new videos
hot off the press!  
    more about rocket
mass heaters here.

more videos from
the PDC here.
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic

The Great Global Warming Swindle?  RSS feed

 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1220
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
78
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I know a little tiny bit about how complicated the world is, and have had my paradigm shifted a number of times in my 47 years, which makes me less likely to be shocked/unreceptive when potential paradigm shifting is happening. 

A friend of mine sent me the film which is the title of this thread to watch. 

I watched it and... I have some serious issues with some of the angles that they present their information from, but not enough for me to discount the entire film's gist... and I'm not a scientist or someone with tons of research time to verify all the data.

Problem is... I can't see a lot of problems with their basic premise; and I'd like to see some problems with it, if only because my brain and emotions have invested a lot of energy on anthropogenic climate change.  As such, I may have to re-organize my neurotransmitters, but I'm not prepared to fully do that until I put this out to the community, and get some secondary thoughts by valued people.

Please watch the film in it's entirety, if you intend to post.

I'm not planning to 'defend' the ideas in this film, but would like to discuss any that people have thoughts to discuss.



 
      
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1220
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
78
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It seems at this point that the movie itself is a swindle. I researched the contributers and the creators of the film. The majority of the apparent pundits in the film have unreliable credentials or are definitely pushing a pro-industry agenda in their worlds, despite the titles which appear beside their names (some of which are not at all accurate).  The exception is the Ocean scientist Wunsch.  He's totally legit and has written a letter about how much he was taken out of context in the movie to 'prove' ideas that were being presented by the film makers.

Don't bother to watch this, unless you want to see it for your own reasons.    
 
chip sanft
pollinator
Posts: 414
Location: 18 acres & heart in zone 4 (central MN). Current abode: Knoxville (zone 6 /7)
32
bike books dog urban
  • Likes 10
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
What if?
4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg
[Thumbnail for 4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg]
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1220
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
78
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Likes 2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I received another slice of pie, in this case for the second post, which I'm grateful for. 

I'm not sure if I have convinced my friend who sent me the link yet.  He's really into the solar/cosmic ray/ = weather patterns.  

The movie makes much of some skewed data which showed that the Earth's temperature actually dropped right after the post war industrial expansion, which made no sense to the carbon link to warming.  But I bought it when I watched it the first time.  Other websites proved the data inaccurate/skewed. 

There was this emotional trigger that they used about Africans not being able to develop and thus being kept in abject poverty because of the new carbon agenda.   I sort of bought this, although I was definitely under the impression that their view of development was industrialization, and their example of the impoverished village woman was a great example of post colonial impact, rather than what actual village life might be like with local indigenous knowledge, permaculture, or similar ideas... so it got me thinking that they were really missing the mark... and that made me really wonder what their agenda was.  Also it was notable on second watching that the only African (or any other person from the underdeveloped world) being interviewed was a pro-industry urban/intellectual type, not in a village.

I noticed pretty quick into it a strong pro-establishment/anti-activist vibe coming throughout, and it was masked as some kind of anti-communist rhetoric but seemed to deepen against the anti-globalization movement by saying that the protesters were against  development... which I believe is only partly true; appropriate development is appropriate after all. 

So this partial truth, and other skewed data made me start to go into each of the personalities being interviewed.  Quite a mix of guys with fairly right wing leanings with pseudo left wing titles (Example: cofounder of Greenpeace, but who Greenpeace says is now a right wing crack, or a professor of Climatology who is actually a Geography professor)  besides their names to give the impression that they were a balancing influence to the Climate Change swindlers.  The more I looked, the more the documentary was flawed and very biased and actively trying to manipulate emotions, facts, to that end. 
 
Devin Lavign
pollinator
Posts: 480
Location: Pac Northwest
40
books chicken forest garden goat hunting solar trees wofati woodworking
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Roberto, you might want to check out
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
and
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

Both of which do a good job of countering the denier arguments with actual science. Typically though what ends up happening with the denier is they wont actually address the science if you link to those pages, they will instead just ignore the science and try claiming the site is untrustworthy. Just shutting down the conversation by ignoring what contradicts their POV. Both sites do a great job of citing sources, and giving real science. So the denier's are really only left with the ignore the source as a way to argue against it or they will have to admit there is valid arguments in there. But if you want to actually get through, you might need to separate the site from the info so the info has time to seep into the person's thinking. Get them to actually read the info rather than just seeing the site and claiming it is not worth their time.

Another valuable resource is http://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm to actually understand the history and how long we have known about GW and CC.
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1220
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
78
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Likes 2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Thanks Devin.  I'll check out those other links.  It was when I was researching the Ocean Scientist, Wunsch that I ended up at Real Climate's site, and I sent multiple page links to my friend from that site once I was there and read all of that.  There were a few other sites that I found, but Real Climate seemed to have the best written info.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://richsoil.com/email
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!