Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch: Global Warming Skeptic

  • Bookmark and Share

While guest hosting Wednesday’s "Morning Joe", former General Electric CEO Jack Welch condemned global warming, the very theory MSNBC has been peddling for years. GE, of course, owns MSNBC; the rebuke of MSNBC’s favorite alarmist hypothesis came in a segment where hosts share noteworthy editorials. Welch decided to share an opinion piece from Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal aptly titled "Global Warming As Mass Neurosis." Welch informed the audience that the article has "a lot of technical numbers here to show you that NASA overstated what's happening." Welch summarized the article by saying "And they got an argument that states that global warming is the attack on capitalism that socialism couldn't bring"

After Jack’s synopsis, co- host Pat Buchanan interjects his belief that global warming is "a neo-Marxist idea for the transfer of wealth and power." Jack Welch jumps in to agree saying "Right" Pat Buchanan then decides to carry his rebuke even further by saying "And At the end global elites, and they’re, you know they’re gonna to dictate to all of us because of this phony idea that we're all in some eminent danger. I agree with that 100 %." Welch, the former GE CEO enthusiastically jumped in to agree saying "Absolutely!"

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Later in the segment Mika Brzezinski did her best to put pressure on her former boss by saying "Alright, but I just want to say at some point this [global warming] is going to come back and haunt us if we don't address it, Jack." However ‘Neutron Jack’ refused to cede his ground and sarcastically responded "We'll see."

What makes this vivacious segment so amusing is that as the former Chief Executive Officer of General Electric, Jack Welch, was once the head of a company that owns MSNBC. MSNBC is a network that hawks global warming mythology on a regular basis. Just two months ago Newsbusters profiled how MSNBC firebrand Chris Matthews was shocked by global warming skepticism. Apparently, Matthews never talked to his old boss about the subject.

A partial transcript is below:

 

Mika Brzezinski: Now, we have one more opinion page to get to. Jack, what did you choose?

Jack Welch: I choose.

Brzezinski: He brings his own in his pocket.

Welch: I brought this from yesterday's "wall street journal," page A 15.The title of it is global warming as mass neurosis.

Brzezinski: What?

Welch: Global warming as mass neurosis.

Brzezinski: What are you saying Jack?

Welch: Well, what they’re saying is, that a, NASA has changed some of their numbers. Some of the hottest days, they have a lot of technical numbers here to show you that NASA overstated what's happening. But then they go on to try and explain this is a movement. Global warming as a movement. And they’ve got a theological basis for it, they’ve got a sociological basis for it and they got a psychological basis for it. And they got an argument that states that global warming is the attack on capitalism.

Brzezinski: hmm....

Welch: That socialiam couldn't bring

Pat Buchanan: Right

Welch: and that other movements couldn't bring. It's the same crowd that brought you out of control population. It's a very thoughtful piece. And it's on A 15. Anybody who even hasn't even had their mind completely jammed shut on global warming has to read it. Has to read it.

Brzezinski: Ok, I'll read it.

Buchanan: It's a neo-marxist idea for the transfer of wealth and power

Welch: Right.

Buchanan: From people to elites.

Tucker Carlson: That’s exactly right.

Buchanan: And At the end global elites, and they’re, you know they’re gonna to dictate to all of us because of this phony idea that we're all in some eminent danger. I agree with that 100 %.

Brzezinski: You guys aren't using foresight.

Welch: Absolutely!

[chatter]

Buchanan: We've got three guys, let's work on Barnicle. This is al gore's surrogate here. You want to defend him?

Mike Barnicle: It’s an inconvenient truth, I’ll tell you that.

Brzezinski: It’s very inconvenient.

Welch: But this is a must read. A 15."Wall street journal."

Brzezinski: Yesterday’s "Wall Street Journal"

Buchanan: Is it Brett Stevens?

Welch: Yeah, Brett Stevens.

Brzezinski: Alright, but I just want to say at some point this is doing to come back and haunt us if we don't address it, jack.

Welch: We'll see.

Barnicle: Even John Mccain says, you know, he'd rather go after global warming now under the assumption –

Buchanan: Well, we’re going to cut him loose.

Barnicle: Okay. All right.

Brzezinski: Oh boy, I am a little outnumbered here.

Welch: Right now in this political campaign, A 15 of the "wall street journal" is not the most popular article. This is a thoughtful guy taking a position, not some politician running for office.

Welch: All I can say, between global warming and Ben Bernanke and George Bush, they are doing a good job on capitalism.

Brzezinski: And we all do have a neurosis. I think it might be economic. Tucker Carlson.

Welch: And you forgot Congress.

Brzezinski: Yes, there is that.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yeah right!

"Brzezinski: Oh boy, I am a little outnumbered here."

You are also a lot out-brained you mindless twit!!  

I don't mean that in a bad way.

Brzezinski

I'm sure she didn't take it in a bad way either. <insert witty signature here>

not mindless

this is purely and idealogical issue.  This is marxism in it's newest form, and they've wrapped it in a purely religious coating to attract more people to the idea!

Think about it you have Eden, the world before man started producing "carbon" (which is ridiculous, we are made of carbon, and PRODUCE carbon.  Carbon dioxide (or even carbon itself) is NOT a pollutant), and sin (producing carbon currently) with tithing (carbon offsets, various tax schemes, and cap and trade).... they've created a religion for godless, and don't need facts (there is no debate....)

we are LOSING the media battle against this religious nonsense.

Off Topic, Sorry

I just noted the "breaking news" banner below Jack Welch said that Obama is planning to expand Bush's "faith-based iniative."  (Expanding the FBI for your paranoid types.)  I heard about this a few days ago.

What is interesting, though, is that the FBI policy has fallen flat with its intendend constituency -- evangelical and other Christian charity groups.  Most of these charities are very worried about accepting government grants, as they tend to come with a whole set of requirements that sometimes run contrary to the goals of the organization.  Also, by accepting money from the government, you tend to forget about your volunteer donation base, which is where much of the energy of the organization comes from.

<insert witty signature here>

I saw this segment and was

I saw this segment and was pleasantly surprised by Welch's statements. Global warming is nothing but a money-making effort by Al Gore and his minions. It was refreshing to see that Welch wasn't buying any of Gore's crap. I think there are a lot more prominent global warming skeptics than we don't know about. And, we'll never know about them because the MSM will never allow them to be heard. I bet we won't be seeing too much of Welch on MSNBC in the future either.

marpel... I saw it

marpel...

I saw it too...that's why I posted somewhere yesterday that I wished they would make him a regular guest on the show, at least once a week, I saw him on not long before this to...he is the best.

I loved how Buchanan and tucker agreed...and poor Bubbles B. (as fitz named her) was outnumbered, she tries so hard to get the last word too, and Barnicle is nothing but a hopeless wonder as far as I am concerned, but then again so are all leftists in my opinion..

I did love how Buchanan said "we'll cut him lose" when referring to McCain and his Global Warming crap...

...that segment made my morning yesterday...

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh 

I agree, Bigtimer. Since

I agree, Bigtimer. Since Joe's been gone, it's been the Mika B "Hit Parade". Seems like all of Mika's Dad's friends have been on. I guess she thought she had an ally in Welch, and was unpleasantly surprised by his opinion. Good! She must be shocked that not everyone on the coasts shares her liberal opinions. I wish they'd get rid of her! But, as with you, Welch made my morning yesterday!

I wonder how disappointed he really is with his successor at GE...Inquiring minds want to know.

Sweet

Anyone know where I can find a video clip

Welsh video

I've looked on the MSNBC webpage - plenty of videos are up on it - none about this however!  Hmmmm.  Midwest Mom

Wake Up Call

$4 a gallon gas and inflation rising because of it, all because Caribou huggers won't let us drill in Alaska and sea huggers won't let us drill off shore, and the sky huggers and jump in with the man-made global warming myth.

Now that people are being hurt in a real way, they will revolt. The US is still a free country where the ballot box means something. Those standing in the way of the US being able to take care of itself will pay the price, and sooner than you think.

So: GE isn't the GE Jack

So: GE isn't the GE Jack Welsh knew?

Brett Stephen's WSJ column

... was great. 

I'm glad it was linked to here since my WSJ didn't arrive on my drive for the past 4 days -- some kind of delivery glitch.

Stephens' article is spot on and pithy to boot!

 

<insert witty signature here>

Video

Are we getting video of this?

Required Reading

This should be required reading for all people with a brain, and read slowly with smaller words to all democrats, and global warming believers.  How does global warming take a 10 year break, and where is Al Gore to explain?  This should be read on the floor of the House and Senate, if there was anybody there with enough brains to know this would rally the base.  Drill here, drill now, and never believe the Gore Hype!!!

   This is the original

 

 This is the original articial on the 10 year lull, or cooling due to natrual causes.

 They say the earth will be colling for the next 10 years, but not to worry because in 2015 we will back on track with man-made global warming

kinda makes you want to puke....

 

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
 -Gerald Ford

It's an opinion piece

with a couple of cherry-picked and inaccurate statements - not to mention the defective logic of  using US temps in an effort to equate with global temps -  used to launch into a misguided psychological thesis.

Add that  the opinion writer, Welch, and Buchanan have no expertise in the topics or global warming or psychology and can't discern that they are using  religious like fervor in their efforts to grab hold of anything that supports their, at best, delusional meme.

Actually, it was about as accurate (and funny) as 3 elementary school boys comparing their sexual knowledge databases.

Next, they'll be using McCain as proof that gas prices will go down if they drilled because he said so.....

Giles... Welch is

Giles...

Welch is right.

You are wrong.

Common sense is all one needs..and you were left out long ago.

JMO. 

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh 

such witty repartee

Off into insultland on the first rejoinder.

A far more effective retort would be to attempt to ascribe Welch or Buchanan (why'd you leave him out?) or the opinion writer with at least some vague sense of credibility and expertise. But that seems not to be the modus operandi at this juncture.

I just get sick and tired

I just get sick and tired of your same ol' same ol' Giles...that's all.

Carry on, as you always do with your know it all attitude...

Just above everybody with zilch for common sense...

People give you facts and you just eat the pages.

Simple as that.

I have always ignored you in the past...but you grind on me today.

It gets old. 

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh 

Excellent proof

of 'Welch is right.'

Give a fact? Simple as that.

It gets old.......

Giles I gave you the credibility and expertise

Jack Welch, B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering

Ooops looks like Giles strikes out again! Someone else more qualified than Gore. Yes Giles you being wrong does get old.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Great!

He's qualified to sign with the '31,000'.

Unfortunately, it seems he stopped actually working in the chemical
(plastics) engineering field around 1960...  In either case, his
expertise and credibility in climate science would be, at best,
limited.

Welch is basing his argument on a poorly written opinion piece with demonstrably inaccurate citing of facts.

Gore cites how many scientists and papers in AIT?

Conferring upon Welch some great power of authority in a desperate
attempt to discredit scientists that are active in the field seems
somewhat typical of the arguments put forth by denier/delayers for the
past 3 or 4 years. Nice try, but it didn't fly before or now.

 

Giles... Common

Giles...

Common Sense...think ...Common Sense.

It'll hit ya' smack dab in the middle of the forehead one of these days and you'll be be hitting that same place in the middle of your wonderful forehead....going..."why didn't I think of that."

Just give it time ...you'll see the light.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh 

Giles, neither has al gore.

Giles, neither has al gore. And Hansen has been discredited with his hockey stick graph, just for starters. The very premise was flawed from the start.  

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Ah, Gore's Law in round two.

 

I think there is something wrong with the 'very premise' of the second point. Perhaps too rushed from an attempt to score a 'gore point', even off-topic?

So, neither Buchanan or Welch offer up any scientific  proof to support their contention; resting their defense on an opinion piece with a poorly constructed thesis. Seems since there isn't room to argue for that circle-jerk, we wind up with off-topic, inaccurate comments.

 

Gore's law? I can't help myself... I must... post... about Gore

My Bad, I really think if Giles mentions Gore's law it is going to stop me from posting this:

Al Gore, B.A. in Government, Divinity School Dropout (no science degree)
The Education of Al Gore (The Washington Times)

Gore’s 10 Errors Old and New (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Gore Deserves Nobel Prize for Propaganda (CNSNews)
Gore's guru disagreed (Financial Post, Canada)
The Gore Lies (National Review Online)
The Science of Gore's Nobel (The Wall Street Journal)

Al Gore The Sage (Video) (7min)
Al Gore, Ethanol and the Food Crisis (Video) (7min)

Hypocrite:
Al Gore and Global Warming - Is He a Hypocrite? (Video) (10min)
Al Gore's Gulfstream (Video) (7min)
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal)
- Environmentalist Gore allowed zinc mine (USA Today)
- From Al to Zinc: Mine Story Shows How a Fatherly Favor Haunts Gore (The Wall Street Journal)
Al Gore, polluter? (WorldNetDaily)
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Al Gore: Occidental Petroleum Connections (The Wall Street Journal)
Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate (CorpWatch)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Stock Portfolio Exposed (PR Newswire)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Toxic Waste Dump (NewsMax)
Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's (CNSNews)
- George W. Bush's eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore's energy-expending mansion = True (Snopes)
Eco-warrior Al Gore serves up endangered fish at daughter's party (Daily Mail, UK)
Gore home's energy use: 20 times average (WorldNetDaily)
- Al Gore's Inconvenient Electric Bill (FOX News)
- Al Gore's residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home = True (Snopes)
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite "energy-efficient" home renovations (Tennesse Center for Policy Research)
- Al Gore's Epic Hypocrisy (FOX News)
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe (USA Today)
Gore's Oil Money (The Nation)
Hypocrite Gore Should Practice What He Preaches (The Tech, MIT)
Integrity in the Balance: Al Gore's Record On the Environment (CorpWatch)
Meet the real Al Gore (WorldNetDaily)
Old-Growth Timber used to Rebuild the Veranda of the Vice Presidential Mansion (Newsweek)
Whose Ox Is Gored? The Former Vice President's Environmental Exaggerations and Hypocrisy (The Wall Street Journal)

Al Gore Pushes 'Pollution Tax' (NewsMax)

Profiteering:
Al Gore Gets Rich ($100 Million) After White House (ABC News)
Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300 ($6,757) per-minute green speech (Daily Mail, UK)
Al Gore, Maurice Strong: Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it (Canada Free Press)
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns (WorldNetDaily)
Gore Cashing in on $6 Trillion Energy Business (NewsMax)
Gore makes sustainable investment his business (The Age, Australia)
Gore to Rake in IPO Millions (NewsMax)
Gore Warns on 'Subprime Carbon' Industry (NewsMax)
Global Warming, Inc. (The Wall Street Journal)
Green firm Camco gets Blood and Gore investment (Reuters)
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade (Human Events)

Will Not Debate:
Czech President Klaus ready to debate Gore on climate change (The Earth Times)
Dennis T. Avery Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (The Heartland Institute)
Lord Christopher Monckton Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (Center for Science and Public Policy)
Ivy League Professor Bets Al Gore $10,000 He’s Wrong About Global Warming (NewsBusters)
Why Won’t Al Gore Debate? (The Heartland Institute)
Will Al Gore Melt? If not, why did he chicken out on an interview? (The Wall Street Journal)
Sign the Petition: Al Gore, Debate Global Warming (7000+ Signatures)

Giles looks like your comment almost worked!

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Giles - Jack Welch Ph.D. is more qualified than Gore!

I could not believe this when I look it up but another Scientist AKA Jack Welch disagrees with the divinity school dropout Gore:

Jack Welch, B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering

Al Gore, B.A. Government, Divinity School Dropout (no science degree)

John Stossel has a degree in psychology:

20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (John Stossel, B.A. Psychology) (8min)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Great!

He's qualified to sign with the '31,000'.

Unfortunately, it seems he stopped actually working in the chemical (plastics) engineering field around 1960...  In either case, his expertise and credibility in climate science would be, at best, limited.

I'm not sure how Stossel fits into this discussion. 

Imaginary Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering

Yes he has a fake science degree and really does not understand chemistry and would be unable to comprehend CO2, unlike Gore who's degree in government makes him teh expert.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Interesting

little trip through logical fallacyland

Welch is basing his argument on a poorly written opinion piece with demonstrably inaccurate citing of facts.

Gore cites how many scientists and papers in AIT?

Conferring upon Welch some great power of authority in a desperate attempt to discredit scientists that are active in the field seems somewhat typical of the arguments put forth by denier/delayers for the past 3 or 4 years. Nice try, but it didn't fly before or now.

And, why not bolster up some support for Buchanan's interjections?

 

Giles... Don't you worry

Giles...

Don't you worry about looking real silly when the reality of global warming is brought to the public?

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

numerous wagers

Well, there are numerous wagers out there for you if you want.

But since about 1896, there has been a steadily increasing body of evidence supporting anthopogenic CO2 as the cause of climate change.

 

 

Giles...

Answer my question.

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

mendacity of the claims

The 'reality of global warming' has been 'brought to the public' and most are seeing through the mendacity of the claims brought to discussion by the skeptics, et al. Skeptic/denier beliefs fell something like 10% last year. "While two-thirds of U.S. adults (65 percent) believe humans are contributing to an increase in global temperatures, this is less than the British (77 percent), Italian (87 percent) and French and Spanish (88 percent each) who believe this." (Fox51) So, no. Not worried.

I will admit to a certain amount of frustration brought on by the continous attempts by disingenuous dunderheads and noisome nincompoops to politicize the science and delay developing national and world strategies to reduce the impacts we, our children, and grandchildren will have to deal with, however.

 

Giles... Well, you sorta

Giles...

Well, you sorta answered my question.

You know, and I know, and I know you know, this is all BS. The problem is you don't want to go against what you percieve as the latest push by the left. You just want to fit in. When the public learns how they have been duped I'm sure you will change your attitude. Either that or you will quietly sneak away before anyone notices you.

In the meantime, turn off your lights, turn up your thermostat, walk to the hospital, and by all means... turn off your computer. All the power you are using is killing children!

 

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

Giles 1896 now that the latest data you have LMAO

You and your "forcings"

Heres a Bet.. No "hottest ever records "will be broken this year!

No " never been this hot on some date" ever crap..

No siree real climate broken records... like 138 in Death Valley, 116 in Omaha .Absolute hottest... AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN this year!

Even with all the BBQ's, AC units and black pavement, tweeking the temp. data, at some weather stations.

We shall know in just a few months ... Keep your cash handy.

because this is bigger than you and me, today ZERO spots..

 

 

Liberals62%

 


IranianUranium

A little trip through AGW Propaganda

Welch is basing his argument on a well written opinion piece that accurately cites reality.

Gore's An inconvenient truth has been thoroughly discredited:

Debunked By Peer Review:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle (David R. Legates, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction (Roy W. Spencer, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)

Errors:
Al Gore's climate change film 'is propaganda' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)
- Al Gore's Convenient Untruths (FOX News)
- Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
- Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film (The Times, UK)
- An Inconvenient Lie (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore caught lying (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore’s Nine Lies (FrontPage Magazine)
- Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
- Judge says Al Gore film has serious scientific inaccuracies (The Earth Times)
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias (Daily Mail, UK)
- British Schools Ordered to Offer 'Balance' When Showing Al Gore's Global Warming Film (FOX News)
- So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing? (National Post, Canada)
- Propaganda-driven kids attack think tank (WorldNetDaily)
35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (Science & Public Policy Institute)
25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore (The National Review Online)
20 More inaccuracies (PDF) (UKPRwire)
16 Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (Science & Public Policy Institute)
8 Questions for Al Gore (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology)
6 Inconvenient Truths Indeed (Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
75 Falsehoods in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (Book) (Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics)

Proof: 'An Inconvenient Truth' is Science Fiction (Video) (1min)

Conferring on yet another Scientist more qualified than Gore:

Jack Welch, B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering

just further discredits the long discredited AGW propaganda.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

and your support for 'Welch

and your support for 'Welch is basing his argument on a well written opinion piece that accurately cites reality.'

is?

 

Call for rewrite, stat!

'Conferring on yet another Scientist more qualified than Gore:

Jack Welch, B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering

just further discredits the long discredited AGW propaganda.'

 

Jack Welch, B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering

Amazing how much more scientifically educated this man is compared to Gore. But then again Mr Welch is no prophet.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

bash Gore meme

And I note there seems to be an inability to support the statement:: 'Welch is basing his argument on a well written opinion piece that accurately cites reality.' 

Yet quick to jump on the bash Gore meme. Funny that he isn't even a part of the topic of the discussion. 

TED

Are you just upset that T E D got more media play than the '31,000' or that bizarre conference recently? Maybe it should be a NB story....

Sorta like that weird attempt to equate the writer of that letter to IPCC to Gore by citing he received a Nobel also. Turns out......

Yeah, Welch was on the show because he has a PhD. So what about Carlson and Buchanan? What about the writer of the piece? Their qualifications?

 

More Interesting, Giles

Giles is basing his argument on a poorly written opinion piece by AL Gore with demonstrably inaccurate citing of facts.

Giles cites how many scientists and papers in the UN  ?

Conferring upon Giles some great power of authority in a desperate
attempt to discredit scientists that are active in the field of  SCIENTIFIC REALITY seems
somewhat typical of the arguments put forth by Giles and Company for the
past 3 or 4 Months of Record LOW TEMPS this year. 

Nice try, but Flying  over Greenland in the Summer, isn't convincing anyone, before or now.

And, why not bolster up some support for Frozen Margarita's Melting in the Bars this July 4th ? 

What happened to the Charlotte 120 yr Low Temperature Record Today, Giles ?  Current Events make you look out of Touch. 

The Republican Revolution will not be Televised

JT... You will never know

JT...

You will never know how hard I am laughing right now...ever...

When I got to...

And, why not bolster up some support for Frozen Margarita's Melting in the Bars this July 4th ?

that did it, cracked up laughing...

number one...that is my absolute favorite summer drink, I haven't had one in two years...

then to top that off...I am an ex-bartender...and I was picturing working on the Fourth as I have done many times...and the atmosphere so thick, doors open, drinks you have made lined up before the waitress can get to them....slowly melting....

Waaaah.... 

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh 

BT you tha Man....BUY one, WATCH IT MELT..

A Fourth of July Celebration........Melting Margarita's...

Giles is so Passe'...tha Boy is out of Touch....

Meanwhile, I'm stove up with a Football  Injury, Bruised Upper Thigh, caused by riding an OPEC KILLER Bicycle....Oh. tha Pain..!

Buy me a Margarita to kill  the Pain....with Brandy, no Lime..

The Republican Revolution will not be Televised

JT... Well...this gal

JT...

Well...this gal feels your pain..with the exception of the brandy..agree about the lime...

....got to have that slice or two of lemon....

Heal up friend...OPEC will do to it to you everytime. 

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh 

I don't even accept your

I don't even accept your premise.... what statements were cherry picked? Which statements were inaccurate? What are your credentials that give you the ability to claim either one of those statements? Not to mention, you lie... and think we won't catch you? Typical liberal.

You said that he's using US temps.... except that he references worldwide temperature gathering robots in the article... you can look them up.... I did. It was pretty simple actually... and the data from the 3,000 robotic temperature buoys shows.... <insert suspenseful music here> a drop in worldwide ocean temperatures from 2003 to 2005 and their still sifting the data from more recent measurements.... and it does not look good for the global warming religion.

Your interjection of children talking about sex proves that not only are you clueless about real science, but you probably support the SC in their decision to not give pedophiles the death penalty no matter how brutal the child rape.

____________________________________________________

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that people vote Democrat." ~ Me

HOAX!

Another 4-letter word -- and Al Gore and his followers should not be let off the hook on this.

If Al Gore and the rest of his followers really, truly believe in this AGW nonsense, each of them should make the sacrifice necessary in order for the planet to survive.  Too many people using too few resources = what?

Wheres the DUST BOWL that "should, coulda, wooda, be raging

right now in June????

Record LOW LOW temp!!!!

still no sun spots TODAY cooling shall continue

Liberals62%


IranianUranium

sunspots

upcountrywater, There are no sunspots because we are in the min of the solar cycle. duh. Also, global temps aren't cooling, in fact, May 08 had the 8th warmest global average temps on record:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...

and that was with a La Nina present (which is associated with cooler than average temps).  Note that US temps (US covers 2% of globe) were relatively cool (34th coolest May on record), so you can still cling to that to support your global cooling fantasy.  As we transition to ENSO neutral conditions, it will be interesting to see what temps do...

lets try real facts

You cherry pick one month. Not nice. In the last 18 months the global temperature dropped hard enough to wipe out nearly 100 years of global warming. Since 1998 temperatures plateaued and then started down. In the last 450,000 years this interglacial warm period is the coldest and is about to turn south towards another glacial period. Last southern winter people died all over South America from extreme cold weather. Up north most of the nomadic tribes of the Tibetan high plain have packed it in as the -57C winter temps killed off all their livestock. Etc., etc., etc.

Oh yeah, "on the record" usually means some time in the last 150 to 200 years. Not much of a record.

I simply picked May 08

I simply picked May 08 because it was the most recent month that NCDC had issued a report and I wanted to illustrate that a cooling trend was not continuing, as upcountrywater suggested.  On the other hand, choosing '98 as the year to begin a computation of a temperature trend is a classic cherry pick people as yourself have been using for years.  1998 just happens to have the highest global average temps on record which were associated with the strongest El Nino of that century.  What happens if you choose '99??  Actually, even if you do choose '98 and compute a trend line to the present there is still an upward trend!

How do you "wipe out 100 years of global warming"??  Take a stat class.  For the longer term average temps to get back to what they were 100 years ago there would have to be many, many years of MUCH cooler global temps.  How a short term drop in global temps, similar in magnitude to the average rise in global temps during the last 100 years, can "wipe out" global warming is beyond me.  Average temps are still well above what they were 100 years ago.  Also, anecdotal evidence of cold weather does not signal an impending ice-age; more cherry-picking on your part. 

We will see what the actuals

We will see what the actuals turn out to be.  The current solar cycle looks like it will be very weak.  The prediction is for below normal sunspot and solar activity all the way out to 2025.  If this indeed does drive terrestrial temps as the data suggest, there isn't going to be any appreciable global warming for 20 years.  The damage to your personal credibility as a scientist amongst lay people and that of James Hansen and his followers will be catastrophic.

Yes, we shall see what

Yes, we shall see what happens...  Thanks for noting the solar cycle projections.  However, I, along with most other scientists believe that during the next century, GHG forcing will be stronger than forcing caused by fluctuations in solar activity. 

If sunspot activity was a primary driver of current global temps shouldn't, the 70s and 80s have had warmer temps than the current period, since there was more sunpot activity?  Also, wouldn't there be some sort of 11-year signal in the temperature data?  

I realize that some of the historical cool periods like the Little Ice Age were associated with little or even no sunspot activity, but the projections you cite don't come close to what was observed during those periods.  I guess just based on the data, I have a hard time believing the projected lull in sunspot activity will have a large impact.  

On another note, I'm not too worried about "catastrophic" damage to my credibility.  Actually, don't you think that continued global warming coinciding with a lull in sunspot activity would bolster the credibility of the "alarmists", since the "skeptics" would not have an alternative to GHG forcing to explain the warming?  And what about the credibility of people like yourself?     

Really? "Most other scientists" agree with you?

Can you show me the scientific study that confirms this? I had no idea you speak for all scientists.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Oh great searcher and lister

"The model's response requires the combination of solar and
anthropogenic forcing to approximate the early twentieth-century
warming, while the radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gases
is dominant for the response in the late twentieth century
, confirming
previous studies." (AMS)

"Climate model simulations indicate that solar and volcanic forcings together could have produced periods of relative warmth and cold during the preindustrial portion of the last 1,000 years. However,
anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases are needed to simulate late 20th
century warmth
." (NAP)

•There is no significant trend in solar forcing over the past 50 years that can explain the ongoing warming

Most recent 50 years dominated by anthropogenic forcing while natural forcings likely contributed a cooling signal (flat solar but
increased volcanism)(Ammann)

"virtually all studies indicate that the magnitude of anthropogenic
forcings
, especially positive forcing from greenhouse gases, has
overwhelmed any natural forcing over the past 30 years." (Yale)

"Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing. Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century." (Ammann, Joos, Schimel, Otto-Bliesner, Tomas )

Those were in just the first google hit, so you could have found that easy enough. IPCC, of course, lists several more studies.Now, I know and we know that you're going to post some incredibly long list of resources countering that. Most will be newspaper articles, some will be unpublished writings, some will be from journals that are not well regarded in the field. And at least one acutally supports the opposite contention.

And I notice JasonC has pointed out the weakness in your pro-alcohol research 

 

Giles cites climate models

AHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Giles please you really are embarrassing yourself with how computer illiterate you are. It is impossible for virtual reality to prove anything empirically.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

That's the best

rejoinder you can conjure up? No proof why, despite their widespread use and acceptance that in your informed opinion experts in the field are wrong?

Stossel? Really?

Move along folks, there's nothing to see here.

Fundamental Computer Science Giles

Any computer code that is not 100% perfect will produce meaningless results with scientific and math calculations. That is the fundamentals of how a computer works. This is irrefutable and this is not an opinion - go ask any computer scientist. The fact that this sham keeps continuing using flawed computer models to try and prove empirical science is beyond illogical. It is these alarmist scientists who are either computer illiterates themselves or intentionally dishonest who have no business promoting flawed computer science as empirical science. This is an impossibility unto itself.

Giles you don't even understand the basics of how a computer works. The fact that you keep promoting this just proves this to me over and over and over. I am a Computer Scientist and this is what I do for a living.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

elucidate for us the exact errors

And of course in your role as an expert in modeling programing you're going to elucidate for us the exact errors that all those programs generate, what the problems are in their programming, and how you could fix them.

Or show us how those scientists are being 'intentionally dishonest'.

I'm finding it very hard to understand how you can be so sure their programs are 'defective'. Perhaps expanding upon your ipse dixit statement would indicate some sense of expertise or credibility.

 

'I am a Computer Scientist and this is what I do for a living.'
What, type/blather on here? Generating lists of the benefits of drinking?

Didn't I see a science blog where an Andrew attempted the same arguements and got taken to the woodshed?

Fundamental Computer Science Giles

The existence of parameterizations means that various calculations are not fully resolved to scale and thus the models are flawed by design, this is basic computer science. You have results based on estimated calculations and thus worthless results. No hand waving can change this. The models are not at a molecular scale or anywhere within a hundred miles and thus cannot accurately model the climate in any remote sense. They can give you a lot of irrelevant numbers and nicely rendered images but nothing of scientific value.

I've never been "taken to the woodshed" anywhere. 

Computer modelers try to bullshit computer illiterates by claiming some sort of "expertise" when all they are doing is coding in Fortran. Any Computer Science major who understands Fortran is by default a computer model "expert". What you call computer code does not change it from being basic computer code.

This is the cruel joke and why AGW is a scam. 

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

ipse dixit - yet again

'...when all they are doing is coding in Fortran. Any Computer Science
major who understands Fortran is by default a computer model "expert"
'

No, sweetheart, it doesn't.  It means they 'understand' Fortran. Expertise would involve another set of skills being brought into play.

Unfortunately for this argument, your whole first para is more ipse dixit, contains basic errors, and thus not trustworthy or worth comment. Beyond saying that it wouldn't pass muster in the classes I've been in.

Fundamental Computer Science Giles

Actually Giles it does, software programming/engineering in the REAL world requires training and knowledge of computer science/programming - especially the language in question. ANY computer scientist trained in FORTAN would be a computer modeling "expert". Plugging in math and science equations is elementary the actual coding is what requires the skill. What skills do natural scientists bring? How to write crap code or not understanding the limitations of computer systems?

Giles go take some real Computer Science classes and actually learn something. Computer Science however is beyond your level of understanding.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

RealCimate admitted their Models are flawed

"These codes are what they are - the result of 30 years and more effort by dozens of different scientists (note, not professional software engineers), around a dozen different software platforms and a transition from punch-cards of Fortran 66, to fortran 95 on massively parallel systems. [...] No complex code can ever be proven 'true' (let alone demonstrated to be bug free). Thus publications reporting GCM results can only be suggestive." - Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.org 

"...all of our models have errors which mean that they will inevitably fail to track reality within a few days irrespective of how well they are initialised." - James Annan, William Connolley, RealClimate.org 

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Dishonesty doesn't help your argument

In the RC quote above, you have failed to point out that the discussion is about how those programs don't work for WEATHER. (RC)

And again the remainder of the para gets dropped "If a result is interesting it gets looked at by other model groups to
see if it’s robust. Thus a background of replicated results gets built
up and sense of what is and what isn’t ‘bankable’. This is much more
useful than showing that any one code is ‘correct’ since it can never
be shown to complete. With limited resources, this is the approach that
the field has taken."
(DanHughs)

And it should be noted, that by not citing your source, you also miss noting that your resources are 1 1/2 -2 1/2 years old. 

 

Your computer illiteracy doesn't help you Giles

They are talking about all models but programming a Weather or Climate model is irrelevant to Computer Science. But suckers like you fall for the propaganda. Code is code no matter what you call it.

A Computer Scientist does not need to know more than what is quoted to realize the models are flawed the rest of the comment is irrelevant and proves Gavin doesn't understand Computer Science or Computer Systems. Having a computer illiterate irrelevantly decide a flawed result is "interesting" and then having it looked at by other model groups using flawed models is meaningless.

The comment is 1 year and 5 months old but that is irrelevant to what is stated as age has no bearing on what was said.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Nice attempt at a rationale

for selective quoting.

Your science teacher would have some trenchant remarks about that sort of behavior.

I'd think your CV would need to be approximently as solid as Gavin's before making a statement like 'computer illiterate'.

Interesting Gavin has no education in Computer Systems

Gavin - B.A. Mathematics, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics

Anyone who has a B.S. in Computer Science, Computer Engineering or Information Technology would be more qualified with Computer Systems than Gavin.

Sorry Giles you lose again.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Yet Welch, who has done nothing

Yet Welch, who has done nothing with his degree in 40+ years, is perfectly qualified to verify a piece of denialist claptrap?

 

Compare CV's.

 

FYI:

As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, computer science (CS) majors
tend to struggle for reasons that have very little to do with
computers. More often than not, such struggles are rooted in weaknesses
related to math.

In this article, I want to show what kind of math to expect as a CS
major, why these courses are important, and how to prepare yourself
while you are in high school. If you plan on getting a CS degree, you
need to come to grips with one important fact first: computer science
has more to do with math than computers
.

As a general rule, any math class is useful to you because it teaches
logic and reasoning skills, but all of the classes listed above have
very useful applications in computer science. Let’s take a look at each
specifically. (allyourtech)

 

Math does not equal Computer Science

Sorry Giles while Computer Science majors take courses in math, being educated in math does not make one a computer expert. By this logic English majors would be "experts" in Computer Science, which is nonsense. How much math a programmer needs depends entirely on their specific application. It can vary from nothing but basic algebra to trigonometry and differential equations. The most important overall being discrete mathematics. But Math like English is merely one aspect of what needs to be known.

Welch is qualified to talk about CO2.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Don't forget to tell Gavin

Don't forget to tell Gavin about that.

 

Computer Science in the real world.

Gladly, anyone who has a B.S. in Computer Science, Computer Engineering or Information Technology would be more qualified with computer systems than Gavin. That is the reality.

Or you can go see for yourself by trying to apply for a job as a software engineer and only having a degree in mathematics. I would love to be there as they laugh you out of the interview. Hell someone with an MCSE is more qualified.

I deal with computers for a living. Nothing is more amusing then those in the scientific\engineering fields pretending to be programmers. Yet I have to be called to resolve the problems they are "experts" at. Oh Giles you do make me laugh.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

While I agree that the

While I agree that the weather computer models are full of hot air, you are wrong on this point pop tech.  I have a degree in math, and I program for a living.

Not all programmers are equal

There are many programmers with unrelated degrees and some that just graduated high school. Nowadays everyone is a "programmer" from "HTML" to C++, it does not change the fact that someone trained in the profession will be better at it than those that are not. I have seen it extensively.

There are various math degree programs that have minors in computer science too. But if you cannot prove you understand programming without the degree you are not going to get hired. It is becoming much harder for none Comp-Sci grads to get into the field. They either require certs or a proven extensive experience which is getting harder and harder to get. I've seen more and more math grads who double majored or minored in Comp-Sci. I for one would never hire someone without the training as retraining or fixing problems is too costly and time consuming.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Pop, this is the wrong way

Pop, this is the wrong way to argue this.  There are plenty of programmers who have a degree, who stink at programming, and programmers who have a degree in English or History...something so unrelated, yet make great programmers, because they know how to communicate.  Like you said, fixing problems is time consuming, and most of the time its a design issue, which doesn't require extensive CS knowledge.

The problem with the computer models for weather, isn't the programmer...its the model.  Quite frankly, it isn't the code, its his math that sucks.

Credibility, as in the

Credibility, as in with the common voters. 

You and the rest of the alarmist camp have widely promoted two central ideas that have grasped the attention of the media and their followers in this country.

1.  Human activity in the form of CO2 emissions is the dominant factor determining climate.

2.  The climate change being forced by Human activity will produce net harmful effects on both the biosphere at large and human populations within the lifetimes of adult persons living today.

Point one is obvious BS.  Solar energy is the 500 pound Gorilla in the climate equation and always has been.  Water Vapor is next, weighing in at a hefty 50 pounds or so, and then, tipping the scales at a whopping 5 pounds is CO2.   

Point 2 has never been demonstrated by any of you people and I defy you in particular to show, scientifically, that warming caused by human CO2 emissions is either (a) net harmful to the biosphere or (b) will cause a human catastrophe.

You folks have set the expectations.  In a few years, these media types and their followers are going to be asking, "So where is the catastrophe?  I don't see any catastrophe!"

My credibility?  I didn't predict the sky was falling.  YOU DID.  I have stated clearly and simply three things:  (1)  the present climate is well within the range of normal variability exhibited by the climate system over recent geologic history and (2) Any likely changes brought about by human activity will also fall within this same range.  (3)  We live on this planet and must be prepared to adapt to any of the climate conditions it has presented its occupants over the last 2 million years because these events will in all likelihood recur at some time in the near geologic future.

Adaption.  This is the right strategy.   The "prevention" strategy favored by the AGW alarmist camp is pure nonsense.  It is simply impossible without returning humankind to the 18th century.

metoer79

Nice graph, less sunspots TODAY than in the 70's You know when your ilk was whining about global COOLING.. duh!

8 th. place ain't FIRST , so loser any more warm thoughts?

heres a first place in COOLING

Liberals62%


IranianUranium

Acually the cooling continued in May

U.S. Has 36th Coolest Spring on Record (NOAA, June 6, 2008)
Global Temperature Also Cooler in May (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, June 6, 2008)

Global Cooling is not a fantasy but a documented reality:

2006 - There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 (The Daily Telegraph, UK, April 9, 2006)
2006 - Earth in for another "ice age" in mid-century - scientist (Russian News and Information Agency, February 6, 2006)
2006 - Russian Scientist Issues Global Cooling Warning (Russian News and Information Agency, August 25, 2006)
2006 - Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming 'Speed Bump' (Science Daily, September 21, 2006)
2006 - The Coldest Year In The Last Five Years (The Reference Frame, December 16, 2006)
2007 - The Coming Global Cooling? (World Climate Report, March 16, 2007)
2007 - Canadian Professor: Prepare for Global Cooling (NewsMax, June 21, 2007)
2007 - Is 'global cooling' the real threat? (The Washington Times, June 24, 2007)
2007 - Year of Global Cooling (The Washington Times, December 19, 2007)
2007 - Get Ready for Global Cooling (NewsMax, December 19, 2007)
2008 - A cold spell soon to replace global warming (Russian News and Information Agency, January 3, 2008)
2008 - Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? (The Boston Globe, January 6, 2008)
2008 - First snow for 100 years falls on Baghdad (AFP, January 11, 2008)
2008 - Saudi Arabia covered with snow in coldest winter for 20 years (Russian News and Information Agency, January 11, 2008)
2008 - Up to 61 killed by heavy snow in Afghanistan (Russian News and Information Agency, January 11, 2008)
2008 - Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age (Russian News and Information Agency, January 22, 2008)
2008 - Canadian Scientists Fear Global Cooling (NewsBusters, February 8, 2008)
2008 - Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age (DailyTech, February 9, 2008)
2008 - Welcome to the 'Icebox' of America: Minnesota town hits a record low (International Herald Tribune, February 11, 2008)
2008 - 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past 12 months (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, February 19, 2008)
2008 - Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age (National Post, Canada, February 25, 2008)
2008 - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (DailyTech, February 26, 2008)
2008 - Global warming sceptics buoyed by record cold (The Daily Telegraph, UK, February 26, 2008)
2008 - Coolest Winter Since 2001 For U.S., Globe, According To NOAA Data (Science Daily, March 15, 2008)
2008 - The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press, March 26, 2008)
2008 - Global temperatures 'to decrease' (BBC, April 4, 2008)
2008 - No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off (Prison Planet, April 4, 2008)
2008 - Global warming? Scotland sees its best snow in a decade (The Times, UK, April 19, 2008)
2008 - The Antarctic deep sea gets colder (Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, April 21, 2008)
2008 - Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh (The Australian, April 23, 2008)
2008 - Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict (The Daily Telegraph, UK, April 30, 2008)
2008 - May Day storm brings snow to Colorado mountains (USA Today, May 1, 2008)
2008 - U.S. Has 36th Coolest Spring on Record (NOAA, June 6, 2008)
2008 - Global Temperature Also Cooler in May (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, June 6, 2008)
2008 - Global Warming Movement Turns Cool (James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, June 22, 2008)
2008 - Australian Researchers Warn of Global Cooling (DailyTech, July 1, 2008)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

PT

Don't forget about June.

http://wattsupwithth...

Real satellite data too. Not that made up Hansen stuff.

That is obviously inaccurate

It should probably look more like this once "adjusted" by Hansen.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Sad but True

Pt,

That looks a lot like a "final adjustments after Hansen has manipulated the raw data" graph.

http://cdiac.ornl.go...

Meteor49 + 30 Where were you in Jan ? Feb? March ? etc,

Fair weather Dude, only shows up in July...normally June, but due to Colder Spring weather, Meteor was still hibernating.

The Republican Revolution will not be Televised  and Neither will Global Cooling.

 

Global Warming is a political scam foisted on us by liberals

"Global Warming" as defined by Al Gore is a scam.  Man has nothing to do with the climate.  That being said, there is "pollution", that word from the '70's.  I used to like the color green, being half Irish, but even using the word these days makes me sick.

"Global Warming" was designed as a means to create government power to control the way people exist and especially to tax people for living their lives.  It is a scam and should be fought tooth and nail for what it is.  We should not allow our governments to engage in any "Global Warming" initiatives because they will restict the way we can act and cost us money in higher taxes.

 

Do we even know...

Why "Ice Ages" happen? Is it solar?? That would be my guess. But I'm not sure scientists agree on any one thing.

Anyway, my fear is that we're headed into an ice age, which might mean that the best possible course of action would be to burn as much stuff as possible and hope for global warming, for obvious reasons. NYC & Boston just wouldn't be the same under ~200 feet of ice...
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

One good volcano eruption

One good volcano eruption is all we need to go into global cooling. I remember the red skies for weeks after Mt. Pinatubo erupted in '80 or '81. That was a cool summer. Of course an eruption would be caused by AGW wouldn't it? =-) Therefore, the earth is self-regulating -- more CO2 = more plant growth = less CO2. Duh.

 MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe, then confirming it with a poll.

ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS

follow the money.  Who is getting richer by supporting global warming and who is getting poorer?

Richer:  Al Gore, corrupt countries led by dictators, carbon traders

Poorer: the poor and hungry around the world, people who can be taxed, countries that have supported research and development to further technology

Every single global warming alarmist that I have had the lovely pleasure of debating cannot back up their belief with facts.  I ask them to prove global warming.  Answer, all the scientists say it is happening.  the world is getting hotter.  natural disasters are occuring more frequently.  next question:  did people cause the high temperatures when dinasours walked the earth?   Answer, no, but the rise in temperature is faster now than it has ever been.  Prove it.  Answer, the data shows it.  Oh, you mean the data that has more holes in it than Britney Spear's stockings.  You mean the data that NASA had to adjust downward.  You mean the data based on readings made by temperature gauges sitting by barbeque pits. You mean that data.  My next response:  listen, if you dont want to think for yourself and listen to the "highly educated" and "well schooled" hollywood and news types, that is fine.  That is your God (upper case) given right to be a mindless drone and give away all of your hard earned money.  Me, God gave me a brain, so I guess he expects me to use it.

Were doomed

"those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it"

Thousands of years ago past civilizations observed storms and droughts and being consumed with their (man's) own importance assumed it was something they had done to displease the Gods.  Their response was to sacrifice thousands of innocent peasants by bludgeoning them to death and burying them in a gully.  No persons of royalty were sacrificed.

 

Once again we see the social elite looking out at nature and filled with their own self-importance come to the lunatic assumption that man is to blame, despite clear evidence to the contrary.  They say we need to make sacrifices.  Once again, only the poor will suffer.  The rich will continue to fly solo around the earth to push their agendas while the poor will be limited to bicycles and food prices too expensive to afford.

They have eaten of the apple

They have eaten of the apple and become as gods. They think they can control the earth.

  MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe, then confirming it with a poll.

Couldn't edit my previous reply!! "Access Denied"

I am reminded of the PETA activist who is known to use animal based insulin.  She defends her personal use as justified because she is an activist for animal causes.  The old adage "practice what you preach" becomes ignored where the reality of that belief becomes inconvenient.  Al Gore does the same thing, so does Sting and Susan Sarandon, all living in houses and consuming more than 10 average families, each.  The list goes on.  Their uses are, of course, justified while everyone else's use is simply greed.

Gods

"...and believing themselves to be Gods, they became fools"

Interesting how all the

Interesting how all the deniers here can't stick to the topic of the post re: Welch, Carlson, and Buchanan's inane statements based on an opinion piece.

Oh, well; such is what goes for debate here. Insult rather than facts; pop psych analysis to fit your meme.

Nice try, again.

 

Insult rather than fact? Really Giles? like you do...

"Interesting how all the deniers here can't stick to the topic of the post"

You seem upset Giles that calling everyone deniers and claiming the victim does not work on a non-liberal site for sympathy.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Welch had nothing better to bring to the table.

Nope, an inability to support why Welch, Carlson, Buchanan, and Stephens should be accepted as experts in a discussion  morphed into yet another attack on Al Gore showing, yet again, the weakness of the denier argument.

Like many of the proponents of skeptic faith, none of that panel have the credentials, expertise, or facts to support their beliefs.  Obvious in the misquoting, cherry-picking, and confused logic of the opinion piece; obvious in the 'rally round the Welch flag' the rest of the panel attempted; obvious in that Welch had nothing better to bring to the table. A little circle jerk that seems to have sucked the NB crowd in.

the shoe fits

So, Welch's expertise in climate science is that he has a PhD in Plastics Enginneering? And what evidence can you cite for him keeping up on that field, much less acual climate science since 1960?

And it seems he is the best of the trio. Cite any thing to evoke some expertise or credibility with Buchanan? Carlson? Stephens?

Sorry, but the shoe fits; denying overwhelming evidence, and being dishonest in what forms their thinking.

So, any time you want to offer up some rationale why we should accept any of that foursome as leaders or experts on global warming or climate change science, I'd be interested in reading it.

Jack Welch, B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering

Would a Chemical Engineer with a Ph.D. understand CO2? That is a tough one Giles. People can make up their own minds on if he is qualified to discuss CO2 or not.

There is no overwhelming evidence supporting AGW just overwhelming AGW propaganda.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

So, no explanation of why

So, no explanation of why you feel he is qualified to speak on the topic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

No word about Stephens, Carlson, Buchanan......

Qaulifications to speak about AGW

Jack Welch is qualified to speak about CO2 by his education.

Stephens, Carlson and Buchanan are as qualified as these people:

Al Gore, B.A. Government, Divinity School Dropout (no science degree)
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Prince Charles of Wales, B.A. (no science degree)
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma

ABC - Bob Woodruff, J.D. Law (no science degree)
ABC - Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
CBS - Scott Pelley, College Dropout
NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
NBC - Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
NBC - Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
NBC - Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)
FOX - Shepard Smith, College Dropout

Al Sharpton, College Dropout
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Britney Spears, High School Dropout
Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Cindy Crawford, College Dropout
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
Jennifer Connelly, College Dropout
Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Kanye West, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout
Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Matthew Modine, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Neve Campbell, High School Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Ted Turner, College Dropout
Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout 

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

he wasn't introduced as PhD

Unfortunately, he wasn't introduced as PhD, he was speaking with as much qualification as Nicole Richie or Tommy Lee. In fact, the threesome was appealing to authority in Stephens; as you say 'Stephens, Carlson and Buchanan are as qualified as these people:
'.

Jack Welch, B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering

So because he was not introduced with a Ph.D. he does not really have it? What propaganda! Give it up Giles, Jack Welch is qualified to talk about CO2.

I clearly stated that the other 3 NOT Jack Welch were as qualified as those on the list.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Asinine logic

He was introduced and speaking as a retired corp CEO, not as a scientist. Read the transcript; where does anyone say ' as a trained scientist, what does your research say about'.....?

And has as much credibility to analyze that opinion piece as Buchanan or Carlson.

Who, as you say, have as much credibility as Tommy Lee, et al.

Does Jack Welch have B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering?

Answer the question Giles. How MSNBC introduces someone is IRRELEVANT to their education! Inventing new new litmus tests does not change reality. He is more then qualified to talk about CO2 and much more qualified than Buchanan or Carlson. The last two I said are as qualified as Tommy Lee not Welch.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Interseting, indeed

That the planet has actually been cooling for the last ten years and now the freakzoid global alramists have come up with their lame prediction that the planet will cool for another ten years - and, that the cooling is the effect of global warming.

Liberalism is the religion and the Goracle's "global  warming" is the dogma.

I'd rather have my mind opened to wonder than closed by belief. 

The Bottom Line

so the bottom line is really  "who the Frak cares?"  I wont be alive when all the crap hits the fan and neither will half of you guys. So shut up, chip off some more of that iceberg over there put it in your margirita and pass me a good cigar.

 

Guns and Violence are not the answer but they are one solution to the problem===Sarg

I can't feature...

Anyone still arguing about "global warming."

Wanna see global warming? Watch the sun come up.

Amazing the people that see Gaiea as Mother Earth also see her as incapable of defending herself.

Whatever the threat, the scare, the media blitz, the planet will remain. Idiots, morons and scaremongers  who believe in Sasquatch, UFO abductions and the Bilderbergers may not.

And that's just another way of Gaiea ridding herself of idiots that defile her surface.

I wonder, if human existence is such a threat to the natural order, why don't you donate yourselves as fertilizer and return to stardust?

I'm waiting!? 

 

"The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary. From Channel 4 (UK)

Watch the Video >>

(Send the link to all your friends!)


---

Sen. John McCain (2003):
"
...I am proud to say that I was born in your country.&

Britcom, Great Video. first heard of sunspots VS weather.

heres a view of the sun today, h/t spaceweather.com .No sun spots, continued cool weather.

March '08 is the alledged start of increased sun spot activity, ain't happened..

If this non activity continues we will be in for a colder winter than last year.

Liberals62%


IranianUranium

fair amount of discussion on this movie

Deconstructing Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle

" The main content is summarized below, and annotated with comment and links for better info."

Swindled!

"We were hoping for important revelations and final proof that we have
all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated
the usual specious claims we hear all the time. We feel swindled.
Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise
addition to the cast) was apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this),
but who found himself put into a very different context indeed [Update:
a full letter from Wunsch appears as comment 109 on this post]"

The Real Global Warming Swindle

"A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show
variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to
show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of
carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other
graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years
ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs
demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie"
foisted on the public."

Send the links to all your friends!

 

Bought and paid for

I'm curious whose pocket you are in Giles. Big carbon credit, perhaps?

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

The data correction trashes Gore's warming trend theory

The graph data that was wrong, was an error done by the people who originally made the graph for the IPCC. This error created a false low reading in the older data. This error shows that the older data made the newer data seem hotter than normal. The corrected data shows that the current temperature is not outside the normal range as Gore has claimed.

---

Sen. John McCain (2003):
"
...I am proud to say that I was born in your country.&

Nope, read the critiques more carefully.

Nope, read more carefully. GCS graphs had deliberate misrepresentations like not including the last twenty years of data to not show late 20th cent warming.

There were other, many other, issues. Sort of a moot point since like most of the denier stuff, it has a short shelf life before being found inaccurate, invalid, etc. I just wanted the 'new' comment to have a reference that it was a year and a half old and had been critiqued already.

In the pocket of BIG CARBON Giles

More cooler weather comming


"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and
it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr Chapman noted in The
Australian recently.


Sorokhtin believes that a lack of sunspots does indicate a coming
cooling period based on certain past trends and early records. In fact,
he calls manmade climate change "a drop in the bucket" compared to the
fierce and abrupt cold that can potentially be brought on by inactive
solar phases.


Sorokhtin’s advice: "Stock up on fur coats"…just in case.

138F in Death valley this year LMAO

 

Liberals62%


IranianUranium

The Graphs have been corrected Giles

Nothing is more dishonest then claiming that the movie had a couple of errors in some graphs but failed to mention that they have since been corrected in the most current version of the documentary.

"Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the program" - (Source)

"In the course of translating complex data to a stylised television graphic, an inadvertent error occurred in the short sequence of data of solar activity between 1625 and 1700. This point of detail has been rectified for future transmissions. It does not affect the argument of the film." - Martin Durkin (Source)

I don't see Gore making any corrections to his abomination:

Al Gore's climate change film 'is propaganda' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)
- Al Gore's Convenient Untruths (FOX News)
- Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
- Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film (The Times, UK)
- An Inconvenient Lie (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore caught lying (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore’s Nine Lies (FrontPage Magazine)
- Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
- Judge says Al Gore film has serious scientific inaccuracies (The Earth Times)
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias (Daily Mail, UK)
- British Schools Ordered to Offer 'Balance' When Showing Al Gore's Global Warming Film (FOX News)
- So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing? (National Post, Canada)
- Propaganda-driven kids attack think tank (WorldNetDaily)
35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (Science & Public Policy Institute)
25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore (The National Review Online)
20 More inaccuracies (PDF) (UKPRwire)
16 Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (Science & Public Policy Institute)
8 Questions for Al Gore (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology)
6 Inconvenient Truths Indeed (Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Again with the selective (this time, very selective) quoting:

Both of the Independent article quoted and cited above spend much more ink on a variety of problems with the GGWS vid. A variety of problems that are not addressed by the producers of the vid.

In attempting to mollify the inaccuracies in the vid with a single quote about how the producers were going to fix minor problems with the visuals and script, misses that there were many other issues that were not addressed in any later version.

I picked one problem - the thrust of this thread isn't the vid or we could have run through the list provided in your own provided links.

from your sources:

"A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was
itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the
programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent."

"However, the graph and its fabricated data will still be included in the DVD of the programme which went on sale yesterday."

"The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data
as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this
information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying
that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure
journal called Medical Sentinel.The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were
funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C
Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank."

"If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got
the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount
of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather
stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and
1940 - although that would have undermined his argument."

"Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in
the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the
climate."

" it is obvious it's not accurate.""

 

Also interesting that again we have an attempted attack on AIT. Again using secondary and tertiary sources. 

Jeez, guys; if you're going to argue the science, at least use sources that might in some vague way actually be science......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The extra "ink" is spent on Rhetoric

All the errors were already corrected, the rest are opinions.

We already went over this Giles, the NASA graph was corrected like I said but you keep quoting the same nonsense:

Swindle and Mid-20th Century Cooling (Climate Audit)

"Their data derived from a Hansen version, but the graphic artist made a plotting error in the horizontal axis which had the effect of dilating the second half of the second 20th century. They say that they corrected the graphic for the 2nd screening and sent me a copy of the new graphic, which reconciles to a Hansen version."

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

The DVD contains the orig

The DVD contains the orig graph. Might be available at your library if you want to check.

The graph error was only one of several problems with the vid. Not 'opinions', misrepresentations, errors in fact:

AGAIN Giles (pay attention) These graphs were corrected

The graphs were corrected, the NASA plotting error is really irrelevant as the whole point of that graph was to demonstrate that there was a cooling trend after 1940 which appears on both graphs.

This was addressed here AGAIN:

Swindle and Mid-20th Century Cooling (Climate Audit)

I agree the TGWS should have used much more overwhelming evidence to discredit the hockey stick. This was addressed here:

Swindle and the Stick (Climate Audit)

The other complaint here:

RMS and Sulphate Emissions (Climate Audit)

ect...

Giles your propaganda is getting old, this was already answered over and over.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

I don't think we are talking about the same "error"

I was talking about the so called "hockey stick" error. The below video explains how the error was discovered and what the corrected graph shows.

Video >>

---

Sen. John McCain (2003):
"
...I am proud to say that I was born in your country.&

NASA data superimposed over

NASA data superimposed over the Swindle graph

But to some extent, it is a moot point. There are numerous errors, a likelihood that some were purposeful (this is one, for example), or done with a clear lack of knowledge of the science  (this is one, for example).

There are enough deconstructions and critiques out there with good links to correct data.

Stuff for another thread, maybe NB can do a 'how the Swindle vid didn't get the coverage we want' like the concern over the 31,000 and other efforts to deceive the public about the science.

If this was the graph that was corrected for the second showing, good on them. However, as noted above, the orig version is the one that went to DVD and is floating around out there.

A few discussions on the Swindle vid (this will probably elicit another posting of PT's lists)

__________________------ ____________

"The acceptance of the theory of human induced climate change is shown
even more clearly by the fact that those who oppose it tend more and
more to descend into mad 'conspiracy theory' rants about communists to
prove their point. Only the blinkered, the stupid, or those with a
vested interest claim humans have had no effect on climate
.
"

 

Giles continued dishonesty about TGWS

The NASA graph was corrected:

Swindle and Mid-20th Century Cooling (Climate Audit)

"Their data derived from a Hansen version, but the graphic artist made a plotting error in the horizontal axis which had the effect of dilating the second half of the second 20th century. They say that they corrected the graphic for the 2nd screening and sent me a copy of the new graphic, which reconciles to a Hansen version."

Yes there is plenty of discussion about the TGWS:

The Science in The Great Global Warming Swindle (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences)
'The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?' (Telegraph.uk)
Up against the warming zealots (The Australian)
Director Martin Durkin Radio response (Audio MP3)
Glen Beck with Director Martin Durkin (YouTube Video) (7min)
'Apocalypse my arse' (Spiked)
Risk Management Solutions Ltd and the 37 Professors (Climate Audit)
RMS and Sulphate Emissions (Climate Audit)
Swindle and the Stick (Climate Audit)
Swindle and Mid-20th Century Cooling (Climate Audit)
Swindle and Inconvenient Divergence (Climate Audit)

Debunking global warming myths (Licia Corbella, The Calgary Sun)
Global Warming Heresy (Walter E. Williams, Townhall)
Must-See Global Warming TV (Steve Milloy, FOXNews)
The Global-Warming Scam (Thomas Sowell, The New York Post)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

The Great Global Warming Swindle is Based on Science

The Science in The Great Global Warming Swindle (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences)

"Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have precedednot resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the "fingerprints." For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is "unusual" using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous "hockey–stick" temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.

2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:

  • Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
  • Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
  • Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
  • Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere

Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!

3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.

But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!

I imagine that in the not–too–distant future all the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them."

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

The Director of the Great Global Warming Swindle Defends himself

'The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?' (Telegraph.uk)
Up against the warming zealots (The Australian)
Director Martin Durkin Radio response (Audio MP3)
Glen Beck with Director Martin Durkin (YouTube Video) (7min)

The Graphs were also corrected:

"Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the program" - (Source)

"In the course of translating complex data to a stylised television graphic, an inadvertent error occurred in the short sequence of data of solar activity between 1625 and 1700. This point of detail has been rectified for future transmissions. It does not affect the argument of the film." - Martin Durkin (Source)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

" it is obvious it's not accurate.""


Both of the Independent articles quoted and cited above spend much more
ink on a variety of problems with the GGWS vid. A variety of problems
that are not addressed by the producers of the vid.

In attempting to mollify the inaccuracies in the vid with a single
quote about how the producers were going to fix minor problems with the
visuals and script, misses that there were many other issues that were
not addressed in any later version.

I picked one problem - the thrust of this thread isn't the vid or we
could have run through the list provided in your own provided links.

from your sources:

"A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was
itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the
programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent."

"However, the graph and its fabricated data will still be included in the DVD of the programme which went on sale yesterday."

"The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data
as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this
information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying
that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure
journal called Medical Sentinel.The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were
funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C
Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank."

"If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got
the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount
of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather
stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and
1940 - although that would have undermined his argument."

"Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in
the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the
climate."

" it is obvious it's not accurate.""

 

Also interesting that again we have an attempted attack on AIT. Again using secondary and tertiary sources. 

Jeez, guys; if you're going to argue the science, at least use sources that might in some vague way actually be science......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The "ink" was spent on Rhetoric

All the errors were already corrected, the rest are opinions.

We already went over this Giles, the NASA graph was corrected like I said but you keep quoting the same nonsense:

Swindle and Mid-20th Century Cooling (Climate Audit)

"Their data derived from a Hansen version, but the graphic artist made a plotting error in the horizontal axis which had the effect of dilating the second half of the second 20th century. They say that they corrected the graphic for the 2nd screening and sent me a copy of the new graphic, which reconciles to a Hansen version."

AIT was discredited in a UK court, TGWS corrected their errors - big difference.

UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)

TGWS is based on Science:

The Science in The Great Global Warming Swindle (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Pass a law banning...

Volcanoes!

They are, by far, the biggest contributors of CO2 to our atmosphere so I suggest we pass a law forbidding any on US soil.

Problem solved!

Next...

 

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

You have been misinformed as

You have been misinformed as are many others discussing AGW on this site.  Volcanoes are not even close to being the biggest contributors of CO2 to the atmosphere.  In fact, there isn't even a signal in the time series from the past century from when major volcanic eruptions occurred. 

Meteor....Bull! Not only is

Meteor....Bull! Not only is there signals from volconic eruptions, there is world wide climate change in connection with such eruptions. Your graph you elude to is nothing more than propaganda. The largest contributitor to atmospheric CO2 is the largest covering of Earth. The oceans. Volcanos are #2. Not even Hansen denys that. Read a real book. Get off the warming nazi sites.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Bass, I'd ease up here if I

Bass, I'd ease up here if I were you.  This fellow, Meteor79, is likely a graduate student or post doc working in a lab in N. Carolina.  His major would be Meteorology.  My money would be on Duke or UNC.  You are not in any position to debate this poster on this topic on an even footing.

Show me the signals of

Show me the signals of increased CO2 concentrations after major volcanic eruptions and I'll shut up.  The graph I allude to has been used extensively by "skeptics" and "alarmists" alike; dismissing it as "propaganda" does nothing to prove your point.  Global cooling tends to occur in the 1-2 years after major eruptions because aerosols block incoming solar radiation (nothing related to CO2).  The cooling only lasts about 1-2 years because that is the lifetime of the aerosols in the atmosphere.  Trying to attribute the gradual increase in CO2 concentrations to volcanic eruptions is nonsense.  Even educated "skeptics" realize CO2 is increasing because of human activities, however, they debate what it's current and future role in warming is. 

Hold on meteor...

Are you claiming that volcanoes don't belch huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

 

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

Never said

Never said that. 

According to the USGS, with relevant studies cited,

"human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes." 

So, the amount released by volcanoes is large, but the amount released by humans is much larger.  That is why the signal from large eruptions doesn't even show up in the time series.  Hey, what do you know, you learned something today!  

Ok meteor...

I'm going to be forced to update my Ocean banning idea.

We (the USA) take control of our planets oceans, seas, rivers, lakes, swimming pools, etc, in addition to all our planets volcanoes. Once we get control of them we immediately ban them.

Then we can work on banning cows, horses (the wife will be pissed about the horses), and all creatures big and small (dogs being the one exception). Once we have those pesky animals out of the way we can then cut down all the planets trees. We will be forced to do this because all the stuff that falls off of trees and decays is putting even more CO2 into our atmosphere. Now that we have all this wood we can build every single human on earth a nice house. This should shut up John Edwards for awhile.

Once we have all that wrapped up we can proceed to living life to the fullest and I can get back to enjoying my hot rods!

As you can see Meteor, I'm all about solutions.

 

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

Clear there is one dog

that you would have to ban that being the english bull dog whew now there is one smelly dog. The rest however are ok I believe.
 

Guns and Violence are not the answer but they are one solution to the problem== SARG

Ok meteor. If you are going

Ok meteor. If you are going to reduce CO2, which is a rather mundane and unexciting emission, should you not reduce the more  potent and more abundant greenhouse gasses first? I mean, you have picked, not the most abundant, nor the most effective greenhouse gas to attack. Just the most expediant and most publicly known. After all, Joe Blow never knew methane was in the atmosphere, but he learned about CO2 in grade school. Don't know what it is for, or where it comes from, but he has heard of it. Then there is the most abundant greenhouse gas, and as far as I know, the most effective at trapping heat. But then, how could you tell Joe Blow to give up clouds, or stop evaporation, and expect him not to laugh at you?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Where did I say anything

Where did I say anything about reducing CO2 or any of the other greenhouse gases you mention?  I simply corrected your false claim that volcanoes emit a significant relative amount of CO2 on an annual basis.  Settle down Beavis.

Settling down. Save a

Settling down.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

CT,  The most measureable

CT,  The most measureable effect of a VEI Level 6 eruption on the climate is related to SO2.  Sulfur dioxide creates a sun-blocking effect in the atmosphere, a haze if you will, that reduces the effective warming of solar radiation.  In the case of Mt. Pinatubo, IIRC, that eruption during the few hours of is peak, injected about 20 megatons of SO2 into the upper atmosphere.  Pinatubo was only an average VEI Level 6 event.

It is not possible to completely characterize the effects of VEI Level 7 and 8 events because none have happened since the advent of modern instrumentation.  It is my personal belief, based on the historical geologic data available, that these eruptions inject significant quantities of other materials/gases into the upper atmosphere besides SO2.  The most recent VEI Level 7 event we have to study is the great Tambora eruption of 1815.  [I omit Krakatoa, 1883 because it was smaller, at the low end of the 7 range.]   Tambora altered global weather patterns for several years, caused 1816, the year without a summer, in the Northern Hemisphere and the famine that followed.   The evidence suggests that pulverized rock contributed greatly to the effect.  Pinatubo didn't have the explosive power necessary to inject that much rock dust into the upper atmosphere, no did Krakatoa.

We can only thank God that a VEI Level 8 event has not occurred recently.

CO2 emissions concurrent with a single eruption witnessed in the last century have not been significant enough to produce a measurable perturbation in the atmospheric CO2 concentration nor affect the climate in a measureable way.

NL207...

I did not know the levels you spoke about, but I did know what happened to our climate after those eruptions.

Please understand that I'm just having a little fun at someone elses expense. The proof of which should be my claim that we ban these naturally occuring events like volcanoes.

In closing, I appreciate the science lesson, but can we at least ban volcanoes because they are annoying?

;-)

  

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

Clear, if we ban volcanoes,

Clear, if we ban volcanoes, we must increase the allocations for earth quakes....just FYI...

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bass...

Crap, I left out earth quakes!

Bass, I actually heard a nutjob claim that the earth quakes in China were due to AGW.

 

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

I read that Clear...laughed

I read that Clear...laughed till my sides hurt...

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Earthquakes... I wanted

Earthquakes...

I wanted to ask that person to explain the connection but decided against it because my head would probably explode!

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

meteor...

Well we can't ban Oceans now can we?

I want to ban huge CO2 generators here in the USA, and the last time I looked we do not own any Oceans.

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm