« Ann Coulter Is Da Bomb | Main | Rightosphere Temp Check »

UK Documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle

A documentary set to air in the UK on Thursday, March 8th will say that man made global warming is nothing but a bunch of lies.

Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.


'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor.

Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.

A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."

Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don't believe you - it's taken ten years to get this commissioned.

"I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys.

"It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.

"It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.

"Al Gore might have won an Oscar for 'An Inconvenient Truth', but the film is very misleading and he has got the relationship between CO2 and climate change the wrong way round."

One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.

He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth's history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels.

Prof Clark believes increased levels of CO2 are because the Earth is heating up and not the cause. He says most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, which dissolve the gas.

When the temperature increases, more gas is released into the atmosphere and when global temperatures cool, more CO2 is taken in. Because of the immense size of the oceans, he said they take time to catch up with climate trends, and this 'memory effect' is responsible for the lag.

Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades.

It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began.

This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory, because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2 and should, according to the consensus, have meant a rise in global temperatures.

The programme claims there appears to be a consensus across science that CO2 is responsible for global warming, but Professor Paul Reiter is shown to disagree.

He said the influential United Nations report on Climate change, that claimed humans were responsible, was a sham.

It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of scientists who disagreed with the findings and resigned from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by government appointees.

Read the rest of the article, which explains how global warming is created naturally.

Just last week Al Gore criticized the media for being too balanced on the global warming issue, which he said was a form of bias. Instead, Al wants the media to only report the "consensus" belief that global warming exists and is caused by too much man made CO2, something this documentary refutes. So let's see what the American media does with this story.

This puts a whole new light on Al Gore's profiting off of the global warming scare. Al completely redefines the term "snake oil salesman."


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference UK Documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle:

» Old War Dogs linked with Bill's Nibbles // Open Post -- 2007.03.04

» Maggie's Farm linked with Monday Morning

» Pirate's Cove linked with Global Warming Today: The 17,000

Comments (74)

This sounds interesting. Bu... (Below threshold)
89:

This sounds interesting. But as long as there's a non-microscopic plausible chance that most of the climate change is man-made, we should act *as if it were* until we get more data.

About damn time. Our side ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

About damn time. Our side has been too accomodating; time to fight back with some truthiness.

Then, Al can go back to his carnival barking, "step right up ladies and gentlemen, see the melting ice bergs crashing into Manhatten, the 50 foot ocean surge, death, destruction, we got it all!!! . . . that will be $10 in carbon credits, pay the broker at the door, he works for me . . ."!

If you follow the curve of ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

If you follow the curve of methane concentrations in the article here I have little to no doubt that global warming is a manmade phenomena.

However, if you follow the cyclic curves of global warming and cooling as evidence from ice cores show, we should be 5000 years into a cool-down. Instead, with agriculture the methane curves have been going up instead of down.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf

Don't know about you, but if Northeastern Canada was currently covered by glaciers, as some models suggest would happen if agriculture hadn't started up about 12,000 years ago, there'd be a lot of folks complaining...

Then again, maybe not. Without agriculture, I doubt seriously we'd be beyond the hunter-gatherer stage, and small bands of hominids don't have much of an ecological footprint.

Global warming has gotten t... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Global warming has gotten too big an industry and tool to let this go so easily. I wouldn't be surprised if its release gets squelched or minimized.

At a minimum it will be dissected for a flaw (real or imagined) and then the whole movie invalidated based on that.

If you righties feel so str... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

If you righties feel so strongly about this, why don't you denounce glorious leader Bush? He is one of the leaders of the cause:

This Week (ABC):
The president has acknowledged on a number of occasions that carbon emissions are a significant problem. The, you know, they're a significant cause of climate change. Treasury Secretary Paulson on Global Warming.

Come-on boys and girls!

So, is the BBC going to sho... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

So, is the BBC going to show this film in all of the primary schools in the kingdom?

To Repeat another comment of mine: Looking back in twenty years this will be one of the biggest hoaxes foisted upon mankind in modern history. Or, more probably, will be buried deep down the memory hole as watched over by those more worthy than us. Who are we to expect scientists to apply healthy doses of skepticism, logical thought, and um scientific method to such a problem when there is all this grant money floating about?

"But as long as there's a n... (Below threshold)
JB:

"But as long as there's a non-microscopic plausible chance that most of the climate change is man-made, we should act *as if it were* until we get more data."

Well, there isn't. There's a non-miscroscopic plausible chance that a MICROSCOPIC part of "climate change" is man-made.

Besides, why should we take one tack without sufficient facts as opposed to another? This is absurdly non-scientific. Suppose more facts reveal that in fact, burning more CO2 is the answer?

BarneyG2000: "Bush lies", i... (Below threshold)
JB:

BarneyG2000: "Bush lies", isn't it what you lefties always say? Why should we believe him now?

Besides, what he has in mind is good irrelevant of the veracity of AGW - greater US energy independence. It's a security issue, you know.

Or "regardless" instead of ... (Below threshold)
JB:

Or "regardless" instead of "irrelevant". :)

"Even the co-founder of Gre... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2."

I would like to see this. Moore left Green Peace back in 1986. He has also made these comments recently:

"More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change."

"The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination." Patrick Moore WaPo Ediitorial 4/06


He repeats the same opinion in an article on 9/06
"More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions (the same as 300 million automobiles)--or 8 percent of global emissions--of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change."
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=978

Now he says that we should produce more CO2? Either the documentary is full of Sh*t, or Moore has no credibility.

"..but palaeontologist Prof... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"..but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite."

So who is this Ian Clark? Does he have any ties to the ENERGY INDUSTRY? Let's take a look:

Clark sits on the "scientific advisory board" of a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball.
Two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in "energy, environment and ethics."

Timothy Egan, is the president of the High Park Advocacy Group, and a registered lobbyist for the Canadian Gas Association and the Canadian Electricity Association. Julio Legos is the High Park Group's Director of Regulatory Affairs, whose biography says, "Julio's practice at HPG is focused on federal and provincial energy and environmental law and policy, particularly as they affect Canadian industry."

The Executive Director of the NRSP, Tom Harris, is also a former High Park consultant, and the NRSP mailing address is in the building where, until recently, High Park maintained its Toronto offices.

But I am sure that Clark is complete non-bias (let the right chime in on how researchers skew their results for more funding).

What, only global warming scientist whore for research funds?

These skeptical scientist... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

These skeptical scientists are clearly in the minority. As Dr. Patterson, a friend of Dr. Ian Clark, at anther Ottawa university says"Sure I could be wrong, but I don't think so" If the 2020 expected solar sunspot cycle that Patterson, and Clark are pinning their slender hopes, to turn global warming around doesn't have any effect, they will be dead wrong, because it will be too late, with the feedback loop, to decrease our C02 emissions, for the future of our bisphere. Global warming sceptics, recall what Dick Cheney warned that if there was "a one percent chance" that a threat was real---WMD from Iraq"we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response' ..In this case, its not a one per cent chance, its' about 80 - to 90% chance, that the culprit is human induced global warming, every bit and more dangerous than the threat of WMD from Iraq, which mobilized the Bush administration.

I thought consensus meant e... (Below threshold)
Gmax:

I thought consensus meant everyone agreed? Whoops, not everyone does including some folks at some pretty impressive sounding places, MIT and NASA for starters. Quick wait for it, the Green Left will start throwing mud at these scientists, how dare they express their own considered opinion. This is official dogma, you will parrot the official line. Reminds me when heretics risk death just to disagree with the church as to the fact the Earth was revolving around the Sun not vice versa.

"The 600-plus coal-fired pl... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

"The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination." Patrick Moore WaPo Ediitorial 4/06

There is a vast world of difference between being worried about pollutants and being worried about global warming. CO2 is actually beneficial to the environment because it causes increased growth of plant life, sulfur and mercury not so much. Of course I've been a proponent of nuclear power for decades, I live about 30 miles from 3 nuclear plants in fact. Cleaner technologies are always a good thing, the question is should we bend over backwards trying to stave off a cataclysm that the science keeps showing isn't coming.

If the 2020 expected so... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

If the 2020 expected solar sunspot cycle that Patterson, and Clark are pinning their slender hopes, to turn global warming around doesn't have any effect, they will be dead wrong, because it will be too late, with the feedback loop, to decrease our C02 emissions, for the future of our bisphere.

Due to the way in which "greenhouse" gases work, the effect is logarithmic. Every time you add more CO2 to the atmosphere it has a diminished effect because there is only so much radiation for it to catch and it can only catch certain wavelengths. Question for you, do you know what the most pervasive and potent greenhouse gas on the earth is ?

89,Your statement fa... (Below threshold)
SunSetSam:

89,
Your statement falls under the "precautionary principle" approach, used by politicians, environmentalist, and health partisans to justify choices that can not be logically or scientifically justified. This type of thinking focuses on the size of the consequences and not on the risk of such a thing happening. Not very logical.

Taltos, if you are going to... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Taltos, if you are going to lift the quote I presented, at least address my question.

Why is that Moore warned of the increase levels of CO2 in April and Sept of 2006, but according to the documentary he is now a proponent of increasing CO2 emission?

Someone is lying here, and considering that I have shown that other persons involved in this "documentary" are funded by the energy industry, I assume it is the producers of the program.

Bring on the warming, I'm t... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Bring on the warming, I'm tired of the winter. And if Gore wasn't investing money in two different warming companies, he wouldn't spout off about it.

This planet had global warming before mankind was around. Guess what, planet is still here, and now there is people.

It's a cycle this planet goes through, period. Of course you have people on each side saying something different. Why, real simple, it's the money, name being noticed, papers getting published, etc. It's all BS, pure and simple. Like I said, I'm tired of winter, bring some of the warming this way.

Taltos,Obviously it ... (Below threshold)
SunSetSam:

Taltos,
Obviously it is water. Current measurements indicate that human activities contribute approximately 3.2 percent of the total greenhouse gas contributions (not counting water). It would be less than 1 percent if water were counted.

Taltos, if you are going... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

Taltos, if you are going to lift the quote I presented, at least address my question.

Why is that Moore warned of the increase levels of CO2 in April and Sept of 2006, but according to the documentary he is now a proponent of increasing CO2 emission?

Someone is lying here, and considering that I have shown that other persons involved in this "documentary" are funded by the energy industry, I assume it is the producers of the program.

1.) Unless I'm missing something he said that Africa could use an increase in CO2 emissions. CO2 emmisions have a positive effect on crop growth and forestation, both things I think Africa could benefit from in some areas.

2.) I don't see any warning in those quotes, merely statistical data about CO2 emissions and a statement that CO2 is the primary greenhosue gas(it's not by the way).

3.) As a thinking human being he is free to change his mind. With science, an experiment that supports your theory means very little, it's the ones that refute your theory that are important. Hence why scientists change their minds quite a bit.

If the 2020 expect... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
If the 2020 expected solar sunspot cycle that Patterson, and Clark are pinning their slender hopes, to turn global warming around doesn't have any effect, they will be dead wrong, because it will be too late, with the feedback loop, to decrease our C02 emissions, for the future of our bisphere.

Interestingly, the underlying physics of solar driven climate change has been verified in the laboratory on a small scale in a Danish experiment. CERN has just started a multi-phase project that begins with a rerun of the Danish experiment, only CERN will use an accelerator rather than relying on natural cosmic rays. This multinational project will provide scientists with a permanent facility for studying effects of cosmic rays and charged particles in the Earth's atmosphere. In a few years a lot more may be known about the link between clouds the sun's magnetic field and cosmic rays. The National Post has a good explanation of the science for the few that are interested in finding the truth.

Ahhh yes, "with the feedbac... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Ahhh yes, "with the feedback loop". It seems the computer models insert the nefarious feedback loop. As I understand it, the runaway warming depends upon a feedback loop that is assumed to kick in and drive a paltry half degree or a little better into a two, three or even four degree rise. Warmer air can hold more water vapor and the greenhouse effect from water vapor dwarfs the effect from CO2. Theoretically the little bump from CO2 gets amplified by the real greenhouse gas, H2O. I'll buy that logic, but there is a problem. The models generally don't know how to model the effects of the increased water vapor. Does it produce more clouds, and at what level? Increased water vapor also increases the air's transport ability for convecting heat away from the surface. How is this modeled?

Computer models that predict the future have what kind of track record? We are to adjust our entire way of life, limiting progress and opportunities for DECADES to come based upon some fancy computer climate models? I give the models an 80-90% probability of being WRONG.

Why is it that, almost invariably, AGW is promoted by those left of center? Has a scientific curiosity been hijacked as a Trojan horse to punish capitalists/globalists? Since Socialism/Marxism has consistently proven itself to perform poorly, have they been looking for alternate means to impose the agenda? It seems so.

"Lift" a quote barney?... (Below threshold)
marc:

"Lift" a quote barney?

Does that mean like... steal? Borrow? Like you own the copyright on it?

Grand Mama used to have a sayin', "you're off your rocker."

This may be the appropriate place for it.

And, to the "what's the har... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

And, to the "what's the harm if there is a tiny chance" folks. Do some research on the DDT ban. One book based on absolutely nothing says that DDT is killing eagles. Every study done says that it's nonsense. 1500 scientists testify that there is no connection between DDT and thinning of eggshells. The envrionmentlists lobby for a ban purely as a ploy to gain political power. The ban goes through and as a result millions of dead africans.

2.) I don't see any warning... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

2.) I don't see any warning in those quotes, merely statistical data about CO2 emissions and a statement that CO2 is the primary greenhosue gas(it's not by the way). Taltos

"..These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination."

I guess it all depends on the meaning of "warning" is.

The models generally do... (Below threshold)
marc:

The models generally don't know how to model the effects of the increased water vapor. Does it produce more clouds, and at what level? Increased water vapor also increases the air's transport ability for convecting heat away from the surface. How is this modeled?

RicardoVerde, I have consistently asked a related question of the scaremongers. In fact each time I've asked it at GW seminars the question is either ignored by evading or those questioned lie out of their ass.

So, just for sport, I'll ask Barney.

If, as the Goracle claims via his movie, the polar caps will melt to such an extent ocean level will rise 10-20 feet and the overall surface area increases (as it must as it covers more of earth's landmass) why, A. "computer models" are never programed to allow for that increased surface area, and B. wouldn't increased surface area be followed by more cooling of the atmosphere due to evaporation of ocean water into the atmosphere thus mitigating any if not all warming?

"..These pollutants are ... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

"..These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination."

I guess it all depends on the meaning of "warning" is.

Well seeing as acidity from CO2 is so weak that it often doesn't even qualify as acid rain, I think he was refering to the sulfur which does in fact create some pretty nasty acid rain.

Barney you do understand th... (Below threshold)
Gmax:

Barney you do understand thew nuance difference between particulates in the atmosphere and the gases that compose the atmosphere dont you?

Gmax, you may be asking for... (Below threshold)
marc:

Gmax, you may be asking for too much.

Barney,So your logic... (Below threshold)
SunSetSam:

Barney,
So your logic is that if the research is funded by the energy industry, then it must not be true. That's the type of "logic" behind the current global warming scaremongering...

Neither you nor the IPCC scientists nor anyone else for that matter have proven that small changes in a trace gas (CO2) can cause global warming. We have lots of models (I have been doing air quality & climatological modeling for almost 20 years) and theories, but no proven chemical or physical processes that show that increased CO2 causes global warming...

Sunset, Relativity and evol... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Sunset, Relativity and evolution are theories. Why don't you build an Earth and run controlled experiments to prove global warming is real or imagined?

Yes, Marc, there is a whole... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Yes, Marc, there is a whole lotta stuff that ain't included in the models or is assumed to remain the same. Then again the variables that exacerbate the AGW generally seem to increase.

I don't mean to cast suspicion on all those people out there doing good science and wanting to get their ideas out to the public in general. I don't think it's in our best long term interest to keep burning fossil fuels (especially petroleum). There are better ways to do some of the things we are doing and I wish we could get going on them. What I hate is when Chicken Littles squak to the point where my tax dollars and my government, who have much more important work, get side tracked. Now Chicken Little has a supercomputer.

Consensus, now there's something to go on. In Galileo's time the scientific consensus was that the sun orbited the earth. Prior to that the earth was flat. Physicists were in general agreement in the 1890's that we had learned virtually all there was to know about physics, eugenics in the early 20th century, global cooling in the 1970's, CFC's elimination would end the ozone hole (its bigger now). A lot of careful thought and study went into those ideas even though they were later either disproved or shown to be limited in their understanding thereof.

Now he says that we sho... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Now he says that we should produce more CO2? Either the documentary is full of Sh*t, or Moore has no credibility.

Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 4, 2007 05:38 PM

I agree with Barney. Moore has no credibility. Michael Moore, that is.

"It was only in the late 19... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began."

The mean global surface temperature has increased by about 0.3 to 0.6°C since the late 19th century and by about 0.2 to 0.3°C over the last 40 years, which is the period with most reliable data. Recent years have been among the warmest since 1860 - the period for which instrumental records are available.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

Just don't pay any attention to the increases that have occurred before?

Excuse the rant. I get car... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Excuse the rant. I get carried away and snarky.

Question for you, do yo... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Question for you, do you know what the most pervasive and potent greenhouse gas on the earth is ?

Oxygen.

Marc,I know I'm not ... (Below threshold)
SunSetSam:

Marc,
I know I'm not Barney, but the answers to your questions are:

A) many models now include changes in the percentage of water coverage. Most models go through a calculation iteration and use the results as the inputs for the next iteration. One can make adjustments between each iteration. Some models use Newtonian Nudging (changing values) to get a better (faster) convergence to a solution. The three primary models used by the IPCC were selected due to their sensitivity to CO2 forcing. Sounds like the UN wanted a certain outcome...

B) Your second question is quite difficult to answer. Atmospheric scientists don't account for turbulence very well in models - specifically cloud formation. Increased water surface does not always mean more evaporation - it is a complex phenomena. There are other many complex atmospheric phenomena that either aren't included in the models or poorly represented.

"Prior to that the earth wa... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Prior to that the earth was flat." Ricardo

Around 240BC, Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of the Earth within 400 meters.

Now can any of you righties point me to the scientific proof that God exists?

FWIW the recent upswing in ... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

FWIW the recent upswing in surface temps has been linked to increased urbanization by some scientists.

This is fantastic. All thi... (Below threshold)
Jo:

This is fantastic. All this skepticism, debunking and documentaries coming out about this hoax is what we need.

Just put one iota of doubt in people's minds about this, and the liberals may as well fold up their tents, pack it up, and pursue their socialist agenda some other way.

Yeeeeehaw.

Speaking of SWEET SWEET doc... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Speaking of SWEET SWEET documentaries, here is another one on the way showing what a phoney Michael Moore is. The interesting thing about this one is it was not done by rightwingers, but former fans of Moore, who eventually discovered the painful truth for themselves that he's a total fraud.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1466668.ece

Let's face it. If you're a liberal nowadays, you're just admitting you're a total fool.

Now can any of you... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Now can any of you righties point me to the scientific proof that God exists?

Being that one of the two tenets upon which science is founded is that the universe is reasonless, any proof God exits is not scientific, it might be true, but it can't be scientific as it undermines the very foundation of science.

Martin Durkin has a fine hi... (Below threshold)
cat:

Martin Durkin has a fine history of "controversial" documentary production. The Independent Television Commission ordered Channel 4 to issue a prime time apology, ruling that he had misled interviewees and edited their statements in a way that "distorted or mispresented their known views."
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/

But who cares if Durkin modifies the truth when a minority of scientists agree with some of what he says? http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/02/26/tomo/index1.html

Some scientists say cigarettes aren't bad you - not very many, but a handful is good enough for me if I don't have to stop smoking. But perhaps I'll put my bet on the majority of scientists who disagree with Durkin and say things like this about Paul Reiter's minority views on CO2:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

I have to laugh when I see ... (Below threshold)
iftheshoefits:

I have to laugh when I see all the ad hominem attacks about scientists funded by energy companies. So What?

Energy companies (and other large big bidnesses) won't be adversely affected in the long run by global warming. They'll just change the types of energy products that they sell. It's not like they don't have the money to buyout whatever clean technologies prove to be winners in the marketplace. Numerous, giant, energy companies already are in the solar business and wind energy businesses. Life goes on.

Actually if global warming catastrophe predictions do prove to be true, the energy companies will all get busy building nuke plants all over the world, because that's the only big-time stopgap measure that we know of, at present, if in fact atmospheric CO2 really is the issue. I personally hope that doesn't happen, but again, they'll make their bucks one way or the other. And Dick Cheney and George Soros will make sure that Halliburton gets their cut.

And of course scientists whose whole careers are based upon grants for global warming research have no ulterior motives - none, I tell you! Actually, I'm sure large numbers of them don't fall prey to their own career conflicts of interests, but many more do. We humans are like that, no matter what our affiliations, politics, and religious faith might be.

The Mann "hockey stick" stu... (Below threshold)
George:

The Mann "hockey stick" study is the most referenced study in global warming "science." Unfortunately, for Mann, a couple Canadians, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, found enough holes in it to drive a Mack truck through. Most notably, what they found was that the study had no meaningful peer review as it was virtually impossible at the time to reproduce the results given the defects.

Mann has boasted that the Canadian paper has been completely discredited but, like many of the claims of the global warming community, this claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. A scorecard shows the true status.

More information on the work of Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick can be found here.

BarneyAlGore: Moore is sta... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

BarneyAlGore: Moore is stating that the 3rd world should be allowed to burn fuels since these countries are too poor and would fall farther behind otherwise.

Air quality has markedly improved over the last 20 years.

Another fact free adventure by the Left. Air quality and global warming are not the same thing, dingbats.

Stick a fork in the man mad... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Stick a fork in the man made global warming myth. It's done.

Fantastic news! I just wrot... (Below threshold)
LDF:

Fantastic news! I just wrote an article on this issue yesterday, and didn't realize that a new documentary was coming out.

My article can be found here:
http://lestdarknessfall.blogspot.com/2007/03/global-warming-or-global-cooling.html

To summarize, I think that there is just as much evidence out there to support a theory of "global cooling" as there is for man-made "global warming". It's about time the public gets to hear both sides of the scientific debate, as the global warming panic has been causing people to ignore important scientific data that might one day help us develop an accurate climatological model and figure out what impact, if any, mankind is having on global climate trends.

BarneyGee: Your citing an e... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

BarneyGee: Your citing an example of the non-consensus scientist being correct (Eratosthenes, way back when) is a good example of a case where consensus was not the truth, or am I missing something in your logic?

Not so sure about the 400 meters part. I would guess that the earth's diameter varies by well over 400 meters depending on how or where you measure it, but I'll take your word that he got it that close.

This article convinced me t... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

This article convinced me that global warming's real.

The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands Of Years Ago.

Abstract. The anthropogenic era is generally thought to have begun 150 to 200 years ago, when the industrial revolution began producing CO2 and CH4 at rates sufficient to alter their compositions in the atmosphere. A different hypothesis is posed here: anthropogenic emissions of these gases first altered atmospheric concentrations thousands of years ago. This hypothesis is based on three arguments.

(1) Cyclic variations in CO2 and CH4 driven by Earth-orbital changes during the last 350,000 years predict decreases throughout the Holocene, but the CO2 trend began an anomalous increase 8000 years ago, and the CH4 trend did so 5000 years ago.

(2) Published explanations for these mid- to late-Holocene gas increases based on natural forcing can be rejected based on paleoclimatic evidence.

(3) A wide array of archeological, cultural, historical and geologic evidence points
to viable explanations tied to anthropogenic changes resulting from early agriculture in Eurasia, including the start of forest clearance by 8000 years ago and of rice irrigation by 5000 years ago.

In recent millennia, the estimated warming caused by these early gas emissions reached a global-mean value of ∼0.8 ◦C and roughly 2 ◦C at high latitudes, large enough to have stopped a glaciation of northeastern Canada predicted by two kinds of climatic models. CO2 oscillations of ∼10 ppm in the last 1000 years are too large to be explained by external (solar-volcanic) forcing, but they can be explained by outbreaks of bubonic plague that caused historically documented farm abandonment in western Eurasia. Forest regrowth on abandoned farms sequestered enough carbon to account for the observed CO2 decreases. Plague-driven CO2 changes were also a significant causal factor in temperature changes during the Little Ice Age (1300-1900 AD).

It covers everything - long-term cycles and short term (100+ year) blips. Figure 7 and Table 4 are worth noting, because it really shows the correlation between plagues and CO2 level changes. Figure 9 shows that without the CO2 and methane from agriculture, Canada would be undergoing glaciation at the present time.
A second line of evidence supports this conclusion that a glaciation is overdue
in northeast Canada. Numerical models tuned to reproduce δ18O (∼'ice volume')
cycles over the last several hundred thousand years 'predict' that ice sheets should
have begun to grow in the last 3000 to 6000 years (Imbrie and Imbrie, 1980).
This conclusion is also implicit in the long-term ice-volume phasing used in the
SPECMAP time scale (Imbrie et al., 1984). The 5000-year lag of δ18O (∼ice volume)
behind precession forcing predicts that a new glaciation should have begun
6000 years ago, while the 8000-year lag of ice volume behind obliquity forcing
predicts that ice should have begun forming by 2500 years ago. Ruddiman (2003)
assessed the likely effects of temperature on the mean phase of orbital-scale δ18O
signals in the 5 cores used to create the SPECMAP time scale and inferred that
ice should have begun forming by 5000 yrs BP at the precession cycle and by
4000-3000 yrs BP at the obliquity cycle. All of these results are consistent with
Milankovitch (1941) who estimated a 5000-year lag of ice volume behind summer
radiation forcing. The lag inferred by Milankovitch predicts new ice sheets by
∼6000 years ago for precession and ∼5,000 years ago for obliquity.
For what it's worth - this article made me a believer because it covers a lot more than the last 10-20-100 years - and shows that there was a direct relationship between human activities and events such as agriculture and plagues. I won't be convinced by someone going "OMFG! YOU GOTTA BELIEVE OR WE ARE ALL DOOOOOOOooooMED!" I won't be convinced by someone telling me it's all Bush's fault for not signing Kyoto, or Clinton's fault for not forcing the ratification of Kyoto, or whatever politician you've got a hate-on for - it's been going on LONG before we were even thought of as a country.

And I don't see it as a bad thing. I've got no doubt that a lot of folks in NE Canada would agree.

One word......Gaia... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

One word......Gaia.

Debating religion always ge... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Debating religion always gets interesting.

Civil Behavior:I d... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Civil Behavior:

I don't know I subscribe to the Gaia hypothesis, but I'm thinking we're acting like mayflies on a partly cloudy summer day, worrying with each cloud about global cooling, and each clear spot about global warming.

"Now can any of you rightie... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

"Now can any of you righties point me to the scientific proof that God exists?"

Posted by: BarneyG2000

I don't know how, if God is transcendant, that we should be able to know that he exists at all apart from revelation from Him. But I can say with certainty, Barney, that He has a sense of humor. Just reading your constant stream of BS makes me laugh my behind off!

This Planet is far far more... (Below threshold)
CrackrJak:

This Planet is far far more powerful than we are.
We could collectively be shaken off like dead fleas off a dog, and all it would take is the right volcanic explosion or other catastrophic event. The earth has produced these mass extinction events before, and it could do so again at any moment.

Mt. Pinatubo ejected 25 cubic kilometers of itself into our atmosphere. Thats more pollution, in one eruption, than mankind has produced since we first discovered fire. It eroded our ozone layer, dropped the global temperature .5ºC, produced an aerosol layer in our atmosphere for more than a year. more facts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

All that, and the planet (and we) survived. This earth has ways of coping with these events. Even with all our great scientific knowledge,
We still do not understand them.

Understanding these facts, how can we possibly believe we could ever destroy this planet or ourselves by burning fossil fuels ?
The most we could ever hope to do is make it uninhabitable by humans, and that could only happen through simultaneous massive thermonuclear explosions.

Another parting shot, 40 years ago these same scientific minds were fear mongering a new ice age, aka global cooling. 30 years before that, it was global warming fears. decades before that, it was global cooling. Anyone see a pattern here ?

Barneypoo be sure and hug a... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Barneypoo be sure and hug a tree before nite nite.

So Barney. . is it safe to ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

So Barney. . is it safe to assume that many of the scientists supporting Global warming are funded by pro - global warming organizations? Doesn't that discredit their work?

Or is what is good for the goose not good for the gander?

CrackrJak,Mt. Pina... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

CrackrJak,

Mt. Pinatubo wasn't even the worst modern humans have seen (modern defined as ~100,000 years). About 75,000 years ago Sumatra exploded putting out what is estimated to be 150-200 times the pollutants of Pinatubo.

It essentially wiped out the human race except for a few thousand (thought to be centered in East Africa) and is one of the reasons we humans have comparatively little genetic differences from each other.

Global warming I have no doubt is occurring, I just think believing mankind is responsible is just bad science. I believe today's supposed global warming experts know so little about climate and weather that can't predict or determine one way or the other. In fact, given the number of variables involved AND the the feedback loop, mathematically you CAN'T determine what will happen (eg Chaos Theory).

There are good reasons to cut back on emissions, conserve energy, clean up pollution--but using pseudoscience and fear mongering to enforce it at the huge economic costs is just appalling and sickening. The current Global warming scare has little to do with science and more to do with a socialist agenda of centralizing and seizing power in order to implement wealth distribution. In other words it is all politically motivated. I liken it to the "organic food" crowd who, out of sheer ignorance combined with arrogance actively promote the death of 2 billion people, based on the idea that somehow organic food would be "healthier". The whole global warming scare could even be worse.

Faith+1, agreed.Th... (Below threshold)
CrackrJak:

Faith+1, agreed.

This is an elitist attempt to prevent the rise of the 3rd world, and simultaneously raise taxes to fund their big brother, one world order, socialistic movements.

The meteorologists of this world can barely predict the weather accurately within 24hrs.
It is sheer hubris to think climatologists can predict what the global temperature will be, even as soon as, next year.

This is big big money, billions of dollars.
These same funds could, and should, be put to better use. Several come to mind.

1. Katrina cleanup and rebuild
2. Homeless shelters and rehabilitation
3. Education and fixing dilapidated schools
4. Updating our internet
5. Ending the malaria scourge

And many others.


Why some of us are alarmed?... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Why some of us are alarmed? Official report says US CO2 to rise by 20% from 2000 to 2020...We are rolling the dice and based on everything else this administration has predicted would happen to the planet; we would be greeted as 'liberators', 'freedumb is on the march,' 'evolution' is only a theory, alarmed seems the only rational response when Dubya and his vested interests face reality and science.

Thank you Mac Lorry for yes... (Below threshold)
kim:

Thank you Mac Lorry for yesterday's link at 6:59 PM helping to explain the link between cosmic rays, sunspots, and cloud formation.

I think I've never heard so loud,
The quiet message of a cloud.
===================

Hey Steve, evolution is<... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Hey Steve, evolution is just a theory, jack-ass.

You should be alarmed at your own ignorance.

"Now can any of you rightie... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

"Now can any of you righties point me to the scientific proof that God exists?"
-BarneyG

No more than you can point to scientific proof that God does not exist.
Or proof that life here on Earth was random happenstance, bereft of a guiding spark.
For that matter, the deeper you look into any big (big bang, nuclear forces, speed of light, gravity etc) phenomena, you might find a scientific explanation of what (is happening), but few hows and very few whys.

J.R. -Evolution is... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

J.R. -

Evolution is a theory which accounts for all known observations. Works for me...

SCSIwuzzy -

God once sneezed and watched the spray
He's been laughing to this day...

JLawson,It fits obse... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

JLawson,
It fits observations, but does not answer all relevant questions. Such as the lack of any actual proof of an animal/species becoming another. No link fossils.

I believe in the mechanism of evolution, by the way. I just acknowledge the theory has enough holes in it still to remain theory, and remain debatable.

Evolution today, in my opinion, is like black holes and brown dwarfs were in the past: we saw phenomena and behaivor that suggested they exist. But it was a while before any instruments actually found them.

If there is any warming goi... (Below threshold)
Bill:

If there is any warming going on is due to hot air in this stupid debate. What is man that he thinks that he can do such things. God knows.

This is interesting re the ... (Below threshold)
LindaL:

This is interesting re the statistical complexity of the climate models:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/numerical_models_integrated_ci.html

Archaeopterix.Whal... (Below threshold)
RDM:

Archaeopterix.

Whales with vestigial legs.

You are playing the cup game. Place two cups next to each other on a table, and you can say "There's a gap between them!" You put a cup between those two cups, and "Look! There's _two_ gaps!" And infinitum, ad nauseum.

Evolution today, in my o... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Evolution today, in my opinion, is like black holes and brown dwarfs were in the past: we saw phenomena and behaivor that suggested they exist. But it was a while before any instruments actually found them.

Wow. A trip to the library, or any biology department, would help to clear up your ignorance.

The piece Kim hangs her poi... (Below threshold)
groucho:

The piece Kim hangs her pointy little hat on at the beginning of the thread is sourced from "Lifestyle Extra" a British online publication. Some additional info on the "controversial director" can be found here:

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

I think this piece has all the objectivity of the studies funded by the energy companies which are nothing more than efforts to protect their profits.

Coming soon: SCIENTIFIC HOAX UNVEILED! The earth is now and always has been the center of the universe, contradictory to previously held beliefs. Any who publicly state otherwise will be rounded up and sent to one of the new de-scientification camps for re-programming under the provisions of the latest USA you-bet your-ass we're #1 Patriot Act III.

And this just in: An elderly gentleman with long white hair and beard has been sighted apparently sitting on a cloud somewhere over South Carolina. More details as they become available.

Open this URL to see the fu... (Below threshold)

Open this URL to see the full video of the Great Global Warming Swindle...

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-global-warming-swindle.html

In the UK we had a program ... (Below threshold)
David Santillo:

In the UK we had a program called The Great Global Warming Swindle) aired last week on Channel 4 (see www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html )

On watching the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" I've tried to extract the main arguments. I thought that perhaps others may find this useful.

The theory of man-made global warming does not stack up for the following reasons:

1. The earth's temperature started rising in the last century well before industrialisation started significantly after WW2 in 1945. From 1940 to 1975 global temperatures actually fell while CO2 emissions were going up significantly and there was significant academic concern over a coming "Ice Age". This data contradicts a link between CO2 and global warming.

2. CO2 makes up a tiny proportion of the atmosphere (about 0.45%) and less than 10 % is man-made and that is growing at 0.4% per year. The main producers of global CO2 is animal flatulence and rotting vegetation on both land and sea. More importantly, water vapor comprises 95% of greenhouse gases.

3. Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" main premise is that history shows that rising CO2 levels cause the world's temperatures to rise, but paleoclimatologist Professor Ian Clark says this actually works in reverse. Professor Clark shows that ice core samples provide evidence that CO2 changes lag temperature changes by about 800 years. Rising CO2 is shown to be a natural product of rising earth temperatures. Higher global temperatures mean more energy to support life which enlarges forests and vegetation. This eventually increases the amount CO2 in the atmosphere from more rotting vegetation on both land and sea and animal flatulence . The ice core samples also show that there have been periods of CO2 concentrations much higher than the today. The polar ice caps naturally expand and contract and have previously been considerably smaller than they are now. Greenland has had many periods of no ice cover or tundra.

4. Cosmic rays (thought to emanate from exploding stars) cause clouds to form, reducing the global temperature. However, if our Sun has increased solar activity (as it is at the moment), the solar wind blows away the cosmic rays reaching Earth which reduces cloud formation and heats up the Earth. Warmer air can hold more water vapor without forming clouds and the greenhouse effect from water vapor dwarfs the effect from CO2. This suggests that increased solar activity is responsible for global warming, not man's creation of CO2. Scientists have been able to measure solar activity and the Earth's temperature going back 500 million years and it is a perfect correlation.

5. If the greenhouse gases were trapping more of the Sun's reflected radiation (the greenhouse effect) we should see higher temperatures in the upper atmosphere where that heat is trapped. This has not happened and it is the Earth's surface that is warming up from reduced cloud cover caused by the Sun's activity. So the warming is taking place on the earth itself not a result of more heat being trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases.

The conclusion is that there is no evidence that man-made CO2 causes global warming.

Patrick Moore, the ex-member and co-founder of Greenpeace highlighted that many former communist/socialist supporters moved into climate change activism following the collapse of the Berlin Wall as it fits their anti-capitalist agenda. Moore goes on to claim the climate change lobby's efforts to reduce CO2 are killing Africans, who have to burn fires inside their home, causing cancer and lung damage. This is because their Governments are being pressured to use wind and solar panels that are not capable of supplying the continent with electricity, instead of exploiting their own coal and oil reserves to fuel power stations that could.

Climate change and reducing CO2 emissions are a huge and powerful global industry and many careers and reputations are built on perpetuating the myth of man-made global warming. Academics who say global warming is natural and not man-made are being threatened and branded heretics by the "Global Warming" bandwagon. One scientist likened their treatment by climate change activists to "Holocaust Deniers" because the very credible theory they suggest could not possibly be true in the face of the activists publicly accepted propaganda over CO2 emissions.

I saw this programme and it... (Below threshold)
John Bray:

I saw this programme and it demonstates that politians and pressure groups with an hidden agenda are once again lying to all and sundry to further the particular goal. I am not a scientist and rely on informed comment from people who are in the know. Lazy reporting and biased media in favour of the model where man is responsible for global warming is realy starting to irritate. Out of this global warming issue it may make us think more about how we are abusing the plant and any thing done to curb pollution is necesary a good thing. But given the revelations from the programme aired British Television some needs to us the truth.

Can anyone set out how the "hockey stick" graph would fit the models being expounded in the programme.

The line the British government is taking is that it is using the present global warming debate to once and for all kill off British industry, and once again we will become a nation of shopkeepers and bankers (rhyming slang may apply).

The distinction between sci... (Below threshold)
Steven Johnson:

The distinction between science and propaganda is important. This show falls on the propaganda side of that distinction. Dorkin uses his own definition of manmade global warming, and doesn't check his definition with any of the scientists who see rising greenhouse gas as a serious and eventually dangerous problem. Dorkin also quotes at least two whose word cannot be trusted, Singer and Seitz. Singer's book spends only half a page on the potential effect of rising CO2 levels, disposing of it by quoting a "climatologist" who turns out to be a lignite geologist, who in turn was simply quoting from an email. Singer's not a truthful source.
I do think the evidence about solar radiation fluctuations may well be valid. That neither proves nor disproves the main point - that humanity cannot afford to burn up all its fossil fuels before we figure out some other form of energy. Doing so will raise atmospheric CO2 levels to six or eight times their pre-industrial norm. Do we wait till all fossil fuels are gone? Or do we make the change away from fossil fuels sooner? This show pretends fossil fuels are forever - they aren't. And it pretends massively higher concentrations of CO2 are irrelevant. All its arguments against greenhouse gas as a concern are backward looking; none of them look forward. Excess CO2 is now 36% higher than the pre-industrial norm, rising at 7% per decade, a rate that's accelerating. Excess CO2 will be twice the pre-industrial norm with the lifetimes of my children, in the 2060's. Can we really afford to go there? Not examined.
Also not examined - the lag time for warming, once CO2 rises. No one thinks higher CO2 causes instantly higher global temperature; the lag can be 30 to 50 years.
The core issue with modeling is fuzzed over. Modeling has two tasks - getting the overall heat rise right, and then getting the distribution right. The overall increase is a function of blackbody physics and restoring the earth's heat balance when higher levels of greenhouse gas are present in the atmosphere. The distribution of rising heat levels are a much more complex climate forecasting issue. Modeling takes on both, the overall increase, and the region by region climate consequences that follow from climate mixing. The overall heat balance change isn't nearly as hard to model as the region by region impact. That's where modeling is at its softest. The show doesn't clarify this difference at all.
The show is basically right to slam environmentalists for being anti-industry and anti-prosperity. They've had the challenge all wrong since the Club of Rome if not before. The real challenge is clean technology, and global prosperity based on clean technology. The challenge isn't less technology and less prosperity. Yuk. All the world needs a clean technology path to prosperity. And there are policy options that can take us toward a clean prosperity future, in which Africa prospers along with everyone else. Environmentalists, like the maker of this program, are also sloppy thinkers. They need to drop the "industry is bad" view of life and embrace a clean prosperity vision. Otherwise they won't deserve an audience.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy