'The great global warming swindle'

[Vanguard1917]

Martin Durkin's excellent documentary (which was shown last week on Channel 4 in Britain) uncovers some of myths surrounding the contemporary mainstream Western Green orthodoxy: that of 'man-made global warming'. The documentary shows the reactionary roots of the Green movement, its unscientific foundations, how it has become a central part of Western ruling ideology, and, most importantly, how it has massively tragic implications for the world's poor.

Watch the superb documentary that is giving Greens throughout the West sleepless nights as we speak - here (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=Great%20Global%20Warming%20Swindle)

[ichneumon]

okay, i watched about half of this, i get the gist of it. response:


Thus current interpretation of the geologic record suggests that greenhouse gases both respond and contribute to climate change. Atmospheric CO2 is viewed as one of many components of the climate system that interact in complex ways over a wide range of timescales. A change in one of these interactive components is likely to affect other aspects of the global climate system. This interactive relationship between CO2 and climate implies that the geologic record is not likely to reveal analogs of simple climate forcing by anthropogenic CO2 emissions [Crowley, 1997; Hay et al., 1997; Sundquist, 1986]. There is no known geologic precedent for large increases of atmospheric CO2 without simultaneous changes in other components of the carbon cycle and climate system.


from Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases (http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html)

1)it is not possible to scientifically prove anthropogenic driven climate change. it is also not scientifically possible to prove the fossil record. you can't do experiments, all you have are facts.

2)climate change is natural. "natural" vs "artificial" are human constructs, in fact. the climate, and weather in particular, are chaos systems. meaning that they are only vaguely predictable, and respond to additions of energy with increased chaos, not simple changes in temperature.

3)correlation is not causation. thus, what can we prove?


NEVERTHELESS, we know from history that sudden inputs of CO2 make weird and generally bad shit happen.



deliberate lie:


Abstract Continuing interest in the effects of carbon dioxide on climate has been promoted by the exponentially increasing anthropogenic production of CO2. Volcanoes are also a major source of carbon dioxide, but their average input to the atmosphere is generally considered minor relative to anthropogenic input. This study examines eruption chronologies to determine a new estimate of the volcanic CO2 input and to test if temporal fluctuations may be resolved. Employing representative average values of 2.7 g cm−3 as density of erupted material, 0.2 wt percent CO2 in the original melt, 60 percent degassing during eruption, and an average volume of 0.1 km3 for each of the eruptions in the recently published eruption chronology of Hirschboeck (1980), a volcanic input of about 1.5 · 1011 moles CO2 yr−1 was determined for the period 1800–1969. The period 1800–1899 had a somewhat lower input than 1900–1969, which could well be related more to completeness of observational data than to a real increase in volcanic CO2. This input is well below man's current CO2 production of 4–5 · 1014 moles CO2 yr−1.


Annual volcanic carbon dioxide emission: An estimate from eruption chronologies, Leavitt, Environmental Geology 2006 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/631t022372116213/)

it IS happening - the sea level is rising and the weather pattern is destabilizing.



Worldwide measurements from tidal gauges during the last 100 years indicate that mean sea level has risen between 10 and 25 cm (18 cm mean) [Douglas, 1991, 1992; Gornitz, 1995; Warrick et al., 1996]. This rate is greater than would be expected from the archaeological and geological record of sea level from the last two millennia [Warrick et al., 1996]. Most modeling studies, including simulations of the combined effects of increasing greenhouse gases and aerosols, predict that the trend in rising sea level will continue in the future [Titus and Narrayanan, 1995; Warrick and Oerlemans, 1990; Warrick et al., 1996; Wigley and Raper, 1992, 1993].


the idea that green ideology is somehow strangling africa is preposterous. malaria and HIV are killing africa. capitalism is raping africa. developing nations are specifically excluded from the kyoto accords, including india and china.

[Vanguard1917]

Cheers for the link.

You're welcome. Martin Durkin defends his documentary here (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/2948/).

[Vanguard1917]

The final part of the film - which shows the harmful impact of environmentalist policies on the third world - is the most important part. Some quotes from the film:

'My big concern with global warming is that the policies being pushed to supposedly prevent global warming are having a disasterous effect on the world's poorest people... Let me make one thing perfectly clear: if we're telling the third world that they can only have wind and solar power, what we are really telling them is, you cannot have electricity.'
Paul Driessen, author and former environmental campaigner

'The challenge we have when we meet Western environmentalists, who say we must engage in use of solar panels and wind energy, is how we can have Africa industrialised? Because i don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry or a train network. It might work maybe to power a small transistor radio... One clear thing that emerges from the whole environmental debate is the point that there is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop.'
- James Shikwati, African economist

'I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romaticisation of peasant life, and the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the modern world... The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries... I think its legitimate for me to call them anti-human.'
- Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace who is now critical of the organisation

[colorlessman]

BS. This film is obviously supporting big capitalistic industries.

Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...2031455,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html)




A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.




This dude also made a documentary arguing silicone implants are harmful contrary to massive scientific studies.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/3/6/8814/25388


This man takes liberties with facts. He has no scientific background

George Monbiot, Guardian, Thursday March 16, 2000

In October 1998, a television producer named Martin Durkin took a proposal to the BBC's science series, Horizon. Silicone breast implants, he claimed, far from harming women, were in fact beneficial, reducing the risk of breast cancer. Horizon commissioned a researcher to find out whether or not his assertion was true.

[ichneumon]

'My big concern with global warming is that the policies being pushed to supposedly prevent global warming are having a disasterous effect on the world's poorest people... Let me make one thing perfectly clear: if we're telling the third world that they can only have wind and solar power, what we are really telling them is, you cannot have electricity.'
Paul Driessen, author and former environmental campaigner

'The challenge we have when we meet Western environmentalists, who say we must engage in use of solar panels and wind energy, is how we can have Africa industrialised? Because i don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry or a train network. It might work maybe to power a small transistor radio... One clear thing that emerges from the whole environmental debate is the point that there is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop.'
- James Shikwati, African economist

'I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romaticisation of peasant life, and the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the modern world... The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries... I think its legitimate for me to call them anti-human.'
- Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace who is now critical of the organisation

this is complete crap. no one expects developing countries to use solar power. wtf?

it is NOT POSSIBLE for 6 billion humans to live at first world standards using current technology. this is not propaganda from green ideology, it's simple fact. for one thing, there's not enough oil. even if there were, the amount of crap going into the atmosphere would quadruple, which, regardless of your fantasy, would be serious bad news. honestly, africa is not the problem. the full industrialization of china and india, which no one dares try to halt, would render most of the planet uninhabitable by humans.

you seem to live in this wild fantasy land where resources and industrial waste are just irrelevant. as if oil were endless and pollution vanishes into a black hole. it boggles the mind.

[Vanguard1917]

BS. This film is obviously supporting big capitalistic industries

It's questioning Green opposition to industrial development in the underdeveloped world.


He has no scientific background

'Durkin points out the irony of people ‘exposing’ that he doesn’t have a background in science. If everyone who doesn’t have a background in science was forbidden from researching or talking about global warming, he says, then that would mean silencing some of the leading environmentalist thinkers and just about every newspaper columnist, who can always be relied upon to churn out an ‘I’m Scared of Global Warming and So Should You Be!’ column despite not knowing what a test tube is.' link (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2948/)

[Vanguard1917]

it is NOT POSSIBLE for 6 billion humans to live at first world standards using current technology. this is not propaganda from green ideology, it's simple fact. for one thing, there's not enough oil.

There's plenty of oil. There's oil in Africa, but the Green oppose Africans exploiting their oil reserves. 'Don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal' - that's the mainstream Western Green 'advice' to Africa.


honestly, africa is not the problem.

The enormous levels of industrial underdevelopment in Africa is a massive problem, at least for those who oppose human hunger, disease and degradation.


the full industrialization of china and india, which no one dares try to halt, would render most of the planet uninhabitable by humans.

So you believe that industrialisation in India and China should be stopped.

Simple question: do you support industrial development in Africa?

[ichneumon]

There's plenty of oil. There's oil in Africa, but the Green oppose Africans exploiting their oil reserves. 'Don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal' - that's the mainstream Western Green 'advice' to Africa.

this is voodoo. tell that to nigeria. nobody gives a shit about what greens say when it comes to oil. if there were oil in africa, the u$a would have invaded sudan instead of iraq.


The enormous levels of industrial underdevelopment in Africa is a massive problem, at least for those who oppose human hunger, disease and degradation.

my LIFE is disease ecology. i will fight the war on disease every day, with every breath, and when i die, i'll give my body to science to get another month in. DO NOT question my commitment to social justice.


So you believe that industrialisation in India and China should be stopped.

Simple question: do you support industrial development in Africa?

i KNOW that petroleum fueled industrialization of china and india is impossible. that i understand the reality of the global situation doesn't make me anti-human. it makes me a realist. before africa can develop, we must cure HIV and malaria. i'd LOVE to see the end of suffering and disease in africa, to see the continent grow and prosper. of course they should use whatever resources they have to end that suffering. SOCIAL JUSTICE MUST PRECEDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION. this is an axiom, because hungry people can't plan for the distant future. i support africans doing whatever the hell they can to help themselves, how could they do otherwise?

remember, you are one of those who insist that overpopulation isn't a problem, that people in the third world are better off now, living longer, watching more TV.

[LSD]

I can't speak to this particular documentary, but there is something undeniable despicable about first world "environmentalists" telling the third world that their attempts to stop starving are "destroying the planet".

That said, I don't think we can dismiss global warming quite so quickly as Vanguard is doing here or as this documentary apparently does.

It just strikes me as far too unlikely that it's all a massive "conspiracy" to enforce some nebulous "green" agenda. For one thing, I don't think there's anywhere near a coherent "green" agenda to enforce; and for another, I don't think the environmental movement is either organized or powerful enough to perpetrate the kind of "swindle" detractors accuse them of.

It's also a little too coincidental that, with very few exceptions, everybody speaking out against global warming is either on the pay of big business or ideologically inclined to parrot their line.

And when 90% of scientists are saying one thing and it's only CATO and the AEI saying something else, I don't think it's that hard to figure out which one is probably on the level.

Are there extremist elements to mainstream environmentalism? Of course, but the fact that primitivists and other anti-industrial types are eager to take advantage of global warming does not mean that global warming does not exist.

I don't have the background or education to determine for myself what the evidence says, but as a matter of common sense I don't find it that difficult to imagine that pumping millions and millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere might just have an effect.

The third world has every right to develop and we must oppose those "greens" who would try and stop them in the name of "saving nature". But at the same time, there's no reason not to support environmental "market hampering", especially in the first world which can more than afford it.

There is an unfortunate masochistic streak to a lot of contemporary environmentalism, but the reality is that private citizens are not generating most of the world's polution.

Things like mandatory recylcing programmes only serve to victimize the average worker instead of placing the blame where it really belongs, on corporate production.

Similarly, efforts to dissuade the undeveloped world from fixing its very real problems in the only way that's ever proven effective only worsens the potential impact of an environmental crisis.

You want to reduce population levels? Great, but you know what's the only way to get people to stop having so many children? Industrialization. 'Cause as long as they're starving farmers, they're going to keep pumping out babies. Give them education and a tertiary economy and you give them alternatives.

But trying to avert disaster by freezing the world as it is today just freezes inequality and disparity. India and China are going to develop. No matter what "greens" may think of it, it's virtually inevitable.

The real question for rational environmentalists is how to make the best of that situation. 'Cause preventing it just isn't an option, not morally and not practically.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This 'documentary' is well answered by George Monbiot in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2032575,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html)

And read the e-mail from Prof Wunsch (who was duped into appearing in the film), at the above link.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The Documentary was weak in all aspects it turns out.

I thought the evidence that they were giving was compelling, but i had no idea about the science behind climate change so i (like many people i imagine) was easily mislead.

The more obvious weakness was the documentary's attack of both the establishment, and what it called "the Anti-establishment left" some scientists also talking about the fall of the Soviet Union and "Neo-Marxist" activists.

If you didn't know much about the environmental movement, then from watching the documentary you would be under the impression that Global warming was a myth, invented by Communists and had infiltrated a movement big enough to get world wide leaders to listen to them.

So, while on the one hand, i was fooled by the science, i maintained a high level of doubt purely on its repeated attempt to find a correlation between the left/global leadership and a climate change conspiracy.

very strange film indeed. :wacko:

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 13, 2007 01:08 pm
This 'documentary' is well answered by George Monbiot in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2032575,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html)

And read the e-mail from Prof Wunsch (who was duped into appearing in the film), at the above link.
George Monbiot is the chief Green ideologue of Britain's middle class elite. And what are Mr George Monbiot's answers exactly? The man is against airplanes. He is against cars and roads. He's against nuclear energy. He is calling for a 90% cut in carbon emissions. The man is against development. And bear in mind that he left the Respect coalition the minute he found out that it would stand candidates against the Green Party at the European elections. For Monbiot, the British countryside comes before the Iraqi people.

And i can understand Professor Wunsch's loss of nerve. A man who criticises the Western Green othodoxy today risks losing everything he has. He becomes a heretic. As always, it takes courage and resolution to challenge the ruling ideas and prejudices of society.

[ichneumon]

dude, science is science. period. it is not determined by ideology. the science in the film was crap. it doesn't matter if karl marx himself or ronald reagen or bobo the clown points it out.

i accept that anthropogenic climate change is a serious danger because the science supports it, not because it happens to correspond to some political ideology i have an attachment to. i'd MUCH rather it not be so, that would be great, but it isn't that way. there are NO EASY ANSWERS. in fact, there may be no acceptable solution to this problem at all.

you need to consider basing your ideology on science, rather than the other way around.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Vanguard 1917, thankyou for ignoring Monbiot's arguments, concentrating on merely smearing him (and Prof Wunsch).

As if the makers of this programme were all blood red socialists, and as if the oil industry were progressive.

[Vanguard1917]

Vanguard 1917, thankyou for ignoring Monbiot's arguments, concentrating on merely smearing him

I have only laid out Monbiot's proposals for mankind. That's not 'smearing'. They are the beliefs that Monbiot holds (and propagates to his 'ethical' middle class audience on a weekly basis).


(and Prof Wunsch).

I said that i can understand Professor Wunsch's reaction. I sympathise with him, in the same way that i sympathise with most people who worry about losing their livelihood. It takes guts and great determination to oppose today's Green orthodoxies.


As if the makers of this programme were all blood red socialists, and as if the oil industry were progressive.

Let's not get things twisted. Monbiot and other environmentalists don't oppose oil companies. They oppose oil.

I support oil. I support Africans having all the access that they need to oil. That's why i oppose capitalism.

[bcbm]

I support oil. I support Africans having all the access that they need to oil. That's why i oppose capitalism.

And yet, more and more, you keep regurgitating the same arguments as the bosses, the state and capitalists. Hummm.

[Vanguard1917]

Has everyone seen the new party logo of the British Conservative Party (the party of Thatcher, Heath, Churchill, etc.)? Very interesting...

http://customerfirst.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/tory_tree.jpg

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:48 am
Has everyone seen the new party logo of the British Conservative Party (the party of Thatcher, Heath, Churchill, etc.)? Very interesting...

http://customerfirst.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/tory_tree.jpg
I think you just uncovered the conspiracy Vanguard!


*biggesteyerollever*

You know, there was another anti-environmentalist film, released in Australia, called "Mine Your Own Business" which criticised the environmental movement for wanting to hold back 'development' and 'progress' (contestable terms at best) and were supported and bankrolled by the mining industry and conservative think-tank- the Institute of Public Affairs.

Hmm...

[Vanguard1917]

Environmentalism is supported by the world's most powerful governments, and Green orthodoxies are propagated by the world's most powerful media networks. In Britain, each of the three main ruling class parties have now officially subscribed to Green ideology, and it plays a central role in their campaign manifestos.


'development' and 'progress' (contestable terms at best)

Yes, such terms are highly contested by Western mainstream primitivists, in a most shameful and despicable way.

The contemporary environmentalist orthodoxy ultimately serves to excuse the greatest crime of global capitalism today: which is its inability to provide vitally necessary industrial development in the underdeveloped world.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The evidence just keeps stacking up against Durkin's 'documentary':

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail...?content_id=801 (http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=801)

http://www.newstatesman.com/200703190012

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/more_tggws_fakery.php

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentat...icle2359057.ece (http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2359057.ece)

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1173956588.html

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/...icle2355956.ece (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece)

http://www.climatedenial.org/

http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...007/03/swindled (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled)

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php

General backgound PDF available here:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761

V1917:


I have only laid out Monbiot's proposals for mankind. That's not 'smearing'. They are the beliefs that Monbiot holds (and propagates to his 'ethical' middle class audience on a weekly basis).

A smear by any other name....


Let's not get things twisted. Monbiot and other environmentalists don't oppose oil companies. They oppose oil.

They oppose a liquid do they?

In comparison, you just swallow Exxon's propaganda.

Seems to me you are gettiing more desperate with each post.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Has everyone seen the new party logo of the British Conservative Party (the party of Thatcher, Heath, Churchill, etc.)? Very interesting...

user posted image

I know its meant to be a tree, but it really looks like a power plant pumping out noxious fumes.

[Vanguard1917]

Rosa Lichtenstein, the science on global warming is complex. If global warming is a problem, the way to deal with that problem is to do the opposite of what the environmentalists propose that we do. Instead of halting or slowing down economic development, we need to massively increase industrial economic development around the world. History shows us that the more developed we are, the better equipped we are in dealing with the threats that nature throws our way.

For example, the rise in temperatures is a bigger threat to Africans than it is to those of us who are comparatively lucky enough to live in parts of the developed world. This is because of the extreme levels of industrial underdevelopment in Africa and its over-reliance on agricultural production. In order for Africa to protect itself from the harmful effects of global warming, it needs to develop rapidly. This is something which the Western Greens shamefully and despicably oppose.


They oppose a liquid do they?

They oppose oil. They oppose Africans exploiting their oil. Instead, they tell Africans to use expensive and inefficient solar and wind energy. If that's 'anti-capitalism', then it's the anti-capitalism of fools.


Seems to me you are gettiing more desperate with each post.

Instead of coming out with silly one-liners, engage in proper, adult debate. That is if you're capable of saying anything of any substance outside of the philosophy forum.

[Vargha Poralli]

In order for Africa to protect itself from the harmful effects of global warming, it needs to develop rapidly. This is something which the Western Greens shamefully and despicably oppose.

Developement of Africa is more hindered by Western Corporations than by western greens IMO.


They oppose oil.

Oil anyway is a finite resource. It will run out one day. And uncontrolled use of it damages the environment.


They oppose Africans exploiting their oil

Oil is currently present only in Nigeria in Africa. And there it is exploited by Royal Dutch Shell not by Africans.

[Vanguard1917]

Oil is currently present only in Nigeria in Africa. And there it is exploited by Royal Dutch Shell not by Africans.

Africans need self-determination, which involves taking control over their own economic policy. They need to kick out the Western environmentalists first.

[ichneumon]

Rosa Lichtenstein, the science on global warming is complex. If global warming is a problem, the way to deal with that problem is to do the opposite of what the environmentalists propose that we do. Instead of halting or slowing down economic development, we need to massively increase industrial economic development around the world. History shows us that the more developed we are, the better equipped we are in dealing with the threats that nature throws our way

economic development by means of burning petroleum causes global climate change. get that through your head. we need scientific and technological advances to deal with it, not more powerplants.

actually, history show VERY CLEARLY that development leads to ecological problems, and that it is NEVER without cost.

progress, imho, means people having food, shelter, healthcare and education/information access. it does NOT mean everyone having a hummer, a Wii and a steak for dinner. progress, in fact, very likely means the first world NOT having the latter so that the developing world can have the former. social equality is more important that rich buggers having toys.

[sexyguy]

Vanguard1917,

I think you are making some good points and winning the argument if not the majority, yet.

What do you know about the pros and cons of nuclear power?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


Rosa Lichtenstein, the science on global warming is complex. If global warming is a problem, the way to deal with that problem is to do the opposite of what the environmentalists propose that we do. Instead of halting or slowing down economic development, we need to massively increase industrial economic development around the world. History shows us that the more developed we are, the better equipped we are in dealing with the threats that nature throws our way.

You make a lot of assumptions about my beliefs here, all the while ignoring all the evidence that makes your adulation of this 'documentary' look foolish in the extreme.


They oppose oil. They oppose Africans exploiting their oil. Instead, they tell Africans to use expensive and inefficient solar and wind energy. If that's 'anti-capitalism', then it's the anti-capitalism of fools.

So what? That does not make Durkin's 'documentary' any the less a pack of lies.


Instead of coming out with silly one-liners, engage in proper, adult debate. That is if you're capable of saying anything of any substance outside of the philosophy forum.

No need to, those links I posted said it all: you have been caught out praising a 'documentary' full of lies, just because you liked the 'conclusions' it drew.

Hence, I was right to say you are getting more desperate by the minute; this latest 'response' of yours being yet more evidence of that fact.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Instead of halting or slowing down economic development, we need to massively increase industrial economic development around the world. History shows us that the more developed we are, the better equipped we are in dealing with the threats that nature throws our way

Obvious bullshit.

Exactly how the fuck is industrialising the third world, accelerating global warming, going to help you when the sea levels rise? There's fuck all we can do if it gets to that stage, and it's already getting there, and you want to get there even faster?! :angry:

-Alex

[Vanguard1917]

You make a lot of assumptions about my beliefs here

What are your beliefs, then? Do you support rapid and large-scale industrial development in Africa? Or do you follow your Mr Monbiot in believing that industrial development in the impoverished parts of the world need to be restrained according to 'sustainability' qualifications to be set by international (i.e. Western) organisations?


Obvious bullshit.

Exactly how the fuck is industrialising the third world, accelerating global warming, going to help you when the sea levels rise? There's fuck all we can do if it gets to that stage, and it's already getting there, and you want to get there even faster?!

Industrialisation has massively improved, and continues to improve, our ability to control the destructive impact of nature. This is beyond doubt.

The truth is that, contrary to widespread Green bullshit, the earth has never been more suitable for human inhabitation than it is today. The fact that 6.5 billion human beings are living longer, healthier and safer lives than ever before is itself proof of this fact.

From a human perspective, the earth has never been in better shape than it is now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


What are your beliefs, then? Do you support rapid and large-scale industrial development in Africa? Or do you follow your Mr Monbiot in believing that industrial development in the impoverished parts of the world need to be restrained according to 'sustainability' qualifications to be set by international (i.e. Western) organisations?

What have my beliefs got to do with whether this programme told lies?

Stop trying to deflect attention from the fact that you have been caught out.

[Mujer Libre]

Yes, such terms are highly contested by Western mainstream primitivists, in a most shameful and despicable way.

Um, actually no- they're contested by anyone with a brain, and a complex understanding of history that moves beyond binaries.

The ides of linear "progress" is one that is thoroughly outdated and has been historically used as an excuse to justify gross violations of people around the world- colonialism being one example. Now, I'm not sayng that certain things aren't 'better' or 'more progressive' than others, but that to impose a certain, polar conception of advancement (in this case scientific advancement- but what does that really mean?) = better is a terribly simplistic way of looking at things and is a very dangerous premise to set.

[Vanguard1917]

What have my beliefs got to do with whether this programme told lies?

The documentary provided scientific evidence which challenges the current orthodoxy on climate change. That's not called lying; that's called the scientific method.


Um, actually no- they're contested by anyone with a brain, and a complex understanding of history that moves beyond binaries.

The ides of linear "progress" is one that is thoroughly outdated and has been historically used as an excuse to justify gross violations of people around the world- colonialism being one example. Now, I'm not sayng that certain things aren't 'better' or 'more progressive' than others, but that to impose a certain, polar conception of advancement (in this case scientific advancement- but what does that really mean?) = better is a terribly simplistic way of looking at things and is a very dangerous premise to set.

Yeah, OK, whatever it is you're talking about.

The simple fact is that unless there is rapid and large-scale economic development in the third world, there will be human hunger, disease and degradation in the third world.

Perhaps the greatest problem with global capitalism is its inability to provide absolutely vital industrial development in the underdeveloped world. Western environmentalism exists to excuse global capitalism's number one crime.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Explain how industrialisation will help us combat rising sea levels, melting ice caps, extinctions left right and centre fucking up the biosphere, and I'll listen.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG:


The documentary provided scientific evidence which challenges the current orthodoxy on climate change. That's not called lying; that's called the scientific method.

As those links I posted showed, the programme was full of lies.

I note you have to ignore this contrary proof to keep defending the indefensible.

The scientific method does not involve this sort of lying.

But I am glad you have dropped your curious interest in my beliefs.

[Vanguard1917]

As those links I posted showed, the programme was full of lies.

Those links you posted showed nothing. The documentary had contrary scientific evidence presented by senior scientists (Professor Wunsch was just one senior scientist among several). But i know that Monbiot's many middle class admirers and fans hate it when their quasi-religious beliefs are challenged.


Explain how industrialisation will help us combat rising sea levels, melting ice caps, extinctions left right and centre fucking up the biosphere, and I'll listen.

Industrial development has allowed humanity to better protect itself against natural disasters. This is an empirical fact.

In the 1930s, for example, there were around 47 deaths per 100,000 per year from floods, tidal waves and wind storms. In the 1990s that figure was around 2.

In the 1920s there were around 3 deaths per 100,000 per year from earthquakes and volcanoes. In the 1990s that figure was below 1.

In the 1920s, there were around 44 deaths per 100,000 per year from epidemics; in the 1990s there were less than 2.

In the 1920s, there were around 27 deaths per 100,000 per year from droughts and famines; in the 1990s that figure was less than 2.

The truth is that, contrary to Green fear-mongering, mankind has radically improved its capacity to control the destructive aspects of its natural environment. This is due to industrial development. The more developed we are industrially, the better able we are in mastering our natural circumstances and taking charge of our destiny, rather than being subject to nature's will like other animals. That's what makes us human.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


Those links you posted showed nothing.

On the contrary, they showed how bogus this 'documentary' was, and how foolish you were to praise it.


The documentary had contrary scientific evidence presented by senior scientists (Professor Wunsch was just one senior scientist among several). But i know that Monbiot's many middle class admirers and fans hate it when their quasi-religious beliefs are challenged.

All pulled apart by those links.

And why you distract attention by smearing Monbiot is a mystery, except it does just that: it distracts from the fact that you have dug yourself into a hole in which you are now floundering about.

You also seem to think that if something is 'middle class' it is bad.

If so, throw Marx away.

And, of course, you must know that your argument is straight from the Exxon book of propaganda.

[Vanguard1917]

On the contrary, they showed how bogus this 'documentary' was, and how foolish you were to praise it.

Again, no they don't. The documentary presented scientific evidence which is contrary to that presented by those who put forward the case for man-made global warming. That's not lying or bogus. That's what scientific investigation is about.


And why you distract attention by smearing Monbiot is a mystery, except it does just that: it distracts from the fact that you have dug yourself into a hole in which you are now floundering about.

You're the one that brought Monbiot into this, not me. I'm merely pointing out that the person you're defending - George Monbiot - is someone i consider to hold deeply reactionary opinions.


You also seem to think that if something is 'middle class' it is bad.

No, but i do think that social movements with their base in the Western middle class do not tend to be progressive. In fact, the Western middle class has a terrible track record of giving support to reaction in the 20th century.


And, of course, you must know that your argument is straight from the Exxon book of propaganda.

What are you talking about? As i already pointed out, the environmentalist movement is not against oil companies, but against oil itself. You obviously do not see anything reactionary about such a position.

Unless you start engaging in proper adult debate, i'll not waste any more of my time responding to your comments. Silly one-liners like 'If so, throw Marx away' are a sign of not having anything of substance to say.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Vanguard, you're missing my point here. I don't dispute that technology etc can help fight lethal elements of nature. However, you have not given me one reason to have faith that we will, soon, find a way to stop the sea rising, without ceasing our damage to the environment.

Just focus on the sea levels for now, so I can get a straight answer out of you. I just want a hypothesis for how industrialising the third world would give humanity the tools necessary to prevent it.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I also can't help but notice that you haven't answered one of Rosa's links, apart from flat and aparrently unjustified sweeping dismissal of them all.

-Alex

[bcbm]

In the 1930s, for example, there were around 47 deaths per 100,000 per year from floods, tidal waves and wind storms. In the 1990s that figure was around 2.

In the 1920s there were around 3 deaths per 100,000 per year from earthquakes and volcanoes. In the 1990s that figure was below 1.

In the 1920s, there were around 44 deaths per 100,000 per year from epidemics; in the 1990s there were less than 2.

In the 1920s, there were around 27 deaths per 100,000 per year from droughts and famines; in the 1990s that figure was less than 2.


Citation?

[ichneumon]

The simple fact is that unless there is rapid and large-scale economic development in the third world, there will be human hunger, disease and degradation in the third world.

the simple fact is that what you propose is completely impossible.

the fact that industrialization has had a positive effect on the human condition thus far is inarguable. the idea that it can extend and encompass all of humanity equally through the same methods is poppycock.

we are at the point where industrialization is beginning to cause very serious damage to the earth's ability to support human life. this is a fact. your documentary was voodoo nonsense. climate change is happening, and anthropogenic effects will exacerbate that. the vast majority of scientists support this.

there is not enough oil and burning fossil fuels has serious consequences. nuclear fission reactors are no answer, either.

thus, if rapid and large-scale economic development in the third world is NOT POSSIBLE, what ELSE can we do?

limit population growth, limit consumption in the first world, pour money and resources into research for energy and medicine, basically, convert the first world to sustainable, renewable energy and leave what is left of the global oil and uranium supplies to the developing world so that we can all go to renewable resources. it is obvious that it takes energy to get to a steady state system, it is also obvious that an infinite expansion/consumption system is nonsense. slow, sensible, planned development. learning to fly vs jumping off a cliff.

honestly, it starts with changing the lifestyles of 1st worlders, which is what the green movement is REALLY about. consume less, conserve, plan, recycle. all those thing you hate and don't want to do. the green movement threatens YOU and your lifestyle directly, not some village in the congo, and that's what we're really talking about.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


Again, no they don't. The documentary presented scientific evidence which is contrary to that presented by those who put forward the case for man-made global warming. That's not lying or bogus. That's what scientific investigation is about.

Well, we can do this till the sun cools (or warms up): the links I posted destroyed the bogus 'evidence' that still seems to have you mesmerised.

Get over it.


You're the one that brought Monbiot into this, not me. I'm merely pointing out that the person you're defending - George Monbiot - is someone i consider to hold deeply reactionary opinions.

At last you have something right; I knew it would happen one day.

But you were the one who continues to bad mouth him (it's your only argument in fact -- so I do not wonder you cling to it), all the while having the hots for an equally middle class man: Durkin (who, oddly enough, spouts stuff of which Exxon would be proud).


No, but i do think that social movements with their base in the Western middle class do not tend to be progressive. In fact, the Western middle class has a terrible track record of giving support to reaction in the 20th century.

And Exxon and Durkin are oh so progressive, I take it?


What are you talking about? As i already pointed out, the environmentalist movement is not against oil companies, but against oil itself. You obviously do not see anything reactionary about such a position.

But still you spout stuff that could have come straight from Exxon.


Unless you start engaging in proper adult debate, i'll not waste any more of my time responding to your comments. Silly one-liners like 'If so, throw Marx away' are a sign of not having anything of substance to say.

Translated this means: 'Unless you (Rosa) begin to agree with me, I will take my ball home!'

Good. Naff off then.

[I'd argue the same way as you if I were caught praising a bogus piece of pseudo-science, as you have been.]

[Vanguard1917]

Vanguard, you're missing my point here. I don't dispute that technology etc can help fight lethal elements of nature. However, you have not given me one reason to have faith that we will, soon, find a way to stop the sea rising, without ceasing our damage to the environment.

Well, some studies show that the sea level has risen by about 8 inches during the 20th century. At the same time, however, the figures i posted above (taken from Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World) show that there has been a dramatic decrease in the destructive impact of floods.

This shows that the reverse of what the environmentalists say is happening. Human beings today are less subject to the destructive impact of nature. The reason for this is industrial progress.

[Vanguard1917]

And Exxon and Durkin are oh so progressive, I take it?

More progressive than Western middle class parasites who oppose industrial development in Africa so that they can continue sending £2 pounds a month to Oxfam to make themselves feel better about their petty existence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


More progressive than Western middle class parasites who oppose industrial development in Africa so that they can continue sending £2 pounds a month to Oxfam to make themselves feel better about their petty existence.

Careful, this could get you banned. :o

However, I am amazed you think that rapacious capitalist companies like Exxon are more progressive than powerless middle-class journalists.

No wonder you swallowed their propaganda hook-line-and-sinker.

Anyway, I thought you were going to stamp your little feet, and sulk off?

[Vanguard1917]

However, I am amazed you think that rapacious capitalist companies like Exxon are more progressive than powerless middle-class journalists.

I was referring to the documentary makers.

Either way, as i keep pointing out, environmentalists are against oil, not oil companies. They don't oppose car companies, but cars themselves. Not airline companies, but air travel. Not GM food producers, but GM technology.

You obviously think that there's something progressive about all this. What?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


You obviously think that there's something progressive about all this. What?

I see, you think that making stuff up is part of 'the scientific method'.

You accept the ideas of one set of 'middle class' journalists, whose ideas regurgitate those of big Capital, while rejecting those of another set who point out that the scientific basis of the programme you praised somewhat preciptately is flawed from beginning to end.

Seems to me that you prefer one set of middle class journalists to another solely on the basis of whether you agree with their conclusions (howsoever bogus they trun out to be), not because they are scientific.

And then you distract attention by character assassination.

And is this is an example of you storming off in a huff?

Or are your threats as bogus as the science upon which you rely?

[Vanguard1917]

Are you going to answer the question or not?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


Are you going to answer the question or not?

When you base one on things I have said, yes.

Are you going to throw another tantrum, or not?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 09:45 pm
VG1917:


Are you going to answer the question or not?

When you base one on things I have said, yes.

Are you going to throw another tantrum, or not?
I don't know what you mean.

Do you think that environmentalists who oppose oil, cars, planes, GM technology, population growth, and mass industrial development are progressive?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


I don't know what you mean.

Which word is causing the problem?


Do you think that environmentalists who oppose oil, cars, planes, GM technology, population growth, and mass industrial development are progressive?

What has this to do with the lies this 'documentary' contained?

[chimx]

It's questioning Green opposition to industrial development in the underdeveloped world.

This strikes me as ethnocentric thinking. What if a particular culture prefers there way of life over your western development? Not everybody wants a hummer. Do you prefer to see forced industrialization in areas regardless of cultural values?

Also, for someone hardcore into western development and technological advances, you are taking a stance that is extremely unscientific. There is a massive *scientific* consensus that global warming exists. There aren't any climatologists that doubt global warning. There are almost *no* peer-reviewed scientific articles on global warning that doubt this opinion held by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

A good place to start reading is: http://www.realclimate.org

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 10:25 pm

Do you think that environmentalists who oppose oil, cars, planes, GM technology, population growth, and mass industrial development are progressive?

What has this to do with the lies this 'documentary' contained?
Why can't you answer the question?

You're automatically siding with Monbiot and the environmentalists - having, i presume, no scientific background in the field yourself - perhaps because you believe that they're progressives and thus more likely to be right? And anyone who questions the man-made global warming consensus must be siding with big business because environmentalists (who believe that the man-made global warming consensus is beyond doubt) are progressives and are somehow counterposed to big business?

You may be imagining therefore that we have environmentalists on one side of the fence and big business on the other side of the fence. We have capitalists and we have their environmentalist opponents. Is this how you're interpreting the current situation?

If it is, then your response to the scientific debate on climate change - i.e. automatically siding with the environmentalist orthodoxy - might be based on this highly flawed reading of the contemporary political situation.

[Vanguard1917]

Also, for someone hardcore into western development and technological advances, you are taking a stance that is extremely unscientific. There is a massive *scientific* consensus that global warming exists. There aren't any climatologists that doubt global warning. There are almost *no* peer-reviewed scientific articles on global warning that doubt this opinion held by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

Just to clear this up, the documentary does not doubt global warming. The world has indeed experienced warming - by around 0.5 celsius in the past 150 years or so. The documentary present evidence that is contrary to the current consensus that this warming is man-made.

[chimx]

Let me clarify then. The vast majority of scientists have reached a consensus that greenhouse gases, caused by humans, is the reason behind the increase in temperature*. It is higher than .5C in the past 150 years btw. it is closer to 1.1C, and according to the IPCC (see below), most scientists predict that given the current rate of change in greenhouse emissions and climate change, this will increase to a 6.6C change in the next 100 years.

* see the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (you know, that one international body of scientists created by the United Nations)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


Why can't you answer the question?

Because this is just your way of distracting attention from the fact that you have fallen for a pack of lies in that 'documentary'.

I would try to do the same as yuur impossible position.

CHIMX, the links I posted earlier show that what VG1917 says is a load of baloney.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Still missing the point, Vanguard. It isn't a couple of floods we'll have to deal with, assuming Global warming goes ahead unimpeded, it will be more like large amounts of land being outright submerged. As far as I know, there's fuck all that can be done in this situation, but to start fucking swimming. And I don't think you have a good answer to this, so I'll just leave you to dodge Rosa's points.

-Alex

[Vanguard1917]

Still missing the point, Vanguard. It isn't a couple of floods we'll have to deal with, assuming Global warming goes ahead unimpeded, it will be more like large amounts of land being outright submerged.

This is the stuff of Hollywood and has nothing to do with reality. We don't fall for sensationalism in other contexts, so why do we believe it when it's Green sensationalism.


And I don't think you have a good answer to this, so I'll just leave you to dodge Rosa's points.

I'm not with you. Rosa did not have any points. She linked articles which argue against the documentary's evidence challenging the consensus that global warming is man-made. I don't think that she has a background in the science of climatology. So, as with many on the left, she automatically took the side of the environmentalist orthodoxy because she believes that it's somehow more progressive. That's not basing your opinions on science, but on your flawed political prejudices.

[chimx]

I'm not with you. Rosa did not have any points. She linked articles which argue against the documentary's evidence challenging the consensus that global warming is man-made. I don't think that she has a background in the science of climatology. So, as with many on the left, she automatically took the side of the environmentalist orthodoxy because she believes that it's somehow more progressive. That's not basing your opinions on science, but on your flawed political prejudices.

While i understand what you are saying, what makes you think that what the scientific "orthodoxy" (or rather, the entirety of the science community) is saying is less valid than an unscientific documentary?

These are peer-reviewed journals we are talking about. Being able to disprove what other scientists are doing is one of the primary motivating factors behind science! Proving 1 scientist wrong, especially one who has made famous findings, is like hitting a grand slam. How do you argue against peer-review other than by calling it orthodoxy?

[Vanguard1917]

The documentary features several senior scientists who oppose the man-made global warming consensus. One scientist from the IPCC interestingly explains that his name was put on one of those "2,000 of the world's leading scientists" lists without his approval, and that he had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the list. He also explains that some of the people whose names appear on such lists are not even scientists.

Watch the documentary.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


Rosa did not have any points. She linked articles which argue against the documentary's evidence challenging the consensus that global warming is man-made. I don't think that she has a background in the science of climatology

Perhaps not, but I know pro-Capitalist bullshit when I see it in a bogus documentary full of lies, a capacity you appear to lack.


because she believes that it's somehow more progressive.

You might not be able to spot lies in documentaries, but you need to stop fibbing about what I do or do not believe.

Nowhere have I said this, nor would I.

I merely quoted sources (not all of which are by 'environmentalists') that showed your unwise praise of this bogus documentary up for what it was.

All you have done since is try to deflect attention from the fact that you have been caught out.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 09:16 pm
All you have done since is try to deflect attention from the fact that you have been caught out.
Caught out?

Are you a climatology expert? Do you have a background in the natural sciences? Have you studied the scientific evidence for yourself?

I for one am not at all very familiar with the science behind climate change. For that reason, i did not - not even once - claim that the documentary proved the man-made climate change consensus to be wrong.

I merely praised the documentary for presenting us with evidence challenging the man-made climate change consensus, and for providing us with the opinions of several senior scientists who happen to question the man-made global warming orthodoxy.

You, on the other hand, have no background in climatology and yet automatically side with the environmentalist orthodoxy. People who dare to challenge the environmentalist orthodoxy are 'pro-Capitalist bullshiters'. Again, this is based on your highly flawed belief that anyone who opposes the environmentalist orthodoxy must be a reactionary due to the fact that environmentalists are progressives.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


Caught out?

Are you a climatology expert? Do you have a background in the natural sciences? Have you studied the scientific evidence for yourself?

No need, these scientists rubbish this documentary adequately enough.

Seems to me, you will say anything to deflect from the fact that you have been caught out.

VG 1917 before:


Martin Durkin's excellent documentary (which was shown last week on Channel 4 in Britain) uncovers some of myths surrounding the contemporary mainstream Western Green orthodoxy: that of 'man-made global warming'. The documentary shows the reactionary roots of the Green movement, its unscientific foundations, how it has become a central part of Western ruling ideology, and, most importantly, how it has massively tragic implications for the world's poor.

VG1917 after he was rumbled:


I for one am not at all very familiar with the science behind climate change. For that reason, i did not - not even once - claim that the documentary proved the man-made climate change consensus to be wrong.

I merely praised the documentary for presenting us with evidence challenging the man-made climate change consensus, and for providing us with the opinions of several senior scientists who happen to question the man-made global warming orthodoxy.

I think we can call this 'damage limitation' -- a course of action forced on you once you could see you had been found out.


You, on the other hand, have no background in climatology and yet automatically side with the environmentalist orthodoxy. People who dare to challenge the environmentalist orthodoxy are 'pro-Capitalist bullshiters'. Again, this is based on your highly flawed belief that anyone who opposes the environmentalist orthodoxy must be a reactionary due to the fact that environmentalists are progressives.

I sided with no one, I merely provided links that exposed you as a poseur.

And poseur you remain.

Except you are now turning into a fibbing posuer.

[sexyguy]

Global warming may, or may not, be one of many dangers facing mankind and capitalism’s devastating record in world environmental damage is another reason why it has to go;

The line-up of major reactionary forces behind the “Global warming” issue, from leading US establishment figures like presidential candidate Al Gore (highly expensive film and tour), to the whole of the ultra-opportunist and cynical membership of the fraudulent British Parliament (official Conservative policy, and equally pushed by both “right” and “left” New Labourites), has been signalling for some time that the entire bandwagon issue is a giant scam on the working class and world proletariat.

Capitalism never took up any cause that was not to its own profiteering interest in some way or another. And it has plenty of use for global Armageddon theory at present; as a blunt instrument to whip up hostility to trade war rivals like China (especially surging successful China, but India, Brazil and others too), blaming them for “uncontrolled expansionism which could destroy the world” and justifying aggression against them; as an excuse and “explanation” for impending capitalist economic disaster which all the leading ruling class figures know ,and are terrified, is due to break with unprecedented ferocity any time; to help impose draconian “belt tightening” on a scale way beyond the Great Slump of the 1930s; and as a rationale for the escalation of nuclear power construction (and the weapon grade plutonium that it produces and which is the real purpose of having it to keep ahead for the outbreak of inter-imperialist destruction and warmongering which in the capitalist framework at least, must inevitably follow).

But the extraordinary howls of hurt rage from petty bourgeois greens and fake-“lefts” this week in response to the excellent if flawed Channel Four programme challenging “Global Warming” consensus, tells an even deeper story.
As always they mostly tag along behind capitalist ideology parroting the same lies in “left” form.

Their desperation to discredit the programme with a frenzy of “pay-off” and “hidden agenda” allegations at the makers, results because it knocks away one of the biggest posturing fake-“left” perches to avoid discussing Leninist science.

There is an enormous threat to humanity at present – but it has absolutely nothing to do with human-caused global warming, however real a phenomenon that may be; it is the crisis of capitalism itself and the now terrifying, looming catastrophe that it is unleashing, already visible in the endless and rapidly “normalising” warmongering atmosphere on the planet, where monstrous bombings and massacres are becoming “too boring” to show on the news every night, and in the giant ever expanding credit bubble of paper dollars in the world which every man and his dog knows must implode with disastrous force in one way or another eventually (and not so “eventually” at that), tearing the world trading system to shreds and creating unprecedented turmoil.

The ruling class knows that the revolutionary ferment already bubbling across the entire Third World will rapidly escalate as capitalism once again demonstrates its true basic nature of universal warmongering destruction to sort out “overproduction”. Once it gets into its stride and eventually overturns capitalism to establish planned world socialism there will be no more privilege and exploitation.

Global warming’s biggest function now is to be an enormous diversion away from the truth about the immediate historic disaster currently facing the world’s billions, channelling the completely real premonitions and fears it causes for ordinary people, safely away from the scientific Marxist philosophy into a semi-mystical movement that “the end of the world is nigh”. It will be – but only for the imperialist ruling class once revolutionary communism finally gains world momentum.

The anti-communism which saturates the planet as a result of 60 post-war years of relentless lying propaganda from imperialism and the disastrous failures of revisionist “peaceful road” non-communism (beginning with Moscow’s leadership retreats and increasingly wooden incapabilities to understand the dialectical revolutionary movement of the world from the 1920s onwards) has created knee-jerk hostility and philistinism on a grand scale, leaving anything to fill the vacuum.
Virtually the entire fake- ”left” has gone along with the global warming posturing – picking up on its conveniently un-communist philosophy and capacity to provide endless hours of self-justifying smug “sackcloth and ashes” piousness.

Of course they give it a “socialist” spin, with token words about the need for economic planning and fairness; but they exaggerate the issue even more, declaring that capitalism is deliberately and cynically ineffectual in dealing with it, or incapable because of its anarchic profiteering nature.

All true enough but this is just more misleading reformism and a complete feint away from any difficult questions about revolution required, and messy anti-imperialist struggle currently underway.

Global warming may, or may not, be one of many dangers facing mankind and capitalism’s devastating record in world environmental damage is another reason why it has to go; but the science cannot even be understood, let alone be dealt with, now.

That capitalism is deliberately muddying the waters was the most valuable revelation in the programme, not the case for or against.

Allegations of right-wing sponsorship against filmmaker Martin Durkin, and serving the interests of the oil monopolies – and many corporate bosses would not be unhappy with some conclusions – are not the point. Nor are past Revolutionary Communist Party links to the documentary makers – especially as the RCP record is as foully Trotskyist and anti-communist as any of the fake-“left”, and just as much avoiding the world capitalist crisis context vital for understanding and leadership.

The programme raised genuine scientific issues: that carbon dioxide levels in the geological record lag centuries behind global warming; that there is a much better correlation between recent temperature and sun activity than with carbon dioxide (with global cooling for four decades after the WW2); that runaway warming has stopped in the past despite the positive feedback; that atmosphere and climate models are still primitive and subject to huge effects from initial programming assumptions, etc. Scientists in subsequent TV discussions conceded these are all still open questions.

Much more importantly it demonstrated that many anti-arguments are buried away. Funding for pro-warming science has been increased tenfold by capitalist governments, while grants for research on the other side are difficult to get. Thatcher was all for it – to use against the miners and their coal and to argue for nuclear power.

“What would be in it for us, to argue for environmental sacrifices?” asked one petty bourgeois this week. Avoiding revolution and proletarian dictatorship would be the answer.

[The Grey Blur]

There is no point putting forward ideas about an alternative society if we don't have a planet we can live on.

[ichneumon]

The programme raised genuine scientific issues: that carbon dioxide levels in the geological record lag centuries behind global warming; that there is a much better correlation between recent temperature and sun activity than with carbon dioxide (with global cooling for four decades after the WW2); that runaway warming has stopped in the past despite the positive feedback; that atmosphere and climate models are still primitive and subject to huge effects from initial programming assumptions, etc. Scientists in subsequent TV discussions conceded these are all still open questions.

the "programme" deliberately distorted science as a part of a political agenda.


Their desperation to discredit the programme with a frenzy of “pay-off” and “hidden agenda” allegations at the makers, results because it knocks away one of the biggest posturing fake-“left” perches to avoid discussing Leninist science.

Q: How do we know that Communism isn't a real science?
A: If it were a real science, they would have tested it on dogs first.


Global warming may, or may not, be one of many dangers facing mankind and capitalism’s devastating record in world environmental damage is another reason why it has to go; but the science cannot even be understood, let alone be dealt with, now.

not understood? it's not that complicated. what the hell do you mean by "not dealt with, now"?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SexyGuy, why you line up with one section of big capital to rubbish another section, based on a programme full of lies and distortions, only you will know.

It is not reactionary to blame all sections of capitalism for polluting our planet.

If the case for global waming (caused largely by CO2) is wrong, then we will need genuine scientific knowledge to show this.

But this programme did not contain any.

[Luís Henrique]

We know, from geological evidence, that our planet has been a greenhouse in the past, and was warmer than it is now. Since green plants evolved, they have fixed most carbon in our atmosphere; this carbon is now, in great part, buried underground, in the form of coal and oil. We have been since the XIX century unearthing this carbon and throwing it back into the atmosphere. We are quite certainly doing it quicklier than green plants can undo it. So, the only doubt that remains is when we are going to face greenhouse problems, and if it is going to be before our economies crash because of the final oil crisis.

Believe me, I am all for progress - but the direction of progress is relevant, and oil-based economies are a cul-de-sac.

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Economically, the structuring of our entire civilization over the past 150 years has been tremendously idiotic. The most basic principle of economics is don't put all your eggs in one basket. That's exactly what they did. I use "they", because there exists a tendency in this whole discourse to say that global warming is a result of "human activity", when in reality it's predominantly the activity of North Americans, Europeans, and other heavily industrialized nations like China. Certainly humanity as a whole is not responsible. My use of energy is not causing global warming.

I'm not a scientist, so I tend to veer away from this topic. Which is hard sometimes. But the "scientific" rhetoric of the environmentalists plus their pseudo primitivism is so completely off-putting, which makes it easier to stay away from this subject. I'm not gonna argue with numbers and statistics because I can't. But common sense should tell everyone that when you pass highly specialized research and data through the filters of mass media and bourgeois politics, the resulting "information" will be almost always non-factual, so I'm very skeptical about vesting too much trust in either radical hypothesis.

I do believe that human industrial activity has increased the greenhouse effect. I think we should try to avoid making alterations the global ecosystem. I don't think that turning off the lights at your house will make a significant impact. I don't think that underdeveloped nations should limit their electrical generation to solar panels and wind mills. I do think that efforts should be made to diversify our dependence on fossil fuels, with an emphasis on clean forms of energy, if only at least to avoid the proven effects of pollution like lung disease and acid rain. These are all self-evident assertions and beliefs.

[Genosse Kotze]

Bullshit Propaganda (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170) we should take a look at. It's a BBC "documentary" about how global warming is a scam, organized by a cabal of climate scientists so they can get funding...if you want to read all about their wicked designs on us be sure to read: the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sciánce.

I just thought we should all look at this and hate it.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by keine Kaufhalle mehr!@April 29, 2007 08:38 pm
Bullshit Propaganda (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170) we should take a look at. It's a BBC "documentary" about how global warming is a scam, organized by a cabal of climate scientists so they can get funding...if you want to read all about their wicked designs on us be sure to read: the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sciánce.

I just thought we should all look at this and hate it.
I hope you won't mind that I'm merging this with Vanguard1917's thread about the same documentary, kKm. I see him reading this right now, btw, propably scratching the ground with his hoof like an angry bull.. :lol:

[Vanguard1917]

It's a BBC "documentary" about how global warming is a scam

It's not saying that global warming is a scam. It's putting forward the case that global warming isn't man-made.


organized by a cabal of climate scientists so they can get funding...

Makes no sense. If you are a scientist looking for funding, the last thing you should do is go against today's environmentalist orthodoxies.


Bullshit Propaganda

Environmentalism is a mainstream outlook in the Western world. Environmentalist slogans like 'sustainable development' inform government policy-making. They also help to rationalise contemporary capitalist stagnation and capitalism's inability to provide development around the world.

The propaganda that should concern us is environmentalist propaganda - which we are exposed to on a daily basis by the media, the government and the Western middle class elite.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:55 pm

Oil is currently present only in Nigeria in Africa. And there it is exploited by Royal Dutch Shell not by Africans.

Africans need self-determination, which involves taking control over their own economic policy. They need to kick out the Western environmentalists first.

western enviromentalists are totally irrelevant, they need to kick out the foreign companies

[socialistfuture]

that doco has been getting a bashing in the media, and blogs. will put sum quotes up soon