Has Anyone Seen "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

[Admiral Valdemar]

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.

Funnily enough, the ad for this programme (which I can't say I expected from Channel 4, who usually offer us great, liberal programming, maybe Five would offer it like they did the Moon landing conspiracy show from FOX) had one old geezer and a blurb saying anyone who denies anthropogenic global warming is treated like a Holocaust denier and that the whole green movement is some fad, feel good trend. Oh the irony.

[Howedar]

Boy, for a feel-good trend, I sure feel pretty shitty about the whole thing. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

[Spin Echo]

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.

I've been told that statisticians don't think too highly of Lomborg either. In anycase, it appears he's not the best of people to be citing to support your arguments.

[R. U. Serious]

Interesting tidbits about the documentary (read the comments as well):

http://www.badscience.net/?p=381

[Superman]

had one old geezer and a blurb saying anyone who denies anthropogenic global warming is treated like a Holocaust denier and that the whole green movement is some fad, feel good trend. Oh the irony.

Hahahaha!

If it walks like a duck...

[Keevan_Colton]

BBC News 24 is giving a lot of time to some scientists talking about what a load of shit this show was. Including a lot of allegations of misquoting and careful editing to change the meaning of what folks had to say. For example, one guy talking about the potential for change in the gulf stream being represented as talking about global warming in general.

[Zac Naloen]

Climate Change is something I have a lot of difficulty getting my head around, and I had a lot of hope that this show would give the other side to the argument so I could make a decision somewhere in the middle on what I think.

Unfortunately it approached the subject in completely the wrong way and although I'm still not convinced on the "Everyone is going to die" aspects of global warming I don't really have much hope for other arguments if this is the best they can come up with.

[Zac Naloen]

Okay, something just occured to me.

Hopefully someone can explain this.


They admit that there is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and increased temperatures but that it lags by 800 years or so. Suggesting that it is an effect of the increased temperature, not the cause of it. Is this true?

[Perseid]

OK so theres no denying that the planet is warming up but this page shows the observed temperature changes over the last 100 years (picked since thats the kind of time frame that CO2 levels are acknoledged to have started the increased climb to the current levels).
Not sure if this site is a valid source of data but it's the only graph I could easliy find that focuses on the last 100 years when production worldwide started to increase to get us to where we are.

However the first thing I notice about the temperature levels is that during the 50', 60's and 70's the temperatures were a lot lower than they are now, during that time production was reliant on inefficient processes, the coal industry was thriving still as well as several other factors that contribute to CO2.

So my question is, if CO2 is the main problem why during period of 30 years of industrial growth (1950's to 1980) is the temperature lower than at a time when we are more aware of greenhouse gases and have taken steps to start bringing them down.

[Flagg]

OK so theres no denying that the planet is warming up but this page shows the observed temperature changes over the last 100 years (picked since thats the kind of time frame that CO2 levels are acknoledged to have started the increased climb to the current levels).
Not sure if this site is a valid source of data but it's the only graph I could easliy find that focuses on the last 100 years when production worldwide started to increase to get us to where we are.

However the first thing I notice about the temperature levels is that during the 50', 60's and 70's the temperatures were a lot lower than they are now, during that time production was reliant on inefficient processes, the coal industry was thriving still as well as several other factors that contribute to CO2.

So my question is, if CO2 is the main problem why during period of 30 years of industrial growth (1950's to 1980) is the temperature lower than at a time when we are more aware of greenhouse gases and have taken steps to start bringing them down.

Isn't there some thought to all of the shit kicked up into the atmosphere from WW2 and the atomic bomb testing that followed afterwards being responsible for that?

[Admiral Valdemar]

The global temperature varies in cycles which are quite easily identified over the last few centuries we've been taking measurements (and further back using ice core samples). The fact that one of these troughs in the graph happened when we were busy becoming even more industrialised (notice the bleak winters of the late 19th in the UK, despite the UK well into the industrial revolution with the rest of the West following) is not evidence of some massive anomaly, simply a showing of one such variance happening at a time we'd intuitively expect the temperature to go up. Overall, the trend is temperatures have been steadily going up on average since the industrial revolution.

I can't find the graph right now, though there is one that was used in An Inconvenient Truth that shows the up and down nature of the temperatures through whatever factors are accountable, and the general overarching view of the line rising steadily as average temps. increase.

[Wyrm]

Climate Change is something I have a lot of difficulty getting my head around, and I had a lot of hope that this show would give the other side to the argument so I could make a decision somewhere in the middle on what I think.

That's a Golden Mean fallacy, my friend. Like all fallacies, they're wrong. You shouldn't make any decision that is "somewhere within the middle" of two sides just because it's in the middle of those two sides.

They admit that there is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and increased temperatures but that it lags by 800 years or so. Suggesting that it is an effect of the increased temperature, not the cause of it. Is this true?

No. It's obviously false for the most recent rise in global temperature the last century, when we have accurate data on both. Remember, there are some inaccuracies in any dating method and indirect measurement of global temperature, especially when many factors are responsible for producing global temperature.

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.

I've been told that statisticians don't think too highly of Lomborg either. In anycase, it appears he's not the best of people to be citing to support your arguments.

Definitely. Cost/benefit analysis is decision theory, and when you come down to it, decision theory lies at the heart of all statistics. Personally, given that all computer models predict that small changes in global temperature causes huge effects on climate, and that a consistant climate is necessary for a robust agricultural infastructure, I'm not too impressed by his assertions. Especially with the recent wierd weather we've been having.

[J]

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 .

I wouldn't be so sure about that, a rather troubling & ominous event took place last year; Saudi Arabia is no longer the world's #1 oil producer. Of all the oil producing countries, they suffered the 4th largest drop in oil production behind the UK, Norway, and Venezuela. It's troubling since Saudi Arabia has the world's largest oil reserves and have been the swing producer since the 70's, they could open & close the valves as needed to keep prices where they want them. The #1 oil producer is likely in decline and there's no country which can step in and replace them.

Implications? We are going to run short of oil a lot sooner than most people think, we are already seeing the early warning signs of an impending shortage in the form of severe price volatility. Prices are frequently swinging 5-10% on a daily basis, I've seen prices move over $5/bbl in a single day just because of a weather forecast, this has never happened in the past. 10 years ago a similar forecast would've resulted in a 5 cent blip, if it was noted at all.

As for advanced recovery methods, it's already in widespread use in North America, the North Sea fields, and several countries in the Middle East. They don't really squeeze that much more oil from the ground, rather, they extract the oil at a much faster rate which can result in a greater percentage of the oil being left in the ground. Not a good thing.

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.

A few degrees may be enough to melt massive amounts of permafrost in Siberia and Canada, want to take any guesses on what's locked up in the permafrost? Methane and CO2, and lots of it. There's enough CO2 to double the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Zac Naloen]

That's a Golden Mean fallacy, my friend. Like all fallacies, they're wrong. You shouldn't make any decision that is "somewhere within the middle" of two sides just because it's in the middle of those two sides.

Sorry, wasn't talking literally. I'm aware it's a fallacy. But as the saying goes about politics (and this is a highly political issue) When one side says one thing, and the other the opposite. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle (I.e, it was a bad joke )

[Zac Naloen]

No. It's obviously false for the most recent rise in global temperature the last century, when we have accurate data on both. Remember, there are some inaccuracies in any dating method and indirect measurement of global temperature, especially when many factors are responsible for producing global temperature.

So why is it that the temperatures starts decreasing when CO2 hits it's peak level?

Why doesn't it keep going up and up... like I'd have thought it would do if it's the slippery slope it's described as.

Why does most of our .5 degree temperature increase of the 20th centuary happen before the war when CO2 production was minimal compared to now?

I'm really asking this out of ernest, I have no idea how climate works.

[Darth Raptor]

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).

Desalinization? Are you serious? It's exceedingly difficult and expensive. I think you seriously underestimate the sheer volume of water we'll need for irrigation, let alone drinking, bathing and sewage. That's a lot of electricity and manpower going into water we're just going to spray on the ground. We have lots and lots of freshwater on this planet; it would be best for everyone if we could keep it that way. Banking on water desalinization is like banking on nuclear fusion. We can't even pull it off in a really cost-effective matter yet. And we're going to be needing it at a time when power generation and the associated infrastructure is in a massive state of flux (transferring from coal/oil to nuclear fission).

[Sam Or I]

Climate change is real. I believe it is man made, the latest UN report convinced me of that. (I was a skeptic till the report.)

That being said, I still think something else is going on besides us humans. Alot of bodies in the Solar System are heating up, including Mars, Jupiter, several moons of Jupiter, Pluto and other bodies.

[Zac Naloen]

Climate change is real. I believe it is man made, the latest UN report convinced me of that. (I was a skeptic till the report.)

That being said, I still think something else is going on besides us humans. Alot of bodies in the Solar System are heating up, including Mars, Jupiter, several moons of Jupiter, Pluto and other bodies.

According to this programme the latest UN report was butchered to have several key phrases including "We despite the correlation we cannot find any conclusive evidence climate change is majorly man-made"

A terrible paraphrase but It's late and I can't be bothered to skip to that section of the programme.

Cut due to "pressures from governmental and non-governmental groups"

If true (and seeing as the quotes used came from the The Times newspaper so I have no real reason to doubt them) thats pretty damning as far as that report is concerned.

[Wyrm]

No. It's obviously false for the most recent rise in global temperature the last century, when we have accurate data on both. Remember, there are some inaccuracies in any dating method and indirect measurement of global temperature, especially when many factors are responsible for producing global temperature.

So why is it that the temperatures starts decreasing when CO2 hits it's peak level?

Did you read the part about inaccuracies in dating methods? We get CO2 data from ice cores from the Antartic. We get oxygen isotope levels (correlated to oceanic temperature) from calcite cores at the bottom of the ocean. They are not necessarily synchronized. Especially since snowfall is correlated to atmospheric humidity, and therefore oceanic temperature.

Why doesn't it keep going up and up... like I'd have thought it would do if it's the slippery slope it's described as.

Because this increase of CO2 doesn't usually happen this fast, and there weren't a concerted effort by humanity to frustrate the negative-feedback effects. In times past, plant mass had a chance to redistribute itself and increase (increased CO2 concentrations stimulate plant growth). This recent spike has happened far too quickly for the plant life to catch up and deploy some serious CO2 sequestering. Add to the fact that we are actively clear-cutting many of the great plant biomasses of the Earth... well, we're in for some serious positive-feedback, my friend.

Why does most of our .5 degree temperature increase of the 20th centuary happen before the war when CO2 production was minimal compared to now?

Are we looking at the same graphs here? Or by "war" are you thinking about one other than WWII?

I'm really asking this out of ernest, I have no idea how climate works.

This is obvious.

[Guardsman Bass]

[url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ice-cores/]This seems to provide an answer for the question about the gap between CO2 levels and the warming trend.

[Zac Naloen]

Are we looking at the same graphs here? Or by "war" are you thinking about one other than WWII?

The graph on the programme showed a increase before WWII up to early 1990's levels (Basically half of all warming in the 20thC. A drop after the war up until the late 80's then a massive increase up until now. (the other half of the warming)



They also had a guy on who used the sun the predict the weather, who kept getting it right.

The MET office says extremly harsh British winter? He said no, it'll be warm up until christmas and be cold in febuary. Exactly what happened last year here.

There was also a graph showing a strong correlation between sunspot activity on the sun and temperatures on the planet. Far MORE closely than any CO2 graph i've seen.

The theory of the sun appears to be this (from my understanding)

Climate is controlled like this, cosmic rays bombard the earth all the time. By some mechanism I didn't understand cosmic rays cause clouds to be created (this has been known since tv was still in black and white). When the Sun is feeling lazy it's magnetic field is weaker and more of these cosmic rays get through and more clouds are created. Which in turn has a cooling effect.

When the Sun has an active turn (it has doubled in strength in the 20thC apparently) cosmic rays are deflected by the Sun meaning less clouds and warmer temperatures for all.

That's pretty much a cut down version of what they described, I've been trying to find graphs and like but with no luck.

Although I did find this, remember the Hockey Stick graph that keeps being shown in the media?

Apparently in 2003 this was discredited (whether this version of it has since been discredited I don't know from what i've found it's apparently gaining support)

But here's what the scientists who looked over the numbers again had to say.

source

" The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components."

and it ended up looking like this..



According to that graph temperatures were higher in the 1400's.. more so than now, and the temperature increases were just as dramatic.


We may be having an effect on climate, but I keep finding sources that say one thing and other sources that say another and I really don't know what to think.

[Zac Naloen]

Heh, i'd forgotten the first part of the thread that debunks the cosmic ray theory (ignore that bit)

[Guardsman Bass]

EDIT: This is the fixed link, I hope.

[Darth Wong]

Why should anyone take the blog of a former radar engineer and economist as any sort of scientific source? Especially when it gives nothing but a broken link to a study in order to establish its credibility?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Didn't you get the memo? If someone has professional credentials in a field, regardless of relevance to the subject at hand, and they back your world view, it's the in thing to make sure they're listened to.