The Great Climate Change Swindle

[alpha]

I'm hoping a number of you Brit AO's watched the program on Channel 4 last night, if everyone else wants to see, and you should, go here: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html?intcmp=docpage_box2
I'm sure you'll be able to get the program on 4OnDemand.

A great program, unbiased and factual. It basically provided views from about 20 scientists that global warming is completely natural and has been going on for millions of years. The evidence was seriously compelling that the sun's activities cause our planet to warm and cool and depending on the sun's activity more or less clouds are produced cooling or warming the planet. The scientists say that there's more CO2 produced by the World's volcanoes than anything humans produce in total.

Our CO2 production has NOTHING to do with climate change.

The burning question is why are the media and successive Gov'ts promoting this climate change question. My theory is that most of them are involved with their friends in funding climate change based projects accross the globe. One scientist said if you want to get a grant to study the behaviour of squirrels in your local park just say the words climate change in your proposal and you'll get your grant immediately. A global industry has sprung up worth $billions yet nothing is really changing.

It all started when a Swedish scientist said that humans could influence climate change, how come his views were used and abused so vehemently, there's only one reason; corruption and greed!

There is no argument that we should be using something else to propell our vehicles and power our buildings but the Gov'ts won't let this happen becuase they're so hell bent on oil.

[Perfectionist]

Yup, I saw it ...... one of the best programmes I have ever seen on TV !! :2thumbs:

I'm pretty skeptical of media hype ..... Y2K, Aids, Bird Flu etc ..... but Global Warming according to Al Gore almost had me convinced ..... Not now !! :bondage:

Naturally, it is still wise to cut down on car use and energy waste ..... but mainly to save money and stay fit !! :w00t:

I suppose GW will have to be crossed off the list of Armageddon threats !! :deal:

[alpha]

it should, but I think it needs to go into conspiracy theories next. It seems to me that the Gov'ts, UN, Euro-P are all involved in hyping GW creating a paradox that society believes. We all know they are all greedy corrupt so-and-so's and couldn't really give a monkies about GW and they are all involved in some way or another in oil production. The car manufacturers are involved too, they must be getting paid off by the oil giants to keep development on new technology down.

check this out: http://www.honda.co.uk/warmtechnology/

have a search around there and have a look at the FCX, awesome stuff!

if only........

[Harry61]

At the end of Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” viewers are asked, “Are you ready to change the way you live”? Following this line of thinking, the movie’s web site suggests many ways that you can “reduce your impact at home,” including using less heating and air conditioning, buying expensive fluorescent light bulbs, using less hot water, using a clothesline rather than a dryer, carpooling, flying less and buying cost-inefficient hybrid cars


While Gore relaxes in his posh pool house and heated pool, you should be taking shorter and colder showers, and hanging your laundry outside to dry. As Gore jets around the world in first-class comfort to hob-nob with society’s elites about his self-declared “moral imperative”, you should travel less and bike to work. You should use less electricity while Al and his wife, Tipper, use 20 times the national average. Now that’s a real carbon offset.

The above quotes are from an article by Steven Milloy - JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

While I haven't seen the program you are talking about, I always thought that what Al Gore was selling was snake oil.

[Stabby Joe]

I saw that and it was great, does go into many things... I think some pessimists (you know who you are) should atleast atempt to consider the above possiblity.

[lycanox]

This doesn't mean anything.

They do realize that global warming isn't the only problem with our pollution. There is still global dimming, the hydroxyl collapse and other pollution problems that forces humanity to lower their emission. so that there might be some holes in an scenario presented by 2500 of the worlds leading meteorologists doesn't mean that that we should all start polluting again. Don't think so. The effects of pollution has been proven on other grounds as well and those grounds should be enough to cap our emissions.

Its actually quite the opposite.
why shouldn't we reduce our CO2 emission?

[Perfectionist]

That was one of the most compelling arguments of the programme ...... WE should reduce CO2 if we can ...... but we shouldn't force the Third World to do so ..... by preventing them developing their economy and using their natural resources ......

[donniedarko]

Earth's 4.5 billion year history is one long story of climate change. This fact is pretty much accepted by those who think global warming is a natural process, and those who think it's caused by man.

In more recent history there has been: a mini ice age in the seventeenth century when the Thames froze so solidly that fairs could regularly be held on the ice; a Medieval Warm Period, even balmier than today; and sunnier still was the so-called Holocene Maximum, which was the warmest period in the last 10,000 years.

Climate change IS a natural process, however, the rate and magnitude of change is what is being examined NOT whether it happens. A classic failing in understanding for most "junk" scientists who claim to be debunking the "Climate Change Myth". An examination of each of these periods shows a much more gradual fluctuation in average Earth temperature. The increase was a scant 1.5 degrees celcius for the global average, with the predominant skew towards polar regions (ie the tropics didn't change much, more on this later). It's been attributed to changes in Earth rotational axis which caused a greater tilt towards the sun in the summer.

Changes in rotational axis can and are attributed to changes in average global temperature BUT from the point of view of Greenhouse changes, the indicator is changes in the TROPICAL regions because they have the least confounding factors (ie, axis change doesn't matter as much). If you look at global average increase in present day, you see that even the Tropics are heating up, suggesting there is MORE going on than just an change in rotational axis


Those who think global warming is a natural process point to the fact that in the last 10,000 years, the warmest periods have happened well before humans started to produce large amounts of carbon dioxide.

This is a false argument because STEADILY over the past ten thousand years humans have been dismantling the apparatus for sequestration of CO2 through deforestation and destabilization of ocean ecosystems. I imagine that the scientists behind the documentary forget to mention that agriculture and raising livestock are just as important as industry in managing greenhouse gas emissions.


A detailed look at recent climate change reveals that the temperature rose prior to 1940 but unexpectedly dropped in the post-war economic boom, when carbon dioxide emissions rose dramatically.

It is exactly these kind of variations that cause climatologists to believe that the current magnitude and intensity and rate of climate change is a product of human action. We aren't just looking for WARMING UP people, its rapid and large deviations from the norm that are indicators that something is up.


There is some evidence to suggest that the rise in carbon dioxide lags behind the temperature rise by 800 years and therefore can't be the cause of it.


I looked for these papers and couldn't find anything that conclusively suggests that this lag exists, in fact, the sole paper I could find implicitly states that much more research into the area must be conducted before the theory should be used to former further hypotheses. Perhaps, someone could direct me to the science behind this?

*continued in next post*

[Stabby Joe]

Pollution is a problem but with all this global warming on the news does anyone hear about pollution, sometimes if you're lucky but its not on the high agenda.

Also, "jumk" scientists? The ones on this weren't junk, they were the real deal...

[lycanox]

For each scientist debunking global warming there are plenty of science agreeing with global warming.
And it what is being said is important in science, not who is talking.

[donniedarko]

Greenhouse gases trap heat from the sun within the earth's atmosphere. This is the greenhouse effect. Traditional models predict that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to runaway heating.

Strawman argument! The proposal is that increasing greenhouse gases mean increases in the rate, magnitude and frequency of climate disturbance, NOT just heating up of the atmosphere.


If greenhouse warming were happening, then scientists predict that the troposphere (the layer of the earth's atmosphere roughly 10-15km above us) should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't seem to support this.

1. Again, can't find the papers to support this....

2. If THEIR model is correct than THE SAME THING SHOULD BE HAPPENING! Beyond that, not all greenhouse gases concentrate in the troposphere, which means that energy reflected and or re-emitted by the Earth's surface will likely by intercepted by greenhouse gases at sub-tropo levels, especially because our emissions predominant in such areas.

3. How does this work with their time lag hypothesis? Do they have data from 800 years ago?

[quote]For some people, the final nail in the coffin of human-produced greenhouse gas theories is the fact that carbon dioxide is produced in far larger quantities by many natural means: human emissions are miniscule in comparison. Volcanic emissions and carbon dioxide from animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean outweigh our own production several times over.

False. Volcanic emissions are the only one in the list that are unrelated to human impact. The largest contributions from animals are livestock herds created and maintained by humans, bacteria and decaying vegetation, in large part due to deforestation by humanity, ocean contributions are 1) a byproduct of disturbances to ocean ecosystems and 2) with global warming you have a snowball effect with dissolved CO2 being emitted inlarge quantities and sequestered hydrated methane being released as the poles melt.

Finally for their last argument, this I whole-heartedly agree with. The sun and cosmic rays DO interact with the atmosphere and DO cause changes in climate, however I again point to what climatologists ARE REALLY looking at which is not the strawman earth heating up argument but radical changes in rate, magnitude and intensity of climatic disturbance. In this context, which is the real context that should be considered, the effect of human action is becoming increasingly clear.

peace

dd

[donniedarko]

Pollution is a problem but with all this global warming on the news does anyone hear about pollution, sometimes if you're lucky but its not on the high agenda.

Also, "jumk" scientists? The ones on this weren't junk, they were the real deal...

The people who MADE the documentary are the "junk" scientists, in otherwords they solely work on proving certain "junk" science wrong. Since climatology is intrinsically difficult to understand, alot of times, "junk" scientists have large gaps in their understanding. The science that it is based on is sound, although lacking in supporting evidence, but the documentary draws hasty conclusions the likes of which are warned off of by the scientists doing the actual work. This is a direct byproduct of Micheal Moore and the rise of sensationalism. Documentaries that take a contreversial stance on a contreversial topic make money. Simple fact.

[donniedarko]

The one thing these guys have going for them is the promotion of nuclear power. Found this (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/society/nuclearpower.html) link on the same page. A good read.

peace

dd

[Stabby Joe]

The people who MADE the documentary are the "junk" scientists, in otherwords they solely work on proving certain "junk" science wrong. Since climatology is intrinsically difficult to understand, alot of times, "junk" scientists have large gaps in their understanding. The science that it is based on is sound, although lacking in supporting evidence, but the documentary draws hasty conclusions the likes of which are warned off of by the scientists doing the actual work. This is a direct byproduct of Micheal Moore and the rise of sensationalism. Documentaries that take a contreversial stance on a contreversial topic make money. Simple fact.

I was talking of those featured in the documentary, alot apparently put into the report but requested that they weren't apart still, crazy...

Besides, do watch the show before going so in depth, that link doesn't highlight everything on the show.

[donniedarko]

I posted the rebuttals to the arguments in the link because they were in essence summaries of what was said in the show (from what I saw of it). Rather than explain their argument than counter with mine it was simpler to repost their words.

[Protostar]

You know that when politicians enter the arena of "really important matters" such as Climate change, their goal is to dumb it down. Climate Change is not Global Warming.
Global Warming is the political view on the real climate changing with the added twist to part you from your money on this matter. Now, they are discussing a payment option for your CO2 footprint. heh.
You can buy/sell your CO2 footprint and future footprints. All of this action to be determined in the future. However, Global Warming peoples will get spanked by the Climate Experts in due time because, even though people are lying about Climate Change, The Earth isn't.
As we approach the Galactic Plane, our planet will respond in kind. period.
You don't hear a peep out of the astrophysists do you?