TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

The Great Global Warming [Swindle] Rabbit Hole (31 posts)

1. truthmod
   Administrator

   Do Alex Jones or other global warming skeptics tell us that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was created by people connected to the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), a "Marxist" group that is supposedly so far "left-wing" that they're indistinguishable from the extreme right (if you get my drift)?

   What kind of "communists" can get their controversial programs aired on national television?

   "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and director Martin Durkin's previous anti-environmental series, "Against Nature" were produced by these people:

   http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/swindl...

   Monbiot writes, 'The assistant producer of Against Nature, Eve Kaye, was one of the principal coordinators of the RCP/LM. The director, Martin Durkin, describes himself as a Marxist, denies any link with LM, but precisely follows its line in argument. The series starred Frank Furedi, previously known as Frank Richards, LM's regular columnist and most influential thinker, and John Gillott, LM's science correspondent, both billed as independent experts. Line by line, point by point, Against Nature followed the agenda laid down by LM: that greens are not radicals, but doom-mongering imperialists; that global warming is nothing to worry about; that "sustainable development" is a conspiracy against people; while germline gene therapy and human cloning will liberate humanity from nature.'

   One intriguing element to the whole affair is the link to the Revolutionary Communist Party, also known as the Living Marxism group, also known as the Institute of Ideas, also known as Spiked Online, also known as Sense About Science. Phew! It’s hard to keep up, even for an ex-DL member, so for an introduction to the bizarre and murky world of this sect which went so far left it came out the other side, check out George Monbiot’s pieces and ‘The Revolution has been Televised‘ and ‘Invasion of the Entryists‘, as well as Nick Cohen’s ‘The rebels who changd their tune to be pundits‘. All of these pieces highlight the role played by RCP members and friends in Durkin’s films and, while it isn’t claimed that Durkin is a member of the RCP, an article on the group by What Next states that “The day after (a piece on Against Nature appeared in The Guardian), the paper reported Martin Durkin, the Against Nature producer, saying that the RCP had been dissolved a year previously. Not known as an RCP member or supporter, it’s not clear how he was privy to such information”.

   http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=78

   The RCP has spawned a network of political extremists who eulogise technologies like genetic engineering and reproductive cloning and are extremely hostile to their critics, who they brand as Nazis. What is particularly disturbing is that it is a network which engages in infiltration of media organisations and science-related lobby groups in order to promote its agenda.

   It is represented, often in very senior positions, in a series of organisations which lobby on issues related to biotechnology, eg the Science Media Centre (director: Fiona Fox), Sense About Science (director: Tracey Brown; her assistant: Ellen Raphael), Genetic Interest Group (policy director: John Gillott), Progress Educational Trust (director: Juliet Tizzard), and the Scientific Alliance (advisor: Bill Durodié). Both Tracey Brown and Bill Durodié were also brought in in an advisory capacity in relation to the strands of the UK government's official GM Public Debate.

   http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

   http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propag... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007...

   http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12/18/the-rev...

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. truthmover
   Administrator

   Good find. Great post. Re: Communism, Freedom Summer, and the Truth Movement

   What is Communism?

   From Wikipedia:

   Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production...Self-identified communists hold a variety of views, including Maoism, Trotskyism, council communism, Luxemburgism, anarchist communism, Christian communism, and various currents of left communism, which are generally the more widespread varieties.

   Karl Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the advanced communist mode of production all at once, but required a transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, the first stage of communism. The communist society Marx envisioned emerging from capitalism has never been implemented, and it remains theoretical; Marx, in fact, commented very little on what communist society would actually look like.

   It's that revolutionary dictatorship part I always had a hard time with. Doesn't sound very democratic. And it leads some people to assume left-wing fascism is the only answer to right wing fascism. Marx's thinking was dialectical in nature, although he did identify an emerging middle class, but correctly saw them as extending the power of the capitalists upon which their comfort was dependent.

   But things have changed a lot in the last couple hundred years. Modern US society includes a sizable yet shrinking sector of the middle class that is entirely sympathetic to the concerns of the labor class. And that group is presently being attacked from both sides right now.

   That group and the threat it poses to the capitalist structure could be compared to the threat posed by the Freedom Summer of 1964. If you don't know about this, it's one of the most moving and important moments of the civil rights movement.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Summer

   Thousands of white college kids came down to Mississippi to join the prominent civil rights organizations, to educate rural black folks about their democratic rights. They held highly attended schools, going door to door to invite everyone to come learn about their voting rights AND about illegal methods of voter intimidation. This event was a watershed for the movement, and very troubling to the power structure for many reasons, but three in particular.

   Violence struck the campaign almost as soon as it started. On June 21, 1964, James Chaney (an African American volunteer from Mississippi) and Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman (two Jewish volunteers from New York) were abducted, tortured and killed by Klansmen from Philadelphia, Mississippi. The volunteers' badly beaten bodies were found several months later buried in an earthen dam.

   As a result of courageous investigative reporting by 3 high-school students, Brittany Saltiel, Sarah Siegel, and Allison Nichols, they helped put Edgar Ray Killen, the organiser of the killings, was finally indicted and convicted in 2005 for murder.

   And

   (At the Democratic Convention) The Credentials Committee televised its proceedings, which allowed the nation to see and hear the testimony of the Freedom delegates, particularly the testimony of Fannie Lou Hamer, whose evocative portrayal of her hard brutalized life as a sharecropper on the plantation owned by Jamie Whitten, a long time Mississippi congressman and chairman of the House Agricultural Committee, galvanized the nation.

   And

   In at least one county in Mississippi, these newly educated black voters went to the polls and elected the very first black representative in their history. By a wide margin.

   ---

   All that has nothing to do with Communism. And its not Socialism, or Libertarianism. It's democracy based on the informed consent of the governed, and equal application of the law under our Bill of Rights. That's what I'm fighting for, and I don't consider it to be statically ideological, as the application of democracy in a highly diverse population implies the participation of everyone.

   In my eyes, one of the things we have a particular focus on within the more general Truth Movement, that TruthMove is trying to represent as best we can, is that demanding public oversight, greater government transparency, freedom of information, honest debate in the mainstream media,...is not ideological in nature except at its democratic core. Every philosophical and ethnic viewpoint has a place at the table.

   Defending that table, over and above your personal viewpoint, is being a patriotic 'Amercan' in my eyes. Defending the debate and everyone right to be informed and participate. So many patriotic 'Amercians' have died defending our democratic principles. And most social movements today benefit from their sacrifice. More broadly, we have seen social movement all over the world founded on the same basic principles.

   Truth Movement is about all of these different groups renewing their parallel shared commitment to defending our right to informed consent. While we all pursue our unique modes of social interaction, we all must commit some time to defending our very right to so. And as that is a concern shared by us all, I'm arguing that the Truth Movement is not just another social group, with some specific concerns, but a recognition of common intent, founded in democratic principle, that unites people all over the globe.

   ---

   Finally, that documentary is reactionary, biased, and the RCP has no credibility whatsoever. And yet their documentary gets big airtime, press, and popular buzz. I'm assuming that a lot of people, both left and right, would like to hear that human industry can't hurt the atmosphere.

   Does disinformation get a seat at the table? Actually, they get to be the frustrated adults who have to sit at the kids table. Small chairs and sippy cups. It's not as comfortable over there, and they have to shout a bit louder to be a part of the conversation, but they do get equal servings.

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. DBLS
   Inactive

   Yea but this is hilarious because the film criticises the “Communists” for infiltrating the Environmental Movements and injecting their ideology into them as soon as the Berlin Wall fell. It highlights the fact the IPCC was created by far left groups and Margaret Thatcher (a right winger). It highlights the dishonest agendas and politics behind the people pushing “Man-made Global Warming”. So clearly you guys haven’t even watched the film… yet you’re attacking it with a citing from a George Monboit article? Monboit, a bizarre, highly dogmatic and wildly contradictory (if you look what he originally said about 9/11) individual whose opinion is rendered worthless to anyone who appreciates intellectual honesty?

   Please watch the thing first; http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=23325313...

   (PS, try not stop watching half-way though because it’s hurting you’re belief system!)

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. DBLS
   Inactive

   ^ I meant to say "through" not " though", and sorry if that sounds a little sarcy guys but please just try to watch the whole thing without bias, thanks.

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. truthmod
   Administrator

   Monbiot Shmonbiot

   He's not the only source for that and your ad hominem argument is very reactionary and disappointing.

   Read this and come back with some honest discussion, otherwise I don't have the energy to argue with you.

   (BTW, I did watch the whole thing through, I just don't remember that stuff about communists in the film, and it doesn't change my points)

   PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propag...

   We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments. Antarctic ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years behind temperature rises at specific times in the geological past. This, argued Durkin, +proves+ that CO2 cannot be responsible for global warming - instead global warming is responsible for increasing levels of CO2. But this was a huge howler.

   What Durkin's film failed to explain was that the 800-year lag happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years. (See: www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores)

   Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic change in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains why the rise in CO2 initially lags behind the temperature rise:

   "The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend." (Real Climate, 'What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?’, December 3, 2005; www.realclimate.org/index.php /archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/)

   The best current explanation for the lag of 800 years is that this is how long it takes for CO2, absorbed by the ocean in an earlier warm period, to be "flushed out" at the end of an ice age. Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback. (See Caillon et al., 'Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III,' Science, 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731)

   In this section of the film, Durkin focused heavily on a graph depicting temperature changes. The graph, Real Climate comments, “looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected”. It appears to show a dramatic cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping between the film’s version of the global temperature record (shown above left) and the temperature plot that normally appears in the scientific literature (shown above right) The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.

   Without knowing more details of how Durkin may have manipulated the data plotted in his graph, it is difficult to comment on the presentation. What we can say is that Durkin’s "four decades of cooling", implying a relentless temperature drop over 40 years, is not an accurate description of the trend over this period. There was some cooling for +part+ of this time but also some plateauing, with fluctuations up and down.

   But why did the temperature not simply rise in line with the post-war increase in greenhouse gas emissions?

   In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere. These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”. By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2. By the 1980s, however, stronger warming had exceeded this masking effect and global temperature has since continued to rise. As Real Climate notes, by failing to explain the science behind this phenomenon the programme makers were guilty of “lying to us by omission.”

   The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility. In September 2006, the Times reported the latest findings from researchers writing in the top journal, Nature:

   “Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. ‘The solar contribution to warming... is negligible,’ the researchers wrote in the journal Nature.” (Anjana Ahuja, ‘It's hot, but don't blame the Sun,’ The Times, September 25, 2006)

   The film's other scientific claims can be similarly dismissed. Carl Wunsch - who, as discussed, appeared in the film - comments:

   “What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)

   Posted 17 years ago #
6. chrisc
   Member

   the RCP has no credibility whatsoever

   Yeah, they haven't existed for years now but they were dire in the 1980's...

   Last week the UK TV regulatory body made a ruling on this TV show and there is a good article in the New Scientist on this:

   Why 'climate swindle' film is dangerous, despite ruling

   Don't believe anything you see in a TV documentary made in the UK.

   Documentary makers here have no obligation to be accurate, though factual programmes should present a wide range of views.

   That is the implication of a series of rulings by Ofcom, the regulatory body for responsible for upholding broadcast standards in the UK, on complaints made about a British TV documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle.

   http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn14379&...

   Posted 16 years ago #
7. Manatus
   Member

   I am amazed that despite the overwhelming scientifically valid evidence regarding global warming, there is even a debate about this issue. I am even more amazed at how many 9/11 activists believe global warming is a fraud.

   If the true scientific facts are not enough to convince some people, then the absurd arguments used to claim global warming is a fraud should indicate what the truth is. I guess people without a solid background in science who are not adept at critical thinking are easy marks for propaganda of this sort.

   Ironically, those who claim global warming is a politically motivated fraud always cite political examples to support their claims, and shy away from the actual proven scientific facts. This pattern speaks volumes to understanding the truth of the matter.

   This issue illustrates how easily peoples perceptions can be manipulated. The same dynamic has stalled a legitimate national accounting of 9/11 and is also what enabled the "average American" to support the Iraq war based on rumors.

   Posted 16 years ago #
8. chrisc
   Member

   I am even more amazed at how many 9/11 activists believe global warming is a fraud.

   Yeah, it's really bizarre, it's the same people who have problems with getting Peak Oil...

   And even facts, like soaring oil prices and record temperatures don't seem to shift these peoples belief that there is no limit to the amount of oil on the planet and that humanity cannot effect the climate... how much worse are things going to have to get before these people to wake up?

   Also it's not as if some leading 9/11 activists haven't been ringing the alarm bells about these issues... for years, eg Barrie Zwicker, Michael Ruppert, Nafeez Ahmed...

   sigh

   Posted 16 years ago #
9. PeterHolmes
   Member

   Unfortunately I am one of those "bizzare" 9/11 activists who isn't exactly sure who's right about global warming. First off, my experience with 9/11 truth has taught me not to reflexively trust something as true just because everyone says it is. Second, I live in San Diego, and our local weatherman has taken a pretty firm stand on this issue, even going so far as to sue Al Gore in an effort to get the word out. Check this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdRaxN5jUZE

   He claims 30,000 scientists have signed up to debunk global warming, including 9,000 phd's. Is that true?

   Also, I believe I read on prison planet that temperatures have actually gotten colder over the last few decades, although chrisc in the post above makes a reference to "record temperatures." Who is right?

   I haven't spent enough time trudging through the science to form a real strong opinion on this either way, but I wanted to share my thoughts so you all might have a better understanding of why so many truthers remain undecided.

   :P

   Posted 16 years ago #
10. PeterHolmes
    Member

    I also forgot to mention that I once read a book titled "The Greening" which made a number of compelling arguments for the political utility of the global warming issue. Also the book documented that fact that the same financiers that brought us 9/11 have also been funding the environmental movement since its inception, people like David Rockefeller. That alone makes me think twice.

    This is probably the worst way to make a first post on a 9/11 forum, but I've talked about 9/11 so much sometimes it's nice to switch gears.

    Pleasure to be here, :P

    Posted 16 years ago #
11. truthmod
    Administrator

    Hello Peter, welcome to the forum.

    He claims 30,000 scientists have signed up to debunk global warming, including 9,000 phd's. Is that true?

    Also, I believe I read on prison planet that temperatures have actually gotten colder over the last few decades, although chrisc in the post above makes a reference to "record temperatures." Who is right?

    ---

    9/11 truth has taught me not to reflexively trust something as true just because everyone says it is.

    You have to decide for yourself "who is right." We'll give you our opinion and recommend sources here, but it's up to you. If you want to be a real independent thinker, do not accept or dismiss anything just because everyone (or no one) supposedly "believes" it. And always question even your most trusted sources vigorously and continuously.

    Quite bluntly, we think Alex Jones is manipulative and dishonest and that environmental problems (including global warming) are very real and very important. We can cite concrete evidence to support this view.

    2005 Tied 1998 As World's Hottest
    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recor...

    Nineteen of the hottest 20 years on record have occurred since 1980.

    This looks like the petition that was referred to:
    http://www.oism.org/pproject/
    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23387

    And here is an article questioning it's validity:
    http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-tampering.htm...

    To back up the skeptics' claims, Stossel presents some deceptive evidence: "You may have heard that 1,600 scientists signed a letter warning of 'devastating consequences.' But I bet you hadn't heard that 17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there's 'no convincing evidence' that greenhouse gases will disrupt the Earth's climate."

    The implication is that 10 times as many scientists question global warming. What Stossel doesn't note is that while the first petition was circulated by a group well-respected in the scientific community, the second petition has been famously discredited.

    The first, smaller petition came from the Union of Concerned Scientists and its signatories included 110 Nobel laureates, including 104 of the 178 living Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, along with 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners. The latter petition was a project of the George C. Marshall Institute, whose chair, Frederick Seitz, is also affiliated with the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group calling itself the "voice for business in the global warming debate"), in conjunction with the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, a lesser-known group whose leader, wrote columnist Molly Ivins, is a biochemist who "specializes in home schooling and building nuclear shelters" (Los Angeles Times, 8/17/98).

    Though OISM's signatories did include reputable scientists, it also included dentists, nutritionists and others with no expertise in climatalogy; the only requirement for signing on was a bachelors degree in science. In fact, OISM's screening process was so lax that for a time the list also included a number of gag names added by environmentalists, including Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox. The OISM petition also came under fire for being deceptively packaged: The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

    Posted 16 years ago #
12. PeterHolmes
    Member

    Ok, so basically we've got two significant groups of scientists claiming that the other group is actively distorting the science.

    In one corner, there's 31,000 American scientists, including 9000 phd's, more than 40 members of the National Academy of Sciences, notable names like theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen of MIT, the first president of the National Academy of Sciences, and the guy who started the weather channel. This corner argues that the other corner is not comprised of "scientific organizations, and in fact they have long records of misrepresenting science to achieve political objectives."

    Then in the other corner there's weighty organizations like Greenpeace, The Union of Concerned Scientists, the IPCC, the NAS, Al Gore, and apparently the mass media. This corner dismisses the other by questioning their credentials and generally leveraging their superior means of authority. According to this camp, the other petition has been "famously discredited."

    Now i'm not offering this as an argument either way, but as a 9/11 truther I can't help but find a striking similarity between the structure of this debate and that of 9/11 truth . You could easily put Steven Jones, Richard Gage and the hundreds of professional engineers at AE911truth into the first corner, with the NIST and 9/11 Commission, Al Gore and the Mass Media into the other.

    We have all seen how easily psuedo-science can be proffered as truth. We have seen the power of wielding the highest ranking acronym. We have seen the power of money and the capability of financiers like David Rockefeller. We have seen how carefully controlled the "mass media" can be, and we have seen how effectively fear can be used to mobilize citizenry to support an agenda.

    So I'm curious, does it still strike you all as bizzare that I wouldn't be sure who is right?

    :P

    ps. I'm also curious to learn more about why you guys feel Alex Jones is questionable. I'm not super familiar with his work, so setting aside the global warming issue, what else has he done that's manipulative and dishonest?

    Posted 16 years ago #
13. chrisc
    Member

    basically we've got two significant groups of scientists claiming that the other group is actively distorting the science

    No there isn't, the people questioning the proposition that humanity can and has had a significant effect the climate of the planet are really not comparable to those pointing out that the planet has been set on a course that if it isn't changed soon will "cause our descendants to inherit a planet with a warming ocean, disintegrating ice sheets, rising sea level, increasing climate extremes, and vanishing species" [1].

    I can't help but find a striking similarity between the structure of this debate and that of 9/11 truth . You could easily put Steven Jones, Richard Gage and the hundreds of professional engineers at AE911truth into the first corner, with the NIST and 9/11 Commission, Al Gore and the Mass Media into the other.

    Uh-hu... this doesn't stand up either...

    Regarding Alex Jones, did you try to search this site for threads on him...?

    http://www.google.com/search?q=alex+Jones+site:tru...

    [1] http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080703_De...

    Posted 16 years ago #
14. truthmover
    Administrator

    "Heartland Institute anti-global warming fraud exposed"

    http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1046?replies=...

    I see three corners.

    We have those who are concerned about sustainability in general. In that corner we have people who are addressing many more issues than global warming. If they happen to be a bit off on any one issue, it doesn't detract from the larger concern for changing many aspects of how we are consuming the planet.

    In the second corner we have industry and its many scientists, PR firms, and media outlets, utilizing the issue of global warming in any way that is beneficial to them. Some industries will benefit from global warming. Some will benefit from efforts at conservation. Nothing these people say has much to do with really caring about the environment.

    In the third corner we have those among the public who are are less concerned about the environment and more about the the behavior of the second group. Alex Jones, for example, falls into this category. He expresses no genuine concern for environmental issues. When he does raise these issues it is consistently with the intention to suggest that they are merely government propaganda meant to facilitate greater national and international regulation. The New World Order.

    Global warming is not really at the top of my list. Pollution of our oceans, running out of clean water, the coming peak in human population, the decimation of biodiversity. Global warming is important, but just one concern among many that deserve our attention.

    I acknowledge the importance of the skepticism held by the third group. I am also very concerned with how environmental advocacy can be used to maintain control rather than facilitate change. But that concern isn't going to make our growing environmental crisis go away.

    Posted 16 years ago #
15. truthmover
    Administrator

    Duplicate

    Posted 16 years ago #
16. PeterHolmes
    Member

    Alright, so according to that Desmog blog, 45 of the 500 climate change expert names release a year ago were innacurately placed on the debunking list. Granted, while that does cast that entire list in doubt, it also leaves 455 names, and that's prior to investigating the authenticity of the Desmog blog. My question is, has anyone done any analysis on the list of 30,000 names to establish a level of credibility? Are they even real people? Because that's a lot of names, meaning that even if 10,000 were innacurate, that would leave 20,000 correct. Plus, it would seem a natural strategy to discredit that list by planting false names, meaning that we cannot logically dismiss the entire list on the basis of finding a few innacuracies. I've been meaning to get in touch with John Coleman (founder of the weather channel, local SD guy) to ask him about 9/11, so maybe I can also get some more info on the nature of the 30,000 name list. Perhaps they've even applied some sort of background check like AE911truth does. I'll try and find out.

    Also, Chrisc, you're statement that the people in the debunking camp are "not comparable" to the people in the global warming camp does not constitute an argument absent some sort of explanation for why they are not comparable. Simply to state they are not comparable is, again, reminiscent of the dismissive, illogical arguments we continually face as 9/11 truthers, and is therefore surprising to hear on this forum. I can't tell you how many times i've had people tell me Richard Gage is "not comparable" to the folks at NIST, and hopefully everyone here agrees how innaccurate that is.

    Regarding Alex Jones, I perused a few of those items, but maybe someone could save me a few hours and point out a specific situtation where he was manipulative and dishonest?

    thanks, peter

    Posted 16 years ago #
17. Manatus
    Member

    In my observation, the people who doubt the legitimacy of global warming always focus on the political/rhetorical elements. The facts on global warming are about scientific data, not about Al Gore, who frequently becomes a strawman when addressing the actual ISSUE.

    Peter, like with 9/11, to see thru the smoke and mirrors with this issue, just ask "who benefits"? The petroleum industry has caused the problem, and it is in their best interests to dodge accountability. In essence, if one believes global warming is a hoax, one has been fooled by the same folks that brought us 9/11.

    Posted 16 years ago #
18. chrisc
    Member

    Global warming is not really at the top of my list. Pollution of our oceans, running out of clean water, the coming peak in human population, the decimation of biodiversity. Global warming is important, but just one concern among many that deserve our attention.

    Yeah, but these are so interlinked, for example at the http://ifg.org/ "Triple Crisis" teach in one speaker said that when all the glaciers have gone in the Himalayas this will mean that 3 billion people will have no water in the summer,

    Or how about Dr. Andrew Glikson on a recent Ecoshock show, http://www.ecoshock.org/2008/07/warning-from-past.... pointing out that "Of the five past great extinctions (we are apparently living in the 6th extinction now) - FOUR WERE CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE."

    Posted 16 years ago #
19. chrisc
    Member

    Also, Chrisc, you're statement that the people in the debunking camp are "not comparable" to the people in the global warming camp does not constitute an argument absent some sort of explanation for why they are not comparable.

    Well on the one hand we have the majority of the worlds leading scientists and lots of FACTS about what is happening and has happened to out planet and on the other side there are a small number of characters with dubious political moativations...

    But as truthmod said about you need to some research and thinking yourself and not just base your view on the numbers of people who have signed various petitions...

    Posted 16 years ago #
20. chrisc
    Member

    at the http://ifg.org/ "Triple Crisis" teach in one speaker said that when all the glaciers have gone in the Himalayas this will mean that 3 billion people will have no water in the summer,

    I think it was this session:

    Vandana Shiva (India), director, Research Foundation for Science, Technology & Ecology, and Navdanya; author, Monocultures of the Mind and Earth Democracy
    Audio: http://ifg.org/programs/Energy/triple_crisis_av/pa...
    Video: http://ifg.org/programs/Energy/triple_crisis_av/pa...

    Posted 16 years ago #
21. truthmod
    Administrator

    Thanks for the references, chrisc.

    I do not wish to spend much time explaining the ins and outs of the global warming "debate." It's been discussed many times already on this forum, with sufficient links and resources. Peter, people here are referring a lot of good information to you, but it seems like you're not processing it objectively. You seem to have a predisposed skepticism of global warming/environmentalism. This seems to have something to do with your feeling that GW is a "mainstream" issue, that "everyone" believes it, and that the media is pushing it.

    As chrisc alluded to, there is a vast difference between the mainstream "promotion" and "acceptance" of GW and the reality of it. Do we see our politicians/elites pushing for fundamental change in our (and their) wasteful lifestyle? Do we see 50-100mpg cars on the road that were developed decades ago? No. Most establishment politicians and elites are simply interested in control and relatively short term personal advantage. Global warming and the environmental crisis are real and human-caused, but you won't see the establishment promoting solutions that create greater equality. You might ponder why the FBI has made such a big deal about the "#1 domestic terror" threat, "ecoterrorism." You might also ponder what those people are fighting for...a hoax?

    9/11 Truth and global warming do not equate. 9/11 was never really a scientific issue. Isolated studies were done (NIST, etc.), but overall 9/11 was a political psychological propaganda event with no widespread scientific analysis. Global warming is very much a scientific issue, but also a political one. Your task is to sort out the truth from the rhetoric and manipulation. We've tried to point you in the right direction.

    Posted 16 years ago #
22. truthmover
    Administrator

    My comment seems to have been skipped over. Once again, I see three corners here and if we reduce it to two, I'm not sure we are seeing clearly how this debate has played out over time.

    In my observation, the people who doubt the legitimacy of global warming always focus on the political/rhetorical elements.

    That's what I was pointing out when I suggested that the third corner is comprised of people mostly concerned with the second corner and not environmental issues.

    Yeah, but these are so interlinked

    Granted. But I was referring to the fact that global warming seems to receive a lot more attention from skeptics than many environmental issues of equal, greater, or directly related importance. Issues that they can not as easily dismiss. Global warming seems to have spawned an entire counter movement within existing groups of a certain political orientation. We don't hear them having much to say about what we should do when fresh water becomes too scarce.

    You might ponder why the FBI has made such a big deal about the "#1 domestic terror" threat, "ecoterrorism." You might also ponder what those people are fighting for...a hoax?

    Super important. Please consider those points beyond the moment in which you read this post.

    Alright, so according to that Desmog blog, 45 of the 500 climate change expert names release a year ago were innacurately placed on the debunking list. Granted, while that does cast that entire list in doubt, it also leaves 455 names, and that's prior to investigating the authenticity of the Desmog blog.

    It seems you missed the point. This is an example of someone who advances GW skepticism, who many skeptics have most likely quoted, turning out to be totally without any credibility whatsoever. There are many similar examples available. And I often find that skeptics like to avoid that point.

    To be quite frank, I've found that most (but certainly not all) ((Do I have to repeat that to prevent a defensive response?)) people skeptical of GW come from a more conservative background. Just look at the websites that advance this notion and who they connect to. You find a lot of right wing libertarianism, John Birch Society xenophobia, Ayn Rand institute radical self-interest, and Biblical notions of Manifest Destiny that provide an excuse not to feel responsible for how our comfort comes at the expense of someone else's misery.

    I find those connections to be very telling and think many of those skeptical of global warming are arriving at that notion through a reliance upon authority. Alex Jones for instance. Peter, you might be a reasonable, open minded kind of guy. But I've talked to a great many Alex Jones fans, and a good majority of them rely upon him to provide them information and analysis rather than reading or doing research for themselves. And that problem becomes worse as AJ has dreadfully low standards when it comes to journalistic practices. He invariably sensationalizes what he discusses and quite often provides little to no sourcing.

    My final word on AJ would be that he is irresponsible, but I recognize that his listeners share that burdon.

    Posted 16 years ago #
23. chrisc
    Member

    I was referring to the fact that global warming seems to receive a lot more attention from skeptics than many environmental issues of equal, greater, or directly related importance. Issues that they can not as easily dismiss.

    Ahh, gotcha, I agree. The mass extinction is the one that really gets to me the most I think -- apparently between a quarter and a third of all species in the sea, on land and in the air have been made extinct in my life time, this is so totally irreversible :-(

    In the third corner we have those among the public who are are less concerned about the environment and more about the the behavior of the second group.

    And also in this 3rd corner there are also some people like traditional lefties and trade unionists -- people who have been fighting capitalism for reforms for generations. Those these people are also starting to get it, but there are still some who don't, for example there is a retired trade unionist in the UK, Dave Douglass, who has spoken out against the 2008 Climate Camp which is trying to stop a new coal fired power station, see this letter from him: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/403441.html and he was also on this radio show: http://www.dissidentisland.org/ShowArchive/2008-07...

    This gets rather absurd at times with the traditional lefties accusing those trying to save the planet of being anti-working class, educated, middle class hippies...

    Posted 16 years ago #
24. truthmod
    Administrator

    I'm so tired of addressing this that I added a whole "Global Warming is not a 'Hoax'" section to our GW page. I plan to refer to that page in the future rather than writing new posts to respond to GW skeptics.

    Any suggestions/corrections greatly appreciated.

    http://www.truthmove.org/content/global-warming/

    Posted 16 years ago #
25. Manatus
    Member

    Truthmover-

    I understand and agree with how you classify 3 corners of perception regarding global warming. It's definitely useful in comprehending the full spectrum of opinions generated with this issue.

    Truthmod-

    Good idea adding a "Global warming is NOT a hoax" section to the GW page for reference. There's certainly no shortage of legitimate data to verify that position.

    It does seems there's a concerted disinfo/misinfo faction confusing many people about the truth regarding global warming, and it is interesting/frustrating how this faction has focused much energy on the 9/11 truth movement.

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.