Y2Kyoto: There’s Nothing Real In There

Moonbats 149 Comments

Via Newsbusters;

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)
(Voiceover) Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,” makes the same point with actual video of ice shelves calving. Which shots have more impact?
AL GORE (FORMER UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT)
And if you were flying over it in a helicopter, you’d see it’s 700 feet tall. They are so majestic.
SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)
(Voiceover) Wait a minute, that shot looks just like the one in the opening credits of “The Day After Tomorrow.”

149 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: There’s Nothing Real In There”

  2. Question: if these guys have truth and science on their side why do they always play with the facts? There is no context to their “Hypothesis” and when there is, it’s a fraud…a blizzard of bull-shit.

  4. I keep saying it … don’t bother with the ice flows, just keep you eye on the cash flows.
    This is not about climate, it’s about global socialism and the end of capitalism.
    Climate change AKA Global Warming is the means, the end game is a UN Elitist Controlled world of peasants.
    A Global Feudalistic State if you will.
    I won’t!

  5. The woman responsible for CGG (computer generated graphics) for ‘The Day After Tomorrow admited that Gore’s piece was from the movie.
    She was fine with it, because it ‘illustrated the problem’. Apparentely, as with all things left, the end justified the means.

  6. I want to say that I truly do believe that we should do all that we reasonably can do to clean up the environment, but I just don’t believe the Global Warming/Climate Change/whatever-name-works-next b.s. Science is suppose to be about indisputable facts, not consensus.

  7. Trent
    That’s not really true… if there was some indisputable way to model the Earth’s atmosphere, sure. Since there isn’t, we have to the best we can with the data available, if most of the scientists decide that based upon that data, the likely outcome is anthropogenic global warming — I don’t see why there’s so much hostility toward them.
    I suspect that some are people who don’t understand how science works, some are people in denial, and some people objectively examine the data and reach a different conclusion than the majority of scientists. You have to consider whether that differing conclusion comes from a lack of expertise in evaluating the data or whether they have legitimate concerns.
    I’m noticing a fourth category lately though — the conspiracy theorists — who think that this is some sort of grand ploy by Al Gore and his minions the climatologists of the world to establish a world government / control some post-oil energy source / otherwise tell us what to do / take over the world etc. From Pearl Harbour to 9/11 to moon landings, this crowd seems to always surface. Unfortunately, these “extremists” (and they are on both sides of the spectrum) tend to be the ones who stand out, and end up fouling the actual issues with their mental diarrhea.
    For the record, even as someone who thinks that anthropogenic climate change is in all likelihood occurring, I think that it’s great that there are people out there examining NOAA weather stations for accuracy and trying to come up with other theories to explain observed atmospheric change. That’s what science is all about. From my perspective as a professional geologist, hopefully they’re right!

  8. Here, here, Samuel. Yet one doesn’t need a grand conspiracy theory to question the morality of the motives of those who appear to be fraudulently benefiting from doom-mongering, and one doesn’t need to dissect the details of this particular phenomenon in order to consider comparing it to other classics such as those elucidated in Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles Mackay, published in 1841:
    http://www.econlib.org/library/mackay/macExContents.html

  9. [quote]For the record, even as someone who thinks that anthropogenic climate change is in all likelihood occurring, I think that it’s great that there are people out there examining NOAA weather stations for accuracy and trying to come up with other theories to explain observed atmospheric change. That’s what science is all about. From my perspective as a professional geologist, hopefully they’re right![/quote]
    Samuel,
    That is well said!. I for one do not question you or John’s dedication to your science. I see AGW as two distinct groups… the ones with a scientific opinion are not my problem. More discusion please! maybe I can learn something.

  10. The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change held in New York City March 2-4 was attended by an impressive list of over 500 people. The conference was organized by the Heartland Institute of Chicago and co-sponsored by dozens of organizations. Also participating were over leading 100 scientists in the climate scientific debate. These scientists made it abundantly clear with hard scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are not the main drivers of global warming. In other words, human activities do not cause warming and economy-destroying laws are not needed. http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike11.htm
    “For the record, even as someone who thinks that anthropogenic climate change is in all likelihood occurring”
    Yeah right, you and four out of twenty-two hundred IPCC scientists.
    Samuel said,
    “I’m noticing a fourth category lately though — the conspiracy theorists — who think that this is some sort of grand ploy by Al Gore and his minions the climatologists of the world to establish a world government / control some post-oil energy source / otherwise tell us what to do / take over the world etc.”
    Jacque Chirac proclaimed to the world in 2000 during the Framework Convention on Climate Change’s COP 6 meeting.
    “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance…to organise our collective sovereignty over this planet.”
    But you so smart samuel and we so dumb!

  11. if the science is sound, if the fate of the population is certain, why the trickery? why the ruse?
    it’s insulting

  12. Al Gore’s film is not the bible of climate change. If this post is attempting to disprove global warming by pointing out flaws in a film about global warming; it has failed miserably. An Inconvenient truth was simply meant to bring attention to the issue.

  13. conspiracy?
    http://tinyurl.com/5tdo9w
    you can’t help but think, maybe
    From the article…The decision to publish Oreskes’ claim of general agreement (just days
    before an important UN conference on global warming, COP-10) was apparently
    made while the editors of Science were sitting on a paper that showed quite
    clearly the opposite. It would appear that the editors of Science knowingly
    misled the public and the world’s media.

  15. “An Inconvenient truth was simply meant to bring attention to the issue.”
    So deceit is fine as long as it brings “attention to the issue.”
    I see.

  16. Guess the Great Gore would never be accused of plagiarizing or sensationalism, too inconvenient for his idolizing Leftist drum beaters who continue to blindly suck up his Henny Penny sermons. He has them mesmerized and eating from his sacred hands.
    He’ll make a big dent with his inflated ego, well stuffed suits and pockets full of cash for his efforts.

  17. Gore and Suzuki are inflicting collateral damage on the environmental cause with their fraudulent hyperbole. Invasive species represent more of a threat to our ecosystems than AGW. If the grass carp get into the Great Lakes basin, it will be a huge disaster. One little barrier in Chicago is all that is keeping them out. Gore and Suzuki are can cause diversion of public funds that otherwise could be used to combat these invaders.
    My greatest concern in all of this is how the public schools were so easily enlisted to promulgate the fraudulent fear. One needs no greater proof that the public schools extinguish critical thought processes than that provided by their role in this bunko operation.

  19. Dr Chapman proposes preventive, or delaying, moves to slow the cooling, such as bulldozing Siberian and Canadian snow to make it dirty and less reflective. “

    If we are looking for a dark substance we can spread over the snow that is freely available in copious amounts, and has an organic pedigree, I can think of two champions of the environment that can provide an endless supply.

  20. “An Inconvenient truth was simply meant to bring attention to the issue.”
    So lies are okay if they’re done for the ‘greater good’. Who decides what’s the ‘greater good’?
    You should go into politics – lefty politics, that is.

  21. just remember in the ‘day after tomorrow” global warming caused the entire northern hemisphere to go to – a gazzillion in a week , all of Canada and the northern states were frozen solid millions would have been killed but the “Al Gore ” like figure found the time to go find the hobbit like kid who was working on burning all knowledge in the new york library.

  22. The great thing about all this praying to the climate god to appease fools like Suzuker and Her Goring is that here in Alberta we are sequestering that evil gas called co2, which by the way all plants, I think need, but anyway Samuel there is a plan! The Alberta govt is going to wait until they have lots and lots of co2 stored and then when the populace have had enough of this “global warming”, here it is -12 on April 23, the head of Alberta Dr. Edevil will for a Billlllllion dollars, release all the stored co2 and warm up the planet. I know this for a fact there is no deniers in my group just one guy who won’t wear his tinfoil hat, but he will assimilate or face jail.

  23. So deceit is fine as long as it brings “attention to the issue.”
    Don’t forget Earth Hour. It was a ‘huge success’ because it brought attention to the issue. Not because it helped reduce CO2 in any way shape or form. Unless you consider masses of people switching from lightbulbs to less efficient candles for an hour then proudly reporting any weekly downward variation in demand from the power grid that hour as tonnes of CO2 emissions stopped.

  24. The political left has glammed onto the GW thing like dog feces on a gumboot. Where is the debate?
    They think we wont notice?

  26. strange, stephen – you state that you are a professional geologist but your acceptance of AGW is a profoundly unscientific action. No, the ‘majority of scientists’ don’t agree that AGW is valid. And the ‘some people’ who disagree aren’t just ‘people’; they are scientists.
    Just one example of scientific opposition to AGW was outlined by Greg – the 2008 Heartland Conference.
    I don’t know if you’ve noticed that the verbiage of those promoting AGW has moved from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’. Or that the solutuion proposed by these AGW promoters has been a money scam, where the industrial nations pay to build factories in so-called ‘developing nations’ such as China and India – which are totally exempt from any emissions or pollution controls. Doesn’t sound like an agenda of reducing emissions/pollution. Sounds like an agenda of getting the West to pay for the industrial factories of China/India.
    So, I find your comment strange – that you are a professional geologist, and yet, you glide over the scientific expertise of the dissenters of AGW (some people) and readily accept the statements of the IPCC – many of whom are not expert in that area.

  27. “An Inconvenient truth was simply meant to bring attention to the issue.”
    …..in addition to making Al Gore a very large pile of cash, publicity, and a Nobel Peace Prize.

  28. Phil Chapman, a physicist and astronaut with NASA, said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7 degrees. “This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back to where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. My guess is that the odds are now at 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in the coming decades.”
    But, the science is settled! Just ask Big Al and his phony side-kick Suzuki.

  29. The woman responsible for CGG (computer generated graphics) for ‘The Day After Tomorrow admitted that Gore’s piece was from the movie. She was fine with it, because it ‘illustrated the problem’.

    I’m sure glad there are experts on this type of thing because I sure would not have believed all the hoopla over GW based on the facts. That goes to show you that we need more experts like Al (ex-vp, inventor of the internet and nobel prize winner) Gore.

  30. A little something from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary:
    “Propaganda….1a: an organized program of publicity, selected information, etc. used to propagate a doctrine, practice, etc. 1b: usu. derogatory the information, doctrines, etc. propagated in this way, esp. regarded as misleading or dishonest.”
    Given the breathtaking level of deception practiced by Mr. Gore and his backers in presenting “climate science” in an Inconvenient Truth, it is small wonder that conspiracy theories abound.
    BTW Samuel you may want to Google Maurice Strong, George Soros, David Rockefeller, Bilderberger Group, Trilateral Commission, etc. This is also fertile ground for conspiracy theory.

  31. Psst. Glaciers don’t “calve” icebergs unless they are GROWING. Shrinking glaciers simply retreat. So whether it was CGG isn’t the issue. The issue is that the footage doesn’t support the premise.
    Neither does the science, but the intelligent people already understand that.
    Poor lefties. Yet another great social scheme thwarted by that pesky “science”, stuff.

  32. I appreciate Samuel’s comments — a little bit of cool reflection from the other side of the debate. I arrived at my skepticism over several days when I reviewed the IPCC reports because of genuine concern that AGW might be a serious threat i.e. the most serious threat facing mankind. But I approached the issue with a question, “Is AGW a serious threat or is it not?” Having reviewed the papers including the methods, the results, the conclusions and discussions, using the critical appraisal methods I apply to other scientific papers, and having cross referenced the information where appropriate, I concluded that human CO2 production has no appreciable affect on climate. Subsequent reading has confirmed my opinion.
    The key point here is not my conclusion, but how it was reached. Whereas I entered the exercise with a question and sought scientifically acquired information to answer it, my impression is that far too many people enter the exercise with an agenda, and cherry pick scientifically acquired data to rationalize it. That basic flaw of thinking is what has me so flabergasted, frustrated and disgusted with the AGW crowd — the conclusion was foregone before any data were parsed (if any data were parsed at all). For the likes of Gore and Suzuki it’s gone the next step from error of logic to apocalyptic religion.
    Were these two simply a couple of loons ranting on a street corner, I wouldn’t be too worried. What has me more worried is the ease with they’ve co-opted a goodly number of people, most of whom have supposedly passed through our education system and apparently done so without even the most basic tools for evaluating scientific information while living in a world immersed in the results of science and technology, from the cars they drive, to the computers they use, to the food they eat, to the buildings they live in and their entertainments — scientific marvels all. What does this bode for the future, a population of scientific illiterates at the mercy of pseudoscientific demagogues? The earth will do what it’s going to do, but will human beings in modern societies have the intellectual tools to adapt to the changes? Or will they fall back on the superstitions and fears of our scientifically primitive ancestors? And when the whole AGW nonsense is exposed for the sham that it is, where will that leave the prospects of creating a scientific thinking population?

  33. ET
    I’m going to assume that was directed towards me.
    I hardly think that “accepting” AGW is a profoundly unscientific action, but I suppose that’s where the debate lies.
    As far as my “some people” comment, it wasn’t meant to be condescending. Scientists are people too. =)
    Scientific bodies “accepting” AGW.

  34. Here, here, Samuel. Yet one doesn’t need a grand conspiracy theory to question…
    They do what they’re allowed to do. No more, no less. It’s another cog in the wheel of the new world order written of in scripture.
    It’s funny though, while people such as Vitruvius question the minutia of how trees grow, the forest takes over.

  35. AL GORE IS A BARE FACED LIAR HE IS LYING JUST LIKE BILL CLINTON DID HE DONT DESERVE ANY AWARDS JUST A SWIFT KICK SQUAWK SQUAWK

  36. I continue to stand by my offer to Al Gore and his wealthy eco-conscious celebrity chums.
    First, Al and gang reduce their “carbon footprint” to the same level as mine.
    Then we all go down to the next level together.
    And so on, and so on.
    I’m waiting…

  37. I was listening to National Public Radio from New York State this morning (I can’t listen to CBC Ottawa for too long while driving – it makes me nauseous).
    Prattling on about “green” this-and-that in the wake of Earth Day, the commentator mentioned something about rock stars doing “eco-friendly” performances and tours.
    Except that, by delightful unintentional irony, it came out as “ego-friendly.”
    Ha!

  39. AGW is first and foremost a political issue. No regulatory body that we rely on today would “license” AGW if it was held to the same standards of research and proof as say pharmaceuticals … or herbicides. But politics has propelled AGW forward anyway.
    Samuel: I call bullshit on your sanguine approach. Any genuine scientist would recoil at the political interference, condescending language, black-balling, funding pressures, emotionalism, duplicity, blackmail, and rhetoric of the warm-mongering camp. And, that includes above all some of the key scientists involved.
    I call you out Sam, as no more than a partisan, because you can brush over, with a smile, the heinous political activism and unprofessional rhetoric emanating from your side. I find your gentile tones offensive because those scientists you support are at this moment involved in the worst kind of political interference, power buying, and ass-covering possible; and their language when dealing with “deniers” is incredibly unbecoming. Until you can address the politics behind the AGW movement I will put you into the useful idiot category. Every dangerous movement that ever was had them … and ironically, the most useful idiots were always some of the most intelligent among us.
    Those of us who oppose AGW at least admit we are partisans .. useful idiots seldom do because in their minds they’ve risen above it.

  40. Just another deception added to the “inconvenient” list.
    If AGW is correct, then why do supporters allow charlatans, liars and hypocrites to lead the charge?
    Rightfully this creates questions and opposition.
    If the science is correct, why is Gore falsifying and omitting vital information? The hockey stick graph, the ice core samples and now a CGI film sequence presented as real footage.
    Of course people suspect massive fraud. And of course they’ll follow the wealth transfer scheme to see who is benefiting.

  41. Dr. D: Just to provide another perspective I arrived at my understanding about climate science in the exact opposite manner. I started out thinking – if I thought about it at all – that it was a way for eco groups to get money from people (similar to the way they use baby seals). As I slowly became interested in it I came across a number of skeptic arguments which I thought were good (CO2 saturation, UHI effect, and a number of others). As I read up on these I realized that they did not hold up scientifically. Well, as an engineer I only need to be hit in the head a dozen times before I can come to a conclusion.
    So, I would not agree that if people look at the evidence they will come out against global warming. However I do agree with you that we should teach more critical thinking in school (and based on recent conversations some more basic physics would not go astray). When my daughter told me last year she believed in global warming my first comment was “Why”?
    I continue to spend my time looking at the skeptic arguments, hoping to find one that is solid enough that I can resume my previous stance. Hasn’t happened yet, but I will keep looking.
    Regards,
    John

  42. US Public TV’s Frontline …. just a couple of days ago.
    A one hour production aimed at discrediting the critics of the AGW scam.
    Not only promoting Warming as a fact but activiely supporting the Gore version of AGW.
    Pure propaganda …. so the next time their begging for money I’ll be calling to NOT pledge a damned thing …. ever again.

  43. The AGW Kyoto Scam should have been exposed in a matter of months. But our beloved Media silenced those who knew it was a scam and gave barrels of ink to the fraudsters, IMO.
    Also, IMO, accessories to the fraud include the United Nations, Universities, Hollywood, and our Public School System.
    I suspect many in the Environmental field are furious with the way their profession was taken over by the Fraudsters. It simply got away on them.

  44. While presenting melting glaciers as proof of man made global warming, did Al Gore have a disclaimer flashing on the screen ?
    ‘Computer generated scenes for illustrative purposes only’
    If not, Exhibit A ?

  46. John Cross: What about all the “wal-mart parking lot temperature sensors” what about those?

  47. Bob: I think that documenting them is a good and worthwhile exercise. However we must be careful in assessing the effects of what we see.
    Over at Climate Audit, John V did an analysis where he plotted the average of the best sites and compared it to the average of the worst sites. The result showed very little difference. Now, his analysis is not the final say, but I think that it indicative that we can not say that there is a problem without further analysis – not just cataloging.
    Regards,
    John

  48. Dr.D
    I greatly appreciated reading your well written post.
    I have been doing research in the private sector almost all of my adult life and also have come to the same conclusion as you. What stuns me is that the science behind AGW is so weak and fraudulent that an IQ of well below average should be able to see it. However, as you said it has nothing to do science and everything to do with a quasi religious order that brainwashes people into ignoring critical thinking.
    I hang on to the a simple principal that “truth always triumphs eventually” to get me through the mind boggling stupidity of our times.

  49. Learn something everyday – Fry eggs on a sidewalk ? Naw, green grass will do it just as well.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation