The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Gray-Wolf]

Cheers for that Mondy! (another spam to my count!!!)

Is that him (Pengers) 'at himself', lower left?

Edited March 15, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Mondy]

What? The one on the wall sleeping?......probably :lol:

[The Penguin]

Mondy, I love you to bits, but you've really got to trust people on this:

Mondy, unless Melanie Philips is a fat lady who sings, don't trust anybody on this.

[HighPressure]

I don't why its so difficult for a sceptic to prove he or she is not anti saving the planet or some sort of US backed carbon burning Satanist. This is just not true most of us are people who are simply undecided by the facts that both sides provide and programmes such as CH4's are useful we are undecided not stupid you know. I simply say to the pro camp you are making a complete pigs ear of presenting your case to the masses most ordinary folk who you need to be on your side do not understand the complexities of the argument. I admit to struggling with some of the technical issues so presentation and credibility really do play a major role for me and you have to realise that politicians are really not going to cut any ice and quoting them is likely to be counter productive.

This is not because I have my fingers in my ears but its because if Milliband announced to the world was round I could probably put a group together by Saturday stating it was flat simply because not only does this guy not know what he is talking about but he is part of the most disbelieved breed of people on the planet. This is not the way to win the battle for hearts and minds or to deliver the message to the masses. I am unclear as to whether the motive on here by the pro camp is simply to hammer home their scientific argument by getting ever more complex or achieve actual action by the masses to reduce carbon emissions because there is a world of difference. I get the impression along with more and more people I meet that the pro camp along with their government allies just want to beat us all with sticks until we accept in full everything they say and that all these AGW policies are here to help us. The problem with this stance is that it creates more resistance to the case for action against AGW, whether these people are thick, stupid or arrogant does not really matter but what does is that they are not backing action AGW. For every pro supporter you are managing to create 2 sceptics which you have to admit is an amazing feat for a body with such a good scientific argument.

So you can say this is nothing to do with the subject all you like but that's why we have programmes like 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and there support is growing whether you accept it not. If the Swindle theory supporters have all been hood winked you can't knock the delivery of their argument can you. Its not just about the science its about delivery, credibility and has to take into account economic and social factors, otherwise the pro's may win the battle but not the war.

Edited March 15, 2007 by HighPressure

[gmoran]

EDIT: A quick peek at Prof Reiter's bio shows that he is employed by a research organisation ("Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy") funded by Exxon-mobil.........Now I wonder why he might not like the idea of climate change???

But this doesn't invalidate what he is writing. Is he regarded as being an expert in his field? Are his views a reflection of the mainstream in his field? Are his complaints against the IPCC valid? Also his views as written in the link don't challenge the evidence for AGW at all, merely the politicization within the IPCC concerning his area of expertise.

Science thrives on a certain amount of diversity. Many paradigm shifts occur with the questioning of the accepted wisdom. I have no problems with energy companies funding research that runs contrary to current thinking on GW, as long as that in itself doesn't distort the research.

[parmenides3]

I get the impression along with more and more people I meet that the pro camp along with their government allies just want to beat us all with sticks until we accept in full everything they say and that all these AGW policies are here to help us. The problem with this stance is that it creates more resistance to the case for action against AGW, whether these people are thick, stupid or arrogant does not really matter but what does is that they are not backing action AGW. For every pro supporter you are managing to create 2 sceptics which you have to admit is an amazing feat for a body with such a good scientific argument.

I will repeat this yet again, HP, just for you: 'Pro-AGW' is not 'Pro-government'. I do not count the government as my allies in improving the understanding of climate change; I think they make a complete pig's ear of the issue and are abusing the science to satisfy a different agenda, related to energy policy.

Is this clear enough?

The arguments about whether AGW is real and significant are about the scientific basis. I accept that people then use these as arguments for policy decisions, which 'pros' and 'antis' alike can agree or disagree with. But to complain that I, or anyone else on these threads, want to 'beat you with a stick' until you accept government policy is a nonsense. I want you to read the evidence and decide whether or not you think AGW is a problem, that is all.

Its not just about the science its about delivery, credibility and has to take into account economic and social factors, otherwise the pro's may win the battle but not the war.

I think this is a very important point, for two reasons. Firstly, that in this argument the people who should have the greatest credibility, the scientists, are not trusted by so many people. There may be many reasons for this, but one of them is undoubtedly the persistent disinformation campaigns which have been run by certain groups with vested interests, who cast doubt through a variety of propaganda tactics (as so usefully laid out by Mondy on a previous post), on them and their work. Secondly, it tells us something about the society we live in, when the substance of a subject is secondary to the style; how it 'looks' has more of an impact than 'how it is'.

I simply say to the pro camp you are making a complete pigs ear of presenting your case to the masses most ordinary folk who you need to be on your side do not understand the complexities of the argument. I admit to struggling with some of the technical issues so presentation and credibility really do play a major role for me and you have to realise that politicians are really not going to cut any ice and quoting them is likely to be counter productive.

I think I can honestly say that I have never quoted a politician in support of my arguments about whether or not AGW is a problem. I understand what you are saying about the complexities of the argument, but the bottom line is that the subject is complicated and so is the science, and it is very hard even to simplify it to the level you often read on these threads. To simplify it even more is to invite accusations of being patronising or presumptious, or to invite flat denial or shrieks of indignation from one's opponents.

How do you think we can improve the presentation of the information so as to make it easier to understand? What would give our arguments more credibility? If you can help with these questions, I am sure that some of us will try to help you understand the technical issues.

:)P

[gmoran]

How do you think we can improve the presentation of the information so as to make it easier to understand? What would give our arguments more credibility? If you can help with these questions, I am sure that some of us will try to help you understand the technical issues.

The problem with the style of AGW is the Green movement. GW is presented as being humanities fault, that we are destroying the planet, and that the only solution is to drastically cut carbon emissions.

Like all systems, the earths temperature modulates around a stable equlibrium. We are currently on an upward trend. The rise due to CO2 is on top of this. So GW in general is not humanities fault, however we are increasing the proportion of atmospheric CO2 and this is and will continue to have a warming effect.

Anthropogenic CO2 is not destroying the planet, but it may prove economically costly (including humanitarian crises) if positive feedback mechanisms cause temperatures to rise beyond what CO2 IR absorption can achieve by itself, an area I understand to have a wide range of uncertainty.

The solution is undoubtedly to try and stabilize CO2 levels. But the decision making process on this needs to be made on economic (inc. humanitarian considerations), not ideological, grounds.

[parmenides3]

The problem with the style of AGW is the Green movement. GW is presented as being humanities fault, that we are destroying the planet, and that the only solution is to drastically cut carbon emissions.

Okay, how can I convince you that I am not necessarily a part of the Green movement?

The point you make about the 'guilt trip' is important, I agree. Some people, you just want to punch in the face (no offence to committed greens here, but some people go way over the top...). The thing here, is that being 'pro-AGW' is not the same as being 'green'. Ecological idealism is a laudable and important principle (when it isn't taken too far), but it is important to recognise that some enviromentalists have also hijacked the science to make their political/moral point. Again, it is the abuse of the science which you are objecting to, not the actual science itself.

If you accept that agreeing that AGW is real does not need to imply an 'environmentalist' response, would you be willing to agree that AGW is an actual, real phenomenon?

:)P

[HighPressure]

I am not saying for one minute that pro AGW are all pro government just that a major part of the pro argument is being delivered by politicians, thats who you see talking about it on the 6pm news. I am afraid that I like many others just don't believe the photo shoot opportunities, we all know full well that behind Blare or Cameron riding a bike or digging a hole there is an entourage of 14 range rovers and Jaguars. This is not the fault of the science rather its delivery by people who we all know to live exactly the type of life that cutting emissions is targeted at, Prescot 2 jags, Blair long haul Holidays I could go on but you know what I mean. The one thing that is guaranteed to provoke a negative response to any argument is the bar stool preaching do as I say not as I do theme. The average Joe sees this at 6pm and watches CH4's Great Global Warming Swindle at 9pm, of course he is well up for this because it tells him everything he wants to hear and underlines everything he thought about those politicians he saw on the 6pm news.

Now my point is that somewhere in there the carefully thought out scientific arguments on AGW are being completely lost on the general public. Ask most people in the street they don't have a clue who is right or wrong but overwhelmingly they will tell you they think their are just being conned and taken for a ride for more taxation.

I think that many aspects of the AGW debate have to change if we want real sustainable action collectively on AWG.

First we need the message delivered into our living rooms by people who are trusted by the man in the street, pop stars, football and cricket players etc. We need high profile people to be seen to change their lifestyles, which at present I don't see just a continuation of excesses.

Second it needs to be shown how cutting emissions will benefit everyone on the social spectrum and crucially the less well off have to see that the more wealthy cannot simply buy themselves out of their global responsibility simple because they can afford to.

You have to deliver a carrot along with the stick, I can see road pricing, air transport taxes etc, but I don't see how mr average is going to get to work when he cannot afford to use the M25 anymore or how Mrs Average is going to get the kids to school. This of course does not apply if you are well off. What is needed is real alternatives and a sense of social justice because I am sure even the pro AGW camp will agree that the science is not nailed down and they still require a leap of faith in some degree. It also needs people to want to do something and not feel they are just being conned.

[Iceberg]

I've heard that the CH4 program altered alot of it's graphs for the repeat, apparently they sourced them incorrectly, had the wrong time scales on ,10000 years instead of 1000 years and were basically so poorly done that they were forced to change them in order to show the repeat.

They are also being forced to issue an appology and 5 min show detailing where they made some fundamental factural errors.

Not that I expect this to change the sceptics views in anyway......

[Devonian]

The problem with the style of AGW is the Green movement. GW is presented as being humanities fault, that we are destroying the planet, and that the only solution is to drastically cut carbon emissions.

Like all systems, the earths temperature modulates around a stable equlibrium. We are currently on an upward trend. The rise due to CO2 is on top of this. So GW in general is not humanities fault, however we are increasing the proportion of atmospheric CO2 and this is and will continue to have a warming effect.

Anthropogenic CO2 is not destroying the planet, but it may prove economically costly (including humanitarian crises) if positive feedback mechanisms cause temperatures to rise beyond what CO2 IR absorption can achieve by itself, an area I understand to have a wide range of uncertainty.

The solution is undoubtedly to try and stabilize CO2 levels. But the decision making process on this needs to be made on economic (inc. humanitarian considerations), not ideological, grounds.

But, you seem to be advocating green movement policies? I mean, if you were to try advocating stabilising CO2 levels in some places on the net you'd be blasted with shrieks of 'You're a greenie car hating loony' or similar . It's all relative I suppose.

[noggin]

I've heard that the CH4 program altered alot of it's graphs for the repeat, apparently they sourced them incorrectly, had the wrong time scales on ,10000 years instead of 1000 years and were basically so poorly done that they were forced to change them in order to show the repeat.

They are also being forced to issue an appology and 5 min show detailing where they made some fundamental factural errors.

Who is making them do that, then?

Will the IPCC lot also be forced to issue an apology and produce a document showing some fundamental factual errors?

It is an old saying, but very true, that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Level playing fields and all that as well.

I know I'm digressing, but the more I think about things, the more I am angered by how much rubbish the "powers that be" are wanting us to swallow. The amount of things with Armageddon-like consequences that have been forced upon us in my half a century on this Earth is just ridiculous. This current one will be replaced by another one or my name ain't noggin. (Well, it isn't really, but the gist is there!)

I'm off to have a grumble on another thread.

[VillagePlank]

Hang on a minute, chaps.

I do not believe sceptics want the planet to dissolve into some molten pot of rock. I do not believe that the pro-AGW want to create economic instability.

I believe BOTH sides are just as committed to looking after the human race, and our environment just as much as the other.

There are extremists on both sides. The best policy is to ignore - they do eventually, go away

[Michael Winston]

Mike: what's your answer to the earlier question (see #563, above, for example) ?

P

Sorry, P, for being vague in my previous reply. Sorry, too, for the delay in replying (had to cook the tea and eat it! Life!! Hah!!!) Sorry for the further delay as my Internet went down!!!!

My simple answer is No. No, I'm undecided and no, nothing I have read has altered my opinion about AGW/GW. I'm still undecided if this phenomenon exists. However, yes, it is definitely worth the effort.

Allow me to explain (if I can).

I suppose that I can accommodate both sides of the argument and enjoy (if that's the word) the weighing of opposing arguments. I try, in the words of General 'Buck' Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove, to ''await passing judgement until all the facts are in''. Unfortunately, the world was disintegrating around him yet he wasn't prepared to make a judgement call and that's how I feel - apprehensive, yet undecided. Also, I have a problem with 'facts', just as Galileo and Copernicus did in their time. There's an educational school of thought (the 'Enquiry Method') that values the judgement of the individual who remains undecided when presented with the evidence every bit as much as one who makes up his mind. (I've written about this elsewhere, so I won't bore you with all that again - see post # 169 on 'the Naysayers' Guide to Global Warming'.) Conclusions aren't always the most valuable things to the 'good' learner; they see things as a process, that most things are in a constant state of flux and that there is, for most of the time, no 'closure' (if you'll forgive me using that dreadful phrase). Anxieties expressed on this thread seem to me to be based, in part, in a lack of conclusive evidence or 'proof' and definitive solutions for a widely accepted hypothesis i.e. GW is occurring. Personally, I don't think there is any but that in itself doesn't worry me. I believe that it is profitable to keep an open mind, listen to all sides and not to fret if I don't reach any conclusions that will allow me to sleep more easily at night. That's good of me, eh?!!

I take comfort from the point made by some that we assume a great deal if, as humans, we believe that our actions can destroy the planet within the space of 2 or 3 generations through a catastrophic series of events, the existence of which have only been recently forwarded by people within and without the scientific community. So yes, the discussion is worth the effort, even if the answer is 'maybe'.

Thanks, P, for taking the time to read this. I'd like to think of myself as an interested observer that values, learns and takes great pleasure from all the posts here (apart from my own, of course - I just waffle on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.........)

Kind regards,

Mike.

Apologies for the lack of coherence, but I've jotted this down very quickly.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Winston

[Devonian]

Hang on a minute, chaps.

I do not believe sceptics want the planet to dissolve into some molten pot of rock. I do not believe that the pro-AGW want to create economic instability.

I believe BOTH sides are just as committed to looking after the human race, and our environment just as much as the other.

There are extremists on both sides. The best policy is to ignore - they do eventually, go away

Wholeheartedly agree, except, sometimes (see Churchill's late 30's commons speech(es?)) some 'extremists' are right (and by definition other extremists very, very, very wrong). I think the extreme of 'it's not warming' has gone - the goal posts have move, and towards one side of the debate (erm, if goalposts can move to one side of the debate...), I don't think the extreme of (by, literally, degree) 'it might warm by 3/4/5/6C' has. I'm 2-4 but I can't see how we can rule out more.

[7andY]

I've heard that the CH4 program altered alot of it's graphs for the repeat, apparently they sourced them incorrectly, had the wrong time scales on ,10000 years instead of 1000 years and were basically so poorly done that they were forced to change them in order to show the repeat.

They are also being forced to issue an appology and 5 min show detailing where they made some fundamental factural errors.

Not that I expect this to change the sceptics views in anyway......

...would this be like the way that the stats were 'arranged' to produce the now (in)famous 'Hockey Stick' temperature graph??...

Cheers, 7&Y

[Michael Winston]

I do not believe sceptics want the planet to dissolve into some molten pot of rock. I do not believe that the pro-AGW want to create economic instability.

I'm more cynical, I'm afraid. I have said before that I firmly believe that human survival is not particularly significant in comparison with short-term power and wealth to those nabobs that control the New World Order.

That's the scary aspect about AGW as far as I'm concerned. And Trident too, for that matter.

Regards,

Mike.

[parmenides3]

...would this be like the way that the stats were 'arranged' to produce the now (in)famous 'Hockey Stick' temperature graph??...

Cheers, 7&Y

No. The stats on the 'hockey stick' were legit, as was the data processing. Here, the graphs have been changed to fit the hypothesis. See stoat: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ There is absolutely no comparison to be made between the microscopically analysed, repeated and legitimised output of MBH and the deliberate changing of graphs (whilst also using out of date or inaccurate data) to deceive viewers into believing a correlation which does not exist.

Can you come up with anything more constructive than this familiar, incorrect, claim? Check out, for example, 'fast CO2 on: http://tamino.wordpress.com/

:)P

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

No. The stats on the 'hockey stick' were legit

Stats or stat? A whole section of the graph was based on the data from a single tree. This data may have been "legit" but since temperature/tree growth varies greatly with location, such data on its own virtually useless. It's almost criminal this graph is still being passed off as a "holy grail" of quality science.

Edited March 16, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Gray-Wolf]

So dendrochronology relies on one tree? It doesn't have a wide and varied data set from all across the globe and many species of tree? You claim they used 1 tree from all that wealth of data? Could you possibly have mis-understood what was said when they said the Oak (ash, elm, bristlecomb pine, whatever) record showed.......?

Edited March 16, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

Stats or stat? A whole section of the graph was based on the data from a single tree. This data may have been "legit" but since temperature/tree growth varies greatly with location, such data on its own virtually useless. It's almost criminal this graph is still being passed off as a "holy grail" of quality science.

This is a mischaracterisation both of the fact and of my comment on the 'hockey stick'; no claim is being made to it's being a 'holy grail'. It's methodology and the conclusions of the paper it originally appeared in (MBH '98) have been tested to destruction and not found wanting. Therefore, it is fair to criticise those who claim some problem with it, unless they can point to a fault in the paper which the National Academy of Science somehow missed. I am aware of the critiques on 'climate audit', but McIntyre is pretty much a lone voice in insisting that MBH is fatally flawed. A close study of M&M's critique of MBH concluded that it did not establish that there was any significant error in the MBH graph.

What can be tiresome is the constant repetition of nonsense about the 'hockey stick', which has always been a debate constructed within the dialectic of the disinformationist agenda, as another example of trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of claims of AGW. Since 1998, both observations and several other palaeo reconstructions have been done; the legitimacy of the GW claim has never depended on the 'hockey stick', and most certainly does not now. The other question you might wish to ask is why, in the several temperature reconstructions done since MBH, using different proxies and different methods, the results always come out looking pretty much the same? Oh; I know: it's another conspiracy.

By constantly repeating irrelevant and obfuscating arguments originating in sources with purely political agendas, people are only helping to perpetuate the confusion and dishonesty of the original sites. They may think they are repeating a valid point, but in effect, they are simply supporting the political agenda of the hard-right, anit-mitigation lobbyists. I would ask people to consider the effects such posts have, as well as question the validity of such claims prior to posting them.

:)P

[Michael Winston]

By constantly repeating irrelevant and obfuscating arguments originating in sources with purely political agendas, people are only helping to perpetuate the confusion and dishonesty of the original sites. They may think they are repeating a valid point, but in effect, they are simply supporting the political agenda of the hard-right, anit-mitigation lobbyists. I would ask people to consider the effects such posts have, as well as question the validity of such claims prior to posting them.

P

An excellent point, P. Well said.

Regards,

Mike.

[Mondy]

Oh, please! Here's something else for the doom-sayers to bark on about.

Although beautiful, the vapour trails littering the cobalt blue sky are far from harmless. Experts believe they are exacerbating global warming.

Goddamit Daily Mail link

Strange then , how i watched a documentry a while back about Global Dimming - apparently contrails help keep the world cool - without them we're doomed..!

Anyway, most flying is in daylight so trapping of IR radiation at night is not that significant. There's also something about particulates in exhaust gas forming good hygroscopic nuclei to grow denser clouds. Denser clouds add to global dimming.

These econutters* really do sweep to low levels to dish out completely inaccurate GW scare stories

*econutter - a person who goes on an Artic expedition to find out just how much GW is affecting that region. Said econutter ends up in hospital due to frostbite. You couldn't make it up!

[parmenides3]

Thank goodness nobody here is like that! P

Go on, send me your joke...

:)P

[Mondy]

*joke on the way*