Hoax exposed: “The Great Global Warming Swindle’s” swindle


Nicely done, too, I think; this is one more alarm bell to tell us why there will be no Nobel Peace Prize for global warming deniers.

From the same guy who so brilliantly brings us the Global Warming Crock of the Week:

Tip of the old scrub brush to Tim Lambert at Deltoid.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009 at 4:48 am and is filed under Accuracy, Climate change, Cost of Green, denialism, Environmental protection, Global warming, Hoaxes, Junk science, Science, Voodoo science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

23 Responses to Hoax exposed: “The Great Global Warming Swindle’s” swindle

  1. Nick Kelsier's avatar Nick Kelsier says:
    July 20, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    Disinter, care to guess what will happen if global warming causes, for example, the icecap over greenland to melt and slide into the ocean?

    An ice age. Why? Because it will severly harm the gulf stream around the entire planet.

    You can believe that the vast majority of the world’s scientists are engaging in a massive conspiracy/hoax…but you’re only fooling yourself.

    Like

  2. rayjs's avatar rayjs says:
    July 20, 2009 at 11:29 pm

    ‘Disinter’ wrote: “Today It’s Global Warming; In the ‘70s It was the Coming Ice Age.”

    Not at all. This is another blatant lie. Read: http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html,

    which concludes, “So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.”

    It is based on the following article published by the American Meteorological Society:

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf,

    titled, THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.

    From the article’s abstract: “A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of
    modern climate science now rests.    ”

    So ‘Disinter’ needs to be reintered along with his anti-science, conservative junk websites that are supplying him with demonstrably wrong garbage that he probably hasn’t even read for himself.

    Like

  3. Ed Darrell's avatar Ed Darrell says:
    July 20, 2009 at 10:24 pm

    Disinter, the way you leave out a dozen articles and pick on that has a headline that you think supports your case is just fascinating.

    But tell me: Have you read any of these articles? Do you know what the issue is they were talking about?

    For example, you cite the right-wing, usually crank “Washington Policy Center” and they cite a New York Times article for September 14, 1975, that says “major cooling may be inevitable.”

    Funny. The only article I can find for that date with that phrase is a review of the Thornton Wilder play, “The Skin of Our Teeth,” which has a new ice age as a plot device — but it’s a comedy play.

    Here’s what I found:

    STAGE VIEW; A Revival Of ‘Skin’ That Lacks Teeth [PDF]
    View free preview
    September 14, 1975 – WALTER KERR – Article

    I don’t mind a little leg pulling, but you’re abusing the privilege.

    Or is that really the best data you have for denying global warming — a review of a play in 1975 from the New York Times?

    Can you clarify?

    Like

  4. disinter's avatar disinter says:
    July 20, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    Dr Willem de Lange:

    So, given my understanding of oceanography, what do I believe about climate change? Firstly climate change is real, and has occurred on Earth for at least 4 billion years – as long as an atmosphere and oceans have existed. Climate change occurs in cycles at various time scales, with the shorter time scales known as weather (by convention the distinction is 35 years). Trying to stop or control climate change is akin to stopping ocean tides.

    http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm

    Like

  5. disinter's avatar disinter says:
    July 20, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    Today It’s Global Warming; In the ‘70s It was the Coming Ice Age

    http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/pressroom/pressreleases/EarthDay09.html

    BOOGA BOOGA!!!

    Like

  6. Ed Darrell's avatar Ed Darrell says:
    July 20, 2009 at 5:28 am

    1. Jennifer Marohasy admitted she played the role of climate skeptic as parody. Sort of a Poe writ so large that it might be more funny. I have yet to find anything she’s promulgated that isn’t crank science. Detectors on.

    2. Carter starts out claiming CO2 is not a pollutant. You’d think by now even the clammering clappers of climate change denial would have figured out that the atmosphere is a physical entity and not a political movement. No matter how often Carter claims chemistry is not chemistry, the chemicals will react as they’ve always reacted. CO2 is a pollutant when in the wrong place, or in the wrong concentrations.

    I’ve tried to illustrate this for you before, Disinter, and you didn’t respond. Here’s another analogy: Urine is natural, and serves a vital function of getting waste products out of the human body. There are valuable chemical components in urine, urea being one, a chemical whose artificial manufacture was one of the great breakthroughs necessary for modern chemistry.

    But if you piss in the soup, it’s bad form. It ruins the soup, generally, and it poses a health risk.

    Think of CO2 as atmospheric plant urine.

    So when Carter starts out claiming carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, we can peg him for a fool, and a malicious one at that. Those people who will tell straight-faced lies that hurt you are either complete fools or extremely evil, or some continuum of both. Ray delivered the news that Carter probably doesn’t know what he’s talking about, so we only need concern ourselves with how evil he is. Oh, yeah, and Ray already delivered that information, too — he’s taking money to tell us these lies.

    Like

  7. rayjs's avatar rayjs says:
    July 19, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    Regarding Bob Carter, go here (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter) to learn a bit more about him.

    It’s from Sourcewatch Encyclopedia and says, “Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, is ‘a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University’, Australia. In a byline with an op-ed published in the Sydney Morning Herald in September 2005, he was described as an ‘experienced environmental scientist’, but a March 2007 article in the same paper noted that Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community.”

    Also, “He [Carter] said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research.”

    IOW, he isn’t publishing this stuff in peer-reviewed scientific journals and he’s taking money from the fossil fuel industry.

    Like

  8. rayjs's avatar rayjs says:
    July 19, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    Why is it that whenever you point out the fact that climate change of the past doesn’t preclude man-caused climate change today the deniers completely ignore it?

    And disinter has also ignored the fact, already pointed out to him, that 1997 was an anomalously warm year and that what appears to be a cooling trend since then wouldn’t appear to be a cooling trend were it not for the anomalously warm year of 1997.

    Sigh.

    Like

  9. disinter's avatar disinter says:
    July 19, 2009 at 9:54 pm

    Global Temperatures Chart 2500 BC to 2040 AD

    Endocrine disruptors, such as DDT

    This historical global temperature chart clearly shows that nothing is happening now that has not happened in the last three thousand years. We are not to blame for the global warming that has been going on for the last 100 plus years. Actually it has been getting cooler the last ten years, so what is all the hype about this global warming? I guess the cooling trend is the reason that as of late, they have changed the name to climate change.

    Like

  10. disinter's avatar disinter says:
    July 19, 2009 at 9:52 pm

    Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels. He examnines the hypothesis and it fails the test.

    Like

  11. Ed Darrell's avatar Ed Darrell says:
    July 19, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    Following the link to the article on the “mystery mechanism,” if we’re wise, we read:

    Even though there are big differences between Earth’s geology and ice cover then and now, the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming, says the paper.

    Some of these so-called “positive feedbacks” are already known.

    For instance, when a patch of Arctic sea ice melts, this exposes the uncovered sea to sunlight, depriving it of a bright, reflective layer.

    That causes the sea to warm, which leads to the loss of more ice, which in turn helps the sea to warm, and so on.

    But these “feedbacks” are poorly understood and some scientists believe there could be others still to be identified.

    “Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding about the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations,” warns Zeebe’s team.

    “This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change.”

    After the big warm-up, the planet eventually cooled around 100,000 years later, but not before there had been a mass extinction, paving the way to the biodiversity that is familiar to us today.

    Man-made global warming, driven mainly by the burning of oil, gas and coal, has amounted to around 0.8 C (1.12 F) over the past century.

    Last week in L’Aquila, Italy, the Group of Eight (G8) industrialised countries and other economies that together account for 80 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions pledged to try to limit overall warming to 2 C (3.6 F) over pre-industrial times.

    We hope to avoid that 100,000-year drought and extinction event — extinctions are hell on longevity of a species!

    Yes, there are nasty feedback loops we don’t understand — all the more reason to work to maintain things without dramatic warming.

    Like

  12. Ed Darrell's avatar Ed Darrell says:
    July 19, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    Let us deal with facts – not activism, alarmism, or hyperbole.

    http://www.scsun-news.com/ci_12823404

    The claim he makes that 2008 was “the coldest of the 21st century” is alarmist and misleading. We’ve only had eight years so far in the 21st century, and all of them are considerably warmer than cooling would allow.

    Using this same logic, we could retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq, since only one year in the 21st century have attacks on the U.S. caused the World Trade Center to collapse.

    Don’t try to feed me spin and claim it’s not.

    Like

  13. disinter's avatar disinter says:
    July 19, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55 million years ago

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ab03c6d3b3a7ecad80ca03e378097a4b.1a1&show_article=1

    “It was dinosaurs driving SUVs!!!” — Saint Al of the Gore

    Like

  14. disinter's avatar disinter says:
    July 19, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Let us deal with facts – not activism, alarmism, or hyperbole.

    http://www.scsun-news.com/ci_12823404

    Like

  15. rayjs's avatar rayjs says:
    July 19, 2009 at 1:58 am

    Ian Plimer has done a very good job fighting the creationists in his native Australia but his reasoning here leaves a lot to be desired.

    Yes, climate has changed throughout the Earth’s history but that fact doesn’t even begin to inform us about current climate change. Plimer seems to be arguing that since the climate has changed in the past that any changes that occur today must be by the same mechanisms as in the past. But that makes no sense and it shouldn’t make any sense to you whether or not you accept human-caused global warming. There is no obligation to the past that precludes new mechanisms for change in the present or future. To believe that only past mechanisms can change today’s climate would be like arguing that since the cause of WWI was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, that WWII and any subsequent world wars can only result from the assassinations of more Archduke Ferdinands. And that would be silly.

    Like

  16. Ed Darrell's avatar Ed Darrell says:
    July 16, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    Plimer is a real scientist? On climate change, he’s a crank:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/plimer/

    Like

  17. disinter's avatar disinter says:
    July 16, 2009 at 10:37 pm

    Professor Ian Plimer, Australian geologist:

    ‘I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.’

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

    Like

  18. Ed Darrell's avatar Ed Darrell says:
    July 16, 2009 at 5:07 am

    See this chart:

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25780407-5019059,00.html

    Good catch, disinter — that’s a sneaky way to lie, don’t you think? Steve Fielding must think most people are complete dunces. What an arrogant clod! Notice that his chart starts just shortly before 1998, one of the warmest years of the last 300 years, so everything else looks downhill from there.

    Gore’s already seen that chart — in fact, he included it in his movie. But Gore didn’t edit the chart to make it appear that the data show something different from what they show. Take the chart back to 1800, and extend it to 2009. You’ll see the warming trend clear as day if you do that.

    Like

  19. Ed Darrell's avatar Ed Darrell says:
    July 16, 2009 at 3:55 am

    . . . that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food

    Carbon dioxide is both a plant nutrient and a pollutant. A pollutant is any chemical present in quantities greater than optimal or good, or in the wrong places. Ozone might provide us an example to make you see the issue.

    Ozone is a deadly pollutant. It stings lung tissues if present in great enough quantities, and it is a key chemical that pushes the formation of smog, which is itself a harmful gaseous substance. Ozone is essential in the chemical formation of peroxyacetyl nitrates, or PAN, the brown stuff that forms over freeways of the U.S. from automobile emissions and sunlight (sunlight!). Ozone wiped out the cut flower industry in the Los Angeles basin. Prior to the 1950s, cut flowers grown in greenhouses and outdoors was a more than $1 billion annual industry in the Los Angeles area. It was a key reason for the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade, which gave the flower producers a chance to show off their products. Ozone turns blossoms brown prematurely, however, sometimes right as the blossom reaches its peak. The industry is now gone from Los Angeles. (Dr. Michael Treshow’s books documented all of this very well, but they are probably out of print; you can find his work, and that of many others on ozone, in the old Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association.)

    Ozone triggers asthma attacks and aggravates lung and heart diseases in humans.

    In the upper atmosphere, however, ozone is a key active component in the filtering of deadly ultraviolet radation out of sunlight, to make life on earth possible for plants and animals. Pollutants attack ozone in the upper atmosphere — fluorocarbon compounds with free chloride radicals in particular can chew up ozone and spit out a useless molecule (oxygen).

    So, we work to control ozone emissions near the ground, from automobiles and powerlines, and other sources, to prevent deadly ozone from killing people and industry.

    While at the same time we have banned the use of fluorocarbon propellants in spray cans that release free chloride radicals into the atmosphere which mix up into the higher altitudes and “kill” good ozone that protects all life.

    By your definitions, ozone can’t be both a pollutant and life-giving substance, can it? The questions are, where is it, at what concentrations, when?

    Carbon dioxide is essential to plant growth, usually about the third or fourth limiter on plant growth after or with water, nitrogen and sunlight. CO2 is present in trace amounts, generally, especially if compared with nitrogen or oxygen in the atmosphere. However, if the concentration of CO2 increases it can trigger breathing stress in humans and other mammals. Also, it nourishes many weeds more than it nourishes beneficial crops, so it can be a direct pollutant to agricultural industries, a problem which is worsened when climate change puts additional stress on beneficial plants through additional heat or additional cold, or drought or extra precipitation.

    Life requires balances of chemicals and physical properties, sometimes in different concentrations at different places, or at different stages of an organism’s life (think turning leaves in autumn). We’ve known for nearly a hundred years now that an oxygen-rich environment may help some premtature infants survive; however, at the levels that oxygen can be beneficial, it destroys the eyes of the infants. They live, but they are made blind. Sometimes chemicals can be both life-saving and pollutants at the same time.

    Carbon dioxide, essential to life as we know it, is a greenhouse gas, acting like the glass in a real greenhouse. Though the glass doesn’t provide the bulk of the structure, it allows heat to pass into a greenhouse while blocking its escape, driving temperatures up (hence the oft-heard phrase “hot house”).

    Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, a balance-changing substance even in trace quantities. In concentrations higher than normal, it can also be deadly. Consequently, the claim that CO2 is not a pollutant, is in error.

    (This double life, the good and bad twin quality, is true of many substances in many ways — here’s a discussion of chlorine’s Jekyll and Hydeness.)

    (You might also want to see this, an ad for a substance that is both a floor wax and a dessert topping:
    http://www.hulu.com/watch/61320/saturday-night-live-shimmer-floor-wax)

    You’ve packed a lot of error in a small space. Each of your statements denying the harms of climate change is in error similar to the way your short claim about carbon dioxide errs. Climate science isn’t a night for stand-up comic scientists with one-liners. The atmosphere doesn’t forgive science factual errors, even glib one-liners. Especially glib one-liners.

    The clever way you seek to reduce the human contribution by suggesting that carbon in coal is equivalent to carbon in the atmosphere is slick, but deceptive. Human contributions to carbon in rocks is next to nothing; to carbon in the oceans is minimal; but human contributions to carbon in the atmosphere where it is most destructive, is significant and growing quickly. A huge part of the problem is our transfer of carbon from rocks to the air, by the mining of fossil fuels like coal, gas and petroleum and using them as fuels. The massive amounts of carbon in rocks is reduced slightly, while the concentrations of carbon in the air is increased massively. You throw chemical names and processes around as if you know what you’re talking about, but I think you have failed to grasp the significance of the reactions, and the amount of the reactions that go on.

    Like

  20. disinter's avatar disinter says:
    July 15, 2009 at 10:39 pm

    polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty.

    All this is scientific fact — which is more than you can say for any of the computer models turning out doomsday scenarios about inexorably rising temperatures, sinking islands and collapsing ice shelves.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

    Like

  21. disinter's avatar disinter says:
    July 15, 2009 at 10:34 pm

    Funny, I am a creation “denier”. How does that fit into your absurd generalization?

    Like

  22. Grung_e_Gene's avatar Grung_e_Gene says:
    July 15, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    It’s interesting to note the same crowd which fervently Deny evolution also Deny Global Warming. But, then jesus saved the earth already.

    Like

  23. disinter's avatar disinter says:
    July 14, 2009 at 10:54 am

    See this chart:

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25780407-5019059,00.html

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.