Friday, July 13, 2007

Swindle or AIT

The new and improved version of The Great Global Warming Swindle, TGGWS to its friends was shown on ABC in Australia, it would never be shown on ABC America. Although ABC (Australia) aired the documentary, they also had a panel made up of GlobalWarmers to denounce the film and pick holes in the arguments. Most of their complaints were over errors in the original, unauthorized (by the AGW crowd) graphs, some out dated information on volcanoes, etc. But to the credit of the makers of TGGWS, they corrected those errors, much to the annoyance of the warmers.

TGGWS has been called dangerous, an abomination of science, a fraud and many more derogatory epithets to boot. Why? For the simple reason that it challenges the AGW crowd's "settled science." And TGGWS uses real scientists to make its case, how low can you go. I suppose they should have asked a politician.

The new DVD of TGGWS should be available soon, I just sent an email to the producers asking about availability.

Now if Al Gore would only correct his Oscar winning docuganda AIT to remove the Hockey Stick and the unprovable "science" that he proclaims as truth, maybe it would be worth watching again. Strike that, it wouldn't.

20 comments:

eng said...

TGGWS has been called dangerous, an abomination of science, a fraud and many more derogatory epithets to boot.

Who says all these things? The thousands of scientists in the IPCC? Or your shills who try to make their case based on pretending there's a "vast conspiracy" against them?

And then the other shoe drops:

Why? For the simple reason that it challenges the AGW crowd's "settled science." And TGGWS uses real scientists to make its case, how low can you go. I suppose they should have asked a politician.

Yes, the AGW "crowd" conspiracy. You'd think they could come up with something more original. No, TGGWS does not make its case. It requires shills claiming there is a conspiracy against it to do that.

How many scientists did TGGWS use? I counted 5 in the "flawed" version. Are there now 5000 in the "unflawed" version?

Continued investigation of alternative theories should continue, but action is starting based on the consensus of most (not all, but most) scientists.

John Nicklin said...

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

5 scientists (TGGWS) beats no scientists (AIT) hands down.

As for shills, where is your proof that those scientists in TGGWS are shills for anyone?

If you don't like TGGWS that's fine, but give some rationale other than "shills" and "conspiracy".

eng said...

The shills are not the TGGWS scientists. The shills are those who say that "TGGWS has been called dangerous, an abomination of science, a fraud and many more derogatory epithets to boot."

Who is calling TGGWS dangerous, abomination etc? It sounds to me like they imply it is the "global warming establishment". Are the IPCC scientists saying these things? Or is it just TGGWS claiming so?

TGGWS expresses its view, and aside from the 5 scientists featured, there are relatively few scientists in agreement with it. It's not dangerous at all. But if they claim that others say it is "dangerous", then the ratings should be higher because everyone wants to hear the "suppressed truth".

John Nicklin said...

Eng:

If any of these people are part of the deniers or sceptics side, please let me know.

Professor Barry Brook is Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.

"The Great Global Warming Swindle (GGWS) is a deeply deceptive and propagandist portrayal of the science of global warming."

Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

"If it [TGGWS] is shown without an appropriate public health warning, it could give the misleading impression that the science is still uncertain and delay even further the urgently-needed concerted response.”

Tom Lowe is a social science researcher with the Centre for Risk and Community Safety at RMIT. His work at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK.

"The channel, which leads the way in broadcasting intelligent and informative debate, should consider the criticism that the documentary has already received from scientific groups around the world and the damaging effect that showing it may have upon the Australian public."

"The position taken in the Swindle is a dangerous dead weight as we endeavour to face this entirely new and critical challenge."

Dr Penny Whetton, Leader of the Climate Impact and Risks Group, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.

"None of the arguments presented in the film are new, and none have passed scientific scrutiny when they were raised previously. As a result, the film is highly misleading."

All excerpts are from the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (AMOS - Vol 20)

Anonymous said...

Citing the opinions of three people employed by entities that research "Climate Change" (one of whom has credentials in social science, not scientific research) fails to impress or lend any credibility to their opinions. They know on which side their bread is buttered.

The same criticism (self-serving opinion) also applies to the person from the conservation group. And I would be surprised if AMOS had nothing to gain in the way of government funding by advocating the existence of manmade global warming.

If you want to find scientists who don't believe in global warming, you need look no further than to the 17,000 real-world scientists who signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition. (I already hear the cries of "funded by big oil", which is false...but that never stops the true believers of the swindle from repeating the charge).

It is also notable that none of the criticisms of TGGWS deals in specifics. They criticize the science without saying why or how it is wrong. These statements amount to little more than press releases, designed to deter the general public from investigating the whole matter of the validity of manmade global warming any further.

John Nicklin said...

Anonymous; The quotes were in response to Eng's assertion that the criticism of TGGWS was entirely from the sceptic side, for what reason is beyond me.

What you say about the guys from AMOS is quite accurate, not only do they know which side the butter is on, but they are also enjoying the vegiemite as well.

Criticism of TGGWS is like criticism of any other sceptical view point. The alrmists don't need facts, mostly because they can't find them or haven't had time to "correct" enough data to manufacture new facts. Instead they rely on that old standby; discredit the messenger.

eng said...

Wow, anon that really takes me back. The Oregon Petition.

Yes, I remember that. I thought the funniest one was the signature of "Dr. G. Halliwell". Remember, it was back in 1998. So the science was not as accepted as it is 9 years later. And Ginger Spice was still famous. Ah the memories.

Did you see the picture of Posh at the LA Galaxy welcome for Becks? It was in the papers.

Nice try with 'I already hear the cries of "funded by big oil"'. Big oil would not be stupid enough to fund all those non-existent people. Of the ones that do exist and could be traced and recall signing it, many would not sign it today.

However john nicklin did provide quotes from scientists which, though not as inflammatory as "abomination of science", are criticizing TGGWS.

How do you reconcile your statement that criticism of TGGWS relies on "discredit the messenger", with your second paragraph about AMOS "knowing what side the butter is on" which amounts to discrediting the messenger?

John Nicklin said...

Eng, in your refernce to G. Halliwell, I suppose you have a theory taht says that no two people can share the same name. If the G Halliwell on the petition was in fact a Spice Girl, her name was removed, they check carefully. And don't bring up Perry Mason, who just happens to be a chemist at an American university.

But I can understand how these 18,000 woefully ignorant scientists would pale in comparison to the Ozone Action petition that had a gynecologist, a few landscape architects, some hotel administrators, a ski hill owner and an herbalist.

My statement of discredit the messenger relates to the same thing you do every time you post on this subject, "you can't trust so and so, because they are paid by big oil." You, and they, quetion motives rather than science. The Aussie scientists know where the monet comes from and how to keep getting the government grants.

eng said...

The Aussie scientists know where the monet comes from and how to keep getting the government grants.
So your argument continues to be "discredit the messenger".

Oh, and condescension is also one of your arguing techniques. This from your suppositions that I have theories on names. Also your suppositions that it somehow bothers me to hear diseenting views.

You should try to avoid projecting so much. I would love to avoid spending billions on reducing CO2 emissions. But as it stands, the consensus of scientists does exist, in the IPCC. Feel free to take shots at the messengers, but until you can refute the science, not just spew rhetoric based on dubious petitions, I must assume we do have a problem with climate change and that we can and should do something about it.

Elaine said...

The only consensus amongst the glowtardian scientist, is just how much money they can suck out of the taxpayer to fund their voodoo scheme.

Shouldn't we be shriveling up under the sun like a rain worm trapped on pavement right about now? I was camping in Ipperwash all weekend, and I had to put my winter boots on. What is that telling me?

eng said...

Back no name calling, I see. That's a relief.

elaine, I thought it was the sceptics who are supposed to tell us "weather is not climate". At least that's what I hear during heat waves.

John Nicklin said...

eng;

The "weather, not climate" phrase is an alarmist dogma, usually applied when a cold period is upon us. The sceptic side simply parrots the alarmists hoping to show how silly the weather-climate idea is. Climate is the totality of weather. so to say that weather is not cliate is folly, regardless of who says it.

Elaine said...

eng, you can't start changing the name of the game now. It was labelled global warming by the glowtards to suck money out of the taxpayer, and then there was a cold spell.The glowtards thought they better change it to climate change. That way no matter what the weather is they can suck money out of the stupid scared taxpayers.

eng said...

Wow, interesting way to turn "weather not climate" on its head. First time I heard it was when someone called an unseasonable warm spell evidence of global warming. Now you say it was said when the cold spell came? Seems pretty obvious to me that you have to look at the averages. For example, it is snowing right now in Antarctica. But it is only 89F at Death Valley (9am local time), though it is forecast to be 117F today.

I think "climate change" still refers to overall warming. Seems the Arctic Ocean's ice pack is melting pretty fast. Unless you believe the Chinese really did sail ships around the Arctic Ocean hundreds of years ago.

Keep at the name calling though.

John Nicklin said...

Seems pretty obvious to me that you have to look at the averages. For example, it is snowing right now in Antarctica. But it is only 89F at Death Valley (9am local time), though it is forecast to be 117F today.

Its all about averages eng, but what's your point about Antarctica and Death Valley? On average Antarctica is cold, on average Death Valley is hot. Been that way for ages. A few degrees here or there, in either of those places means very little and isn't a sign of warming or cooling on a global scale.

Antarctica would have to warm by 10 degrees, on average, just to be cold instead of damned cold. If you look at the Antarctic Pennisula, yes, it is warming, it sticks up into the temperate latitudes, and this isn't the first time it has warmed there. That said, the bulk of the continent is experiencing cooling, not warming as shown by surface and radiosonde measurements.

eng said...

what's your point about Antarctica and Death Valley?

It was not a scorching hot weekend in Southern Ontario, and that was presented as "therefore the climate must not be warming". I said it has to do with averages. The point was that at any given moment, there are places on earth that are very hot and others that are very cold. These, like last weekend, do not indicate anything on their own. It's the averages.

So the guy who just went swimming at the North Pole was doing something that has been done many times before? It was certainly cold, but open water.

John Nicklin said...

Eng, Ok, I see your point and agree that we can't use isolated examples to prove a trend.

"So the guy who just went swimming at the North Pole was doing something that has been done many times before? It was certainly cold, but open water.

The Inuit people invented the kayak, its a particularily useless snow vehicle. Either there was open water when they invented it or they had some damned good prophets that foresaw the open water a thousand years in the future. I doubt that the Inuit were all that fond of swimming tho'. I could be wrong.

eng said...

The North Pole is the place they claim is never open water, even in the summer.

The Inuit would certainly need kayaks around the Mackenzie Delta area in summer. I don't know if they would load the dogs and sleds on the umiak to portage to the next chunk of ice or not.

Vikings visited Baffin and Ellesmere Island. Both also have Inuit settlements, but is still about 700 km from the top end of Ellesmere to the pole. No reports of Vikings sailing to the pole though.

John Nicklin said...

Eng, did he actually swim at the north pole or just somewhere near the north pole? If he went of a swim at 90 degrees North, he's a brave fellow just to get there. The water is no colder at the north pole in summer than it is in northern Alberta in January where they cut holes in the ice and jump in. I expect that wasn't the main point of his stunt, but to demonstrate that there was open water.

Winds shift ice several miles and the ice cap is not one big chunk, there are always gaps and cracks in the summer months.

eng said...

They claim he was at 90N, water temp was -1.8C
link
It was in a crack in the ice.

Hard to say if that is something new. The pictures of the shrinking ice cap over recent decades are compelling, but satellite and airplane pictures only go back to far. The question of course is what is normal?