« Die Welt: America's Trigger-Happy Jesus Rambos | Main | John Vinocur: "Trying to Legitimize Missile-Shield Hostility in Germany" »

Comments

Wow!
This is the movie that had to be made.
What I found the most disturbing:
-the guy who left Greenpeace because of what this has become
-the African economist stating that the West tries to stop Africa from developing
-dissenting scientists (ideas) not receiving funds
-there's a whole industry and many jobs which depend on global warming caused by man being true

This is the list of the interviewed scientists, in case someone wants to further research:
nigel calder
nir shaviv
lord lawson of blaby
james shikwati
philip stott
patrick michaels
john christy
richard lindzen
frederick singer
carl wunsch
piers corbyn
eigil friis-christensen
ian clark
patrick moore
roy spencer
tim ball
syun-ichi akasofu
paul reiter
paul driessen

Somehow I have the impression that it is not only in Germany, but in the whole world that the dissenting voices are very few (not meant as an excuse)

The consensus opinion of the scientific community is that humanity is largely responsible for climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change). As with every scientific theory, there are some individuals who have a different opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus). There are also scientists who deny that AIDS exist.

If it turns out that the scientific community is wrong, and emissions have been reduced, that's no big problem, except that maybe the cars have become a bit quieter and the air has become cleaner. If it turns out, however, that the scientific community is right (which is more probable), and nothing has been done, then we do have a problem...

If it turns out, however, that the scientific community is right (which is more probable), and nothing has been done, then we do have a problem...

I had seen parts of this film before is was posted here. I believe towards the end they directly address this fallback/default rationale predicibly asserted above. I was wondering what your thoughts about it were*.

My theory is that the mindset in Germany is - in general - more collectivist than in the US for example and thus, there are more things accepted as "common knowledge" and "basic truth" which need not / must not be debated. This is bad for any topic up for discussion and it is exactly this characteristic which makes it difficult to debate anything US with most Germans. Too many "common knowledge" there (Alex N.- from immediate preceding thread)

-- Enough said


* Unless of course you haven't seen the film or any part thereof before.**
** And unless of course your own level of scientific expertise and experience in this field would make viewing the film (or any specific portion)needless and repetitive waste of time***.
***I also wonder if you have a good response when a particular religious nutjob uses the same logic to convince you that it's better to convert, just in case you otherwise in up in hell.

As a German, I enjoy Global warming. I get a soft winter and an ever increasing production of grapes and kiwis in my garden. The Atlantic Conveyor will collapse after my demise, if ever (I have serious doubts about this theory, but this is off-topic).

But back on topic, the media treatment of Global Warming is ridiculous:

Until very recently, US media and esp. conservative blogs treated Global warming as some leftist conspiracy to cripple America. This ignored the scientific consensus (which is fine) and common sense (which is not), as there clearly is a Global Warming, likely partially caused by men.

The RotW but China and India, sees Global Warming as a doomsday scenario. Humbug. You will suffer from higher sea levels, if You live e.g. in Florida or Bangladesh. You will suffer from a lack of drinking water, if You live near the Mediterranean Sea. But other areas will improve, like Germany, which will merely have to replace parts of its wheat production with corn.

The American perspective can be explained by skilled ads financed by the fossil fuel lobby (I still remember the one where a world map is cut up to show all the nations with exceptions in the Kyoto Treaty), while the European one is based on (at least partially justified) pride of its ecological record and simply being Gutmenschen.

I fail to see any anti-Americanism here, esp. any special German one.

Just stock up on Sicilian wines, as long as they exist. The production of certain high-end products is already decreasing down there.

Neocon and Icarus this is directed at you!

If a prophet comes along and tells you that you have to change your ways or suffer and die, you can stay the same and take your lumps, or maybe the prophet is wrong and nothing happens, and you haven't changed.

Or you can do as the prophet says, and change. If he is right you've saved yourself; if he is wrong nothing happens but you've changed.

There are 4 possible options--this is called Talmudic reasoning and it still leaves you with a choice.

But what you have NOT addressed is the AGENDA of the Prophet. Why is he telling you this? Because he loves and wants to save you? Because he wants to frighten and control you? Because he wants to make money?

There's the rub; are you ABSOLUTELY certain of the GOODNESS of these prophets, because if not they are false prophets!

All I've seen so far is that the prophets of global warming are making money, getting jobs, frightening and controlling people and being elected when none of this was happening before they chose to ride this particular hobby horse. That's why I, personally, don't believe them! You still have the choice!

I wonder what you would have done had you lived in the time of NOAH, who announced that there was a flood coming. Would you have believed him? After all he said that G-d told him; all you've done is put the scientist in G-d's place!

sorry, those lines between post and poster are very confusing! That was directed at Matz and Tropby!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

From the link:
"Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community."

"They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions."

I heard the same in 1995 from an American academic who did some work on the Kyoto study. A big sham to tax and regulate the population for their "own good" while passing on funds to third world countries through "purchasing their carbon credits" in return for western nations to be allowed to continue to produce. The biggest polluters, China and Russia, are exempt. This is nothing but a global wealth transference scheme.

Matz,

Every choice we make has consequences. Do we replace our coal fired power plants with nuclear plants? Which represents the greatest risk? We won't know unless we have a clear understanding of the risks associated with both.

Let's also not forget the reputations of those scientists who are being very publicly crucified for raising legitimate concerns about the current consensus of opinion. The accusations being hurled at them from all sides are outrageous. Reference tropby's accusation above.

Also from the above mentioned link:

>> "Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

>> "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges."

There you have a reason for your "consensus opinion of the scientific community".

And no, us "climate deniers" do NOT say that the climate doesn't change. It does, and has "forever". We do question the proposed amount and way of human influence, and the "solutions" environmentalists want to force upon us and our economy. If indeed the global temperatures will continue to increase, then we should invest in research how to adapt and in the process of adapting. Of course the development of alternate fuel technologies is very important. But the main reason for that is to become more independent from oil from (let's say it in a politically correct way) "unstable" regions.

So how is the EU proposal to impose speed limits on the Autobahn going over in Germany?

@ eliXelx
@ Mir

Questioning a messenger´s motive is fine, but I wonder why there is a tendency among US conservatives not to question the motives of the people who deny or belittle climate change, e.g. the sources of their funding, often including energy companies.

And about scientist being treated as religious sources: Nonsense, I check the data on and the validity of a theory as far a non-specialist can do. I agree with some, and disagree with others (e.g. dark matter and dark energy, the new phlogiston).

Again, I have no problem with climate change, living in a moderate area. Pity about many a Pacific Island, but Kyoto is stupid. But the conservative line has changed over time (There is no Climate Change. There always has been Climate Change. There is Climate Change, but it is not man-made. OK, it may be man-made, but Kyoto is wrong), with a strong undertone of party politics (Republicans defend the US industry from Democrats, who want to sacrifice US growth on the altar of Kyoto.).

Noah was an old men whose only source were some "voices" he heard. No data, no research, no evidence. I would not invest in a shipyard, but have him put into a mental asylum.

Tropby,

You insist upon framing this issue in political terms. The disagreement at hand is about climate science, not politics. Scientific theories are constantly subjected to scientific challenges. It is a normal and healthy part of the vetting process.

I personally believe that there is sufficient evidence warrant action to curb greenhouse emissions, but I am alarmed by the way this issue is being pursued by other who believe as I do.

I like this film. I like the idea that solar activity has an influence on the earth's temperature.

Tropby,

On the other side of the coin, I think there is a tendency amongst those who submit to the theory of man-made global warmning to not consider the motives of many of the environmentalists, such as government funding, power & influence and a strong left-wing ideological bent.

[The American perspective can be explained by skilled ads financed by the fossil fuel lobby (I still remember the one where a world map is cut up to show all the nations with exceptions in the Kyoto Treaty), while the European one is based on (at least partially justified) pride of its ecological record and simply being Gutmenschen.]

There you have it. The Ami side is simply bought and paid for by evil and soul-less BIG OIL- but the Euros' naturally derives from their evolved benevolence.

This all brought to you by an admitted "non-specialist".

Anyone have any figures on the comparative auto emission standards between the US and European nations?

I watched the documentary twice. The most interesting part is where Gore is standing in front of a widescreen projection of average global temperature versus CO2 levels. I could clearly see what the documentary says--that a rise in temperature preceeds the rise in CO2 on Gore's own graph.

I wonder how many in his audience noticed what their Great Leader was actually showing rather than simply accepting his words without question? Probably no one.

The documentary's fails when it talks about broader agendas. It correctly points that implementing the global warming agenda would be cruel to poorer countries, particularly in Africa. I doubt that's deliberate. It's just another illustration of how indifferent affluent environmentalists are to the sufferings of poor people. Left unstated, perhaps because it was for a UK audience, is that the deliberate agenda focuses on crippling a US economy that demonstrates that the European social welfare state, with its high unemployment rates, is a loser. It's the US that Old Europe is obsessed with, not a China that's the real threat to limiting CO2 production (and long term to peace). That's why all their almost childish anger focuses on the US and Bush.

And sadly, as the film notes, Bush has caved on this issue. Bush demonstrates G. K. Chesterton's warnings about politicians who lack "ideals"--carefully thought out ways of looking at the world that help you resist pressure to conform. The affliction seems to run in his family.

--Mike Perry, Seattle

@ Tropby

It's not only US conservatives who don't buy the agenda-driven hysteria from the Church of Global Warming. There are also Germans like me who want facts, not beliefs. We still think for ourselves and try to see through the fog created by the MSM, left-wing politicians, "elites" and scientists who fear for their fundings.

This is how I see this too.
I would like an open debate on this.
But it looks like those who advocate man-made global warming do not really feel like debating the dissenting scientists.
Which are not one or two guys here and there. Only in this movie about 20 of them are interviewed.
I guess most of these guys would like to debate Al Gore (he's the most prominent one), if he would agree.


is this a documentary that deliberately tries to make "the other side" look stupid?
i only watched the first 17 minutes or so.
they used the example of the post-war economic boom as evidence that co2-emissions and temperature variations couldn't go hand in hand. any climate scientists is aware that the climate, concerning co2-levels, has a lag time of several decades. this means that co2 increases in the mid- or late-40s are felt in the 70s, not any sooner. did scientists review that documentary before it was released? if so, why didn't they object to it?
there are still many uncertanties about the global warming theory, to put it mildly, so any journalist or politician referring to that theory should be aware that it's only a theory. al gore's new 'masterpiece' is a perfect example for how it shouldn't be done.
However (yeah, i know, that terrible however), this documentary is one of the worst i've seen so far, and certainly not better than those shock-reports about the 'klimakatastrophe' in the bildzeitung or other newspapers.

@ icarus:

I trust neither side in this debate, so portraying me as a rabid Green is somewhat idiotic. I ridicule both sides (Being called a "Gutmensch" is not something to be proud about), yet You only concentrate on the fact -and it is a verifiable fact- that energy companies have spend money on marketing campaigns in the US and financed proponents of the minority opinion and imply anti-Americanism on my side. Being critical of both opinions cannot be anti-American ...

@ Mir:

I applaud You for not following the "agenda-driven hysteria from the Church of Global Warming" and questioning "the MSM, left-wing politicians, "elites" and scientists who fear for their fundings."

But one should also question the other side side, looking at the sources of their funding and the numbers and quality of researchers. They might have an agenda, too.

I am quite relaxed about this debate, as I have no problem with Global Warming improving my quality of life.

@ all:

Seeing lies only on one side is either dishonest or shows an ideological vision impairment, esp. if one attacks the ruling opinion as some vast conspiracy.


Over an hour of footage! Will this go beyond my attention, or is there any best-five-minutes excerpt available anywhere?

[multi-part because of too many links]

The debate on climate change has at least one major division: scientific basis and economic consequences, i.e. which measures should be taken (if at all) and what are the implications. I know too little about the latter to discuss them meaningfully. They are there and are often neglected. The main focus of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is however on science and I am not impressed.

Take this as smear, if you want, but do take it as a starter for your own research.

The skeptics shown are mostly the usual suspects, like Tim Ball or Patrick Michaels, not much surprise at the content of the film.

They have quite a few bloopers, to name two:

Have a look at e.g. timestamps 24:48 to 24:59
The film claims: volcanoes contribute more CO2 to the atmoshpere than man
Reality check: human CO2 production exceeds volcanic CO2 by a factor of about 100. Do a search on "CO2 volcano" and read for yourself. They do get the ratio of fauna and flora CO2 emission vs human CO2 emission right, however they fail to mention CO2 uptakes: http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm

10:30 minutes into the film they show a plot of MWP and LIA from the 1990 IPCC report. I recommend reading this comment by Hank Roberts on RC. The graphics they show was not based on measurements, but a sketch of best knowledge available in 1990, which was little.

But hey, why stop at bad data, why not distorting the interviews?

25:15 to 26:30
The film presents Prof. Carl Wunsch on the role the oceans play. You have watched it? Good, because here is what Wunsch has to say about this use of his interview:

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
The complete letter is reproduced in a comment on realclimate. Do read the whole thing.
Or Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4 in The Independent. Or take a look at Carl Wunsch's position on climate change at the Royal Society's site.

I recommend doing research on the director of the film, this is not the first work of Durkin.

If you are interested in the other side taking on the arguments presented by skeptics, you should know the places by now:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/

Oh for ballance, here is propaganda from the other side. Don't take it as the Holy Grail of Truth, but rather as food for thought and own research: CBC the fifth estate - The Denial Machine and the corresponding video (40 minutes). You'll need to look past a lot of anti-Bushism to find it digestible.

@Pamela
So how is the EU proposal to impose speed limits on the Autobahn going over in Germany?
Not too well. You remember: Freie Fahrt für freie Bürger. ;-) Climate change seems to have popped up out of nowhere and as this a very new and unheard of problem. So as everybody is so surprised everyone offers well-thought-out opinions. A selection: ban traditional light bulbs - have one "autofreien Sonntag" a year (not to address the problem, but to make people "aware") - no more holiday flights ...
In short, all the environmentalist's pet peeves are stuck onto global warming.

Oh, don't be too impressed with Europe's recent promises on CO2 reductions:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,470887,00.html
It's the same trick why Germany does so well in CO2 reduction, this time on a larger scale.

I am a new commenter though I have read this site for three or so years now. I first linked here from LGF when the (was it Stern?) article with photos of 'typical' Americans was highlighted. I got a good laugh from that one. It seemed like I was reading a Mad Magazine satire of a German magazine.

I had always considered Germany to be U.S.-friendly and had no idea its media were publishing and broadcasting some of the wacky ideas that have been translated and revealed here. Since then I've talked to a couple of friends who have lived and visited there and learned that they are quite often verbally spanked in Germany for being from America.

I am very impressed with the level of discourse here, both the posts and comments. I'm in Texas, so I guess Europeans will consider me a backwards, warmongering redneck.

This global warming thread piqued my interest. I grew up when the media in the U.S. were obsessed with global cooling and the coming ice age. And later when Jimmy Carter declared the 'energy crisis' and the media raced to report to us that we were running out of fossil fuel. And of course the 'population explosion' that was going to lead to the starvation of millions by the late '80s. I was worried about all these things as a teen, but I've since learned a thing or two -- especially about the media.

Here is my question to all global warming alarmists: Since the fossil record has shown that the Earth's climate is cyclical, and that about every 15,000 years an ice age comes along, and that we are about at the end of the warm period of one of those cycles, and that another ice age is imminent -- any century now -- why the hell are we concerned about a less than 1 degree-per-century temperature rise?????

Tropby,

Where the hell do you get that I portrayed you as a "rabid green"? I read your first post and gathered that you were nothing of the sort. My issue was with whatever thoughtless process caused you to unequivocally write that the "America Perspective" was bought & paid for by the petro-chemical industry.

blue, we all know the canon of the Church of Global Warming, our media presents it every day. This was about a channel that for once dared to present another side of the story. Why do you and your fellow believers get so upset about this rare exception, I don't understand. If your theories are right, then you certainly you don't have to fear a debate about them, or do you?

Blue wrote as follows:"Reality check: human CO2 production exceeds volcanic CO2 by a factor of about 100. Do a search on "CO2 volcano" and read for yourself. They do get the ratio of fauna and flora CO2 emission vs human CO2 emission right, however they fail to mention CO2 uptakes: http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm"

So I did google as he said and I did find a statement similar to what he reported. I looked further and found another article. Here are some excerpts:

EarthSave Report:
A New Global Warming Strategy:
How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes by Noam Mohr
......
Unfortunately, the environmental community has focused its efforts almost exclusively on abating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
.......

This is a serious miscalculation. Data published by Dr. James Hansen and others show that CO2 emissions are not the main cause of observed atmospheric warming. Though this may sound like the work of global warming skeptics, it isn’t: Hansen is Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who has been called “a grandfather of the global warming theory.” He is a longtime supporter of action against global warming, cited by Al Gore and often quoted by environmental organizations, who has argued against skeptics for subverting the scientific process. His results are generally accepted by global warming experts, including bigwigs like Dr. James McCarthy, co-chair of the International Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group II.
.....
By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.

Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled.
.......
The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by going vegetarian (or, strictly speaking, vegan), , , we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.

Probably anyone can find any 'data' they wish...so distorted by politics has this question become.

I, personally, and a scientist (but not a specialist in this field), am a global warming skeptic. This, for many reasons both deriving from both my experience in science and in observing the world politically like everyone else. I will mention just one reason, not sufficiently emphasized in the film:

Most people will remember the businness about how a butterfly on one contintent can, according to computer models, cause a storm to appear on another continent...the butterfly effect. This means that computer models of weather are wildly unstable, and this means, in turn, that they have no predictive value. (modern chaos theory got started when a weather modeller noticed chaos in supposedly predictive models a number of decades ago). I suppose there must be a counter argument to this, but I have not seen it. I am really puzzled that scientists can claim to predict global warming on the basis of computer models!

Mir, there are skeptics and "skeptics". Some of the former distrust the media hype, others feel that the picture is not clear cut yet, I consider e.g. you Sagredo and Carl Wunsch in this group. The most vocal "skeptics" like Tim Ball and Patrick Michaels on the other hand, just try to rehash questions that have already been answered. They don't shy away from misrepresenting data and using other tactics in similar vein (see above). The effect of the fog screens is, that necessary political discussions about what to do and not to do are delayed, "because the subject is still debated". That is why.

@icarus:
Anyone have any figures on the comparative auto emission standards between the US and European nations?
Not on standards, but on fleet mileage. Have a look at comments section of this previous post

@sagredo:
I know that CO2 is the one gas the media write about, and I myself am talking about CO2 only on this blog all the time - guilty as charged. Yet, I am aware that methane and other green house gases are routinely included in climate models. The Kyoto protocol did not address CO2 only but "Green House Gases", which include methane and others. If you prefer, I can switch from the short hand CO2 to GHG in future. When talking methane, don't forget the other sources like land fills and rice and natural sources like wetlands and termites. The fact that methane is only now picked up by the media does not necessarily mean, that methane is new to the science.

As for the butterfly effect, climate is not weather. It does not seem to suffer from sensitivity to initial conditions to the same extent as weather forecasts over the relevant timescales.

slightly OT and ca. 06 min each - from the Hannelore Khadim geb. Krause kidnapping:

Hostage Video (German and Arab with Arab subtitles)

Blackmail Video (Arab with German subtitles)

Blue: You are correct that I misspoke when I mixed climate up with weather. The reason I did so is that I was reminded of the butterfly effect when I read an article in the WSJ by an eminent climate scientist who noted that each time the computer modelers seek to 'improve' their models by adding another component to their equations, their predictions change wildly. This would not happen if they had a handle on the important contributions to weather, in other words, a plausible model. This problem BTW is not the same as the butterfly instabllity but is analogous.

Morever, there are indeed short space-time range effects which have been shown to grow to influence climate predictions.

Objective observers admit that there is as much art as science in the field.

That human contributions to Greenhouse gasses and their effects on weather should be studied is certainly reasonable. But for it to drum up the type of hysteria we have seen, is socially destructive. It would make more sense, at least in principle, if people were really concerned about climate (and not really politically motivated) to push for world vegetarianism. I cannot imagine such an effort would ever succeed.

The Iranian nuclear threat---now there is something worth hysteria. But alas it is useless for bashing those fat Americans in their fat cars.

blue;

I might agree that Prof. Munsch was misrepesented as he claims, but by following the links you provided shows that he had not seen the documentary. He was responding to an e-mail asking if he was indeed misrepresented and that the Prof. asked if the author was planning to file a complaint with the broadcaster. Prof. Wunsch said that if the e-mail was correct then his remarks were taken out of context and that would the writer of the e-mail let him know if there were any other complaints. I think the Prof. might want to see the documentary himself then comment on the facts or opinions as presented. Also the Royal Society article might be germane but since it was published a year ago it be irrelevant to whether he was misrepresented or maliciously edited in the documentary.

@ icarus

"The Ami side is simply bought and paid for by evil and soul-less BIG OIL" seemed to imply some green position to me. Communication on the internet - with no tonal clues etc. - tends to result in misunderstandings. Sorry.

I do believe that propaganda, PR, whatever one wants to call it, is important in shaping public opinion. So do the authors of this site, if I understand them correctly.

I watched effective add campaigns by the fossil fuel lobby on US media, without seeing any opposing adds. Linking this unique add campaign to the nearly unique position taken by large parts of the US public on Global Warming seems reasonable. "Bought & paid for by the petro-chemical industry" is a rather harsh way to phrase it.

Add campaigns do produce results, or nobody would invest the large sums needed. Another example is the campaign by the US health care/insurance industry, which at least partially explains the stance taken by large parts of the US public on "socialized" -to use their term- health care.

All IMHO, of course.


@ pat patterson

"I might agree that Prof. Munsch was misrepesented as he claims, but by following the links you provided shows that he had not seen the documentary."

that's wrong. wunsch rips apart other parts of the documentary (he, for example, refers to the claim that co2 is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass). so he must have seen it.
he called it an "out-and-out propaganda piece", and that's basically what it is - pure propaganda.

again, if this is an attempt to make the skeptics-side look stupid, durkin is doing a fine job.

blue; The links you provided make it clear that the e-mail Prof. Wunsch sent on the afternoon of March 9th, in response to Radio Dave's, clearly states that, "I've not seen it and the context was not all what we agreed upon." Later he also says, "I'm wondering if ther's some way I can get to see it." Again Prof. Wunsch's article is claearly marked March of 2006. His arguments may indeed be persuasive but I hardly think he has the ability to refute a disagreeable documentary a full year before its airing.

"...must have seen it." Is not much of an answer when his e-mail clearly indicates that he has not.

I'm sure that Prof. Wunsch can spell "there's" which obviously I can't. Also the original e-mail, that Prof. Wunsch was answering was from Dave Rado not Radio Dave. Apolgies!

@ pat patterson

yes, he hadn't seen it initially. he was asked by rado on march 9th, as you correctly pointed out. however, you seem to ignore his response to steven green he wrote a day later.
in that response he, for example said that: "What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn't really matter
. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
piece of disinformation.
"
so, by march 10th he had seen it. he knows what the other interview partners had to say. how could he if he hadn't seen it? why would he call it propaganda? it's obvious that, by the time of his march 10th letter, he already watched it.

"Do we replace our coal fired power plants with nuclear plants?"

That seems to be the French solution, but not Germany's. Germany has chosen to build more coal-fired power plants.

"So how is the EU proposal to impose speed limits on the Autobahn going over in Germany?"

Heh. If you want to create a firestorm -- GUARANTEED! -- just bring up this subject in casual conversation in Germany. About the only other subjects that come close are air conditioning, stores being open for business on Sundays, and anti-smoking laws.

"When talking methane, don't forget the other sources like land fills..."

This is actually a great source of (apparently renewable) energy. Most modern landfills in the US are built, by law, in such a way as to capture the methane produced by rotting garbage -- where it is then used to generate electricity. I posted a link in a previous thread to an episode of Penn & Teller's show, Bullsh*t!, where this topic is discussed. You can find this episode, as well as the episode with the co-founder of Greenpeace who left the environmental movement because it had been taken over by anti-capitalists, anti-globalists, leftists and anarchists, on Youtube (just search for Bullsh*t, Penn & Teller, and/or environmentalism).

just to add,
the time stamps say march 9th 2007

Pamela -

So how is the EU proposal to impose speed limits on the Autobahn going over in Germany?

The speedlimit is to traffic the same thing as the Kyoto protocol is to business.

There´s a serious problem to be solved, but the highest profile approach to it is anything but.

In the 20th century the noise emissions of the Autobahn system went over the top, and today the challenge how to achieve comprehensive noise control in the hub of Europe is wide open.

Tropby -

I watched effective add campaigns by the fossil fuel lobby on US media, without seeing any opposing adds.

From that footage alone, I would not be able to see any difference between, let´s say, Cheney and Chavez.

Quo Vadis -

Every choice we make has consequences. Do we replace our coal fired power plants with nuclear plants? Which represents the greatest risk? We won't know unless we have a clear understanding of the risks associated with both.

Withdraw from the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, plant hemp.

/rabidgreen

I still don't think that, as of March 10th, in his letter to Steven Green, Prof. Wunsch has seen the film. He mentions only one other speaker, unnamed, and he uses passive language to describe his only cited appeaance in that he objects to as "I am shown..." Not the more active "I saw..." He still does not anywhere in his complaint say that he has seen the documentary.

I still wouldn't attempt to refute him because, as I mentioned earlier, he very well may have been misrepresented. But his letter is not convincing except to suggest that he is relaying second hand complaints, as he had asked David Rado for on the 9th.

@ pat

"I still don't think that, as of March 10th, in his letter to Steven Green, Prof. Wunsch has seen the film. He mentions only one other speaker, unnamed [...]"
you're free to believe whatever you want to ;)
he said: "There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one [...]"
yes, he only metions one other speaker. the quote above however, indicates that wunsch has more things to object to. rado didn't mention the co2-part so how could wunsch know about it or about the many other examples he's talking about? the video was posted on googlevidz on march 9th, so anyone with internet access is able to view it. wunsch send a letter to green (march 10th) complaining about the documentary and durkin. he closed by saying that he "will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest". he wouldn't do that if he only relied on second hand information.

"[...]and he uses passive language to describe his only cited appeaance in that he objects to as "I am shown..." Not the more active "I saw...""
quote the whole thing. "I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud."
he said he was shown explaing... this is in no way an indication he didn't see the documentary, he only said that in that documentary he was shown explaining.... the use of the passive form is totally okay and in no way unusual (the "i was shown"-part wasn't referring to rado, he referred to the documentary).

he also said: "At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly
with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to
its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4."
it'd be interesting to see if he sues them. channel 4, who now call the documentary "a polemic" said they'll be re-airing it. so i guess this odd story will continue.

I still wouldn't attempt to refute him [...]
why would you want to refute wunsch? durkin is the one who messed up.

Thanks for the responses re: the speed limit on the autobahn. Every business day I get email from "Open Europe" outlining news in the EU. Today's missive contains this gem.

Mixed reactions to EU lightbulb switchover

According to the FT, EU proposals to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favour of more energy-efficient versions should pose no problem for European manufacturers, who are confident they can meet the 2009 deadline for the switchover.

However, in the Mail, Christopher Booker reports that the EU’s decision could cost UK households over £3 billion. The alternative – compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) – cannot be used in many household appliances such as ovens or freezers, enclosed fittings or dimmers. Booker reports that a study by DEFRA found that “less than 50 percent of the fittings installed in UK homes can currently take CFLs.”

Any idea what the percentage is in Germany?
(I think this whole thing is hilarious, btw)

He said what he said. Obviously, the has received some threats, financial or otherwise, and he prefers to give in and return to the mainstream. He now thinks the documentation may have misrepresented some facts or tried to convince people to a certain opinion? As if environmentalists would never do that. No, they are truly balanced.

I repeat that the anger and nervousness from the believers about this documentation are remarkable, given that they claim to be right for sure. Why do they fear differing opinions?

>> Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way." (Link.)

It seems the embedded video has been disappeared. It can still be found. But as I said, the church doesn't tolerate dissenting voices.

@Pat Patterson
I had put up the link to the Royal Society article from 2006 to show, what Carl Wunsch's point of view on climate change is. As for the e-mail, I think we are discussing different issues here. You are referring to an initial e-mail exchange between Dave Rado and Carl Wunsch on March 9, documented here and linked to in the article by RC. To cite Wunsch from that exchange: "Was billed as a balanced discussion of the
threat of global warming. As I began to see ads for the program, I realized I'd been duped.".

My link however does not go to the main article, but to comment #109 (which happens to be pointed out in an update to the main article) on the very same page. That comment reproduces a letter sent to Steve Green on March 10, recapturing a telephone conversation of Wunsch and Green. It is in this letter, that Wunsch shows detailed knowledge of the film. See the comment by lars above.

His arguments may indeed be persuasive but I hardly think he has the ability to refute a disagreeable documentary a full year before its airing.
I stated above, that I gave that link to document Wunsch's stance, in order for you to compare it with his interview excerpts from the film; you need a point of reference after all. The "arguments" given in the film have been around for years, it is a rehash of half-truths and outright lies, that the main stream scientists have seen from the "skeptic" side (see above for skeptic vs. "skeptic") for years. Are you really surprised, that old arguments may have been refuted a year ago already, without having to resort to clairvoyance?

Here is a new statement by Carl Wunsch on the film

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.
If you are just fishing for "I saw the film with my own eyes", if you just care for "has he seen it" and not "does he address the content correctly" - sorry, no luck.

@Sagredo

read an article in the WSJ by an eminent climate scientist
Could you please be more specific? I would like to read it or at least get the name so I can find more info. In the mean time, here is a post on "Chaos and Climate" at realclimate from 2005.
Morever, there are indeed short space-time range effects which have been shown to grow to influence climate predictions.
Again, I would like to learn more about this. Are they shown to influence the predicitions significantly over a timescale of 100 years?
The Iranian nuclear threat---now there is something worth hysteria. But alas it is useless for bashing those fat Americans in their fat cars.
I agree on hysteria and on Iran, but are we already back to chalking up the scienctific basis of climate change as a world wide anti-American conspiracy?

You show that you have been exposed to a lot of skeptic views, I include WSJ editorials on that one. Have you spent time reading the other side (e.g. realclimate.org, IPCC reports), not summaries thereof given by skeptics? Take my word and a apply it liberally to both sides: misquoting and misrepresenting data is rampant - and yes, that is frustrating. Read the sources where ever possible. I even ask you to not trust myself to give you a 100% correct view.

@mir

He said what he said. Obviously, the has received some threats, financial or otherwise, and he prefers to give in and return to the mainstream.
Has he indedd changed his opinion? Where? Give me some proof for that.
It seems the embedded video has been disappeared. It can still be found. But as I said, the church doesn't tolerate dissenting voices.
Errm, could it be that maybe, just maybe, channel 4 and Michael Durkin as the intellectual property owners may be the more obvious suspects for having the video pulled? That's just me, rambling.

@all
You want balanced debate?
Try iq2u.s. - "Global warming is not a crisis" on March 14, 2007, broadcast by WNYC.
Speakers for the motion
- Michael Crichton
- Richard S. Lindzen
- Philip Stott
Speakers against the motion
- Brenda Ekwurzel
- Gavin Schmidt
- Richard C.J. Somerville

At least, both sides will have a say. NPR will have a podcast of this. Let's see whether the debate will be on rhetorics or science. You can find statements prepared for this debate by Gavin Schmidt and Philip Stott representing both sides on the ABC news technology blog.

The Google video is down there are more clips and a full version here

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31