The science in the Great Global Warming Swindle is so bad I'm tempted to suggest that it's actually a conspiratorial "straw man" by the various media outletss (UK Channel 4, Australia's ABC) to promote real knowledge on global warming.

Thanks to Cindy Baxter - for publicising this information - which should be known by responsible media organisations. It's not as if Singer is some new expert. He has been knwn for years as one of the fossil fuel industries' well-remunerated "spinners".
The tobacco industry spawned the first really effective spinners and front groups.
The technique was always so simple - Delay delay - and confuse the public. Despite the overwhleming evidence against cigarette smoking - they were able to simply sow DOUBT in the public mind.

The fossil fuel industries developed and omproved this art - setting up "front "groups - that pose as being impartial scientists.
In Australia - we have, for example - the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing, corporate-funded think tank - advocating nuclear power, and with its executive officers drawn from companies like Rio Tinto.

Such groups not only influence government, but fund pseudo-environmental groups that cast doubt on global warming, and promote polluting industries.

It is a tribute to the success of this spin industry that the phrase - the "Climate Change debate" is in use. "Climate Change" sounds nicer than Global Warming - and "debate" leads us to think that there IS a debate among reputable scients - when there isn't!
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

"A right-wing, corporate-funded think tank - advocating nuclear power, and with its executive officers drawn from companies like Rio Tinto. Such groups not only influence government, but fund pseudo-environmental groups that cast doubt on global warming, and promote polluting industries."

Oh so true ChristinaMac. Another such think-tank is the Lavoisier Group, the secretary Ray Evans appearing on the TGGWS along side Professor Bob Carter, well known for his support and denialist views.

Check them out at

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/

I would be interested in anyone's thoughts on Guy Pearse's book High and Dry. It exposes relationships with such groups that have had the ear of our most senior government ministers, an extract can be found at

http://www.highanddry.com.au/extract.cfm

These very topical and relevant links have been posted on other OLO threads, we can not always get the chance to see them all.

Goodonyer davsab!
I'll be checking out that website, and getting Pearce's book
Christina Macpherson
www.antinuclearaustralia.com

davsab

Thank you for the links. Reading through your second mentioned link reminded me just how far John Howard and his front bench have moved to the right and away from traditional Liberal values.

Howard's nuke thinking is very much pre-McMahon. Billy McMahon would have been horrified by Howard's nuke pretensions.

In the context of this article, it could be worth checking the background of Australia's very own AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENT FOUNDATION and comparing its credentials with those of the organisation they pinched its name from.

"Before viewing The Great Global Warming Swindle, the Australian public should have known of these connections, and that the film’s content is part of the long term campaign by an industry-funded propaganda machine to stop action on climate change.

Of course.

Well someone has to counter the hysterical propaganda being pumped out by the socialists and their entryist comrades, so why not an industry funded think tank, at least they provide jobs for folks - what do there opponents produce - not even their own hair shirts and scourges for moral cleansing?

After all, considering the UN's Oil for Food program, the industry funded propaganda machine has a better reputation for honesty than anything the UN, its secretary general or bureaucrats have been left to manage.

The IPCC is, like Oil for Food, just another UN protege, tainted with the mindset of the same spawn, breeding and feeding on publicly funded easy-street.

Following the ICPP path, we will all be choking on the Chinese power station emmissions, the carbon trading market will collapse and we will equally the bounties of another socialist lead recession.

It is just another weasel-fest presented by the dark empire (of bureaucracy) - the UN.

Someone here said ""A right-wing, corporate-funded think tank - advocating nuclear power, and with its executive officers drawn from companies like Rio Tinto. Such groups not only influence government, but fund pseudo-environmental groups that cast doubt on global warming, and promote polluting industries."".

Keiran here says ....... illogical

90% certainty from one organisation with an axe to grind – or money to rip off the rest of us? Hardly conclusive.

But, the main thing to remember is that this person is tied up with Greenpeace which enjoys equal left-wing loony status with Amnesty International.

When we are all paying much more than we should for our energy and whatever else is going to be blamed for global warming before the their fraud is finally recognised, these eco-freaks had better find a safe place to hide.

They should not be allowed to fade away quietly like the mob that started the computer virus scare before the start of this millennium

What ticks the socialistas off is that they thought it would be their personal political wrench to toss into the works whenever they needed a media victory over the Right and their own money well to mine as they used it to coerce millions from the world governments to expand their UN base. Lesson #1 for the socialists. Stay out of the deep end of the pool. Thats where the sharks swim. The reality is that there is no money in denial for the "right wingers" so in truth they are more on board starting new industries under the guise of "green" corporations. Case in point. British Petroleum changed their old logo to a new 'green' logo and use the bp to represent 'beyond petroleum' and invest something like 12-15billion each year in green initiatives. As the demand for reliance on fossil fuels decreases these companies will be well positioned with relative technology. All the Left really have is to hype the denial industry. A paper tiger.

Ooops I've stumbled into the conspiracy thread...OK here goes.

I think the shooting of JFK was linked to the faked Apollo 11 moon landings which were orchestrated by NASA, who's head administrator denies global warming is a problem and that he is indeed, an alien from Area 51 who collaborated with the US government to create the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami to create a distraction from climate change AND it was all funded by Exxon...those evil barstools

Aquvarius, you are so right about the right-wingers stealing ideas from the left-wing Avant Guarde - pity you support right-wing roguery so much which was so much Jehovah's plan about the Promised Land, which now, with the Jewish re-occupation of Israel, has with growing shortage of oil today, reignited that unlawful grab for colonial contraband so profound over the Second Milleum and into the American so-called grab-all conquest for the 21st Century.

Today, sadly, with our politico - economic possessiveness adding to the problems of terrorism, maybe there should be some sort of right-about-turn including apologies from both sides.

Trouble is, it's like sunshine turning green-like, in today's world getting very much less-like. Cheers - BB

Its so handy when RightThink regulars like Leigh, aqvarivs, Col Rouge, & Alzo go straight to insult and smear (socialistas, left-wing loony, eco-freaks..).

It makes their many time wasting and frankly ridiculous posts easier to spot & skip.

True, you miss their really hilarious lies (aqvarivs: "The reality is that there is no money in denial for the "right wingers" so in truth they are more on board starting new industries under the guise of "green" corporations." ha ha ha, that must be why Exxon spends tens of millions www.exxonsecrets.org). But then theres always the TV news

Cindy criticizes Frank Luntz for making lack of scientific certainty the main issue.

Lack of scientific proof that human activity causes global warming has to be the main issue.

Assertions of the IPCC give no weight to arguments about global warming. It is only the fraudulent Summary which asserts that global warming is caused by human activity. No scientist asserts that there is any proof that it is so caused.

So what science is being denied, as Cindy asserts? There is no science which affirms human activity as a cause.

There is science which says that the globe has warmed one half of a degree, in the last 106 years, no one is denying that, or the fact that warming ceased in 1998, and the temperature has decreased slightly since that year.

Most of the article is devoted to smearing reputable and competent people who put forward facts. None of it deals with the facts, which are that there has been no global warming for nine years, and all the alarmist nonsense is based on the predictions of the IPCC, and other frauds.

Kevin Trenberth, previously a lead author of the IPCC, and now head of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, in an article in the publication Nature, states that there are no climate predictions by IPCC, and never have been. He says there are only “what if” projections.

This is not true, of course, the IPCC constantly made definite predictions, but one understands Trenberth's attempt to cover himself, by making this assertion about the flawed predictions with which he was associated, in his time with the IPCC.

In view of the negligible effects of global warming, and the strong indication that it is beneficial, for instance the greening of the Sahara which is occurring, an article like this is of dubious assistance to anyone interested in facts about global warming. I could not find one fact about global warming in the whole article.

My comment is perhaps not directly addressed to “swindle”
But to ask why and how such occur.
Humans are not well educated. That is to say their range of informed knowledge is on average low. They are emotional and like belonging to the herd.
Those industrious enough to gain more knowledge, though by no means all embracing, may also acquire the ability to analyse. This means the skill at posing questions and then the ability to search for answers. This does imply a marked separation of emotional state and research needs, intellect.
This I think provides the how. Most of us like to seem informed. Ignorance implies laziness or the wrong religion or politics. So the majority and it is in a democracy the numbers which ultimately decide, tend to side with the seeming informed. An attitude perhaps a hang over from school days, yes sir no sir etc. plus any naturally occurring but juvenile replies, having been put down, our egos injured.

This I think is the answer to why such programmes exist. They are unanswerable without real study and if the proponents are wise a new item or version appears reasonably soon denying the time necessary for study. The media with a profit seeking motive finds profit in less demanding trivia. One is left with statements along the lines of I believe which for religious items, since no answer is provable, gets the seal of approval. Mind you I believe may infer that any opposition is supportive of , well used to be communism, but to day I guess is the undefined terrorism. Such gives the speaker a standing, a kinship with like minds nearby.

As in many things action is only undertaken if profit, money or status, is in mind. The profit from denial is placid continuance but includes the industries supporting the life style.

All so obvious?
Why then did we as a democracy with access to knowledge fall for the confidence trick of Iraq? Or indeed for that of Afghanistan a less obvious confidence trick if judged against the criteria of the U. N. Charter?

Who then benefited from the recent saga that began with the desire to involve Russia in its Vietnam, beginning 1978-9 and the long standing desire to invade Iraq?

Who gained from the new ‘B’ Team intelligence from Ford’s time on.? Intelligence purporting to consider motive as well as actuality, resurfacing in Bush junior’s time?

Why then were we told that Iraq, whom we focused on ignoring the developing elements latter to become the Terrorists of G W Bush, had strength, WMD, and aggressive intent?

Later in the Downing street memos we learnt that even by July 2002 this was not believed by the proponents who said the propaganda was being fixed to support the aim?

Who gains by the continued participation in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Why do we accept the trashing of countries, the reduction of populations and the imposition of free trade? Who is the winner?

Why does a Christian country, our call, perpetrate deeds contrary to our professed beliefs?

Because we are frightened, too lazy to do the research or constrained by national law that regards disagreement as traitorous?

As H. Goering said:
“ of course the people don’t want war. But after all it’s the leaders of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is democracy, a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy, all you have to tell them is they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the Country to greater danger.”

Is it oil, hegemony or both?
Is this Foreign policy, the executive call?
Within the nation what stops us doing similarly?

liam, anyone has the perfect right to spend their profits as they see fit and if that expenditure exposes the Leftist manufactured hysteria of "Global Warming", a temperature fluctuation (which means to shift back and forth uncertainly, just so you don't go off on a Star Trek tangent) of 0.7 degrees over the last 100 years. Which is just another money grab and method of bolstering the lefts grip on Government funding. As Bushbred says, the Left is the moral and ethical compass of the world and the rightful rulers of the proceeds of others hard work and money.
Between that Leftist decree and all your conspiracy theories your well set up to sponge off society I guess until your told what next conspiracy to dance to. And just so you know. Going off the grid and using alternative fuels is not a Leftist idea. It's a Libertarian ideal. Like putting your money where your mouth is. If you don't like what Exxon is doing boycott that businesses product. Live your life free of fossil fuels. Though I must tell you such an decision would require continuous effort on your part.

"Live your life free of fossil fuels. Though I must tell you such an decision would require continuous effort on your part."

An excellent suggestion, although past experience tells me that most are all talk, no action types.

Your cannot be all that good at 'spotting' and 'skipping',Liam, if you know what we say and take the trouble to comment on what we say.

How could i miss what you 'say' Leigh, its simply regurgutating Andrew Bolt & Alan Jones. They in turn merely garble the spin of the real pro's, the Lavoisor/Institute for Public Affairs/rest of the tax-dodge-funded "think tanks" spawned by the reactionary rich. We've had their hate mail on our tvs & newspapers 24-7 for over twenty years, guess its inevitable they repeat themselves.

Only thing thats different todays is that the web allows open source analysis, as done by Exxonsecrets.org (topic of the thread anyone?). That interested citizens compile such info makes it easier to see thru Durkins GGW Swindle and its "smoking-don't-cause-cancer" science, they altruisticly made their info available (with modest less-than-cost Greenpeace support), for which i'm grateful. Now i know theres no need to pay any attention at all to fossil fools like yourselves, the grownups have moved on and are debating what and how to do. You keep smearing away, 'by your works shall we know you'.

Liegh vs. Liam: I propose mud-wrestling :-)

Fair enough xoddam, after being labelled a Leftist (much more wounding and inaccurate than the many other RightThink smears) i'll take any chance i can get to restore my honour. But where will you find mud willing to sink so low? :)

Nick Lanelaw states “lack of scientific proof that human activity causes global warming has to be the main issue.”

What is people’s definition of scientific proof? But more importantly, Nick thinks this is the main issue. Really?

What are people's opinion that politicians from all ideologies are adopting policies to adapt to global warming and mitigate GHG emissions. Maybe Nick should tell the world's political and business leaders that they have all got it wrong.

Some people are NOT familiar with Carbon isotope analyses, paleobiogeochemistry or climate science. So it is distortion and misrepresentation to assert that there is no science which affirms human activity as a cause.

People, what is your definition of GW?

Nick Lanelaw quotes, “Kevin Trenberth, previously a lead author of the IPCC, and now head of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, in an article in the publication Nature, states that there are no climate predictions by IPCC, and never have been. He says there are only “what if” projections.”

Nick then goes on to say “This is not true, of course, the IPCC constantly made definite predictions.”

It would be interesting to know what other people’s views are about the IPCC’s SRES and confidence levels.

This may seem cryptic, but where is Jono, where are the engineers?

1 of 2

If that was directed at me, I was busy elsewhere, saw nothing new here, and didn't feel like weighing in with anything more substantial than a giggle. My quip hardly lowered the prevailing mud-slinging tone here, though.

My take:

The article is a rehash of the sorts of things I read in "orthodox climate change alarmist" circles four or five months ago. As far as I'm aware the tobacco/greenhouse PR nexus was first publicised by George Monbiot, but I'm not sure he was responsible for the investigation. The speculation about Channel 4's fossil-fueled motives is probably a bit too far fetched -- 4 is sufficiently independent that the most likely explanation is that it was after token "balance" and a bit of sensationalism, just as its replies to Monbiot's indignant correspondence imply.

The climate is too chaotic to be predictable, and anyone claiming they really know what it will be like in a decade or a century is kidding themselves and their readers.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with having a guess, nor even with being alarmed. And also nothing wrong with trying to come up with computer models that are able to give some kind of an idea about climate sensitivity. The models are not able to give predictions, but they are able to draw investigators' attention to important variables.

The physics of the greenhouse effect are basic, measurable and uncontroversial: Adding a greenhouse gas has a warming effect ("forcing"), whose magnitude depends on the way that particular gas is distributed through the atmosphere (CO2 is the only major one that mixes well at all altitudes) and on the wavelengths which it absorbs (CO2 has a number of absorbtion lines in the infrared). Direct warming due to CO2 alone will cause confirmable warming.

Climate feedbacks like humidity are also observable, but being feedbacks they are chaotic. Water vapour is the least controversial: the gas has a large number of absorbtion lines in the infrared, most of which do not overlap with CO2.

2 of 2

Water vapour also stays at lower altitudes due to precipitation, and turns into clouds which have very unpredictable effects as they absorb and/or reflect most wavelengths of light: it varies with temperature (cold surfaces radiate less heat so they don't benefit from a blanket effect) and the altitude of the cloud.

Subtle errors are repeatedly adduced with the purpose of labelling people who are alarmed by the potential for human activity to seriously alter the climate as "alarmist". Frankly I wear it with pride, and will continue to do so until my worst fears are comprehensively dispelled by some *real* science proving beyond doubt that the climate is fundamentally stable.

Some of these errors were scientifically credible in decades past, like the claim that CO2-related forcing levels off logarithmically with increasing CO2 (it would, if the atmosphere were at the same pressure and temperature for its entire depth, but it isn't) and that water vapour's greater forcing somehow swallows the CO2 forcing (it doesn't swallow much of it, as absorption lines are very narrow, in fact it reinforces it by being directly proportional to temperature over most of the earth's surface).

Commentators like the Lavoisier institute, Durkin, our honourable OLO editor and our colleague Leigh here parrot these distortions, and less-credible guff about solar forcing that ignores the dramatic departure of temperatures from measured solar activity in the last quarter-century.

Worse, they then compare the 'vested interest' of IPCC salaries and publishing credits with the 'vested interest' of investment $billions in the fossil fuel industry (which is of course the accusation leveled in the other direction by environmentalists). This is backed up by pointing at somebody's nine-year-old poorly-centred graph and saying this is discredited and represents a failure of peer review ... while of course the scientific discourse has moved on, because science itself is a dialectic, not a polemic.

Engineering perspective: This is a complex beast. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But don't push it too hard, because if you do break it I won't be able to fix it for you.