This documentary below is quite fascinating. You'll learn about the scientists who speak out against Global Warming and where they get their money from. Ironically the same scientists speaking out against Global Warming are literally the same scientific experts who provided evidence that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Also included is the short history of anti-global warming talking points. It all started not too long ago when PR expert Frank Luntz created a talking point manual for oil companies. The document is still the Global Warming bible for both Canadian and American governments.
CBC Fifth Estate Documentary - The Denial Machine.
So how did it happen, how could this crucial situation which many believe could determine the future of our planet become such a partisan battleground. After all global warming is widely accepted around the world as scientific fact, a recent study by the British government determined that the long term cost of ignoring the problem could be as great as the two world wars the depression added together, tonight we'll show how a relatively small group of scientists and corporations has managed to create a standoff that could undermine the international cooperation that many believe is our climates only hope. A standoff that reaches all the way to the White House.Full Length Documentary. Enjoy.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. I’m convinced of two things. First, the Earth’s climate has been dynamic from the start. The climate is now and always has been trending colder or warmer. The second thing I am convinced of is no matter which way the temperature happened to be trending at this point in history those on the left would label it catastrophic, blame humans and demand that we curtail economic expansion. Remember the 1974 time magazine issue warning of the oncoming ice age? Now that science has determined that the temperature is rising environmental chicken littles have reversed course.
In order to be persuasive, those who favor radical change to address global warming need to establish four points. First, that global temperatures are rising, second that Man is responsible, third that this warming is a problem and finally that something can be done about the change. While there is persuasive science about the first point, the science about the last three is less than persuasive. The science is certainly not persuasive enough to justify crippling the modern economy.
Greg at 8:08PM on Oct 27th 2007
2. Where do you think the funding comes for scientists that do think global warming is man made? Might be from the highly profitable global warming industry. Have you watched the opposing BBC documentary that addresses how scientists who refuse to agree with the global warming fad are treated? "The Great Global Warming Sindle"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm I find it far more convincing then "An Inconvenient Truth" that is so erroneous even scientists that believe global warming is manmade came out against it and a judge in the UK makes schools hand out a BS Manual before viewing. Al Gore hurt the cause and got the Nobel Prize. Go figure. How about Lori David's kids book that they had to admit they manipulated the graphs in?
Mel at 9:09PM on Oct 27th 2007
3. Oh dear, how sad to see these first two posts.
Earth climate dynamic - not denied by anyone I've seen; it's the fact this current warming is exceptional that's at stake.
This documentary, say, just water off a duck's back to such people. Indeed worrisome re just where people get their info, and ridiculous tendency to figure that your political stance affects the reality.
Climate Change Swindle show was itself a swindle; widely debunked.
'
Being a rabid rightie does not change what's so in the world. (Maybe you'd like to disbelieve in gravity? Ppt out of figuring plate tectonics is for real.)
By contrast, I just don't get these barking mad notions re "the left". Idiotic. Science is science, of itself not political; what to do about is is the politicall part.
There is no good science to indicate warming is not anthropogenic (to major extent), and not a problem. Go check science historian Nancy Oreskes, say.
Major report by Nicholas Stern, UK economist, put cost of action at around 1% of gdp (as I recall) - small. Nothing like the claims from scaremongerers who for curious reasons - if assume they're not all just plain greedy and corrupt - like to suggest taking action will wreck economies: complete crap.
Contrast the potential costs of damage. No righties take out insurance - or is that considered a leftie plot? Bah!
Martin Williams at 10:15PM on Oct 27th 2007
4. I've blog/forum on climate change, inc thread on evidence it's well underway:
http://www.drmartinwilliams.com/forums/global-warming/global-warming-is-well-underway.html
and another on Lies and Hysteria, often from folk with energy industry backing, some of them with claims to be climate change scientists that aren't borne out by reality:
http://www.drmartinwilliams.com/forums/global-warming/global-warming-lies-and-climate-change-hysteria.html
Martin Williams at 10:20PM on Oct 27th 2007
5. YES, thousands of scientists, most governments, AND the Nobel Prize Committee all have been completely fooled about global warming. That polar ice-cap melting stuff is SUCH a hoax. The warming of the seasons in the US and Europeand the drying up on many parts of the world (including the current Atlanta drought) are just a natural trend, ....PLEEEZE.
If you really believe there is a HUGE, worldwide conspiracy to promote global warming, I got a Bridge in London to sell you.
Consider who's making money off of keeping things the way they are and making you doubt global warming: big oil companies, car companies, electricity companies, coal companies, etc. etc, etc. We know what happens when money is on the line.
Isn't this just like when the cigarette companies swore up and down that their products didn't cause cancer? They just wanted to instill some doubt into stupid people just so they could keep their money rolling in.
Instead of looking for conspiracies, look at the obvious. This planet is in deep trouble.
gd at 10:34PM on Oct 27th 2007
6. Mel and Greg couldn't be more wrong. They believe, like so many free-market types, that the whole enviromental movement is nothing more than a Marxist plot to imposed communism on everyone. They refuse to accept that maybe people believe in it because of a genuine concern over the enviroment or that science supports it. It is also untrue that protecting the enviroment is bad for the economy. Actually, all reputable studies that have been done show just the opposite. Get over the 'if they make lots of money they must be right.' People in business care only about their business and don't give a damn how it affects anyone else. Just how many of you would be willing to give up your job if it would save someone else's life?
Will at 11:18PM on Oct 27th 2007
7. Well some of the posts above are disturbing.
I watched "The Global Warming Swindle". However, I also watched the science in that movie disputed. So if you watch that film you should also watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQfD2DNnUQ
It is an ABC produced debate involving scientists.
It shows how the graphs, facts, and people were manipulated.
However, with that said think about it no science is even needed to know that we are harming the environment. Just think about cause and effect, the smallest things that everyone does have an effect. So, why wouldn't pumping pollutants into the air be any different?
People need to stop worrying about the economy and start worrying about the survival of this planet and ALL the living things on it.
justgrreat101 at 11:23PM on Oct 27th 2007
8. Touche @2 - The "highly profitable" global warming "industry" eh. You're right there are lots of people who will profit, new forms of energies will need to be developed, packaged, distributed, You could say a whole new Green industry will be born out of this, one that will be highly profitable.
You might be interested in watching the documentary above, because it talks about who is profiting from current debate. Mainly crack scientists and PR firms who work for the major oil companies...Oil companies have a lot to lose from the "highly profitable" Green future. I for one welcome the change...when it happens.
Jeff at 11:29PM on Oct 27th 2007
9. For the last 33 years, I have lived my life OUTDOORS, have seen and felt the climate change. Most people go from climate controlled home to climate controlled transportation to climate controlled place of employment and reverse the process at day's end, many people don't tend their own lawns or gardens, many people spend no time outside at all. Further, their knowledge of the natural world is limited to television, so if they are told that Polar Bear habitat is disappearing, they just say, "OK", but since POLAR BEARS have no impact on their climate controlled lives, this news doesn't either. I honestly think that modern living, if you can call it that, has just distanced so many from the idea of cause and effect. It doesn't make them less scary, but I think they truly don't get it, it never touches them.
I don't recall hearing anyone mention Birth Control with regard to this issue, either. Is there any issue on the planet which could not be helped greatly or eliminated entirely if only there were fewer of us on it?
Pat Young at 11:44PM on Oct 27th 2007
10. The opposition to science always comes from the same element of humanity.
The earth is flat,the sky's a solid dome with water on top of it, the earth is at the center of the universe, the earth is six thousand years old, the bible is the inerrant word of god, there is no evolution, there are no new species, man will never fly, man will never reach outer space, we didn't go to the moon, there is no ozone depletion, there is no overpopulation, we're not depleting the rain forest or the oceans, there's no pollution, there is no global warming.
If they ever grasp entangled matter or m-theory, there probably won't be that, either if there's a dime in opposing it.
It has always been conservative philosophy to oppose erudition, universities and an affluent or educated middle class. Being common and intemperate they would want what the aristocracy has if their eyes were opened.
It has also been conservative philosophy at least since Bryant, or around John Adams' time that church and state should be inseparable.
In that case of course, magick and superstition become Policy.
Science diminishes the magickal realm, so opposition to dissemination of rational thought and any large degree of literacy ensures religious and political tenure of the ruling class in the utopian conservative state.
In a word, power.
But this power certainly will and always has ensured continuity of profit for those select few who hold it, and without much need for moral examination regarding how it's generated.
An uninformed and superstitious proletariat is much more easily manipulated than an educated and independent middle class, of course.
And THAT's why there's no global warming!
Clif Kuplen at 12:39AM on Oct 28th 2007
11. In the main high school science and the college sciences called the 101's influence my thinking on global warming. Most scientists don't remember the 101's. If scientists don't know the basics, what do they know. The basics have practical applications, too. Most professionals are frauds and poseurs.
Ronald B. Zeh at 5:44AM on Oct 28th 2007
12. Abandon hope all ye who abandon science for politics.
Thanks to the Nobel Prize for GUFF more people are more confused than ever. If a scientific body awards prizes for alarmism, there is an assumption that there must be some foundation in the science. I have read as much as I can for 30 years on climate change and am a practicing geoscientist. I cannot find a single reference that elevates AGW beyond an unsupported hypothesis. As an unsupported hypothesis, AGW has more value than the concept that the moon is made of blue cheese because that has been disproven, and less value than fluctuations of the sun are responsible in a very complex manner for climate change (glaciations).
The other positions, discounted by the UN, that water vapour is by far the most abundant GHG, has also been ignored along with the sound astrophysical research by the Danish National Space Center (web site). The worst piece of all is throwing out the scientific balance of experiment and testing.
Propaganda ‘science’ has been happening more and more; the scientific basis for banning DDT is missing! Millions have died from malaria. Last year the WHO lifted the ban... too bad for the millions of children already dead.
Propaganda junk science led the USSR to develop the dangerous Chernobyl reactor and the reactors for their nuclear submarine fleet as well. A political hack insisted their science was so superior to the capitalist west that cooling and containment were unnecessary. Now I guess Gore has lowered us to the USSR standard.
I guess what I am getting to is that the polarization of society between arts and engineering has left the arts side of the population vulnerable to big, expensive, scams, and propaganda. No one doubts that the climate changes. It always has and always will. As Dick Lindzen (MIT) says, "Relax the planet is fine." (National Post April 22, 2007 interview).
For many years the Nobel Committee held back on awarding a prize for mathematics to a man named Nash because of his schizophrenia. You may remember, "A Beautiful Mind". Gore is flat wrong, but that seems to be fine with the committee.
The world is not perfect. We can only chose the solution that solves more problems than it creates. Pollution can be crippling. But the big lie is everywhere. When I see Dr. Suzuki on a billboard holding a dim light bulb with 5 mg of mercury, I know I'm living a nightmare. Have the schools stopped requiring 1984 or Brave New World? I prescribe them for my kids.
Francis T. Manns at 8:54AM on Oct 28th 2007
13. Opposition to science? No one who doesn't believe the sky is falling global warming crowd doesn't believe in science. They don't believe in this politicized academy award winning science you prefer.
The Great Global Warming Swindle was WIDELY debunked? Really? I notice you don't mention by who. Those Scientists don't believe it, so I'm sure they've been demonizes and smeared. That's the code of the left.
I listed two high profile GW lyers (I can list more...Mann for example). Why did they have to lie if there is so much REAL scientific evidence? Blaming the Oil Companies is childish and moronic at best. Do you know who will be making billions off green energy? BP, Exxon, they're the ones investing in it the most. Oil won't last forever regardless. It's a limited source.
Mel at 9:05AM on Oct 28th 2007
14. Wellllllllll,,
after reading through these posts I gather tere are pros and cons ,both in conflicting mis-information, makeing statements that are sometimes laughable,and often serious in thier convictions that they themselves have the correct answers and are firm in thier beliefs that the other side is wacky,cultist,or just plain stupid.
I have followed this debate for more than three years.And still see no light at the end of the tunnel.Each time so called facts are presented,opposing facts are presented to dispute the original.
I dont suppose anyone posting here has seen the article on the ice core samples from greenland.
St first they were reported as proof of globull warming. Then the other side of the coin showed it to be proof that man has nothing to do with the current warming. Ice core samples show that the last warming trend came FIRST and the carbon build up came AFTER.
Most people did not see this report.it was wiped from the web and hasnt appeared for over a year now.
But,this info does show that the current idea of MAN being the reason for this current warming trend to be false (misinformation).
So please keep in mind,when formulating your opinions ,be they pro or con, that the polutants do not cause the warming,but that the warming causes the polutants.
No matter how many government regulations ,no matter how many taxes are implimented,and no matter how much profit big business makes,,it is still a loss to the average Joe and it will still get warmer until the trend is reversed--on it's own.
sign me- Citezen Joe
THOMAS E. HARLEY,SR. at 1:51PM on Oct 28th 2007
15. Think about cause and effect the smallest things that everyone does have an effect. Why wouldnt pumping pollutants into the air be any different.
solarium at 3:14PM on Oct 28th 2007