The Great Global Warming Swindle!!!

Marcus's picture
Submitted by Marcus on Sat, 2007-03-10 19:12

Surprise, surprise.

You can watch the entire thing now - for free - already on Google Video.
Watch it while you can, here is the link below.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle.

This astounding documentary was aired last Thursday night (8th of March) in the UK.
What it illustrates both clearly and definitively is that global warming through human activity is the most contrived pseudo-science of the last 30 years. The scale of the swindle is both frightening. As the film narrator boldly states:

“Everywhere you are told that man-made climate change is proved beyond doubt, but you are being told lies. Each day the news reports grow more fantastically apocalyptic. Politicians no longer dare to express any doubt about climate change.
This is the story of how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology.
It is the story of the distortion of a whole area of science. It is the story of how a political campaign turned into a bureaucratic band-wagon. This is a story of censorship and intimidation. It is a story about westerners invoking the threat of climatic disaster to hinder vital industrial progress in the developing world. The global warming story is a cautionary tale of how a media scare became the defining idea of a generation.”

This film proceeds to completely strip away the emperor clothes of the theory of global warming caused by man-made CO2. It’s main points against the theory are that:

1) “We are told that the earth’s climate is changing, but the earth’s climate is always changing. In earth’s history there have been countless periods when it was much warmer and much cooler that it is today. When much of the world was covered by tropical forests or else vast ice sheets. The climate has always changed, and changed without any help from us humans.”

“The polar bears obviously survived that period, they are with us today, they are very adaptable and these warm periods in the past posed no problem for them.” Says Professor John Clark – Dept of Earth Sciences – University of Ottawa.

2) If you take the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere of all gases, it is 0.054%. The proportions that human are adding is even smaller, the main source in fact coming from the world’s oceans. CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. The geological records show that in fact CO2 does not precede warming, but lags behind it by some 300 years. So as Gore rightly says in his film “An Inconvenient Truth” that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. However it is not a positive one, but a negative one, in fact often an inverse correlation.

3) The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases and a small percentage of them are the greenhouse gases. And of that small percentage, 95% of it is water vapour, and that is by far the most important greenhouse gas often in the form of clouds. Further, solar activity is the most accurate way of predicting climate changes on earth. The interplay between water vapour and solar activity being the main determinants of earth’s climate and human beings have almost no influence upon.

4) If greenhouse warming were presently occurring you would get more warming in the troposphere, because greenhouse gases trap heat from escaping the atmosphere in the troposphere. However, that is just not the case. The data collected from satellites and weather balloons show that the earth is in fact warmer than the atmosphere. This evidence damns the theory of greenhouse effect upon climate through CO2.

Surprising is the origins of this political scandal. Apparently it originated from a desire of Margaret Thatcher in the eighties to discredit fossil fuels in favour of nuclear power.

Even more shocking is that the entire present global warming lobby, hijacked from Thatcher by neo-Marxists and Environmentalists, has become in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats an evil “gravy train” of the millions of tax dollars pocketed in this disgusting “global warming” industry which is based upon a lie.

“Fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend on Global Warming right now. It’s a big business.” Says Professor Patrick Michaels – Dept of Environmental Sciences – University of Virginia.

“Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.” Says Dr Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader – NASA.

As the film spells out for us:

Man-made global warming is no ordinary theory. It is presented in the media as having the stamp of authority of an impressive international organisation. The UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change or IPCC.

“The IPCC like any UN body is political. The final conclusions are politically driven. It’s become a great industry in itself and if the whole global warming farrago collapsed, there would an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work.” Says Professor Philip Scott – Dept of Biogeography – University of London.

“This claim that the IPCC is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists: you look at the bibliographies of the people and it is simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists. Those people that are specialists but don’t agree with the polemic and resign, and there are a number of them I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this “2500 of the worlds top scientists”. We have a vested interest in causing panic, because then, money will flow to climate science.” Says Professor Paul Reiter – IPCC and Pasteur Institute of Paris.

“And to build up the number to 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and Government people and so on, anyone who has been close to them. And none of these people are asked if they agree, many of them disagree. People have decided that you have to convince other people that since no scientist disagrees - you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science you know that it is pure propaganda.” Says Professor Richard Lindzen – IPCC and M.I.T.

Unfortunately as the Times notes, the whole Global Warming bandwagon has evolved into “less an issue and more a doom-laden religion demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil fuel-driven ways.”

“There is such intolerance. This is most politically incorrect thing possible to doubt this climate change orthodoxy.” Says Lord Lawson of Blaby (In 2005 a House of Lords enquiry was set up to examine the scientific evidence of man-made cause of Global Warming and Lord Lawson was a member of it.) He goes on to comment - "We had a very thorough enquiry and took evidence from a whole lot of people expert in this area and we produced a report. What surprised me was to discover how weak and uncertain the science was. In fact there are more and more thoughtful people, some of them a little bit frightened to come out in the open. But who quietly privately and some of them publicly are saying ‘hang on, wait a moment, this simply just does not add up’."

“I often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there are many that simply think that is not true.” Says Professor John Christy – Lead Author IPCC

And finally the definitive comment of the documentary must belong to Nigel Calder – the Former Editor of the New Scientist.

“I have seen and heard their spitting fury at anybody that might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way. The whole global warming business has become like a religion and people who disagree are called heretics. I am a heretic. The makers of this programme are all heretics.”

After this documentary and more publicity, hopefully not heretics for much longer!!!

( categories: )

The trend's the thing

Brendan Hutching's picture

Marcus: “It is interesting that Brendan has not tried to explain away cooling in the 20th century with the aerosol driven "global dimming".”

No need to, since I was referring to the long-term warming trend, and the long-term trend is upwards. It’s true that there was a dip and a levelling off of global temperatures from 1940 to 1970 – which has been attributed to aerosols -- but the trend since then has been upwards, as has the overall 150-year trend.

As for satellite measurements, I assume you are referring to technical and logistical problems associated with satellite data. You will need to explain why you consider these should undermine AGW theory.

By the way, Marcus, did you manage to check the science underpinning the AGW claim that virtually all the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 200 years has been from human activity?



Brendan Hutching's picture

Gregster: “My comment about nitrogen should be viewed as illustrating the arbitrary nature of our friend carbon dioxide being labelled planetary enemy number one.”

Except that it’s not arbitrary, given the chemical properties and behaviour of carbon dioxide, and the fact that atmospheric levels have increased so much in the past 200 years.

General climate theory views the atmosphere as a system, which self-regulates around an average of various conditions. When the climate undergoes major change, it moves from one set of average conditions to another. In order for this to happen, there must be an external input into the system that forces the movement. If not, the system would continue to regulate around the same set of conditions.

The forcing can be such things as the absorption of additional solar radiation, volcanic activity, perhaps the shifting of tectonic plates. It can also be the addition of what are termed “greenhouse gases”.

AGW theory accounts for other possible forcings, and has discounted them. A major increase in the levels of a gas that absorbs longwave radiation emanating from the planet surface is considered significant, for the reasons given. There may well be unknown factors that are forcing the current warming, but science can only work with what is known.

“My main thrust is that the earth is self-regulating.”

Yes. The current warming trend will stabilise at some point, but not at our convenience, and not necessarily at a point we find comfortable.


Murdoch says "I'm proud to be green".

Marcus's picture

There goes another one. In the media debate, it looks like we AGW sceptics are now on our own.

"In one of the most unexpected conversions since Saul of Tarsus hit the road to Damascus, Rupert Murdoch is turning into a green campaigner...

Mr Murdoch's conversion, which may surprise employees like Jeremy Clarkson, was heavily influenced by his son James - who took BSkyB carbon neutral a year ago this week - as well as by Tony Blair and former US vice-president Al Gore. All three attended his annual meeting for senior executives in Pebble Beach, California, last year where he was convinced to take the lead on the issue...

The world's most prominent media tycoon is being hailed by environmentalists as the most important of a chain of high-profile new recruits to the battle to control climate change, including Sir Richard Branson and Sir Terry Leahy, chief executive of Tesco.

His planned campaign "to change the way the public thinks about these issues" could be particularly effective because of the strength of his operations in the United States, China and India, the three most critical countries for tackling global warming. Mr Murdoch told his employees: "We must first get out own house in order."

News Corporation has a carbon footprint of at 641,150 tons a year and will now aim to be carbon neutral by 2010. News International, which publishes his British newspapers, and the publishers HarperCollins will achieve this goal by the end of the year and all books published by the imprint Fourth Estate are to be printed on recycled paper from 1 July.

But the main thrust of the campaign will be "to inspire people to change their behaviour" through films, television productions and news operations. It will aim "to weave this issue into our content, make it dramatic, make it vivid, even sometimes make it fun". As a start, MySpace is launching a channel devoted to climate change, and Fox television is developing "a solutions-based campaign". Today's Sunday Times and News of the World both major on plans by Gordon Brown for new eco-towns.

Mr Murdoch says: "Imagine if we succeed in inspiring our audiences to reduce their own impacts on climate change by just 1 per cent. That would be like turning the state of California off for almost two months."

The great Channel 4 swindle

Marcus's picture

An article published last Friday in "the Daily Telegraph" of all the criticisms of TGGWS made to date by Mark Lynas, author of "Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet" - added together with a dash of hysteria and exaggeration.

"I've never met Durkin personally (and I pray that I never do; he doesn't sound like much fun), but apparently mindless tirades are his stock-in-trade - perhaps this explains his earlier attraction to the extremist fringe group the Revolutionary Communist Party, other of whose former members hold remarkably similar anti-environmentalist views. (For a taste of these, visit Spiked (, or read innumerable articles by Claire Fox, Frank Furedi, Mick Hume or other former RCP cadres...

Durkin and his ex-RCP cronies seem to feed their reactionary worldview with constant infusions of defensive bitterness - as his emails to critics demonstrate - despite the fact that they are actually fighting in support of the powerful.

I'm sure the likes of Exxon-Mobil and the Bush Administration - not to mention car companies, airlines, road-builders and so on - will be delighted that the British public is now more confused than ever about the reality of global warming science.

Confusion feeds doubt, and doubt allows the status quo - of massive and rising carbon emissions, not to mention corporate profits - to continue unchallenged.

I'll leave the picking apart of the specifics of the swindle to the scientists - former IPCC chair Sir John Houghton has produced a detailed rebuttal: (, as has Bob Ward (formerly of the Royal Society) in a complaint to Ofcom ("

The great Channel 4 swindle.

Global Dimming?

Marcus's picture

It is interesting that Brendan has not tried to explain away cooling in the 20th century with the aerosol driven "global dimming". This I thought was a favourite with AGW theory champions. However, there is no proof for this theory, they will tell you that aerosols do not linger in the atmosphere and are soon washed away. So it is hard to say what levels were then or what they are now. It all relies on "dodgy" estimations of how much is emitted.

"Three things that we do know are: carbon dioxide levels have increased sharply in the past 150 years; the increase is almost solely a result of human activity; during that time, average global temperatures have also increased."

It also interesting that AGW theory proponents seem to know exactly what has happened to global temperatures in the last 150 years - whereas just less than ten years ago satellite temperature measurements of the atmosphere were (according to them) in error because they did not show warming.

Hi Brendan, Thanks for

gregster's picture

Hi Brendan,

Thanks for writing. My comment about nitrogen should be viewed as illustrating the arbitrary nature of our friend carbon dioxide being labelled planetary enemy number one. Likewise the next sentence with the (?) is intended to wind up the Medialens people.

My main thrust is that the earth is self-regulating. There is a balance between the planet surface and the upper atmosphere. The earth's atmosphere is one large heat exchanger.

Many mechanisms have evolved in this relatively stable system which enabled the evolution of lifeforms.

There is not a global warming occurring either. The mechanisms look after this.

Water vapour

Brendan Hutching's picture

Wm: “On a geological scale, we are coming out of the little ice age.”

Currently, we are in an interglacial. But global temperatures during interglacials do not rise at the speed with they have done in modern times, so this point is irrelevant.

“By far the most important and least understood greenhouse gas is water.”

Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, but in AGW theory it is regarded as a feedback within the system. In other words, it is reactive to and amplifies other factors, due to its relatively short duration within the atmosphere. That is, levels of water vapour quickly adjust to other changes within the system, whereas levels of carbon dioxide do not.

The theory of CO2-induced global warming takes into account known climate factors such as the amount of absorbed sunlight, plate tectonics, volcanoes, as well as water vapour and other greenhouse gases. So AGW theory already incorporates data on water vapour.

If new information about water vapour comes to light that casts doubt on the way the theory views its function in the atmosphere, climate scientists will have to think again. But against these unknowns, we have a theory that deals with the knowns.

Three things that we do know are: carbon dioxide levels have increased sharply in the past 150 years; the increase is almost solely a result of human activity; during that time, average global temperatures have also increased.

Connect the dots and there’s the basis of the theory. Importantly, the science that comprises the theory is testable. In that respect, while AGW theory may ultimately prove unsupportable, in the light of current climate knowledge it appears to be a genuine scientific theory.


Little ice age

On a geological scale, we are coming out of the little ice age. By far the most important and least understood greenhouse gas is water. We don't even know how much rain falls every day on this planet, and no computer model has been invented that accurately models clouds for current climatological conditions, let alone projecting future ones based on changes in atmospheric composition. We have also reached a stage in astrophysics where the study of our Sun has reached a fevered pace with new theory-shattering discoveries. If anything, a more detailed understanding of the warming occurring on Mars may lead to a better understanding of the causes of warming here.

It is easy to get drawn into the scientific debates regarding climate but global warming is not about science. It is a religion being pedaled by power hungry politicians and anti-life intellectuals and is finding allies with anti-capitalists around the world.


Islam insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by any government, is to be done away with.

Resident expert

Brendan Hutching's picture

Marcus: “I come from the old school of science, whereby if a layman cannot judge the validity of your theory, then that is your fault and not his.”

In that case, you’re a good man to have around. You can probably tell us why AGW scientists are confident that the CO2 increases of the past 150 years are almost entirely due to human activity.


CO2 lag

Brendan Hutching's picture

Jameson: “If it's true, as the doco suggests, that CO2 levels lag behind Earth's rise in temperature then all of this is moot.”

This probably refers to the warming periods that follow ice ages. The way I’ve seen it explained is that these periods are probably precipitated by a change in the earth’s orbit, and the resulting warming flushes out CO2 from the oceans. The time lag between the onset of warming and CO2 increase is around 800 to 1,000 years.

However, the whole warming period lasts around 5,000 years, and in this scenario greenhouse gases are regarded as part of a feedback system, amplifying the warming that is already underway. So it’s not just a matter of warming, followed by a rise in CO2. The two aspects, as well as other climate factors, are correlated.

More importantly, the situation today is not comparable. We are not emerging from an ice age, but global CO2 levels have risen sharply in the space of a hundred or so years, along with rising global warming. During that time, human beings have produced most of the extra CO2, and the AGW view is that this man-made CO2 is the dominant factor in global warming.

This doesn’t mean that global warming is proven, but nor does it mean that AGW theory is mere wishful thinking.


What I was responding to...

Marcus's picture

...was this part of Brendan's post.

"I’m no climate scientist...

As I have mentioned elsewhere, one of the drawbacks with global warming theory as a subject for public discussion is that the layman is at a disadvantage in judging the validity of the theory."

Obviously Brendan has a problem addressing this issue. The one of the so-called "layman" not being able to judge the validity of AGW theory arguments.

I come from the old school of science, whereby if a layman cannot judge the validity of your theory, then that is your fault and not his. Brendan subscribes to the whole "consensus of experts knowing better" than even he himself can comprehend. As he writes, "I'm no climate scientist, but as I understand it..." arguing from the fallacy of authority.

"Does CO2 absorb longwave thermal radiation?"
Yes it does, and so do all greenhouse gases as you pointed out yourself.

answering TGGWS critics

Orson's picture

TGGWS has engendered more criticism than Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth! Such is the nature of debate with True Believers.

There are good answers to these critics, however. Thus via climate warming specialist blogs comes this handy post with a point by point response with an impressive list of references and links, all in largely not too technical language.

My post is therefore for those more deeply interested in this subject than most.

A lot of hot air...

Jameson's picture

If it's true, as the doco suggests, that CO2 levels lag behind Earth's rise in temperature then all of this is moot.

Hot air

Brendan Hutching's picture

Marcus: “The "blah, blah" AGW theory that all works somehow and someway even if it doesn't make sense.”

I offered two claims: that what are called greenhouse gases absorb longwave radiation from the surface of the planet; and that CO2 is acting as a “forcing”, or additional external input into the climate system.

According to AGW proponents, these are two of the mechanisms that “somehow” and “someway” are causing the global climate to warm in line with the theory. The latter is a debatable claim, but it appears to rest on sound scientific evidence.

You appear to have a personal issue with AGW supporters. That’s fine, but your issues have nothing to do with the science.

Here’s a scientific question: does CO2 absorb longwave thermal radiation?


Thanks Greg...

Marcus's picture

That was an excellent post. Any response yet, probably not.


The "blah, blah" AGW theory that all works somehow and someway even if it doesn't make sense. Yeah, right. Maybe the layman can't understand it, becuase the expert doesn't understand it himself? I suppose you don't understand it either, but some god-like expert with a qualification that you pay homage to does? And I suppose that Al Gore and Maddona et al. being very wise people all pay homage to the same experts you do?

What the happened to the age of enlightenment? "Don't just tell me, but prove it to me" - it is obviously too difficult an approach for you "simple" laymen who swallow AGW as the gospel truth!!!

Water everywhere

Brendan Hutching's picture

Gregster: “Carbon dioxide is near inconsequential in it's levels. Are they going to tax gaseous di-hydrogen monoxide next?...What about nitrogen? - there's a hell of a lot more of that around.”

I’m no climate scientist, but as I understand it, greenhouse gases are those that absorb longwave radiation from the surface of the planet. They include CO2 and CFCs, as well as water vapour. But oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb significant amounts of longwave radiation, so are not considered greenhouse gases and can therefore be discounted for anthropogenic global warming.

As for the relative levels of greenhouse gases, while CO2 makes up a small proportion of the total amount of greenhouse gases, as near as I can understand it, AGW theory argues that CO2 is currently punching above its weight. The increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere apparently acts as a “forcing”, or external input into the system, which in turn destabilises the climate towards warming.

Water vapour is not acting in this way, although it could also be implicated in global warming as part of a feedback system.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, one of the drawbacks with global warming theory as a subject for public discussion is that the layman is at a disadvantage in judging the validity of the theory.

This is especially so when a small amount of knowledge about the atmosphere is often worse than complete ignorance.



Lindsay Perigo's picture

Welcome aboard. Don't forget your photo. Smiling

Bullshit science

gregster's picture

Dear Editor,

----- Original Message -----
From: Greg D
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:25 AM
Subject: The Great Swindle

That Great Global Warming Swindle I downloaded from Google Video was the best piece of TV I've seen in recent memory.

As for the suggestion of complaining - far from it - I have distributed copies to friends and the weblink to all concerned.

Whichever planet you're on - it's surely irrational.



Dear Greg

Many thanks. It's interesting to hear your opinions on the film. But I'm afraid we can't respond meaningfully unless you supply counter-arguments to the careful, referenced arguments we provided in our Media Alert.

Best wishes

David Edwards
Dear Editor

I have re-watched the doco and again left swooning at it's timely arrival. There has been a dearth of commentary in the accessible form of a tele programme to propagate to friends and the odd enemy.

Regarding your weblinks: Professor Wunsch does not appear to have been taken out of context. His sentences are unabridged and his statements are self-contained arguments.

The argument, raised like a rabbit from a hat to explain no temperature rise between 1945-75, that aerosol pollutants "shielding some of the incoming solar energy" itself admits that in fact the sun is the temperature regulator.
And now they describe this as "global dimming". Ye gads! Naughty Man is at it again. It's not only negative to warm the planet- it's even negative to dim it!

But of course, environmentalists are already attempting to have it two ways. In the realisation that all of their dire planetary predictions will not eventuate their language has changed Orwellian-style. Anthropogenic Global Warming is now slipped in to new-speak as Climate Change. The computer climate modelling to encourage scenarios fifty to a hundred years hence is a piss-poor basis for so much of what I'd label lazy journalism. The best weather man cannot predict next week correctly and your grandmother knows this.

It is opportune at this point to eject the climate scientist and bring forth any cosmologist. This scientist, if we are fortunate to engage his participation in this self-demeaning discussion of such dogma, would then revisit Standard Two level science and remind us that Earth is fortunate to be of a size, in an optimum orbit around a sun enabling a life-supporting temperature range. And your article describes the sun's role as -"a minor one at present". Hogwash.

Again - "a vast body of evidence that very strongly supports the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the most important.. primarily responsible for recent global warming". These quotes reminds one of religious dogma, an Alice in Wonderland view, the result of a haze across the mind.

Carbon dioxide is near inconsequential in it's levels. Are they going to tax gaseous di-hydrogen monoxide next? Because I'll elucidate you here- it's all over the place! What about nitrogen? - there's a hell of a lot more of that around. (Oops- don't tell that to the politicians). Thermal variations in di-hydrogen monoxide are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect. This should be the real (?) culprit .

The IPCC says "..." - yet another line they trot out. You surely cannot bring the IPCC into this and keep a straight face! A bunch of politicised pricks and you have the temerity to say the documentary is ".. failing to explain the science behind this phenomenon" and "lying to us by omission". This position is intellectually extremely dishonest.

My view is that if the globe actually warmed a little it would actually benefit humanity and other life in numerous ways. Vegetation would thrive and food production would be assisted by this. Also if the planet cooled a little, species would adapt, the most capable species being Man.

The "Doomsday" scenarios invariably originate from very particular pressure groups and these are their stock-in-trade.

The quote below, and many similar I could give, is demonstrably true.

"The objective of the environmental movement is and always has been simply the destruction of energy production. Its further goal is the undoing of the Industrial Revolution and the return of the modern world to the poverty and misery of the pre-Industrial era." (George Reisman)

To cut a long story short: The documentary is endeavouring to put the case for a plausible climate driver system. It eloquently to my mind states the "big players" for this planet - as if an organism if you like. It similarly ridicules the second biggest (so-far) con job of Man after theism.

It indeed has become heretical to question what is spouted about anthropogenic global warming. There was a time when a consensus believed the Earth was flat. Science does not advance by agreeing a consensus but by testing a theory.

I challenge you to put beliefs in anthropogenic climate change (if this is your honestly held standpoint) in perspective alongside other once commonly-held beliefs which have now been discarded thanks to honest scientific toil.

Kind regards

Greg D

Independent accuses C4 of falsifying data in documentary again.

Marcus's picture

Yesterday the Independent accused C4 of falsifying data again in the GGWS documentary based upon another supposedly misleading graph.

I believe that the allegations in this article do not discredit the documentary as much as the Independent is indicating here as they have not even managed to get Dr Friiss-Christensen to agree with AGW theory.

"Dr Friis-Christensen, a physicist, believes that solar cycles play an important role in climate change and that not enough effort has gone into addressing the theory. The fabricated data did not, he said, make any difference to the overall view he takes but he is still critical of the way the film handled the scientific evidence. Asked by The Independent whether the documentary was scientifically accurate, Dr Friiss-Christensen said: "No, I think several points were not explained in the way that I, as a scientist, would have explained them ... it is obvious it's not accurate."

The C4 programme also used out-of-date solar cycle data relating to the past 30 or 40 years which made it appear as if temperatures and solar activity were rising together when in fact solar activity has levelled off for the past few decades. "After 1985 we don't see any rise or shortening of the solar cycles compared to what we saw in the temperature [record]," Dr Friiss-Christensen said.

Dr Friis-Christensen is the second scientist to appear on the programme who has criticised the way the film was made. Professor Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that the way his interview was edited gave the misleading impression that he was not concerned about rising levels of carbon dioxide - a diametrically opposite view to his stated position.

Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the programme, was unavailable for comment but admitted in an email to Mr Rive that the graph was wrong. "Thank you for highlighting the error on the 400-year graph. It is an annoying mistake which all of us missed and is being fixed for all future transmissions of the film. It doesn't alter our argument," Mr Durkin said."

C4 accused of falsifying data in documentary on climate change.

Stuart Dimmock - another anti-Gore British hero

Kenny's picture

"Court challenge to Gore film in schools

Press Assocation
Friday May 4, 2007

Government plans to provide every secondary school in England with Al Gore's climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth are to be challenged in the courts.

An application has been lodged at the high court by a father of two schoolchildren, who is seeking permission to apply for a ruling that the proposal is unlawful.

The environment secretary, David Miliband, and the education secretary, Alan Johnson, announced the project in February.

Critics say using the former US vice-president's documentary film as a teaching aid conflicts with the duties and obligations of local education authorities when it come to teaching politically controversial subjects such as climate change.

One critic, Stuart Dimmock, a father of two from Kent, has lodged papers at the high court in London challenging the education secretary over the plan to include the DVD in a climate change pack for schools.

Mr Dimmock is asking a judge to rule that he has "an arguable case" which should go to a full hearing.

It is understood that he is also expected to apply for an injunction to prevent schools receiving the DVDs until after the hearing.

Mr Johnson said at the launch of the project that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long-term view on the environment among the public.

He said: "With rising sea temperatures, melting ice caps and frequent reminders about our own 'carbon footprints', we should all be thinking about what we can do to preserve the planet for future generations.

"Al Gore's film is a powerful message about the fragility of our planet and I'm delighted that we are able to make sure every secondary school in the country has a copy to stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes."

It is planned that the DVD will go to 3,385 secondary schools in England as part of a "sustainable schools year of action".

There are also teacher resource packs, a pupil "detective kit", guidance for bursars and governors and a new teaching award."

Christopher Monckton challenges Al Gore to a fight!!!

Marcus's picture

The Guardian interviews Christopher Monckton who has recently challenged Al Gore to a public debate on global warming. Bring it on I say! Smiling So far, not surprisingly, Al Gore has not responded.

"There is a series of adverts currently appearing three times a week in the New York Times and the Washington Post that look like mock-ups for a prize fight. In the red corner is Al Gore, swinging for imminent global catastrophe. In the blue corner, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher and great white hope of climate-change sceptics. The adverts are a challenge from Monckton to Gore to debate the warming of the planet, for a rumble in the deforested jungle. So far, the challenge has not been accepted or acknowledged...

[Monckton has] some vague form in the area. In 1988, he wrote one of the first articles, in the London Evening Standard, about the concern in scientific journals that carbon emissions were warming the atmosphere. It was a jokey piece of the kind with which we have since become horribly familiar: Monckton had bought a house high on Richmond Hill, the rest of us would have to take to the boats, ha, ha.

'Margaret Thatcher,' he says, repeating a name never far from his lips, 'who was a rather keen reader of my columns in the Standard, and prone to cut them out and wave them at her colleagues, did so with this one. Not only that, she made a speech to the Royal Society saying we need to study whether this is a problem or not. And she established the Hadley Centre for forecasting climate change on the back of it.' (This pattern, I realise, quickly becomes a familiar one: all wisdom leads back to Monckton.)

Anyhow, in the years since, and in particular in the last year, he has continued to look at the question, has done the maths ('Radiative transfer calculations I can do standing on my head') and formed his own conclusions. These conclusions were first made public after he received a call from a fund manager from the City: 'Monckton, climate change. What d'you think?'

Monckton told him. 'I said basically I think there is very little for us to worry about at all,' he says, brightly, which no doubt comes as a great relief to the anxious majority of the world's population. 'I said the weakness in the "consensus" argument is that they haven't been able to quantify accurately what the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is. I said there are so many uncertainties that the exaggerated figures we are getting of up to 10C increase in temperature by the end of the century are simply not plausible in any calculation you would care to do.'...

Monckton's opinion of his putative opponent is not a generous one. 'You don't get to be Vice-President of the United States if you are a halfwit, so you have to assume this is an act,' he says. 'But his film is hilariously, absurdly, seriously and materially inaccurate!...

Monckton moves easily from the philosophy of science, quoting Weber and Popper ('You can't prove any hypothesis, you can only improve or disprove it') to the fact that Edward Lorenz, the father of chaos theory, which demonstrated the fundamental unpredictability of complex systems, took the example of meteorology...

Some of Monckton's argument is familiar - medieval warming, sun spots, the presence of graveyards in Greenland under permafrost - some less so - the reminder that in the 1970s, the panic was 'global cooling'. He suggests I read all manner of arcane papers, which I subsequently do, and end up not much wiser. His major gripe with Al Gore's film - a fair one - is that it ignores the 'developing nations'. While Gore insists we should turn off our TV stand-bys, China plans to open a coal-fired power plant every five days. This, Monckton says, proves that Gore is not serious about the science...

Two things are evident from all this. The first is that Monckton has done the homework. When I mention Naomi Oreskes's famous evaluation of 928 articles referencing 'climate change' that 'proved' the consensus of catastrophe among scientists, he announces not only that he has read the 928 articles in question and would argue 'only 1 per cent explicitly predict doom, while 3 per cent are specifically sceptical of apocalyptic ideas', but also that he has sent a further 8,500 related articles to be evaluated by a team of two dozen scientists across the globe.

The second is that he suffers an extreme case of the patrician sense that good breeding and a decent classical education equip you for anything, even for outwitting the collective intelligence of the world's best scientific brains (which is also, no doubt, the motivation behind the wager of his jigsaw puzzles). In his Sunday Telegraph article, he announced his lack of 'paper qualifications' as if such things were beneath a man of his quality, the preserve of the 'leftists on campuses'. It is telling that the other two major political voices who share his scepticism belong to the father-and-son team of Nigel and Dominic Lawson, part of Monckton's extended family.

Some of his - and their - anger is directed at David Cameron. 'We have a Conservative party that is functionally dead ... or at least David Cameron seems to have decided that the only way to get elected is to appear as much like Tony Blair in 1997 as possible. So he has adopted his goofy green agenda.' There is, as a result, no political debate on these issues as there is in America...

Does he think he has ever been wrong about anything at all?

He ponders for a long moment. 'Not on the big ones, no!'

So what will happen, does he imagine, to the current 'big one'?

'Well,' he says, breezily, 'for a few years, the temperature will continue to rise, but nowhere near as fast as the alarmists would wish it to rise. Then solar physicists suggest that in the next solar cycle but one, and a solar cycle is about 10.6 years, there will be a considerable cooling of the Sun. And the panic will disappear.' Hey presto."

Monckton saves the day!

Winner Sarkozy promises a (green?) revolution.

Marcus's picture

Newly elected President Sarkozy gets on the Global Warming bandwagon. Oh well. I hope he gets distracted by the fight against the unions before he does any economic damage on that unproven issue Smiling

"Mr Sarkozy, who has angered France's political elite by extolling America's low-tax, hard-work economy, praised the US but signalled future clashes over the issue of climate change.

"I want to tell them that France will always be by their side when they will need her," he said.

"But I want to tell them as well that friendship is accepting that one's friends can act differently, and that a great nation like the United States has the duty to not obstruct the fight against global warming but, on the contrary, to head this struggle because what is at stake is the future of all humanity.

"France will make this struggle its first struggle."...

In Paris, riot police clashed with demonstrators who shouted "no justice" and sprayed graffiti reading "Sarko 2007 = Hitler 1933".

Looks like...

Mitch's picture

you've got your own real life Gestapo there Marcus?

"Homes that were losing the most heat were represented as bright red on the map"

So if you turn the heating up high and open your windows, you can show them how fucking angry you are?

Spy plane employed to shame owners of heat-loss homes.

Marcus's picture

"Spy-in-the-sky cameras are being used to identify householders who are wasting the most energy and to shame them into turning the central heating down.

Thermal images of homes have been taken by a light aircraft fitted with military spy technology to record the heat escaping from people’s houses.

Maps identifying individual homes have now been placed on the internet to encourage occupiers to reduce their wastage and carbon emissions by fitting insulation and turning the thermostat down.

Haringey Council, in London, has become the first authority in England to place house-by-house thermal maps on the web, after the example of Aberdeen in Scotland.

Making the information available to the public is intended to raise awareness of how much energy is being used needlessly, putting up bills and contributing to global warming.

It is hoped that homeowners with high wastage levels will be shamed into improving the property’s insulation."

Readers responses to GGWS DVD story...

Marcus's picture

...from the Guardian.

You report that "climate scientists" are trying to stop the sale of the DVD of the "Great Global Warming Swindle" (Report, April 25). Disregarding such a disgraceful attempt at censorship, in what age are these gents living? The film has been on YouTube for weeks.

Emeritus Professor Philip Stott
Gravesend, Kent

The bid to censor the global warming DVD shows how right the filmmakers were to make it. It is ironic to have Dr Allen state "science is about the arguments, not the people who make them". Why then is he afraid to let the arguments do just that: speak for themselves?

Dr E J Zuiderwijk

Celebrity "Earth Day" hypocrisy

Kenny's picture

Exposed on the Jon Stewart's "Daily Show". When the Green lobby is ridiculed by the liberal media, there is still hope that environmental statism can be stopped.

Worthless carbon credits

Kenny's picture

The Financial Times has exposed the fraud of carbon credits. Al Gore will be livid!

A big surprise: the polar bears' picnic

Marcus's picture

"When David Miliband sends every school in the country a copy of Al Gore's Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth, to alert our children to the horrors of global warming, he had better instruct teachers to avert their charges' gaze from the drama making front-page news in Canada.

The May blossom may be out three weeks early in England, but for three weeks off the coast of Newfoundland, a fleet of seal boats - bent on culling the seals that are a major threat to Canada's fish stocks - have been trapped in the worst ice for decades. Thanks to global warming, it has been so cold that about 40 are frozen in, and not a few, as their crews are winched to safety by helicopter, will have to be abandoned.

As the pupils watch Al Gore's heart-rending sequence on the plight of the polar bears, doomed by the vanishing Arctic ice, their gaze will also have to be averted from the latest study by the US National Biological Service, which finds that polar bears in Alaska are increasing in numbers to the limit that their environment can sustain.

This confirms last year's report by Mitchell Taylor that, of the 13 polar bear groups in eastern Canada, 11 are increasing in numbers, only two declining - one of these, on west Hudson Bay, being the one the global warming doomsayers concentrate on.

It is clearly vital that our schoolchildren's ability to think for themselves should not be undermined by alerting them to such inconvenient truths."

Pope goes green on climate change too.

Marcus's picture

"The Vatican yesterday added its voice to a rising chorus of warnings from churches around the world that climate change and abuse of the environment is against God's will, and that the one billion-strong Catholic church must become far greener.

At a Vatican conference on climate change, Pope Benedict urged bishops, scientists and politicians - including UK environment secretary David Miliband - to "respect creation" while "focusing on the needs of sustainable development".

The Pope's message follows a series of increasingly strong statements about climate change and the environment, including a warning earlier this year that "disregard for the environment always harms human coexistence, and vice versa"...

The Catholic church is just one major faith group now rapidly moving environment to the fore of its social teachings. "Climate change, biotechnology, trade justice and pollution are all now being debated at a far higher level by the world's major religions," said Martin Palmer, secretary general of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (Arc).

In some cases the debate is dividing traditionalists from younger congregations. In the US the diverse 50m-strong conservative evangelical churches are increasingly at war about the human contribution to global warming.

Many evangelical leaders say they are still not convinced that global warming is human-induced and have argued that the collapse of the world is inevitable and will herald the second coming of Christ.

But most younger leaders have broken ranks. About four years ago the progressives began to argue strongly that man had a responsibility to steward the earth. Redefining environmentalism as "creation care", they are now lobbying President Bush and the US administration to take global warming far more seriously.

"They are the most effective lobby," said one observer yesterday. "They represent the conservative vote so Bush has to listen to them."

Sheryl Crow accused of hypocrisy after 'limit toilet paper' plea

Marcus's picture

From the Daily Mail...

"She was widely ridiculed for suggesting a limit on toilet paper usage in her bid to wipe out global warming.

Now singer Sheryl Crow is facing further embarrassment after being accused of hypocrisy because of her own carbon footprint.

The 45-year-old's demands when she performs include an astonishing four buses, three tractor trailers and six cars."

Move to stop the release of 'Great GW Swindle' DVD.

Marcus's picture

There is nothing so dangerous as the truth, eh?

"Dozens of climate scientists are trying to block the DVD release of a controversial Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming is nothing to do with human greenhouse gas emissions.

Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office, and Bob May, former president of the Royal Society, are among 37 experts who have called for the DVD to be heavily edited or removed from sale. The film, the Great Global Warming Swindle, was first shown on March 8, and was criticised by scientists as distorted and misleading.

In an open letter to Martin Durkin, head of Wag TV, the independent production company that made the film, the scientists say: "We believe that the misrepresentation of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest ... In fact, so serious and fundamental are the misrepresentations that the distribution of the DVD of the programme without their removal amounts to nothing more than an exercise in misleading the public."...

Mr Durkin said: "This contemptible attempt at gagging won't work. The reason they want to suppress The Great Global Warming Swindle is because the science has stung them. By comparison look at the mountains of absurd nonsense pedalled in the name of 'manmade climate change'. Too many scientists have staked their reputations and built their careers on global warming. There's a lot riding on this ridiculous theory. The DVD will be on sale shortly at a shop near you."

Move to block emissions 'swindle' DVD.

Paper tiger

JoeM's picture

She can't spare a square? She doesn't have a square to spare?


Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Sheryl Crow:one piece of toilet paper per visit will save planet

Marcus's picture

What will the onion do for material now that Sheryl Crow's Global Warming hysteria has out-trumped them for laughs?

Karl Rove should be given an award!

"The singer Sheryl Crow opened a new front in the fight on global warming yesterday with a call for people to use only one sheet of toilet paper after each visit.

Her demand for a ban on excessive paper use came after a heated exchange with Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political adviser, at a dinner in Washington on Saturday. When Crow approached him to demand that he take global warming more seriously, she placed her hand on his arm. According to Crow, Mr Rove immediately spat: “Don’t touch me!” ...

Ms Crow and Laurie David, a big Democratic donor and producer of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, approached Rove at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner to urge him to take a “fresh look” at global warming. Rove reacted angrily, they said. “I am floored by what I just experienced with Karl Rove,” Ms David said. “I’ve never had anyone be so rude.” He had behaved like “a spoiled child throwing a tantrum”, she said.

Mr Rove said of Ms David: “She came over to insult me and she succeeded.”

The White House described their behaviour as “Hollywood histrionics.”

Save world one square at a time – and annoy Bush’s brain.

Bloomberg proposes congestion charge for NY.

Marcus's picture

"Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York, tomorrow is expected to unveil his vision for the city over the next 25 years, which includes more than 100 proposals, the most contentious of which will be congestion pricing.

Although precise details are still being finalised, the New York Times reported yesterday that he plans to charge drivers a fee of up to $8 (£4) to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan...

Mr Bloomberg’s speech tomorrow, setting out the priorities for his final 32 months in office, will also have a strongly green tint to it. He is expected to call for the refurbishment of New York’s aging bridges, water mains, transit system, power plants and building codes to help to reduce the strain on natural resources.

The Earth Day speech will propose tax breaks for making buildings more energy-efficient and the construction of another rail tunnel under the Hudson River, as well as promising that revenue from the congestion charge will be used for public transport improvements."

Sir Tim has always been sound

Kenny's picture

Sir Tim was a staunch supporter of the Conservative Party, especially during Lady Thatcher's leadership. He recently declared (in a letter to the Telegraph I think) that he was not with David Cameron's leadership. Cameron is campaigning under the slogan "Vote Blue Go Green". Al Gore addressed the Shadow Cabinet last month. Sir Tim's letter could be viewed as a subtle dig at Cameron too.

Wow! Tim Rice (of West End fame) criticises Gore's Rockers.

Marcus's picture

From Letters to the Editor in "the Daily Telegraph"....

Sir - It seems that virtually every major rock act, and several minor ones, have signed up to be part of the seven-concert Live Earth inter-continental assault on climate change on July 7 (News, April 17).

Of course, no one would be unkind enough to suggest that any of these gallant fighters against impending doom have signed up because it is a good career move, but one does wonder why there does not seem to be a single person in the music business who disagrees, even slightly, with Al Gore and Co about global warming. There are plenty of people in other businesses, eg science, who do.

Rock music used to be about rebellion: it is now depressingly conservative and predictable.

Sir Tim Rice, London SW13

Sir - Any school considering showing Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth at the instruction of David Miliband (Letters, April 19), should be reminded of its legal responsibility under the terms of the Education Act 1996.

This prohibits "partisan views on any subject". Article 407.1 states that schools must ensure that "where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils, they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views".

Channel 4 produced a documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle presenting a scientific opposite view to Al Gore's film. Any parents who believe their children should be given both sides of global warming theories should ask the headteacher or the governing body to obtain the DVD of that programme.

Harry Randall, Cerne Abbas, Dorset

An Inconvenient Truth is 'unfit for schools'!!!

Marcus's picture

First heartening resistance to Government funded enviro-propaganda from the public...

"Government plans to distribute the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth throughout British schools have met with staunch opposition from a lone group of parents in the New Forest. The education secretary, Alan Johnson, announced in February that the film, which features former US vice president Al Gore, will form part of a climate change pack that will be sent out to every secondary school as an aid to promote discussion on global warming. But a group of concerned New Forest parents have labelled the documentary inaccurate propaganda that breaches the Education Act 2002 and are threatening legal action. Their spokesman, Derek Tripp, today told the Telegraph newspaper: "The film goes well beyond the consensus view and is not therefore suitable material to present to children who need to be given clear and balanced, factually accurate information."

Second, more disgusting enviro-propaganda from Blair's Government at the UN security council...

"Some 52 countries lined up to speak in the debate which Britain initiated as it holds the rotating presidency of the council. Mrs Beckett told reporters before speaking: "This is an issue which threatens the peace and security of the whole planet - this has to be the right place to debate it."
Inside the forum, Mrs Beckett said that recent scientific evidence reinforced, or even exceeded, the worst fears about climate change. She warned of migration on an "unprecedented scale" because of flooding, disease and famine. Drought and crop failure could cause intensified competition for food, water and energy while the economic destruction could be comparable to the second world war or the great depression, she said.

"Climate change is a security issue but it is not a matter of narrow national security - it has a new dimension," she said. "This is about our collective security in a fragile and increasingly interdependent world."

The foreign secretary quoted remarks made by President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda that global warming is "an act of aggression by the rich against the poor".

Blair and Merkel are a pair of deluded busybodies!

Marcus's picture

From the Independent...

"Blair and Merkel lean on Bush to join battle against climate change."

"President George Bush is coming under unprecedented pressure from Tony Blair and the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to agree to tough new international measures to stop global warming accelerating out of control.

The measures are contained in a strongly worded draft communiqué for June's G8 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany - obtained by The Independent on Sunday - which warns that "tackling climate change is an imperative, not a choice". It adds that if "resolute and concerted international action" is not "urgently" taken, global warming will become "largely unmanageable".

The United States and Canada are resisting key elements of the draft, but Mrs Merkel is determined not to water it down. She is backed by the Prime Minister, who is ringing Mr Bush weekly to try to persuade him to change his position.

The draft warns that "global warming caused largely by human activities is accelerating" and that it "will seriously damage our common natural environment and severely weaken [the] global economy, with implications for international security".

It says climate change has already progressed so far that the world will "have to face severe impacts" from it, even if immediate action is taken. But it adds that these will become predominantly unmanageable if the rise in temperature is not kept at 2C or below - the maximum increase that most scientists agree can be tolerated.

It promises "strong and early action" to hit this target, and says that this will involve cutting worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases in half by 2050. It commits developed countries to taking the lead, but adds that developing ones will also have to make "fair contributions" to the reduction. And it contains a lengthy section on how to reduce emissions through greater energy efficiency.

The United States is at present refusing to agree to any target for limiting global warming, and the issue will come to a head at a crucial preparatory meeting for the summit on 4 May."

"But it adds that these will become predominantly unmanageable if the rise in temperature is not kept at 2C or below - the maximum increase that most scientists agree can be tolerated."

Just shows you how evil Blair and Merkel are! They really think they can keep global temperatures static through Government legislation! Global temperatures have never been static even without man-made industry, why should they be so now? Blair and Merkel are well and truly a pair of deluded busybodies!

Governator aims to make green issues 'sexy'

Marcus's picture

Sickening Schwarzenegger!!!

"In a speech in Washington last week, Mr Schwarzenegger called for environmental campaigners to make the issue "sexy".

He told the audience at Georgetown University: "We have to make it mainstream, we have to make it sexy, we have to make it attractive so that everyone wants to participate."

Last week, he warned fellow Republicans to join the green campaign, or risk losing their seats. "Your political base will melt away as surely as the polar ice caps," he said.

"Why Schwarz is the new green"

Arnie is fast overtaking Al Gore as the planet's foremost eco warrior. Should we buy it?

Lucy Siegle
Sunday April 15, 2007
The Observer

If everyone loves a celebrity turned politician, we positively lose the plot over one who then goes green. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the muscle man with a penchant for fat cigars and even fatter cars, is now the Emissions Terminator. Last week he graced the cover of Newsweek, a globe balanced on his finger, with the slogan: 'Save the Planet or Else'. Later this year he will beef up David Cameron's green credentials by appearing as the star turn at the Tory Party Conference in Blackpool. Tony Blair should be hurt. Just months ago Arnie proclaimed him, 'a real action hero' for his work on busting emissions.

Article continues



Until recently, Schwarzenegger was regarded as a bit of a Swampy-come-Lately, his nascent interest connected to his bid for the 2003 governorship of green-minded California. Certainly his eco passions were cleverly disguised by a reputed collection of seven gas-guzzling Humvee military vehicles, which he was happy to popularise as run-around cars for morons everywhere.
We now learn, however, that his passion for green can be traced to his Austrian upbringing, with rationed food and electricity and bath water drawn from a well. 'I'm a conservation fanatic,' he has said. 'I can't walk out of a room without turning off the lights. I can't stand it when the kids spend longer than five minutes in the shower.' He was apparently horrified when he arrived in LA in 1968 to mounds of rubbish and dense smog. The Hummers are now 'in storage'. And these days Arnie even offsets the emissions pumped out by the private jet that takes him from his home in LA to his office in Sacramento each week (though many environmentalists consider offsetting as useful as a chocolate teapot)."

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.

Marcus's picture

By the way, has anyone read this book (mentioned below) written by Christopher C. Horner?

There are going...

Mitch's picture

to be a lot of people with a lot of egg on face when this movement dies. We must not let anyone forget who these Climate Nazis were.

Climate cooler :-)

Marcus's picture

Good news from the Daily Telegraph Smiling

"Climate cooler

David Cameron has embraced the environmental agenda with greater ardour than any other political leader, even inviting Al Gore to address the shadow cabinet recently, after publicly lauding his film, An Inconvenient Truth.

But one outspoken Tory, MEP Roger Helmer, is eager to distinguish himself from the rest.

Helmer has organised a "counter-consensual climate conference" in Brussels next week, which will see former chancellor Lord Lawson head a line-up of sceptics, including the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.

"Many climatologists reject the alarmist scenario, and there have been disgraceful efforts by the establishment to silence the dissenters," Helmer tells Spy. "I've decided to organise the conference to give a platform to the other side of the issue. David Cameron wants us to put an extra focus on the environment and I'm delighted to help in that process."

And Gore's Oscar-winning documentary certainly won't be showing. "The event will be followed by a screening of the recent Channel 4 film, The Great Global Warming Swindle."

Irony alert

Peter Cresswell's picture

"Now Al Gore is hoping to help to save the planet with a day of global concerts designed to raise awareness of climate change."

This would be the same Lord Bore of Nashville whose wife Tipper wanted to have much of this "modern" music banned? Sing "ho!" for the new free speech!

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

A problem with Garth

Peter Cresswell's picture

Problem with Garth is that he KNOWS it ain't so because God sent a rainbow to tell him so.

True story.


Cheers, Peter Cresswell

Philly FOX weatherman "outs" himself

JoeM's picture

David Aldrich of Philadelphia's Fox station weather team comes out against global warming! Smiling


Finally in the NZ Herald

JulianD's picture

Garth George has been doing some research on global warming. Really good commentary in The NZ Herald. Smiling


At least there's a funny side :-)

Marcus's picture

You can't be active...without...well...being active Smiling

"About a hundred artists will require transporting by air to their respective concerts, to be staged in London, Sydney, Brazil, South Africa, Japan, Shanghai and New Jersey. And complaints about Live Earth have begun to surface on the internet, with bloggers asking if pop stars and their taste for conspicuous consumption are the best advocates for cutting fossil fuel emissions...

Each singer will receive a "green briefing" on how they can change lifestyles to minimise their own, often above-average, carbon footprints. The briefing to which singers have agreed - to ensure they practise what they preach on 7 July when messages on the danger of global warming will be beamed to 2 billion people at the 24-hour concert - comes amid concerns that those delivering the green message are the worst offenders. Organisers have defended the concerts, which are the brainchild of the former US vice-president Al Gore, which aim to set a "green example" for other music events by using measures such as eco-friendly electricity, sustainable lighting and carbon-neutral travel. Mr Gore has come under attack for high energy consumption at his home.

In May, Mr Picard will begin a "briefings" programme with every artist taking part in Live Earth, by visiting their homes or offices for a "sustainability consultation". "You have to walk the walk. You can't get up there and tell the public to save the planet but leave in a big car to go to your big home," he said. He has already advised artists to trade in their vehicles for hybrid cars.

Ashok Sinha, director of Stop Climate Chaos, a group involved in the event, said: "Carbon will be produced, but it enables us to reach out to large numbers of people who will be encouraged to learn about how they can reduce their carbon footprint, so it will be worth the carbon."

Live Earth to preach green-gospel to 2bn!

Marcus's picture

Even more disgusting Gore and his green fascist band-wagon!

"It took Bob Geldof’s persuasive powers to rally support in aid of Africa. Now Al Gore is hoping to help to save the planet with a day of global concerts designed to raise awareness of climate change.

Madonna and the Police will be the star attractions at a series of concerts stretching from London to Shanghai organised by Mr Gore, the former US Vice-President, to raise awareness of climate change.

More than 100 acts will take part on five continents in the Live Earth event, scheduled to take place on July 7. The organisers hope to reach an audience of two billion people via television, radio and the internet."

Disgusting Nats

Lindsay Perigo's picture

From: Lesley Hamilton
Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2007 2:24 p.m.
Subject: PR:Nsmith - Climate change report expose govt inaction

Hon Nick Smith MP
National Party Climate Change spokesman

10 April 2007

Climate change report exposes govt inaction

“The Government should be deeply embarrassed at the lack of action and policy in the wake of today’s major United Nations report on climate change”, says National’s Climate Change spokesman Nick Smith.

“This report identifies quite catastrophic impacts for the climate over the next century, yet New Zealand’s emissions and deforestation are growing at record rates.”

Under Labour, New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions increased by 1.2 million tonnes per year between 1999 and 2006 compared to 0.8 million tonnes per year under National from 1990 to 1999. This 6.8% growth for New Zealand under Labour compares to growth of 1.3% in the United States, 5% in Australia and a drop of 1% in the United Kingdom.

“The Government has talked carbon neutrality but overseen the building of new oil and gas fired power stations and a trebling in the amount of electricity produced from burning coal,” says Dr Smith.

“Labour is the first Government in 50 years that is chain sawing more trees than are being planted. The rate of deforestation at over 10,000 hectares per year is a climate change disaster.”

“Climate change policy has been one botch-up after another with the billion dollar bungle over New Zealand’s Kyoto balance, the debacles over the animal emissions levy and carbon tax, and the abandonment of the projects to reduce emissions and negotiated greenhouse gas agreements with major industry.

“This Government has been long on rhetoric about climate change but incredibly short on action.

“National wants a tradable emissions permit system that will cap and then reduce emissions. We want foresters to receive credits for the carbon absorbed from the trees to reverse the record rate of deforestation. We would also toughen up on the building code to improve energy efficiency, encourage more fuel efficient cars and provide incentives to farmers to use more climate friendly fertilisers.

“National’s ‘Bluegreen’ approach to climate change is about making it worthwhile for households and businesses to reduce emissions and plant trees.”


Inquiries: Nick Smith 027 547 2314
Refer: National’s Bluegreen vision for New Zealand

A dangerous climate!

Marcus's picture

Bob Carter, a research professor at James Cook University, Australia and former chair of the Earth Sciences Panel of the Australian Research Council and former Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Programme, argues in the Daily Telegraph that the claims made by the IPCC for GW are exaggerated and unproven.

Will it make a difference to the media response to the IPCC report? Probably not!

"The latest IPCC report, published on Friday, is the most alarming yet: not for its claims of human-caused global warming, writes the leading environmental scientist Bob Carter, but for its lack of scientific rigour."

"In the present state of knowledge, no scientist can justify the statement: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due [90 per cent probable] to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations," as stated in the 2007 SPM...

That 20th-century warming, the most recent of many previous warm phases of similar or greater magnitude, was dangerous or human-caused, or even that the warming has continued after 1998, both yet remain to be demonstrated."

A dangerous climate.

They're not.  They're going

Duncan Bayne's picture

They're not.  They're going to blank it out, along with anyone who mentions it.


Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Bloody Martians!

Jameson's picture

Bastards must have their factories hidden under the polar caps... out of Al Gore's sight!

Well spotted Mitch! How are they gonna roll that one into their GW conspiracy?

Hearing that just makes me wanna...

Mitch's picture

go Ragnar on the world Smiling It's absolutely disgraceful that the Al Gore's can have such an influence on, well, everything! What to do, what to do?

Thanks for that Mitch...

Marcus's picture

...unfortunately though in the UK, after a brief respite following the documentary, the media seem to be going back to their old ways. Firstly they have so-far ignored the nature paper and secondly have been running photos all this week of supposedly "drowning" baby seals and polar bears due to Global Warming.

The Guardian has gone as far as to run an article proposing to put CO2 emissions on a par with smoking. Even the US seems to following the same path (see post below). Depressing. Really depressing.

"Adverts for flights, holidays and cars should carry cigarette-style warnings to help cure the public’s “addiction” to polluting forms of transport, a thinktank urged today.

Clearly visible messages such as “Flying causes climate change” could put some consumers off air travel in the same way that smokers are deterred by health warnings on cigarette packets, a new report on global warming suggests.

In addition to the warnings on adverts and at airports, carbon offsetting charges should be included in flight fares, with passengers forced to opt out rather than opt in, the Institute for Public Policy Research demanded in its latest report."

Calls for cigarette-style warnings for flights.

Mars Study Suggests GW not Man-Caused!

Mitch's picture

I just read this on the Ninemsn news site in Australia.

"Global warming activists were dealt an inconvenient blow yesterday, with a new US study revealing that Mars is also heating up — without the help of humans.

According to the study, surface air temperatures on the Red Planet increased by 0.65 C during from the 1970s to the 1990s. Earth experienced a similar temperature rise of 0.6C during the same period."

Coincidence? I don't think so! Also, very refreshing to see this reported as one of the top stories in the mainstream Australian media. The tide is turning!

The link for the full story:

US supreme court overrules Bush's refusal to restrict C02!

Marcus's picture

Damn!! Where's Reisman when you need him?

"The US supreme court yesterday issued a landmark ruling in favour of environmentalists and against George Bush's stance on global warming. The court judged that the federal Environmental Protection Agency had the power through a clean air law to restrict exhaust emissions, and told the agency to re-examine the issue."

Chairman of LSE is GW sceptic!

Marcus's picture

Chris Gibson Smith, Chairman of the London Stock Exchange and a former group managing director at BP, debunks GW theory in the Telegraph, but has an unusual theory that we are in fact in the middle of an ice-age!?

"Against this backdrop, I risk being branded a heretic for sharing my views. But I do so as someone with an above average commitment to the environment and understanding of the issues at hand; as a practising Earth scientist for 20 years, with a PhD in Earth chemistry; as a former member of the Sustainability Commission; and having sat on a number of business forums on the environment.

To begin to understand climate change, it needs to be emphasised that we are actually in the middle of an ice age. We are in a warm phase of that ice age, but we are definitely in an ice age, and what is clear is that we can expect to go back towards a period of deep cooling again, possibly within the next 1,000 years. Indeed, between the 1950s and 1970s, when the planet last experienced a period of cooling, scientists were worried that we were moving back into the next major ice pulse. When this cooling does happen, the northern half of the Northern hemisphere may become uninhabitable."

Comrade Gore recruits international foot soldiers...

Marcus's picture envirofascist cause.

"Sir Alex Ferguson joins Gore's climate A-team"

David Adam
Thursday March 29, 2007
The Guardian

The scientists have warned of the dangers and the politicians have promised to act, but Al Gore is still not satisfied the world is taking climate change seriously enough. The answer, the former US vice-president has reasoned, could be Sir Alex Ferguson. The Manchester United manager was one of 150 or so high-level individuals brought to Cambridge this week to meet Mr Gore, who taught them to deliver their own version of An Inconvenient Truth, his Oscar-winning film on global warming.

His other "climate leaders" included Charles Dunstone, chief executive of Carphone Warehouse, Vivienne Cox, chief executive of BP, and Father Sean McDonagh, a priest and eco-theologian. In a letter to each, Mr Gore says: "I hope that you will be first of many deeply concerned citizens who will receive this training in the UK and spread the message to deal with this looming threat to our planet, neighbours and way of life."
Gore's campaign has won him legions of new admirers. But the world is a big place, the peril urgent and he has limited time. And some believe he could have other things on his mind, such as another crack at the White House.

So he is recruiting an international army to complete his work. Nearly 1,000 people in the US and Australia have already been given the materials to present his slide show on the basics of global warming, on which An Inconvenient Truth is based. He is now drawing up plans for China (including, he jokes, how to stop speakers being arrested)."

UK Environment Minister hasn't watched docu!!!

Marcus's picture

Blair's secretary of state for environment, David Milliband, proves he is a complete moron by not having watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle". His excuse is that he "only got a D in physics."

This is the same uneducated moron who is proposing individual "carbon credits" for all UK citizens and that a copy of Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" be sent to all schools.

With uneducated power-trip eco-fascits like Milliband in Blair's Government, who needs Dem Scum?

"Tellingly, after his Today fiasco, Miliband dispatched government wordsmiths to roll out 1,657 words attempting to refute the programme’s arguments on his website. Even they agreed that “changes in solar radiation are a significant driver of the climate”."

Republicans accuse Gore of environment hype.

Marcus's picture

Maybe you're right Robert..but politicians like Gore would be funny if the consequences of their "beliefs" were not so tragic. At least in the US there seems to be opposition to these anti-GW measures, despite the democrats trying to undermine it!

Republicans accuse Gore of environment hype.

"Mr Gore, returning to Congress for the first time since handing over power to George W Bush, has always been most sure-footed on the environment, which he championed early in his career.

"The US is the natural leader of the world and the world is facing a truly planetary crisis," he said. "There is hope in the whole country that the US Congress will rise to the occasion and present a meaningful solution to this crisis."

The whole country evidently does not include Joe Barton, a Republican from oil-producing Texas, who questioned Mr Gore about several claims in his film, the third highest grossing documentary ever.

Why did Mr Gore say sea levels would rise by 23ft, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was 23in, Mr Barton demanded. Why did he link malaria in Nairobi to global warming? Why did he link more hurricanes to a hotter planet?

He asked if Mr Gore exaggerated his case out of concern that "your issue must compete for attention and resources with others that are already compelling and do not need Hollywood hyperbole?"

A distinguished group of American scientists has already accused the Tennessee politician of smoothing over the science to enhance his claims, while a conservative research group has claimed that Mr Gore's 28-room home in Nashville consumes more electricity in a month than the average American household uses in a year.

A spokesman for Mr Gore said he was taking measures to make his house greener.

Time limits on his answers to members of the energy and commerce committee prevented Mr Gore from replying to Mr Barton in detail.

"We have had 10 of the hottest years on record since 1990. The planet has a fever and if your baby has a fever you take it to the doctor," he said.

Mr Gore was invited to appear before the committee by the Democrats, who are attempting to raise climate change to the top of the political agenda.

He presented 12 proposals for legislation, including reducing income taxes in favour of green taxes, a moratorium on coal-fired plants, and a 90 per cent reduction in America's CO2 emissions by 2050.

The latter suggestion baffled members of the committee, including Democrats, as being far too ambitious and likely to cause an economic collapse."


Robert's picture

Will get gored if he has a go. Somehow I can't see him going against the wife of his former running mate. That could get REALLY messy. Hillary has enough money in her campaign account to bury him for good.

On second thoughts, if he did have a go, his opponents would likely attack the most tenuous of his global warming assertions... Maybe he should run!

Al Gore for President...

Marcus's picture

...hopes the Independent. Vile!!!

"How times change. Even though he has stated he does not intend to run again, polls suggest Mr Gore would be one of the favoured candidates among Democrats, challenging the popularity of Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. His position is strengthened by his record on the Iraq war, which he always opposed.

But it is the issue of global warming that Mr Gore has really made his own.

On this topic, his position has been less one of reinvention rather than increasingly speaking out on an issue to which he has long sought to draw attention."

"Communism was replaced by the threat of environmentalism."

Marcus's picture

Czech President Vaclav Klaus in a response to a US Congress committee calls Environmentalism the new Communism, reports the "Daily Mail".

"Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism." says Czech President.

"The policymakers are pushed to follow this media-driven hysteria based on speculative and hard evidence lacking theories, and to adopt enormously costly programs ... in order to stop the probably unstoppable climate changes, caused not by human behavior but by various ... natural processes," he said."

Czech president says 'ambitious environmentalism' threatens freedom and democracy'.

There is cause for some optimism.

Marcus's picture

Thanks for that Glenn.

Some of the UK media (such as the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail) are starting to wake up to the propaganda attack of the Greens. The general voters are getting worried as well. It has been widely reported that:

"Recent polls have found that two thirds of Britons fear politicians will use climate change as the excuse to raise taxes and 60 per cent oppose higher levies on cheap flights."

Even some politicians have joined in (and see post above). The EU commission president is against the flight taxes and personal carbon rationing:

"Britain's mainstream political agenda on climate change risks intruding into people's lives, threatens individual freedom and could turn voters off the fight against global warming, Mr Barroso warns...

Mr Barroso hails cheap air travel as "a great thing for our civilisation" and expresses grave concerns over fashionable plans, floated by Mr Miliband (UK Minister for Environment), for personal carbon rationing."

UK's climate change agenda 'is a turn-off' '

More from Cox & Forkum:

Jameson's picture

Death threats for 'climate deniers'

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community. They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Full Telegraph report

Three cheers for Mother Nature!

Jameson's picture

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite.

The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition. ...

Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, than Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.
"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said. ...

Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

Brown vs. Cameron..

Marcus's picture

Tories are worrying about Camerons enviro-fascism - while the green lobby are telling Brown he has to be more enviro-fascist.

"David Cameron is spoiling for a fight with his party, amid signs of growing frustration among the Conservative high command that the rank and file does not share his vision for Britain.

The Conservative leader used his party’s spring conference in Nottingham to face down grumbling over the decision to introduce green taxes on flights. “It’s only clear you mean it when you do the tough things as well. Like telling the truth about climate change,” Mr Cameron said.

Outside the hall there were signs of divisions between the leadership and members. Activists feared that too much time was being devoted to the environment..."

"Environmental groups have accused Gordon Brown of failing to be bold in his approach to climate change.

The Commons Environmental Audit Committee suggested yesterday that Mr Brown had failed to respond adequately to the “increasing risks of major and irreversible impacts from climate change”.

At the same time, green groups called on Mr Brown to use his last Budget tomorrow to create a “green legacy”. They responded to the disclosure in The Times yesterday that the Chancellor is planning to increase taxes on gas-guzzling cars as a welcome but insufficient reaction to the growing fears about global warming."

The Tide Turns?

Jameson's picture

Well spotted Julian, a fantastic rebuttal!

I think you're right Ross - the earth herself will expose these eco-schiesters sooner or later and stop their gravy train in its tracks. Unfortunately chaos and climate are a coin-toss, and if we keep seeing devastating hurricanes (which we will) then this will serve to feed their scam.

All the more reason for the debate - good news Marcus.

Global Warming! We didn't listen!

JoeM's picture

It's funny, now that the millenium has past, and neither the Rapture nor the Y2K disaster happened, it's now global warming that poses an immediate threat (well, that and the "theocracy. Sticking out tongue ) It's so reminiscent of the first pages of ATLAS: The calendar seemed to say "your days are numbered."

"With all due respect, cliché dissenting Republican, the economy isn't going to matter... the day after tomorrow!"

And it's all George Bush's fault, because he didn't care about the beavers.

'The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so fe

JulianD's picture

'The Great Global Warming Swindle', broadcast by Channel 4, put the case for scepticism about man-made climate change. The programme sparked a heated debate and charges of scientific inaccuracy. Here, its director, Martin Durkin, responds to the critics.

Telegraph article



Ross Elliot's picture

..the hysteria is getting amped up because of one little problem that the warmists have: time. The clock is against them.

In my part of the world, we've had two cool summers in a row--my chile plants will testify to that--and a very cold winter is forecast. The standard joke is: thank goodness for global warming or we'd all be freezing.

So, the longer things go on relatively normal weather-wise, the harder it is for the warmists to maintain the illusion for even the most credulous. That's why they've come up with the uber-insane idea that warming is responsible for bad weather of *any* kind, including snow and ice.

The clock ticks, and they know it. It may even cause them to overplay their hand. Give 'em enough rope...

GW Hysteria!!!

Marcus's picture

While "the Guardian" followed up the BBC's story on overstated GW warnings criticised by Oxford scientists, "the Independent" chose at first to ignore it and then to smear them. Not surprising that "the Independent" are on the attack as they are one of the worst perpetrators of GW hysteria in the UK media. I think they have taken over this mantle even from the BBC!!!

The Guardian

"Leading climate change experts have warned of the 'Hollywoodisation' of global warning and criticised American scientists for exaggerating the message of global warming. Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier of the Royal Meteorolgical Society said scientists, campaign groups, politicians and the media were all guilty of making out that catastrophic events were likely when this could not be proved...

They singled out for criticism a report last month by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which said intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wild fires and storms were 'early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come'. 'It's certainly a very strong statement,' said Collier, warning that it was a bit too early to 'make the blanket assumption that all extreme weather events are increasing.'

Media reporting of the recent study written by the UN International Panel on Climate Change, was also criticised, especially for the use of words such as 'catastrophic', 'terrifying' and 'devastating' that were not in the report."

The Independent

"Sir John Houghton, former director-general of the Meteorological Office and chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, entered the debate over the seriousness of climate change after two meteorologists were reported as saying that "some scientists have been guilty of overplaying the available evidence". He said he agreed with the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, that it posed a greater threat than terrorism.

The comments of the two meteorologists, Professor Paul Hardaker and Professor Chris Collier, both of the Royal Meteorological Society - billed on Radio 4 as "leading experts on climate change" - threatened to revive the row over the scientific view of global warming after the broadcasting of Channel 4's polemic The Great Global Warming Swindle 10 days ago, which took issue with the view set out in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth...Some confusion surrounded the views of the RMS scientists yesterday after Prof Hardaker told the Independent that he could not think of a case where a scientist had overstated the position...He pointed out that he and his colleague were not experts on climate change."

Let's have a debate :-)

Marcus's picture

From Guardian Unlimited, Friday March 16 2007

"Channel 4 has commissioned a debate programme in response to row provoked by last week's documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. The exact title, format and scheduling of the debate show is still being finalised, but it will be broadcast on Channel 4 next month."

No free ride on the green bandwagon!

Marcus's picture

This article illustrates how far the Government sponsored international eco-madness is fucking up the world's economies. Capitalism is on the retreat even in the US. Scary shit!

"Tony Blair and Angela Merkel are competing for the antiglobal warming leadership of Europe. David Cameron is erecting a wind turbine on his house and targeting air travel, with people who fly most often (wealth-generating businessmen) to be taxed at the highest rate. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has converted one of his Hummers to hydrogen and another to biofuel. And George Bush is lavishing billions of taxpayers’ money on America’s already-cossetted farmers to get them to grow more corn...

All these plans have two features in common: rationing and new costs. Both Tory and Labour green campaigners favour issuing each of us a certain number of carbon credits, modelled on the ration books of the second world war. This rationing of carbon emissions means rationing energy, at least until new, unsubsidised technologies emerge, and will involve enforced used of fluorescent light bulbs, or switches on television sets, or an individual allocation of carbon credits to curtail travel. Such rationing apparently appeals to Old Labour types. “The current climate crisis gives the Labour party — never comfortable with the politics of postwar affluence — the opportunity to return to the politics of austerity,” writes Professor Mark Roodhouse of the University of York in support of applying to climate change “the Blitz spirit . . . this time to avert catastrophic climate change rather than Nazi invasion”...

Consider the simple matter of incandescent light bulbs, which the EU wants switched off by 2009. The European Lamp Companies Federation is ecstatic. Its president hailed the move: “These [energy-efficient] bulbs have been on the market for 15 years. Price has been a factor. If the EU sets minimum energy-effi-ciency standards, people will have to buy them.” No surprise that the industry is delighted to have government force people to buy a product they don’t want, at prices they consider too high...

All of these costs might be worth bearing if the threat is as immediate and overwhelming as the Al Gore-Sir Nicholas Stern faction believes. But it is neither: Gore guesses that sea levels will rise 20ft, and soon, while scientists estimate closer to 20in, and later. And the flaws in the Stern report have been pointed out by academics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and elsewhere, including many who do not oppose emissions-reducing policies.

So sensible policymakers will have to ignore the direst forecasters. And the noisiest. Hollywood stars such as Pierce Brosnan and Martin Sheen, leaders in the fight against global warming, are also leading the campaign against an offshore terminal that would allow California to import clean liquefied natural gas from Australia. And powerful American promoters of the virtues of ethanol are fighting to retain the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff that keeps cheaper ethanol from entering US markets...

Finally, it does make sense to consider the unintended consequences of any legislation. American policymakers’ infatuation with corn as a replacement for crude oil has driven corn prices so high that poor Mexicans can’t afford tortillas, and created such inflated incentives to plant more corn that forests are being chopped down to make space for it, and other acreage is being shifted from barley to biofuels, driving up the cost of beer. The new light bulbs will make reading more difficult and drive up demand for specs, and the cosmetics industry is said to be reformulating foundation makeups so that feminine beauty will be undimmed by the strange hue emitted by the new bulbs.

There are more such consequences, but you get the idea: think hard before jumping on the green bandwagon. There is no free ride."

Gore brings green message to Brown and Cameron.

Marcus's picture

Brown and Cameron compete to lick Al Gore's enviro-bum!

"Mr Gore had a private meeting with the Conservative shadow cabinet before seeing Mr Brown in Downing Street. He said that the UK could be proud of the "healthy political dialogue" in this country about climate change. He said he wished the debate in the US over climate change was as healthy.

He told the Tory front bench: "The fact that both your political parties are competing vigorously to offer solutions is very important. I can assure you that people around the world really are watching and are appreciating the quality of this debate."

After he had met Mr Cameron's team in the Commons, Mr Gore was taken by car to 11 Downing Street, where he was greeted by the Chancellor, who described him as an "inspiration" for his work on climate change. Mr Brown said he had known Mr Gore for 20 years, and said he had backed the environmental cause with "missionary" zeal.

"For the sake of the next generation we must become the environmental generation," Mr Brown added.

Mr Gore returned the compliment by saying that they had been "personal friends" for many years. "I've been honoured to be an adviser to the Government and I'm very grateful to the Chancellor for inviting me to play that role."

Gore brings green message to Brown and Cameron.


Jameson's picture

Some lovely bed-time reading there Marcus. Thanks for those comforters... Smiling

An interview with...

Marcus's picture

...Michael O'Leary, the boss of budget airline "Ryanair" in the Daily Telegraph.

"I came to Cheltenham on Ryanair with 188 other Irish passengers. The plane was full. I never take helicopters, don't trust the things, terrified of them.

But I am always seeing politicians whirling around in them. And Mr Brown rushes round his constituency in an SUV with a fleet of secret service cars at weekends, creating more emissions than me. There should be a tax on the Chancellor."

He compares the environment campaigners to the "CND nutters" in the 1970s. "They banged on about being against nuclear war, well we all were. But the point is you can't change the world by putting on a pair of dungarees or sandals. You need to look at the real culprits and begin negotiations with them."

So that's it. No wormeries, no recycling, no non-disposable nappies or organic porridge. "I listen to all this drivel about turning down the central heating, going back to candles, returning to the dark ages. You do that if you want to. But none of it will make any difference. It just panders to your middle-class, middle-aged angst and guilt."

Does he actually believe in global warming? "I don't think the advice of a bunch of UN scientists should be taken as gospel truth. Human breathing is one of the biggest problems as far as I can see, so why don't the environmentalists just shoot all the humans."

It's the hypocrisy that riles him. "These hairy environmentalists go to the health store to buy their organic strawberries flown in from South Africa. Why aren't they whacking a huge tax on bananas and grapes from half way round the world?

Why don't they eat British turnips all winter if they want to save air flights. Because they can't live without their scallops from Chile."

What about Mr Cameron? "If I were them I would stop competing over who is better at riding a bicycle and call for a serious debate on the next generation of nuclear power stations. Sticking a windmill on top of your house is not the answer."

'You can't change world by wearing sandals'

Damn straight Linz!

Marcus's picture

Tony Blair is soon going to look like a complete moron on climate change.

Even the BBC has filed this report today!!!

"Two leading UK climate researchers have criticised those among their peers who they say are "overplaying" the global warming message.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, are voicing their concern at a conference in Oxford.
They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science."

Although the BBC tries to make it clear that both scientists believe that GW is happening, they don't quote them as saying it is man-made.
On the breakfast news they even had a little debate about whether is was man-made or not (of course between non-scientists).

However, it may be a sign-of the-times.

Oh well ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... fuck Blair then. Looks as though I'd have to abstain in Britain. I certainly couldn't vote for Cameron or Brown. I'd probably do a Peikoff/Reagan—vote for Tony & not tell anyone. Certainly not anyone here. Smiling

No Linz, I didn't accuse you of anything...

Marcus's picture

... I just wanted to know what your criteria were.

So, if Cameron started to give better speeches than Tony on the Iraq war, then you would support him instead. His environmental policies are not as important to you.

Fair enough. That's all I wanted to know. I am not accusing you of any other motives in that choice.

As you say, we would both "not choose" Cameron for similar reasons.

I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Blair or Cameron, because just as you still love Blair for his Iraq war speeches, so too do I despise him for being the international torch-bearer of environmental fascism and stifling us domestically with evil socialist legislation.

Who do you think introduced anti-smacking legislation in this country? Blair did, probably making it ever so popular amongst NZ politicians!

And Blair’s anti-smacking legislation has been one of many sinister and manipulative pieces of legislation he has passed so far!!!

Marcus ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I would support Blair over Cameron for the reason you'd support Brown over Cameron. For that matter, I wish Tony would stay on. Brown is worse than he. Um, and there was the little matter of Iraq that I mentioned. Tony Blair's speeches on that have been better than Bush's. I think you may have noted that yourself. Doesn't mean I support Blair's GW bullshit. Of course I don't! You're as bad as Valliant accusing me of being a homophobe-supporter because I support Bush over Gore/Hillary/Osama ... !!!!! Smiling

"Criteria" is plural. What is my criterion or what are my criteria?! Smiling

Cameron vs. Blair.

Marcus's picture

The election will be not be between Cameron and Blair, but Cameron and Brown.

Anyway, they both say they support the Iraq war and they are both ass-lickers of the environmental movement.

So, Linz why on earth would you support Blair (60% CO2 reductions entrenched in law + heavily taxing anyone not building a "carbon-free" house + banning the sale of conventional lightbulbs in favour of fluorescent) over Cameron (air travel rationing)? They are both competing to lick environmentalist ass! So, what is your criteria?

At this moment in time, I would choose Brown over Cameron. But only because I think Brown is slightly less of a socialist environmental ass-licker than Cameron and I also think he would more likely lead a lame-duck Government with much diminished power.

Thanks Elizabeth...

Marcus's picture

...that deabte looks absolutely riveting given Crichton and Lindzen on the same team - and they won!

Of course I have already attended an IQ squared meeting. The deabating series was started here in the UK by the Times, and last year they started letting you Yanks in on the action Smiling

On the 27th of March I will be going to one on religion with Richard Dawkins and handing him a FR, if it gets here on time!


Jameson's picture

for the link to the Global Warming debate, Liz - looking forward to reading it...

Sorry Jason

Jameson's picture

It was a pathetic poke at Peikoff - I know where you stand. Smiling

Glad to hear the fatwa's folding, Lindsay...

Welcome, Elizabeth!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Hello Lindsay
I have never posted to Solo before(actually this is my first post on any forum), though I have read Solo for quite awhile. It holds a special place in my day. I will introduce myself properly on another post. Til then - you can be sure I will not be voting Demscum across
the board.

I hope we see you post often. You seem to have sorted the pic issue. Smiling

I think there are now only two people in America apart from card-carrying Dem-scum who'll be voting Dem-scum across the board—Peikoff and Diana. Leonard's other defenders have been at pains to say they won't vote Dem-scum across the board. The credibility of the fatwa is in tatters after the debate that has occurred about it and actual developments since the Dem-scums' victory. I am extremely proud of the role SOLO has played in this. The KASSless Society was characteristically mute.

This debate has been/seen KASS in action. Independence and integrity writ large.

Something else KASS is happening right now—NZ's Chiefs are KASSing South Africa's Lions in the Super 14 Series. What a magnificent spectacle!


Oh, and given the choice between Blair and Cameron I would absolutely vote for Blair given Cameron's unspeakably disgusting butt-licking of the eco-fascists and Blair's staunchness re Iraq. Blair would put the Hsiekovians to shame.

Edited to add—the Chiefs won by a KASS 34-7. South Africa's 7 points were scored by one Pretorius. Very similar to our S. African-born webmaster's name, Pistorius. Very confusing. One reason I call our dear webmaster Pissed Sorry Ass. No confusion there! Smiling

No Glenn

Jason Quintana's picture

Actually my opinion is much closer to Ross's then Peikoff's. I am not concerned about any looming theocracy or any crap like that from any of the conservative parties. I think most of the world's democratic parties work as hard as possible to move toward the middle (and that includes the Republican Party in the United States).

In the case of the U.K., and based upon my limited knowledge of the situation a theoretical vote between Blair and Cameron would easily go to Blair. There is nothing Hsiekovian about my voting methodology in this case. It is merely a question of which is the least flaky candidate for prime minister. I don't know enough about Mr. Brown to make a similar comparison.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Instituteion -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.


Ross Elliot's picture

One debater is from the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS. It's spookily reminiscent of the Junior Anti-Sex League in Orwell's 1984, and probably just as much fun Sad

[Note to self: create smiley for disdain]

Intelligence Squared Debate

Liz's picture

I think this debate will be of interest to a number of you.

Global warming is not a crisis

"IQ2US marks the launch of Oxford -style debating -- one motion, one moderator, three advocates for the motion, three against -- in New York City." Two of the speakers for the motion were featured in the 'Swindle' documentary -Professor Richard Lindzen and Professor Philip Stott, along with Michael Crichton.

You may download the debate transcript now - audio/podcasts are not online yet.
The before and after audience vote shows there is still some hope left Smiling

Hello Lindsay
I have never posted to Solo before(actually this is my first post on any forum), though I have read Solo for quite awhile. It holds a special place in my day. I will introduce myself properly on another post. Til then - you can be sure I will not be voting Demscum across
the board. Smiling


ps. I have my photo in my user profile how do I add it to my posts ?

I'm sure Piekoff

Jameson's picture

would agree with you Jason...

Comment viewing options

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