Skip to comments.PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE (Did GGWS present inaccurate information?)
Posted on 03/25/2007 7:55:15 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
The Scientists Are The Bad Guys On March 8, Channel 4 screened The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that branded as a lie the scientific consensus that man-made greenhouse gasses are primarily responsible for climate change.
The film was advertised extensively on Channel 4 and repeatedly previewed and reviewed in newspapers. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker declared:
Only very rarely can a TV documentary be seen as a pivotal moment in a major political debate, but such was Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle last Thursday. Never before has there been such a devastatingly authoritative account of how the hysteria over global warming has parted company with reality. (Booker, A turning point in climate change, Sunday Telegraph, March 11, 2007)
Peter Hitchens commented in the Daily Mail:
If you were worried about those snaps of polar bears clinging to melting ice-floes, sentenced to a slow death by global warming, you may now relax. They'll be fine. Channel 4 has paid in full for its recent misdemeanours by screening, last Thursday, the brilliant, devastating film The Great Global Warming Swindle. (Hitchens, Drugs?, Daily Mail, March 11, 2007)
Doubtless like many who saw the film, the Financial Times reviewer was left bewildered:
Not so long ago, the venerable David Attenborough on the Beeb was telling us that human-driven global warming was real and was coming for us. So that was settled. Now Channel 4, like a dissident schoolboy, is scoffing at the old boy's hobbyhorse and I don't know what to believe. (Slaughterhouse three, Financial Times, March 10, 2007)
The film opened with scenes of wild weather and environmental disaster accompanied by dramatic captions:
"THE ICE IS MELTING. THE SEA IS RISING. HURRICANES ARE BLOWING. AND ITS ALL YOUR FAULT.
SCARED? DON'T BE. IT'S NOT TRUE."
This was immediately followed by a series of equally forthright talking heads:
"We can't say that CO2 will drive climate; it certainly never did in the past."
We imagine that we live in an age of reason. And the global warming alarm is dressed up as science. But its not science; its propaganda.
Were just being told lies; thats what it comes down to.
The commentary added to the sense of outrage: You are being told lies.
This was indeed superficially impressive - when several experts make bold statements on the same theme we naturally assume they must be onto something - but alarm bells should already have been ringing. This, after all, was ostensibly a film about science - about evidence, arguments, research and debate. Why, then, the language of polemic and smear?
The remarkable answer is provided by the films writer and director, Martin Durkin:
"I think it [the film] 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. ('Global Warming Is Lies Claims Documentary, Life Style Extra, March 4, 2007; www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669 U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_ claims_documentary)
Compare and contrast this with the aim as described in a letter sent by the makers of the film, Wag TV, to Professor Carl Wunsch, a leading expert on ocean circulation and climate who subsequently appeared in the film:
The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth. (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response)
"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled." (Geoffrey Lean, Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4, The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/ climate_change/article2347526.ece)
We will hear more from Wunsch in what follows.
Deeply Deceptive The film presented viewers with an apparently devastating refutation of the "theory of global warming". And these were not picky, esoteric criticisms. Durkin insisted that the worlds climate scientists are guilty of the most fundamental error imaginable: increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the cause of higher temperature, as the experts claim. Quite the reverse: increasing atmospheric CO2 is itself the result of rising temperature.
As evidence for this contention, Durkin argued that global surface temperature dropped dramatically between 1945-1975, at a time when CO2 emissions were rapidly rising as a result of the postwar economic boom. According to Durkin, if CO2 emissions were responsible for increasing temperature, then temperature should not have fallen between 1945-1975. Clearly, then, some factor other than CO2 emissions must have caused the subsequent global temperature rise.
But Real Climate, an internet site run by climate scientists, such as NASAs Dr Gavin Schmidt and Dr William Connelley of the British Antarctic Survey, describes Durkins discussion of the 1945-75 period as deeply deceptive. (Real Climate, March 9, 2007; www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2007/03/swindled)
In this section of the film, Durkin focused heavily on a graph depicting temperature changes. The graph, Real Climate comments, looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected. It appears to show a dramatic cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping between the films version of the global temperature record (shown above left) and the temperature plot that normally appears in the scientific literature (shown above right) The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.
Without knowing more details of how Durkin may have manipulated the data plotted in his graph, it is difficult to comment on the presentation. What we can say is that Durkins "four decades of cooling", implying a relentless temperature drop over 40 years, is not an accurate description of the trend over this period. There was some cooling for +part+ of this time but also some plateauing, with fluctuations up and down.
But why did the temperature not simply rise in line with the post-war increase in greenhouse gas emissions?
In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere. These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as global dimming. By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2. By the 1980s, however, stronger warming had exceeded this masking effect and global temperature has since continued to rise. As Real Climate notes, by failing to explain the science behind this phenomenon the programme makers were guilty of lying to us by omission.
The Ice Cores The film repeatedly gave the impression that mainstream science argues that CO2 is the sole driver of rising temperatures in the Earth's climate system. But this is not the case. Climate scientists are well aware that solar activity plays a role, though a minor one at present, as do long-term periodic changes in the Earth's orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)
The point is that there is a vast body of evidence that very strongly supports the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the most important, are primarily responsible for recent global warming. The 4th and most recent scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes:
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [.i.e. probability greater than 90%] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." ('Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,' Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, February 2007, page 10; www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)
We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments. Antarctic ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years behind temperature rises at specific times in the geological past. This, argued Durkin, +proves+ that CO2 cannot be responsible for global warming - instead global warming is responsible for increasing levels of CO2. But this was a huge howler.
What Durkin's film failed to explain was that the 800-year lag happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years. (See: www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores)
Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic change in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains why the rise in CO2 initially lags behind the temperature rise:
"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend." (Real Climate, 'What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?, December 3, 2005; www.realclimate.org/index.php /archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/)
The best current explanation for the lag of 800 years is that this is how long it takes for CO2, absorbed by the ocean in an earlier warm period, to be "flushed out" at the end of an ice age. Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback. (See Caillon et al., 'Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III,' Science, 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731)
Professor Severinghaus summarises:
"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway."
Durkins analysis, then, was way off the mark.
The films claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility. In September 2006, the Times reported the latest findings from researchers writing in the top journal, Nature:
Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. The solar contribution to warming... is negligible, the researchers wrote in the journal Nature. (Anjana Ahuja, It's hot, but don't blame the Sun, The Times, September 25, 2006)
The film's other scientific claims can be similarly dismissed. Carl Wunsch - who, as discussed, appeared in the film - comments:
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation. (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)
For further help in understanding the weakness of the films claims, see the following resources:
Real Climate, 'Swindled', http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled
Campaign Against Climate Change, including a rebuttal to the film by Sir John Houghton, who chairs the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820
Royal Society: Facts and fictions about climate change: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761
I Was Duped - Déjà Vu? Many readers will be aware that Durkin has previous form. In 1997, Channel 4 broadcast his three-part series, Against Nature, which suggested present-day environmentalists were the true heirs of the Nazis. (See George Monbiot, The Revolution Has Been Televised, The Guardian, December 18, 1997; www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/ 12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/)
Several interviewees who appeared in the film felt they had been misled about the programme-makers agenda. Responding to complaints, the Independent Television Commission (ITC) found that the editing of interviews with four contributors had "distorted or misrepresented their known views". (Geoffrey Lean, Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4, The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/ environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece)
In addition, the ITC found: "The interviewees had also been misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part." (Paul McCann, Channel 4 told to apologise to Greens, The Independent, April 2, 1998)
Ten years on, it appears that history may have repeated itself. In his letter of complaint to the film-makers cited above, Carl Wunsch writes:
I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the Global Warming Swindle is deeply embarrassing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.
At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest. (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)
Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.
Greenpeace provides a fascinating online map detailing how Exxon funds these climate sceptics. Go to: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ index.php?mapid=831 (click Launch then click skip intro)
In his book, Green Backlash, environmental journalist Andrew Rowell noted that Fred Singer has also attacked scientific and environmental stances on other green issues such as ozone, acid rain, automobile emissions and even whaling. Singer has worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun.
According to the Environmental Research Foundation, a non-governmental organisation:
For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change. (Quoted, Sharon Beder, Global Spin, Green Books, 1997, p.94)
Rowell wrote that a quarter of Patrick Michaels research funding was reportedly received from companies such as Edison Electric Institute, the largest utility trade association in America. Michaels magazine, World Climate Review, was funded by the Western Fuel Association and a video produced by him was funded by coal companies and distributed by the Denver Coal Club. (Rowell, Green Backlash, Routledge, 1996, p.143)
Both Singer and Michaels represented the fossil fuel lobbys Global Climate Coalition and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leader in global warming scepticism.
Journalist Ross Gelbspan noted that in May 1995, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. Gelbspan said of Lindzen:
I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth. That's not to say Dr Lindzen doesn't believe what he says, but it is to say that he stands in very sharp distinction to really just about virtually all of the climate scientists around the world. (Tony Jones, Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 7, 2005; www.abc.net.au/lateline/ content/2005/s1318067.htm)
Journalist George Monbiot wrote of Philip Stott:
Professor Stott is a retired biogeographer. Like almost all the prominent sceptics he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change. But he has made himself available to dismiss climatologists' peer-reviewed work as the lies of ecofundamentalists. (Monbiot, Beware the fossil fools, The Guardian, April 27, 2004; http://environment.guardian.co.uk/ climatechange/story/0,,1829315,00.html)
Paul Driessen is a fellow at two right-wing think tanks in the US, which are part of the Wise Use movement. One of the think tanks is headed by Ron Arnold, who has spent the last twenty years attacking the environmental movement. His fellow director is a fundraiser for America's gun lobby. The list goes on...
By contrast, Greenpeace spokeswoman Mhairi Dunlop said her organisation had been interviewed by Durkin but none of the material had been included in the film:
"They interviewed us but I guess what we said didn't fit in with the [story] they were peddling." (McCandless, op. cit)
Following the films broadcast, Professor Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society - the government-sponsored academy of sciences for the United Kingdom - has said that many factors contribute to global warming but it is clear that emissions of "greenhouse gases," particularly CO2, are to blame for most of the current temperature rise. Rees added:
"Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future." (Ibid)
On March 11 the Observer published a letter from a group of climate scientists responding to Durkins film:
This programme misrepresented the state of scientific knowledge on global warming, claiming climate scientists are presenting lies. This is an outrageous statement...
We defend the right of people to be sceptical, but for C4 to imply that the thousands of scientists and published peer-reviewed papers, summarised in the recent international science assessment, are misguided or lying lacks scientific credibility and simply beggars belief. (Alan Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council, Brian Hoskins, University of Reading, Jo Haigh, Imperial College London, Myles Allen, University of Oxford, Peter Cox, University of Exeter, Colin Prentice, QUEST Programme, letter to the Observer, Sunday March 11, 2007; http://observer.guardian.co.uk/ letters/story/0,,2031117,00.html)
Viewed from one perspective, Channel 4 has done a huge public disservice in spreading absurd and mendacious arguments guaranteed to generate confusion. This at a time when a fragile momentum is building on the need to take urgent action on the very real threat of catastrophic climate change.
But from another perspective it may well be that this film does for climate scepticism what Tony Blairs dodgy dossiers did for the pro-war movement ahead of the invasion of Iraq. Wildly distorted propaganda often does have a powerful initial impact. But stretched beyond a certain point of unreality, it also has a tendency to turn on, and bite, the propagandists.
Durkins grandiose prediction that his film will go down in history will surely prove correct, although perhaps not for the reasons he imagined.
Funny you should say that. Ironic.
This article is a classic case of obfuscation; no refutation of facts; simply links to sites already known to be on the "socialist agenda" side of things.
Or trolling for grants.
Any fair minded individual with more than two brain cells to rub together would be unable to watch crap like Global warming, what you need to know without feeling embarrassed. All of the images shown for dramatic effect are totally unrelated to the words being delivered.
On the other hand, I have not heard a single reputable peer criticise the statements made by respected real scientists in the Great Swindle program.
Polar bears are simply white bears. The polar bear alarmists conveniently leave out the fact that polar bear populations have exploded. They are more likely to die off from over population than from such idiotic claims as "global warming.
If you you were to listen to the claims of these "save the polar bear" fanatics, you'd think polar bears ate nothing but seals only a short part of the year (when they give birth on the pack ice) the rest of the time, polar bears eat nothing.
Nothing could be further from the truth. polar bears are like all bears in every way. The forage and eat whatever they can catch or find. They fish like grizzlies, eat more reindeer probably more than they do seal) ducks, geese, eggs berries etc.
It's all part of the global warming scam that the WWF is doing their fair share of promoting, politics this NGO shouldn't even be participating in. But of course, the WWF is managed by some of the worlds most Ultra-Marxist activists, like Maurice Strong, as are many other NGO's run by carefully hand picked (by strong) Marxist world government wanna be's.
It is a little boring at the beginning, but it gets much better later on with real facts, real graphs etc.
Be sure to watch the whole thing.
For those who missed the link:
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Complete)
Have the heretic researches all been excommunicated?
I would like these "scientists" to explain how CO2 gets around the 2nd law of thermal dynamics too.
If co2 is such an efficient thermal energy gas, achieving over unity as they claim, ( by producing more heat than it can store and is released when co2 is formed) it could solve the whole worlds energy problems.
These "scientists" have some 'splainin' to do.
Ww! I knew I should have saved that info. I'll have to look for it. I'm not even sure where I read it .. I just know I was really surprised by the large number.
You might check over at the Rush Limbaugh site - he has a lot of the global warming stuff.
Sorry but I'm not seeing how their model violates the 2nd law or thermodynamics. Could you give me a quick summary.
"He played on our fears" Al Gore and global warming
February 2, 2007
"He betrayed this country!" Al Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats "He played on our fears."
Some believe that Al Gore is using junk science for political traction, while frightening many school age children and adults. The agenda driven media is helping Gore spread his folly.
Gore's quotes against President Bush on an entirely different subject could most certainly be applied to Gore when he talks about global warming.
There are climate changes, but are they abnormal or just part of a normal earthly cycle? The changes can not be proven with junk science theories that blame man and his use of CO2 carbons.
If you want to join the George Noory Coast to Coast AM radio "Shadow people" believers then be a fool's guest. This is a radio show that discusses outrageous psychobabble. Global warming is a hot topic but unfounded truth. Noory also discusses the paranormal, including flying saucers and ghostly "Shadow people." Noory is merely another Art Bell. "Want to take a ride" with two men who doublespeak?
Henny Penny is an old fable of unknown origin about a chicken who believed the sky was falling. Those who tend to look at Al Gore's theories fall into the same category.
A new, IPCC report, is nothing more than guesses and theories. However, it was written by people with the same misguided mind set as Al Gore. An actual scientific report on global warming will be released in May. The scientific report will hopefully put an end to the all un-provable notions. However, Al Gore will use the attention given to him to further his politics. Mr. Gore is slated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize and has been nominated for an Oscar.
Whether you are a person of faith or not, it appears that, when all is said and done, true science will not support Al Gore's contention of global warming.
Unfortunately, the mainstream, far left media would rather promote falsehoods than give the truth. They would rather ramble on about ten years of make believe dire consequences as the world suffers from climactic changes. There are real problems this world is facing, including Islamic terrorism.
Excerpts from Associated Press:
"U.N. Climate Change Report Sparks Heated Reaction Among U.S. Lawmakers, Activists
"WASHINGTON Despite a strongly worded global warming report from the world's top climate scientists, the Bush administration expressed continued opposition Friday to mandatory reductions in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman warned against "unintended consequences" including job losses that he said might result if the government requires economy-wide caps on carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
" 'There is a concern within this administration, which I support, that the imposition of a carbon cap in this country would may lead to the transfer of jobs and industry abroad (to nations) that do not have such a carbon cap,' Bodman said. 'You would then have the U.S. economy damaged, on the one hand, and the same emissions, potentially even worse emissions. ' "
"President Bush used the same economic reasoning when he rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, an international treaty requiring 35 industrial nations to cut their global-warming gases by 5 percent on average below 1990 levels by 2012. The White House has said the treaty would have cost 5 million U.S. jobs. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249822,00.html
Excerpts from ChristianAnswers.net:
© Copyright 2007 by Marie Jon'
Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. The solar contribution to warming... is negligible, the researchers wrote in the journal Nature. (Anjana Ahuja, It's hot, but don't blame the Sun, The Times, September 25, 2006)
So, the Sun, our source of heat; our furnace, if you will; the thing that provides us with sufficient warmth that life may flourish on this planet and without which we would all freeze to death, couldn't possibly have anything to do with global climate change. Right. Talk about beggaring belief. Solar "proxies" were looked at over a period of 1,000 years. What does that mean? Satellites over the past 30 years? Which satellites? Communications? Spy? What? Add to this the fact that they simply dismiss it out of hand throwing out this quote and then quickly moves on to another topic.
What really convinces me that anthropogenic GW supporters are wrong, is their uncanny imitation of those in history who threw other scientists in jail or burnt them at the stake for disagreeing with the orthodoxy. Their arguments are highly emotional and utterly violate the Scientific Method. They shriek like the pod people from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" when they discover someone who dares to question their conclusions. And then there's the fact that they all come up with the same solution: Government regulation. More money into their coffers. More taxes. The world's Capitalists are to blame!! We must punish the Capitalists!! We need more government control of the means of production! We need Socialism!! That is the consensus they're really talking about.
The above author claims that Channel 4's show contained "the language of polemic and smear." And yet, in the "scholarly" rebuttal that follows, the author relies heavily on just that kind of language, citing journalists and true believers in the Anthropogenic GW community whose chief argument against those who participated in the film is "they're paid off by Big Oil." Then, the author really tips his or her hat at the end when he or she claims that Blair falsified pre-war intelligence. That's an argument from the Left. No objectivity there. This is agenda driven science, which is no science at all. Rationality and reason indeed.
I just had a "heated" debate with my daugher-in-law who watched the movie and whose first impression was that these guys are bitter. She took environmental science at college but couldn't really refute the movies claims, but said the scientists were nobodies or were wrong according to her textbook (which she will show me eventually). People can get very emotional about this stuff.
That's one of the things that puzzles me. The emotionalism.
You'd think the world was coming to an end or something.
Global warming will expand the temperate zone and the growing seasons. It will unlock glaciated areas to agriculture. It will allow freer navigation in the Northern Hemisphere.
It's true that wide areas which are low-lying will have to be abandoned, but we will have centuries to accommodate the migrations.
It's not the end of the world. It's just change.
It is BS, back then China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc weren't as industrialized as they are today, so there are actually more "sulphate aerosols" being released today in the world then there was back then when it was basically just us, yet the Earth isn't cooling.
THis photo was taken by NASA in 2005, of Aerosol pollution over Northern India and Bangladesh
I mean I get emotional when people deny the moon landing say.
I am all for scientific process and proper handling of this issue, but many are quick to blame it on humanity and to jump to conclusions of future doom and demand drastic actions be taken. Or as with Gore, riding a political surfboard on the global warming caused by man wave. A wave he helps create and profits from. That is not science.
People with degrees hard earned can be quite condesending and judgmental when you challenge them.
I demand reasonable scientific proof humans cause it, and even then, nobody can predict the future, they cannot claim to know the things they do that have not happened yet. Nobody has that power. They cannot predict the next three days weather accurately, let alone 100 years. They blew the hurricane predictions last year too. How can we trust that crappy record of prediction?
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore
"over-representation of factual presentations" is clearly NOT science and truly manipulative politics of fear.
My mistake the photo is from 2001 not 2005. But the arguement still stands. Nothing in the 1940's-1970's approched anywhere near as bad as that.
You got that right! This article is PURE propaganda. It is meant to deflect, and confuse the issue. What the Left does is try to confuse and bully. Look how they try to make it seem that they are pure and are not paid for their answers, and make a mountain out of a mole hill.
The following attacks Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels by mentioning some money they may or may not have gotten, meanwhile no mention is make of the BILLIONS spent by Socialist Governments to prove a manmade connection to global warming. Journalist Ross Gelbspan noted that in May 1995, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities
Another explanation of the flowing I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Is you dont bite the hand the feeds you. If youre getting BILLIONS to prove manmade global warming, you dont attract or support those that disagree because you WILL get your funding close.
Like the other Manmade or Anthropogenic Global Warming pushers, this article STATES NOT FACTS. All it does is attack the messenger without substantiating there claims. When they cant find a legitimate scientific fact they make one up. Look at this lie In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere. WELL KNOW? BY WHO? The term sulphate aerosols is a new made up term by the Global Warming pushers, which you will not find in any publication prior to about 1995. The problem is that Sulfates are salts that contain a charged group of sulfur and oxygen atoms: SO , the basic constituent of sulfuric acid. The biggest contributor of Sulfur is Volcanos, but if they said that then they could not blame man, and again any global warming would be natural. Also, funny how they start in 1945 with the sulphate aerosols. Lets see what happened big in the world around that time. Oh yea, WWII. In which just about all the worlds manufacturing was destroyed except for those in the USA. So, you see again its only the fault of the USA for Global Warming. Funny how they did not mention the big coal mine fire in China that has been polluting for about 80 years. Could it be that one its not in the USA, and two its natural?
Notice that Al Gores film is the total truth and the Great Global Warming Swindle (GGWS) is deeply deceptive? At the beginning they talk about the polar bears, but never state that GGWS was correct and Al Gore had it wrong. No instead of arguing facts they state interviewees had also been misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes making the makers of the film appear to be unethical and therefore nothing in the film should be considered. This is right out of the STALINIST hand book, by making the scientist in the film to appear to be either mislead or tricked, or worse paid off by big what ever the evil corporations du jour is.
The writers should be subjected to ridicule, and the readers should start to realize when they are being played by this Marxist propaganda.
There's something about this that doesn't make sense to me.
Energy doesn't just disappear. These particles wouldn't be able to brake solar energy without getting hotter themselves. Since these partcles come in direct contact with either the rest of the atmosphere or with the the earth itself, the heat they absorbed would get transferred to the earth anyway. So it seems to me that whatever heat that's missing from the solar energy that was "braked" would be made up for by the heat from these very particles.
Look at CO2 like a Stockmarket Analist would. It is a "trailing indicator". It confirms what HAS HAPPENED.
It has never been a valid PREDICTOR.
I am still trying to grapple with the fact that I am a member of a species that would even consider 'cavalierly dismissing' the sun.
Is our species really this dumb ?
Thanks I will report back<;o))
The quote below is from:
It was on the home page Feb 2 2007. They archive their articles so it is probably there now.
My comment in the article: This is remarkable. It, the IPCC Working Group, is stating that the actual report due in 3 months will be edited to agree with the summary issued today (Feb 2)!
"As everyone is probably by now aware, Friday, February 2, 2007 marks the release of the IPCC's political document: Assessment Report 4, Summary for Policymakers. The media seem to be operating under the misapprehension this is equivalent to the release of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis -- this is regrettably neither true nor even close to the truth.
Bizarrely, the actual report will be retained for another three months to facilitate editing -- to suit the summary! IPCC procedures state that: Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15) -- this is surely unacceptable and would not be tolerated in virtually any other field (witness the media frenzy because language was allegedly altered in some US climate reports).
Under the circumstances we feel we have no choice but to publicly release the second-order draft report documents so that everyone has at least the chance to compare the summary statements with the underlying documentation. It should not be necessary for us to break embargo and post raw drafts for you to verify a summary of publicly funded documentation (tax payers around the world have paid billions of dollars for this effort -- you own it and you should be able to access it).
Reluctantly then, here is the link to our archive copy of the second-order draft of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. The second-order draft was distributed in 2006, 5 years into what has so far been a 6 year process and these copies were archived last May."
reminds me of the great Dupont Freon Swindle of the 1980's......
ggws left a mark!
now the charges of neo-conservative (what the phuck is that?) against the scientists
exactly as predicted - the left resorts to personal attacks and smears to support their lies
bury the cockroaches
class, each planet in the solar system is now reacting similar to earth
what is it that is common among all the planets in our solar system?
is their some kind of link, commonality, association, that all the planets in our solar system share?
this pig of an author is dripping with disdain for the iraq war, blair, and conservatives
the media is the enemy of truth, reason and freedom
this is war
About the only way the aerosol particles could contribute to cooling would be if they reflected light particles (solar energy) away from the planet. But as the earlier poster stated and demonstrated with an image, the Far East (population ~2 Billion) is pumping out more aerosol pollutants then us capitalistic Americans (200-300 million) did a few decades ago. So no warming should be occurring now if these aerosols caused cooling a few decades ago. Besides, if an increase in retained energy or heat was the primary affect we are currently experiencing, we should not be setting any new cold temperature records. Yet, we did here a few months ago. Also had snow on the ground for the first time in about 25 years. This was followed 4 weeks later by new heat records. Strange extremes indeed. My guess would be that energetic input is the primary current affect. Mostly caused by increased solar radiation along with some increase in human produced energy. So we have some general warming along with stronger extremes in winter and summer. I think in the short run perhaps dealing with the extremes is going to be more important then dealing with a slight warming trend which may not last very long.
media lens casts a jaded eye at corporations
corporations, you see, are the cause of human suffering
as much credibility as co2 causes global warming
we are at war freepers, and it is time to attack these scumbags with extreme prejudice, relentlessly
ridicule these fools at every turn with questions like:
if this is the warmest since the 1800's, what caused the rise in temperature then? they didn't have suv's, did they?
when i was in school, i was taught that glaciers once covered much of north america, and even created the great lakes when they melted - why did the glaciers form, and why did they eventually melt? how did that happen without man's intervention in the past?
if the planet is too hot, why are some places like china getting colder? what is the right temperature of the earth? who gets to control the world's thermostat?
???? What about all that water vapor? What about all those other so-called greenhouse gases of which C02 is one of the least percentage wise? How do they come to that conclusion.
I wished that the interviewer had told her that you need cold to turn that moisture into snow. But alas, there was no such followup.
Much too gross an oversimplification. When a glacial-interglacial or interglacial-glacial transition is initiated, many factors are in place such that, when a trend is initiated, they have self-reinforcing feedbacks (positive or negative, depending on your viewpoint).
Leaving CO2 totally out of the discussion for a moment, the other main factor is the extent of continental glaciation. When the continental ice sheets start to retreat, Earth's albedo (reflectivity) decreases, allowing more solar radiation to "enter the system" and not get immediately reflected right back into space. And the exposure of land surface is one of the main ways it enters the system, because the land absorbs solar radiation and re-radiates it as longwave infrared. And we know what happens to that, right? Plus, warmer land surfaces adjacent to glaciers are likely to be wet, releasing water vapor into the atmosphere, increasing relative humidity.
So that's an example of a non-mysterious process that would augment an initiated warming trend. And I'm working in my profile to explain the CO2 feedback in detail.
Resolution phase. Y'know, I never looked at an ice core record that way before.
I'm working on that in my profile, point #5. Not finished yet.
This point is outdated circa 1999. All weather ballon (radiosonde) and satellite (MSU) data records show tropospheric warming now.
ACRIM I, ACRIM II, SOLSTICE on UARS, SORCE.
He means the mass of CO2 relative to major constituents like O2 and N2. In the whole atmosphere, there's also very little ozone, but despite the number of molecules in the stratosphere, and in particular the low number of ozone molecules, the UV radiation absorbing properties of ozone are very important up there.
Ooh. I guess I am persuaded!
And what of the satellites that have measured an increase in solar activity? What of the evidence that Mars and other planets in the solar system are also heating up? This is also evidence. And yet it is dismissed out of hand. That is unscientific in the extreme. All evidence must be considered, not just the evidence that supports your political beliefs.
For the latter question, see point #2 in my profile. For the former, which satellites and how much?
They existed during the 1970s crusades (Nixon price caps, gasahol) and continue to this day. I know one guy who set up a tax subsidixed plant on a shoestring and made millions extracting the last 2% of moisture out of gasahol for two years of the tax subsidy.
Ethanol, global warming etc are just the latest examples.
I took the time to read your info on warming on other planets. Interesting. All the warming on other planets must be regional and yet the warming here must be global and man made. And all of this based on assumptions and nothing more. No data, just assumptions. You indicate that the sources saying that other planets are warming neither imply or claim linkage to solar variability. But is it not logical and scientific to ask the question if other parts of the solar system are showing evidence of warming, might there be a common cause for this? And what do all of the planets have in common other than the sun? So, no, the articles do not explicitly claim linkage but the reasonable reader and or scientist can. To ignore this(and other evidence) and then demand, as many AGW supporters have, that the opposition be silenced for the "good of humanity" smacks of what the scientific orthodoxy did to Galileo. True science weighs all the facts and does not, under any circumstances, demand the silence of critics.
By what Cogitator? A mysterious warming trend is all YOU said. Read what you just said!
Put it in the terms lafroste used. What beat the meat to start the ejaculation? What does it matter if you have some sex toy to enhance your orgasm?
They always try to dismiss the findings of groups based on their 'associations' with right wing think tanks or oil companies, but you NEVER see the media doing any sort of research in the opposite direction. I would like to see some information about how many of the leading proponents of the idea that humans are causing global warming are funded by LEFT wing think tanks, or by groups having ties to LEFT wing organizations or by entities which will directly benefit monetarily from the flogging of the idea that because humans are causing global warming, governements around the world have to DO something about it, using taxpayer money or forcing companies around the world to purchase 'carbon credits' just to be able to operate.
So, in other words, because it's possible that a viewer might 'infer' that there was relentless cooling, Durkin is wrong? I don't think so. What Durkin showed was that there was not relentless WARMING during that period, caused by increased CO2 emissions, which is what the GW folks have been pushing.
Since the scientists who made GGWS will not monetarily benefit from governments NOT forcing changes using taxpayer money, nor will they benefit from companies NOT having to pay to purchase 'carbon credits', I'm inclined to give more creedance to their data.
Something similar happens to Earth's atmosphere every 11 years when the sunspot cycle nears maximum. As solar activity increases, extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) heats our planet's gaseous envelope, causing it to swell and reach farther into space than normal. While puffed-up marshmallows can lead to tooth decay, our puffed-up atmosphere vexes satellite operators with a different kind of problem -- orbit decay.
Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001).
Another trend scientists have picked up on appears to span several centuries. Late 17th century astronomers observed that no sunspots existed on the Suns surface during the time period from 1650 to 1715 AD. This lack of solar activity, which some scientists attribute to a low point in a multiple-century-long cycle, may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe. During this period, winters in Europe were much longer and colder than they are today. Modern scientists believe that since this minimum in solar energy output, there has been a slow increase in the overall sunspots and solar energy throughout each subsequent 11-year cycle.
Does this constitute evidence in your book?
Yeah, their casting to have that character look like Cheney was about as subtle as a baseball bat. But, of course, he was humiliated in the end, so it was a win for the GW crowd.