The great global warming swindle

Lennoxschips · 10-03-2007 6:11pm

That article is about natural oscillation within the Arctic climate system. Nowhere does it deny that greenhouse warming is happening. You are clutching at straws.

piraka · 10-03-2007 7:27pm

Lennoxschips wrote:

That article is about natural oscillation within the Arctic climate system. Nowhere does it deny that greenhouse warming is happening. You are clutching at straws.

Nor does it state that CO2 is the cause of global warming.

Yeah you're right, prove to me through peer reviewed papers that global warming is caused unequivocally by CO2 and not couched in terms such as uncertainty.

Lennoxschips · 10-03-2007 9:21pm

Nor does it state that CO2 is the cause of global warming.

Yeah, because that's not what the paper is about. Neither would a recipe for soda bread.

Yeah you're right, prove to me through peer reviewed papers that global warming is caused unequivocally by CO2 and not couched in terms such as uncertainty.

Heh, well obviously any paper I link to from a top peer-reviewed journal is going to have something like "almost certainly" in it and you are going to go on and on about the "almost". It's very easy to diss stuff.

Meanwhile a documentary, made by a disgraced TV producer with no background in science whose previous experience includes trying to prove the health benefits of breast implants, is treated ny some as gospel.

Do you have your own explanation as to why the climate is warming, if it's not due to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere? I already linked to a graph of solar cycles, and it doesn't explain the long term warming trend.

Jackie laughlin · 11-03-2007 1:49pm

I'm by no means expert but I was trying to home in on something which for me was crucial in taking sides in this argument. My original position was that warming was cyclical. I was then very impressed by what seemed to be the coincidence of increased levels of CO2 and warming. Lately I came to see the lag: that warming came first. Contributors above argued that, yes, but once the CO2 got going, it drove temp. higher. Now, the graph to me doesn't seem to support this.

Am I wrong in identifying this as a - if not the - crucial point in the argument?

By the way, be careful of seeing peer review journals as a source of dependable truth. That was once the case but things have changed. As with other media, peer review journals seek "interesting" (newsworthy?) material. Academics are forced to compete in numbers of publications in order to advance careers. Universities are moved in league tables according to research measured by publication in these journals. There are now so many journals and so many game players, that they are unfortunately approaching uselessness.

The Sparrow · 11-03-2007 2:35pm

Lennoxschips wrote:

Meanwhile a documentary, made by a disgraced TV producer with no background in science whose previous experience includes trying to prove the health benefits of breast implants, is treated ny some as gospel.

I watched the documentary last night and it certainly wasn`t the views of the documentary maker that swayed me. Instead it was the collection of distinguished scientists and commentators in it that made me consider my viewpoint. So obviously the maker has a chequered history (to say the least) but there were a lot of pretty smart people that he interviewed that made some very compelling points. I would have liked more people giving the opposite view and both sides arguing the points made but that seems impossible at the moment because everybody seems so entrenched.

Another thing that annoyed me slightly about it was that the documentary said that temperatures were significantly higher than they are now during various periods in history, such as the bronze age, but never said how much higher these temperatures were? That perhaps illustrates the point you were making about the documentary maker and I accept that but really it was the experts that I listened to. Plus I hated the way it started with a promise that global warming would be proved wrong thus setting an altogether too biased tone for my liking.

mike65 · 11-03-2007 3:55pm

The Sunday Times magazine has CC as its cover story. Lots of hype in that too if my skim through is accurate! I'll read properly latter.

Mike.

nobodythere · 11-03-2007 4:31pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

SeanW · 11-03-2007 7:38pm

see this review of his history getting your science from a charlattan

It's not surprising, after all, Channel 4 is the one that gave us the ultimate in brain-rotting mind candy: Big Brother. Between that and this, it seems that C4 specialises in low-IQ Sun-style TV.

Lennoxschips · 11-03-2007 7:39pm

Another thing that annoyed me slightly about it was that the documentary said that temperatures were significantly higher than they are now during various periods in history, such as the bronze age, but never said how much higher these temperatures were?

I'm glad you noticed that. Of course the programme didn't mention this, because it didn't support what they were trying to suggest. Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age... yes, these things happened and are a part of natural climate oscillation. What we are causing now is well outside natural oscillation seen in the past 2,000 years and most probably longer. We are now warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period. But of course such a documentary fails to mention that... Forgive me for linking to Wikipedia (you won't need to log in to view) but you can see a graph of reconstructed temperatures from the past 2,000 years here. Now somebody is going to say that the different sources on the graph have an error range, but even the warmest reconstruction for the Medieval Warm Period is significantly cooler than measured temps for 2004. Of course next somebody will say that they don't believe measured temperatures, but at some point you have to stop denying a wealth of evidence that points in the same direction.

To put forth the 'debate' natural variation vs greenhouse warming, as this documentary does, is essentially a straw man. No climate scientist denies that natural variation takes place. We have both. We still have natural variation, but the absolute value of this variation is being pushed upward by anthropogenic warming.

nobodythere · 11-03-2007 9:06pm

Curious question actually. They mentioned in the documentary about vineyards growing in the north of england during the medieval warm period. If the temperatures are higher now why is this not the case?

pp_me129 · 11-03-2007 9:11pm

grasshopa wrote:

Curious question actually. They mentioned in the documentary about vineyards growing in the north of england during the medieval warm period. If the temperatures are higher now why is this not the case?

Not high enough YET?

Opps sorry misread your post i dunno now lol

shotamoose · 11-03-2007 11:06pm

Disappointed to see people taken in by a pack of lies, if a skilfully constructed one. For anyone who hasn't seen the program here's a link, but you could save yourself some time and do your brain a favour by reading these two detailed rebuttals by some actual climate scientists, and as a bonus a great article from RealClimate.Org on that global cosmic rays theory.

Lennoxschips · 12-03-2007 1:54am

grasshopa wrote:

Curious question actually. They mentioned in the documentary about vineyards growing in the north of england during the medieval warm period. If the temperatures are higher now why is this not the case?

Because in Medieval times people couldn't import wine from South Africa and Australia, but now we can get it down at the local supermarket?

Lennoxschips · 12-03-2007 2:54am

The proverbial is hitting the fan already, one of the scientists in the programme is fuming...

Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about
your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally,
I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that
was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and
subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with
the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked
to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way
the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---
in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication
in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be
so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because
I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable
climate-change stories in the
British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf
Stream could disappear, among others.
When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a
technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we
are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious,
and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does
not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of
the science. The scientific subjects described in the email,
and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated,
worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the
public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or
"swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have
instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing
many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change,
and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get
exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially
truly catastrophic issues, such as
the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more
carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse
gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It
was used in the film, through its context, to imply
that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters
and do understand something of the ways in which one can be
misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some
of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of
complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had
an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming
Swindle" is deeply embarrassing, and my professional reputation
has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly
with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to
its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be
taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

- source

jawlie · 12-03-2007 9:26am

I didn't see the programme as I don;t have a tv. Does anyone know if it is available to view on the net?

In answer to who gains, there are three groups who gain;

Firstly the scientists who are pushing the theory (remember, it is only a theory), of greenhouse gases. They get huge budgets, are taken seriously and are flown from large conference to large conference to speak which probably appeals to their ego's and to their bank balances.

Secondly, Governments are attracted to the idea as it gives them an excuse to levy a whole new bunch of taxes, and the job of government it to keep expanding and become more and more controlling. By the time the greenhouse theory is disproved, it will be too late and all the extra taxes will be in place, and it wil be time for the new scare and all the extra taxes that will allow them to impose.

Thirdly, and more importantly, Big business likes this idea as it likes any idea which helps it put competitors out of business and prevents newcomers into their business, just as the health & safety brigade has helped them for the last 10 years or so. To impose extra costs on small competitors is just what they like, as it puts them under more pressure and helps drive them out of business.

Am I a cynic? Perhaps, but remember many of these these things are facts, the government is putting up taxes, businesses are going under with the extra costs of buying "carbon credits" and the greenhouse gas theory is still a theory.

Theory; • noun (pl. theories) 1 a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. 2 an idea accounting for or justifying something. 3 a set of principles on which an activity is based.

magicbastarder · 12-03-2007 9:53am

yes, and scientists know how to cure cancer too, but are keeping the cure secret because they want the money from the drugs they're currently selling.
and man never stood on the moon.

etc.

Lennoxschips · 12-03-2007 11:23am

Like I said, it has been the stated goal of the oil industry to fund a campaign “to reposition global warming as theory (not fact)”. They have been spectacularly successful.

piraka · 12-03-2007 11:30am

Lennoxschips wrote:

What we are causing now is well outside natural oscillation seen in the past 2,000 years .

What oscillations are you talking about and where is the evidence.

Lennoxschips · 12-03-2007 11:32am

Read my post again, click on the link.

piraka · 12-03-2007 11:46am

Lennoxschips wrote:

I'm glad you noticed that. Of course the programme didn't mention this, because it didn't support what they were trying to suggest. Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age... yes, these things happened and are a part of natural climate oscillation. What we are causing now is well outside natural oscillation seen in the past 2,000 years and most probably longer.

What are the oscillations that cause the climate changes and where is the evidence that we are well outside.

magicbastarder · 12-03-2007 1:07pm

Lennoxschips wrote:

The proverbial is hitting the fan already, one of the scientists in the programme is fuming...

and also considering legal action; durkin is refuting his claims that he was duped.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

piraka · 12-03-2007 1:30pm

magicbastarder wrote:

and also considering legal action; durkin is refuting his claims that he was duped.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

I am very suprised considering Carl Wunsch's credentials and position and the controversy surrounding any thing to do with global warming, did not have in a contract requesting to view the programme before airing.

Interesting to see if he will take legal action.

democrates · 12-03-2007 4:17pm

I guess Wunsch is in an awkward position given the prevailing view. But unless he can say his testimony was edited or there are some facts he would like to add which would change the conclusion from his contribution to the program, what difference does his annoyance make?

Clearly the problem with this type of program is it's like only one party in a court case having representation, questioning can be framed to pick out only certain pieces of the jig-saw puzzle, and that half truth can portray the opposite of the whole truth.

There hae been some very interesting contributions on this thread. Still keeping an open mind here, it's not a black and white suituation but the balance of evidence is what counts, and on that score I guess I've still a leaning to the case for prudence in human activity.

Lennoxschips · 12-03-2007 4:25pm

piraka wrote:

What are the oscillations that cause the climate changes and where is the evidence that we are well outside.

Variance in solar output coincides somewhat with the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. However, variance in solar output now is nowhere near high enough to explain the current warming, which, once again, is warmer and much more widespread than the Medieval Warm Period. (Once again, this graph.) The current warming is also very sudden and does not correlate with any sudden peak in solar output. So the solar theory doesn't hold any water. The current warming does however coincide almost perfectly with the output of billions of tons of CO2 and methane, both proven greenhouse gases because they reflect the exact wavelength of infrared radiation (heat) from the Earth.

Climate models run retrospectively can reproduce past climate accurately, and can reproduce current warming, but only when CO2 is included.

piraka · 12-03-2007 8:51pm

lennoxchips wrote:

The current warming does however coincide almost perfectly with the output of billions of tons of CO2 and methane, both proven greenhouse gases because they reflect the exact wavelength of infrared radiation (heat) from the Earth.

Arctic decadal and interdecadal variability

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/pdf/50yr_web.pdf

Conclusions
The recent retreat of arctic ice requires an understanding of whether the ice reduction is a persistent signature of global warming due to anthropogenic impact on climate or it is a minimum of a low-frequency natural climate oscillation. Numerical models of Earth climate system [Vinnikov et al., 1999] and direct observations [Rothrock et al., 1999] show substantial ice decline in the recent decades. Vinnikov et al. suggested that the observed decrease of arctic ice extent is related to anthropogenic global warming. However, Vinje [2000] using observations over the past 135 years showed that the recent decrease in ice extent in the Nordic Seas is within the range of natural variability since the 18th century. A combination of century- and half-a-century-long data records and model integrations leads us to conclude that the natural low-frequency oscillation (LFO) exists and is an important contributor to the recent anomalous environmental conditions in the Arctic. This mode of oscillation is related to fluctuations in the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic [Delworth and Mann, 2000]. Comparison of the century long NAO index time series and half a century time series of the polar region SAT, SLP differences, and wind vorticity index shows the existence of the LFO mode in the latter time series. There is evidence that the LFO has a strong impact on ice and ocean variability. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult..

Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/amplif/amplif_jul02_2.pdf

Conclusions
We examine arctic variability using long-term records of SAT from the maritime Arctic poleward of 62_N, fast-ice thickness from five locations of the Siberian coast, and ice extent in arctic marginal seas. Arctic atmosphere and ice variability is dominated by multi-decadal variability, which is exceptionally strong in the northern polar region, probably because of its proximity to the North Atlantic, which is believed to be the origin of the LFO. The highly variable behavior of arctic trends results from incomplete sampling of large amplitude multidecadal fluctuations. Trends for LFO-modulated arctic air-temperatures are generally larger than northern-hemispheric trends, but over the 125 year record we can identify periods when arctic SAT trends were actually smaller or of different sign than northern-hemispheric trends. Arctic and northern-hemispheric air temperature trends over the 20th century, when multidecadal variability had little net effect on computed trends, are similar and do not support the hypothesis of the polar amplification of global warming simulated by GCMs. It has been hypothesized that this may be due to the moderating role of arctic ice. Evaluation of fast-ice melt required to compensate for the two-fold enhancement of polar warming simulated by GCMs shows that the required ice-decay rate would be statistically indistinguishable from zero, given the substantial intrinsic variability observed in the data. Observed long-term trends in arctic air temperature and ice cover are actually smaller than expected, and may be indicative of complex positive and negative feedbacks in the arctic climate system. In summary, if we accept that long-term SAT trends are a reasonable measure of climate change, then we conclude that the data do not support the hypothesized polar amplification of global warming.

One more step toward a warmer Arctic

https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/786/1/Orvik3.pdf

4. Concluding Remark
What remains obscure is the degree to which this warming may be due to long-term change or to multidecadal fluctuations. Multi-decadal fluctuations with time scales of 50–80 years are known to be exceptionally strong in the Arctic [Polyakov and Johnson, 2000]. Through analysis of a vast collection of observational data it was shown that over the 20th century multi-decadal AW fluctuations are a dominant mode of variability (Figure 3). Associated with this variability, the AW temperature record shows two warmer periods in the 1930–40s and in recent decades, and two colder periods early in the 20th century and in the 1960–70s. While the causes of the observed variability will require further investigation, our analysis suggests that the Arctic Ocean is in transition towards a new, warmer state, with possible implications for already reduced Arctic ice cover, and potential impacts on processes occurring at lower latitudes.

piraka · 12-03-2007 9:08pm

The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and its relation to rainfall and river flows in the continental U.S.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/enfield/enfield_etal2001.pdf

We note that the AMO index has been increasing since about 1990 and became positive again circa 1995. Hence, we may have once again entered a period such as 1930-1960, and global temperatures can be expected to be greater than they would be based only on greenhouse and other external forcings. [Andronova and Schlesinger, 2000]. However, contrary to the general expectation of greater extratropical rainfall under greenhouse warming scenarios [Houghton et al., 1996], the effect of this new AMO warming should be to decrease annual rainfall totals over the U.S., especially over the eastern Mississippi basin. This implies that future attempts to anticipate the impact of global warming on regional rainfall may prove inaccurate if the models do not reproduce the AMO variability and its impacts. This raises the bar on the ability of coupled models to simulate the climate of the 21st century.

Lennoxschips · 12-03-2007 10:08pm

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Wibbs · 12-03-2007 10:37pm

There's one thing that troubles me slightly regardless of the extent of the manmade nature of this warming and climate in general. Europe is in many ways a special case, for one reason, the Gulf Stream.

I read a while back where some scientists had the concern that if the polar ice caps melt and pump billions of gallons of fresh water into the north atlantic, the resultant imbalance in salinity, could switch off the engine of the gulf stream entirely. Then it wouldn't be warming we would be worried about in Europe, but rapid cooling. We're on pretty much the same latitude as Alaska. Without the gulf stream we would be far far colder. If that were to happen then the world temps might actually drop as a result.

The other thing is that historical temperature readings are for the most part Eurocentric not worldwide like today. Variances in the past could have been down to this rather than global events. I'm wondering do ice cores from the southern hemisphere show any similarity with the little ice age in Europe? Any variance in the gulf stream for whatever reasons could drive up or down those temperatures giving rise to little ice ages, warm periods etc. But only locally.

Any thoughts on this?

piraka · 12-03-2007 11:29pm

Wibbs wrote:

There's one thing that troubles me slightly regardless of the extent of the manmade nature of this warming and climate in general. Europe is in many ways a special case, for one reason, the Gulf Stream.

I read a while back where some scientists had the concern that if the polar ice caps melt and pump billions of gallons of fresh water into the north atlantic, the resultant imbalance in salinity, could switch off the engine of the gulf stream entirely. Then it wouldn't be warming we would be worried about in Europe, but rapid cooling. We're on pretty much the same latitude as Alaska. Without the gulf stream we would be far far colder. If that were to happen then the world temps might actually drop as a result.

The other thing is that historical temperature readings are for the most part Eurocentric not worldwide like today. Variances in the past could have been down to this rather than global events. I'm wondering do ice cores from the southern hemisphere show any similarity with the little ice age in Europe? Any variance in the gulf stream for whatever reasons could drive up or down those temperatures giving rise to little ice ages, warm periods etc. But only locally.

Any thoughts on this?

Carl Wunsch is the expert.

http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/

Letter to nature re the gulf stream shutdown

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/naturegulfstreamltr.pdf

piraka · 12-03-2007 11:30pm

Lennoxschips wrote:

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Current Northren Hemisphere temperatures are within natural variablity

The great global warming swindle

Comments