The Great Global Warming Swindle

Mozart1986

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They got a lot of stick for showing it. There's a lot of mud on the guy who made it as well.


I did a bit of research after the program and I realised how they had been twisting facts. It's clever stuff alright.

And who threw the mud? Was was the density/consistency/substance of the mud? Who gave him stick? Imho, a bunch of herd animals!

Tim Robbins

Mozart1986 wrote: »

And who threw the mud? Was was the density/consistency/substance of the mud? Who gave him stick? Imho, a bunch of herd animals!

It was 3 years ago or so when I saw it, researched it and no I am really interested in doing work again that you should just do yourself. The best scientific evidence is the 4th IPCC report not some souped up piece of propaganda. The mathematics in all this is quite complex and if you don't have a good mathematical understanding it's quite easy to misunderstand it all.

The best critique of current policy is Bjorn Lomborg. He makes some very good points without resorting to silly conspiracy theories.

I am not really interested in arguing the conspiracy theory maybe you should take that to that forum.

djpbarry

jawlie wrote: »

Not if you reduced a river the size of the Thames to a flow the size of a pipette would the water freeze, unless the temperature was below 0° C.

Obviously. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that the temperature in London has gotten below zero several times since the early nineteenth century, yet the Thames has not frozen over. Or how about an example closer to home; it’s not uncommon for the ponds in St Stephen’s Green to freeze (at least partially) in the winter, yet I don’t ever remember the Liffey freezing.

jawlie wrote: »

The fact that the river froze enough to allow people to walk on it and have ice fares and perform general hoop la suggests that the temperatures must have been very cold indeed.

I’m sure it was, but such fairs were (apparently) quite rare.

jawlie wrote: »

That you put forward as a serious suggestion the preposterous reason that the Thames froze due to the size of one bridge on it, merely creates the impression that you are searching for any reason which will not conflict with your conclusion that global warming is man made.

River Thames freeze-overs (and sometimes frost fairs) only occurred 22 times between 1408 and 1814 [Lamb, 1977] when the old London Bridge constricted flow through its multiple piers and restricted the tide with a weir. After the bridge was replaced in the 1830s, the tide came farther upstream, and freezes no longer occurred, despite a number of exceptionally cold winters. The winter of 1962/1963, for example, was the third coldest in the central England temperature (CET) record (the longest instrumental record anywhere in the world extending back to 1659 [Manley, 1974; Parker et al., 1992]), yet the river only froze upstream of the present tidal limit at Teddington. The CET record clearly indicates that Thames (London) ‘‘frost fairs’’ provide a biased account of British climate changes (let alone larger-scale changes, see Figure 2c) in past centuries.

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/2003RG000143.pdf

jawlie wrote: »

None of the examples given (that I saw) were discussing Europe and all related to areas outside Europe. None of it was anecdotal but clearly described the evidence.

Would you care to provide an example?

djpbarry

Mozart1986 wrote: »

So who made the documentary then? Channel 4 is the one channel I trust for considered debate and thorough investigations. They put on a huge amount of quality programming and I doubt that they would wish to discredit their name with a documentary making fraudulent claims.

Ignoring for a moment that this is the channel that brought us the joys of Big Brother, the reputation of the broadcaster is irrelevant. It’s the content of the programme that matters and whether claims made therein can be substantiated. Many cannot be.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

All that the documentary says, at heart, is that there are alternative theories...

How many of those theories have evidence to support them?

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Sun-spot records go back many centuries. The monks/astronomers weren't partial.

You’ll note that I used the term “reliable instrumental records”.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

Here's what some of them said, transcribed from the programme:

I believe that’s the second time you’ve posted such a list – care to provide the source?

syklops

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am not really interested in arguing the conspiracy theory maybe you should take that to that forum.

How many times has the conspiracy theory forum been mentioned when talking about this issue on this forum?

AGW skeptics want to discuss the issue. We don't know. No-one knows exactly what is happening and why. Just because we don't subscribe to the generally accepted ideology that the world is heating up and humans are the cause to it, we should not be lumped in with the same people who think the world is ruled by the lizard people.

auerillo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They got a lot of stick for showing it. There's a lot of mud on the guy who made it as well.


I did a bit of research after the program and I realised how they had been twisting facts. It's clever stuff alright.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have and it's rough around the edges alright.

Bjorn Lomborg has the most rational approach I have come across. Read "cool it". very good.

Like djpbarry, you appear to avoid discussing anything specific (eg the quotes from the programme as above), and seem to prefer, instead, to resort to generalised opinions, which are little more than "throwing mud" in themselves.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Ignoring for a moment that this is the channel that brought us the joys of Big Brother, the reputation of the broadcaster is irrelevant. It’s the content of the programme that matters .

[OT]
C4 are also remembered for being one of the first to alert the world to Saddam Hussain in the early 80's, long before anyone else...
[/OT]
C4 tend to do documentories that challange established ideas.

Tim Robbins

syklops wrote: »

Just because we don't subscribe to the generally accepted ideology that the world is heating up and humans are the cause to it, we should not be lumped in with the same people who think the world is ruled by the lizard people.

It's not an ideology it's a scientific analysis based on very complicated mathematics that very few people have a good understanding of.

The science could proove to be inaccurate but right now it's telling us that its 90% probable that anthropogenic climate change exists and it is a problem.

it just seems ludricous to dismiss the work of a very thorough scientific process as if you know better or there's some conspiracy going on.

Tim Robbins

auerillo wrote: »

Like djpbarry, you appear to avoid discussing anything specific (eg the quotes from the programme as above), and seem to prefer, instead, to resort to generalised opinions, which are little more than "throwing mud" in themselves.

It's more important you understand the scientific method. The IPCC follows that method. The channnel 4 doc doesn't.

Mozart1986

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They got a lot of stick for showing it. There's a lot of mud on the guy who made it as well.


I did a bit of research after the program and I realised how they had been twisting facts. It's clever stuff alright.

I've done some research and come to starkly different conclusions. Could you be listening to slightly partial people? I think it is an incredibly irrational thing to have blind faith in scientific institutions that have political purposes, no matter how benevolent they come across. Science is extremely complex, but people fail to realise that it is complex in more than one way. It is not merely technically dfficult to understand, but philosophically and sociologically, science interacts in a complex and dinamic way with society. Philosophy is constantly trying to pull the rains on fundamentalist scientists. Think B. F. Skinner and Chomsky. That came out before 1984. If you read 1984 on its own, you might think that it is a brilliant piece of fiction, and then leave it on your bookshelf without another thought. If you don't understand what Skinner's behaviourism explicitly called for then you will not understand this. But if you read some of the top scientists of the day and prior, you come across some pretty scary assertions. And these assertions are made in a culture of consensus. They can be so wrong/evil that they couldn't be made without that level of consensus. And it takes someone brilliant like Chomsky to show the pathology up for what it is.

My point is that science is dinamic and not a steady linear progression of knowledge. Science is only worth anything in so far as how we use it. It is subject to many forces that have no human face at all, so we find it difficult to be aware of them popularly. If a movement doesn't have a face, we very quickly forget about it. Think Che Guevara, Moa, Stalin, the President of the US, Bin Laden, any Monarch, the Pope, etc... In reality, these people are subject to the machinations of others. Think Cardinal Richelieu and his influence on French/European history. The complexities of the machonations involved in his rule are a perfect example of the dinamic way in which power manifests itself. If a movement has no face, it is not popularised and any speak of it is considered consiracy theory. But, while there are ridiculous fantasy type speculations about how the world is controlled and run, you can always tell a myth and a conspiracy theory by its level of complexity. Zeitgeist and other such stories, that cherry pick their facts, are always, at heart, extremely simplistic and commit themselves to an ineviable mistrust in people, that does not bare the weight of scrutiny or reason. What is attractive about them is their internally consistent narrative. That is what people want. Least of all do they want conflicting information, on which they cannot act with conviction.

They like a good story. Another good story is the simplicity with which people view science today. Science, we are told, produces a single image of the world, and that image is based upon one method, which is sacrosanct. They do not view it with eye of somebody who understands and accepts the real movements within science and philosophy. Science is subject to manipulation and it always has pockets of pathological adherence to untenable premised. They don't always undercut eachothers fallacies in the way the peer-review is supposed to manifest.

That is why it is irrational to accept that the science is too technical to understand, so we should just adhere to the assertions of a few scientists or the majority consensus. The consensus could be false. It could be, and in fact is true, that scientists place their faith, just as we do, in other scientists. They do this by accepting they're results and building their research upon them. So if they then said, "yes I believe in AGW", then their belief is worthless. They must say that or their research is meaningless and their funding is cut.

Rant over.

PS This is relevant. If you appreciate it please say thank you so that hecan't delete it. This is a discussion, not a peer-review process, so opinions are valid. I spent 20 minutes writing this so dont' delete it!

auerillo

auerillo wrote: »

Here's what some of them said, transcribed from the programme:

djpbarry wrote: »

I believe that’s the second time you’ve posted such a list – care to provide the source?

The clue was in the phrase "transcribed from the programme".

(In case anyone is unsure which programme, the clue for that is the title, and subject, of this thread)

jawlie

djpbarry wrote: »

Obviously. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that the temperature in London has gotten below zero several times since the early nineteenth century, yet the Thames has not frozen over. Or how about an example closer to home; it’s not uncommon for the ponds in St Stephen’s Green to freeze (at least partially) in the winter, yet I don’t ever remember the Liffey freezing.

Sure, we can all guess, although guesses are not really very useful, however interesting. You make the point well that still water in ponds freezes much more easily than running water in rivers. hence for the Thames to freeze it must have been very cold indeed.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m sure it was, but such fairs were (apparently) quite rare.

And are, nowadays, non existent. Thats why we know it must have been very much colder when the Thames froze over, and we know it happened for many more than just one freak occurrence, and happened many times. For a major river to freeze, to enough depth to allow many people to use it as a playground, is extraordinary. Even if it didn't freeze over every year, that doesn't mean the winter temperatures, in between years when it froze, were a balmy 10 degrees. Even at -10 degrees its unlikely the Thames would freeze over, and the speed of the movement would make it unlikely.

This is used to highlight that there seems to be some evidence for the "little ice age" (which you seem to doubt).

Your next suggestion will probably be that it's only in England and there is no evidence for it happening anywhere else, to which I'd suggest a trip to the national gallery to do some research on Dutch and German artists of the time, as a good starting point, quite apart from the fact that it will be an enjoyable experience.

djpbarry wrote: »

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/2003RG000143.pdf
Would you care to provide an example?

The examples I was referring to are already posted here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63446315&postcount=106 , so they have already been provided.

The article you refer to in the URL is written by Professor Jones ( who has resigned from his post following the publication of the emails), and it opens with the words " we review evidence for climate change ...from instrumental and high-resolution climate "proxy" data sources and climate modeling studies".

I'd suggest that if their climate modeling studies show that there was no freezing of the Thames, then perhaps the criteria and assumption they have chosen for their modelling might be suspect.

Here's a quote from professor Jones "..."I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

And the reports other author, Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..."

I think there are may now who consider their work to be climate medelling and not climate modelling. Indeed, Prof Jones has had to resign over it, so their work may not be as reliable as you seem to want to believe.

Tim Robbins

Mozart1986 wrote: »

I've done some research and come to starkly different conclusions.
...
Rant over.

Are you Jim Corr?

syklops

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's not an ideology it's a scientific analysis based on very complicated mathematics that very few people have a good understanding of.

The science could proove to be inaccurate but right now it's telling us that its 90% probable that anthropogenic climate change exists and it is a problem.

it just seems ludricous to dismiss the work of a very thorough scientific process as if you know better or there's some conspiracy going on.

Surely doing the opposite, which would be to accept the facts without questioning the data in any would be just as ludicrous.

Are you Jim Corr?

Are you suggesting that global warming skeptics are either too stupid to understand the Math or just plain barking mad by not agreeing that AGW is happening?

Tim Robbins

syklops wrote: »

Surely doing the opposite, which would be to accept the facts without questioning the data in any would be just as ludicrous.

Nonsense. You either accept the scientific method or you don't.

I accept what the scientific method says about the age of earth, evolution, atomic theory, gravity, relativity, nuclear physics and I accept what it says about climate change.

You either accept the scientific method or you don't.

Are you suggesting that global warming skeptics are either too stupid to understand the Math or just plain barking mad by not agreeing that AGW is happening?

They are probably not as stupid as creationists but they are not a million miles off either. I don't think either have a very good understanding of the scientific method (peer review, falsifiable tests etc etc). Someone like Bjorn Lomborg does have a very good understanding of science and he makes some very good points, but there's a huge amount of nonsense out there which comes from people who just don't understand the scientific method.

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Nonsense. You either accept the scientific method or you don't.

.

Accepting the scientific method is one thing, interpreting the results and drawing conclusions is another thing alltogether!

I don't believe anyone here is challenging the field workers or the scientists who created the raw data, the issues are in the interpretation and the conclusions that have been drawn.

Tim Robbins

Deleted User wrote: »

Accepting the scientific method is one thing, interpreting the results and drawing conclusions is another thing alltogether!

I don't believe anyone here is challenging the field workers or the scientists who created the raw data, the issues are in the interpretation and the conclusions that have been drawn.

The results are interpretated using the scientific method. I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.

Mahatma coat

I was quite taken aback by the Stunning Arrogance of this post

Tim robins wrote:

It's not an ideology it's a scientific analysis based on very complicated mathematics that very few people have a good understanding of.

The science could proove to be inaccurate but right now it's telling us that its 90% probable that anthropogenic climate change exists and it is a problem.

it just seems ludricous to dismiss the work of a very thorough scientific process as if you know better or there's some conspiracy going on.

Until I read this

Quote:
Originally Posted by syklops View Post

Surely doing the opposite, which would be to accept the facts without questioning the data in any would be just as ludicrous.
Nonsense. You either accept the scientific method or you don't.

I accept what the scientific method says about the age of earth, evolution, atomic theory, gravity, relativity, nuclear physics and I accept what it says about climate change.

You either accept the scientific method or you don't.

Are you suggesting that global warming skeptics are either too stupid to understand the Math or just plain barking mad by not agreeing that AGW is happening?

They are probably not as stupid as creationists but they are not a million miles off either. I don't think either have a very good understanding of the scientific method (peer review, falsifiable tests etc etc). Someone like Bjorn Lomborg does have a very good understanding of science and he makes some very good points, but there's a huge amount of nonsense out there which comes from people who just don't understand the scientific method.

But then it just got Better and better

The results are interpretated using the scientific method. I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.

No Sir it appears to be you who is talkin through his hole.

Interpretated, as in MADE UP to Suit a POLITICAL AGENDA.

I'm sure that if we could See the RAW DATA we could come up with dozens of different interpretations depending on the model criteria but we cant.

so what we have to work on instead is a doctored and alttered set of numbers produced to hammer home a political Agenda.

As a side note, any one of those comments would get you banned from the CT Forum, course over there the Mods go out of their way to appear unbiased

Tim Robbins

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm sure that if we could See the RAW DATA we could come up with dozens of different interpretations depending on the model criteria but we cant.

so what we have to work on instead is a doctored and alttered set of numbers produced to hammer home a political Agenda.

As a side note, any one of those comments would get you banned from the CT Forum, course over there the Mods go out of their way to appear unbiased

Well I don't know what goes in this forum but usually on boards psuedo science gets the boot. So I am surprised you lot haven't been ticked off by the mod.

I don't see why I should have to explain science to people who are too lazy to read up on things themselves and there's no evidence any of the conspiracy heads on this thread have any iota of science - so why should waste my time teaching them basics. Go to your library.

There's tonnes of data available on climate change. That's just off the wall my friend.

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well I don't know what goes in this forum but usually on boards psuedo science gets the boot. So I am surprised you lot haven't been ticked off by the mod.

I don't see why I should have to explain science to people who are too lazy to read up on things themselves and there's no evidence any of the conspiracy heads on this thread have any iota of science - so why should waste my time teaching them basics. Go to your library.

There's tonnes of data available on climate change. That's just off the wall my friend.

Yes there is "tonnes" of data, but actual measurements of real temperatures have only been made since the start of the 20th century at the majority of locations, the start of the 20th century was relativly cool the end was relativly warm. Almost all the measurements before the 20th century are "reconstructed" from other temperature affected sources that are considerably less accurate than a thermometer, all of this historic data is at best a close guess.
Yet climate change activists expect the world to take it as gospel that these figures are as accurate as the current measurements.
Historical markers indicate that the MWP was warmer than the 1990's* and that the LIA was cooler than the 1960's, but it's impossible to prove these facts beyond doubt!

The same can be said for the claims that recent rises in temperatures is entirely manmade, it could be affected by several very active sunspot cycles warming the oceans a bit thus adding to the "global" aggregated temperatures.

Edit: * the "dustbowl years of the 1930's also deserve a mention.

Mozart1986

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Nonsense. You either accept the scientific method or you don't.

I accept what the scientific method says about the age of earth, evolution, atomic theory, gravity, relativity, nuclear physics and I accept what it says about climate change.

You either accept the scientific method or you don't.


They are probably not as stupid as creationists but they are not a million miles off either. I don't think either have a very good understanding of the scientific method (peer review, falsifiable tests etc etc). Someone like Bjorn Lomborg does have a very good understanding of science and he makes some very good points, but there's a huge amount of nonsense out there which comes from people who just don't understand the scientific method.

You sound like a simpleton? You seem to want to put stabilisers on the issue to make it easy to categorise peoples views. I'd say it is because you can't handle anything so dinamic as the actual processes that act upon the scientific method, as I was describing.

Let me ask you this. Is the mind a computer. All through the second half of the last century many scientists believed that it was. Many still do. Huge amounts of funding went into robotics and cognitive science. The mythology that carried the scientists revolved around creating a human mind, eventually. This was all a lot of pathology and ideology in the view a lot of very very intelligent people. It was considered the holy grail to a lot of other very very intelligent people. And the debate rages in philosophical circles.

So should we assume that scientists don't let their belief systems infringe upon the direction of their science, i.e. what they believe to be provable, and what matters deserve their attention? F*ck no! Only an idiot would think that the world was that simple. Any decent politician doesn't believe that. They know, despite their own failings, a technocratic society run by scientists would not be desirable.

Tell me, are you aware of Skinner's behaviourism? You didn't engage with my point at all, or myt example. I don't fall into either bracket. The idea that people are either "religious nuts" that believe nothing the scientists tell them or "men of science" that fundamentally accept the dominant scientific culture is ludicrous. Most things I learn from scientific investigations I believe. But I also look at the way in which they conducted the investigation before I accept the conclusions.

Up until one month ago I had accepted that the Earth was most likely warming due to carbon emissions, despite the fact that people I know personally, and trust, one of them a retired geneticist, who used to work in Trinity (so, safe to say, he understands the scientific method), were telling me that it was an interesting and complex situation, which could blow up some day. These e-mails had confirmed all of their suspicions. You really have to read them though. The idea that they are taken out of context is absolutely ridiculous.

There another rant for you to ignore. I think you need to do more research though.

dahak

Deleted User wrote: »

...the "dustbowl years of the 1930's also deserve a mention.

You've mentioned the dust bowl twice in your recent posts, but what has it to do with climate change?

The dust bowl is normally cited as an example of massive land use change (in a local region) coupled with agricultural practices, which where not suited to the regional conditions, and a prolonged drought which lead to very large scale soil erosion.

dahak

dahak wrote: »

You've mentioned the dust bowl twice in your recent posts, but what has it to do with climate change?

The dust bowl is normally cited as an example of massive land use change (in a local region) coupled with agricultural practices, which where not suited to the regional conditions, and a prolonged drought which lead to very large scale soil erosion.

the dustbowl also coincided with a period of sustained temperature rises that started in the 20's and ended in the mid 40's

bonkey

Mozart1986 wrote: »

So should we assume that scientists don't let their belief systems infringe upon the direction of their science, i.e. what they believe to be provable, and what matters deserve their attention? F*ck no!

But, in your example of "is the mind a computer", these people used their beliefs as a starting point from which to attempt to reach a conclusion.

As you pointed out yourself...the debate raged. There was no point where any significant majority of relevantly-qualified scientists said that not only did they believe the mind was a computer model, but that they had a scientific theory, complete with testable, falsifiable predctions.

The idea that they are taken out of context is absolutely ridiculous.

So your position, then, would be that where questions have been asked in this thread as to what was specifically being referred to in some mails, that the answers are clearly and unambiguously supplied in the leaked content?

Regardless of whether there is a conspiracy, there are still certain elements of the "pro-climate change" camp who are prepared to use violence to support the cause,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8409331.stm

How would these people react if this conference or any future one were to decide that the evidence needed further investigation, particurlary if the actual real world temperature readings etc (could) continue to show that the "global warming" theory is false.

edit: I still remember the artists impressions of polar bears crossing the Thames, after the previous "climate change" story of the world being about to move into a new Ice age as temperature had been consistently dropping since the late 40's, just look at the chart further up!

Grudaire

Deleted User wrote: »

Regardless of whether there is a conspiracy, there are still certain elements of the "pro-climate change" camp who are prepared to use violence to support the cause,

So they must be wrong?

What kind of argument is that!?

Grudaire

Deleted User wrote: »

Also a fuller graph:



Or even more: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

zuutroy

Cliste wrote: »

Also a fuller graph:

Well if we're zooming out:

Grudaire

I must look into that further, but if you go to the homepage of that picture, you're confronted by this: