The Lippard Blog: Deception in "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Deception in "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Here's a nice short YouTube video documenting several cases of deception in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle." And on the same subject, I'm rather fond of an exchange between Martin Durkin, the producer of that film, and geneticist Armand Leroi, journalist Ben Goldacre, and science writer Simon Singh, which prompted Durkin to respond, "you're a big daft cock" after Leroi pointed out that the film had used completely erroneous data that was possibly even faked.

(Via the Deltoid blog.)

3 comments:

Ktisophilos said...: Cf. a British court found 11 errors in Al "fighting global warming is like fighting the Nazis" Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth.

Aside from this, now matter how Obama wrecks the US economy even more with his green scheme, it won't make a detectable difference as long as China and India continue to increase their output. And Shikha Dalmia explains why they won't impoverish themselves to by refusing to:

Consider what would be necessary to slash global greenhouse-gas emissions just 50% below 2000 levels by 2050—a far less aggressive goal than what the enviros say is necessary to avert climate catastrophe. According to U.S. Chamber of Commerce calculations, even if the West reduced its emissions by 80% below 2000 levels, developing countries would still have to return their emissions to 2000 levels to meet the 50% target. However, Indians currently consume roughly 15 times less energy per capita than Americans—and Chinese consume seven times less. Asking them, along with the rest of the developing world, to go back to 2000 emission levels with a 2050 population would mean putting them on a very drastic energy diet.

The human toll of this is unfathomable: It would require these countries to abandon plans to ever conquer poverty, of course. But beyond that it would require a major scaling back of living standards under which their middle classes—for whom three square meals, cars and air-conditioning are only now beginning to come within reach—would have to go back to subsistence living, and the hundreds of millions who are at subsistence would have to accept starvation.

In short, the choice for developing countries is between mass death due to the consequences of an overheated planet sometime in the distant future, and mass suicide due to imposed instant starvation right now. Is it any surprise that they are reluctant to jump on the global-warming bandwagon?; July 21, 2009 at 7:02 AM
Unknown said...: RE: Ktisophilos

The US and indeed every other advanced economy has evolved without considering the environmental cost of products and services (externalities) and as such presents an inherently false representation of cost and profit. These externalities instead of simply vanishing have accumulated and are manifesting as delayed real economic costs. The emissions trading scheme seeks to recognise these externalised costs before the environmental deficit presents an insurmountable financial hurdle. SO in effect if the economy is already "wrecked" it has been wrecked by its own historical operation, not Obama's attempt to ensure its survival.

Your argument regarding the developing world over simplifies the situation and fails to consider changes to changes to energy efficiency through the investment portion of a carbon economy, the income to these manufacturing hubs resulting from renewable technology and western investments in these nations through aid, and tools such as clean development mechanisms.
Fundamentally, increased costs associated with emissions trading schemes or carbon taxes can will be significantly passed on the ultimate customer in the west due to the vast export volume of these economies.

There will be significant challenges for the developing world to address the costs of climate change, but to suggest the cost will be immediate suicide through starvation is superficial and lazy.; August 2, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Lippard said...: Mark: I agree with your basic point about the negative externalities, but I lean towards _The Economist_'s view that a Pigouvian carbon tax is a better solution than a cap-and-trade system that hands out most of its credits for free and provides another potential arena for the same people who gamed the financial markets to game the system again.; August 3, 2009 at 9:42 AM