly disproportionate effect impact on us, when compared to the European countries that are pushing this issue. If we have to limit CO2 production, it drives up the cost of doing business here, and since we do NOT have a viable alternative to carbon fuels at this time, that means that even more companies will flee the U.S. to do business in undeveloped countries that aren't signed onto the treaty. The whole anthropogenic warming theory is a Socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth, and bring to down the U.S.A. (economically).

Don't get me wrong, we certainly do need to find alternative energy sources. Coal is dirty (especially the mercury pollution), and oil is getting expensive and financing our enemies in the Middle East. But CO2 is not pollution, it is not responsible for warming the earth, and destroying our economy (for this anthropogenic warming hoax) is not going to help find an energy solution. Most science is funded by government grants. Do you know what happens to government grants when the economy tanks? They dry up. No scientific grants means no research to find alternative energy sources.

Did you even watch the documentary? If you wasted your time watching Al Gore's propaganda, you owe it to yourself to watch this rebuttal.

You've been swindled my friend. All the talk of Kyoto destroying the economy is fear-mongering. As I was saying, Alternative fuels is part of the answer, but conservation is the key. And that doesn't mean shutting down the factories, it means running them more efficiently.
I just attended a conference on Bio-Mass fuels two weeks ago, and the talk was about what they've done in Europe, and how we can make that work here. For once, I'd like to see us be innovative instead of dragging our feet until we see how much money they're saving by using less fuel.
Botom line. Kyoto would save us money.

I guess my fear regarding what research is being done now to become less dependent on current energy sources, is that it seems like it's supported largely by big oil and government. Please try and make me believe this is an effective approach to the problem - seeing how any breakthrough technology is going to affect the bottom lines of each of the above. Something like that would affect big oil directly obviously, and government indirectly due to big oil/energy sponsored campaign contributions/lobbying. But I'm just an uninformed little guy, maybe I'm missing something?

You've been swindled my friend. All the talk of Kyoto destroying the economy is fear-mongering. As I was saying, Alternative fuels is part of the answer, but conservation is the key. And that doesn't mean shutting down the factories, it means running them more efficiently.
I just attended a conference on Bio-Mass fuels two weeks ago, and the talk was about what they've done in Europe, and how we can make that work here. For once, I'd like to see us be innovative instead of dragging our feet until we see how much money they're saving by using less fuel.
Botom line. Kyoto would save us money.[/b]

I haven't been swindled by anyone, and I keep a very open mind on this subject. But there isn't enough that much waste to "conserve" at our factories. In this competitive global market, do you actually think that factories enjoy wasting money on 6 figure electric bills? If there were a lot of money to be saved there, don't you think they would do it? If Kyoto had the potential to save us money, don't you think we would be jumping at the chance to sign it? We have already lost too many jobs due to "free trade" agreements, and we can't afford to lose even more by raising the cost of production in the U.S..

I haven't been swindled by anyone, and I keep a very open mind on this subject. But there isn't enough that much waste to "conserve" at our factories. In this competitive global market, do you actually think that factories enjoy wasting money on 6 figure electric bills? If there were a lot of money to be saved there, don't you think they would do it? If Kyoto had the potential to save us money, don't you think we would be jumping at the chance to sign it? We have already lost too many jobs due to "free trade" agreements, and we can't afford to lose even more by raising the cost of production in the U.S..[/b]
It's the cost of initial investment, fear, and misinformation that keeps them from investing in conservation. That, and a lack of government encouragement.

If you're worried about losing jobs, you should jump on the Koyoto bandwagon now, because in 10 years, when everyone else is producing at 75% the cost of the US (and Canada judging from teh path Harper is leading us down) we're really going to start seeing manufacturing jobs disappear.

I guess my fear regarding what research is being done now to become less dependent on current energy sources, is that it seems like it's supported largely by big oil and government. Please try and make me believe this is an effective approach to the problem - seeing how any breakthrough technology is going to affect the bottom lines of each of the above. Something like that would affect big oil directly obviously, and government indirectly due to big oil/energy sponsored campaign contributions/lobbying. But I'm just an uninformed little guy, maybe I'm missing something?[/b]
You're not completely right. There is a lot of research going on out there into other fuels that is not directed by the big oil companies. There is also a small number of oil companies that CAN see the writing on the wall, who are not simply interested in brainwashing the public to protect their bottom line in the next quarter, and who now refer to themselves as "energy" companies, not "oil" companies. It's clear to anyone willing to look that there's money in sectors other then oil.

The most promising technologies on the horizon involve using bio-mass that's currently going to waste, and I don't mean ethanol, which is nothing but a white elephant.

The irony is, all the people who cry wolf about the costs of Kyoto don't mind subsidizing big oil, but they're unwilling to introduce tax incentives for alternative fuels.

It's the cost of initial investment, fear, and misinformation that keeps them from investing in conservation. That, and a lack of government encouragement.

If you're worried about losing jobs, you should jump on the Koyoto bandwagon now, because in 10 years, when everyone else is producing at 75% the cost of the US (and Canada judging from teh path Harper is leading us down) we're really going to start seeing manufacturing jobs disappear.[/b]

Like I said before, we do need to strive for conservation and alternative energy, but we don't need to set carbon limits to do that (the resulting economic damage is counterproductive to research on alternate energy, as I already explained). And if you think that any currently known alternate energy source is going to save us 75% of the cost of production, then I am afraid it is you that has been swindled. I guess this is the point where we just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.