Wednesday, March 14, 2007

The Inconvenient, Made Convenient

Here's a link to the Great Global Warming Swindle documentary on Youtube. (Nothing follows)


Blogger Pierre Legrand said...

Global Warming...the sky is falling oh my

3/14/2007 06:13:00 PM  
Blogger Sparks fly said...

Wonderful program!

It's about time.

And where did all this madness originate from?:

Margaret Thatcher who wanted to wean the west off of middle eastern oil and onto nuclear power put up 179 million dollars and bought a bunch of scientists to help her make a case against burning oil.Bush the elder joined her and put up two billion dollars to buy a lot more scientists.

The notion of global warming itself was supplied by some Swedish tech type who was just taking a shot at some explanation for a slight rise in tmperature in the northern hemisphere. Then with the fall of communist Russia all the Marxists switched to the environment and are making their usual choatic contribution. Then old Algore takes it a degree too far. Result: Global Warming Histeria.

The big money is from our tax dollars. The hunting our souls is from the Marxists. The goofyness is from Algore and it looks like a lot of the ever dispassionate scientists are a bunch of whores and the American public is really gulliable.

Hopefully this will pop the balloon of "Global Warming".

Where will the herd go next? Can we contain them? They seem over-ripe to explode and all they really need is a spark.

God have mercy on us in Jesus' name.

3/15/2007 12:10:00 AM  
Blogger wretchard said...

It was an interesting video. Long before watching it I was well aware of how obsessed the Left was with keeping the Third World in a theme park state. A place where you could go on photo safari not only to bring back slides of the animals but of all the smiling, happy natives living in their darkened huts, cooking over wood fires. It is a kind of sadistic racism, made all the darker by the self-righteousness of its practitioners, that is difficult to capture in words. They are the new bwanas.

3/15/2007 12:26:00 AM  
Blogger EB said...

I remember during my childhood in the deep south and in a fundamentalist Baptist church learning about the coming apocalypse. All the signs were laid out for us and we could clearly see the predictions in the book of Revelations.

Or so we were convinced.

I eventually grew out of this, maybe because I got tired of waiting (I always was impatient) or perhaps I finally started questioning the links that I had been convinced were there.

I remember when the Soviet Union was collapsing and I asked my still convinced mother what it all meant since the USSR was a critical player in the end-times scenario we had been taught to believe. Even then she was convinced that it was all a trick and that Gorbachev was simply playing us for fools.

I don't mean to ridicule religion but I've been a skeptic ever since I was finally able to step away from those early beliefs I was taught and it seems to me that the global warming issue is being made with the same evangelical fervor and by using the same kind of bait and switch citings of facts that my old Baptist church employed.

And I wonder if in 10 years we will all look back and shake our heads at how ridiculous we were.

3/15/2007 08:51:00 AM  
Blogger BetaCygni said...

Make sure you read this interview with Gore from May 2006 (Hat Tip: :

In that interview this exchange happens:

Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

A. I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

For me this is an incredible statement by Gore:

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is"

Maybe that explains why Gore says there is going to be a 20 foot rise in sea level and the latest international conference report on Global Warming predicts a range of 7" - 18" over the next century.

Maybe Gore should retitle his movie:

"A Convenient Over-Representation of Facts"

3/15/2007 10:35:00 AM  
Blogger Aase's death said...

From Melanie Phillips:

“The Climate change truth-deniers”

On BBC Radio Four’s Today programme this morning, the [UK] Environment Secretary David Miliband, asked whether there was anything in last week’s Channel Four documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, gave the following memorable reply:

I didn’t see the programme — but I promise you I will do a blog demolishing its contents.
“The ‘post-normal’ science of climate change”

In a remarkable column in today’s Guardian, Mike Hulme, professor in the school of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia and the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research… writes that scientific truth is the wrong tool to establish the, er, truth of global warming. Instead, we need a perspective of what he calls ‘post-normal’ science:

Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken. It has been labelled ‘post-normal’ science…The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow.

Hulme goes on:

Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.

3/15/2007 10:50:00 AM  
Blogger USpace said...

Oh my, this scam is getting out of control when PHDs in Climate Science get death threats for wanting to debate the GW claims...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
give children nightmares

3/15/2007 11:03:00 AM  
Blogger wretchard said...

Here's a look at the problem from the viewpoint of thermodynamics.

3/15/2007 11:46:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger