Jump to content
aliveandkicking

The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Recommended Posts

 

Massively and comprehensively discredited. Many of the experts on it complained to the program makers that their views had been distorted and a couple were even made to appear to be supporting the programs premise when they were not. Don't waste your time on this rubbish (no offence to you aliveandkicking!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Massively and comprehensively discredited. Many of the experts on it complained to the program makers that their views had been distorted and a couple were even made to appear to be supporting the programs premise when they were not. Don't waste your time on this rubbish (no offence to you aliveandkicking!)

not that I'm directly disagreeing with you.

But I think statements like that require sources, references and evidence.

Gordon Brown could complain that we distort his views, by highlighting them in the light of the complete retarded buffoon he really is.

It doesn't change what was said and shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

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 IT’S 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 it’s not science; it’s propaganda.”

 

And:

 

“We’re just being told lies; that’s 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 film’s 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/'>http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/'>http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)

 

Wunsch comments:

 

"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 world’s 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 NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt and Dr William Connelley of the British Antarctic Survey, describes Durkin’s 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 film’s 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 Durkin’s "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."

 

Durkin’s analysis, then, was way off the mark.

 

The film’s 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 film’s claims, see the following resources:

 

Real Climate, 'Swindled',

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...007/03/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-maker’s 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 lobby’s 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 film’s 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 Durkin’s 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 Blair’s “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.

 

Durkin’s grandiose prediction that his film “will go down in history” will surely prove correct, although perhaps not for the reasons he imagined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Massively and comprehensively discredited. Many of the experts on it complained to the program makers that their views had been distorted and a couple were even made to appear to be supporting the programs premise when they were not. Don't waste your time on this rubbish (no offence to you aliveandkicking!)

 

 

I am in Finland. I think we can say the world here has been warmer than recent generations. The question raised by the question in my mind is why is this happening?

 

The program is saying that man made CO2 is not the cause. The swindle is that we are told it is the cause.

 

Does Carl Wunsch say that man made CO2 is the cause? Which two were against the premise that man made CO2 is not the cause?

 

The Royal societies statement you have quoted is i think disingenuous. Without green house gases life on earth would I expect be unsustainable. The green house effect is a natural phenonema.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you show me which quotes have been discredited?

 

Do you have a link to more information?

 

I am in Finland. I think we can say the world here has been warmer than recent generations. The question here though is why?

There's a great site somewhere online discussing all the science, all the theories, a section for comments, and tries to balance the evidence of cooling vs warming (the important part of all this debate is the debunking of the "powerful" evidence of global warming - the graph of "temperature anomalies".

It goes some way to separating the great communal perception of the Brand Name "GlobalWarming" and its relationship with reality.

 

EDIT: when/if GHPC comes back up I'll fish it out googs doesn't want to give me it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a great site somewhere online discussing all the science, all the theories, a section for comments, and tries to balance the evidence of cooling vs warming (the important part of all this debate is the debunking of the "powerful" evidence of global warming - the graph of "temperature anomalies".

It goes some way to separating the great communal perception of the Brand Name "GlobalWarming" and its relationship with reality.

 

This program is not discussing the validity of global warming at all!

 

It is discussing the cause of global warming.

 

In my view this program presents valueable insights into the political and opinion based nature of Science which is driven by humans who just as prone to their vanities and inadequacies as anybody else.

 

And there is no doubt in my mind that there is a huge vested interest from politicians and corporations in being able to persuade the public what they do is science based. But often it is anti science based.

 

To my way of thinking the program is pivotal.

 

What is science? How does an idea become a fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This program is not discussing the validity of global warming at all!

 

It is discussing the cause of global warming.

absolutely.

There are three issues at hand

The effect (warming or cooling)

The cause (what makes it happen)

The responsibility (who/what is the source of the cause)

 

All three need addressing to come to the conclusion that "man is responsible for global warming by the release of CO2" - the site I am thinking of does a good job of assessing all three.

 

My big complaint since all this first started, is if CO2 acts like greenhouse glass, then making it thicker will actually, like using thick glass on your greenhouse, make the world colder.

That is not an argument saying "global warming isn't happening", but it is an argument that says even if the world is getting warmer, CO2 is not responsible, and therefore the assertion that "man is responsible for global warming by the release of CO2" collapses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My big complaint since all this first started, is if CO2 acts like greenhouse glass, then making it thinker (like using thick glass on your greenhouse) will actually make the world colder.

 

Thats a theory. Thin glass in a green house traps absorbed heat which cannot be transferred from that area by the movement of cooler air transporting the heat away by convection and it preferentially retains radiant heat. With green house gases which effect are we dealing with?

 

An object that totally absorbs all heat will get pretty warm. The earth itself appears to have some kind of nuclear heat generator also? Without heat escaping via a thin atmosphere we might cook from within.

 

The point the program makes is that it is impossible for humans to model such a theory to know how it will actually behave in reality because we have to make assumptions about reality we are more or less clueless to make.

 

On the other hand when science looks at a topic like electronics it can fiddle around using trial and error until it works using a scientific methodology that enables us to compare results of our experimenting or fiddling. We cant fiddle to confirm any theories about climate change because the scale of the experiment is beyond our tiny experimental abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats a theory. Thin glass in a green house traps absorbed heat which cannot be transferred from that area by the movement of cooler air transporting the heat away by convection and it preferentially retains radiant heat. With green house gases which effect are we dealing with?

 

An object that totally absorbs all heat will get pretty warm.

 

The point the program makes is that it is impossible for humans to model such a theory to know how it will actually behave in reality because we have to make assumptions about reality we are more or less clueless to make.

 

On the other hand when science looks at a topic like electronics it can fiddle around using trial and error until it works using a scientific methodology that enables us to compare results of our experimenting or fiddling. We cant fiddle to confirm any theories about climate change because the scale of the experiment is beyond our tiny experimental abilities.

definately.

To me, the assertion that:

"man is responsible for global warming by the release of CO2"

has as many problems as the assertion that:

"Gordon Brown caused massive losses at RBS by failing to regulate the banks"

 

In that even if you wholeheartedly accept the implicit assumptions, one does not necessarily follow the other, it ignores to many other variables, and even the implicit assumptions can rationally be questioned.

 

The "big issue" (and something I have spent a lot of time studying) is that you cannot know the counter factual - you cannot see what would have happened if things had been done differently, because they already happened and you can't go back and try things another way. This problem is ubiquitous, from healthcare, to finance, all the way up to every decision we ever make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

My big complaint since all this first started, is if CO2 acts like greenhouse glass, then making it thicker will actually, like using thick glass on your greenhouse, make the world colder.

That is not an argument saying "global warming isn't happening", but it is an argument that says even if the world is getting warmer, CO2 is not responsible, and therefore the assertion that "man is responsible for global warming by the release of CO2" collapses.

 

CO2 is not really a prime greenhouse gas. The Governments are barking up the wrong tree. Methane (& water vapour) contributes way more to the greenhouse effect than CO2.

 

Have you ever wondered why industy burns methane in flarestacks instead of releasing it in to the atmosphere?

 

Pohokura_Flare_Stack.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CO2 is not really a prime greenhouse gas. The Governments are barking up the wrong tree. Methane (& water vapour) contributes way more to the greenhouse effect than CO2.

 

Have you ever wondered why industy burns methane in flarestacks instead of releasing it in to the atmosphere?

Because if they didn't set fire to it something else probably would, in a fairly uncontrolled and extremely lethal way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
definately.

To me, the assertion that:

"man is responsible for global warming by the release of CO2"

has as many problems as the assertion that:

"Gordon Brown caused massive losses at RBS by failing to regulate the banks"

 

In that even if you wholeheartedly accept the implicit assumptions, one does not necessarily follow the other, it ignores to many other variables, and even the implicit assumptions can rationally be questioned.

 

The "big issue" (and something I have spent a lot of time studying) is that you cannot know the counter factual - you cannot see what would have happened if things had been done differently, because they already happened and you can't go back and try things another way. This problem is ubiquitous, from healthcare, to finance, all the way up to every decision we ever make.

 

Yes but maybe we can make it over complicated? I think there is such a thing as good science and good scientific methods.

 

What i quite enjoyed about the men interviewed is that most seemed willing to be open minded. And yet open mindedness is a quality that narrow minded people attack as being in some manner antiscientific.

 

For example people here claim that 'money is so simple that if you make it complicated you are a liar fraud and vested interest insider deliberately creating an agenda'

 

And personally i see that as anti - scientific thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

The earth itself appears to have some kind of nuclear heat generator also? Without heat escaping via a thin atmosphere we might cook from within.

...

 

We wouldn’t cook from within, there’s not enough heat generated by the Earth to cook us. The suns rays are needed to keep the Earth warm.

 

The Equator is hot and the Poles are cold because of the sun

 

http://www.hko.gov.hk/education/edu06nature/ele_srad_e.htm

ele-srad-fig2e.jpg

 

Edit for clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because if they didn't set fire to it something else probably would, in a fairly uncontrolled and extremely lethal way?

 

It’s because is methane a prime greenhouse gas. Whereas the CO2 produced from the burning isn’t a prime greenhouse gas.

 

Methane could be safely discharged from a flarestack type object without self igniting

 

(were you joking?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CO2 is not really a prime greenhouse gas. The Governments are barking up the wrong tree. Methane (& water vapour) contributes way more to the greenhouse effect than CO2.

 

Have you ever wondered why industy burns methane in flarestacks instead of releasing it in to the atmosphere?

 

Pohokura_Flare_Stack.jpg

 

I suspect this was originally done due to problems created by still air and local explosive hazards were methane can accumulate or burn as an air methane mix in a catastrophic manner where storage of this gas when it might be produced in enormous quantities very suddenly is impractical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but maybe we can make it over complicated? I think there is such a thing as good science and good scientific methods.

 

What i quite enjoyed about the men interviewed is that most seemed willing to be open minded. And yet open mindedness is a quality that narrow minded people attack as being in some manner antiscientific.

 

For example people here claim that 'money is so simple that if you make it complicated you are a liar fraud and vested interest insider deliberately creating an agenda'

 

And personally i see that as anti - scientific thinking.

I wouldn't say over complicated.

Recently I've done a lot of work in the healthcare sector, modelling and assessing stuff for large pharma, the rigour and techniques in assessing evidence to eak out the counter factual there is extremely important and incredibly complicated.

The methods used there make climate scientists look positively amateur, and yet the climate is an immensely more complicated and chaotic system than the human body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We wouldn’t cook from within, there’s not enough heat generated by the Earth to cook us. The suns rays are needed to keep the Earth warm.

 

The Equator is hot and the Poles are cold because of the sun

 

http://www.hko.gov.hk/education/edu06nature/ele_srad_e.htm

ele-srad-fig2e.jpg

 

Edit for clarity

 

Zignic this article is discussing solar heating of the earth.

 

I was discussing a self sustaining natural heating of the earth from within the earth.

 

Are you saying that is a disproven theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect this was originally done due to problems created by still air and local explosive hazards were methane can accumulate or burn as an air methane mix in a catastrophic

...

 

No. As I have tried to explain above. Methane has a big theoretical greenhouse effect. CO2 has a small theoretical greenhouse effect.

 

You burn the methane and produce CO2 for this reason.

 

A properly sited flarestack can safely release methane without causing explosion. This will happen when the ignition system fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zignic this article is discussing solar heating of the earth.

 

I was discussing a self sustaining natural heating of the earth from within the earth.

 

Are you saying that is a disproven theory?

 

I'm saying the Earth would be cold without solar heating because there is not enough nuclear generated heat in the Earth to keep it warm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s because is methane a prime greenhouse gas. Whereas the CO2 produced from the burning isn’t a prime greenhouse gas.

 

Methane could be safely discharged from a flarestack type object without self igniting

 

(were you joking?)

NZ, a pioneer in many spheres, started looking at the "so-called" fart tax years ago.

 

I now see other countries are taking it seriously. I wonder if there is a good business model in rigging up lighters to the cattle's rear end to facilitate spontaneous combustions at appropriate times. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say I am very sceptical about global warming, I cant help but think its another tool to scare and tax joe public like the threat from terror. Pass civil right infringing laws and wage illegal wars. That’s not to say that I like pollution or drive gas guzzling cars I don’t and do my bit where I can for the environment. Good to have a debate about it thou

 

 

 

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists

 

Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of "scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice". But also check out Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying the Earth would be cold without solar heating because there is not enough nuclear generated heat in the Earth to keep it warm.

just to through a completely OT curveball at you:

neutrinos

 

could they and similar particles, sucked into and through the earth be responsible for the Earths rotation and internal heat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to really confuse statistical correlation with scientific proof.

 

I do get that in complex systems (the human body, climate etc) a control and a test scenario with only one variable changed is, for all intents, impossible. In these scenarios statistical correlation is useful certainly, but it is not scientific proof. It may, in fact, lead to very misleading assumptions.

 

Correlation and causality

Main article: Correlation does not imply causation

The conventional dictum that "correlation does not imply causation" means that correlation cannot be used to infer a causal relationship between the variables. This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction).

 

A correlation between age and height in children is fairly causally transparent, but a correlation between mood and health in people is less so. Does improved mood lead to improved health; or does good health lead to good mood; or both? Or does some other factor underlie both? In other words, a correlation can be taken as evidence for a possible causal relationship, but cannot indicate what the causal relationship, if any, might be.

 

With global temperature and atmospheric CO2 it appears inconclusive whether even a statistical correlation between the two has been established. There appears to be little way of establishing an accurate historic record of either global temperature or atmospheric CO2. There are clues and theory but there cannot really be a scientific consensus beyond "We don't know if theres any causality."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't say over complicated.

Recently I've done a lot of work in the healthcare sector, modelling and assessing stuff for large pharma, the rigour and techniques in assessing evidence to eak out the counter factual there is extremely important and incredibly complicated.

The methods used there make climate scientists look positively amateur, and yet the climate is an immensely more complicated and chaotic system than the human body.

 

In my own view medical science tends to be horribly biased towards what produces profits for large corporations.

 

Complication can disguise poor science.

 

If the simplest thing works and costs no money are we going to find it introduced when there is a tried and tested method created by the same drug company that discovers the no cost method?

 

What is more the whole culture appears towards a bias that human bodies are pretty deficient and need artificial aids to health.

 

Do you really think that the climate is immensely more complicated and chaotic than a human body? Can the climate get a psychosomatic disorder? Perhaps earth is alive and has a vital force? But which entity is more complex? How do you know? We know today almost nothing.

 

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×