This is the response video to a global warming swindle.
Let me know what you guys think.
I watched it and couldn't find any evidence in it that disputes the idea that the recent global warming is most probably caused by a natural cycle or causes. The guy is obviously a humorist and approached his attack by appealing to the believer's funny bone and emotions.
Let us go through his major points.
Answer: Those promoting it have much to gain. The governments of the earth are giving many billions of dollars and even private individuals are giving vast sums. Richard Branson alone has pledged three billion. The U.N. estimates that we will need up to $300 billion a year to fight it.
With all these billions at stake can we really believe that no one is benefiting from this illusion?
I don't think so.
Whenever the energy companies give a few thousand to finance a study they are heavily criticized, but the money they put forward is nothing compared to the governments of the earth to promote orthodox Global Warming.
But what about the average believer? Won't he have to sacrifice? Yes, but this means nothing. Lots of people love the idea of sacrifice. Hitler once said that he can take people in the best of circumstances and make them think they are in hell and then put others in the worst of circumstances and they will think they are in heaven. This was not theory on his part for he demonstrated he could do this.
You wouldn't think this idea would apply to many but think again. Remember all the believers in the Hale Bop Comet thought castration was a good thing and gleefully gave their lives to get a ride on a heavenly comet?
This is a false straw dog. Every skeptic I know including myself has been consistent. Very few of them have denied real scientific research, which has shown the earth is warming (how much has not been definitely proven). All but a few that are uninformed have consistently criticized the idea that humans are causing global warming.
The guy needs to argue with what is - not what is not.
He doesn't say what 'it' is. If it is fighting against the release of CO2 then he is wrong. The United States is spending billions in this direction. According to the latest available statistics, during the Bush administration major greenhouse emissions from smokestacks were reduced 9 percent and greenhouse gasses were reduced 0.5 percent. (Knight-Ridder Oct 13, 2004)
If he is speaking of the Kyoto accord then this at least applies. However the main reason given for not signing this was that it would hurt the economy and do more harm than good. Both Democrats and Republicans rejected Kyoto. Kyoto was criticized for not including China and India, but they were not the main reason for not signing it.
He unfortunately does not cite anything that is disproved nor can I think of any. If anyone knows of any data in the film which has been disproved I would like to hear it.
This is an improvement over the usual claim that "all scientists agree..." I would like to see some data to back this up.
What the majority agree with is that the earth is warming but most climatologists and meteorologists reject the orthodox theory.
Here is a statement signed by 17,000 scientists:
''We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... 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 gases 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.''
The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?
No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing, (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.
The film did use an anecdotal example which is not a good basis of argument, but its main point is correct. Solar power is not likely to ever supply more than about 2 percent of the world's energy and it is very expensive. In addition to this CO2 is released in the manufacturing of solar equipment and replacement parts.
Changing to fluorescent light bulbs and driving economy cars will have almost zero effect in cooling the earth. I use energy saving bulbs myself and drive an economy car for other reasons than fighting global warming. I think people can be motivated to conserve but the orthodox global warming people want to force us to their non solution to the problem of natural caused global warming.
Copyright © 2007 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved