Saturday, April 07, 2007
Watching the "Great Global Warming Swindle"
I sat down this morning to watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle," with notepad in hand, ready to see just how good of a presentation anthropogenic global warming deniers would put together. Unreliapundit had helpfully provided a link for me to use to see the video, but, much to my surprise, I clicked on it and got, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Wag TV." Quick Google and YouTube searches also came up with a few deleted entries, and I didn't see any copies for sale on Amazon or Ebay. For now, I seem to be at an impasse in viewing and reviewing this work. If someone has a working link, please let me know.
# posted by Joe Yangtree @ 11:33 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
in the meantime read this and weep.
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com
/2007/04/ice-core-record-proves-co2-is-lagging.html
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com
/2007/04/ice-core-record-proves-co2-is-lagging.html
here it is - in under 5 minutes:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=4340135300469846467
make it one line.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=4340135300469846467
make it one line.
That link was indeed very helpful. I finished watching it tonight, and took quite a few notes. It'll probably take a series of articles to get through all of this, but the first one should be up by Wednesday.
I'll try to address the following claims and their relevance to anthropogenic global warming:
1. The climate has always changed, and changed without any help from humans.
2. Climate variation in the past was clearly natural, so why do we think it's any different today?
3. CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas
4. Evidence against global warming:
A. Ice core samples, temperature, and CO2.
B. Measuring the tropospheric temperature
5. IF CO2 doesn't drive earth's temperature, what does?
A. Sunspots and solar activity
B. Cosmic Rays and cloud formation
6. There is no concensus on Global Warming
I'll also address the strange cases of Nigel Calder and Carl Wunch (I may have to do this early, just due to how much fun it will be).
Let me know if there are any big pieces I'm missing besides anything having to do with Kyoto or other remedies. You'll have to go to someone that believes Kyoto is an effective way to address this problem for that discussion.
I'll try to address the following claims and their relevance to anthropogenic global warming:
1. The climate has always changed, and changed without any help from humans.
2. Climate variation in the past was clearly natural, so why do we think it's any different today?
3. CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas
4. Evidence against global warming:
A. Ice core samples, temperature, and CO2.
B. Measuring the tropospheric temperature
5. IF CO2 doesn't drive earth's temperature, what does?
A. Sunspots and solar activity
B. Cosmic Rays and cloud formation
6. There is no concensus on Global Warming
I'll also address the strange cases of Nigel Calder and Carl Wunch (I may have to do this early, just due to how much fun it will be).
Let me know if there are any big pieces I'm missing besides anything having to do with Kyoto or other remedies. You'll have to go to someone that believes Kyoto is an effective way to address this problem for that discussion.
good start.
when writing your counter-arguments (which one can assume will be a restatement of the arguments of AGW/CO2 mob, please keep in mind a basic bromide of science: occam's razor.
and keep in mind that for one thing to cause another it must precede it. there is no way around this - except to be irrational.
when writing your counter-arguments (which one can assume will be a restatement of the arguments of AGW/CO2 mob, please keep in mind a basic bromide of science: occam's razor.
and keep in mind that for one thing to cause another it must precede it. there is no way around this - except to be irrational.
Certainly, I will apply the original definition of Occam's Razor that states "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or 'shaving off,' those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory." Actually, it should prove to be quite handy. Naturally, I will not be applying the bastardized, common usage of Occam's Razor that the simpler explanation is the better one. If that were truly a scientific bromide, we could never accept relativity over the much simpler Newtonian physics.
and keep in mind that for one thing to cause another it must precede it.
I doubt that I would have made a suggestion that was contrary to this concept, but thanks anyway. Please keep in mind when reading that because an effect was linked to a cause in one case, it doesn't mean that the same cause is the genesis of that effect in every case. This is an illogical construct you (and the makers of the "Global Warming Swindle" seem to make quite a lot, so I thought I'd bring it up now to save time later.
Post a Comment
and keep in mind that for one thing to cause another it must precede it.
I doubt that I would have made a suggestion that was contrary to this concept, but thanks anyway. Please keep in mind when reading that because an effect was linked to a cause in one case, it doesn't mean that the same cause is the genesis of that effect in every case. This is an illogical construct you (and the makers of the "Global Warming Swindle" seem to make quite a lot, so I thought I'd bring it up now to save time later.
<< Home
