PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE (Did GGWS present inaccurate information?)

Media Lens ^ | 03/13/2007

[cogitator]

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?

Scientific analysis does not necessarily produce the results that internal personal logic thinks would be correct.

So, no, the articles do not explicitly claim linkage but the reasonable reader and or scientist can.

If you need to believe something, I will be unable to change your mind with expressed scientific understanding.

[GreenAccord]

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”.

If the 1940's through 1970's cooling was simply caused by industrial emissions of the sulphate aerosols in the face of massive, anthropologic C02 emissions, then tell me why we wouldn't simply choose to now emit more of these aerosols to offset the C02 that is causing the warming. If this aerosol is so effective in cooling, and we seem to be so in control of the global environment, then it would seem a very effective counter measure to pump this cooling agent into the atmosphere to 'set the thermostat of the planet.

By the way, I think anyone is patently crazy to think that cooling or warming can be attributed to a single, controllable causation.

[cogitator]

Are they showing it because they have to make adjustments due to some error in satellite or balloon distancing?

It might be useful for you to do some Googling on the phrase "MSU tropospheric temperatures", or the words (together) MSU, troposphere, temperature. Basically, for many years the only analysis of MSU data headed by Roy Spencer and John Christy indicate little warming of the troposphere. After 1998, this analysis showed a little warming. But subsequent analysis of their work showed processing errors. Correction of these errors resulted in a significantly increased warming trend in THEIR analysis. The groups that uncovered the errors (and who actually worked with Spencer and Christy on the corrections) also did independent analyses of the same raw data and derived significantly greater warming trends than Spencer and Christy. Radiosonde trends have been examined for correlation; look up James Angell for some additional information.

So the current analyses all show warming trends of various magnitude. Spencer and Christy's analyses is still the smallest warming trend.

[cogitator]

By what Cogitator?

Solar insolation change due to Milankovitch cycles (referenced in my profile).

[cogitator]

Does this constitute evidence in your book?

Yes. Refer to the first link in point #2 of my profile.

[cogitator]

If the 1940's through 1970's cooling was simply caused by industrial emissions of the sulphate aerosols in the face of massive, anthropologic C02 emissions, then tell me why we wouldn't simply choose to now emit more of these aerosols to offset the C02 that is causing the warming.

It's been proposed as a possible emergency solution. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/830969. Probably needs significant CBA.

By the way, I think anyone is patently crazy to think that cooling or warming can be attributed to a single, controllable causation.

So do I. Some factors are primary, some are secondary.

[Steve Van Doorn]

You have quite an imagination there.

Milankovitch cycles gives a little stimulation and with all the sex toys the earth just busts a load

HA! Dude you have got to do better then that.

[Blind Eye Jones]

As I said, I'm skeptical and I don't know who these groups are that have "corrected" the processing errors or anything about them. My focus is why would these scientists in the movie be in agreement about the data? I don't think that the scenes were shot before 1998. I'm not a scientist but I have read accounts from British newspapers on how UN scientists needed to "correct" certain things (like make the small ice age or the medieval warming period disappear).

[cogitator]

My focus is why would these scientists in the movie be in agreement about the data?

If you can name the scientists, I might have a good idea.

[cogitator]

Excerpt from the article:

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.

Spencer and Christy are a special case -- they're good scientists but they've consistently hewn to the skeptical side in public statements. (Spencer writes for Tech Central Station.) When the errors were discovered, they fixed them. Christy has acknowledged global warming and a human contribution, but feels the human contribution is small and also thinks that public expenditures can address more pressing problems in Third World countries. It helps that he was also a missionary. Spencer has been a bit more hard-edged, but the column linked below shows that he too can be both honest and still skeptical:

Tech Central Station

Use the "Find Authors" menu, find Spencer, and read:

"Global Warming Science, or Policy?" (first page of articles)
and most especially, "Some Convergence of Global Warming Estimates". (second page of articles)

It took Fred Singer forever to acknowledge any warming; now he says its inevitable and totally natural. (??) Michaels always says the warming will be minimal, but acknowledges it. I don't feel like discussing everybody.

[Blind Eye Jones]

"If you can name the scientists, I might have a good idea."

John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels. You can, like the article, say they are all members of right wing think tanks. But according to the movie even the present Bush administration and every administration from senior Bush on has jumped on the Global Warming band wagon. So how can these right wingers really take issue with Global Warming if the moven is also driven by right wing politics?

One interesting thing John Christy said is that non warming is happening over a great part of the planet. There may be areas where warming is happening and that is where the corrected data is coming from. Selective readings based on certain locations? Who knows.

[Blind Eye Jones]

"It took Fred Singer forever to acknowledge any warming; now he says its inevitable and totally natural. (??) Michaels always says the warming will be minimal, but acknowledges it."

"Christy has acknowledged global warming and a human contribution, but feels the human contribution is small and also thinks that public expenditures can address more pressing problems in Third World countries."

Well how old is this film! Are the conversions recent?

[cogitator]

Are the conversions recent?

Singer's apparently was. Michaels has been saying similar things for about five years. Hard to tell on Christy. I remember a magazine profile on him from several years ago (pre-2000?) where I seem to remember him saying things similar to my characterization.

Sorry, it was 2001. And his "conversion" was more recent than that.

The Gospel According to John

Then there's this: Christy on global warming

Looking for Christy, I found this (in case you don't think I'm a good source):

The Great Global Warming Swindle -- Questions Answered
see point 4

[Reaganesque]

Scientific analysis does not necessarily produce the results that internal personal logic thinks would be correct.

True. Quantum physics leaps to mind. However, it is also true, particularly with non-quantum physics, that frequently the simplest answer is the correct one. That our furnace has been turned up a few notches is the simplest and most obvious answer to global warming and there is clear, but not conclusive, evidence that this is the case. And yet, it is dismissed out of hand.

That said, I have stated in my previous posts that the main reason I doubt the facts and figures you espouse here is that so many of your colleagues have called for the silencing of those who do not believe in AGW. They speak of "deniers" in the hopes of equating those who don't believe man is the cause of GW with those who deny the Holocaust. Some have gone as far as suggesting that scientists who don't tow the AGW line should have their accreditation taken away or simply fired from their jobs. How does that fit into the Scientific Method? Since when was it OK to silence by force of law those whose evidence contradicts your theories? How can one claim to be a scientist when he or she reacts to contrarian scientists with all the fanaticism of a Spanish Inquisitor on the trail of a heretic? Throw out all the alleged facts you want, unless and until your colleagues and spokespeople (mainly politicians, journalists and political activists) tone down the hysterical shrieking it will be very hard for me and many others to take any data and conclusions you have to present with anything less than a boat load of salt.

[cogitator]

That said, I have stated in my previous posts that the main reason I doubt the facts and figures you espouse here is that so many of your colleagues have called for the silencing of those who do not believe in AGW.

Not my colleagues, pilgrim. A lot of water has gone under this particular bridge -- and it's not productive for me to paddle those waters again, tempting as it might be. If you want to continue on the scientific aspects, we can.

[Reaganesque]

Not my colleagues, pilgrim.

Then I suggest you and your colleagues speak to those who do. They are all over the media making outrageous claims and accusations. Even if you had conclusive evidence of a linkage between man's activities and global warming (which you do not), those who claim to represent you in the media and the halls of governance are killing your argument via their hysterical polemics.

Speaking of certainty, the IPSS report claims to be 90% certain that GW is man-made. Does this not give the report a margin of error of 10%? Most scientific studies I have ever seen have margin's of error of less than 5%. That is, of course assuming that the level of certainty is in fact "about" 90%. Given that the actual IPCC report won't be released until May, we can only take the word of the politicians who released the executive summary. How convenient that the IPCC releases the politicians version of the scientific report months before the scientific report can be peer reviewed. That's not the normal peer review process, is it?

[justa-hairyape]

The CO2 Global Warming theory alone cannot explain snow on palm trees. We experienced that here about 2 months ago. That theory alone could explain flooded palm trees, but not snow covered palm trees. BTW - We are currently experiencing one of our worst droughts ever here in Southern California this year. Where is all that CO2 Globally Warmed rain ? We have the largest water reservoir in the world sitting right off the coast upwind from us here.

[Brad from Tennessee]

I saw "Shooter" with Mark Wahlberg at the local theater the other day. Though it is based on a book published in 1990, they couldn't help bashing Bush and Rumsfeld in the script. They didn't name them but it was obvious who they referred to.

[SuziQ]

Interesting link at Post 113!