Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates

[Capablanca-Fan]

I think their [Greens] environmental policy is as sound as their other policies.

Exactly. See The Great Media Swindle About Global Warming.

The Greens are the likely recipients of former Democrat votes as the latter party disappears from politics.

[pax]

Exactly. See The Great Media Swindle About Global Warming.

Professor Carl Wunsch claims he was completely misrepresented when his interview was presented as part of the documentary.

Regarding your link, why is it that Bob Carter's name is always the one that comes up when people are trying to assert that climate change isn't happening or isn't our fault?

[Capablanca-Fan]

Professor Carl Wunsch claims he was completely misrepresented when his interview was presented as part of the documentary.

Doesn't seem 'misrepresented' in the factual matters, such as gases being less soluble in warm water than cold. The main point was that alGore's An Inconvenient Truth superimposed graphs of CO2 trends v temperature trends, to assert that the CO2 caused the temperature rise. But The Great Global Warming Swindle showed that even according to alGore's data, the temperature rose before the CO2 increase, so cause and effect, if any, should be reversed. The film proposed that the rise in temp caused decrease in CO2 solubility resulting in release from the ocean, as Wunsch said would happen.

Regarding your link, why is it that Bob Carter's name is always the one that comes up when people are trying to assert that climate change isn't happening or isn't our fault?

Why is alGore's name, and that of aging rockers, the name that always comes up when global warming is alleged to be the greatest threat we face. Why should we even take them seriously when they jetset around the world, spewing out greenhouse gases, to tell us to drive less? And why should the average homeowner cut down on energy when alGore's house uses more energy in a month than the average American home uses in a year.

Yes, if someone told you that you need to go on a diet to lose weight, the truth of that statement is independent of his own weight. But would you listen if he was a 130-kg glutton with a huge round gut who gorged on rich foods? No, you would demand that he leads by example (cf. he should take the log out of his own eye before removing the speck in yours).

An Inconvenient Truth is likely about 10% true and 90% propaganda, while The Great Global Warming Swindle is likely 90% true and 10% propaganda, but "our" ABC decreed that only the latter had to be "balanced" by a hatchet job, as per its usual 'objectivity".

[Aaron Guthrie]

Here is some critique from aussie scientists- THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE - SCIENTISTS RESPOND

Also, anyone in Canberra might be interested in going to this Debunking 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' at the ANU. It is today from 1:00 PM till 2:30 PM.

[Capablanca-Fan]

If you want to see both sides present their case, as opposed to the alarmists' case unopposed that the anointed want you to see, see Climate Realists Beat Alarmists in New York Debate. The debate was on the proposition "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis".

A pre-debate poll of audience members indicated that by a 2 to 1 margin (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided) they believed global warming has become a crisis. After the debate, however, the audience indicated by 46 percent to 42 percent they do not believe it is a crisis, with 12 percent undecided.

[Miguel]

A pre-debate poll of audience members indicated that by a 2 to 1 margin (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided) they believed global warming has become a crisis. After the debate, however, the audience indicated by 46 percent to 42 percent they do not believe it is a crisis, with 12 percent undecided.

So what. Unless the members of the audience were qualified climate scientists, the audience poll is (in a scientific context) meaningless. The results of the post-debate poll just mean that the speakers who supported the proposition were more sophisticated orators than the speakers who opposed it.

[Capablanca-Fan]

So what. Unless the members of the audience were qualified climate scientists, the audience poll is (in a scientific context) meaningless. The results of the post-debate poll just mean that the speakers who supported the proposition were more sophisticated orators than the speakers who opposed it.

Nice excuses. I'm not saying that a debate is the best way to decide matters. But it does show that "debate is over" shouters are wrong, and why they want to quash dissent.

[pax]

An Inconvenient Truth is likely about 10% true and 90% propaganda, while The Great Global Warming Swindle is likely 90% true and 10% propaganda, but "our" ABC decreed that only the latter had to be "balanced" by a hatchet job, as per its usual 'objectivity".

90% true? That's just complete rubbish. It was a completely one-sided polemic. He presented the evidence that was convenient to his conclusion, and ignored (substantial) evidence to the contrary.

Now I am not defending Al Gore - and I cannot attest to the substance of his film since I haven't actually seen it. It may well be just as polemic and one-sided as "Swindle", but that doesn't make "Swindle" gospel truth. I actually think both sides of the debate would benefit from speaking with a little less certainty on their assertions on what is or isn't happening with regard to the global climate.

[Capablanca-Fan]

90% true? That's just complete rubbish. It was a completely one-sided polemic. He presented the evidence that was convenient to his conclusion, and ignored (substantial) evidence to the contrary.

Rubbish yourself. It was the evidence to the contrary of the one-sided global warming alarmism that the media constantly indoctrinate us in.

I actually think both sides of the debate would benefit from speaking with a little less certainty on their assertions on what is or isn't happening with regard to the global climate.

Not a bad thought. So we should hold back on signing futile documents like Kyoto (that even Kyoto itself can't even stick to), or imposing carbon taxes or advocating carbon <strike>indulgences</strike> offsets. And more debates like the above should be shown.

[Basil]

So what. Unless the members of the audience were qualified climate scientists...

OK, working with that premise, no doubt you agree it goes both ways.

It follows that you have no count for the dribbling, marching, alarmist non-climate scientists sucking up the balls and headlines on the 6 o'clock news as well. Not to mention their regurgitating and perpetuating the same dribble to their kids at bedtime and to their colleagues at the water cooler.

Everybody carry on.

[Capablanca-Fan]

See also The ABC bias swindle:

I’m sceptical about the supposed effect man’s behaviour has on the Earth’s climate. To hold such a view is to contradict the orthodoxy of our time. Indeed, in a recent article in The Age Peter Christoff likened such scepticism to Holocaust denial."

[Kevin Bonham]

My comments originally posted in another forum, with one word translated to this board's lingo:

Durkin's excuses for some of the con jobs in his presentation were very slippery indeed. I found the doco patchy at best (although it did make some comments about environmentalism that I did agree with) but it might prove effective in bolstering the views of those looking for reasons to doubt. I'm sure Durkin's doing pretty nicely out of it all, although he did come across as pretty fragile in the grilling.

I strongly agreed with Michael Duffy's point in his first soundbite. Any polemicist filmmaker who is not themselves a specialist could have been made to look dodgy in pretty much the same way - some more than others but the same treatment applied to the presentations of an Al Gore or a Michael Moore would yield very similar results. What it might not yield would be discussion following it in which strong arguments would be made that the filmmaker was not merely dodgy but also generally point-blank wrong.

There was one sequence in the grilling that I found appallingly weak. That was when a scientist (sheesh!) responding to the argument about low proportions of CO2 used Ebola as a counterexample. A small quantity of Ebola is only harmful because it can rapidly reproduce itself into a massively larger quantity of the same - CO2 is not the same so it was an abysmal example.

Karoly was very good at responding to relevant questions quickly but also a bit brash, leaving himself open by claiming absolute certainty at one point.

The audience members interviewed were mostly dingbats and [geese].

One way in which I found the whole debate helpful was the extent to which it emphasised the pressures that industry is under (be these from politicians, public perception or commercial interests) to get its act together. I am tempted from this to draw an optimistic conclusion that anyone worrying themselves silly on a personal level about this is being, well, silly because much of the problem will be taken care of through those sorts of impacts on industry irrespective of the personal actions of citizens. However while I suspect that this is true, I also strongly suspect that the costs of it will be passed on to the consumer and that controlling climate change will be yet another force used by the rich to keep the poor poor, both within the West and from the West to the maybe-not-so-developing world.

[Capablanca-Fan]

However while I suspect that this is true, I also strongly suspect that the costs of it will be passed on to the consumer and that controlling climate change will be yet another force used by the rich to keep the poor poor, both within the West and from the West to the maybe-not-so-developing world.

That's for sure! It's sickening to watch these self-righteous ultra-rich aging rockers with collections of luxury cars and sunglasses advocating more foreign aid (which Thomas Sowell calls "foreign hindrance"), or jetsetting and living in energy-guzzling mansions while advocating restrictions of the energy usage of us plebs.

And while we in the west can have the benefits of cheap, reliable power, but you overpopulated third worlders must not. You'll have to stick to polluting wood fires and choose between refrigerating vaccines and lighting the hospital rooms.

[Axiom]

man is so gullible and maleable.................remember the ice age scare in the 1970s?!

[Miguel]

I'm not saying that a debate is the best way to decide matters.

Agreed.

But it does show that "debate is over" shouters are wrong, and why they want to quash dissent.

If a debate is scientific (amongst scientists on a scientific topic), then an audience of laypeople is unqualified to judge the debate. Hence a popular judgement is irrelevant to the scientific validity of the debated proposition (i.e., it's fallacious to claim that a scientific debate is (un)decided based upon a popular judgement, or the results of a popular debate).

OK, working with that premise, no doubt you agree it goes both ways.

Sure. The validity of scientific theories is established through peer-reviewed research, not public opinion.

It follows that you have no count for the dribbling, marching, alarmist non-climate scientists sucking up the balls and headlines on the 6 o'clock news as well. Not to mention their regurgitating and perpetuating the same dribble to their kids at bedtime and to their colleagues at the water cooler.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, other than some generalised appeal to ridicule.