Global Warming Heresy

kinnon —  March 11, 2007 — 7 Comments

Globalwarmingswindle Let me say upfront that I feel we need to take dramatically better care of our planet. We, in the west, use non-renewable resources like binge-blasted sailors consume mind-altering substances. I further believe that the planet’s inhabitants do suffer the consequences of pollution and the devastation of what should be renewable resources – forests being a prime example.

That being said and in spite of the Hollywood love affair with the indefatigable "I used to be the next President of the United States of America" Al Gore and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, I’m a Global Warming skeptic – a heretic in the Main Stream Media’s Gaia Worshipping Religion of Global Warming (MSMGWRGM). (Much of this because of a sister-in-law who sends me every document she can find refuting Global Warming, in an attempt to keep me from the clutches of the MSMGWRGM.)

I just spent the last 75 minutes watching a Channel 4 (UK) Documentary called, The Great Global Warming Swindle available as a Google Video. And I’d highly recommend you watch it to – especially if you’ve also watched ex-next-president Gore’s Oscar-winning doc.

WurschNow, I should note that "A Leading US climate scientist" is claiming "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 further claims "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."

Producer Martin Durkin states, "Carl Wunsch was most certainly not "duped" into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said."

Let me say that I watched the documentary as a television industry professional after reading the article in The Guardian. I began editing 30 years ago this fall, and know well how to manipulate interviews to say what I want the story to say. I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle with an eye and ear attuned to the way the show was cut – and would suggest that Professor Wunsch would be better off recanting – and returning to the fold of the MSMGWRGM, than saying his comments were taken out of context. Perhaps there will be a place for the professor in the soprano section of the MSMGWRGM choir.

UPDATE: The iMonk pointed at this Dean Abbott post – an important contribution to the discussion: Religion and Global Warming

UPDATE 2: Just to put my position in perspective – I think James Dobson et al are idiots for wanting to remove "Richard Cizik from the National Association of Evangelicals because of his "relentless campaign" against global warming." I’m not impressed with Dobson at the best of times.

UPDATE 3: It would seem that Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth is getting some push back from a number of interesting places. The New York Times has this story, From a Rapt Audience, A Call to Cool the Hype.

The Boston Herald comments on the Times story,

The New York Times fires a shot today at Al Gore and his Academy Award-winning global warming film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” saying it involves “hype” and shoddy science.

What’s very interesting for me is that this story, with others like it, was up on the Google News website around 10am EST this morning – and now you need to search Google News for Al Gore to find it – where the first story is about An Inconvenient Truth appearing on TV. Check out this Sydney Morning Herald story, which I found on Google News.

Let me repeat (so I can avoid the death threats that Dr. Timothy Ball has been getting), I do believe that our present profligate pursuit of pleasure with little regard to it’s environmental impact is having and will continue to have major negative impact on our world and future generations. I’m just not prepared to sign on to Al Gore’s Chicken Little call – that desperately wants to seed control of our lives to those people "who know best."

UPDATE 4: Tim Challies compares Carbon Offsets (how Al Gore assuages his guilt over his profligate power usage of 20 times the U.S. national average) with Johann Tetzel’s sale of indulgences in the 16th Century. Tim’s line echoing Tetzel is particularly funny "When a coin in the coffer rings, an oxygen molecule to the atmosphere springs"…or not.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

kinnon

Posts

A television editor, writer & director since 1978. A Christian since 1982. More than a little frustrated with the Church in the West since late in the last millennium.

7 responses to Global Warming Heresy

  1. Please read the actual SCIENCE in response to the TV show on realclimate.org which refutes the claims of The Great Global Warming Swindle.

    Reply
  2. Okay. Your editor eyes were on hyper-alert.
    Check.

    Okay. environmentalism is an industry and a poltical agenda.
    Check.

    What is Carl Wunsch’s agenda in registering complaints then?

    You are most welcome to come over to Wales and chat.:^) link to theconnexion.net

    Reply
  3. “Please read the actual SCIENCE in response to the TV show on realclimate.org which refutes the claims of The Great Global Warming Swindle.”

    But doesn’t realclimate belong to Michael Mann, creator of the fake UN-IPCC “hockey stick’ climate reconstruction?

    Why would anyone looking for an honest appraisal go there?

    Reply
  4. I took Gordon McDonald’s advice from “out of Ur,” and read James Martin’s “The Meaning of the 21st Century.”

    Reply
  5. Thanks for the link!

    Reply
  6. I’ve taken a look at the rebuttals on realclimate.org. Unfortunately, the rebuttal to the show’s main point that CO2 *lags* temperature (rather than leading it, which is what you’d expect if CO2 drove temperature), is incredibly weak. It’s poor science, and I don’t believe its author understands feedback theory, because, given his argument, temperature and CO2 should have continued to go up and up and up (the author has described a classic positive feedback system). In other words, each time such a warming event occured, we should have seen *catastrophic* global warming. But does the historical record show this? No one has ever mentioned it, so my guess is that the answer is no. In other words, the realclimate rebuttal doesn’t seem to fit the actual data. Global warming advocates need a much better argument to refute CO2 lagging temperature.

    Reply

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

  1. MirandaDevine.com - March 13, 2007

    Greenies: the 21st century Mafioso

    Twelve months ago, the majority of Middle Australia recognised green activists for what they are: inconsequential gasbags pining for the drug-laden indie-music culture of the 60s and 70s. Sadly, the reality of late has been obscured by a new gang of …

What do you think?