We have already featured on the blog the original version of this documentary here. This video shows material not included in the original version. The documentary disputes Global Warming and that humans are behind the rise in temperature around the world.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Comments from the prior thread are quite excellent and the thread deserves a read and a full day following the sites. Really well done.
In summary:
Its a common mistake to confuse the FACT that CO2 causes global warming with the fact that other things do too.
Yes, lots of confusion around.
Comment by bobbo — 8/23/2007 @ 2:18 am
#1 showoff…
I love it how these guys are honest about how you can’t really trust anyone. Not even them! This movie just reinforces my belief that meteorology has more to do with guesswork than science…
Funny how well in excess of 99% of all scientists of all disciplines have no question about GW and its causes!
Its crackpot documentaries like this (most likely funded by the energy industry) that are causing people to actually believe that there is any scientific conflict regarding GW at all! There is NONE! The overwhelming scientific opinion is that it IS occurring and that we as humans ARE responsible, and by overwhelming I mean that in the more than 900 peer reviewed articles appearing in scientific journals, you can count the number of ‘denier’ papers on the fingers of one hand!
Most of these mislead deniers base some or all of their work on the stuff by Edward Wegman, and his main weapon of attack is to claim that since most of the work in GW isn’t actually done by statisticians then their work is irrelevant, a clear-cut case of putting ones fingers in ones ears and going ‘la la la la’ to block out the noise of something you don’t want to hear (much like the Bush administration when it came to not listening to all the inspectors and experts who reported that Iraq had no WMDs)
2–Whats showing? The google link didn’t work the first 5 times I clicked on it so I went to google video to find and download this excellent clip and came back to post it, but now the link is working.
Here it is for those with the same problem?
http://tinyurl.com/3xld4d
[Ed. – The Tinyurl link takes you to a video that has been posted here already and is referenced above]
The orginal clip is 75 minutes long. Dont know how much “new” material can be in this much shorter clip unless it is totally different????
Fascinating how “the facts” and theory can be arranged to support either position. We can’t “test” these issues==there is no laboratory big enough to do so. Does this science come down to consensus voting or what?????
I consider myself to be without a philosophic bias on this “man made global warming” issue. Common sense tells me that man made CO2 is aggravating if not causing this current bout of global warming, but common sense is very often wrong in things scientific.
Anybody have ideas on how to tell when “non-testable scientific theory” should be accepted as fact? — or do I characterize the issue wrongly?
bobbo – folks here have suggested a number of primary source researchers to you – like the Max Planck Institute – in the past. Have you gone and read any of it, yet?
5–Moss==I’ve not read Max Planck but I’ve read quite a bit.
I think we should do all things reasonable asap to become carbon neutral AND even to sequester carbon. It only makes sense from a variety of concerns.
BUT—science and proof are quite specific in their defintions. All I have ever seen is “best evidence” and assumptions. Yes, good evidence, and good assumptions===but not proof.
Confirm Max Planck is PROOF and i’ll certainly track that link down.
A consensus of people saying two plus two equals five doesn’t make it true. A fact is a fact. Geological records show that it has been a lot colder than it is right now and that it has been a lot warmer than it is right now. Since that seems to indicate a cycle why is it so hard to understand that it is a never ending process and that it is going to continue into the future?
Oh yeah, a fact is still a fact no matter who sponsors the research. Algor telling me 2+2=4 would be the same as Shell Oil telling me 2+2=4. I don’t give a shit so long as it is a fact. It is however, bullshit if a group of people get together and come up with a consensus espousing some position based on whether or not they like our way of life and want all of us living in grass huts on a plain somewhere.
Show me or tell me factual evidence that is peer reviewed and verifiable and not some flakes website who believes crap like a 911 conspiracy.
If you can prove it and I can review it myself then I’ll believe it. Until then shut the f**k up.
(Sorry, getting a little tired about this.)
7–Steve==so you only act on proof and never “best evidence?” I’ll give you a bit of time to think about that.
Climate variation is an accepted fact. Has little to do with this issue though. I’ll give you a bit of time to think about that as well.
Silly no brains. They dispute that one plus one equals two and state that it might equal 10, then give an argument that everything is actually binary.
Ten cents will get you a dollar that oil companies and/or Bush’s friends are behind this nonsense.
Global Warming is real. We contribute to it. Whether we are the chief cause, which is likely, or not is moot. We should try to do something about it or just kill ourselves, which would be faster than the slow death we’ll face otherwise. What is do something? That’s everything from try to slow it down or reverse it to look at living in space. Sitting here burning more oil and coal is simply stupid, not to mention gives profits to certain corrupt Utah mine owners and Bush’s corrupt friends.
ATTN: RIGHT WING FREAKS:
Just admit you hate hippies whenever you side with the oil companies. Admit it. Out loud. Scream it. “I HATE HIPPIES!”
Venus is warm. Hippie scientists noticed this by ignoring god, and using their brains.
The hippie scientists then noted a correlation between rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere on Earth and an increase in the, watch out now rightwingers, big words coming, GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE. When powerful republican congressmen can dispute a global warming trend by citing California’s mean temperature decreasing by a small amount, I know they have no grasp on what GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE even means. Where do you think the cold came from to make California a bit colder? Hmmm. Doi I wonder.
You right-wing morons will continue hating hippies forever. They represent everything directly opposed to your tight-assed conformity. By association, anything hippies tell you MUST be wrong. Idiots. You’ll continue apologizing for the oil companies until the ice caps completely melt, citing “it’s been warmer and colder” blah blah blah. This does not change the fact that we are causing it. Mexico alone pumps 3.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day. If you want to go on believing that the additive effect of all that burning doesn’t change anything, the right to be that stupid is yours. Unfortunately, it will affect all of us.
#8 Bobbo – If you read my post you will notice that I never said that I never act on best evidence but on facts alone.
If global climate variation is an accepted fact and it isn’t the purpose of this article then what was the purpose?
I guess the issue at hand is to blame big business. Oh wait, I get it now, it IS big business that causes GW (#9 or at the very least contributes to it). It could not be that humans want a better and more comfortable life be they hunting in the Serengeti, working in Calcutta or driving to work in San Francisco.
It means we have to commit suicide and turn the planet back over to the lower life forms. That will be good news for the planet but over the next few millennium it won’t make any difference because first it will be GW and then GC (Global Cooling) and then GW and then GC (you should get the idea by now).
Meh… whether human influence is real or not (which is the actual question here — not the fact that we’re in a phase of global warming), GGWS has already been shown to falsify its “facts”, so it’s not really relevant to the debate any more.
11—Good, a reasonable response, not at all like your first post. Not accurate, but reasonable.
This issue at hand is should “we” reduce the amount of CO2 being put into the air (and perhaps even remove some of the CO2 in the air) in order to prevent human caused global warming which will raise the sea levels and greatly disrupt civilization on earth in 50-100 years hence.
How does the fact that climate varies affect this question except as a factor to be taken into the equations making the predictive models?
How do you know that global warming will greatly disrupt civilization? I’ve already explained on previous threads that the scientific model that reaches this conclusion is flawed. In short, to reach their doom and gloom scenarios, they had to assume high levels of CO2 from the developing countries, which comes from high levels of economic growth. But that much economic growth means you are better able to adapt, so no famines, etc.
To combat global warming will disrupt civilization now, and the money is better spent on other needs, like clean drinking water for example.
I’m not sure how they would prove that warming is caused by CO2, but evidence that in the past CO2 increases happened after temperature increases, not before, and a correlation between sun activity and temperature rises suggest that the computer model based theories are wrong.
I saw an article yesterday stateing that the artic is melting faster than expected and that a 2 meter rise in MSL could be expected by 2100. The story when on to expalin how many people currently live at 2 meters MSL and how there life would be ruined and their would be trillions of dollars worth of damage.
Jesus H Christ, we are talking about 93 years from now. Fraking move.
#13 – Bobbo – Actually I cut my post short and I had a section in it that said that we should reduce greenhouse gases. I don’t have a problem with that. I have a problem with some pinheaded hypocrite telling me to do it from a private jet or a limousine.
As for your question, it doesn’t. I agree we should reduce them but I doubt if it will make much difference in the models.
#16 – As far as the MSL rising, our home is around 650 above sea level. Bring the MSL to around 620 above current values and I’ll less people to worry about and I’ll be closer to a beach….
First of all, just in the first minute of the video, the guy says “Greenland was named so because its coast was green”. Not true.
See wikipedia, or etymonline for example, it was named Greenland arbitrarily, basicaly for marketing purposes: O.N. Groenland, so named by its discoverer (986 C.E.) because “it would induce settlers to go there, if the land had a good name”.
So, considering the misinformation on the first minute, I tend to doubt the rest.
Moreover, here’s my main position: can we afford to be wrong? I don’t think so. If we waste time discussing we may just get past the point of no return. I want my kids to have a good future. What’s the worst that could happen if we take measures against global warming? Less polution? More energy efficiency? Less dependency on oil? These and more are probably pretty good on their own. Again, we just cannot afford to be wrong.
17–Stevo==all well and good, but thats not how you posted. Tempest in a teapot, although I do feel constrained to say that the fact that Al Gore uses up more energy and pollutes more than the average person means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to anything else he says.
Weird how unrelated issues get linked up together.
Anytime a large, well-funded organization believes strongly in something often many scientists, scholars and experts miraculously back that believe. Always with hard facts, research and data.
Large, well-funded organization: Roman Catholic Church
Belief: The Sun revolves around the Earth.
Of course, there were a few “crackpots” that believed otherwise…
Humans also don’t pollute, deplete naturals resources and turn this planet into a wasteland. I am waiting for a next installment that would highlight these points.
#19 Bobbo – Show me I said I didn’t think we should reduce greenhouse gases. I never posted it. I said I don’t believe all the theories bullshit.
As for GW and polluting if as you say Algor is polluting more than the average person and he is preaching from the mountain tops for everyone to stop (or cut back) but him obviously I believe that what he says is related.
Only one person in my life has ever called me Stevo and I hope it wasn’t you. No, I don’t take offense to it considering the other things I get called here.
well i am for doing whatever it takes to cut down carbon emissions because if even if global warming is farce, at least i can say i tried.
i think its a telling truth that many large corporations, especially the agriculture, insurance and real estate industries that have a vested financial interest in averting global warming if possible are making moves to do so — and i thought conservatives listened to the free market
bah, conservatives cannot see past their own wallet.
Remember the “tipping point” argument? If we don’t do something IMMEDIATELY to stop global warming, we could pass a tipping point withing the next decade from which there is no return.
The source of the “tipping point” argument was the slowing down of the Atlantic conveyor (thermohaline circulation); whereby warm water circulates north, warming Western Europe, then cooling and sinking and returning to the equator. Melting glaciers were believed to be lowering surface-water density, preventing its sinking, thus shutting off the conveyor. Europe was supposed to be thrown into a new ice age if the conveyor stopped.
Snapshot measurements over decades seemed to indicate that the conveyor was slowing down. However, the latest study published in Science showed that there is no slowing trend. It seems that all of those snapshot measurement taken over decades fall within the normal range observed within a single year.
There is no “tipping point”.
Why is it that the more data we actually accumulate, the less convincing the GW alarmist become?
#3 – I’m sure the chief climatologist at MIT (among others) is a crackpot and funded by the oil industry. Besides, Moose are the actual cause of GW:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294032,00.html
And the sad thing about that is that I fart as much a moose easily.
I take these beings either have tenure or are working for a polluting company.
#23 I can see past my own wallet and it’s usually a liberal wanting to take my money and give it someone else.
#11 –
Relying on only observable facts for making judgments is quite limiting. How do you know that gravity won’t simply vanish, causing you to fly off the planet into space? There are no “facts” that say gravity will always be around. It takes theories and corroborating evidence to indicate to high degrees of certainty that gravity is here to stay as long as the earth remains under our feet. So while you can be partially commended for wanting to accept only what can be objectively observed, it’s the models built off of observations that really allow us to understand what’s going on. Just knowing that the global mean temperature is rising doesn’t help you much.
#14 –
I don’t think it’s that hard to extrapolate what would happen if the pan handle of Florida and half of California sunk into the sea. Look what Katrina did to the country after it flooded one city. Now extend that to large chunks of states with no hope of retrieving that land. And that’s just the US. If the richest country in the world can’t handle something like that, how could emerging economic players possible cope?
Sadly this all seems to be a replay of the creationism versus evolution “debate”. Overwhelming evidence is ignored because a few scientists with ties to organizations who don’t like the consequences (i.e. Exxon, Shell, etc. in this case) claim the evidence is bunk. And then all of the bogus denier claims have to be refuted over and over ad nauseum.
This whole GW theory really has become the ‘new religion’. I think that man is awfully arrogant to think he could cause GW over the last 100 years and even more arrogant to think he can slow it down or even fix it in even less time.
#27 you mean like …someone building the road you drove into work on, or the subway you rode, or firemen, or maybe the air traffic controllers, or the police and wardens, or the schools — yeah we liberals are such assholes.