The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Cambon]

So assuming that the CO2 level IS causing global warming to accelerate, how is the information we are being fed about reducing it going to help?

 

Cutting CO2 emissions will possibly slow the rate of overall increase, but it is still going to increase from natural sources. I believe it was said early in this thread that man made CO2 accounted for 35% of the total. This being the case, are we not better off taking Richard Branson's desired approach and find a way to break down / absorb CO2 in order to balance it out? Maybe even reduce it from current levels?

 

As a thought on the side though, we are currently taught to reduce, re-use and recycle. Reduce and re-use are generally good ideas. I am not that convinced about re-cycling. Some recycling (metals etc) is a good idea, but recycling plastic bottles is more costly to the environment than making new ones, so is this a bad idea? Would we not be better off using refillable glass bottles as was the norm until the early '80s? Recycling glass can also have an adverse effect on the environment (CO2 produced by heating the glass to melt it as per plastic). However, much less energy is used to crush glass into aggregate, which seems a better idea to me. Even composting has adverse effects - produces CO2. Maybe composting is an area where we should use the Reduce idea rather than recycle.

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I do wonder sometimes if the whole approach is a bit suspect.

[Lost Login]

I do not feel the same way about the Al Gore film. You can argue that is is because I am being selective as the view point more nearly reprsent my own. However I would argue that whilst it is not a complete indpendent examination of the issue and by no means 100% accurate I am fairly happy it puts forward a theory that is backed up by facts and scientific research. Yes they may have strayed towards some of the more extreme consequences and it is slanted to meet their view point but it is based on the accepted scientific view point

 

I object to Thursdays programme not because it is slanted from a different point of view but because it made false claims etc etc. If they had worked with the science and said look guys based on the accepted science we think it is over egged because of this or ommitts something then I would not have a problem. I have no problem with the science being looked at objectively and argued over. I have no problem that a different view is taken on what scientific consequences are as long as they are reasonable What I object to is basically matters being treated and presented as scientific fact when it is known that they are incorrect to deliberately mislead.

 

Changing the subject I have similar concerns regard papers publishing as fact the positive effect of fish oil and Omega 3 on brains of kids and rapid advancement of reading agent. As far as I aware it has been reported in newspapers as fact and it is being pushed by those with a vested interest. Unfortunately I am not aware that there is any independent research backing this up or that those who are pushing this based on their own research have let it go for peer review. I think Endamol the TV company have now paid for some reseach and this is being made into a TV program for Channel 5 but again the research has not been backed by neutral parties.

 

All this makes great headlines in the paper and on TV but it does a disservice to the public as all they see is that research says that X is a cure for this, or that taking Y is a cause for concern. Frequently these are one bit of research published by those with a vested interest not backed up by anything else. Remember the MMR scare. The public is naturally going to take these reports seriously if on reputable programmes etc which is where I have my problem. If you are a reputable paper or TV station I think you have a responsibility to ensure that what you put out stands up as naturally people believe it. Presently they don't and it seems many are for a quick headline and viewing figures based on a storey put out by researches who are based on selling a product.

 

I am a frequent reader of Ben Goldings bad science column in the Guardian, he also has his own Bad Science web site, which highlights much of this. It makes interesting & concerning reading and it does make you question almost everything you see or read. In this resperct I was watching tonight with Trevor McD last week and the issue was incorrect reading of speed guns. One of the apparent problems appeared to be the "spread" of the laser beams. My school boy science made me believe the whole point of lazers was that the light did not spread. I am sure it is one of the things that the majority of us believe about lasers from watching James Bond etc. I may well be wrong and will have to check but it did make me question the rest of the program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I do not welcome is programmes such as last Thursdays from either side which basically are a complete discredit to independent documentary making which even if weighted one way or the other sgould at least be based on verifiable facts etc etc

 

Honest question: do you feel the same way about Al Gore's film?

[VinnieK]

A lot of people are making a lot of money out of 'global-warming' at the moment (many of the same institutions that were making a lot of money out of 'global-cooling' theory in the 70s and 80s) - and that money is coming from our pockets.

 

Should we then be sceptical about any institution that receives significant funding in order to conduct research based upon some hypothesis or another (which would encompass most of the major universities)? Of course not, that's what universities and research are all about.

 

The view that universities are "making money" out of global warming seems to misunderstand how universities operate. Yes the big environmental sciences departments are fairly well funded, but it has to be pointed out that such departments are expensive and relatively few in number, and their funding is usually less than other scientific subjects receive at comparable institutions: UEA, for instance, received around 3.5 million for their environmental science department's research, whilst Bristol's physics department received about 7 million. Thus the idea that the global warming hypothesis represents for universities some kind of goose that laid the golden egg is erroneous - typically it's a very expensive discipline and one that is hard to set up and, relying so much on other disciplines requires a significant amount of internal investment into a large number of departments, which a lot of institutions simply can't sustain, or simply don't want to in view of the fact that more research income could probably be generated by simply improving the quality of their existing science departments.

 

Secondly, you make it sound as if universities "sell" their research as if it's a product, and enjoy the ability to make a profit that is inherent in such a system. The research funding scheme is, however, closer to investment, whereby funding councils provide the money required to conduct research they consider valuable. Now, even if we assume that the funding councils' decisions are based upon their political master's view, their investment is calculated to cover the costs of the research and is accompanied by conditions that the money is spent wisely upon that research (as opposed to being shoved into stocks or spent manicuring the lawns). In short, the capacity of an institution to actually "make money", i.e. turn a profit, from their research funding is absolutely minimal, which is why so many universities are instead turning to spin off companies, charitable donations, and dare I say it, cheap to run but popular MBA courses as a means of generating income.

[Slim]

As a thought on the side though, we are currently taught to reduce, re-use and recycle. Reduce and re-use are generally good ideas. I am not that convinced about re-cycling. Some recycling (metals etc) is a good idea, but recycling plastic bottles is more costly to the environment than making new ones, so is this a bad idea? Would we not be better off using refillable glass bottles as was the norm until the early '80s? Recycling glass can also have an adverse effect on the environment (CO2 produced by heating the glass to melt it as per plastic). However, much less energy is used to crush glass into aggregate, which seems a better idea to me. Even composting has adverse effects - produces CO2. Maybe composting is an area where we should use the Reduce idea rather than recycle.

Maybe I am wrong, but I do wonder sometimes if the whole approach is a bit suspect.

 

I think you're right, and I think there's definately a movement towards 'smarter' green living. I think the important thing is that there's some pretty big gains to be made in certain areas. Dumping iridecnant bulbs for one thing is something that all developed nations should have already done, and something that developed nations can easily support in developing countries too. Air travel is a huge problem that needs sorting, fucking off to Prague for a cheap shopping weekend because there's no tax on aviation fuel really is something that has to stop.

 

Smarter recyclling is definately something we need to work on, at all levels. I get miffed with the missus becuase she'll fill the car with paper for recycling and drive around with it for weeks before dumping it, totally ofsetting any gains there.

 

I read a fantastic article in the Independant about new australian recycling centres that claim to be almost 100% efficient, with very efficient plastic extraction, bio systems for breaking down matter and even the ability to run their machinery on the methane biproduct.

 

The UK is very poor at recycling, most of our recyclables get shipped thousands of miles to China because that's cheaper than dealing with it here. Better than nowt, but pretty daft.

 

It's an area that's developing fast, and if you believe in man made co2 causing global warming or not, increased reuse, reduced resilience on non-renewables and cleaner air are definately desirable.

 

Anyone know much about how efficient our energy from waste plant's been? That's theoretically close to carbon neutral which is an improvement vs burning fossil fuels for power, but then that disregards all the crap that's involved in getting the waste to the incinerator.

[Albert Tatlock]

One of the main issues in this programme is that CO2 starts rising approximately 800 years after the earth starts to warm (it takes that long for the temperature to affect the deep oceans - which form most of the planet's surface which eventually release CO2). This is what the evidence (ice cores etc.) shows.

 

Under current global-warming theory, you would expect that CO2 would rise first and then the earth would warm, but in reality it is exactly the opposite i.e. the earth warms and then CO2 starts to rise. Warmer temperatures then cause even more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere from natural sources such as the oceans etc. which is why there is currently an ongoing rise in CO2.

 

If you read carefully about these current theories, you will see that the 'man-made-global-warming fanatics' have to introduce an 'unknown factor' that causes global warming to start 800 years before the CO2 actually starts rising. This is a fundamental point people are failing to grasp at the moment.

[Slim]

We've discussed that already albert, do try to keep up at the back.

[Chinahand]

One of the main issues in this programme is that CO2 starts rising approximately 800 years after the earth starts to warm (it takes that long for the temperature to affect the deep oceans - which form most of the planet's surface which eventually release CO2). This is what the evidence (ice cores etc.) shows.

 

Under current global-warming theory, you would expect that CO2 would rise first and then the earth would warm, but in reality it is exactly the opposite i.e. the earth warms and then CO2 starts to rise. Warmer temperatures then cause even more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere from natural sources such as the oceans etc. which is why there is currently an ongoing rise in CO2.

 

If you read carefully about these current theories, you will see that the 'man-made-global-warming fanatics' have to introduce an 'unknown factor' that causes global warming to start 800 years before the CO2 actually starts rising. This is a fundamental point people are failing to grasp at the moment.

 

Albert - Please read this article on RealClimate - its been linked to before, but I'll do it again. Just because CO2 has not been the cause of a (part of a) climate change in the past - does not mean it is not a part of a climate change today. Natural causes do not explain the current changes in climate - but natural cause can explain previous climate changes. Just because we may not be understand everything about our climate past, doesn't mean we can't make predictions of our climate future.

 

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

 

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

 

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

 

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

 

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

 

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [but it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

 

Edit You beat me to it Slim!!

[Chinahand]

This is a pretty comprehensive attack on the Channel 4 program, from a scientist who took part. He is a recognised world expert and climate change skeptic - please note what he is saying. Even he agrees somethings are very likely to occur.

 

Link

 

The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,...). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.

 

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.

 

Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics". I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.

 

How much is it worth to society to restrain CO2 emissions --- will that guarantee protection against global warming? Is it sensible to subsidize insurance for people who wish to build in regions strongly susceptible to coastal flooding? ... Scientifically, we can recognize the reality of the threat, and much of what society needs to insure against. Statements of concern do not need to imply that we have all the answers. Channel 4 had an opportunity to elucidate some of this. The outcome is sad.

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert - Please read this article on RealClimate - its been linked to before, but I'll do it again. Just because CO2 has not been the cause of a (part of a) climate change in the past - does not mean it is not a part of a climate change today. Natural causes do not explain the current changes in climate - but natural cause can explain previous climate changes. Just because we may not be understand everything about our climate past, doesn't mean we can't make predictions of our climate future.

 

The smoking gun. I did read it. This is my response to it. You are still introducing the 'X Factor' - for which there is no evidence.

 

 

 

_

[VinnieK]

The smoking gun. I did read it. This is my response to it. You are still introducing the 'X Factor' - for which there is no evidence.

 

Isn't this clutching at straws a little, Albert?

 

What you appear to be saying is that "The Global warming hypothesis predicts current warming is caused by CO2" and "Historically, rises in CO2 levels lag behind a rise in temperature" implies "The global warming hypothesis is wrong". For a man so keen to emphasise his logical qualities and scientific credentials, this is a perculiar form of reasoning in so much as it's almost a textbook example of a logical fallacy. The fallacy being that the implication is built on the premise that current global warming is consistent with historical instances of warming, but the hypothesis states that the rate at which the Earth is warming is higher than could be expected judging by historical precedent. As such the hypothesis remains consistent with the historical record, in that it doesn't contradict it, and your smoking gun looks more like a red herring.

 

But this is merely an aside to the main thrust of my post. So far you've accused a large number of climatologists of being fanatics, suggested that they are incompetant (in so much as they just ignore or are oblivious to obviously contradictory data and phenomenon), and that they're guilty of moulding their conclusions to suit their political paymasters. This isn't the approach of someone who claims to hold the scientific ethos and reasoning as a guiding principle, as you've claimed you do, no matter how many (usually erroneous) scraps of apparently contradictory evidence they can cull and cherry pick to fill it out with.

 

In fact, for all the arguments regarding this chart, that graph, this data set and that model, this isn't even an argument about the scientific merits or flaws of the global warming hypothesis. No matter how many reports, summaries, and presentations we may have read, unless we happen to all have access to papers contained in journals like Chemosphere or the International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, which I'm pretty certain most of us don't, we simply lack the resources to effectively question or asses the science. Sure we can base our arguments on the broad overviews that are available to the general public, but such arguments by neccessity neglect the finer points and fundamental aspects of the methods and arguments that justify the conclusions found in such overviews; the more technical an issue we discuss, the less reliable our arguments actually are. In reality this debate is less about the science and more, perhaps even fundamentally, about trust in the scientific establishment.

 

As an illustration of this disparity between what we're arguing, and what we can argue, I offer an analogous example of an unresolved hypothesis that is often nevertheless assumed to be true. Few will care for it, I know, but Albert, being as you are a man of reason and a stickler for scientific principles, I know you'll rise to the challenge with enthusiasm and gusto! Now, the Riemann Hypothesis is a mathematical conjecture that has for the past couple of centuries remained unresolved one way or another. It is assumed to be true, and not without some justification, by the vast majority of mathematicians, although there is a small minority (as in the case for Global Warming) who claim it to be false. Now, the mathematics required to understand the problem are little if at all more technical than those involved in the study of climate change, and is perhaps even more accessible to us in that it doesn't require any tricky chemistry, physics or biology.

 

The challenge is this: Armed only with a copy of Dr Riemann's zeros and whatever relevant general material we can find, who honestly feels confident that they can provide enough conclusive evidence to justify issuing and standing by a verdict on the problem either way? Are those mathematicians who assume it to be true and base further research upon this assumption just a sorry shower of bastards trying to protect their livelyhoods? Do those who claim it to be false form a brave band of crusaders in the mould of Einstein? The winner will receive a cookie from me, and a million dollars from the Clay institute if their confidence is justified.

 

By the way, I'm in the "true" camp. Not because I can pretend to understand all the mathematical justifications they may provide, but because I trust the judgement of the majority, and am content that, no ill will come of it if I turn out to be wrong - unlike the case if I were to adopt the view that climate change is bunkum.

[Albert Tatlock]

The smoking gun. I did read it. This is my response to it. You are still introducing the 'X Factor' - for which there is no evidence.

 

Isn't this clutching at straws a little, Albert?

 

What you appear to be saying is that "The Global warming hypothesis predicts current warming is caused by CO2" and "Historically, rises in CO2 levels lag behind a rise in temperature" implies "The global warming hypothesis is wrong". For a man so keen to emphasise his logical qualities and scientific credentials, this is a perculiar form of reasoning in so much as it's almost a textbook example of a logical fallacy. The fallacy being that the implication is built on the premise that current global warming is consistent with historical instances of warming, but the hypothesis states that the rate at which the Earth is warming is higher than could be expected judging by historical precedent. As such the hypothesis remains consistent with the historical record, in that it doesn't contradict it, and your smoking gun looks more like a red herring.

...Sorry you can't be allowed to simply jump past paragraph one like that.

 

This is one of the main points of the argument. I am precisely saying... to use your own words above that: "The Global warming hypothesis predicts current warming is caused by CO2" and "Historically, rises in CO2 levels lag behind a rise in temperature" implies "The global warming hypothesis is wrong"

 

Current CO2 levels are consistent with historical (-800 yr) instances of warming. You are talking half a degree difference in a massive range, but the overall upward and matching trend is there, identified in numerous ice cores from the past - that clearly illustrate that CO2 rises follow temperature rises but lag by around 800 years. Current propaganda puts the cart before the horse insisting that CO2 leads temperature and assumes some previous 'magic CO2 x-factor' from the past (currently unknown and non-presentable by G-W propagandists) that supposedly kicked this process off.

 

This is the science versus religion (reason v faith) argument that is currently stifling debate. Help me Jeebus!

[VinnieK]

Current CO2 levels are consistent with historical (-800 yr) instances of warming. You are talking half a degree difference in a massive range, but the overall upward and matching trend is there, identified in numerous ice cores from the past !

 

I actually meant the rate of change in temperature defies the historical record of previous warmings, but regarding CO2 levels being consistent with what we should expect from natural process, RealClimate offers this, which suggests that current carbon levels are down to mankind, not nature.

 

This is the science versus religion (reason v faith) argument that is currently stifling debate. Help me Jeebus!

 

The only "religion" that I see here is a particularly feeble one which is based on a petulant, near adolescent resentment of any body of authority (scientific or otherwise) that dares try to influence people in how they live their lives.

 

Anyway, back to how all scientists who disagree with you are lying, stupid bastards who only want to raise your taxes.

[Cambon]

I think you're right, and I think there's definately a movement towards 'smarter' green living. I think the important thing is that there's some pretty big gains to be made in certain areas. Dumping iridecnant bulbs for one thing is something that all developed nations should have already done, and something that developed nations can easily support in developing countries too. Air travel is a huge problem that needs sorting, fucking off to Prague for a cheap shopping weekend because there's no tax on aviation fuel really is something that has to stop.

 

Smarter recyclling is definately something we need to work on, at all levels. I get miffed with the missus becuase she'll fill the car with paper for recycling and drive around with it for weeks before dumping it, totally ofsetting any gains there.

 

I read a fantastic article in the Independant about new australian recycling centres that claim to be almost 100% efficient, with very efficient plastic extraction, bio systems for breaking down matter and even the ability to run their machinery on the methane biproduct.

 

The UK is very poor at recycling, most of our recyclables get shipped thousands of miles to China because that's cheaper than dealing with it here. Better than nowt, but pretty daft.

 

It's an area that's developing fast, and if you believe in man made co2 causing global warming or not, increased reuse, reduced resilience on non-renewables and cleaner air are definately desirable.

 

Anyone know much about how efficient our energy from waste plant's been? That's theoretically close to carbon neutral which is an improvement vs burning fossil fuels for power, but then that disregards all the crap that's involved in getting the waste to the incinerator.

 

I like the Aussie approach to recycling too, in fact most developed countries leave us for dust in that department, as you quite rightly stated. 25 years ago I was living in Jersey and even back then we had to have a separate bin for glass, which was collected once a month. Since the introduction of wheelie bins virtually everyone has a spare bin hanging around so why could we not do something like that here and now?

 

On the shipping to china front, it is not entirely a bad idea. The thing is the ships would otherwise be going back empty anyway, plus separating it all out out is jobs for the chinese that in this day and age I cannot see british people doing, although I have always thought it is the sort of thing you could get done in british prisons.

 

On the flights front, Brown can tax the brits off the planes but it is all the other countries that will be the problem. But then, would having to pay an extra £100 (5% or less) total stop you from booking a family holiday? I seriously doubt it.

 

As far as the incinerator is concerned, if it was really doing well, we would all know about it because it would be all over the papers and DOLGE would not shut up about it. I do know that when they started up they were having to burn diesel as there was not enough rubbish to keep it going. Energy from energy?

[Slim]

This very issue was debated, fairly badly, on newsnight last night. The journalist couldn't let the guys talk science and instead wanted to talk about the death threats the guys behind the documentary were recieving. They had a climate scientists in the pro man made co2 camp, and a biologist in the nay. The biologist, who admitted he knew fuck all about climate, who admitted he'd done fuck all to contribute to the IPCC report bleated that there wasn't a peer consensus. The Climateologist said he was a reviewer on parts of the IPCC report, said he'd reviewed thousands of submissions, said the debate was very healthy indeed.

 

He also made the same point as vinnie made above, the glacial history in the cores isn't the same pattern that we're seeing now. That warming caused a co2 release, of course it did. The co2 didn't cause that warming. What it did do was amplify. The danger they're alerting us to is that co2 is causing warming AND we're going to face that amplify issue on top of that.

[Manxman In Exile]

God this is all so boring. We are here to live on the Earth, not to "save" it. Let nature take its course I say, and enjoy the changes this may or may not bring. You will not stop nature, if we could we would have stopped earthquakes, tsunamis, floods etc long ago.

 

I was listening to one radio programme this morning and people were actually starting to laugh at all this nonsense about using low energy bulbs and only being allowed one flight a year etc. as if that is going to make one jot of difference.

 

I am becoming as global-warming-fatigued as everyone else seems to be getting.

 

Someone else said they were going to boil the kettle three times for each cup of tea, and I think I will do the same. Then I'm going to go out and buy a huge 4 wheel drive and take it for pleasure trips up and down the road. I may even start actively supporting the TT - there is nothing like the smell of gallons of petrol burned-off in the pursuit of leisure sports, not to mention all the fuel used by the fans getting here and the fumes from the Ben as she struggles across the Irish Sea. Then I think I will sponsor a Formula 1 car......