| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
zbnoo
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:05 am Post subject: The Great Global Warming And Other Swindles, An Interview |
 |
|
Jamie Glazov, FrontPageMagazine.com
November 4 2008
QUOTE: You can easily tell that global warming is really a political idea
rather than a scientific one. In any gathering in polite society you can
tell who will be 'pro-global warming' and who will be sceptical, in the same
way as you can guess who will hate George Bush, or who will be sympathetic
to Sarah Palin.
QUOTE: Africa has coal and oil, but the greens say these must be left
untouched. This is barbaric. To try to restrict the world>s poorest people
to using the most expensive and unreliable forms of electrical generation
(wind and solar) is effectively to tell them they can>t have electricity.
QUOTE: The greens have hated me ever since Against Nature. It doesn>t bother
me at all. I regard them as the lowest of the low.
QUOTE: There seems to be a mental illness of some kind, associated with the
leftist vision in general. They almost don>t care about reality at all, but
only their political faith. The moment one cause is discredited they just
move on to the next.
QUOTE: It does not upset the left, or the greens at all, that they are
proved wrong again and again and again. They are motivated by things other
than Reason. Sadly, this is true also of people who, professionally, are
meant to be intellectuals.
Frontpage Interview>s guest today is Martin Durkin, the producer of the
documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
FP: Martin Durkin, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Durkin: Thanks so much for having me
FP: What is the science behind global warming theory?
Durkin: Lousy. If you examine the mountain of IPCC literature on this, you>ll
find the vast majority of it concerns the possible (projected) effects of
climate change. Most of this is highly suspect and does not address the
central question of whether humans are causing the climate to change. The
climate has always changed. Climate change is nothing new. The question of
whether we are having anything to do about it, of course, rests on the CO2
question.
FP: Ok tell us about CO2.
Durkin: CO2 is a very small gas in the atmosphere. It is vital of course -
without it we wouldn>t be here. But it>s small. It>s not at all the most
important greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases themselves, and the
'greenhouse effect', form only one small part of the earth>s climate system
(and not a very well understood part either). There is no correlation
between CO2 and temperature on any significant timescale, except where you
find, in ice core data, CO2 levels being influenced by temperature levels
(there>s a time lag between the two phenomena). Even global warmers admit
that, for CO2 to make any difference, there would need to be some mechanism
to amplify its effect in the atmosphere. No such amplifier has been shown to
exist. They haven>t even been able to demonstrate how one might work in
theory (the trouble is the only conceivable amplifier would be water vapour,
and water vapour makes clouds, which are rather famous for their cooling
effect - at least the low level ones).
So what are we left with? Temperature has risen, slightly, falteringly and
gradually for about 150 years or so (even 'warmer' scientists can>t claim
that this started because of us). The period before this rise has long been
known as a 'Little Ice Age', from which we are evidently making a welcome
recovery. We only started pumping out CO2 properly in the post war boom, but
what did temperatures do? In the post war period they fell, till about the
mid-70s. Then they went up again (just like they did at the beginning of the
20th Century, and then for the past ten years they>ve more or less
flat-lined, decreasing slightly. Where is the evidence that humans are
changing the climate? This is nothing but prejudice. It is not serious
science.
FP: If the science is so faulty, why does the culture at large rely on it so
much? What political underpinnings are involved in this scare? Who profits?
Durkin: There are people who profit, and that is part of the story, but I
think not the most important part. I have followed green politics for a
while now. I was asked to make a documentary series for Channel 4 in the UK
more than a decade ago (they got very cross with me) so I>ve been sucked
into it in a way. It is transparently obvious that the greens sit squarely
in the tradition of Romanticism. Like the romantics, they hate industry,
love nature, idealise peasant life, they think capitalism is wicked, they
think people in modern society lead depraved shallow lives and have
forgotten the true value of things, they don>t like cars or supermarkets or
lots of proles taking cheap long-haul holidays, etc, etc.
FP: What is Romanticism?
Durkin: Romanticism is in essence anti-Capitalist. Not in the sense of
traditional Marxism. The Marxists wanted to go forwards not backwards. They
wanted to build bigger factories than the capitalists, not folksy medieval
craft workshops. No. Romanticism was a kind of reactionary anti-capitalism.
And it was the ideology and aesthetic worldview of those people who lost
most, or gained least from capitalism. I think it>s the same today. In
Europe, the toffs (Prince Charles and his gang) are green because they have
lost their position in society. The intellectuals - teachers, lecturers,
scientists are green because they don>t have the status they used to. (Not
long ago, a professor would have been someone important, had a big house,
maids etc). These days, plumbers make more money.
It>s not easy to explain this properly in a few lines, but this I think is
the real basis for all those anti-modern green prejudices.
They hated all the factories and cars long before global warming came along.
The importance of global warming is it linked what otherwise would a have
been a disparate bunch of prejudices and gave them some moral impetus.
So you can say that scientists profit from global warming (grants etc), but
that>s the icing on the cake.
You can easily tell that global warming is really a political idea rather
than a scientific one. In any gathering in polite society you can tell who
will be 'pro-global warming' and who will be sceptical, in the same way as
you can guess who will hate George Bush, or who will be sympathetic to Sarah
Palin.
Go into a party of lefties in New York and tell them the science on global
warming doesn>t stack up. They don>t say, 'Good Lord, what a relief, I
thought we were in for it.' Instead they get very cross with you. They>re
terribly attached to their apocalypse and don>t take kindly to people
rocking the boat.
FP: So tell us how you have rocked the boat and what reactions you have
received for doing so.
Durkin: It started more than ten years ago when Sara Ramsden, who was head
of science programmes at Channel 4 in the UK, asked me to make a documentary
series exploring the scientific basis for environmentalist arguments. The
result was a thing called 'Against Nature'. The series argued that there was
no rational basis for the green attack on industrial society (which is
getting cleaner rather than dirtier, in which forests have long been
expanding rather than contracting, etc.) or for their loathing and fear of
population increases in the developing world, the spectre of 'resource
depletion' etc. In short the scare stories were without scientific
foundation. They were aesthetic or political rather than rational.
This upset the greens to no end. Then another head of science programmes at
Channel 4, a chap called Charles Furneaux, invited me to make a
feature-length film about genetic modification. This was in the middle of
the green scare about 'Frankenstein food'. Once again, we found there was no
scientific basis whatsoever for the scare (everyone knew there wasn>t, but
no-one seemed to be saying it, at least not on TV). They didn>t like this
film either.
Then another head of science at Channel 4, Hamish Mykura, suggested I make
another feature-length film on global warming. Hamish knew I considered
global warming to be yet another daft green scare - perhaps the mother of
all green scares.
FP: And it was easy to rock the boat on global warming?
Durkin: Very easy. You just look at the science. It>s not there. All the
data we have (real life data) contradicts their absurd models. But there was
something else that upset them. They like to depict anyone who disagrees
with them as corrupt. It was quite obvious in the film that this was nothing
more than a very unpleasant attempt at censorship. Worse than this, they
like to pose as radicals, with the best interests of poor people at heart.
What we did in the film was to mention the fact that a very large section of
the world>s population still does not enjoy the benefits of electricity. And
we described in simple terms what this meant. These people burn wood or
dried dung in their homes to cook their food. They have no artificial light
or heat in their homes (huts). Their wretched fires give off horrific
amounts of smoke and eat up fuel (trees). When it gets dark they must sleep.
When it gets cold they shiver (it gets cold in Africa too you know). And of
course no electricity also means there are no fancy things like water
purification plants.
The death toll from the resulting smoke and bad water is horrendous. With
malaria (shall we get into the successful green campaign against DDT?),
these are among the biggest causes of death in the world. Several million
children under five die each year from dysentery and respiratory diseases,
many millions of women too (who do the cooking), all for want of something
we in the West take for granted. (No electricity also means you use up a lot
of trees - upsetting if you>re one of those nasty people who rate trees over
humans. Indeed, it>s the first world where the forests are expanding so
rapidly - which the greens always forget to mention).
Getting electricity is a matter of life and death for about a third of the
world>s population. Africa has coal and oil, but the greens say these must
be left untouched. This is barbaric. To try to restrict the world>s poorest
people to using the most expensive and unreliable forms of electrical
generation (wind and solar) is effectively to tell them they can>t have
electricity.
I have filmed quite a bit in poor countries. The problems they face are
obvious and upsetting. This more than anything makes me feel angry at the
green movement. They kill people, they keep them in misery.
This, as much as the sober assessment of global warming theory, rocked the
boat.
The greens have hated me ever since Against Nature. It doesn>t bother me at
all. I regard them as the lowest of the low.
FP: There seems to be a mental illness of some kind, associated with the
leftist vision in general. They almost don>t care about reality at all, but
only their political faith. The moment one cause is discredited they just
move on to the next. How do you diagnose it? It>s a hatred of one>s own
society, a hatred of oneself, or what? I know you have already labelled
anti-capitalism as one ingredient, but please expand on the mindset here a
bit.
Durkin: I remember being young and foolish and a leftie. Reality was always
a problem. Communist countries were clearly dreadful. The working class was
obviously a heck of lot better off (instead of poorer) and they were not
convinced by the arguments of middle-class Marxist-types (very sensibly). In
fact the working class has always been a huge let-down to the left . as it
is now to the greens.
Capitalism had delivered on a truly spectacular scale. This called for a bit
of fancy footwork in theory terms. Hence reviving 'alienation' as a theme
(Marcuse>s 'One-Dimentional Man' etc). Yes, we were all richer and healthier
and more educated etc under capitalism, but we were more spiritually
shallow. This drove the Marxists into the Romantic camp. Peasants are 'whole',
whereas industrial workers are alienated from their 'true selves'. It also
led to post-structuralism. If Reason told us that capitalism had been a
resounding success, then reason itself must be suspect. Rationalism was
'just another narrative'. The overuse and misuse of the term 'narrative'
reflects the heavy influence of muddle-headed English professors in this
process. The left had lost the argument, so logical argument itself was to
be attacked.
It does not upset the left, or the greens at all, that they are proved wrong
again and again and again. They are motivated by things other than Reason.
Sadly, this is true also of people who, professionally, are meant to be
intellectuals.
Capitalism has delivered a descent education to very large numbers for the
first time in human history -- despite the state being so incompetent in
this area. The market value of intellectuals -- especially
post-structuralist English critics -- is not high. No wonder they>re not
fond of the market. Academic scientists too, I find, are often left-leaning,
and you can see this in the complexion of support for 'global warming'.
I think we have a battle on our hands. An intellectual and moral battle --
there is a lot at stake. And, sadly, too few of us recognise it, or
understand where the battle-lines are drawn. To fight for the values of the
enlightenment properly -- the interlocking values of Freedom, Reason and
Progress -- we need to understand fully why they are so desperately
important. We also need to understand properly the character and nature of
the opposition.
The waters are muddy at the moment. We need make them clear.
FP: What are your future plans?
Durkin: A book. And more films when I can persuade someone to stump up the
cash.
FP: Martin Durkin, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
Durkin: Thank you again for having me. I>ve enjoyed myself.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=69129807-D8D6-4986-B6DC-FC772A431C8B
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
zbnoo
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:05 am Post subject: Re: The Great Global Warming And Other Swindles, An Intervie |
|
|
Another telling quote from Durkin ...
I have filmed quite a bit in poor countries.
The problems they face are obvious and upsetting.
This more than anything makes me feel angry at the green movement.
They kill people, they keep them in misery.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"zbnoo" <zbnoo@t.com> wrote in message news:4917c584@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
[quote]
Jamie Glazov, FrontPageMagazine.com
November 4 2008
QUOTE: You can easily tell that global warming is really a political idea
rather than a scientific one. In any gathering in polite society you can
tell who will be 'pro-global warming' and who will be sceptical, in the
same way as you can guess who will hate George Bush, or who will be
sympathetic to Sarah Palin.
QUOTE: Africa has coal and oil, but the greens say these must be left
untouched. This is barbaric. To try to restrict the world>s poorest people
to using the most expensive and unreliable forms of electrical generation
(wind and solar) is effectively to tell them they can>t have electricity.
QUOTE: The greens have hated me ever since Against Nature. It doesn>t
bother me at all. I regard them as the lowest of the low.
QUOTE: There seems to be a mental illness of some kind, associated with
the leftist vision in general. They almost don>t care about reality at
all, but only their political faith. The moment one cause is discredited
they just move on to the next.
QUOTE: It does not upset the left, or the greens at all, that they are
proved wrong again and again and again. They are motivated by things other
than Reason. Sadly, this is true also of people who, professionally, are
meant to be intellectuals.
Frontpage Interview>s guest today is Martin Durkin, the producer of the
documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
FP: Martin Durkin, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Durkin: Thanks so much for having me
FP: What is the science behind global warming theory?
Durkin: Lousy. If you examine the mountain of IPCC literature on this,
you>ll find the vast majority of it concerns the possible (projected)
effects of climate change. Most of this is highly suspect and does not
address the central question of whether humans are causing the climate to
change. The climate has always changed. Climate change is nothing new. The
question of whether we are having anything to do about it, of course,
rests on the CO2 question.
FP: Ok tell us about CO2.
Durkin: CO2 is a very small gas in the atmosphere. It is vital of course -
without it we wouldn>t be here. But it>s small. It>s not at all the most
important greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases themselves, and the
'greenhouse effect', form only one small part of the earth>s climate
system (and not a very well understood part either). There is no
correlation between CO2 and temperature on any significant timescale,
except where you find, in ice core data, CO2 levels being influenced by
temperature levels (there>s a time lag between the two phenomena). Even
global warmers admit that, for CO2 to make any difference, there would
need to be some mechanism to amplify its effect in the atmosphere. No such
amplifier has been shown to exist. They haven>t even been able to
demonstrate how one might work in theory (the trouble is the only
conceivable amplifier would be water vapour, and water vapour makes
clouds, which are rather famous for their cooling effect - at least the
low level ones).
So what are we left with? Temperature has risen, slightly, falteringly and
gradually for about 150 years or so (even 'warmer' scientists can>t claim
that this started because of us). The period before this rise has long
been known as a 'Little Ice Age', from which we are evidently making a
welcome recovery. We only started pumping out CO2 properly in the post war
boom, but what did temperatures do? In the post war period they fell, till
about the mid-70s. Then they went up again (just like they did at the
beginning of the 20th Century, and then for the past ten years they>ve
more or less flat-lined, decreasing slightly. Where is the evidence that
humans are changing the climate? This is nothing but prejudice. It is not
serious science.
FP: If the science is so faulty, why does the culture at large rely on it
so much? What political underpinnings are involved in this scare? Who
profits?
Durkin: There are people who profit, and that is part of the story, but I
think not the most important part. I have followed green politics for a
while now. I was asked to make a documentary series for Channel 4 in the
UK more than a decade ago (they got very cross with me) so I>ve been
sucked into it in a way. It is transparently obvious that the greens sit
squarely in the tradition of Romanticism. Like the romantics, they hate
industry, love nature, idealise peasant life, they think capitalism is
wicked, they think people in modern society lead depraved shallow lives
and have forgotten the true value of things, they don>t like cars or
supermarkets or lots of proles taking cheap long-haul holidays, etc, etc.
FP: What is Romanticism?
Durkin: Romanticism is in essence anti-Capitalist. Not in the sense of
traditional Marxism. The Marxists wanted to go forwards not backwards.
They wanted to build bigger factories than the capitalists, not folksy
medieval craft workshops. No. Romanticism was a kind of reactionary
anti-capitalism. And it was the ideology and aesthetic worldview of those
people who lost most, or gained least from capitalism. I think it>s the
same today. In Europe, the toffs (Prince Charles and his gang) are green
because they have lost their position in society. The intellectuals -
teachers, lecturers, scientists are green because they don>t have the
status they used to. (Not long ago, a professor would have been someone
important, had a big house, maids etc). These days, plumbers make more
money.
It>s not easy to explain this properly in a few lines, but this I think is
the real basis for all those anti-modern green prejudices.
They hated all the factories and cars long before global warming came
along. The importance of global warming is it linked what otherwise would
a have been a disparate bunch of prejudices and gave them some moral
impetus.
So you can say that scientists profit from global warming (grants etc),
but that>s the icing on the cake.
You can easily tell that global warming is really a political idea rather
than a scientific one. In any gathering in polite society you can tell who
will be 'pro-global warming' and who will be sceptical, in the same way as
you can guess who will hate George Bush, or who will be sympathetic to
Sarah Palin.
Go into a party of lefties in New York and tell them the science on global
warming doesn>t stack up. They don>t say, 'Good Lord, what a relief, I
thought we were in for it.' Instead they get very cross with you. They>re
terribly attached to their apocalypse and don>t take kindly to people
rocking the boat.
FP: So tell us how you have rocked the boat and what reactions you have
received for doing so.
Durkin: It started more than ten years ago when Sara Ramsden, who was head
of science programmes at Channel 4 in the UK, asked me to make a
documentary series exploring the scientific basis for environmentalist
arguments. The result was a thing called 'Against Nature'. The series
argued that there was no rational basis for the green attack on industrial
society (which is getting cleaner rather than dirtier, in which forests
have long been expanding rather than contracting, etc.) or for their
loathing and fear of population increases in the developing world, the
spectre of 'resource depletion' etc. In short the scare stories were
without scientific foundation. They were aesthetic or political rather
than rational.
This upset the greens to no end. Then another head of science programmes
at Channel 4, a chap called Charles Furneaux, invited me to make a
feature-length film about genetic modification. This was in the middle of
the green scare about 'Frankenstein food'. Once again, we found there was
no scientific basis whatsoever for the scare (everyone knew there wasn>t,
but no-one seemed to be saying it, at least not on TV). They didn>t like
this film either.
Then another head of science at Channel 4, Hamish Mykura, suggested I make
another feature-length film on global warming. Hamish knew I considered
global warming to be yet another daft green scare - perhaps the mother of
all green scares.
FP: And it was easy to rock the boat on global warming?
Durkin: Very easy. You just look at the science. It>s not there. All the
data we have (real life data) contradicts their absurd models. But there
was something else that upset them. They like to depict anyone who
disagrees with them as corrupt. It was quite obvious in the film that this
was nothing more than a very unpleasant attempt at censorship. Worse than
this, they like to pose as radicals, with the best interests of poor
people at heart. What we did in the film was to mention the fact that a
very large section of the world>s population still does not enjoy the
benefits of electricity. And we described in simple terms what this meant.
These people burn wood or dried dung in their homes to cook their food.
They have no artificial light or heat in their homes (huts). Their
wretched fires give off horrific amounts of smoke and eat up fuel (trees).
When it gets dark they must sleep. When it gets cold they shiver (it gets
cold in Africa too you know). And of course no electricity also means
there are no fancy things like water purification plants.
The death toll from the resulting smoke and bad water is horrendous. With
malaria (shall we get into the successful green campaign against DDT?),
these are among the biggest causes of death in the world. Several million
children under five die each year from dysentery and respiratory diseases,
many millions of women too (who do the cooking), all for want of something
we in the West take for granted. (No electricity also means you use up a
lot of trees - upsetting if you>re one of those nasty people who rate
trees over humans. Indeed, it>s the first world where the forests are
expanding so rapidly - which the greens always forget to mention).
Getting electricity is a matter of life and death for about a third of the
world>s population. Africa has coal and oil, but the greens say these must
be left untouched. This is barbaric. To try to restrict the world>s
poorest people to using the most expensive and unreliable forms of
electrical generation (wind and solar) is effectively to tell them they
can>t have electricity.
I have filmed quite a bit in poor countries. The problems they face are
obvious and upsetting. This more than anything makes me feel angry at the
green movement. They kill people, they keep them in misery.
This, as much as the sober assessment of global warming theory, rocked the
boat.
The greens have hated me ever since Against Nature. It doesn>t bother me
at all. I regard them as the lowest of the low.
FP: There seems to be a mental illness of some kind, associated with the
leftist vision in general. They almost don>t care about reality at all,
but only their political faith. The moment one cause is discredited they
just move on to the next. How do you diagnose it? It>s a hatred of one>s
own society, a hatred of oneself, or what? I know you have already
labelled anti-capitalism as one ingredient, but please expand on the
mindset here a bit.
Durkin: I remember being young and foolish and a leftie. Reality was
always a problem. Communist countries were clearly dreadful. The working
class was obviously a heck of lot better off (instead of poorer) and they
were not convinced by the arguments of middle-class Marxist-types (very
sensibly). In fact the working class has always been a huge let-down to
the left . as it is now to the greens.
Capitalism had delivered on a truly spectacular scale. This called for a
bit of fancy footwork in theory terms. Hence reviving 'alienation' as a
theme (Marcuse>s 'One-Dimentional Man' etc). Yes, we were all richer and
healthier and more educated etc under capitalism, but we were more
spiritually shallow. This drove the Marxists into the Romantic camp.
Peasants are 'whole', whereas industrial workers are alienated from their
'true selves'. It also led to post-structuralism. If Reason told us that
capitalism had been a resounding success, then reason itself must be
suspect. Rationalism was 'just another narrative'. The overuse and misuse
of the term 'narrative' reflects the heavy influence of muddle-headed
English professors in this process. The left had lost the argument, so
logical argument itself was to be attacked.
It does not upset the left, or the greens at all, that they are proved
wrong again and again and again. They are motivated by things other than
Reason. Sadly, this is true also of people who, professionally, are meant
to be intellectuals.
Capitalism has delivered a descent education to very large numbers for the
first time in human history -- despite the state being so incompetent in
this area. The market value of intellectuals -- especially
post-structuralist English critics -- is not high. No wonder they>re not
fond of the market. Academic scientists too, I find, are often
left-leaning, and you can see this in the complexion of support for
'global warming'.
I think we have a battle on our hands. An intellectual and moral battle --
there is a lot at stake. And, sadly, too few of us recognise it, or
understand where the battle-lines are drawn. To fight for the values of
the enlightenment properly -- the interlocking values of Freedom, Reason
and Progress -- we need to understand fully why they are so desperately
important. We also need to understand properly the character and nature of
the opposition.
The waters are muddy at the moment. We need make them clear.
FP: What are your future plans?
Durkin: A book. And more films when I can persuade someone to stump up the
cash.
FP: Martin Durkin, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
Durkin: Thank you again for having me. I>ve enjoyed myself.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=69129807-D8D6-4986-B6DC-FC772A431C8B
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ouroboros_Rex
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: Re: The Great Global Warming And Other Swindles, An Intervie |
|
|
zbnoo wrote:
[quote]Jamie Glazov, FrontPageMagazine.com
[/quote]
...republican k00khaus. lol |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ouroboros_Rex
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: Re: The Great Global Warming And Other Swindles, An Intervie |
|
|
zbnoo wrote:
[quote]Another telling quote from Durkin ...
[/quote]
....ridiculous denialist liar, found to have produced a blatantly dishonest
GW documentary by the BBC. lol |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
