The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Storebought]

A British documentary on the irrational and (in the words of a co-founder of Greenpeace) anti-human nature of the anthropogenic global warming movement.

The thread title is not my opinion, it's the title of the movie.

You can see it in its 1:16:56 entirety on Google Video

[CARLHAYDEN]

Good post Storebought!

[CultureKing]

I am amazed at this movie... They claim that they (the scientists in this movie) are not being heard, and there is a reason for that, they are on the fringe, the scientific consensus has been reached, global warming IS happening and we humans DO have something to do with it.
This is from a director who compared environmentalists to Nazis fighting against the world's poor, the ITC (Independent Television Commission) said the programme makers “distorted by selective editing” the views of the interviewees and “misled” them about the “content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”
Here is a quote from one of the scientists:
"We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed."

Furthermore, some of the "scientists" only creudentials come from the Scientific Alliance, which was founded as an anti-global warming thinktank. Others have not published any articles for over 20 years while still more have recieved funding from such companies as: Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO, German Coal Mining Association, Edison Electric Institute, and the Western Fuels Association. Finally some dont even have any degrees or experience in climate science.

The channel that broadcast it then later apoligized on prime time for the airing.

And yes I did watch the movie, and while I found some points interesting most of them were not very strong and were easily refutable.

[Storebought]

I will simply state what I find most repulsive about the impact the global climate change movement has had on science, namely, their replacement of the scientific method based on reasoned doubt with an authoritarian "science by consensus." That dreadful system existed for 2500 years before Galileo, and it insisted that heavy objects fall faster than light ones, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that light waves travel through luminiferous aether (that "consensus" lasted until 1920). 

Why should "consensus" be used to prove the hypothesis that recent changes in earth's climate are due to increases in industrial emission of CO2 -- as opposed to, say, geological or solar activity?

To that end, your comment that several of the scientists (or otherwise) who disagree with that hypothesis are on the take from energy multinationals is a pure ad hominem. The UK channel's "apology" for airing this documentary is even more repugnant.

My greatest fault with this documentary lies in the fact that it was too sensational and the presentation of their arguments too superficial. They blasted though the role cosmic particles play in cloud formation (cloud formation is not at all a trivial phenomenon), but belabored the damaging effects of using only solar panels in poor African hospitals. Furthermore they didn't do nearly enough literature citations to my liking -- one GCC denier claimed that models that predicted the most dire outcomes used a 1% increase in CO2 levels per year when weather balloons only recorded a 0.4% increase. Which models? which laboratories? which studies? Why should we accept this man's assumption?

[J. J.]

There are some serious questions that we all should be asking about global warming.  Some of these are:

1.  How much is natural, cyclical, warming, and how much is man made?

2.  How much is due to CO2?

3.  How much is due to methane and how much of that methane is produced by the biomass, as opposed to industrial activities?  (This is potentially the most troubling question about global warming.)

4.  How much is due to land use changes?  Is this effecting the data?

All that said, I have no doubt that some of the average temperature increase is due to human activity.  I also have no doubt that some of it is due to CO2.

[David S]

Storebought. Sorry I reposted this. You beat me to the punch, so I deleted mine.

Its a good topic. I also don't believe the debate is over. Some of my concerns about CO2 induced warming were discussed on the video, Namely;
That the increase in CO2 starts 800 years after the warming starts.
That the sun, which is the source of all heat on earth could be a big factor in the current warming trend.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There are some serious questions that we all should be asking about global warming.  Some of these are:

1.  How much is natural, cyclical, warming, and how much is man made?

2.  How much is due to CO2?

3.  How much is due to methane and how much of that methane is produced by the biomass, as opposed to industrial activities?  (This is potentially the most troubling question about global warming.)

4.  How much is due to land use changes?  Is this effecting the data?

All that said, I have no doubt that some of the average temperature increase is due to human activity.  I also have no doubt that some of it is due to CO2.

Who cares what you think. You don't understand statistical significance, and claim that CO2 and temperature don't have a statistically significant correlation.

[Beet]

I will simply state what I find most repulsive about the impact the global climate change movement has had on science, namely, their replacement of the scientific method based on reasoned doubt with an authoritarian "science by consensus." That dreadful system existed for 2500 years before Galileo, and it insisted that heavy objects fall faster than light ones, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that light waves travel through luminiferous aether (that "consensus" lasted until 1920).

Storebought, you accuse those who believe in man-made global warming as replacing 'reasoned doubt', the supposedly rational alternative, with 'science by consensus', an irrational alternative.

First of all, the theory of man-made global warming did not just emerge out of nowhere and win over a scientific majority, then support itself based on consensus-thinking. Yet this is what you seem to be implying-- that consensus-thinking replaced reason. Are you saying, then, that there is no reasonable, substantive basis for thinking that humans might be causing global warming whatsoever?

Second of all, you seem to be implying that all those who believe in man-made climate change assert that there exists a global consensus in their favor, yet I have not heard anyone make such an assertion. I believe in man-made climate change yet I do not believe in any such consensus-- clearly, in this very thread alone, we see evidence of dissent. My beliefs are not based on the notion of consensus but on reasoned inferences coming from studies, models, and measurements.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It should not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first eight minutes of this video is pretty ad-hominem, Storebrought, as are the comments you wrote above. You wrote that those who believe in man-made global warming want to replace reason with consensus-thinking. The video claims that we are part of political conspiracy based on economic vested interests, which is not too convincing given that any economic argumente would have to incorporate the reverse interests of the energy industry. The video claims that 'any dissent' is not tolerated, and that the makers are 'heretics' and that global warming has becoming the defining issue 'of a generation.'

They go a long way toward making assertions and trying to paint themselves as the underdogs when their allies control the White House and are ensuring that nothing is being done about global warming.

So don't go accusing CultureKing of ad hominems when that's been 80% of what's gone on here so far. I'm going to watch the rest of the video and hopefully it'll have something more substantive, but based on the shrill political overtones of the first 8 minutes, I'm not holding my breath.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

After reading those comments, I'm not even sure I should watch it, though I will. I'm more interested in your own views, and those of David S

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

BTW, this is the kind of graph that J.J. claims has no statistically significant correlation. When temperature suddenly shoots up this century, it'll be just due to chance, and not due to that huge increase in CO2.



Here is a different plot of some of the same data.

[Beet]

Here is a different plot of some of the same data.

That is an interesting chart because one of the assertions of the video is that the changes in CO2 have followed, rather than led, changes in temperature. That implies that during periods when the two are decreasing, the blue CO2 line should be above the temperature line, and during periods when the two are increases, it should be below the temperature line. The first sharp downslope at the 10,000 mark, the Vostok CO2 appears to be below the temperature line; At the second sharp upslope at 110,000, it appears above; at the downslope at 135,000, it appears concurrently; in fact, a close examination reveals that for all the Vostok data and almost all the EPICA DomeC data, the blue line is leading on the major up and downswings. Now, a more methodological analysis may have to be done, and whether this is the same dataset as used in the video is unclear.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Thefactor, from what I've seen, the Vostok temperature and CO2 data from the last several hundred thousand years uses different years for their data points, and they're only every thousand years or so , so it's really not good data to try to determine if one of them is leading the other. Remember, they're strongly correlated, but there are other factors that can change things.

It should be clear that CO2 is leading here:

[J. J.]

There is actually a negative relationship 250,000 and 350,000 BP, according to the chart.  Something caused the temperature rise.

You also have some very dramatic drops in temperature when CO2 drops.

You also have to ask what was causing the CO2 increases about 325,000 and 400,000.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There is actually a negative relationship 250,000 and 350,000 BP, according to the chart.  Something caused the temperature rise.

You also have some very dramatic drops in temperature when CO2 drops.

You also have to ask what was causing the CO2 increases about 325,000 and 400,000.

We already had this debate. You fooled 75% of the forum into thinking that 940 heads and 60 tails aren't statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin.

[David S]

BTW, this is the kind of graph that J.J. claims has no statistically significant correlation.

I won't speak for anyone else, but I don't dispute the correlation. It is a remarkably good correlation. And it certainly demonstrates the possibility that increased CO2 increases the temperature. But a correlation does not prove cause and effect. It is equally possible that warming causes CO2 or that some other factor causes both. The big zinger though is that the CO2 rise lags the temperature rise by 800 years. That kind of shoots the possibility that CO2 causes warming, in my opinion. And it adds credibility to the "warming causes CO2" theory. The 800 year lag really needs to be understood better. The whole argument tends to hinge on that.

[J. J.]

There are some serious questions that we all should be asking about global warming.  Some of these are:

1.  How much is natural, cyclical, warming, and how much is man made?

2.  How much is due to CO2?

3.  How much is due to methane and how much of that methane is produced by the biomass, as opposed to industrial activities?  (This is potentially the most troubling question about global warming.)

4.  How much is due to land use changes?  Is this effecting the data?

All that said, I have no doubt that some of the average temperature increase is due to human activity.  I also have no doubt that some of it is due to CO2.

Who cares what you think. You don't understand statistical significance, and claim that CO2 and temperature don't have a statistically significant correlation.

You should, if you really care about global warming and not a poltical agenda.

You own chart shows 100,000 years, when there was no correlation.

Then again, I'm not the one calling this a "swindle."  We need to look well beyond CO2 levels and do serious research on the causes.

[J. J.]

BTW, this is the kind of graph that J.J. claims has no statistically significant correlation. When temperature suddenly shoots up this century, it'll be just due to chance, and not due to that huge increase in CO2.



Here is a different plot of some of the same data.

Again, by your own chart, you have temperatures dropping about 140,000 to 110,000 BP while CO2 stays roughly the same.  Likewise, you have temperature rising about 170,000 while CO2 is dropping, and then dropping as CO2 is rising.  325,000 to roughly 375,000 BP you have temperature decreasing while CO2 increases.

Something else in involved, and we can rule out industrial activities (there weren't any).

[Storebought]

For an example of a particularly naked appeal to authority advocates of anthropogenic global warming/climate change take in their publications, read the Stanford UniversitySolar Center

Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact. A panel convened by the U.S National Research Council, the nation's premier science policy body, in June 2006 voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years. Studies indicate that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) over the last century. This is the largest increase in surface temperature in the last 1,000 years and scientists are predicting an even greater increase over this century. This warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels, industrial, farming, and deforestation activities.

Publications from newspapers are even worse.

On the rent-seeking of both the advocates and detractors of global warming I make no argument. That happened to be another weakness I found in the documentary. Every scientist is on the take from some agency, so arguments about funding from energy companies or leftwing NGOs really have no place in the debate.

I don't say that the theory of human-induced climate change arose from committee, only that arguments in favor of it are based the consensus of one agency, the IPCC. The EPA and NOAA both base their arguments on reports from that agency. Even the IPCC cites previous IPCC policy reports -- they admit as much in their Foreword:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was jointly established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1988. Its terms of reference include (i) to assess available scientific and socio-economic information on climate change and its impacts and on the options for mitigating climate change and adapting to it and (ii) to provide, on request, scientific/technical/socio-economic advice to the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). From 1990, the IPCC has produced a series of Assessment Reports, Special Reports, Technical Papers, methodologies and other products that have become standard works of reference, widely used by policymakers, scientists and other experts.

To put this in perspective, it would be the equivalent of nuclear and particle physicists basing their findings on the collected lab reports of CERN. A poor way of going about doing science.

 

[Beet]

Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact. A panel convened by the U.S National Research Council, the nation's premier science policy body, in June 2006 voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years. Studies indicate that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) over the last century. This is the largest increase in surface temperature in the last 1,000 years and scientists are predicting an even greater increase over this century. This warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels, industrial, farming, and deforestation activities.

That's because most scientists do in fact believe that recent global warming is man-made because the evidence up to this point for a man-made cause is the strongest. An appeal to authority is when you have no argument, you are just claiming that because an authority agrees with you, you must be right. This of course, is a logical fallacy. But the climate scientists who argue that recently global warming is man-made do have an argument, which is publicly available. What's more, the specific arguments advanced and links to more detailed research is available right from the website. You can't say the Solar Center is using an 'appeal to authority' because the substantive arguments are present and available.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I'd like to see some examples. Most articles on scientific topics tend to cite a report and the outcomes of that report, without going into the detailed reasoning. I think that's perfectly reasonable, because most people aren't going to read through a detailed explanation of the literature and statistical methods for a newspaper article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that the IPCC does not produce its own research, it bases its assessments on peer reviewed literature from the scientific world. How can 'the arguments in favor' of human-induced climate change be 'based on' the IPCC when the IPCC itself bases its results on external sources?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the IPCC does not measure or monitor the data itself.

[CultureKing]

here's a couple websites that refute the points made in the movie:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece

http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the-great-global-warming-swindle-questions-answered/

I especially like this one because it goes into the history of the scientists and producers of the movie:
http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/

[David S]

This is a bit off topic since it was not discussed in the video but its something I always wonder about when I look at the graph below. Right now the earth is warmer than it has been for most of the last 450,000 years. But those cool periods are not just a little bit cooler. They're a lot cooler. In fact those are ice ages. Those are really bad news. During the last one most of Canada and part of the Northern US were covered by a glacier a mile thick. The spikes in between are interglacial warming periods. Those periods were about as warm or warmer than today, but they didn't last very long. The current warm period looks like it has lasted as long or longer than the others. Makes me wonder if we are due for another ice age.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You are quite correct that global cooling is considered by reputable scientists to be a likely result in the next hundred years.

One of the problems is too many people misunderstand the use of terms used by scientists.

When a scientist tells you that the area you are living in is subject  to 100 year floods, that doesn't mean that if you area had a flood seventy years ago that you are safe for thirty years, or for that matter that there will be a flood in your areas in the next thirty years.  It simply means that on average, floods have occured approximately every hundred years.

[J. J.]

This is a bit off topic since it was not discussed in the video but its something I always wonder about when I look at the graph below. Right now the earth is warmer than it has been for most of the last 450,000 years. But those cool periods are not just a little bit cooler. They're a lot cooler. In fact those are ice ages. Those are really bad news. During the last one most of Canada and part of the Northern US were covered by a glacier a mile thick. The spikes in between are interglacial warming periods. Those periods were about as warm or warmer than today, but they didn't last very long. The current warm period looks like it has lasted as long or longer than the others. Makes me wonder if we are due for another ice age.

If you looked at the media in the 1970 through mid 1980's, you heard a lot about the planet entering another ice age.  You can check under Global Cooling on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling  It gives a fairly accurate account.

Now, we didn't know as much about climatology then as we do now, but we still don't have firm grasp of climate change.  We need a lot more research.

[CARLHAYDEN]

This is a bit off topic since it was not discussed in the video but its something I always wonder about when I look at the graph below. Right now the earth is warmer than it has been for most of the last 450,000 years. But those cool periods are not just a little bit cooler. They're a lot cooler. In fact those are ice ages. Those are really bad news. During the last one most of Canada and part of the Northern US were covered by a glacier a mile thick. The spikes in between are interglacial warming periods. Those periods were about as warm or warmer than today, but they didn't last very long. The current warm period looks like it has lasted as long or longer than the others. Makes me wonder if we are due for another ice age.

If you looked at the media in the 1970 through mid 1980's, you heard a lot about the planet entering another ice age.  You can check under Global Cooling on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling  It gives a fairly accurate account.

Now, we didn't know as much about climatology then as we do now, but we still don't have firm grasp of climate change.  We need a lot more research.

You are quite correct that we do NOT adequately understand the complexity of facts impacting climate change.

[Ban my account ffs!]

And with the help of conservatives everywhere, we can count on not having a firm grasp on the science of climatology for many decades to come.

[David S]

And with the help of conservatives everywhere, we can count on not having a firm grasp on the science of climatology for many decades to come.

Snowguy I'm not a Bush fan or for that matter a conservative, but your comment is unfounded. Here is what the state department says about it:
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=texttrans-english&y=2007&m=February&x=20070207171758eaifas0.6189997

"President Bush committed the United States to continued leadership on the issue and since 2001 has dedicated nearly $29 billion to advance climate-related science, technology, international assistance, and incentive programs. This is far more than any other nation. Since 2002, the Administration has spent more than $9 billion of this amount on climate change research and, under his direction, agencies developed a 10-year strategic research plan for climate science that was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. Further, federally funded scientists have conducted an abundance of research, published their findings in peer reviewed papers and journals and talked with colleagues, policymakers, and media around the world about their findings."