|
Opinion
|
|
by Sterling
D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2007
 The Great Global Warming Swindle (76 mins) |
|
|
A decade ago, I was a convinced naysayer of global warming. I saw the global
warming mantra as contrived propaganda to give global conspirators a reason to
deploy draconian measures that they might not otherwise have enough support to
deploy. (Ref.)
However, as I became immersed in clean energy technology coverage, I became
exposed day after day to what seemed to be solid scientific facts supporting the
case that human-created CO2 and other greenhouse gases were indeed
impacting the global ecosystem.
I began accumulating these various evidences as I came across them into a Global
Warming index page at FreeEnergyNews.com. For me, the case became as
obvious as the sun rising in the morning. I was enormously satisfied when Al
Gores film, An Inconvenient Truth came out and was watched by so many
people. Global Warming seems to have arrived in the psyche of the inhabitants of
the planet as one of the primary issues facing humanity.
Then I watched a new 75-minute documentary film called The
Global Warming Swindle. I went into it skeptical, but as the scientific
evidence was presented, I realized that there are some very solid reasons that
argue against the typical global warming model that places the human
contribution as being capable of pushing the planet into a tipping point of no
return sometime soon if things are not turned around. Some scientists and
activists of that camp even go so far as to say that we have already stepped
over that line.
Not so, says the film. It makes a strong scientific case against the typical
human-caused global warming arguments, presenting alternative explanations for
the warming trends.
Scientific Counterpoints
For
example, CO2 levels dont cause the average global temperature
levels to rise and fall. It is the other way around, with something of the order
of several hundred year lag time.
One of the scientists cited as part of the documentation of this facet was
the one in charge of drilling and sampling ice core samples from the arctic.
The sun is by far a more significant contributor to the warming and cooling
cycles documented on earth. And the cosmic rays that the sun deflects to varying
degrees are another primary driver of the earths average temperature
fluctuations.
 |
 |
In fact, the temperature trend over the past 120 years has two major contradictions to the human-induced warming model, compared to the solar activity-induced model, which fits like a glove. The average temperature dropped for four decades during the industrial revolution, but rose for even longer before the industrial revolution commenced.
Furthermore, the earth has seen periods that were much warmer than the
present, and those periods obviously had nothing to do with human industry. The
warming trend we now are encountering has come and gone many times on earth. It
does not bespeak a path over a cliff of annihilation.
Politics of Science
The film also points to some political elements that are quite disconcerting.
The approximate two thousand scientists who allegedly have signed in support of
the U.N.s statement about global warming, in many cases, do not actually
support that stance. The grounds for including many of the names are dubious at
best. One scientist said he had to threaten legal action in order to get his
name removed from the list.
Today, the global warming stance has become so heavy-set, a person who dares
speak in defiance is viewed as akin to a heretic. It is always unfortunate when
politics cloud the objectivity that is supposed to be the hallmark of scientific
pursuit.
The documentary also comments on the hypocritical ramifications of the global
warming frenzy. Many in the developing world are kept from progressing
technologically because they are being shamed out of using polluting
technologies that are available to them as a temporary phase in their progress
to more advanced, less pollution solutions. This is where the
"swindle" implication becomes most relevant.
I strongly recommend that you view the film and weigh the evidence.
|
So is Green a Fading Fad?
Of course this does not mean that we can all relax when it comes to pursuing
clean energy answers and other environmental solutions. Seeking renewable energy
systems is a principle that just makes sense. It is not right to just toss trash
out the window while driving down the road. Neither is it right to drive cars
that belch out pollution from their tail pipes.
There are health ramifications for densely populated areas where these emissions
accumulate. Clean energy makes as much sense as keeping ones home tidy, or as
washing ones hands after using the toilet.
There are plenty of other good reasons to pursue clean energy that pertain to
other factors that are pointing humanity toward a cliff. Our dependence on
fossil fuels has many down sides that would be good to avert by developing
alternatives to burning what should just be used for raw materials.
Energy independence, and moving away from grid vulnerability is likewise a
prudent move for a civilization that is ready to graduate from a control
paradigm and into an individual responsibility-based society.
Realizing that mankind's CO2 emissions are not the primary cause of
global warming, and that global warming is not a man-made catastrophic scenario,
does not mean we abandon many of the green causes that have emerged in
conjunction with the global warming scare. While it might be easier to
garner funding and support by piggybacking on the human-caused global warming
paranoia, it is not intellectually honest. There are plenty of other good
reasons to support green energy.
This "sun-activity-caused warming" perspective does not effect my
drive to bring clean energy technologies to the planet.
# # #
On March 19, 2007, Tim McMurphy <tmcmurph {at} gmail.com > wrote:
Good article. I've always been worried that the efficiency and clean energy revolutions would be sacrificed at the alter of Kyoto.
My first indication that something was wrong with the "CO2 is the culprit" theory was in 2002 when I found that water vapor makes up anywhere between 80% and 94% of the greenhouse effect (depending on who's numbers you take). Add to that fact that there are 180-200 billion tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere every year and humans are producing 6. It just didn't add up.
I think we will have a clean energy revolution that will dwarf the industrial revolution shortly. There will be lots of sources of clean energy and then we can do something sane on this planet like raise the standard of living for everyone and that will lower the birth rate within a generation.
* * * *
On March 19, 2007, Peter Buck <pbuck {at} cox.net > wrote:
I saw your review of the recent British global warming scandal article. I
haven't watched it, but when I heard about it I immediately went to http://www.realclimate.org/,
where I've been checking all my global warming facts lately.
By now they have several responses. From what I've seen, they contend
cherry-picking and mis-representation. [Ref.]
For instance, there's a letter from Carl Wunch, who was apparently interviewed
for the show, in which he says his remarks were taken out of context and that he
was led to believe that a balanced view would be presented. [Ref.]
Please take the time to read these articles, and if any points remain, write
them and ask. And if your first impression of the British show changes, please
report that on your blog.
* * * *
On March 20, 2007, Tim McMurphy <tmcmurph {at} gmail.com > responded:
I also read the realclimate.org website but in addition I read climateaudit.org and I have to say that I agree with the latter a lot more than the former.
The realclimate.org reply to the fact that temperature rises precede the rise in CO2 is that "1/6th of the warming is before CO2 rises and therefore 5/6ths of the temperature rise is due to CO2". I find that completely devoid of any rational thought and completely ignoring the facts. The temperature also falls before CO2 does. How do they explain that? They don't.
A lot of the work at realclimate.org has been in defending Mann, Bradley & Hughes (MBH98) work. It has been conclusively shown that their statistical methods are worse than suspect, they are completely wrong.
* * * *
http://www.nrsp.com/.../Martin Durkin-15-03-07-Charles Adler.wav - Durkin is the Producer of the above documentary.
* * * *
On March 20, 2007, New Energy Congress member, Troy Helming wrote:
I agree that there are many reasons to support clean power. However, I watched the video and about 1/3 of the way into it they featured prominently one of the key individuals of the case made, Professor John Christie of Alabama. It should be noted that Mr. Christie and two (2) of his colleagues were embarrassed back in 2005 by an overwhelming majority of climate scientists worldwide for performing poor scientific climate analysis and data point mismanagement. This is the only real study that I've found refuting human-caused global warming. And this poorly conducted study was used by Michael Crichton as the key element in his book attempting to debunk global warming. Mr. Christie and his colleagues (at least one of which was also interviewed in this documentary) finally admitted their science was flawed and agreed to punt their original findings and use accurate scientific methods and comprehensive data sets to revise the study. The updated version demonstrated strong evidence showing global warming was in fact taking place and was linked to CO2. It did not link the CO2 increase to man-made causes, however.
I'm trying to be open-minded about the chicken and egg issue of whether warming causes more CO2 or whether increased CO2 causes more warming. However, using a discredited scientist as a lynchpin 'credible' resource (note his accolades were mostly pre-1995 before it was discovered how flawed his research & study were) causes me to take pause.
Furthermore, a terrific display at the Field Museum in Chicago that I visited a few months ago demonstrated evidence supported by strongly proven theories that of the six known mass extinctions on this planet, at least (4) of them were caused by massive amounts of methane (27x more potent than CO2 as a global warming gas) and CO2 released from volcanic activity and thousands of forest / biomass fires raised the Earth's temperature enough to wipe out huge percentages of the Earth's species.
The debate rages on. If we're wrong about global warming and it isn't really man-made, what do we lose? Time debating the issue. If we're right, but the controversy causes us to not take immediate and massive action, what do we lose? The only home we have as we know it: Planet Earth. Meanwhile, let's eliminate dependence on dirty and foreign fossil fuels for the many good reasons we can all agree on.
* * * *
See also
|
||||
|
||||
| Page composed by Sterling
D. Allan Mar. 18, 2007 Last updated July 31, 2007 |
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Feed