The Great Global Warming Swindle

[mackerel sky]

Being an Earth Scientist involved in academic research at the minute, also having worked as a senior geophysicist in oil and gas exploration prior to going back to academia, and a long time ago considering a career in meteorology, this documentary in my opinion was very good. Certainly the difficulties faced in research when you are running uphill against the current flavours of the month. As was said, any research proposal even if involving squirels, add the term "global warming" and under the present climate, you are far more likely to get the funding. Its really sad, and a bad situation.

I currently work in earthquake research and when I went back into academia and left oil and gas exploration (which may return to) I had some people saying things like "I'm glad you've turned your back on polluting the atmosphere etc etc". I was angry before because I knew the content of the program and was and remain utterly unconvinced that man made CO2 is making little if no impact on our climate. I am a geophysicist, I work with geologists and volcanogists... like many others i'm annoyed that the winters of my childhood aren't as cold as they are now. I begrudging accept that and get on with it. I am annoyed that there is still a majority that choses to ignore the real scientific proof that manmade CO2 is not the driving factor behind global warming at this present time.

I also don't have an agenda. I'm against pollution that can affect health and the environment, but CO2 isn't toxic. In anycase, to appease the green lobby alot of research is being done into extracting the man made CO2 out of the atmosphere and putting it back into depleted reservoirs. It will make bog all difference. Not because the damage has been done, because the difference is so negligable in the long term.

Shoot me down. As I said earlier I found it ironic that Anglia News decided to have a special today on global warming, which was 20 minutes long with only 5 minutes news. I was mad about that, now I'm even madder.

[almac]

Belief/reason; let's be honest, that's nit-picking symantics. Do you believe in GW? After a spot of reasoning you probably do.

My gripe is about swallowing the whole GW line; this steadfast refusal to waiver in the face of any contrary evidence, no matter how slight.

Surely we owe it to ourselves not to have such closed minds.

Right, I'm off to bed now. Interesting thread. I suppose my main thrust - like the C4 programme - was to encourage more people to question what is scientifically 'accepted'. Just because an expert said something doesn't mean to say it's the truth. A perfect example came from the poster who earlier said no one questioned that the Earth wasn't flat until we found out it wasn't.

It's healthy to question those who ask questions of us. An open mind leads to progress - that is surely beyond doubt

[parmenides3]

I am annoyed that there is still a majority that choses to ignore the real scientific proof that manmade CO2 is not the driving factor behind global warming at this present time.

What real scientific proof would that be, then? Please provide a link to your evidence, as I have done to mine.

I'm not being disrespectful, Mackerel, but you're going to have to cash a statement like that in.

:)P

Glad to have a new voice on board, Almac; look forward to seeing more of your posts. Can I suggest that you read some of the material provided?

Good night.

:)P

Edited March 9, 2007 by parmenides3

[mackerel sky]

What real scientific proof would that be, then? Please provide a link to your evidence, as I have done to mine.

I'm not being disrespectful, Mackerel, but you're going to have to cash a statement like that in.

:)P

Glad to have a new voice on board, Almac; look forward to seeing more of your posts. Can I suggest that you read some of the material provided?

Good night.

:)P

I think it was simply put that man-made CO2 emissions are a drop in the ocean compared to volcanic eruptions, just as an example. Look, i'm not going to humour you or waste my time compiling lists of references. Global warming and cooling is well recorded in the geological record. You don't have to drill oil and gas for it to get to the surface, its been getting to the surface without us sticking a straw in.

Edited March 9, 2007 by mackerel sky

[almac]

Perhaps. as I have, you might want to dig out one or two of these papers: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...bs/ref2006.html

The point I am making should be obvious by now. I read the science. And I know how to spell semantics. And the distinction between belief and reason is not a matter of semantics, anyway. And who says I, or anybody for that matter, am swallowing the whole GW line? Let me make this simple; there is no contrary evidence. maybe one day there will be. After thirty years of struggle, though, by those who wish the world to be otherwise, there is still no contradictory evidence.

I do not have a closed mind. Ask anyone on NW. Even better, ask anyone who knows me. To me, the closed mind is the one which is incapable of reason.

:)P

You can read the abstracts for these, too. I'll confess, i've only read about a hundred of them: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/subproject_publications.php

:)P

Oops. Sorry. My fault. Semantics. I was in too much of a hurry to type.

'Let me make this simple; there is no contrary evidence.'

This kind of statement is what worries me. It's dogma (in my most humblest of opinions).

Goodnight all

[RedShift]

any research proposal even if involving squirels, add the term "global warming" and under the present climate, you are far more likely to get the funding. Its really sad, and a bad situation.

MS, I can concur with you, up to a point, here. NERC have recently gone a bit ‘climate change’ mad…I am currently applying for funding to have some rocks Ar/Ar dated for my research in Turkish Cretaceous tectonics…to stand a better chance of getting this I have to link my proposal to climate change!?! That said, the NERC has just altered its ‘priorities’ a bit and are encouraging more ‘geo’ earth science. All this though, against a backdrop (here at Edinburgh at least…don’t know about where you are) of ever less NERC funds being available. A few years ago we had about 7 or 8 for geology and geophysics alone, now we have 4 for all the Earth Sciences.

It always makes me laugh when I see the ‘Scientists in it for the money’ type rants on here…it really isn't that simple.

[mackerel sky]

MS, I can concur with you, up to a point, here. NERC have recently gone a bit ‘climate change’ mad…I am currently applying for funding to have some rocks Ar/Ar dated for my research in Turkish Cretaceous tectonics…to stand a better chance of getting this I have to link my proposal to climate change!?! That said, the NERC has just altered its ‘priorities’ a bit and are encouraging more ‘geo’ earth science. All this though, against a backdrop (here at Edinburgh at least…don’t know about where you are) of ever less NERC funds being available. A few years ago we had about 7 or 8 for geology and geophysics alone, now we have 4 for all the Earth Sciences.

It always makes me laugh when I see the ‘Scientists in it for the money’ type rants on here…it really isn't that simple.

I've sent you a PM.

[soft lad]

Excellently thought out first post, almac.

I just wonder how many more lurkers or posters agree with your sentiments.

another lurker here lol..add me to the list...i found it so refreshing to actually watch a program with a different view...also liked the bit about all the volcanos out there produce more co2 than all other living beings including cars and factories etc...for me i liked it as yes it presented to me what i believe to be taking place so i have to be happy!..as one of the guys on there said ..yes to global warming but not down to co2 or human input...from what was shown i firmly believe this to be the case..and i for one believe they put across a more convinceing representation compared to the pro GW guys!!!

as one member said on here it would be nice for the pro gang to come back with a program of their own to refute some of the statements such as the co2 which for me is as in the title of the program a SWINDLE!!!!......the media...the goverment..majority of scientists all jumping on board to the buzz phrase global warming...to get what THEY want!!!.......cant argue with what they have found...co2 has little if any impact on GW..another media fuelled craze to brain wash the masses for their own gain........next stop BIRD FLU!!!!!!!

just my take!

[HighPressure]

See to me if we could lock mackerel sky and Parmenides3 in the same room until they came to agreement then we might actually get somewhere, force them to look at each others aruments and challenge them rather than this 2 camp setup. Make them meet in no mans land and ceasefire for a while.

[osmposm]

I think it was simply put that man-made CO2 emissions are a drop in the ocean compared to volcanic eruptions, just as an example. Look, i'm not going to humour you or waste my time compiling lists of references.

I'm sorry you think giving references to evidence supporting your beliefs is "wasting your time". You're not only "humouring" Parmenides - generally a thoughtful & considered non-ranting poster - by replying to him, you're also being read and listened to by a host of far less knowledgeable people like me.

If you give references, then those of us trying to make up our minds about all this can read them, and without having to trawl through the web for hours with often limited success. Parmenides does give them, and I read them (well, some of them!). They seem a bit more convincing than some of the quick-and-easy pseudo science I saw rather too much of on TV this evening.

If you can't be bothered - or don't have any to give - then you can hardly blame people like me if we begin to think he might be right and you might be wrong!!

Edited March 9, 2007 by osmposm

[mackerel sky]

See to me if we could lock mackerel sky and Parmenides3 in the same room until they came to agreement then we might actually get somewhere, force them to look at each others aruments and challenge them rather than this 2 camp setup. Make them meet in no mans land and ceasefire for a while.

Don't get me wrong, there was an agenda clearly set by the programme maker. But it is the first time on terrestrial television alot of people will have been exposed to the rather dubious arguments which have been taken as read and embraced by the media at large. You had to see Anglia News tonight to believe it... the whole local news devoted to climate change. Forget a court case is going on about a man who killed his estranged wife and lover then burnt down their house. Nonsense, a women flying a kite next to a wind farm. There needs to be a stop to the media treating people like idiots and being forcefed what they think is the current flavour of the day. As shown quite well in that documentary, 30 years ago the same media was hyping up the onset of the next ice age.

I don't want to go on and on and on and on. The climate is warming, yes... but man's influence is very small in the grand scheme of things. We have far more chance of causing our dimise through other means.

I'm going to put up a notice in my front window now "No GW protesters please" to go with the "No Betterware Catalogues please".

The comments at the end of the documentary are very significant... Nigeria for example is in the top six of oil and gas producers, yet the wealth is being creamed off. There was a very good article in last month's National Geographic magazine. The GW argument is stifling the developing world and depriving them of the opportunites we had in the industrial revolution, sometimes internally through corruption but overwhelming externally,

Edited March 9, 2007 by mackerel sky

[mackerel sky]

For the record as well, before anyone else shoots me down again I went to see Al Gore's speech at the AGU in San Francisco last December. He was well recieved by climatologists and geophysicists alike. I can't recall any boos. But he isn't George Bush and has a few more brain cells.

Whilst the perspective had an undercurrent of GW, it was more focused that the current energy demands of the USA outstrips supply, so energy efficiency needs to hit home in the USA given the current climate in the Middle East.

So you can then explore Al Gore's agenda a bit further... if the US becomes "greener", they don't need to start pointless wars, again with a hidden agenda, in the Middle East to exploit their reserves. This appeals to the left wing, which is growing and the Republicans are out of power. And however they get there I don't mind as the world might become a safer place.

Edited March 9, 2007 by mackerel sky

[mackerel sky]

And one last thing about that documentary.

It is easy to "massage" data and tweak it to the ends of a hypothesis and pander to egos and preconceived ideas.

As was pointed out and I think this is a massively important point in some of these models you tweak them to be sensationalist. That gets media coverage. With most mathematical models it is possible to "massage" it to suit the flavour of the day, whether through ignoring or fudging data and adjusting parameters.

That doesn't advance science.

Get it into the press and it snowballs.

Goodnight all. I hope I haven't rubbed too many people up the wrong way.

Edited March 9, 2007 by mackerel sky

[mackerel sky]

I'm sorry you think giving references to evidence supporting your beliefs is "wasting your time". You're not only "humouring" Parmenides - generally a thoughtful & considered non-ranting poster - by replying to him, you're also being read and listened to by a host of far less knowledgeable people like me.

If you give references, then those of us trying to make up our minds about all this can read them, and without having to trawl through the web for hours with often limited success. Parmenides does give them, and I read them (well, some of them!). They seem a bit more convincing than some of the quick-and-easy pseudo science I saw rather too much of on TV this evening.

If you can't be bothered - or don't have any to give - then you can hardly blame people like me if we begin to think he might be right and you might be wrong!!

I'm sorry I missed this as it was at the bottom of the page. I've tried to get some of the articles linked in but they are infriging copyright by attaching pdfs etc. I have to download them then attach them here. I can't do that. You need Athens to get at them or be a subscribing member of the societies in general. I will look for them in other places on the internet because often people put their articles online if they are current or in for peer review.

Its difficult at the best of times to find all the references you want.

If you look at the time of this post you can appreciate I take it very seriously. I'm trying for you.

Edited March 9, 2007 by mackerel sky

[mackerel sky]

I suppose scanning stuff and attaching would be out of the question. EOS isn't online unfortunately.

The link to the AGU abstracts from the fall meeting has gone now. You could burn an ISO CD and wade through it at your leisure (GW was a huge theme). And see my uninteresting abstract on the causes of British earthquakes. No one cares about that. Unfortunately the link has expired.

Cheerio!

Edited March 9, 2007 by mackerel sky

[VillagePlank]

Just because enviromentalists hijack AGW to justify their own agendas, doesn't have anything to do with whether the science is sound or valid.

. . . just because oil-barons highjack non-AGW to justify their own agendas, doesn't have anything to do with whether the science is sound or valid . . . :unsure:

[Gray-Wolf]

Do you know what? I saw the opening titles and promptly fell to sleep! I wonder if I have been saved? I'm sure I'll see it on 'discovery' ad infinitum though and, from what I've read here, I'll not enjoy it (I worry I'm turning into my Father when I start to yell at the T.V.........at least it isn't Ted Heath I'm yelling at!!!!).

[Habsish]

An interesting if shallow programme if for no other reason it made some attempt to show an alternative line of thought. For many GW is a big concern but also a frustration at the inability to deal with it. Should I plant a tree after I have driven down the shops or how many trees should Tony Blair and George Bush plant for having a war? Then again there is China who probably wipes out all our good efforts and more in a day by their industrialisation.

It makes you feel why as the little man should I do anything?

Warming (short or long term) is occurring and you have only to look out of window at the early blossom to be convinced.

The big question is Man the one mainly causing it and realistically can anything be done about it?

Regards

Habsish

[Mondy]

What I found most convincing:

1. The way it all started.

It was one, widely derrided/deluded, Swedish scientist suggesting that the influence of CO2 might stop and reverse global cooling, although he said how speculative this was, he was very uncertain. He also suggested the possibility that it might cause temperature rise. Mrs Thatcher decided that this was an argument in favour of nuclear power, which she supported, so she funded research.

As global socialism fell, and was proved a catastrophy, those involved had to find a new way to oppose capitalism and industrialisation! CO2 is produced by all industry and by that symbol of capitalism and the freedom socialism so opposes, ie private transport, they piled into the environmental movement en masse.

2. Warming is not caused by increasing greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases (primarily water vapour, but many others) absorbing longer wavelengths of EM radiation emitted by the earth more than the shorter wavelengths incoming from the sun. This causes warming of the atmosphere, which in turn makes the surface warmer.

Only the surface is warming more quickly than the layers of the amosphere that do this. All the models predict greatest warming at about 33,000 ft (or 10000m!). That is not the observation.

This kills the idea that CO2 or any other greenhouse gas has caused the observed increase in temperature. That is then shown almost certainly to be false as the models of the greenhouse effect stand. As the whole idea is based on those models, the idea is wrong.

3. The(damn) lies of the IPCC!

The programme interviewed a specialist in tropical disease, discussing the idea that global warming would cause some of them to spread, with particular reference to malaria. He had been one ofthe scientists in the IPCC, but had resigned.

The IPCC report said that malaria would spread because the mosquitos that carried it could not thrive if winter temperatures were below 16-18C. This scientist pointed out that one of the worst epedemics ever, killing 600,000, had happened in Russia. 10,000 had died out of 30,000 cases in Archangel*!

This then was a lie. A blatant lie, that they were told was a lie. Not only that but they included that scientist's name on the paper, despite his resignation. He complained, they said he had contributed, despite their having ignored his contribution entirely. He had to threaten legal action to have his name removed!

It gets worse! He said that he knew several others who had also resigned because their work had been ignored. How many of the 2500 supposed authors actually agreed with the report??

4. The trickery of the IPCC

Several clauses in the briefing from the IPCC were removed after it was agreed. Each of these was a caveat, warning of uncertainties or of assumptions, so the final briefing was far more confident than that the scientists had compiled.

The UN were accused of bias and corruption for this. They denied that, saying the clauses were removed at the request of "individual scientists, governments and Non-Goverment types". Which as far as I can see is a damned good definition of bias and corruption.

5. The data

The graph of solar activity against temperature for the last 150 years is a close fit. They also showed a longer-term graph which fits just as well. The CO2 graph over the last 150 years fit very poorly.

Even more interesting was when they compared the CO2 to temperature on a longer term, hundreds of thousands of years. They fit really quite well, except that the CO2 lagged temperature by an order of about 800 years. This clearly shows that temperature changes cause CO2 changes rather than the other way around, and that the oceans are involved because 800 years is the right order of magnitude for their lag in temperature behind the atmosphere. An example of the North Atlantic was given.

The oceans hold CO2, and can hold less if the temperature is higher, so release it. As temperature drops they absorb it.

6. The results of climate hysteria in less developed parts of the world.

I know it was television, and they can manipulate emotions, but they have a point as well. The side-by-side style of self-satisfied environmentalists with impoverished Africans brought home what destruction this panic could cause.

Arrogant, self-serving hypocrits try to keep the undeveloped world that way.

*According to the BBC average February temperature -10 to -18C.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Mondy

[Devonian]

What I found most convincing:

1. The way it all started.

It was one, widely derrided/deluded, Swedish scientist suggesting that the influence of CO2 might stop and reverse global cooling, although he said how speculative this was, he was very uncertain. He also suggested the possibility that it might cause temperature rise.

...

Arrogant, self-serving hypocrits try to keep the undeveloped world that way.

*According to the BBC average February temperature -10 to -18C.

You've not heard of Ahrhennius then?

As to the 'lies', 'trickery' and 'hypochrites'. Sorry but they're just insults - the first one particularily hurtful. I'm NOT spreading an lie and I deeply resent anyone who implies peolple like me who accept what the IPCC say are :unsure: . They included his name becuase,...he had contributed - bloody obvious! But, you convict having only listened to the evidence for the prosectution...

Are you a liar? No of course you are not! Neither, thankyou very much, am I or other 'warmer's. OK? Please distance yourself from the 'liar' ad hom will you and try to find some science we can chew on??? These debate a far better if such inflamatory language is not used.

[smich]

Well, I guess I'm one of those weak minded types, because I found the Al Gore film compelling and last night's programme quite convincing too!! :unsure:

Thank you PM3 for all those links and references - plenty for us all to read there. I'm reminded of the question I gave you for your climate blog a month or two back ---- "What should we make of the media's handling of the GW issue?"!!!!!

Whatever the arguments for and against, it has to be said that the jury is still out, and will be for a long time if politics is going to interfere with science.

It seems the universe is made of just 3 things: energy, matter and enlightened self interest.

smich

[VillagePlank]

You've not heard of Ahrhennius then?

As to the 'lies', 'trickery' and 'hypochrites'. Sorry but they're just insults - the first one particularily hurtful. I'm NOT spreading an lie and I deeply resent anyone who implies peolple like me who accept what the IPCC say are . They included his name becuase,...he had contributed - bloody obvious! But, you convict having only listened to the evidence for the prosectution...

Are you a liar? No of course you are not! Neither, thankyou very much, am I or other 'warmer's. OK? Please distance yourself from the 'liar' ad hom will you and try to find some science we can chew on??? These debate a far better if such inflamatory language is not used.

Hey! That's personal. This is no the place for that. :unsure:

You'd have to admit, however, in the context of the programme the IPCC was not represented in the best light, though, eh? They really need to defend, as you say, their usage of names that didn't want to appear. In your analogy we need to hear the evidence for the defence.

I, a juror, will sit and listen.

Edited March 9, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Hey! That's personal. This is no the place for that.

Which was my point - using the L word makes it personnal. You clearly didn't like it, why would I (as a IPPC 'suporter') like it? That was my point :unsure: I DID NOT accuse anyone of lying, I pointed out that I don't like allegations of lying. OK???

You'd have to admit, however, in the context of the programme the IPCC was not represented in the best light, though, eh? They really need to defend, as you say, their usage of names that didn't want to appear. In your analogy we need to hear the evidence for the defence.

I, a juror, will sit and listen.

I rekon they put his name in becuase he did contribute. He wanted his contribution removed but that doesn't alter the truth - he did contribute. Possible?

Edited March 9, 2007 by Devonian

[jethro]

Just a thought folks, there is a thread for naysayers links stuffed with links to back up/reinforce doubts and questions from the doubters point of view. There has been a thread for a few days now for the pro AGW side to post their links to do the same, why is it still empty?

[Devonian]

Just a thought folks, there is a thread for naysayers links stuffed with links to back up/reinforce doubts and questions from the doubters point of view. There has been a thread for a few days now for the pro AGW side to post their links to do the same, why is it still empty?

Dunno. It proves what? You want me to fill it up? Can't now (must, simply must, go and do some work :unsure: ), but I can if you so wish