Has Anyone Seen "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

[Big Orange]

I have just seen it now and I don't know what to think of it, even though I found the Global Warming "scare stories" somewhat convincing.
Here's a link:

Channel 4, Thursday 8 March, 9pm
Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there's no need to feel bad.
According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.
We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.

From what I can tell from this documentary I get the impression that Greenpeace activists that promote the theory of human activity directly causing Global Warming are little better than religious fundies and that there is an almost religious mania to certain sections of the Global Warming movement (some scientists who disapproves of the human cause of Global Warming have had their careers nearly ruined and have occasionally been subjected to threats).

Although this documentary could be another tactic of big business.

[DevNull]

I agree with it, I've always been a sceptic of global warming being the result of man's actions. Two of the guys in it were on Richard & Judy earlier and one said he believes that global warming has become the new religion of atheists. If you disagree you are branded a heretic, there's an almost fantatical belief in it by people without any understanding of how the climate works.

[Kittie Rose]

I agree with it, I've always been a sceptic of global warming being the result of man's actions. Two of the guys in it were on Richard & Judy earlier and one said he believes that global warming has become the new religion of atheists. If you disagree you are branded a heretic, there's an almost fantatical belief in it by people without any understanding of how the climate works.

The thing is there's no harm done by being fanatical about global warming. I can think of a thousand other reasons to be "green" and the fact that it's undeniable that global warming is at least partially man-made means we should be doing something drastic, regardless.

[Kittie Rose]

Also, to add, most of the deniers ARE nut jobs though. They spend most of their time ranting about "the lie" and it's adherents, and provide very little evidence of their own. People love a good conspiracy and they're relying on that.

[Brain_Caster]

I can't believe there are still people spouting that bullshit.


Guys, when virtually every scientist worldwide who's working in the field, excluding those on the oil industry's paylist, agrees that global warming is a) real and b) man-made, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's not just a few greenpeace nutjobs making it all up.

[Elaro]

I can think of a thousand other reasons to be "green" and the fact that it's undeniable that global warming is at least partially man-made means we should be doing something drastic, regardless.

Precisely. There are many reasons why we should "go green", and the main economic one is durable development. There won't be oil for ever.

Additionally, even if GW is not man-made, there are very real benefits to cutting emissions in general: smog goes down, so does acid rain, and there will be a general air quality improvement.

[DevNull]

I can't disprove it but I am open to other explanations like cosmic rays. The point is its going to happen regardless and its better off if you don't waste money trying to slow it down and you just spend it protecting yourselves and the third world from its effects. By forcing the third world to go green you limit their development and they still get hit by the effects of global warming but are in less of a position to do something about it. Bjorn Lomborg makes this argument in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist.

[aerius]

The thing is there's no harm done by being fanatical about global warming. I can think of a thousand other reasons to be "green" and the fact that it's undeniable that global warming is at least partially man-made means we should be doing something drastic, regardless.

Another way of looking at it is this. Let's assume for the moment that humans aren't causing global warming, and that there is no global warming, but we don't know that yet. So we take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which will probably do some harm to the global economy. Then say, 40 years down the road we get conclusive proof that humans aren't causing global warming, and there is no global warming. What have we lost? A few years worth of progress, we don't waste as much shit as we normally do, no real biggy, we can now go back to wasting energy and resources as usual.

Scenario 2, assume for the moment that there's global warming and we're causing it. We continue life as usual and take no steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or conserve energy. 40 years down the road and half of Florida's under water, while NYC & London are behind dikes & levees much like New Orleans is today. The US midwest & southwest are out of water, agriculture has collapsed, and in short a lot of the world is fucked. By then it's too damn late to do anything except write off a few billion lives and trillions of dollars worth of property.

The point is this, plan for the worst case scenario, if it doesn't happen, great. But to do what we're doing now is unacceptable. We are basically praying that global warming isn't real, and that we won't feel its effects. If everything goes perfectly right, we have a chance of coming out OK, if even one little thing doesn't go as planned, we're fucked. It's like playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the revolver, there's a small chance you might live, but do you really want to take it?

[Spin Echo]

I can't disprove it but I am open to other explanations like cosmic rays. The point is its going to happen regardless and its better off if you don't waste money trying to slow it down and you just spend it protecting yourselves and the third world from its effects. By forcing the third world to go green you limit their development and they still get hit by the effects of global warming but are in less of a position to do something about it. Bjorn Lomborg makes this argument in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Isn't going green in the third world's best long term interests? Yes, it may take them longer to develop but it will be more stable. If they develop using oil they are a) going to be increasing the global demand for oil and pushing up the timeline for when oil starts to run dry and b) be harder hit when the oil runs out.

[DevNull]

So we can use it all up and they can't have any? The point is allowing them to develop using fossil fuels will offset more of the negative externalities than it will cause, most of the effects of climate change will be felt in the developing world so the more they develop the better their ability to cope will be. They can become green eventually, but it would be better for them in the long term to increase their CO2 emmissions in the short term. The rest of the developed world can cope with the extra CO2 (assuming it causes GW which I still doubt) by increasing their flood defenses etc.

[aerius]

I can't disprove it but I am open to other explanations like cosmic rays.

You've got to be shitting me. The Earth's atmosphere is NOT a Wilson Cloud Chamber. Clouds are made by cosmic rays, yeah, sure, only if the air is supersaturated, supercooled, still, and completely free of dust & other particles. That doesn't happen in the real world outside of lab equipment, like a Wilson Cloud Chamber.

[aerius]

So we can use it all up and they can't have any? The point is allowing them to develop using fossil fuels will offset more of the negative externalities than it will cause, most of the effects of climate change will be felt in the developing world so the more they develop the better their ability to cope will be. They can become green eventually, but it would be better for them in the long term to increase their CO2 emmissions in the short term. The rest of the developed world can cope with the extra CO2 (assuming it causes GW which I still doubt) by increasing their flood defenses etc.

How stupid are you? Seriously. We have a couple decades at most of affordable oil, do you honestly think the 3rd world shithole countries can do shit in that timeframe? They can burn all the fossil fuels they want, but they ain't making into the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Do you really think Shitholelistan in Africa or Bengladesh is going to somehow develop automation, electric cars, and green technology in 20-30 years? We can write off all their debts, let them burn as much oil & coal as they want and they will still be complete shithole countries and in no better shape to deal with the effects of global warming. You have a better chance of achieving peace in the Middle East than those countries do of saving themselves.

[Spin Echo]

So we can use it all up and they can't have any?

No, the first world should also be switching to green technologies as well, but it's more work because our infrastructure is already in place. My point is that once that infrastructure is in place, it's much more difficult to change to a new one. Therefore, developing the third world using oil is a waste. If oil based development is what is in place already, people will want to stick with it, even if it's not best for them economically.

The first world is also in for a shock if we don't start switching away from oil, but that's a topic which has been already discussed in a previous thread.

The rest of the developed world can cope with the extra CO2 (assuming it causes GW which I still doubt) by increasing their flood defenses etc.

I'm sure Holland loves you too.

[Wyrm]

I can't disprove it but I am open to other explanations like cosmic rays.

Dude, do you know how little radiation rains on us due to cosmic rays? It's on the order of 0.3 mSv/yr. Per year! This amounts to somewhere around 0.0933 µW of incident cosmic radiation per square meter of Earth's area (depending on the quality factor and the extinction curve of cosmic radiation through the atmosphere). In comparison, the solar constant, the amount of solar radiation (light), incident on that same square meter is about 1 kW. That's a difference of over one billion times. The claim is pure bullshit.

[Spin Echo]

Addendum:

As for the Skeptical Environmentalist, the Danish Committee of Scientific dishonesty found the book to be scientifically dishonest. Apparently the author, though, was found not guilty due to lack of expertise in the field. Exactly the type of person you want to reference to support your claims.

[Teleros]

Damn PC error - lost my original reply .

Apparently the author, though, was found not guilty due to lack of expertise in the field.

Lomborg is a statistician - if you read it his main issue is with the more apocalyptic green lobbyists (Lester Brown & the Worldwatch Institute being the main one), the idea that global warming is universally bad, and that you can't / shouldn't use cost-benefit analyses for climate change.
In addition, it's also worth pointing out that the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (phew what a name) had a go at the committee for sloppy standards and whatnot (read more here). In short, the debate over Lomborg's book is continuing.

I agree with it, I've always been a sceptic of global warming being the result of man's actions. Two of the guys in it were on Richard & Judy earlier and one said he believes that global warming has become the new religion of atheists. If you disagree you are branded a heretic, there's an almost fantatical belief in it by people without any understanding of how the climate works.

That does not however mean that they are not on to something. The problem is when it stifles debate on finding a realistic solution.

We have a couple decades at most of affordable oil

Depends on how you define "affordable" - $40 and $80 a barrel are both affordable, just one less so than the other. Plus as prices rise it becomes economically feasible to use some of the harder-to-get-at sources (including "dry" wells, which often still contain a fair amount of oil), so it's probably longer than you think .

Scenario 2, assume for the moment that there's global warming and we're causing it. We continue life as usual and take no steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or conserve energy. 40 years down the road and half of Florida's under water, while NYC & London are behind dikes & levees much like New Orleans is today. The US midwest & southwest are out of water, agriculture has collapsed, and in short a lot of the world is fucked. By then it's too damn late to do anything except write off a few billion lives and trillions of dollars worth of property.

A little hyperbole in there - it's not all bad ...
1. Can't speak for Florida New York but London is considering 3m sea level rises + 1.5m surges (IPCC est. sea level rise by 2100: 88cm), so should be more than enough. Reuters were mentioning the models being done for this recently.
2. For the water supply I'm a big fan of desalination plants - not just the US but lots of the 3rd world will benefit from this. Also don't forget that other regions will become wetter (yeah no use for US midwest farmers, but don't forget it).
3. Actually most developed countries are likely to see yields increase over the next 100 years. Not 3rd world countries though - however with new crop varieties and a program to export them to the third world we could at least offset the drop in yields.
4. Billion lives? We're talking a few degrees here not a nuclear war . Immigration will be a hot issue though - look at good old Bangladesh.

[Stark]

Isn't saying CO2 has nothing to do with climate change much more objectionable than saying climate change isn't man-made? Sure, climates change, etc etc... but just saying 'oh yeah CO2 it the atmo doesn't have any affect' is WAY out there.

[Teleros]

Isn't saying CO2 has nothing to do with climate change much more objectionable than saying climate change isn't man-made? Sure, climates change, etc etc... but just saying 'oh yeah CO2 it the atmo doesn't have any affect' is WAY out there.

Well you could argue that the models etc aren't detailed enough yet to really prove man-made causes for climate change (I think a more plausible version would be "the models aren't detailed enough to say to what extent we're responsible"), but the idea that "CO2 does nothing" is way out there.

[Wyrm]

Isn't saying CO2 has nothing to do with climate change much more objectionable than saying climate change isn't man-made? Sure, climates change, etc etc... but just saying 'oh yeah CO2 it the atmo doesn't have any affect' is WAY out there.

It's not just that. Climate changes, but it doesn't do so willy-nilly. It changes because of physical reasons and mechanisms. There's a clear mechanistic connection between the presence of CO2 and climate change.

[aerius]

A little hyperbole in there - it's not all bad ...
1. Can't speak for Florida New York but London is considering 3m sea level rises + 1.5m surges (IPCC est. sea level rise by 2100: 88cm), so should be more than enough. Reuters were mentioning the models being done for this recently.

Just using the worst case scenario where a couple of the major Antarctic ice shelves "unstick" and collapse into the sea. Not quite enough to flood London outright, but a relatively minor storm will complete the job unless the existing flood control system is upgraded.

2. For the water supply I'm a big fan of desalination plants - not just the US but lots of the 3rd world will benefit from this. Also don't forget that other regions will become wetter (yeah no use for US midwest farmers, but don't forget it).

You're gonna need an awful lot of plants to replace the flow of say, the Colorado river among others. Possible, but a crapload of nuke plants will also have to be built to power them.

4. Billion lives? We're talking a few degrees here not a nuclear war . Immigration will be a hot issue though - look at good old Bangladesh.

Global warming by itself, probably not, global warming combined with dwindling fossil fuels, it's quite possible. Modern mechanized agriculture doesn't work without massive amounts of oil in the form of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and of course to fuel the machinery and ship the food around. The grain producing regions in North America are going to be in deep trouble, and rice farming in Asia could also take a big hit.

[Stark]

It's not just that. Climate changes, but it doesn't do so willy-nilly. It changes because of physical reasons and mechanisms. There's a clear mechanistic connection between the presence of CO2 and climate change.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some global warming apologist. I was simply trying to illustrate how there are anti-global warming arguments, and then there are CRAZY anti-global warming arguments.

[Spin Echo]

Apparently the author, though, was found not guilty due to lack of expertise in the field.

Lomborg is a statistician - if you read it his main issue is with the more apocalyptic green lobbyists (Lester Brown & the Worldwatch Institute being the main one), the idea that global warming is universally bad, and that you can't / shouldn't use cost-benefit analyses for climate change.
In addition, it's also worth pointing out that the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (phew what a name) had a go at the committee for sloppy standards and whatnot (read more here). In short, the debate over Lomborg's book is continuing.

Duly noted. I just read a Danish source and my Danish is so-so.

[Superman]

Also, to add, most of the deniers ARE nut jobs though. They spend most of their time ranting about "the lie" and it's adherents, and provide very little evidence of their own. People love a good conspiracy and they're relying on that.

Exactly. It's no coincidence that the deniers tend to be screwballs. They sound a lot like holocaust deniers, creationists, the "HIV does not cause AIDS" bunch, etc. It's just another way for screwed up people to express their screwiness.

[Stark]

Exactly. It's no coincidence that the deniers tend to be screwballs. They sound a lot like holocaust deniers, creationists, the "HIV does not cause AIDS" bunch, etc. It's just another way for screwed up people to express their screwiness.

Are you talking about the President?

[Superman]

Exactly. It's no coincidence that the deniers tend to be screwballs. They sound a lot like holocaust deniers, creationists, the "HIV does not cause AIDS" bunch, etc. It's just another way for screwed up people to express their screwiness.

Are you talking about the President?

Who? Me?