Comments on: Why was The Great Global Warming Swindle so persuasive? http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/ Charting the disconnect between climate science and action Mon, 14 May 2012 04:17:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: Blake http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/comment-page-1/#comment-322821 Blake Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:40:52 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/#comment-322821 Climate change was initially disputed and even now is difficult to evaluate because it entails deep political and industrial implications and arises from the core process of our civilation's success. Its obvious that the media made climate change one of the most controversial issues and the general public did not know who to believe, thus, in the contemporary society the public may have a general concensus that climate change is real, but they are hesitant to take any action due to the dispute made by the political and industrial community, in addition to the implications to their daily lives. Climate change was initially disputed and even now is difficult to evaluate because it entails deep political and industrial implications and arises from the core process of our civilation’s success. Its obvious that the media made climate change one of the most controversial issues and the general public did not know who to believe, thus, in the contemporary society the public may have a general concensus that climate change is real, but they are hesitant to take any action due to the dispute made by the political and industrial community, in addition to the implications to their daily lives.

]]> By: MDH http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/comment-page-1/#comment-39621 MDH Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:50:26 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/#comment-39621 I think that both sides will bend the story for their own aims. In the UK people happily state that any scientist that denies climate change must be in the pockets of big oil - yet the interests of other scientists and the billions invested are never questioned? More importantly, the question I am always left with, is why don't we spend some of this money adapting to the changes the world may bring? I think it would be more cost effective and cost efficient. I think that both sides will bend the story for their own aims. In the UK people happily state that any scientist that denies climate change must be in the pockets of big oil – yet the interests of other scientists and the billions invested are never questioned?

More importantly, the question I am always left with, is why don’t we spend some of this money adapting to the changes the world may bring? I think it would be more cost effective and cost efficient.

]]> By: Axel Llizo http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/comment-page-1/#comment-32754 Axel Llizo Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:49:18 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/#comment-32754 George: I live in a country specially affected by global warming, if such a thing can be said. Islands on the Caribbean are on the path of most hurricanes. Although I have no evidence to support this, the mean number of hurricanes per year and their mean intensity seem to have increased, specially this last decade, because of the increased mean water temperature. Besides, such a raise of water level as predicted if climate keeps changing would leave most of my country under the sea. Nevertheless, I am one of the people who desperately want to believe in “Swindle”. I find your reply very interesting and convincing, but I have some doubts. 1. As “Swindle” states, H2O is the major greenhouse gas, rather than CO2, but no one seems worried about that. In fact, most of “CO2 clean” energy sources produce mainly H2O; and they are referred as “green technologies”: I am very intrigued about such contradiction. 2. “Swindle” states that anthropogenic CO2 is not, by far, the main source of this gas. Is that true? If so, why are humans referred as the main cause of the increased CO2 levels? But don’t get me wrong: I am not defending Denial. As I said before, I desperately want “Swindle” to be right, because in such a case, things could be naturally reversible, something that I really doubt if we humans are the cause of global warming. I hope you can enlighten me. Tank you very much. Axel Llizo PS. My mother language is Spanish, so perhaps this piece of writing will have mistakes and odd phrases. I hope you will forgive them. George:
I live in a country specially affected by global warming, if such a thing can be said. Islands on the Caribbean are on the path of most hurricanes. Although I have no evidence to support this, the mean number of hurricanes per year and their mean intensity seem to have increased, specially this last decade, because of the increased mean water temperature. Besides, such a raise of water level as predicted if climate keeps changing would leave most of my country under the sea. Nevertheless, I am one of the people who desperately want to believe in “Swindle”.
I find your reply very interesting and convincing, but I have some doubts.
1. As “Swindle” states, H2O is the major greenhouse gas, rather than CO2, but no one seems worried about that. In fact, most of “CO2 clean” energy sources produce mainly H2O; and they are referred as “green technologies”: I am very intrigued about such contradiction.
2. “Swindle” states that anthropogenic CO2 is not, by far, the main source of this gas. Is that true? If so, why are humans referred as the main cause of the increased CO2 levels?
But don’t get me wrong: I am not defending Denial. As I said before, I desperately want “Swindle” to be right, because in such a case, things could be naturally reversible, something that I really doubt if we humans are the cause of global warming.
I hope you can enlighten me.
Tank you very much.
Axel Llizo
PS. My mother language is Spanish, so perhaps this piece of writing will have mistakes and odd phrases. I hope you will forgive them.

]]> By: Mark Kinsey http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/comment-page-1/#comment-29508 Mark Kinsey Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:09:24 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/#comment-29508 Everyone appears to have missed out "change", as in people don't like things changing in their lives - unless they choose to change and / or see advantages in live style changes. On the subject of CO2, hands up everyone who wants to pay more for their energy supplies. Yep, no one. So if reducing CO2 emissions means equipment lasts longer and is more energy efficient, how many will complain now? This is one possible key - getting people to accept longer lasting and cheaper to run products should not be difficult. Of course there are many problems (higher cost of better products, road transport, air transport, CO2 clean electricity generation) that will have to be solved. Humans will adapt. Even without CO2 restrictions, oil will be become more expensive to pump out of the ground. People need to see a bright clear future... Everyone appears to have missed out “change”, as in people don’t like things changing in their lives – unless they choose to change and / or see advantages in live style changes.
On the subject of CO2, hands up everyone who wants to pay more for their energy supplies. Yep, no one. So if reducing CO2 emissions means equipment lasts longer and is more energy efficient, how many will complain now?
This is one possible key – getting people to accept longer lasting and cheaper to run products should not be difficult.
Of course there are many problems (higher cost of better products, road transport, air transport, CO2 clean electricity generation) that will have to be solved.
Humans will adapt. Even without CO2 restrictions, oil will be become more expensive to pump out of the ground.
People need to see a bright clear future…

]]> By: Haha! Wrist slapping for Channel 4 courtesy of climate sceptic ‘documentary’ « Babylonian Times by Corporate Watch http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/comment-page-1/#comment-28011 Haha! Wrist slapping for Channel 4 courtesy of climate sceptic ‘documentary’ « Babylonian Times by Corporate Watch Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:24:20 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/#comment-28011 [...] went further and argued that it worryingly supported ‘climate denial’ writing in his blog: ‘Among the lies it peddled was the notion that environmentalists and scientists have a [...] [...] went further and argued that it worryingly supported ‘climate denial’ writing in his blog: ‘Among the lies it peddled was the notion that environmentalists and scientists have a [...]

]]> By: Phillip http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/comment-page-1/#comment-25535 Phillip Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:26:12 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/#comment-25535 So Caspar henderson (7) says "I’ll go out on a limb and say that the propaganda-culture battle on this issue has largely been won, and that denial is a dwindling problem." I think the limb is breaking off. See today's MORI poll in the Observer. So Caspar henderson (7) says “I’ll go out on a limb and say that the propaganda-culture battle on this issue has largely been won, and that denial is a dwindling problem.” I think the limb is breaking off. See today’s MORI poll in the Observer.

]]> By: Andy Mitchell http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/comment-page-1/#comment-22444 Andy Mitchell Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:28:27 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/#comment-22444 There's a foolish notion that people are, on the whole, decent. Rather a strange idea given that time and again (for example WW2 Germany, Ruwanda, Serbia) history shows us that the majority of them will support any atrocity, no matter how extreme, if they think they will gain from it. To deceive even themselves that they are doing nothing wrong they simply construct a fantasy that explains away their guilt. Thus Albert Speer apparently knew nothing of the holocaust despite being a member of Hitler's inner circle. And so, today, those who wish to preserve their rich, polluting lifestyles willingly clutch at the fantasy being offered by the climate change deniers: they do not know that climate change is happening. And when a future generation asks them why they behaved as they did, they will say they were lied to by that same climate change denial lobby, ignoring the fact that those lies could only be effective if they themselves chose to ignore the people on the other side of the debate who spoke the truth. Nobody was being 'persuaded', they were simply being given the excuse they were already looking for. There’s a foolish notion that people are, on the whole, decent. Rather a strange idea given that time and again (for example WW2 Germany, Ruwanda, Serbia) history shows us that the majority of them will support any atrocity, no matter how extreme, if they think they will gain from it. To deceive even themselves that they are doing nothing wrong they simply construct a fantasy that explains away their guilt. Thus Albert Speer apparently knew nothing of the holocaust despite being a member of Hitler’s inner circle.

And so, today, those who wish to preserve their rich, polluting lifestyles willingly clutch at the fantasy being offered by the climate change deniers: they do not know that climate change is happening. And when a future generation asks them why they behaved as they did, they will say they were lied to by that same climate change denial lobby, ignoring the fact that those lies could only be effective if they themselves chose to ignore the people on the other side of the debate who spoke the truth.

Nobody was being ‘persuaded’, they were simply being given the excuse they were already looking for.

]]> By: Tom http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/comment-page-1/#comment-10189 Tom Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:11:50 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/#comment-10189 i have read lots of reviews saying how the program is all wrong, what parts if any were right? i have read lots of reviews saying how the program is all wrong, what parts if any were right?

]]> By: Graham http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/comment-page-1/#comment-8318 Graham Sun, 15 Jul 2007 06:07:20 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/#comment-8318 Swindle was shown in Australia last week and was followed by a panel discussion that included and IPCC scientist and several skeptics. While the debate was interesing enough, it was the audience who were most fascinating. The studio audience of maybe 80 people was infiltrated by a right wing group that managed to ask maybe half of the questions raised. One made some point that was so obscure nobody on the panel could understand the question (something along the lines of "what about carbon 14" as this apparently discredits all the GW theories) but several others made a more interesting claim. They suggested that the whole environmental movement was really started by a Nazi sympathiser, so all of us who believe this GW stuff are either deliberately or unwittingly promoting a eugenics / population control agenda that is designed to "wipe out Africa". I looked up their web site and found a further theory, that Inconvenient Truth was really somehow connected to a plot to avoid having to "impeach" Vice President Cheyney. I don't think they won any popular support. Their presence was noted in the local media but not particularly sympathetically. Their web site claimed that they had "turned the debate around" and send shock waves through the Australian community but only one of their comments or questions was actually taken seriously by the moderator or the panel, and that one was a panel member who when asked if he supported world population control said "that's your comment, not mine". It fits well with your assertion that the facts are almost irrelevant to what people choose to believe. Swindle was shown in Australia last week and was followed by a panel discussion that included and IPCC scientist and several skeptics. While the debate was interesing enough, it was the audience who were most fascinating.

The studio audience of maybe 80 people was infiltrated by a right wing group that managed to ask maybe half of the questions raised. One made some point that was so obscure nobody on the panel could understand the question (something along the lines of “what about carbon 14″ as this apparently discredits all the GW theories) but several others made a more interesting claim. They suggested that the whole environmental movement was really started by a Nazi sympathiser, so all of us who believe this GW stuff are either deliberately or unwittingly promoting a eugenics / population control agenda that is designed to “wipe out Africa”. I looked up their web site and found a further theory, that Inconvenient Truth was really somehow connected to a plot to avoid having to “impeach” Vice President Cheyney.

I don’t think they won any popular support. Their presence was noted in the local media but not particularly sympathetically. Their web site claimed that they had “turned the debate around” and send shock waves through the Australian community but only one of their comments or questions was actually taken seriously by the moderator or the panel, and that one was a panel member who when asked if he supported world population control said “that’s your comment, not mine”.

It fits well with your assertion that the facts are almost irrelevant to what people choose to believe.

]]> By: David Foskey http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/comment-page-1/#comment-8054 David Foskey Sat, 07 Jul 2007 10:35:21 +0000 http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/#comment-8054 George Swindle will be shown on the Australian Broadcasting Commission's (ABC) channel on July 12. The only review I've seen so far is either supportive of its views or satire, but I fear the former. (The review was in The Age which today carried an article by you.) George

Swindle will be shown on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s (ABC) channel on July 12. The only review I’ve seen so far is either supportive of its views or satire, but I fear the former. (The review was in The Age which today carried an article by you.)

]]>