An hour of hilarious alarms and bad predictions for Earth Day.
Russell Cook also has an article based on this episode at Gelspan Files.
“Climate Crisis: The Greenhouse Effect” – when did the critics’ smears add to that stereotype?
ONE “Just asking’” posted today for investigators with more reach/resources than I have, regarding the decades-long epic level defamation of skeptical climate scientists who accused of colluding with fossil fuel industry executives to spread misinformation in order to undercut the ‘scientific of the settlement’ of human catastrophe-causing global warming. The fundamental question is, when exactly was that accusation formulated? What is the charge to defend?
My long-educated guess is that it was meant to defend the line of ‘human-caused global warming’ that arose after the infamous summer of 1988, when NASA scientist James Hansen put Make your big decisions.Global warming has begun, expert tells Senate” sensationalized at a congressional hearing on the subject. During my formative high school/high school/college years, the prospect of impending global cooling is all I’ve ever heard of. But I missed a particularly frightening video broadcast about the dim prospect of a warming world since 1983.
Yes, 1983. I discovered this video from a warning about “New initiative on climate change” direction of the PBS program “Nova”, which is a boast of Nova that their first program on climate issues was “Climate Crisis: The Greenhouse Effect” in 1983. Huh. News for me. So I found it and watched it. Almost immediately at 2:09, the show hits a brick wall with Dr. Walter Orr Roberts predicting
… in 2000, we hope we will be in an unprecedented new climate regime, unlike anything in the recorded history of mankind.
Perhaps none of us can say that the climate in 2000 was a little different from what we experienced in 1983. But that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg associated with this video. I didn’t learn anything new from the video, it came out more and more like a really scary thing to watch. It seems to be the template for all we see today in climate matters – burning fossil fuels will only cause more warming / a conveyor belt of glaciers sliding away from Antarctica raises the level exponential seawater / greenhouse effect comparable to what happens on Venus / consensus of scientific opinion / no opposing views from scientists contest the idea on anthropogenic warming/and “if we don’t act now, it will be too late.” That last bit is at 33:40. It got even scarier from there, eventually featuring then-Senator Al Gore and a former Jimmy Carter administrator advisor named Gus Speth. It is clear that this program is largely motivated by the work of the late Dr. Stephen Schneider, and the end credits proved that. No need to believe me on this, watch the video for yourself:
“Climate crisis: The greenhouse effect“
An arrow the size of Texas indicates a major problem with this video – and bigger problem with the full International Council of Governments on Climate Change (IPCC) – is the part at 46:55 when the narrator gives a quote from an EPA report as it also appears on screen, highlights the point that the EPA self-reported…
No no, ARE NOT! That is completely the opposite. You discover what the uncertainties are, find out if they have any value, and if you can’t prove that the meager warming we’ve seen over the last 100 years is largely due to human activity people, you shouldn’t try to “minimize” uncertainties with a gun. Taking action on a predetermined conclusion is the antithesis of critical thinking. Its personified emotion-based reasoning.
Who was then in the IPCC who promoted the idea that global warming mitigation could only be carried out if there was uncertainty about its necessity Knocked down? Dr. Stephen Schneider.
Meanwhile, a single factor that is widely seen today on a regular basis in the climate problem is Are not seen in this 1983 video is the accusation of ‘climate scientists being skeptical of broken industry.’ The subject of opposing views never appeared. Perhaps, like me, climate skeptics don’t know about this 1983 video, or its 1986 rebroadcasttherefore, Dr. Schneider & crew have yet to see the objection that needs to be handled.
When the skeptics finally did came into force in 1990 question this overall catastrophic warming prediction, who was the first in 1992 to equate skeptical climate scientists and the fossil fuel industry with the tobacco industry? Dr. Stephen Schneider.
Who in 1992 was among the first to imply that the science was solved and that there was no need to give “the right balance of media” to the skeptical side of the matter – say another way to reduce scientific uncertainty? EQUAL reported by Ross Gelbspan, it was Dr. Stephen Schneider and Al Gore.
Who was the latter who equated skeptical climate scientists with the tobacco industry? Al Gore, via Ross Gelbspan. And Dr. Stephen Schneider, via Ross Gelbspan.
Then there was the aforementioned appearance of Gus Speth in the 1983 video. It was James Gustav Speth. I’ll see it later one and two commas apart from Ozone Action staff John Passacantando and Phil Radford – that thing ozone action, do not forget. And be considered a guest on a radio show put right next to Kert Davies. That thing davies, of ozone action and in efforts against Exxon, do not forget. Convenient isn’t it, Gus Speth wrote a 2008 book quoting Suggested by Ross Gelbspan that skeptical scientists don’t deserve a fair media balance – in other words, an attempt to reduce scientific uncertainty? And Gelbspan then went right back to writing a glow Washington Post Speth’s book review? Interesting isn’t it, Speth is Still a Facebook friend now with Ross Gelbspan?
But back to the 1983 Nova video. To me, it doesn’t answer a single question of whether the concept of catastrophic human-caused global warming is ever a solid scientific discussion. solid and stable, it just raises more questions about whether everything in the video is a template for people to follow afterwards. – minus a bit of the ‘crooked skeptics’. Its assembly is highly questionable as its discussion points are quite similar to what we see today which would raise similar questions from different climate friends of mine. The scariest line in the entire show comes at 52:02, when the narrator says,
Brake now, put in place policies to prevent a potential crisis ahead requires foresightand politicians rarely hold office for more than a few years…”
Look again at the screenshot of Speth .’s 2021 radio interviewhe say “we did an experiment that lasted forty years about whether we can rely on the federal government to solve this climate problem, and we know the outcome of that test is that they can’t and they won’t.”
Who are we?? And doesn’t that imply that who enacts the climate issue has been a plan all along to shove one side’s throat while actively suppressing political dissidents? It? And shouldn’t the plan also include a backup attempt to use character assassination – to the point of crossing defamation territory – to protect the plan from total demise?
Just asking.’ And perhaps major investigators may need to ask the same thing, to find out exactly when that character assassination attempt first arose and exactly whose idea it was.
Related
