The Great Global Warming Swindle (Man Made Global Warming Debunked - Documentary shown on UK C4 TV)

Kevin Stanchfield via British TV, Channel 4 video via Google Video ^ | March 8, 2007 | Martin Durkin

[editor-surveyor]

Mother, I have sinned...

[EternalVigilance]

Exactly!

[bd476]

editor-surveyor wrote: "For those that might have missed it last week.... A good basic expose of the GW propaganda machine."

I completely missed seeing this last week and the week before. I'm glad someone reposted it.

[editor-surveyor]

"but it didn't explain the motives for why the propagandists are spending such a fortune."

The screams are so shrill that many are anxious to simply rebut the obvious lies, but you are right (as usual) that we need to give the motives more coverage. To do that we need a bigger soapbox than FR though; any ideas?

[Carry_Okie]

http://carbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?ItemID=3&Page=Funds

[editor-surveyor]

It's a cover-up I say... ;o)

[editor-surveyor]

That page is as blunt and arrogant as Carrol Quigley's old book. They are confidant, aren't they!

[bd476]

Carry_Okie wrote: "It was good, but it didn't explain the motives for why the propagandists are spending such a fortune. The way I like to get people started is with a simple question: Who gets to issue 'carbon credits'? Isn't that like printing money? It is simply shocking to me that there is so little discussion about that question even among global warming "skeptics."

It is in the movie.

The global warming propagandists' motive for spending money to promote a myth was addressed thoroughly in the movie, beginning about halfway through then it is repeated several times.

Approximately 9 billion dollars in government grants are available for research. Scientists in the movie said that it is hard to get a grant nowadays without mentioning climate impact, global warming, etc.

It is very simple and an old business principle. Sometimes you have to spend money to make more money.

[LexBaird]

Check the key words.

[elfman2]

I’m as critical of the global warming as anyone, but wary of fighting propaganda with propaganda. I don’t know if this criticism of the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is valid, just the first thing that googled up. The real global warming swindle

[bd476]

LOL! You might be onto something.

[Carry_Okie]

Thought you'd like it. /s

Really, once the public gets wind of how this "market" works, how much money is involved, and how flimsy is the auditing system upon which its integrity stands, the glow-bill warming scam will be understood for what it is.

As you know, my book proposes a system of tradable offsets instead of government regulation, but the market structure by which its integrity is assured is totally different. One of the things which truly irks me about this particular scam is that it gives such markets a bad name before they have even the slightest chance of proving their worth.

[Carry_Okie]

The global warming propagandists' motive for spending money to promote a myth was addressed thoroughly in the movie, beginning about halfway through then it is repeated several times.

Approximately 9 billion dollars in government grants are available for research. Scientists in the movie said that it is hard to get a grant nowadays without mentioning climate impact, global warming, etc.

Chicken feed. This game is far bigger than that. You're just looking at the advertising budget.

[elfman2]

More criticism of the film in this climatologist forum as well. Swindled!

I don’t have the background to evaluate it in any reasonable amount of time, but if you're going to spend an hour on one, you should at least spend 5 minutes on the other.

[bd476]

elfman2 wrote: "More criticism of the film in this climatologist forum as well. Swindled!

I don't have the background to evaluate it in any reasonable amount of time, but if you're going to spend an hour on one, you should at least spend 5 minutes on the other."

Elfman2, your link goes to a pro-global warming man is at fault climate modelers' blog, which then links back to the Independent, a paper which you also provided a link to earlier in this thread.

From what I can see, the Independent is a very liberal UK paper. It makes sense that both the linked pro-global warming man is at fault climate modelers' blog and the liberal Independent would be in agreement.

Personally I wouldn't consult Al Gore on this issue as an expert and I'm not going to believe much coming from a liberal paper or blog.

Elfman2, if you watched the documentary, I would like to hear your points of disagreement.

[HKMk23]

Thanks for the ping. I've wathced the film twice, now. It's just as clear as can be in its presentation of the mechanism of global warming, the linkage to atmospheric CO2, and the underlying goals of the "man is guilty" crowd; to wit: anti-capitalist economic repression of the Third World. IOW, ethnoeconomic bigotry.

[editor-surveyor]

Now it's time to Go Here to follow the money.

[BIGLOOK]

Elfman, I hope you watched the video and noted that the scientists and climatologists were identified and credentialed. Note that the former president of Green Peace and an editor of a science journal were among the presenters arguing against the faulty scientific claims of the Global Warming crowd.

The graphs and data that were shown are research they have done over the years on a point to point methodology charting climate change. These data are valuable and verifiable evidence, tools used to draw a picture of the reality of the present climate and to compare with that of past climatic events. The data wasn't cherry picked to construct a doom and gloom argument against man's industry and development of the earth.

"I don't have the background to evaluate it in any reasonable amount of time, but if you're going to spend an hour on one, you should at least spend 5 minutes on the other."

Well fair enough. But keep in mind this little bit of wisdom from Josh Billings.
"It's better to know nothing than to know what ain't so."

[editor-surveyor]

elfman, we are familiar with your apologetics for eco-terrorists, and pagan environmentalists here, so we're not going to get side-tracked into more enviro-fraud.

GW doesn't pass muster on so many levels in physics, and meterology, that it's no surprise that most of the scientists listed in support of the fraud now state that they don't agree, and didn't give permission for their names to be used.

[editor-surveyor]

"Really, once the public gets wind of how this "market" works, how much money is involved, and how flimsy is the auditing system upon which its integrity stands, the glow-bill warming scam will be understood for what it is."

You mean the same putty-heads that believe the MSM's assertion that "Bush Lied," and that those U.S. attorneys were unjustly fired? You've got way more faith than I can muster.