Friday TV: Global Warming Scam

4/30/2010 Update:

Having a nice casual Friday so far? Want to be educated during your lunch break? Then continue on…

The Great Global Warming Swindle

A Hoboken411 reader suggested informing those who are still brainwashed by the whole environmental scam, saying:

“If the true environmentalists would finally disavow the anthropogenic global warming theorists, then the reversal will begin. Dr. Hansen, who pulled shenanigans with the IPCC AR4 report has come out publicly and ridiculed the cap & trade scheme. Probably one of the best videos I’ve seen. Though long, it’s very comprehensive in education of the actual science in natural causation (versus faulty correlation), and more importantly sheds insight of the movement over a period of decades.”

See other video after the jump…

11/28/2009:

Reader Mail: What can you say?

Actually, a couple 411 readers sent this video link in recently: “10 Minutes to Expose the Global Warming Scam.”

Which side of the fence are you on?

51 Responses

  1. YipYap says:

    HIde the Decline Video

  2. YipYap says:

    Hide the Decline Video

  3. matt1122 says:

    MidnightRacer, have you considered the possibility that the scientists you speak of took that action because they are overzealous and truly believe it’s crucial to the survival of humanity that they convince the rest of the world that we need to take action now? Not everyone was involved in this “conspiracy” of yours, either. There is 20+ years of research before these guys came into the picture that still support the Global Warming model to some extent.

    Note: I haven’t read the leaked emails, and they could say “we need to do this to get rich, yo!” I doubt they do, though.

    • MidnightRacer says:

      Sure have. I’m always looking for reasons for why people do what they do. That research you mention (20+ years ago) indicated an Ice Age – not AGW (the oppoosite of warming). Could there be some who are concerned for the world? Absolutely. But isn’t the truest form of sincere concern supported by an exacting determination of threat? Or, what happens when the science contradicts the initial premise – and that the premise you presented has fail? Do you, as a real scientist, ignore it and force your hypothesis on the populace by trickery, banning peer review and removing grants from those who present contradicting evidence? One of the worse outcomes of science is intentional human error in the data by way of manipulation. Worse yet is trying to erase and destroy any evidence to the contrary. You cannot do this and call it science.

      Let me say this, if the same scientists and anti-pollution groups had come out and said that the usage of more and more fossil fuel vehicles and plants would lead to more and more respiratory problems, especially in the young and elderly, near cities which are blanketed by emissions pollution, and the science backs it up as it does, then I’d say the government would be admirable to requiring more efficient vehicles, plants, and try to reduce such pollution. Same goes for the environment (dumping, hazardous materials/waste, etc). But that’s not what’s going on here. Like the institution of the church so many centuries ago, they claim infallibility, destroy the careers and reputation of anyone who offer contradicting evidence as some kind of moral sinner who needs to be destroyed, ridiculed, and banned from a public voice. The Cap & Trade system is the result of the total control of the world, taxation as punitive measure for a flawed premise lacking any evidence and proof. We’re supposed to just take it?

      Review that chart in the linkk I supplied above. At present time, we’re at a historical low for volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. What is CO2? Plant food. Why didn’t the Earth get destroyed when CO2 was 6000 ppm 600 million years ago – instead of leading to a boom of plant life? What was the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age all about when cars didn’t exist?

      Should humans with better technology strive to be more efficient and responsible? Of course.

      Should one group of humans scam another with a false premise, hide it, destroy the careers of those who question it (as seen in the emails hacked), and we all just go along with the scam – even if it means some countries harm their economies to follow it while other nations don’t have to abide by the same self injury? That’s a question for each to answer.

      In response to matt1122 who said:

      MidnightRacer, have you considered the possibility that the scientists you speak of took that action because they are overzealous and truly believe it’s crucial to the survival of humanity that they convince the rest of the world that we need to take action now? Not everyone was involved in this “conspiracy” of yours, either. There is 20+ years of research before these guys came into the picture that still support the Global Warming model to some extent.

      Note: I haven’t read the leaked emails, and they could say “we need to do this to get rich, yo!” I doubt they do, though.

  4. jazzeru says:

    it’s called manufactured doubt, this is an excellent article for those of you interested:

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/07-1

    Let’s look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That’s five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

    Chevron $6,485,000
    Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
    BP America $4,270,000
    ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
    American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
    Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
    Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
    Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
    Shell Oil Company $950,000
    Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
    Williams Companies $920,000
    Flint Hills Resources $820,000
    Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
    National Mining Association $770,000
    American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
    Devon Energy $695,000 Sunoco $585,000
    Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
    Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
    Peabody Energy $420,000
    Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
    America’s Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
    Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
    El Paso Corporation $261,000 Spectra Energy $279,000
    National Propane Gas Association $242,000
    National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
    Nexen, Inc $230,000
    Denbury Resources $200,000
    Nisource, Inc $180,000
    Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
    Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
    Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
    Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
    Tesoro Companies $119,000

    Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

    Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
    Nature Conservancy $650,000
    Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
    Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
    National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
    Sierra Club $120,000
    Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
    Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

    If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don’t even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

  5. homeworld says:

    Well the wackos are also saying the oil spill was a scam, as well.

    • getz76 says:

      What, that rag again?

      It is interesting that Al Gore used one of the oldest scams in the book by compressing his chart to get the data to visually line up. I learned that trick in undergraduate Macro Economics. I will never forget, my professor telling all 400 of us in a huge lecture hall; “Make sure you look at the axes (X and Y labels), as I can tell any story I want to with any data I have if I can dictate the scales.” It really is true, and the trick of compressing the X-axis for time to hide an 800-year lag is so simple, yet so subtle when the magnitudes line up. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details, and when you realize CO(2) is a trailing indicator instead of a causing agent, you understand you need to follow the money…

      In response to areyoukiddingme who said:

  6. Hobokent says:

    Who is right? Who is wrong? Who cares? The bottomline is that ANYTHING we can conserve today will be available tomorrow and the theory that I will always stick to is that Planet Earth is a big ship built for about 4 billion people flying thru space – With nearly 7 billion passengers.

  7. Journey says:

    Everyone likes to look at one part of the puzzle. The atmosphere is rather complex, you have CO2, Ozone, Methane (CH4), water vapor, halocarbons, nitrous oxide, and lots of other stuff I don’t know about.

    Take for instance a warmer weather in Canada and Russia has resulted in a longer warm season in their wetlands. This produces more Methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas.

    Water vapor in the stratosphere on the other hand has a warming effect. The but in the last 10 years there has been a 10% decrees in the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere, which has a cooling effect. It is also not understood why there has been a decrees.

    While I have always cared deeply about the environment I don’t often comment on these threads because the issues are extremely complex and most people looking at just on part of the problem or only one type of solution.

    The problems in maintaining a sustainable healthy environment is complex, and the methods of dealing with it will have to be equally complex, evolving multiple disciplines.

    What is wrong with reducing the demands we put on our resources, by using what we have more wisely and conservatively. What is wrong with diversifying where we get our resources from. Heck you can get energy from chicken poop. There are only 130 energy producing poop digestors in the US and there could be more that both produce energy, profit for the farmer, and a solution to hazardous farm run off.

  8. Redstorm says:

    It is all Bush’s fault….

  9. beerzgood says:

    The sun controls the temperature on earth? That’s unbelievable :-)

  10. emarche says:

    I believe you mean, “That’s unpossible.”

Leave a Reply