I certainly subscribe to the Global Warming argument. Regardless of whichever film you happen to be watching (please consider the reasons people make films), what about the fact that all the top Government scientists have insisted that mankind is contributing to Global Warming? They may have an agenda, but I don’t think it’s advertising revenue (as in the case of The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The Oil industry has been found to finance dodgy scientific claims on numerous occasions, so I would be wary of any pro oil claims now.

Isn’t it about time we took advantage of wind, wave and solar energy? Oil is so dirty, burning any fossil fuel seems suitable only in a historical context, it is not a solution for the future.

The US is a million miles behind Europe in this respect; we went through the clumsy counter claims about ten years ago. Now we are actually creating beautiful, clean solutions. Catch up.

Left by Jimmal on March 13th, 2007 at 2:25 am

I certainly subscribe to the Global Warming argume

Of course, you do, euroweenie. You also believe you know more about America and American law than American judges. You believe Iran should have nuclear weapons and you believe it’s okay to verally attack a women whose 6 year old daughter was murdered.

Left by Anonymous on March 13th, 2007 at 8:32 am

man is only responsible for less than 10% of all the C02 prodcued on this planet

This statisitic does not back up your argument.

Imagine any system in equilibrium- gallon jug of water, you benchpressing your max, your credit card.

Now add 10%- the water overflows, you drop the weights, and you owe your credit card company a penalty fee. Sure it was only 10% but it was a decisive 10%.

My mind is open about the global warming debate but the motivations of the the opponents give me skepticism.

Left by Preston on March 13th, 2007 at 8:56 am

My mind is also open as to the cause of global warming and what, if anything USEFUL, can be done to slow it down.

Just yesterday I read that there was a proposal to put speed limits on the German autobahn but the German people went ballistic. Surprised the hell out of me coming from the part of the world that is crying about global warming the loudest.

Anyhow, my point is whatever is proposed must be useful and workable and not have unintended consequences that are worse than the problem itself.

Also, according to Drudge, the NY Times is about to break some big story debunking the global warming hysteria…we’ll have to wait and see.

Left by dianne on March 13th, 2007 at 9:25 am

Its good to see people becoming less gullible. As expected Gore convenient spin is just that. However it is clear there is something going on with the weather, but 100 years of global warming coming towards us seems unlikely. Nor is it likely that humans have anything to do with it. As a matter of fact there are indication that an ICE AGE maybe approaching and that the current observable ‘global warming’ maybe just be a trigger for what is called the ’sudden glacial rebound’. I read a great comprehensive article here: Please check it out.

Left by John Galt on March 13th, 2007 at 9:49 am

They may have an agenda, but I don’t think it’s advertising revenue (as in the case of The Great Global Warming Swindle.

What makes you think that Algore’s 40+ million dollars at the box office didn’t influence the hysterical level of his “documentary”? But, at the same time, you posit that the producers of a TV show taking the decidedly unpopular side of the argument, which has caused people to be equated with holocaust deniers, only did it to turn a buck?

And you think that their advertising revenue would have been lower had they produced a documentary supporting Algore’s popular hysterical predictions?

The Oil industry has been found to finance dodgy scientific claims on numerous occasions, so I would be wary of any pro oil claims now.

Evidence? I’m not doubting you necessarily, I’d just like a link so I can check out those “dodgy scientific claims” for myself.

Isn’t it about time we took advantage of wind, wave and solar energy? Oil is so dirty, burning any fossil fuel seems suitable only in a historical context, it is not a solution for the future.

You are probably right about fossil fuels not being a solution for the future, but right now, they are the best, most efficient and most affordable solution…especially for developing countries. Research and development into alternative energy sources continues apace. The problems are the costs associated with them, their relative inefficiency and the inconsistent nature of their driving mechanisms. Wind, solar and other “natural” sources of energy are simply too expensive and inconsistent to be relied upon at current technology levels. Someday they may reach the level where they are viable, but you can’t just snap your fingers and make a technology viable. It takes time and research and there is simply no way around that.

I know of NO global warming skeptic who is condemning the development of alternative energy sources. They are only saying that there is no need to sacrifice traditional fossil fuels…which are the very basis of production and drive the world economy…at this juncture before alternative technologies are ready for economical and widespread use.

My mind is open about the global warming debate but the motivations of the the opponents give me skepticism.

What do you mean by “opponents?” Do you mean opponents of global warming…i.e. the Algore fan club? Or do you mean opponents of global warming hysteria?

What are their motivations? Upon what do you base your determination of their motivations?

Imagine any system in equilibrium- gallon jug of water, you benchpressing your max, your credit card.

Your hypothesis relies on two assumptions, first, that the climate is “in equilibrium”, and second, that said equilibrium is currently at maximum capacity.

Neither assumption is a “given” as you seem to indicate. In fact, the image of the Earth’s climate as being in some sort of stasis and any change is an indication of an impending “overflow” is ridiculous on its face.

Furthermore, there is growing evidence that increasing CO2 is not a cause of global temperature rise but is a consequence of it. Look at the chart in this study:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
The CO2 levels are in red, the temperatures are in blue. Notice that the CO2 levels CONSISTENTLY LAG the temperatures?

The ironic thing is that this report is the first one I found when I did a search and it is a case study on the type of “science” that has led to the “consensus” that everyone talks about. Notice in the first couple of paragraphs where they clearly state:

“it is still unknown whether GTG [greenhouse gas-ed] concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa–or whether they increase synchronously. It’s also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation. “

They also point out a major flaw in the global warming theorists hypothesis:

“Notice how CO2 concentration rises vertically at the end of the time series. The increase appears vertical because of the large time scale, but it actually occurs over the past 150 years, which corresponds to the age of fossil fuels (the modern industrial age). Notice too that there hasn’t been a corresponding increase in temperature during this time period.”

But, in typical “scientific consensus” fashion, they ignore their own observations:

“Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing. “

In short, the evidence does not support the theory, but no self-respecting scientist can let that get in the way of a popular “scientific consensus” now can they??? It is much more politically correct to add more hypothesis on top of the old, accepted hypothesis to explain WHY the evidence doesn’t support the theory.

I wonder, are “small increases in solar radiation” amplified by the manmade greenhouse gases on OTHER planets in our Solar system as well?

The moons of Neptune as well as Jupiter, Pluto and Mars have all shown indications of global warming. Does Algore have 28,000 square foot mansions scattered throughout the galaxy? Or, as Crosspatch of Strata-sphere put it, “what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets.”:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3434

It sure as heck isn’t manmade CO2 levels.

Left by Sailorcurt on March 13th, 2007 at 3:42 pm

why is it that some people compare the global warming to the fact that in some parts of the world it is still cold. the climate change is not only about colder weather. the person at the north pole expedition only had frostbite on 3 toes….. if there was no global warming, she probably would have lost every toe AND finger.

Left by chris on March 13th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

“What makes you think that Algore’s 40+ million dollars at the box office didn’t influence the hysterical level of his “documentary”?”

I covered this issue… “please consider the reasons people make films”. The media and scientific study are separate entities, whichever side of the fence they sit on. I have not seen Algore’s film, yet I have seen a bit of the documentary in question. I prefer to understand this topic on a more factual rather than ‘Film based’ angle.

Evidence of Exxon Mobil / Esso, regarding spurious scientific claims and multi billion dollar arrangements can be found here.
I am not a Greenpeace activist (yet), I’m confident they are not governed by the love of money though.

“I know of NO global warming skeptic who is condemning the development of alternative energy sources”

This is very encouraging - I do not personally know many skeptics; I’ve had to plug into a US blog to find them! I would agree that these ‘green’ energy supply developments cost money and take time, however, it is our job as consumers to demand these products. Once the power suppliers, the car manufacturers et al realise there is more money to be made from being ecologically responsible, we will soon see the technology evolve. But we need to demand it… we need to establish a competetive market for environmentally responsible companies - and this is something that we can and, are slowly doing.

Left by Jimmal on March 14th, 2007 at 4:55 am

UPDATE — Even the NY Times is growing skeptical.

Robbie- if this is your analysis of this article can I suggest that’s the reason why you believe the press is ‘liberal’. In fact, this article does not mean the New York Times is skeptical of global warming. It doesn’t even mean that the writer is skeptical of global warming. It just means that the people quoted in the article are skeptical.

Reporting on an issue doesn’t imply an endorsement of the views in that article.

Left by Preston on March 14th, 2007 at 7:14 am

Now I hear on television that Al Gore has ownership in the company he buys carbon offsets from????? Don’t have time to do a complete search to check this out, cept for this article.
http://www.bloggernews.net/14959

So he profits in the end. I mean, this is unbelievable.

Left by dianne on March 14th, 2007 at 8:18 am

I’m not sure what difference it makes, Dianne. Either he taking measures to offset his carbon production or not: it’s not necessary for him to go through a third party.

If I declared that I would plant a tree every time that I drove a car there wouldn’t be a financial transaction yet the amount of carbon that I added to the atmosphere would be removed.

Left by Preston on March 14th, 2007 at 8:47 am

Worse, Dianne, is that the company Gore buys “carbon offsets” from (Generation Investment Management), doesn’t even sell carbon offsets.

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

Left by Robbie on March 14th, 2007 at 9:35 am

Robbie- That article looks pretty slanderous to me- how is the paying of money to GIM equated as a ’stock purchase’? Is he receiving something in return?

Left by Preston on March 14th, 2007 at 9:54 am

Evidence of Exxon Mobil / Esso, regarding spurious scientific claims and multi billion dollar arrangements can be found here.

Um. There was no “evidence” there. There were unsupported charges, innuendo and conspiracy theories, but nothing factual other than that Esso donated money to Republicans, think tanks and other entities that support their industry. This surprises you because….

Lawyers do the same thing, as do teacher’s unions, worker’s unions, banks, liberal foundations, conservative foundations etc etc etc. Do YOU donate money to organizations with which you disagree?

Basically, your entire premise that Esso has funded “dodgy scientific claims” is based upon the fact that Greenpeace (an organization that is no less dedicated to their own agenda than any organization who’s agenda is profit) says so.

The evidence: Esso has provided funding to global warming skeptics. Since the science of global warming skeptics strays from the “consensus”, it MUST be dodgy, therefore, Esso funds dodgy science.

Notably, you didn’t comment on the “dodgy science” being promoted by the Global Warming proponents that I pointed out in my last comment. Hmm. Perhaps your (and Greanpeace’s) definition of “dodgy science” has more to do with personal biases than with any legitimate claim.

I do not personally know many [global warming skeptics]

If you live in Europe, that doesn’t surprise me.

However, it is our job as consumers to demand these Products.

Have you ever taken an economics class? If not, I recommend Thomas Sowell’s book “Basic Economics”
http://www.lfb.com/index.php?deptid=&parentid=&stocknumber=TS8764&page=1&itemsperpage=24

I’m not going to go into an economics lesson right here, but your assertion about a “consumer’s job” is ridiculous.

There is a demand for the green technologies that you desire. Right now the demand is small and is restricted to wealthy people…like, say, George W. Bush:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm

But as the rich people purchase these technologies and the companies that provide them make more profit to offset the research and development costs, the prices will drop and more and more people will be able to afford them, which will lower the costs etc. etc.

Economics doesn’t work the way you presume. We can’t just “demand” that industry provide what we want at a price that we can afford. The technologies that you “demand” exist today…you just have to be able to pay the price. You can sink your money wherever you want to, if that means investing tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars into making your house “green”, then knock yourself out. I, on the other hand, have other priorities…like, say, feeding my family.

Assuming that the technolgies that you espouse can be made to be efficient enough to be practical for widespread use, they will eventually become the norm. They will do so at the normal pace set by the economy. Rushing things through legislative fiat will not make the progression of science any faster, only more painful and damaging to the economy.

As was stated before, based upon the state of climate science currently, there is not enough evidence in support of anthropomorphic global warming to justify the costs of the demonstrably ineffective “solutions” proposed by such as the Kyoto treaty…which, by the way, is not even being lived up to by the countries that signed onto it wholeheartedly.

Oh, and whether Algore is actually buying “carbon offsets” or just investing money in his own company or not is irrelevant. Carbon offsets are a farce.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/smugness_coupon.html

Left by Sailorcurt on March 14th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

1. Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study.

2. ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science.

I hope at least point 1 satisfies your requirements - apologies if the previous reference was inadequate. “Esso donated money to Republicans” please, donation in the very loosest sense of the word; you don’t get something for nothing.

Since the science of global warming skeptics strays from the “consensus”, it MUST be dodgy, therefore, Esso funds dodgy science.

Scientific reports essentially funded by Exxon Mobil, regarding Global Warming, should surely be questioned. Would you not question how/why Exxon Mobil seems to come out with science that differs so much from the “consensus”?

In Europe, we went through all of this a decade ago; you will not find many skeptics in this part of the world. One of the hardest things for Europe has been the argument that: the US produces approximately 25% of the worlds carbon emissions, so what is the point in us doing anything? Thankfully, that argument didn’t stand up to well. Also, the China argument isn’t up to much either; I’m not going to crap on my doorstep just because my neighbour does.

Have you ever taken an economics class?

Yes, I studied economics, basic economies of scale are what I am on about.
When I say ‘demand’ I do not mean it in the sense that we protest or try and force companies to change; “They will do so at the normal pace set by the economy”. We are in agreement here.

When I say ‘demand’ I mean that we should choose the fuel supplier who is committed to some sort of renewable energy; do these exist in the US? We should (I’m going to say it) buy the smaller car with lower fuel consumption. We should buy the hybrid car. We should buy food from local producers to reduce food miles. We can speed up the pace of change by making conscious decisions about what we buy and how we live our lives. We don’t need legislation for this, we need to take responsibility for our own actions.

Carbon offsets are a farce.

I wish I’d never even heard of Carbon offsets; they just make me sick.

Left by Jimmal on March 14th, 2007 at 3:40 pm

I wish I’d never even heard of Carbon offsets; they just make me sick.

It’s really just simple economics- people use less of a resource that costs more. By embedding the externalized costs of energy use into its price people will use less (and produce fewer greenhouse gasses)

(I love all of the wailing about the unfairness of the market coming from “capitalism’s great defenders”. Nary a peep about the unfairness that the rich can have the best education, food, housing, medical care, etc. But give them the right to drive their cars and fly on jets more frequently without causing the oceans to flood into our living rooms and people go crazy. Whatever.)

Left by Preston on March 14th, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Preston, can you really not see how inflammatory it is when Al Gore can pay off his extravagances without a pause and the common man will have to pay for his cat to fart or get rid of his cat?

Left by dianne on March 14th, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Meant to include the following link above:
http://newsbusters.org/node/11015

Left by dianne on March 14th, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Dianne- I’ll stand by my previous comment. It’s bizarre how the right to drive an SUV or have an old air conditioner seems so inviolate compared to the rights to eat, be educated, get decent healthcare, or have a home.

Of course, there is an easy way around the ‘controversy’ about market based solutions to reducing polution (a concept promoted by the Bush Administration- you’ll recall). It’s called regulation. It puts limitation on everyone’s ability to pollute- regardless of the economic benefits that might come from the creation of that pollution.

Left by Preston on March 14th, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Preston - the only people who have an old air conditioner are probably the old/poor.

Well, we’re not going to agree no matter on this topic. I don’t believe in the get out of jail free card which is essentially what the very rich will be able to do in contrast to those who will have to sacrifice.

Soooo, on to other topics

Left by dianne on March 15th, 2007 at 9:20 am

1. Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study.

2. ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science.

I’ve seen those reports before, they have been addressed many times. They are based on hyperbole and innuendo. Exxon/Mobile and Esso fund organizations that support their interests. Those interests use the funds to host panel discussions and pay scientists for their work and all of the conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork.

According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

“seek to confuse the public”? Interesting choice of words. No way they could be seeking to “clarify the issue for the public” or “further debate on the issue”. No bias evident here…ignore the man behind the curtain.

Is your argument that science can only be trusted if the scientists are not paid? So are you contending that all of the global warming proponents are working pro-bono? I didn’t think so. You just trust the source of the funding because…you agree with the conclusions?

Would you not question how/why Exxon Mobil seems to come out with science that differs so much from the “consensus”?

Absolutely…assuming that the consensus position even made any sense. I DID question it at first, until I started looking at the source data and comparing the conclusions reached by the two competing positions. In the age of the Internet, you don’t HAVE to accept one group’s spin or another’s, you can readily find the data upon which they base their claims and evaluate it for yourself.

When one group adds 2+2 and comes up with 4 and the other group adds 2+2 and comes up with 86…It’s pretty clear to me which position I’m going to get behind regardless of who funded which mathematician.

I posted a link to a site from a global warming proponent that said very clearly that the data does not support the “consensus” but then mindlessly repeated the consensus position as if it were proven fact.

If it was just the “big oil” funded study data that refuted the consensus position, I’d be a bit less certain about it…I apologize ahead of time for shouting but the message just doesn’t seem to be making it through at a normal tone of voice…THE DATA FROM THE GLOBAL WARMING PROPONENTS THEMSELVES DOESN’T SUPPORT THEIR HYPOTHESIS. There is problem after problem after problem with the conclusions they draw from the data and they just gloss over them or ignore them outright.

Is it possible that an industry would fund “dodgy science” to support their industry? Of course it is. Just as it is possible that confirmed anti-capitalists, statists and socialists would fund “dodgy science” to advance their aims. Should we automatically ASSUME that the science funded by any given industry is flawed due to that funding? Of course not. LOOK AT THE DATA. In this case, the data doesn’t support the “consensus” hypothesis.

It just doesn’t get any simpler than that.

You have doggedly refused to address that part of the issue. The only thing you are concerned with is where the research money comes from.

That is not rational debate, that is ideology and yours is getting in the way of your judgment.

I love all of the wailing about the unfairness of the market coming from “capitalism’s great defenders”. Nary a peep about the unfairness that the rich can have the best education, food, housing, medical care, etc. But give them the right to drive their cars and fly on jets more frequently without causing the oceans to flood into our living rooms and people go crazy. Whatever.

Wow. That convoluted logic is amazing.

I haven’t heard ANYONE arguing “unfairness”, What I’ve heard is cries of “hypocricy”. NO ONE is saying that Algore doesn’t have the right to fly on jets, drive SUVs or leave every light in his 28,000 square foot home on 24/7. We are simply pointing out the narcissistic, self-serving, egomaniacal, and blatant hypocricy in his berating Joe and Jane 6-pack for their energy use when he uses 20 TIMES as much all by himself.

Life isn’t fair. Get over it. I couldn’t care less how many times a year Algore flies on a private jet, how big his house is or how many SUVs he has in his driveway…that is, until he starts trying to tell ME how I need to live MY life, what kind of car to own, how big my house should be, how old my air conditioner can be. That’s where the problem is…it has nothing to do with the unfairness of what Algore can afford, it has everything to do with his trying to force standards on everyone else that he fails to live up to himself.

Left by Sailorcurt on March 15th, 2007 at 11:15 am

until he starts trying to tell ME how I need to live MY life, what kind of car to own, how big my house should be, how old my air conditioner can be.

Wow, are you really that sensitive?

Take a look at his recommendations. They’re not so burdensome- and they save you money.

FYI- a new air conditioner works better.

Left by Preston on March 15th, 2007 at 2:43 pm

BTW- the ‘20x’ figure is b.s.

Left by Preston on March 15th, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Take a look at his recommendations. They’re not so burdensome- and they save you money.

Wow, are you really that naive?

FYI- a new air conditioner works better.

Are you spying on me? How do you know how old my air condioner is? Or do you replace your air conditioner at the beginning of every summer just because…you know…new ones work better?

BTW- the ‘20x’ figure is b.s.

I know. That only counts his electricity use at one of his three homes, doesn’t include his air miles on private jets or road miles in limos or any other consumption. It is probably much higher than 20 times if everything was factored in.

Left by Sailorcurt on March 15th, 2007 at 10:47 pm

Wow, are you really that naive?

Good point, it’s obviously the first step toward One World Government.

Left by Preston on March 16th, 2007 at 7:21 am

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” was produced by a guy called Martin Durkin. In 1997 he produced a ‘documentary’ called “Against Nature”. It was broadcast on the same channel as “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and was roundly criticised by scientists. Scientists who had taken part in the ‘documentaries’ interviews, complained that their views had been wrongly edited and the TV channel was forced to make a prime time apology for distorting what these scientists had said… maybe Mr Durkin has started producing better television these days, maybe not.

Is your argument that science can only be trusted if the scientists are not paid?

No, please do not be so silly. Consider the countless scientists funded by Government, the UK Mett Office and the UN are both strongly in favour of reducing CO2 emissions, as is every country signed up to Kyoto (read ‘practically everyone but the US’). You would do better to listen to the science that YOU fund (i.e. in my case the Mett Office) rather than Oil Companies who clearly have alternative interests.

confirmed anti-capitalists, statists and socialists would fund “dodgy science” to advance their aims

The UK Government is ‘anti-capitalist’? I don’t know your understanding of the UK Government, but it is a massive force in the cause of Capitalism. The idea that Global Warming is a ‘liberal’ method of bringing down capitalism - cor blimey your having a Giraffe. When I was a lad I had to trudge through at least two feet of snow every winter - we have had virtually no snow for the last 15 years and approx. 80% of scientists say it is likely to be partly on account of CO2 emissions.

Left by Jimmal on March 18th, 2007 at 6:13 am

In fact - just Google “Martin Durkin”; his approcahes to film making are suspect to say the least.

Left by Jimmal on March 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Proof of fraud in this documentary.

Left by Iconoclast421 on March 22nd, 2007 at 10:30 pm

I know I’m a little late for this debate, but.. here’s my two cents anyway.

Whether global warming is the fault of man or NOT (I’m going with not, by the way).. I think we can all agree that pollution is bad. At least Al Gore has that part right. And yet, get this:

“…raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.” - that comes from a U.N. environmental report.

That seems to be a truely “inconvenient truth” for people in this society, including Gore who seems to lead the way in just ignoring it. People can argue and point fingers about who drives what, air conditioners, and light bulbs.. but they overlook the simplest, easiest way we can all help the environment in the most immense way - our food choices. With the variety of foods we have to choose from, ceasing to eat meat is not hard. I’ve done it myself - not because I’m afraid of global warming, but because I want good things for myself, the environment, as well as the animals. So uh.. why is that point so seldom mentioned?

Left by Ceasar on June 8th, 2007 at 2:06 pm