Channel 4, The Great Global Warming Swindle

Bjxrn
Bjxrn's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2006-07-26
User is offlineOffline
Channel 4, The Great Global Warming Swindle

British channel 4 has made a dokumentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle that aired this week. I havent seen it yet but it might be interesting. It has recived critisism as expected. Channel 4 have made great dokumentaries before, like Undercover in the secret state a film about north korea.

 

Here is a link where you can download it:

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3635143/Channel_4_-_The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle.avi

 

And here is a blogpost that talks about it.

http://globalisation-and-the-environment.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-global-warming-swindle.html

[MOD EDIT - fixed links]


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I blame 99.999999999999999%

I blame 99.999999999999999% of global warming on the sun.

Global whining is by far the much greater threat.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Michael A. Thompson
Michael A. Thompson's picture
Posts: 79
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
 I agree with pretty much

 I agree with pretty much everything you said except for 2 things.  

The first is your assumption that a warming of this planet, were it to do so, would be "bad".  If warming did raise sea levels then it certainly would be bad for coastal cities but, ironically, it would be great for the Sahara (Ref: "How the Earth Was Made" - The Sahara).  I also believe that the Planet is actually much cooler now then is the "norm".  The video pic in your last post shows that over the last 10,000 years the earth has actually been cooling (Blue Line "2" ).  Now previous to that there was a HUGE spike in temperature so one can only imagine what humans were doing back then to cause it.  Clearly we should be spending billions to research what those actions were so that we don't repeat their mistake!

As for the models I think we are somewhat in agreement (Though I think you give them far more credence then do I.).  Everyone looks at the forecasts of MMGW/C/C/S (Whatever the fear of the day is.) advocates and as you pointed out don't look at the +/- that goes with it.  The "scientists" who use these are the same monkeys who can't predict the weather 2 hours from now!  In fact the IPCC model (The "Bible" of Global doomsayers) is + or - 2 degrees.  But even with this wiggle room the model has proven to be completely wrong .

Now as I pointed out in my original post these people REFUSE to accept evidence that falsifies their claims!  This is no different from any other mythological belief.   

Now I am not denying evidence when I see it.  But keep in mind that there is a difference between facts/evidence and Hypothesis/Theories that explain facts/evidence.  The current trends do NOT bear out the predictions of MMG? advocates unless you follow the lead of proponents of Christianity and simply say that "The Scripture (Holy Bible /IPCC report) isn't wrong, it's just that we flawed humans are only misinterpreting it.".

Finally I would like to thank you for using the smilies.  They made your post that much more enjoyable.

"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."


Michael A. Thompson
Michael A. Thompson's picture
Posts: 79
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I agree...

 The sun has a whole lot more to do with heating the planet.  However I would like to reference this article that argues AGAINST sun cycles.  The interesting thing about the article is not that it proves or disproves eather point.  What interests me is the anomoly at the end of the temperature record graph.   As you can see there is the start of a downward trend near the end  and yet no mention is made of it.  Is this drop do to a massive reduction in CO2 emitions?  No, in fact it INCREASED and yet the planet got cooler after this graph was made. (Note 2002-2009 time period in following graph along with carbon output,black line) Now I'm not dening that the earths temperature is changing but when you look back 11,000 years you find our modern temp changes to be truly laughable as a notable "event". 

"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
it is bad

Michael A. Thompson wrote:

 I agree with pretty much everything you said except for 2 things.  

The first is your assumption that a warming of this planet, were it to do so, would be "bad".

You don't live in a farming community, do you?  Very briefly.  Tomatoes require temperatures below 70F - 21C -  at night and below 85F - 29C - during the day.  http://gardening.about.com/od/problemspest1/a/BlossomDrop.htm I remember trying to grow tomatoes in Tucson and having to spray each individual blossom with a hormone to get any tomatoes at all.  Even then, a lot of blossoms didn't produce tomatoes.

Apple trees require a certain number of frost days during the winter in order to set apples.  This is why you won't find apples in desert areas.  Sure, there are other fruit crops that do just fine.  The problem is the length of time to replant an orchard and the time to fruit bearing maturity.  Maybe we will grow lemons in Oregon some day, but in the meantime, what to grow?  Is the climate change stable enough to justify 5 years to a profitable harvest?  It may be that the agriculture community will adapt to any "permanent" climate changes, but it won't happen between one year and the next.  The transition period will not be pretty. 

These are only two examples that I am familiar with as I am not a farmer.  I have lived in southern Arizona (cotton, peanuts, citrus, lettuce in the winter), Hawaii (all the tropical fruits and sugarcane), central Washington (wheat), Wenatchee WA (apples, cherries, peaches, apricots, etc) and now in Oregon (primarily berries, grass hay, christmas trees and nurseries).  Each of these areas have crops that are adapted to the local climate.  Some crops can be changed quickly, but the orchards are slow to change.  Climate change will affect other countries as well as what is available in the supermarkets here.  Grapes from Chile,  anyone? 

Another issue is day length.  Even if the temperature changes to be warm enough for a particular plant, the day light requirements may not be adequate without supplemental lighting.  For example, I like orchids and I have to supplement their light even in the summer here in Portland.  It will take time to develop varieties of any plant that will tolerate lower light levels coupled with high temperatures. 

Yes, it can be all worked out.  But it will take time.  The transition period will not be pretty.  And it is fine for you to say losing New Orleans permanently will not bother you, but there are plenty of people who will be displaced and will need to start elsewhere.  Not too hard to move people from one city now, if very upsetting emotionally, but if you have thousands of cities that are going to be underwater, that is a whole other ball of wax. 

Michael A. Thompson wrote:

As for the models I think we are somewhat in agreement (Though I think you give them far more credence then do I.).  Everyone looks at the forecasts of MMGW/C/C/S (Whatever the fear of the day is.) advocates and as you pointed out don't look at the +/- that goes with it.  The "scientists" who use these are the same monkeys who can't predict the weather 2 hours from now!  In fact the IPCC model (The "Bible" of Global doomsayers) is + or - 2 degrees.  But even with this wiggle room the model has proven to be completely wrong .

Now as I pointed out in my original post these people REFUSE to accept evidence that falsifies their claims!  This is no different from any other mythological belief.   

Now I am not denying evidence when I see it.  But keep in mind that there is a difference between facts/evidence and Hypothesis/Theories that explain facts/evidence.  The current trends do NOT bear out the predictions of MMG? advocates unless you follow the lead of proponents of Christianity and simply say that "The Scripture (Holy Bible /IPCC report) isn't wrong, it's just that we flawed humans are only misinterpreting it.".

Finally I would like to thank you for using the smilies.  They made your post that much more enjoyable.

Personally I am rather relaxed on models and don't get hung up on the exact predictions.  Generally, if the weatherman says rain in Portland, you can believe it will rain.  And in the summer, it almost never rains, and the weatherman is pretty good about predicting sunshine then as well. 

I haven't seen anything, including the graphs in your next post that lead me to believe we can continue to burn anything within reach and it won't make things worse for all of us.  There is plenty of evidence to associate air pollution with asthma and even more severe respiratory problems.  Plenty of reasons to quit shitting in our drinking water, swimming in our own waste.  No reason to continue acidifying the oceans by putting extra CO2 in the atmosphere.  Reduction and conservation is good, and so is using less polluting forms of obtaining energy.  Arguing about is it us or is it the sun or is it pink and green martians is a waste of time and energy better spent on cleaning up our act. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Michael A. Thompson
Michael A. Thompson's picture
Posts: 79
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
 It sounds like we are

 It sounds like we are pretty much in agreement.  I only disagree with the assumption that man is changing global climate (Especially sense that extra ordinary claim lacks the extra ordinary proof required of such lofty claims.). 

"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5815
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Comparing climate

Comparing climate predictions to the difficulty of short term and local weather prediction is another of those indicators of someone who doesn't 'get it'.

But anyway, high CO2 concentration is not incompatible with a deep ice age, since the ice and snow will reflect solar radiation straight back to space at the same wavelengths, which are not affected by CO2 concentration. So that situation could persist until something else, such as Solar variation triggered some melting that uncovered some dark surface.

Or the ultimate melting may still be due to the greenhouse effect of all that CO2, but the since the warming effect would be much reduced with a high proportion of ice and snow cover, it would take a lot longer, and require far higher levels of CO2 to 'trap' the far lower amounts of infra-red radiation being emitted from the surface under those conditions.

The time it may take to get to either high ice cover or CO2 levels, or major changes of tree cover, contributes to the instabilities and oscillations in climate, so allowing extremes of ice cover at one end of the scale and a completely tropical world at the other to develop before the other contributing effects to temperature build up to the levels needed to start things going back in the other direction.

So, that example does not necessarily contradict the IPCC arguments.

CO2 is both a cause and an effect of warming. Warmer conditions release CO2 from previously frozen vegetation, and from the oceans, as they can hold less gas in solution as temperature rises. This all makes drawing simple conclusions about the relationship between global temperature and CO2 levels from such observations problematic. The only valid approach is to apply various computer models to what is known about such situations and see if they adequately predict what we know of what actually happened. In other words, we need to test the dynamics of the interactions. This is what the IPCC scientists do to test their models.

With regard to harmful effects of a high CO2, warmer world, apart from sea-level rise, and loss of organisms in the oceans which rely on calcium carbonate for shells or structural frameworks, such as shellfish and hard corals, a general warming is likely to ultimately reduce the total land area suitable for food production.This happens as the tropics become way too hot and rainfall there all but ceases, and this zone of hot dry climate advances toward the poles. Combined with the effect of lower food availability from the degraded ocean eco-system, this could be a problem....

Mr Thompson, you do seem more reasonable than many deniers, but still seem predisposed to bias in your selection of 'evidence'.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5815
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Michael A. Thompson

Michael A. Thompson wrote:

 It sounds like we are pretty much in agreement.  I only disagree with the assumption that man is changing global climate (Especially sense that extra ordinary claim lacks the extra ordinary proof required of such lofty claims.). 

It really isn't an extraordinary claim, from a scientific stand-point. The effect does not contradict any known science. If it did, that is what would require 'extraordinary evidence'.

The simple intuitive reaction that we could not possibly have such a major effect on climate is just that. It doesn't count as actual evidence. That is the fallacy of the "argument from incredulity".

That is yet another common explicit fallacy you have made. That makes three...

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is a known fact. We can estimate our production of CO2, and get further evidence of how much burning of fossil fuels contributes to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by analysing the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2, which is different in fossil fuels than CO2 active in the carbon cycle.

The correlation of rapid rise in CO2 once the industrial age kicked in is fairly clear.

Put these facts together, and is remains a matter of careful calculation and gathering further data to refine the accuracy of the estimates.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5815
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
That last part of the first

That last part of the first chart in your recent post shows a continuous upward slope until right near the end, at the same time as solar input was flat, and the best you can do is to point to a bit of oscillation at the end, much smaller than the net rise over the period of flat solar input.

That is as clear an example as I could have hoped for of your stubborn rejection of clear evidence, even when it is in your own post!

Of course increasing solar input will raise temperatures, no-one in the IPCC ever denied that, but that chart shows that even when the solar input remains constant, temperature is still rising, thereby clearly demonstrating that there is now something else contributing to warming. Thank you.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5815
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The latest results from the

The latest results from the GRACE satellites shows major loss of mass in nearly all major ice-caps.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/grace-20070320.html

The case just gets stronger...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The approach that most

The approach that most environmentalist take is to load people up with tons of guilt about activities that cause global warming. But, large families is still a sacred cow though that can't be talked about as a cause of global warming. We have to shut down SUVs to save the planet, but we can't shut down the Octomom and the Duggar family. I feel like I'm back in Catholic school around these people.

Here are some solutions to consider that rely technology instead of guilt:

Solar shield could be quick fix for global warming

DECARBONIZATION AND SEQUESTRATION FOR MITIGATING GLOBAL WARMING

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
the repro virus

Here is an idea just for you, EXC.  Create a virus that will survive in drinking water.  Have it produce infertility in 90% of humans only - not primates or mammals.  Then only 10% of humans can reproduce.  Tah-dah!

No such virus.  Way to risky to seriously contemplate.  And I think it will just verify one of the themes of Guns, Germs and Steel.  Industrialized man is stupider than hunter gatherers.  Because hunter gatherers have to be really smart to survive, industrialized man only has to be germ and virus resistant.  Ah well.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Michael,You have no grounds

Michael,

You have no grounds to accuse me of fanaticism. From the first to the last time I said anything about this subject, I averaged one post per 285 days. Not one of them introduced new subject matter to discuss. All of them appeared as rebuttals of the blatantly false claims that others were throwing around in here. A person is not a fanatic for taking a mere few hours out of their year to defend mainstream science and scientists from illegitimate criticisms and attacks.

It seems that you have accused me of fanaticism for simply having said that your points were the points peddled by the industry shills. But what other explanations could there be? You offered two: old data and misinformation. The old data explanation does not work. You claimed that scientists changed their terminology in response to the lowering temperatures of the 90s. The old data does not show any statistically significant lowering of temperatures or any change in scientific terminology. As such, the old data explanation can be tossed in the rubbish bin. That leaves only misinformation to explain your behavior — but now the question arises: who misinformed you? The industry shills did. That was precisely my point. (On February 26 at 8:22 PM, you said that you were called a shill. No one called you that. I am the only person who mentioned shills at all, and I merely claimed that you were misled by them, not that you are employed as one. I made no guess as to the nature of your occupation.) You only further supported by contention by following your baseless complaint with a video recording of a conference put together by industry shills.

Speaking of being misled by industry shills, Professor Phil Jones did not claim that no global warming had occurred over the last 15 years. That is the exact opposite of what he said. Let's look at his statement in context, shall we? He was presented an agree/disagree question that said, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present [meaning the end of 2009] there has been no statistically-significant global warming". Jones responded, "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." Another way of saying the same thing is that there is not a 95%+ certainty that the upward temperature trend is continuing, but the certainty is around 90%. In yet other words, that means it is reasonable to say the upward temperature trend is continuing and it is unreasonable to say otherwise.

Notice that Phil Jones said that achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods and much less likely for shorter periods. This relates back to my reason for bringing up 30+ year time spans. I should have made my reasons for doing so more clear. I did not bring them up to support my argument. That was coincidental. I brought them up because the length of the time span being discussed is what separates climate from weather and what determines what is signal and what is noise in a data set. The World Meteorological Organization determined that 30 years was long enough to eliminate the year-to-year weather variations, which are mere noise in analyses of the climate. It does not matter whether you are talking about climate in a single time period or a change of climate over many time periods, you should be using at least 30 years of data. Otherwise, you are going to be much less certain that you are analyzing the signal instead of the noise. Because Phil Jones was working with a 15 year time span, he had a lot of weather/noise to contend with, which made it harder to reach a 95% significance level. At the end of the day though, ~90% confidence of a continuing upward temperature trend is not a good thing for your position. If you have a scientifically credible reason to oppose the time span requirements, take up it up with the World Meteorological Organization instead of lobbing baseless complaints at me.

And as usual, Bob Spence hit the nail on the head regarding the multi-billion year climate graphs. I will not rest with just that defense though, because the graph damages the position of the people who hold it up as support. It seems to support them only on a superficial analysis. You cannot just look at the numbers that get plotted to make that graph. You must also look at the reasons for why the numbers are what they are. Those reasons undermine their position. Ask yourself why the trend line in that graph begins with such a warm temperature. In the beginning of Earth's history, the sun was only 70% as hot. If the sun were that cool today, our planet would be frozen solid, but the Earth back then was warm and covered in liquid water. How come? This is known as the faint young sun paradox. The only known way to resolve it is to postulate that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have a significant warming effect on the planet and there was more carbon dioxide back then. To avoid contradicting our postulation, we must affirm that the current climate trend is driven by the current upward trend in greenhouse gases, which are driven by the upward trend in humankind's greenhouse emissions, which makes the current climate change anthropogenic in nature. The position of anthropogenic climate change is more reasonable than any alternative explanation for today's climate at least until there is another solution for the faint young sun paradox. Do the people who hold up this multi-billion year climate graph have another solution? Of course not. To analyze the graph instead of merely gawking at it is to undermine your position.

And for crying out loud, rising sea levels would be a terrible thing. Rising sea levels would have to accompany higher temperatures, which would pose problems for worldwide agriculture. The only way to continue producing as much food in the short term is to move toward the north and south poles, which poses the problem of soil quality. Life has always thrived around the equator, so that there is where most of the composting and such has occurred. The further away from the equator you get, the poorer the soil. Agriculture would have to not only move, but also expand, because each acre would produce less food. The countries that are along the equator will have nowhere to move their systems of agriculture to, so they will almost certainly lose their systems of agriculture, which would make them a burden on the other systems, which means those other systems would have to expand even more to be able to supply more people with food than they currently supply. This movement and expansion cannot be done for free, of course, so you can expect the food prices to rise inexorably. Rising food prices have consequences for just about everything. Rising sea levels is one of the last things you would want to happen.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I blame

EXC wrote:

I blame 99.999999999999999% of global warming on the sun.

Global whining is by far the much greater threat.

I think it's important to keep in mind/hold fiercely the politics of "(Artificial) Global Warming" in these conversations, because it doesn't take too many leaps of logic to see that AGW is being used to advance the petty agendas of numerous world leaders. To suggest that "The politics and the science are completely separate" would be a farce.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)