The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Stu Peters]

Slim - poor excuse for an apology accepted.

 

"I must have caught him laughing at the death of millions through global warming at the end of some other feature, which is all ok apparently"

 

was a little harsh though.

 

Lost Login - an altogether more pleasant poster asks, reasonably

whether his views on the specific TV programme have changed though

 

Yes - I enjoyed the programme tremendously as it confirmed many of my own thoughts on the subject. But I now accept (from a number of postings here) that the programme maker was heavily biased.

 

Anyway, I don't regret starting what has been a great thread, but if you'll excuse me, I'm off in search of happy clappers to torment now.

[VinnieK]

But I now accept (from a number of postings here) that the programme maker was heavily biased.

 

Heavily biased is a somewhat generous description of a man who's been criticised for misrepresentation of both evidence and sources, fabricating data, incorrect handling of data, and ignoring all contrary evidence. At very best he can be accused of incompetance.

[Slim]

Slim - poor excuse for an apology accepted.

 

 

Yes - I enjoyed the programme tremendously as it confirmed many of my own thoughts on the subject. But I now accept (from a number of postings here) that the programme maker was heavily biased.

 

It's not changed your view of global warming though?

[Stu Peters]

Vinnie - hardly incompetent if he sold a heavily biased documentary programme to Channel 4 - especially if he had 'form'. I'd say he's a canny operator...the whole pretext of the show made me sit up and take notice.

 

Slim - I'm not a scientist (or a climatologist, although I do have a PPL exam pass in basic meteorology!) and find all the data that the various factions spew out confusing and contradictory. I'm also a fatalist - if we're all doomed, it's probably too late to change the climate back (if that IS possible) so I'll drink beer, smoke tabs and enjoy the petrol while I can.

 

What I DO have is a gut feeling about things, which is getting more reliable with age. And it keeps nagging me into thinking that climate change is a cyclical natural thing rather than man-made.

 

Of course, I can't prove I'm right (and don't have the time, brains or inclination to go into it in depth). But Bono is going to save the world, so I don't really need to. There are certain things in life that I can't change and have to leave to 'the experts' - nuclear weapons, Al Quaeda, who killed JFK and global warming are beyond my sphere of influence (I don't subscribe to the 'every voice helps' theory).

 

Instead I'm happy to do what I can with bite-sized local issues that I CAN have some say in. You may be right - certainly the concensus supports your view - and I may be wrong. Who cares?

[VinnieK]

Vinnie - hardly incompetent if he sold a heavily biased documentary programme to Channel 4 - especially if he had 'form'.

I'd say he's a canny operator...the whole pretext of the show made me sit up and take notice.

 

I'm not sure it takes madskillz to sell sensationalist bunk to the home of Big Brother, You are What You Eat, and the ill-fated "wank week". If anything it would probably take more ingenuity to sell an honest documentary to Channel Four.

[Cambon]

Vinnie - hardly incompetent if he sold a heavily biased documentary programme to Channel 4 - especially if he had 'form'. I'd say he's a canny operator...the whole pretext of the show made me sit up and take notice.

 

Slim - I'm not a scientist (or a climatologist, although I do have a PPL exam pass in basic meteorology!) and find all the data that the various factions spew out confusing and contradictory. I'm also a fatalist - if we're all doomed, it's probably too late to change the climate back (if that IS possible) so I'll drink beer, smoke tabs and enjoy the petrol while I can.

 

What I DO have is a gut feeling about things, which is getting more reliable with age. And it keeps nagging me into thinking that climate change is a cyclical natural thing rather than man-made.

 

Of course, I can't prove I'm right (and don't have the time, brains or inclination to go into it in depth). But Bono is going to save the world, so I don't really need to. There are certain things in life that I can't change and have to leave to 'the experts' - nuclear weapons, Al Quaeda, who killed JFK and global warming are beyond my sphere of influence (I don't subscribe to the 'every voice helps' theory).

 

Instead I'm happy to do what I can with bite-sized local issues that I CAN have some say in. You may be right - certainly the concensus supports your view - and I may be wrong. Who cares?

 

Well Said! Almost exactly my view.

 

I (along with many, many people) have worked to cut my carbon footprint for well over a decade, and it has made no difference. People fashionably jumping on the band wagon now will also make little or no difference but will pay a premium for their effort. Governments will cash in and claim that a difference is being made. They will pay for more scientific studies to "prove" the situation is getting "better", so they can tax carbon output even more. However, the planet will continue to get warm until the natural cycle changes.

[Chinahand]

What natural cycle? Evidence or gut - full of hot air perhaps?

[Cambon]

What natural cycle? Evidence or gut - full of hot air perhaps?

 

Hmm.... Where is the proof that cutting carbon emissions is going to help?

[stevie]

What natural cycle? Evidence or gut - full of hot air perhaps?

 

so china you are saying there is no natural cycle whatsoever?

[Chinahand]

 

Of course there are natural cycles - you can see them over the last 1000 years in this graph. But the issue is that the natural cycles are been dominated by the anthropromorphic emissions.

 

The ONLY thing that will stop the levels increasing is a comprehensive Worldwide effort to coordinate the reduction of CO2 output - and guess what the IPCC and Kyoto 2 etc are attempting to to this!

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that some natural cycle has suddenly changed to create the CO2 increases - no huge volcanic eruptions etc etc - the evidence is overwhelming that the increase in CO2 is man made. And the physical chemistry of CO2 means it will change the energy forcings of the earth causing it to retain more heat.

 

Plus New Scientist is showing that the actual increases are out stripping the worst case scenarios -

 

The world's recent carbon dioxide emissions are growing more rapidly than even the worst-case climate scenario used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, say researchers.

 

The team, led by Michael Raupach of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, looked at the growth of CO2 emissions and found that emissions growth suddenly accelerated in 2000. During the 1990s, emissions grew by 1.1% per year on average, but the number shot up to 3.3% between 2000 and 2004, when the study ended.

 

I find it intriguing that people go 6 billion people dominating every part of the planet - no they won't be a significant influence on the planet - it must be something else. Where is the evidence that its something else? Honest question - if you can post some do it. But the number of people engaged on this issue professionally who say this is a natural phenomenon are tiny and in no way a part of the main stream - their research is at best a hypothesis.

[Albert Tatlock]

The ONLY thing that will stop the levels increasing is a comprehensive Worldwide effort to coordinate the reduction of CO2 output - and guess what the IPCC and Kyoto 2 etc are attempting to to this!

You cannot say that.

 

Have a read of this: Abrupt climate change in the computer: Is it real?. This is from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences website.

[SugarBee]

I read that the planet Mars has suffered from global warming there. Damn martians!

[Chinahand]

Albert, of course you are correct in criticizing my hyperbole - I shouldn't have said only - but even so without concious action by Humanity to reduce CO2 levels there is no evidence nature is going to do it for us - Cambon is claiming there is a natural cycle which will reduce CO2 levels - I'm asking him to justify his opinion - I don't think he can, hence my quip about gut feelings and hot air!

 

The article you've linked to discuses the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation - the Gulf Stream and its other components to you and me!

 

Some research seemed to show that it could/had stop bringing disaster to Europe and the US - remember the movie the Day After Tomorrow. This reseeach has been pretty comprehensively debunked - see here and here.

 

As far as I can see, this article supports my statement that natural cylces aren't going to significantly effect Global Warming - it shows claims about the THC suddenly stopping aren't likely at all!

[VinnieK]

Have a read of this: Abrupt climate change in the computer: Is it real?. This is from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences website.

 

1. That article specifically about the difficulties in modelling previous abrupt climate changes accurately. Note that the author makes clear that it is possible to model abrupt climate changes - the question is of the resolution those models will possess regarding hysteresis, and the need to take into account stabilizing and destablizing factors.

 

2. The article is seven years old. Chances are it's already been taken into account. See, that's how science works: they don't just line all people of one opinion on one side of the room and everyone else on the other and wait to see who's right.

 

3. The very notion of abrupt climate change is precisely what supports the global warming hypothesis - the idea that relatively small changes (such as human behaviour) can "force" large, sudden changes in climate. The article does not question the existence of abrupt climate change as a phenomena, which is pretty much an accepted fact, but draws attention to some of the limitations (not the impossibility of) modelling them.

 

In short, a seven year old article relating to the technical details of modelling, which of relevance does little to question the actual theory of global warming and its origin in human behaviour. Not exactly the awsome revalation I was hoping for.

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert, of course you are correct in criticizing my hyperbole - I shouldn't have said only - but even so without concious action by Humanity to reduce CO2 levels there is no evidence nature is going to do it for us - Cambon is claiming there is a natural cycle which will reduce CO2 levels - I'm asking him to justify his opinion - I don't think he can, hence my quip about gut feelings and hot air!

 

The article you've linked to discuses the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation - the Gulf Stream and its other components to you and me!

 

Some research seemed to show that it could/had stop bringing disaster to Europe and the US - remember the movie the Day After Tomorrow. This reseeach has been pretty comprehensively debunked - see here and here.

 

As far as I can see, this article supports my statement that natural cylces aren't going to significantly effect Global Warming - it shows claims about the THC suddenly stopping aren't likely at all!

The real issue from the conclusions of that paper that I was pointing out, pertain to the capability of climate computer models:

Conclusions. It should be stated clearly: Despite the many qualitative and sometimes quantitative agreements, there are serious gaps and shortcomings in our ability to simulate abrupt climate change. The shortcomings fall in two classes: (i) insufficiently known state of the climate system before and during these events, including forcing functions; and (ii) limited model resolution and representation of climate processes. They both need attention: first, by increasing the paleoclimatic database and aiming for high time resolution; second, by synchronizing the various records to better than 500 years; and, third, by developing an appropriate climate model hierarchy. Can current models simulate abrupt

climate change? Our answer is a partial yes

 

In other words "garbage-in garbage-out".