Skip to comments.The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet - Part I: Documentaries (Vanity)
Posted on 02/06/2008 3:20:51 PM PST by Entrepreneur
The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet
Some people have asked me for copies of, or links to videos that provide an alternative view to Gores consensus on anthropogenic (i.e., man caused) global warming (AGW). A few of these videos have been broadcast in the United States (e.g., Glenn Beck, John Stossel), but most have not and probably will not be seen. Fortunately, we have the Internet to make these available.
Part I: Documentaries
Great Global Warming Swindle (1:13:32)
If theres only one video to watch, this is it. The Great Global Warming Swindle was a documentary aired on British Channel 4. Its unlikely it will ever be shown in the U.S. The video is a terrific response to Al Gores slide show movie and has stirred up green activists like little else.
In the film, Patrick Moore, who was a Greenpeace co-founder, summed up the state of environmental activism today. He said, Because world communism failed, the wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-marxism with them and learned to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than they do anything with ecology or science.
This video has aroused the ire of the greenies. As a result, it seems to disappear every few days. Fortunately, someone always reloads it, so if you cant find it at one of the links below, try a Google or alltheweb.com video search for Great Global Warming Swindle.
When you find it, download a copy to keep by pasting the link into KeepVid. This saves the video as a flash video (flv). There are several software products that can convert this to avi, mpeg, or wmv formats. One of the best is Super © and, even better, its freeware. You can see the main page here, but its difficult to navigate through the site, so you might just want to download direct.
Watch the Great Global Warming Swindle:
Global Warming Doomsday Called Off (43:59)
This Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary will probably never be aired in the U.S. It systematically takes apart the infamous hockey stick chart by Michael Mann, which represented bad science when first published and, after being thoroughly refuted, represents science fraud when republished (it appears to have disappeared from the latest IPCC report, though the chart showing the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age from the first IPCC assessment has not returned).
An Inconvenient Truth
Or Convenient Fiction
This documentary was produced by the Pacific Research Institute and features Steven Hayward, who writes the annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, which consistently finds things are getting better, not worse. Hayward is an optimist about the environment and says that the environment is much too important to be left in the hands of environmentalists. This is the only video where Ive seen anyone address the absurd economic assumptions in the IPCC assessment reports (e.g., North Korea catches up to the U.S. in per capita in the year 2100 not the U.S. per capita income in 2010, but the U.S. per capita income in 2100).
Part 1 (21:42)
Part 2 (25:48)
What if temperature is driven by solar activity it gets cold during the next solar cycle or two as some are projecting? The History Channel ran a documentary of the sudden climate change and subsequent impact of the cold from the Little Ice Age. This is truly frightening climate change, based on factual history, not theoretical models of complex systems. Yet, the History Channel tends to bow to the mainstream, politically correct views, so 30 minutes into the video it shifts to blaming man for causing future global cooling from global warming. The nod to politically correct anthropogenic climate change keeps the producers from getting the Durkin treatment.
Greenhouse Conspiracy (51:49)
This is another British Channel 4 documentary. This one aired in 1990. It shows the errors in land weather stations from the urban heat island effect and takes apart the climate models (Steve McIntyre also does this in very convincing fashion on his website). It also points out the benefits of increased levels of CO2, showing a research study where trees in a greenhouse with 1,000 ppm of CO2 flourish, compared to trees in a greenhouse with atmospheric levels of CO2.
The video notes that a 1974 television documentary and book, The Weather Machine, claimed we were heading into an ice age.
An amusing part of the film deals with the temperature flip flops of Stephen Schneider, one of the vocal proponents of the theory of AGW. Schneider was asked about the global cooling panic in the 1970s. He said, People where talking about global cooling 15 years ago, but not everybody. I was one who was not sure.
The guy interviewing him whips out Schneiders first books and reads his own words: I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age.
Schneider responded, I said that at the time because it was true.
A classic was when Stephen Schneider said, I dont put much stock in looking at direct evidence. Maybe this explains why his website continues to tout the discredited Mann hockey stick.
The video does an excellent job on how money affects the debate (or lack thereof).
John Stossel on Global Warming
ABCs John Stossel shows how Al Gores slide show is scaring kid. You gotta ask, Does he feel no shame? Uh, no.
Stossel then shows how there is disagreement, but at a price to those who disagree. Its not just an academic price, but death threats. Seriously. Watch the video.
Exposed: The Climate of Fear (41:33)
This is Glenn Becks CNN special on global warming. He points out many of the flaws in Kyoto and how the IPCC exaggerates. Next Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg is interviewed. Lomborg nails the poor return on trying to do something about global warming compared to many of our other problems. For example, we get $40 of benefit for every dollar spent on HIV/AIDS, compared to $0.30 for every $1 spent on climate change.
Beck shows how scientists with alternative views about global warming are bullied, threatened, and starved of funding. This is the climate of fear from the segments title.
Patrick Moore makes an appearance and mentions the Oregon Petition Project, which is a document signed by 19,000 scientists and meteorologists who disagree with the premise of the Kyoto Treaty, the U.N. IPCC Assessment Reports, and Gores movie; so much for consensus. Beck didnt show the text of it. Here it is:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
John Christy then takes apart Gores dramatic report of the Snows of Kilimanjaro, which were half gone when Hemmingway wrote the book. So how is that the result of climate change? Its not.
Next, Beck goes after Manns infamous Hockey Stick, the relationship of CO2 and temperature, sea level rise, etc. Beck says Al Gores best supporting actor is, if. If this were to happen
Beck follows the money. The Greenies claim any opposition must be oil funded. Nonsense, says Chris Horner, author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (great book, by the way). However, we spend more money on global warming research than cancer research. Wait! More on global warming than cancer? Yes.
Horner then describes the process the IPCC follows. The politicians write the Summary For Policy Makers BEFORE the scientific report is written. The scientists must then make the science fit the politicians and bureaucrats summary.
Watch it. Its good.
Thanks. Bob Carter’s excellent lecture is in Part II.
By all means, buy the DVD and support Durkin. Just make sure you get the NTSC version, not the PAL version.
Here's an idea... Buy several. Donate one to the local library. See if your local video store will place one in the community service area (i.e., free rentals). Let's share this.
I still recommend watching the version floating around the Internet. The main reason is the DVD removes the comments from Carl Wunsch from MIT.
Wunsch's primary contribution to the documentary was to note that the oceans hold huge amounts of CO2, which gets released as the oceans warm. However, warming the oceans is not something that occurs fast due to their mass. It takes centuries. This is wholly consistent with the ice core samples that show CO2 rises are tightly correlated with temperature rises, but lag temperature by 800 years.
Gore's movie showed this extremely well, though Gore implied the reverse of the relationship. He doesn't actually mistate it directly, but Gore's words are so carefully parsed that the only impression one could have was that CO2 led temperature. The parsing was too careful and strikes me as deliberate dissemination.
According to Wunsch, Durkin misrepresented his view. Wunsch has said he absolutely believes in AGW. He said he meant to explain how the ocean's reservoir of CO2 could lead to runaway global warming if we allow the temperature to rise too far.
Durkin says Wunsch knew exactly how his segments would be used and has lots of correspondence with Wunsch to back it up. He also said Wunsch called him soon after the documentary aired, begging to be removed. Durkin said Wunsch received a number of phone calls from colleagues and needed to get pulled.
The claim that Durkin selectively edited Wunsch smells of coaching. In an earlier documentary about the extremes, excesses, and lunacy of the environmental movement, Durkin was accused of interviewing people who thought he was making a positive documentary about the greenies. It seems Durkin let them talk and let their most ridiculous statements condemn them. The greens orchestrated a campaign to refute and complain about the film and the politically correct oversight board required the station to make a public apology. Wunsch's claim appears to be made with an eye towards this past incident.
Wunsch's claim seems a lot like the past incident. Either someone fed this to Wunsch or Durkin and Channel 4 were extremely sloppy. Somehow, I doubt it's the latter since Durkin and Channel 4 would both be extremely careful not to allow a rerun. As a result, Durkin didn't interview naive greenies. He featured skeptics who knew what they were saying and how their segments would be used. Wunsch wants you to believe that he is the exception. Yeah. Okay.
Look, an MIT prof is no dummy. The runaway warming argument falls apart when you consider that the temperature forcings of CO2 are logarithmic in nature, so that CO2 has a diminishing marginal impact. At some point, adding more CO2 has virtually no effect.
This isn't controversial. It's even in the IPCC reports.
The only people who seem to ignore it are Al Gore and the political/Hollywood elites, which shouldn't be surprising. Leonardo DiCaprio has become wealthy by reciting the lines others write for him and pretending to be someone he's not. He may be extremely bright, but he definitely seems ignorant. It's entirely plausible this high school drop out doesn't even know what a logarithm is, let alone the underlying math. Wunsch, on the other hand, does understand this.
Watch the documentary with Wunsch and pay attention to see if it looks like Wunsch was selectively edited. If not, Durkin's explanation seems more plausible, which means this is a great example of scientific censorship by the AGW crowd.
I watched “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, and found it to be excellent. Straitforward rebutting of Gore’s mythianic crusade.
Some good AGW links... Part I
Bump for later
I believe it's $29.95. I got my copy very quickly after ordering.
It IS the best single reasoned argument to all of Al Gore's and the Leftist's Global Warming scare tactics.
Thanks for the laugh and the flashback to the disclaimer from Hell.
Click below to watch each segment of the KUSI Special Report, Global Warming: The Other Side
|Click image to launch:
Part 1 (running time = 7:34) featured interviews this segment:
RJ Smith (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Robert H. Nelson (U. of Maryland, Senior Fellow of The Independent Institute)
Kim Strassel (Wall Street Journal editorial page)
Patrick Moore (Greenpeace founding member)
|Click image to launch:
Part 2 (running time = 7:01) featured interviews this segment:
Chris Horner (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Patrick Michaels (Senior Fellow of The Cato Institute)
Richard Lindzen (Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT)
Lord Christopher Monckton (Former advisor to PM Margaret Thatcher)
|Click image to launch:
Part 3 (running time = 6:04) featured interviews this segment:
Chris Horner (CEI)
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R, WI)
Jonathan Adler (Case Western Reserve Law Professor)
|Click image to launch:
Part 4 (running time = 7:04) featured interviews this segment:
Iain Murray (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph)
Brian Sussman (Meteorologist, Author of ClimateGate)
Stephen McIntyre (ClimateAudit.org editor)
|Click image to launch:
Part 5 (running time = 6:28) featured interviews this segment:
Dr. Roy Spencer (Climatologist, U. of Alabama, Huntsville)
Steven Hayward (American Enterprise Institute)
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R, WI)
Jonathan Adler (Case Western Reserve Law Professor)
|Click image to launch:
Part 6 (running time = 6:39) featured interviews this segment:
Lord Christopher Monckton (Former advisor to PM Margaret Thatcher)
Myron Ebell (Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedom Action President)
Tobin Smith (Author of Billion Dollar Green)
SEAN HANNITY, HOST:Tonight on the "Green Swindle," a special edition of HANNITY.
Now liberals have told us for years that if we don't adopt their policies and give them more control over our lives environmental Armageddon will be just around the bend. Now they say science is on their side and there's nothing left to debate.
Tonight we will expose some glaring errors in this so-called science and show you how scientists, politicians and big business have turned global warming hysteria into a multi-billion dollar industry.
But first how environmentalism turned into fear-mongering over the climate. And we start at the beginning of the "Green Swindle".
AL GORE: The planet has a fever.
OBAMA: The threat from climate change is serious. It is urgent and it is growing.
HANNITY (voice-over): Global warming hysteria is spreading across the country.
GORE: The entire relationship between humanity and our planet has been radically altered.
HANNITY: People live in fear that the planet will perish unless they drastically alter how they go about their daily lives.
But how did the issue of preserving the environment dissolve into the present day global warming fear mongering? And to understand how the movement became so distorted, experts say we can look at certain events in history.
RJ SMITH, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: The modern environmental movement sprang up in the 1960s and very early 1970s. And it represented a huge, a wholesale break with traditional conservation that existed in America for about 100 years.
HANNITY: Two significant books were published in the 1960s that made the modern environmental movement what it is today. In 1962 Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" was released. In the book, Carson condemns the overuse of pesticides.
RACHEL CARSON, "SILENT SPRING" AUTHOR: Aerial spray of pesticides should be brought under strict controls.
HANNITY: Al Gore wrote that "Silent Spring" had a profound impact on his life. "Indeed, Rachel Carson was one of the reasons why I became so conscious of the environment and so involved with environmental issues."
ROBERT H. NELSON, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" is often credited with paving the way for the environmental movement. It was just a time when there was a challenge to authority, stemming partly from the Vietnam war.
The sense that the leadership of the country might be taking us in the wrong directions. That was carried over then to environmental issues as well.
RJ SMITH: This was read widely by people cross the nation. And particularly by students. This was during the period where the student revolution was breaking out in the United States.
Instead of always holding up Chairman Mao for the red book for survival they rediscovered Rachel Carson's little green book.
HANNITY: And then in 1968 Paul Ehrlich's book "The Population Bomb" argued that, quote, "We must rapidly bring the world's population under control."
Now Ehrlich predicted that overcrowding was causing the world's environmental problems and would lead to mass famine. On the cover reads, quote, "While you're reading these words four people will have died from starvation, most of them children."
KIM STRASSEL, WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL PAGE: These books are best sellers because they foretell doom and gloom. And that "The Population Bomb" was all about doom and gloom, and most of what Paul Ehrlich -- in fact if not all of what Paul Ehrlich wrote has been disproven over time.
HANNITY: In his book, Ehrlich suggests that the government should allow, quote, "voluntary sterilization for both sexes," and give, quote, "a series of financial rewards and penalties designed to discourage reproduction."
NELSON: People who got involved in movements like the anti-war movement they found that it was in some ways an enjoyable experience. So when the war finally did wind down they were looking for another crusade to join.
HANNITY: These two books were instrumental in the creation of Earth Day.
RJ SMITH: It is on April 22nd, 1970. That same date happens to be the birthday of Lenin. A lot of folks will tell, oh, well, that's just a coincidence. But there are a lot of the young radical environmentalists at the time who thought this was really -- this was really clever.
This was an in-you-face to capitalism.
HANNITY: An estimated 20 million people participated in that first Earth Day festivities across the country. And so the environmental hysteria began. The fear of global cooling started in the 1970s.
Now a cover story in the 1975 issue of "Newsweek" magazine elevated the hysteria to a nation level. Now oddly these fears would eventually morph into global warming as the science indicated that the temperatures were rising and not falling.
But in the coming decade the movement would mesh with politics, leaving environmentalists at a crossroad.
Patrick Moore was one of the founding members of Greenpeace.
PATRICK MOORE, FOUNDING MEMBER OF GREENPEACE: Around the mid 1980s the environmental movement was basically hijacked by the political left. And at the same time, the Berlin wall came down, communism ended and a lot of peaceniks who were basically anti-American and leftist in their orientation moved into the environmental movement, bringing their sort of neo-Marxism with them.
And they learned to use green language in a clever way to cloak agendas that basically have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti- globalization than anything to do with science or ecology.
HANNITY: Patrick Moore left Greenpeace in 1986.
MOORE: I left Greenpeace really for two reasons. One was the larger issue that I wanted to get out of just confrontation politics. Just telling people what they should stop doing. And start to work with people to find solutions for the environment and sustainability.
And when the environmental movement became so strongly politicized, left against right, it was time for me to leave.
HANNITY: But it wasn't just the environmental groups that began pushing their political agendas.
STRASSEL: This got going in -- officially in Washington in 1988 when James Hanson, who is a scientist at NASA came and testified in front of Congress about global warming and claiming that it was a big issue, that it was real. This was what put this on Congress' radar.
HANNITY: And from there the movement began to inflate the political dialogue.
STRASSEL: Up until probably the middle of the 1990s you had all these environmental groups out there and they all have their own concerns and their own causes and they had to pick their spots.
HANNITY: And in 2006 the poster child for global warming came out with his now infamous movie.
GORE: Here's Manhattan. The World Trade Center Memorial would be underwater. Think of the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees and then imagine 100 million.
MOORE: For some reason the combination of people's desire for entertainment and for celebrities has one after another brought people to the forefront as heroes, such as Al Gore. Such as Paul Ehrlich, who really, you know, don't necessarily have all the answers.
I mean it's absolutely crazy. Al Gore is not a scientist. He hasn't got a scientific bone in his body. He's a politician. He's a mass mover of propaganda.
STRASSEL: Al Gore's movie came out. And again, it was suddenly all over the popular culture. And you had a guy who was out there that everybody knew when he became the sort of the face of this. Simply raised public awareness of this.
HANNITY: And this brings us to present day where global warming is not necessarily a movement anymore, but actually an indisputable fact.
MOORE: They have basically taken the science out of it. And instead, there's this mixture of sensationalism, misinformation and fear.
HANNITY: All right, coming up the U.N. enters the fray with a climate change panel of its own, but its reports are filled with shocking errors.
HANNITY: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, politicians around the world cite its work to support their hysterical claims. But how did this panel come into being and how objective is this science?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared between the Intergovernmental Panels on Climate Change and Al Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate great knowledge about manmade climate change.
HANNITY: The International Panel on Climate Change known as the IPCC founded by the United Nations in 1988. Its findings have been used to justify some of the most extreme claims about global warming.
But how did this group become so influential?
Contrary to its portrayals in the mainstream media the IPCC conducts no scientific research. Rather, it was founded to promote international climate agreements.
CHRIS HORNER, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: It was chartered to support a possible future climate treaty. So that's what they do.
HANNITY: To understand the radical approach of the IPCC all you need to do is look at its inspiration -- the controversial U.N. bureaucrat Sir Maurice Strong.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Mr. Strong, what are you trying to achieve in this --
LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON, FMR. ADVISOR TO PM MARGARET THATCHER: It all began in the mind of 1 ambitious, very rich civil servant who was one of the factions of the U.N. that has always hoped that the U.N. could eventually be turned into a world government.
HANNITY: Inspired by a vision of the U.N. running the world, Strong viewed democracy as an obstacle. He argued that, quote, "Our concepts of ballot box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions, particularly in terms of safeguarding the global environment."
Using a global warming platform Strong tried to force nations to give up their sovereignty. He went on to propose a global tax on the use of oceans, atmosphere and outer space.
PATRICK MICHAELS, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE: The problem is that if you really take global warming as something that you have to stop right now, that gives you entree into virtually every aspect of a person's life.
HANNITY: With the IPCC's philosophy rooted in such radicalism, it is no surprise that the group has stopped at nothing to sell its agenda.
RAJENDRA PACHAURI, CHAIRMAN OF THE IPCC: The evidence is now overwhelming that the world would benefit greatly from early action. And that delay would only lead to costs in economic and human terms that would become progressively high.
HANNITY: The panel claims to reflect the beliefs of a so-called scientific consensus.
RICHARD LINDZEN, SLOAN PROFESSOR OF METEOROLOGY, MIT: Notion of science by authority is kind of stupid and counter to sciences. It's supposed to be conducted only the politicians want science as a source of authority.
HANNITY: The IPCC sells its agenda through assessment reports. Now these reports push for international treaties to curb emissions by painting a picture of environmental Armageddon.
The group issued reports in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007 and a fifth report is underway. But critics object to how these reports are compiled.
MICHAELS: The scientists who are the lead authors on the IPCC are nominated by their governments. And so therefore, the governments say that this represents science as we see it.
HANNITY: Once the authors are chosen they survey the scientific literature and claim to reflect it in their reports.
HORNER: They cherry pick literature, conclusions. They extend their window for what literature is acceptable for consideration if there's a paper that they think helps and they ignore papers that don't.
HANNITY: Patrick Michaels experienced the IPCC's biased firsthand.
MICHAELS: They initially said that they would keep a paper of mine out even if they have to redefine what the "Peer Review Literature" was. So they were bound and determined to have a point of view come through and they succeeded.
HANNITY: The IPCC's reputation has also come under fire for a series of errors contained in its reports.
MONCKTON: The interesting thing about those errors is that they all point in the same direction. Towards creating a problem where there isn't one and towards prodigiously exaggerating it where there is.
HANNITY: This is a graph used in the IPCC's first and second assessment reports. It shows what scientists refer to as the medieval warm period during which temperatures were as high or higher than they are today.
Now if true this casts doubt on the idea that humans caused global warming. Shockingly the medieval warm period was removed from this graph which became the iconic image of the panel's 2001 report.
MONCKTON: Instead of a big bump in the medieval period as there had been in the 1990 report of the IPCC and then much lower temperatures ever since. They've straightened out the bump and they produced a huge increase in temperature in the 20th century.
HANNITY: Even more troubling was a finding in the IPCC's first assessment report that the warming we have witnessed over the past few decades could, quote, "be largely due to natural variability."
The scientists who contributed to the second assessment report came to a similar conclusion.
MONCKTON: Now the U.N. bureaucrats realized that if a second report came out saying actually there is no discernible link between human activities and climate change, then people would begin to say why are we paying for all of these junkets around the world every three months?
HANNITY: When the second assessment report was published in 1995 all of the uncertainty about how much humans have actually contributed to global warming was removed.
MICHAELS: The copy that came out after "Peer Review" was stopped, said the balance of evidence suggests there is a discernible human influence on global climate. It was changed after the "Peer Review" process.
HANNITY: Errors in the IPCC's most recent report published in 2007 seem almost amateurish.
MONCKTON: The 2007 IPCC report said, among other things, that all the ice in the Himalayas, all the glaciers would be gone within 25 years of today. The lead author of that chapter knew that that figure was incorrect. They didn't mean 2035, they meant 2350. And even then it's not going to be gone by then either. But that's what they said.
HANNITY: Among the sources cited in the latest IPCC report, a student thesis. An environmental pressure group's press release. And a feature article in a popular climber's magazine.
The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, refuses to apologize for the report's numerous errors.
PACHAURI: I have no intentions of resigning from my position. I was elected by acclamation by all the countries of the world. And I have a task.
HANNITY: Hopefully Mr. Pachauri and his group take things more seriously as the IPCC prepares its next report due out in 2014.
HANNITY: Coming up, Al Gore leads the charge for an international climate agreement that would cripple the American economy.
HANNITY: Welcome back to the "Green Swindle." Now for decades world leaders have pushed the U.S. to sign an international climate agreement. But we discovered that these agreements are about much more than just the environment.
BILL CLINTON We all have to agree that the potential for serious climate disruption is real.
GORE: Our first step should be to set realistic and achievable binding emissions limits.
HANNITY (voice-over): Now that was 1997 and global warming hysteria reached a fever pitch. Now the U.N. and the IPCC pushed hard for an international agreement that would require nations to reduce their carbon emissions and the Clinton administration jumped on board.
GORE: Now is the time to cut back emissions, design 21st century solutions, and begin the steps necessary to return our planet to the stable climate balance that has been enjoyed by our ancestors.
HANNITY: Now this set the tone for two infamous treaties that in the end were never signed but they did expose the true agenda of global warming hysterics to punish the United States, redistribute wealth and force developed nations to be industrialized.
HORNER: Notice that no agreement requires anything. No agreement tabled so far. There are several proposals. None of them require anything by the countries where emissions are not only going up but skyrocketing. It's not about emissions, it's about us.
HANNITY: The push for an international climate treaty started with the Kyoto Protocol back in 1997. And when that failed the second attempt came at last year's Copenhagen conference.
In the latter part of the Clinton administration the president made a strong push for a climate agreement.
CLINTON: As we get ready for the Kyoto conference, I believe there should be realistic and binding limits to emissions of greenhouse gases.
HANNITY: But the Clinton-Gore team faced a major problem. The U.S. Senate staunchly opposed any treaty that would harm the U.S..
HORNER: The Senate gave unanimous -- bipartisan, non-partisan support for a resolution instructing the Clinton-Gore administration, don't go to Kyoto in December and agree to this treaty or anything that looks like it, unless it covers -- treats other countries like it does us and/or you guarantee it will not significantly harm the United States economy.
HANNITY: Even Democrats known for their environmentalism opposed the treaty, including Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Delaware Senator Joe Biden, California Senator Barbara Boxer and Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.
But that did not sit well with the vice president. Gore intervened to make sure the U.S. would sign the accord regardless of what the Senate had to say.
GORE: After talking with our negotiators this morning and after speaking on the telephone from here a short time ago with President Clinton, I'm instructing our delegation right now to show increased negotiating flexibility.
HANNITY: With blatant disregard for the Senate Gore agreed to a disastrous international treaty obligating the United States to reduce its emissions 5 percent below 1990 levels.
Now he also made it clear that he would go along with the environmental agenda at any cost.
HORNER: It was absolutely a spectacular capitulation. And utterly, utterly unthinking agreement to terms that were drafted by Europe, solely to benefit Europe and solely to disadvantage us.
HANNITY: Now critics charged that the treaty would have crippled the U.S. economy.
JIM SENSENBRENNER (R), WISCONSIN CONGRESSMAN: Projections are that electric rates would have gone up by at least 50 percent. Gasoline at the pump by a dollar a gallon. And natural gas prices between 30 and 50 percent.
HANNITY: They also say it unfairly targeted the U.S. and other industrialized nations.
ADLER: The idea was for the industrialized nations of the world, the wealthy nations, to agree to binding limits on their greenhouse gas emissions. But developing nations including countries like China and India were left out.
HORNER: It exempts 155 countries. It gives them a free ride. Of course they are on board.
HANNITY: And almost a year later, in November of 1998, President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol.
CLINTON: The agreement is environmentally strong and economically sound. It reflects a commitment by our generation to act in the interests of future generations.
HANNITY: The Senate, however, saw things differently and made it clear it would never ratify this treaty.
FRANK MURKOWSKI (R), FORMER ALASKA SENATOR: In my opinion the Kyoto deal is dead on arrival. It is designed to give some nations a free ride. It is designed to raise energy prices in the U.S..
HANNITY: Now Gore's maneuver in the Kyoto Protocol showed America's willingness to appease environmental extremists. Now his spirit was revived at last year's Copenhagen conference. This time with President Obama leading the charge.
OBAMA: We come here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a great and growing danger.
HANNITY: But the summit was thrown off course when a draft copy of the proposed agreement leaked out. Now it showed plans to force industrialized countries to pay developing nations an amount equivalent to .5 percent of their GDP.
In short, it would have levied a tax on countries like the U.S. to give money to poor nations. Like Kyoto this was a blatant attempt to redistribute wealth in the name of the environment.
SENSENBRENNER: The third world has decided to use this treaty to bring about a massive shift of wealth from the United States to developing countries.
In effect the third world including China as saying as we Chinese will lend you $100 billion and you pay interest, and then you give it back to us in the other third world countries to stand up cleaning up our environment and building more factories to compete with your American-made products.
That's probably the worst deal that I've heard in all my 30 years in Congress.
HANNITY: While a global environmental treaty eludes us Al Gore and President Obama have put the U.S. in a dangerous spot by showing that we will sacrifice our sovereignty for those who do not have our best interests at heart.
HANNITY: Still ahead the world's top climate scientists caught green- handed, pushing an alarmist agenda. Their e-mails and the ClimateGate scandal straight ahead.
HANNITY: Welcome back to the Green Swindle. Now, skeptics have long doubted the science behind global warming. A recent scandal shows they had good reason to be suspicious.
HANNITY (voice-over): In November 2009, an unknown hacker leased thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit sparking a controversy that will forever be known as climategate.
Now the e-mails reveal a plot among the world's top climate scientists to hide the real inconvenient truth that the evidence supporting manmade global warming is far from conclusive.
The climatic research unit or CRU provides technical data to both government and organizations like the U.N.'s intergovernmental panel on climate change.
The unit run by renowned scientist Bill Jones collaborates with scientists worldwide most notably Michael Mann, head of Penn State's Earth System Science Center.
IAIN MURRAY, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Michael Mann and Bill Jones are probably the two main figures in a very small clique of climate scientists. They are a group who work together to make sure their view of climatology is seen as the correct or dominant view in the scientific literature.
HANNITY: Now their view of climate science is best represented by Michael Mann's now famous hockey stick graph. The graph reconstructs temperatures over the past 1,000 years. Now it shows the earth warming at alarming rate in the 20th century.
MURRAY: It became an icon. It was central to virtually every government's argument that something had to be done about global warming now.
HANNITY: However, the science behind the graph is questionable. Starting with Mann's data in particular his use of bristle comb pine trees to reconstruct temperatures. Now several scientists argue that due to their natural deformities these trees do not make good specimens for data collection.
ROSS MCKITRICK, PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH: Pretty much everyone who's ever looked at including the National Academy of Science panel said they shouldn't be used for temperature process.
HANNITY: Now similar criticism has been leveled at his methodology. Subsequent studies show a key step in his technique to generate a hockey stick even if random numbers are used. This was the case in the first seven panels of this chart.
MCKITRICK: He used a mathematical technique that loaded all the weight of the final graph on these pines and that's what really distorted the picture.
HANNITY: In fact, when the hockey stick is compared to another tree ring graph by the climatologist the results differed sharply starting around 1960. The Climategate e-mail show Mann and Jones struggling with what they should present to the public in the IPCC report to account for the discrepancy.
MCKITRICK: What are they going to do about the fact that his graph is going in the wrong direction and detracts from the story that they want to tell. So in that case, they choked off the post 1960 portion of Briffa's graph.
HANNITY: Bill Jones faced the same problem when preparing another report at the World Meteorological Organization. Once again, he removed part of Briffa's data.
In an e-mail uncovered in Climategate, he writes about using nature trick to hide the decline. Above all the hockey stick graph proved very lucrative for Michael Mann. Now, last year alone he received more than $2.4 million in stimulus money and that's not all.
BRIAN SUSSMAN, AUTHOR OF CLIMATEGATE: At least $19 million, $20 million has come in to CRU in recent years. The money has come from European Union. It's come from NATO. It's coming from the United Nations. It has come from the United States of America.
HANNITY: Along with money, came additional scrutiny led by an economist Ross McKitrick and mathematician Steven McIntyre.
MCKITRICK: We saw the hockey stick graph all over the place and people just kept referring to it as sort of the last word on the subject. I was intriguing the role it was playing including policy discussions.
HANNITY: Their request for information trigged numerous e-mails between Mann, Jones and the rest of the team behind that hockey stick graph. Mann writes of his research, quote, "This is the sort of dirty laundry one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things."
SUSSMAN: E-mails like that talking about dirty laundry and distortion and deletion and tricks. It does mock the integrity of the scientific method and those of us who are really serious about science.
HANNITY: E-mails that show manipulation of data were very incriminating. But the written discussions about destroying records proved to be most damning.
MCKITRICK: Once they had been asked for e-mail correspondence concerning the production of the IPCC report and there's an e-mail from Jones to my command and asking him to delete any e-mails he had related to the IPCC report and that he was going to ask other colleagues to do the same.
HANNITY: It doesn't stop there. The hockey graph team was determined to prevent opposing viewpoints from gaining traction. The prime example, in 2005, they attempted to discredit the editor of the scientific journal "Geophysical Research Letters" after he published one of McIntyre and McKitrick's papers questioning the hockey graph.
MURRAY: There's evidence that they were trying to get the editor of the journal fired. The fact that they did actually engage in a conspiracy to try to get him forced out, is against, indicative of an attitude toward scientific process which is disturbing.
HANNITY: Even the IPCC doesn't emerge unscathed. Now critics claim to let their allegiance to the hockey stick clout its judgment.
STEPHEN MCINTYRE, EDITOR OF CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG: The hockey stick issue was known to IPCC as a problem five years ago. Instead of having an independent author in the assessment, they had a close associate of the people involved.
HANNITY: That close associate was none other than hockey team member Keith Briffa. So what did skeptics think of his report?
MCKITRICK: Partisan hardly covers it. I mean it was -- first of all incompetent. I don't even think that Briffa had read the papers that he was summarizing.
HANNITY: When Climategate broke, the e-mails went viral and five investigations were launched while the scientists were cleared of any wrongdoing critics called these investigations a sham.
MCKITRICK: All of these inquiries have been a disappointment. In a sense, the documentation is there and the record is there. We are still waiting for a real inquiry to be formed that will get to the bottom of --
HANNITY: While the culprits claim innocence they are still trying to rewrite history. In a recent interview with the VDC, Mann said this about the hockey stick graph.
PROFESSOR MICHAEL MANN, EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE: I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate.
HANNITY: While the, quote, "investigations" turned up nothing, the impact of Climategate is clear.
SUSSMAN: The reputation of the CRU has been trapped. The United Nations has become more of a laughing stock than ever because they seem to buy everything coming out of the CRU.
HANNITY: Coming up, is market socialism headed for America? The emissions trading scheme that's on its way to becoming law, that and more, next.
HANNITY: Welcome back to the Green Swindle, now President Obama's answer to the so-called problem of global warming is one of the most controversial solutions being shopped today.
OBAMA: Every little bit of pollution that is sent up into the atmosphere that polluter is getting charged for.
HANNITY (voice-over): It the system known as cap and trade, but what does it actually mean?
ROY SPENCER, PH.D., CLIMATOLOGIST: The government capped how much CO2 companies and industries can produce and allows them to trade credits in CO2.
STEVEN HAYWARD, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: So if one firm faces very high cost to reduce pollution and another firm has low cost to reduce pollution. The idea is the low cost firm can create credits and sell them to the other company.
The idea of cap and trade is that you leave it to marketplace to determine what measures should be used to reduce pollution. It's really a misnomer to say that cap and trade is a market-based system.
At best, you might call it market socialism because essentially you are rationing energy use.
HANNITY: Where did this idea of carbon trading come from? Like many things related to the current administration, it could be traced back to Obama's hometown and a company called the Chicago Climate Exchange or the CCX.
The company declined an interview request, but in an e-mail to Fox News, a spokesperson explains that CCX's purpose is to, quote, "help prepare businesses and markets for potential regulations at the international or federal level, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions through a rules-based exchange platform." The founder of CCX is Richard Sandor named by "Time" magazine as the father of carbon trading.
HAYWARD: He was one of the leaders in saying why don't we get out early and start a climate exchange for greenhouse gases. He got foundation grants from liberal foundations like the Joyce Foundation at the time one of whose board members was a guy named Barack Obama.
HANNITY: The company originated with two grants from the Chicago- based Joyce Foundation whose president soon left to become the executive vice president of CCX. Senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett was the foundation's former director.
HAYWARD: Usually you don't need foundation funding so setup a commodity exchange, there's usually plenty of private money because there is usually lots of profit in trading commodities. Carbon is different because we are going to make that market artificially.
HANNITY: In 2006, CCX was acquired by climate exchange PLC, which was then acquired in July of this year by Intercontinental Exchange for approximately $600 million.
Among those who may have benefited financially? Sandor himself who owned nearly 17 percent of shares, Al Gore's company, Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs, which at one point owned as much as 10 percent.
HAYWARD: There's a lot of green to be made in being green.
HANNITY: Now despite CCX's arguments in favor of a cap and trade system, many scientists and economists maintain not only is a bad idea, it is also nearly impossible to implement.
Climatologists and former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that the energy technology necessary to make a large scale switch from fossil fuels does not yet exist.
SPENCER: You cannot legislate new forms of energy into existence.
HANNITY: Dr. Spencer also argues that the climate system is much less sensitive to CO2 than most experts claim and that CO2 in the atmosphere might not even be a bad thing.
SPENCER: Cap and trade might make people feel good about themselves that we're actually doing something to help the environment. But it is not going to have measurable impact on future global temperatures.
HANNITY: Others argue against cap and trade's practicality. If President Obama wants us --
OBAMA: To reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2012 and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2015.
HAYWARD: What does that actually mean in practical terms? It means reducing our fossil fuel energy use to a level the United States last experience 100 years ago.
HANNITY: Most of all, critics argued what the system would mean for an already struggling economy.
SPENCER: Cap and trade is a mechanism for punishing use of fossil fuel so that other sources of energy, which are inherently more expensive will become more attractive.
HANNITY: "Washington Times" stated in 2009, that Obama's climate plan could cost industry close to $2 trillion. That's nearly three times the White House's initial estimate.
HAYWARD: Where do the energy companies get their money? They get it from rate payers. They get it from people who buy gasoline, natural gas and electricity. So eventually the consumer pays 100 percent of the tab.
OBAMA: Under my plan of the cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
JIM SENSENBRENNER, (R) WISCONSIN CONGRESSMAN: Once people saw it was a huge tax increase folded into their energy bills. Then people saw the economic impact not only on their pocketbook, but also on American jobs and American competitiveness around the world.
SPENCER: The greatest amount of experience that anyone has with cap and trade is in the European trading scheme and they've been doubling in this for a couple of years now.
HAYWARD: You've had a number of companies in Europe that have shutdown factories or moved out of Europe completely in the developing nations that aren't suppressing their carbon dioxide emissions.
HANNITY: It's somehow cap and trade keeps inching closer to becoming reality. The Waxman-Markey Bill, which would establish a cap and trade system here in the U.S. similar to the EU's emission trading system narrowly passed the House last year by a vote of 219-212.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you say to the 212 that voted against it?
JONATHAN ADLER, LAW PROFESSOR CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: The Waxman-Markey Bill was this 1,000 page monstrosity of all sorts of deals and special arrangements for all kinds of interest groups that will create a lot of regulation, create a lot of work for lawyers, create a lot of work for (inaudible). It won't do much to make us a wealthier or greener society.
HANNITY: The bill is currently sitting in the Senate.
OBAMA: I look forward to continue this work with the Senate so that Congress can send me a bill that I can sign into law.
SPENCER: Politicians are more interested in gaining power than they are in improving our economy. Either that or they are just plain stupid. They really don't care whether the science is right or wrong.
All they care about is that this is an opportunity to expand government. Since all of humanity requires energy, this kind legislation is a bureaucrat's dream because whoever controls energy, controls the world.
HANNITY: Still ahead, going green. It's more than a slogan how businesses have managed to turn environmentalism into a billion dollar industry that is next.
HANNITY: Welcome back to the Green Swindle. Now from coast-to-coast people in businesses are going green. But is this movement actually helping the environment or just lining the pockets of big corporations?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The green revolution is the solution to the financial crisis, the national security crisis, the debt crisis and the climate crisis. They are all connected.
HANNITY (voice-over): Ever since the 2006 debut of Al Gore's movie "Inconvenient Truth," the business of global warming has been booming. Pushing its political agenda on the American people and turning huge profits. Everywhere, we look Americans are bombarded with images and products pushing the green movement and green lifestyle.
MONCKTON: You have the media wanting to sell newspapers, what is going to be the best headline here?
The truth, climate continues changeable, not very exciting or the lie, world to end. Shock, pictures, pages 2 to 14, you have the scientists in search of grants. You have the politicians in search of an issue. You look at the grants some of these scientists are getting. They are becoming multi-millionaires at the expense of the taxpayer.
HANNITY: Yet so far it is working.
MYRON EBELL, FREEDOM ACTION PRESIDENT: More and more companies have decided that they can get rich off of consumers by producing and promoting products they claim are green.
HANNITY: The green products market in the U.S. was $209 billion in 2005. One year later an "Inconvenient Truth" hit the screen and the market exploded. Projection say consumers will spend $420 billion on green products in 2010 and $845 billion by 2015.
TOBIN SMITH: Al Gore's movie really jumpstarted the consumer awareness that somehow global warming, you know, was going to cause the end of the earth as we know it in less than 10 years.
HANNITY: And it didn't just jumpstart spending at the supermarket in the mall.
SMITH: Since 2005, Venture Capital Investment in the green field has essentially doubled and then doubled again. It went from basically zero to over $5 billion to $6 billion a year in new start-up companies. This entire business is really just boom.
HANNITY: So what is all this money being spent on? It is being spread across the board from environmentally friendly cars to energy efficient light bulbs to recycled toilet paper. But there is growing concern about whether these products and whether they really deliver on their, quote, "green claims."
EBELL: A lot of the claims for green products are misleading. They don't make us healthier. They don't improve the environment and they certainly don't make us happier. What they do is they raise prices for typical American consumers.
HANNITY: So how do the companies that, quote, "go green" pull in billions? By recruiting the big guns to sell their environmental doom and gloom story, Hollywood.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm doing what I can because it is an issue I think is global in every sense of the word.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is environmental disaster we've been confronting, you know, have been caused by us.
HANNITY: You can't go to the movies, turn on the TV or pick up a magazine without seeing images of the, quote, "Go Green Movement." So what are you to do after being made it feel so guilty about your, quote, "carbon footprint?" Spend more money, of course, on buying carbon offsets.
EBELL: Carbon offset is the idea that if your activity, say your electric use and your driving produces so much carbon dioxide that you can offset that by buying something that will reduce an equivalent amount.
For example, you can pay to participate in a project where they are planting a lot of trees. You are counteracting your own carbon dioxide emissions.
HANNITY: Many airlines now offer the option to purchase these offsets right on their web sites as part of your ticket purchase. Now the offsets themselves are their own million dollar industry. But do they really help the environment?
SMITH: When you buy these carbon credits, what you are really doing is paying to plant a tree in either China or in the Amazon. That's usually where most of these carbon credits come from. It is a total scam.
EBELL: The global warming alarmists tell us we have to reduce our emissions immediately. Many of these offsets don't take effect for several decades.
HANNITY: Yet as Al Gore brings vision of Armageddon to our doorstep, he continues to travel in gas guzzling private jets and SUV's, all under the guise his carbon offsets will even things out.
EBELL: You see people like Al Gore, former vice president claiming that all of his activities are fully offset. That they buy carbon offsets to counteract all of the emissions that he produces from flying around in his private jet plane. These carbon offsets are meant to make people feel less guilty about their high flying lifestyles.
HANNITY: Although Hollywood's influence is massive a more powerful force has even more say over what you buy and how you live.
OBAMA: The threat from climate change is serious. It is urgent and it is growing.
HANNITY: The Green Revolution has taken hold in Democrat-controlled Washington. It is no wonder in the 2008 election cycle environmental groups gave Democrats nearly all of their $2.8 million in donations.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We will create a green revolution with investments in biofuel, wind, solar, geothermal.
EBELL: There is a very close relationship between the Democratic Party and the environmental pressure groups.
HANNITY: As long as the money keeps flowing in, Democrats will keep pushing green as a way to solve the world's problems.
SMITH: The only reason many of these green products and green industries have starred is because the government decided this is what we should do, rather than the free market.
And we know that when the government decides versus a free market it is going to be wasteful. It's going to be probably illogically put together and guess what? Most of these projects are.
HANNITY: But with the fear of doomsday scenarios pushed by the Al Gore's of the world, Americans continue to sink their money one green thing after another with not much to show for it other than the swelling bank accounts of those selling the products.
EBELL: At the end of the day, if we adopt the green economy that President Obama keeps talking about, we are going to be poorer and we're not going to have a better environment.
HANNITY: And we will continue to follow these important stories, but that is all the time we have tonight. As always thank you for joining us and have a good night.