The Great Global Warming Swindle

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No. Many co-ops offer memberships. This is a buy-in where you become part owner of the establishment.[/quote]

Where’d I go wrong with my splitting hairs comment? If there is no other qualification for membership (such as locality or occupation or maximum number of members/dollars), what’s the difference between a co-op and a corporation? If all the employees own a given corporation, how is it any different than a co-op? If a member of a 100-person co-op dumps one gallon of herbicide down the drain or throws it in the garbage is it any different than a 5500-person corporation dumping a 55 gal. drum? I know who’s more likely to get caught and pay bigger fines.

I’m not arguing that we should do away with co-ops or the benefits that they do carry, just that corporations are big for a reason and that big corporation isn’t synonymous with evil or wrong.

That’s great for getting corn, beans, beef, and milk in Minnesota, but I’m sure your citrus isn’t fresh.

And usually organic? As I was telling lixy, having worked for both private and corporate farms and interacting with regulatory agencies. The bigger the farm the lower the pesticide/herbicide runoff per acre (assuming the same yield) will be.

I think you’re confusing or amalgamating ensure with dodging, shirking, and/or denying. Co-ops (as your proposing them) are actually anti-fair trade, arbitrarily placing greater value according to locality. The Minnesota farmer working his ass off to grow oranges gets more money than the Floridian or Venezuelan for whom oranges grow themselves.

On top of that your co-op doesn’t perform background checks on farmhands to ensure that they’re legal immigrants. It doesn’t guarantees profits don’t get funneled to John Deere in Decatur, Caterpillar in Peoria, or Allis-Chalmers in Milwaukee. It doesn’t guarantee that the exhaust from the farm equipment is compliant with federal regulations. Corporations are big because, often, that’s the most efficient way to do business, and they’re only “evil” because lixy and AlGore say they are or because they don’t have a very good PR department.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for supporting local farming and full(er) disclosure about what you’re buying, but I wouldn’t pretend that the thirty-year-old combine that runs for three days to harvest 10 acres of low-yield organic corn is any more environmentally friendly or efficient than the brand new one next door harvesting 100 acres a day of high-yield “industrial” corn. People begin (and often do) think that just because you’ve dialed the clock back on the farming method that you’ve actually gained something.

found this article related to this movie:

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

The real global warming swindle
A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
By Steve Connor
Published: 14 March 2007

A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme’s credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

A graph central to the programme’s thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial “lie” foisted on the public.

Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this newspaper’s inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.

Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent.

Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate.

The main arguments made in Mr Durkin’s film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.

One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled “World Temp - 120 years”, which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.

Mr Durkin’s film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as “Nasa” but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV’s PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of “terrestrial northern hemisphere” temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.

However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a “petition project” by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. “There was a fluff there,” he said.

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

“The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find,” Mr Durkin said.

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of “global cooling” between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today’s temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.

[quote]Ren wrote:
found this article related to this movie:

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

[/quote]

Hmmm. Too bad if the producers indeed made a biased documentary that exaggerated both the data and its implications. That would sink it down to the level of “An Inconvenient Truth.” I suppose the safe baseline w/r/t what is shown by documentaries would be “skeptical.”

[quote]lucasa wrote:
I think you’re confusing or amalgamating ensure with dodging, shirking, and/or denying. Co-ops (as your proposing them) are actually anti-fair trade, arbitrarily placing greater value according to locality. The Minnesota farmer working his ass off to grow oranges gets more money than the Floridian or Venezuelan for whom oranges grow themselves.

On top of that your co-op doesn’t perform background checks on farmhands to ensure that they’re legal immigrants. It doesn’t guarantees profits don’t get funneled to John Deere in Decatur, Caterpillar in Peoria, or Allis-Chalmers in Milwaukee. It doesn’t guarantee that the exhaust from the farm equipment is compliant with federal regulations. Corporations are big because, often, that’s the most efficient way to do business, and they’re only “evil” because lixy and AlGore say they are or because they don’t have a very good PR department.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for supporting local farming and full(er) disclosure about what you’re buying, but I wouldn’t pretend that the thirty-year-old combine that runs for three days to harvest 10 acres of low-yield organic corn is any more environmentally friendly or efficient than the brand new one next door harvesting 100 acres a day of high-yield “industrial” corn. People begin (and often do) think that just because you’ve dialed the clock back on the farming method that you’ve actually gained something.
[/quote]

Well, Minnesota agriculture is a little more diverse than what you state–but your point is taken. The point of a co-op is that it puts regulation on the owners/employees. I think this is better for the communities that co-ops serve. A big corporation HQ’d in Kansas City doesn’t necessarily represent the interests of my community, for example. It represents their own profit margins–always. A co-op doesn’t need to turn a profit.

Yes, I agree with you that co-ops may be harderd to regulate but the reason many co-ops exist in the first place is because people do not like (read, trust) big business to represent their interests. The biggest reason to support co-ops is to support small, non-corporate farms which ensures money is not taken out of farm communities–whether or not all the produce comes from my local area (as per your citrus reference) or not.

What is efficient for business doesn’t necessarily mean good for my community. It doesn’t make sense to me that many farmers who provide food for the US plus food for other countries live at or below poverty levels.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Well, Minnesota agriculture is a little more diverse than what you state…[/quote]

Sorry, wheat, sugar beets, sweet corn, and green peas, and farm-raised turkeys.

That depends on the board and the shareholders. Very “green” companies like GE hold a fair amount of community interests in mind.

Nor can they operate perpetually in the red.

[quote]Yes, I agree with you that co-ops may be harderd to regulate but the reason many co-ops exist in the first place is because people do not like (read, trust) big business to represent their interests. The biggest reason to support co-ops is to support small, non-corporate farms which ensures money is not taken out of farm communities–whether or not all the produce comes from my local area (as per your citrus reference) or not.

What is efficient for business doesn’t necessarily mean good for my community.[/quote]

As I said, I agree there needs to be some balance between the two but portraying corporations as evil and cooperatives as intrinsically good or outright preferring the latter over the former isn’t doing anybody any good.

First of all, whose poverty levels?

Would it make more sense if you thought of it as 42% of the world producing 5% of it’s goods? It makes Pareto seem like (even more) of a genius.

Interesting controversies swirling around this movie, actually:

Of course, it’s stuff like this that can make one question all of the alarmist claims:

“Post normal” science?

Facts first, conclusions afterwards is the very basis of scientific inquiry. But not any more, it seems, where the religion of global warming is concerned. Here the facts have to fit the theory - a slightly off metaphor, but to a lawyer like me it’s much like the Red Queen in “Alice in Wonderland”: “Sentence first - verdict afterwards!”

Algore is crazy, pollution is good for you!

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

  • a slightly off metaphor, but to a lawyer like me it’s much like the Red Queen in “Alice in Wonderland”…[/quote]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing. - Mark A. Bedau

IMO, any legitimate scientist should be worried about both the legitimacy of the science and the costs of ignoring it.

http://www.cei.org/pdf/ait/AIT-CEIresponse.ppt#1

you need powerpoint in order to watch this

[quote]orion wrote:
http://www.cei.org/pdf/ait/AIT-CEIresponse.ppt#1

you need powerpoint in order to watch this
[/quote]

Now, if all documentaries could provide the same kind of consistency as that presentation. Now I have to watch AIT.

I wonder if it would have received as much attention had Gore’s name not been associated with it. Politics and speculative science should never mix.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That is the title of this little documentary, produced by the BBC (the British government has obviously been bought and paid for by the oil companies, natch…):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

It runs about an hour and a quarter, give or take. I hope you find it as useful and enlightening as I did…

Maybe after a few people have viewed we can compare and contrast with that other, Oscar-winning “documentary” from a certain former U.S. Veep?[/quote]

Bet Hollywood won’t give the BBC an Oscar like Al Gore’s movie.

In my mind, this is all a bunch of crap and used politically to scare votes out of people.

Having said that, whether or not GW is real or caused by mankind is irrelevant. We have dirty air and water and we know damn well that is caused by mankind. So unless we like living in a shit-hole, time to work on cleaning it up.