A “visual broadside”, so to speak, in a short but sensible and entertaining video. This is based on Roy Spencer’s work and it is a must watch. I highly recommend sharing this video on every blog and website you can.
A debunking of the left’s global warming agenda, from Roy W. Spencer, former NASA climatologist and climate expert. For more on this topic, purchase his new Broadside, “The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama’s Global Warming Agenda” by clicking here: http://amzn.to/jYWzEH.
h/t to Jo Nova down under. Speaking of Australia, John Cook of Skeptical Science works out as a cartoonist (and blogs “faux skepticism” in his spare time) , but he’d never be able to produce anything like this.
Thanks, Anthony.
That was great…..
WOW! Share this with your school-age children and grandchildren.
Wow! Great presentation. All of the issue in a comprehensive nut-shell.
GPlant
Now THAT deserves an Oscar!!!
Sorry to post here but your Tips and Notes page is running very slow. Wanted to leave a link re the sanctimonious hypocrisy over at UnReal Climate where our Gav is attacking Soon.
“In my opinion, this kind of ‘scientific’ sleight-of-hand is far more egregious than Soon’s ability to get funding from coal, oil, and fossil-fueled foundations.”
Unbelievable
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/how-soon-is-now/#more-8146
Great post thank you.
Was that Josh on the cartoons? Whoever it was it was great! Well argued too.
BTW I know it’s not really the right place but the other day when I talked about Prof Mike the yo-yo here is the link to his thoughts of ’09!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8008473.stm
It’s not that IF the climate is robust and stable, it is that Even if AGW and Even if CAGW all turns out to be true, the global governance, transformation to an undefined “green economy” and $76 trillion recently demanded by the unelected and non-representative UN can still only be for nothing anyway.
So where is the reference to left wing politics? No-one outside the USA sees people like Barack Obama or Al Gore as remotely left wing with their traditional American values ( Economics, Capital punishment and military interventions) so what is all this “climate change action equals left wing politics” tosh? This, as I have said many times bedevils our debate and distracts from our arguments which are based on science not politics. This sort of thing just gives warmists and catastrophists the ammunition to say “ see , that proves it, they are just a bunch of right wing Americans who do this for political ends” We know this is not true, please please do not make our job any harder than it is. There are many European socialists like myself who have serious concerns with climate science, but we do not put the blame on right wing politics or rampant capitalism. Keep politics out of the debate!
Gareth Phillips,
“There are many European socialists like myself who have serious concerns with climate science,”
As a socialist (European or otherwise), I would guess that one of your concerns is over policies that are transferring the wealth of the poor into the pockets of the rich. I’m still waiting for Ed Milliband to speak out, though.
The video no longer plays either on the WUWT site or on YouTube – just a blank screen.
Sabotage?
REPLY: No, sheesh, it works fine. PEBKAC or system config. Try updating your flash or browser – Anthony
But Gareth, if we leave politics out of the Global (fill in blank with favorite phrase du jour), there wouldn’t be much of a debate and certainly wouldn’t be trillions of dollars on the line.
Global Warming is not Left’s agenda. Leftwing/rightwing dichotomy is false and a distraction.
Global Warming is mostly Big Bureaucracy and Big Money agenda.
I agree wholeheartedly with Gareth Phillips, and would like to make a plea that you leave politics out of the debate. This is not an issue of left-wing versus right-wing any more than it is in the debate about whether the earth is flat or spherical. It is a simple matter of scientific research and coming up with the right answers.
I consider myself to be “liberal” in many ways, and my wife scoffs at my AGW skepticism, primarily because it means “keeping company with the loony right-wingers”. I think I’ve managed to convince her that it has nothing to do with left or right, but unfortunately with these comments you are just fanning those flames.
Rick
BTW, that video link is just a black square that does nothing, and I’ve tried viewing in with both IE and Firefox.
Video seems to have disappeared. Won’t work for me at Jo Nova or Y-tube either.
REPLY: PEBKAC or your machine configuration, it’s there. – Anthony
“Good news children, science has learned that man-made production of CO2 warms our planet.
This means vast areas of tundra will become arable land or forests.
Since CO2 is plant food, more CO2 will increase the production of every farm on Earth, Lumber will be cheap. The more fosslil fuels we can find and use will contimue to increase the output of farms and forrests, we are facing runaway prosperity.
Prosperity will rise, famine will end and there will no longer be a “Third World”;
Their lives will be vastly improved through the prosperity of a warm Earth.”
It’s the doomsday narrative that warmists use that shows their bias and exposes agendas not related to saving the Earth. “Hurry up and go solar or we’re all dead” says the CEO of “SOLAR INC”.
Also interesting, is the correlation between political ideology and belief in AGW.
Am i mistaken in my personal observation that believers in AGW tend to fall left of center politically, while skeptics trend right?
What other scientific arguments have been so divided, Scopes trial comes to mind.
On that one, the lefties were correct. They’re wrong on AGW.
Excellent piece. Spread it around.
Great movie clip, thanks.
Problem was my WinXP with Firefox5 wouldn’t allow it to play inside your page, even though I disabled any filters like ABP and NoScript, so I snagged the underlying link at http://www.youtube.com/v/vvObfrs3qoE and put that in a new window. I will be keeping it for reference as well as passing it along.
nice concise and well done!
Yer title does not translate to well over this side of the pond as out of 600+ MPs on all sides of the political spectrum only 2 voted against the climate change act, the only hope we have of getting a political change of any party here in the UK is when the true energy costs mixed with the colder winters hits the sheeple.
And at the moment there all worried about the papers and see a lamb to be slaughtered.
P.S. Great video.
Great presentation – thanks so much for sharing.
Alan the Brit, no, not me – tho’ it would have been a lot of fun!
This is a potential education coup for the anthropogenic global warming skeptics (or denialists, depending upon your leaning).
The presentation is flashy yet succinct, logical, and digested easily. True, there’s a snail carrying the globe rather than a pair of polar bears clinging to an overly small ice float… But it sums the current state of global warming/climate change/climate disruption (a/k/a crisis) into a manageable (and more importantly – accurate) understanding.
I’d like to think (well, “hope” is the more appropriate term) that this presentation is shown in middle and high school classrooms, as readily as “An Inconvenient Truth” – http://www.inconvenientyouth.org/pdf/educators_handbook.pdf . In fact, I suspect Mr. Vice President, as referenced by his published text, would support such showings:
“The fifth major goal of the Global Marshall Plan should be . . . to organize a worldwide education program to promote a more complete understanding of the crisis. In the process, we should actively search for ways to promote a new way of thinking about the current relationship between human civilization and the earth.” (“Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit” or the revisionist “Earth in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose,” pp 354-355, Al Gore)
Hey, if data can be changed, then why not book foci?