The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Slim]

A programme such as this one, whether or not you agree with its methods, statements or form of presentation, is every bit as valid as the counter argument. Personally, I have recorded it. If and when my children are shown An Inconvenient Truth, I will invite them to sit and watch The Great Global Warming Swindle so that they have an opportunity to make up their own minds.

 

..which kind of highlights the problem again. I'm not qualified to conclude on these findings, neither are you or your kids. I'm not fond of having these issues presented in a sensational way or by politicians, but then if they're not, nobody takes any notice.

 

This is a little like medicine. You go to the Quack, and he treats you with a treatment that resulted from extensive peer reviewed research, political process and best practices. You go to an alternative health care practitioner and he'll completely disagree and treat you another way, one that isn't backed up by process. Fine that's your choice. Which one will more reliably fix your ailment? Well the Doctor will. But then the alternative health care practitiner gets a series on channel 4 and suddenly everyones doing colonic irrigation and detox's and it doesn't do you a jot of good and saying Doctors are full of shit. Crazy world.

[Cambon]

It is a bit like the old floride debate. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Is it a poison? Yes. Does it help protect teeth? Yes. Should it be added to the water? There is the debatable point. A bit like do we really want Al Gore's film force fed to the kids?

 

Is the human race producing more CO2 than in the past? Yes. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. Is the earth getting warmer? Yes. Does that mean these three are linked? Not necessarily. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapour. If the earth gets warmer more water evaporates from both land and sea causing more greenhouse effect, catch 22 until the sun's current excessive burst of energy reduces.

 

As both sides of the argument point out the current level of CO2 is low compared to what it has been in the past. The earth has been much hotter in the past, and the polar bears are still with us.

 

I wonder how Greenland got it's name? Just a thought.

[Slim]

If only the 2500 people contributing to the IPCC report had thought to ask the Polar Bears. We'd have cleared this whole thing up!

 

Neither this documentary or Al Gores should be influencing decision makers. If you base your conclusions on this issue on sensational documentaries, well you're a bit of a div. Hi Roger!

[Lurkah]

Is the human race producing more CO2 than in the past? Yes. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. Is the earth getting warmer? Yes. Does that mean these three are linked? Not necessarily. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapour. If the earth gets warmer more water evaporates from both land and sea causing more greenhouse effect, catch 22 until the sun's current excessive burst of energy reduces.

 

You seem almost like someone who engages in a thought process but you are, unfortunately, yet another example of the type of person that sprouts frankly unbelievably ill-informed nonsense when you could, if you so desired, oh so simply make yourself aware of the actual points in.

 

There are tens of thousands of scientists employed worldwide to generate climate prediction models in computers. These don't just spit out results which you'd like to see, what they do is actually predict changes in the climate based on physics. Here's the simple bit for you: We know how much CO2 mankind has put into the atmosphere. The climate models (several thereof, in many different countries) show a correlation of temperature based on atmosphere CO2. And guess what? The planet has warmed by pretty much exactly that much, specifically taking into account sun cycle output. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, I reckon and in fact the overwealming scientific consensus * is that it's a duck.

 

You're also, unsurprisingly, way off the mark on solar output. In fact solar output rose slightly and did in fact warm the planet slightly prior to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a fact anti global-warming loons cite as the fact that the planet was getting warmer before CO2 levels increased and therefore there's no correlation. In fact it's nonsense. Atmosphere CO2 did not play a significant part in global warming until higher concentration levels were reached post industrial revolution. It's a bit like saying Little Boy Jonny turned into the world's fattest man because because his school chum Mary was giving him a cake a day. The fact his mother was later on started feeding him nine plates of pancakes is clearly irrelevant.

 

As both sides of the argument point out the current level of CO2 is low compared to what it has been in the past.

No they do not. The last time atmospheric CO2 was at the level it is now (about 380ppm) is higher now than it was between 1 and 20 million years ago. There are many sources for that claim including the UK government's chief scientific advisor, Professor Sir David King who also said, categorically, "Mankind is changing the climate".

 

We're actualling on a course to hit CO2 concentrations of 500ppm by the end of the century. The last time CO2 concentrations were that high was between 20 and 40 million years ago. Guess what, the sea level was 100m higher than it is now.

 

I wonder how Greenland got it's name? Just a thought.

 

Because Erik the Red named the new country Greenland to attract other settlers there.

 

In conclusion, let me just ask this of you and all the rest of you loons pursuaded by a bit of pop science on television: Do you think the EU leaders currently in hard negotiations about a reduction in CO2 gasses and the massive impact this will have upon dozens of world economies are doing so because they've all, universally, got bad scientific advice? Do you think telling people they can't drive cars, electricity is going to get more expensive and a raft of other hard and necessary belt-tightening measures are vote winners?

 

My God why don't you people just try thinking for a change.

 

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

[Lonan3]

Neither this documentary or Al Gores should be influencing decision makers.

Agreed. Unfortunately, Al Gore's appears to be doing so already (despite the revelation that George W. Bush's ranch in Texas is more environmentally friendly than the Gore mansion in Tennessee). Therefore it needs something equally theatrical - like The Great Global Warming Swindle - to act as a kind of counterbalance, if only to show that nothing as important as this should be taken at face value.

A large part of the world's scientific community says that the debate is over - and so do most of the world's governments - but it isn't. Our children, and their descendants, are the ones who will have to face the problems and they will need to approach it with open minds rather than feeling guilty every time they forget to switch off a light.

[Slim]

In conclusion, let me just ask this of you and all the rest of you loons pursuaded by a bit of pop science on television: Do you think the EU leaders currently in hard negotiations about a reduction in CO2 gasses and the massive impact this will have upon dozens of world economies are doing so because they've all, universally, got bad scientific advice?

 

 

But, but, Maggie Thatcher invented the whole thing to piss off the miners. They said it on channel 4, with scary music int he background, which I could just about hear through my tin foil hat. This fits what I'd love to believe so I can drive my five litre Jag and support motorsports (eh Stu?), so it must be true!

 

Maggie Thatch Invented global warming? That 'fact' alone should send this documentary in the bin, let alone the other shite it sprouted.

 

Channel 4 shows opposing opinions not because it believes in them, but because they're stirring contraversy to get ratings. That's what they do.

[Slim]

Agreed. Unfortunately, Al Gore's appears to be doing so already (despite the revelation that George W. Bush's ranch in Texas is more environmentally friendly than the Gore mansion in Tennessee). Therefore it needs something equally theatrical - like The Great Global Warming Swindle - to act as a kind of counterbalance, if only to show that nothing as important as this should be taken at face value.

 

I'm not sure I agree, but I can see your point. I dont think the c4 docu was an effective counter, it was just too full of alarmist unfounded bollocks. Al Gores stuff was at least mostly based on proper research. I'm not really a supporter of either, I'm quite greeny, but the Al Gore thing put me off the issue more than turned me on to it mainly because it was presented by a politician not a scientist.

 

A large part of the world's scientific community says that the debate is over - and so do most of the world's governments - but it isn't. Our children, and their descendants, are the ones who will have to face the problems and they will need to approach it with open minds rather than feeling guilty every time they forget to switch off a light.

 

Umm, no. Scientific debates are never over. Just because there's a consensus doesn't mean the research suddenly stops. If new research shows the consensus to be wrong, that consensus will change. We'd all dearly love it to be wrong, and the scientific consensus has been wrong in the past, but it's far far more frequently right.

 

People sprouting 'scientists used to say the world was flat' just have no understanding of scientific process.

[Chinahand]

It is a bit like the old floride debate. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Is it a poison? Yes. Does it help protect teeth? Yes. Should it be added to the water? There is the debatable point. A bit like do we really want Al Gore's film force fed to the kids?

 

Is the human race producing more CO2 than in the past? Yes. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. Is the earth getting warmer? Yes. Does that mean these three are linked? Not necessarily. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapour. If the earth gets warmer more water evaporates from both land and sea causing more greenhouse effect, catch 22 until the sun's current excessive burst of energy reduces.

 

As both sides of the argument point out the current level of CO2 is low compared to what it has been in the past. The earth has been much hotter in the past, and the polar bears are still with us.

 

I wonder how Greenland got it's name? Just a thought.

 

Oh isn't science complicated and documentaries simple -

 

The consensus is that the mid holocene warming was related to the shifts in the orbit of the earth about the sun excentricity etc - it resulted in warmer summer temperatures in the northern temperature - and warmer winter temperatures in the southern temperature. But guess what - winter temperatures and winter ice formation were basically as today - however the overall ice extent was greater than today due to the fact that this was still shortly after the last glacial - the laurentide ice sheet was still in existence and carving ice off in the oceans of labrador etc. So that is why Polar Bears survived!

 

Greenland was called Greenland by the Vikings - advertizing to get them to leave Iceland and migrate to a new colony - unfortunately this false advertizing didn't change the climate and the colonists all froze to death. Oh well!

[Dr_Dave]

A large part of the world's scientific community says that the debate is over - and so do most of the world's governments - but it isn't. Our children, and their descendants, are the ones who will have to face the problems and they will need to approach it with open minds rather than feeling guilty every time they forget to switch off a light.

 

You're giving way too much weight to the counter argument. You say that the debate isn't over, true, nor should it be, but this isn't to say that the two arguments have equal support.

 

I am not a climate scientist, nor, I presume, are you, but I have enough scientific training to recognise the shortcomings in my knowledge and bow to the most trustworthy source of information available. In this case, the best bet is to get behind the literature consensus - that is, what the weight of peer-reviewed journal articles are currently backing. Oh, peer-review isn't a perfect solution by any means, but it's the best we've got. And for global warming there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed articles back the concept of man-made global warming.

 

It is not, I should add, a done deal. No science ever is. If you want a dead-cert, you might as well take up betting on horses because science isn't going to give you it. There are most definitely flaws in our knowledge and some aspects of the programme last night touched on these (though it was hard to pick them out amid the misleading and sometimes downright wrong evidence presented). It may turn out that global warming is natural, you'd find very few real scientists who claim that it 100% won't.

 

Ordinarily this would result in a classic scientific stand off, decades would pass and nothing much would change. Lots of talking would happen, more evidence would be presented, eventually one side would emerge the victor by virtue of weight of evidence (compare to the 150 year old debate about evolution) and everyone would smoke a cigar and laugh at how primitive the other side was. But this case is different...

 

On both sides we have an agreement that the planet is heating and this will have a major impact on our environment, this is generally not in dispute. However, one side of the argument is proposing that if we act quickly - on a scale of decades rather than centuries - we can limit or even reverse the effect, we can potentially save millions of lives and trillions of dollars. And thanks to the time-sensitive nature of the disagreement, we need to decide which one we're getting behind and we need to do it fast.

 

At this point you need to take a realistic look at the evidence, and the only way you can do this is by looking at the literature - not C4 documentaries mind, but proper peer-reviewed journal articles. And the inescapable conclusion you come to is that 95% of these articles support the idea of man-made global warming.

 

So are you a betting man? Are you willing to risk the lives of millions of people, the future economic prosperity of the planet and the quality of life of your children on a hypothesis that is supported by only 5% of the actual experts in this field?

 

The situation is not the 50-50 deal that the programme presented last night, and it is dangerous to believe it is.

 

Dave

[Charles Flynn]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the various arguments it still makes absolute sense that we should do everything we can to ensure all life on this planet is sustained

 

No, really ?

 

I'll start wearing ridged soles to give the ants a chance then.

 

What a good idea!

Ants are not all bad.The Masai of Africa had an abiding respect for the Siafu Ants, voracious predators that consume a large amount of insects and are welcomed for the benefit they bring to farmers, as they will eliminate all pests from a crop and quickly move on.

 

Also Muslims - you are not converting are you? respect ants.

 

Without the world's insects none of us would be here.

[Lonan3]

There are tens of thousands of scientists employed worldwide to generate climate prediction models in computers.

 

Tens of thousands who might find employment problematic if they couldn't persuade anyone of the need to finance their research?

 

Here's the simple bit for you: We know how much CO2 mankind has put into the atmosphere.

So, remind me just how much that is - as a percentage of the total of CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, I reckon and in fact the overwealming scientific consensus * is that it's a duck

 

Usually - but it's always possible to be 'lured' into making a mistake.

 

 

In conclusion, let me just ask this of you and all the rest of you loons pursuaded by a bit of pop science on television: Do you think the EU leaders currently in hard negotiations about a reduction in CO2 gasses and the massive impact this will have upon dozens of world economies are doing so because they've all, universally, got bad scientific advice? Do you think telling people they can't drive cars, electricity is going to get more expensive and a raft of other hard and necessary belt-tightening measures are vote winners?

 

Do you think it's a foregone conclusion that they'll agree? Think again!Int Herald Tribune Article

And do you really think that having a ready-made, scientifically-supported to raise taxes - or to invent new ones - is something that is anathema to governments?

 

 

My God why don't you people just try thinking for a change.

 

Has it not occurred to you that that is exactly what many of us are trying to do - rather than simply accepting one or other version of what is happening as if it had suddenly appeared carved on tablets of stone?

[Chinahand]

There are tens of thousands of scientists employed worldwide to generate climate prediction models in computers.

 

Tens of thousands who might find employment problematic if they couldn't persuade anyone of the need to finance their research?

 

Scientists who can't back up their ideas with scientific results tend not to get employed or recieve research grants - these people aren't pissing around making things up you know.

 

Here's the simple bit for you: We know how much CO2 mankind has put into the atmosphere.

So, remind me just how much that is - as a percentage of the total of CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

See graph of CO2 content - 99% of the increase is man made.

 

 

How significant is this to global warming?

 

See this:

 

 

One thing to note is the heating effect of CO2 is partially offset by the cooling effect of cloud albedo effects of Aerosols.

 

Alot of this comes from pollution: One worrying result is as we shut down power-stations and reduce human caused aerosols their cooling effect will be reduced - while CO2 which lingers longer in the atmosphere will continue to produce a warming effect - accelerating the non equilibrium warming - its complicated!

 

Link

 

The relative lifetimes of CO2 and aerosol in the atmosphere result in the expectation that reducing fossil fuel use will accelerate warming. A CO2 molecule has a lifetime of about 100 years in the atmosphere, while an aerosol particle has an average life expectancy of only about 10 days. Therefore, if we instantaneously ceased using combustion engines, the (cooling) fossil fuel-related aerosols would be cleaned out of the atmosphere within weeks, while the (warming) CO2 would remain much longer, leaving a net positive forcing from the reduction in emissions for a century or more.

[Lonan3]

No offence, Chinahand - but your graph does not address my question, which was:

We know how much CO2 mankind has put into the atmosphere; so, remind me just how much that is - as a percentage of the total of CO2 in the atmosphere?

[Lurkah]

Tens of thousands who might find employment problematic if they couldn't persuade anyone of the need to finance their research?

 

Sure. This is a commonly said thing by lconspiracy oons. Scientists are all, except for your fringe dudes who you choose to believe, all in the pay of mysterious forces who are asking them to form specific conclusions in order to garantee their next grant. There are very many reasons why that's just utter nonsense.

 

1. No one has ever before managed to buy off World science in such a way. Even when they tried, like smoking.

2. Climatologists are generally attached to meteorological institutes. They're on tenure doing what they've been doing for decades.

3. Scientists have been saying the things they've been saying now for a long time now, well before it was a public issue. Who was funding them way back then and why?

4. Who stands to gain in bribing scientists? Big business? The entire concept of capitalism is based upon one of growth which is a fundamental opposition to what looks like it may have to be done.

5. The Developing World: The guys who really stand to lose out big because they can't afford to implement the required measures, right as they're trying to pull themselves into their own industrial revolutions. How come scientists from these part of the world don't allign themselves with an anti global-warming view? Instead, most of the anti-global warming views come from the West. From largely self-promoting mavericks rather than peer-reviewed sources.

 

There are more but really I would say if you believe this at all to be the case, then you basically have no knowledge of experience of the process of science.

 

Do you think it's a foregone conclusion that they'll agree? Think again!Int Herald Tribune Article

 

Yes I do actually. http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ie...mp;q=eu+climate

 

As you can see by actually examining the real state of negotuations right now, they're all agreed on the fact something has to be done. We've never seen this kind of agreement in world politics ever. What's being argued about now is the exact level of the cut and the contribution of renewable energy into the mix. Many countries have vested interests to the tunes of billions, such as France's reliance on nuclear energy. So naturally they're going to trade within the framework of agreeing some kind of action. It will cost each country billions. The total EU bill for this action I cannot even begin to imagine.

 

It's not impossible stuff might go wrong with negotiations but you've done nothing in bringing up this point to counter the fact that all the countries of Europe with all the scientific advice available to them, are in agreement than CO2 output should be reduced. You would, I suppose, have us believe that they're all deluded. If they got to see the same programme on television last night that you did, I'm sure they'd all be convinced of the error of their ways instantanteously.

 

And do you really think that having a ready-made, scientifically-supported to raise taxes - or to invent new ones - is something that is anathema to governments?

Heh, so your supposition is that it's all scheme to raise taxes to pay for renewable energy? You don't think there's slightly easier ways for governments to raise taxes?

 

Has it not occurred to you that that is exactly what many of us are trying to do - rather than simply accepting one or other version of what is happening as if it had suddenly appeared carved on tablets of stone?

 

I don't see any evidence of that. You don't appear to have gone out and actually examined the scientific consensus on the issue. Nothing you or any of your merry band of television watchers has done anything whatsoever to put forward a remotely credible case. And yet when I do, you come back with more baseless conspiracy nut stuff.

 

I'm all for debate but just because something was on television, doesn't mean it has equal weighting to properly peer-reviewed research. Take this film maker of the documentary you're all holding on a pedestal as if clearly the funk from the eyes of the poor deluded scientific community. Martin Durkin specialises in making controversial documentaries which extoll the opposite view of scientific consensus with, many would argue, the goal of promoting controversy and being a handy mechanism to boost ratings meaning it gets commissioned for mainstream television. His credentials are far more in question than the global scientific community which, in your first point, you would have us believe are all in the pay of mysterious masters who stand to gain, somehow, from global warming.

 

In 1997 Marin Durkin produced a documentary for Channel 4 (the only station that commissions his work, can't think why) called Against Nature inw hich he argues that all environmentalists in general are bad for science. After an investigation by the ITC, channel 4 broadcasted an apology. A digital spy transcription: 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.'

 

Back in 1999 Martin Durkin made a documentary about breast implants which said they reduced the risk of breast cancer. Flying in the face of all the available science, statistics and otherwise. One of his researchers resigned in protest during pre-production because he was so upset at the way the actual argument had been turned around from the evidence. After transmission two contributors went on record as stating that they believed the documentary was a highly financed PR campaign to hide the real dangers of breast implants.

 

Then in 2000 Durkin made a documentary about genetic engineering for Equinox. One of the participants (and this is a recurring theme with contributors to all of Durkin's programmes) said “I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position.”

 

And this tactic is again what he used in this documetary, deciding his position up front and the interviewing people with known opposing views to those he espouses, allowing them no right to reply whatsoever and simply cutting up their statements to back up his view. It's mean, low, dirty journalism and it most definately is NOT in the spirit of science which encourages debate. So the guy you're all holding up as being the other side of a debate has done his utmost to never grant anyone else of actual scientific reputation in the fields he covers to have the opportunity to debate any of his points. Had he done so, a number factual inaccuracies would have been fixed from the outset. And what's more, it's not terribly difficult to demolish the reputation of a number of his anti-warming witnesses either, they've been harping on this subject for years despite their cries that the debate is being suppressed. The only one suppressing debate here is Durkin.

[Cambon]

Thanks Lonan3, you saved me the trouble.

 

People need to open their minds more and not be the sheep governments want them to be.