The Great Global Warming Swindle

[almac]

It does, but I have always mistrusted graphs since L'Oreal started using them to prove to me why their products are better than the others. Detailed reasoning required, not a graph.

It was all a bit 'here comes the science' in a pretty graph form that you can understand (*whisper* be taken in by)

Let's be forthright here, the GW doom merchants aren't going to change their minds on the basis of one C4 programme. That would be too much like admitting defeat.

However, the fact that the programme was even commissioned, made and then aired in a prime evening TV slot is evidence enough that the pro-GW lobbyists might not just get it all their own way.

There's GW doubting afoot and the noises are getting louder.

Nothing annoys the public more than the feeling that they're being sold a dud. Only time will tell - meanwhile, tonight's programme at least goes a little way to redressing the balance over GW hysteria that we've all had to endure for so long. If you tell people something for long enough they'll start to believe in it (that's what Orwell maintained in that great masterpiece 1984).

Isn't living in a democracy great? No one needs to take GW as gospel just because 'everyone' says it's true.

PS This is my first post (lurker for a long time).

PPS No need to be kind to me just because I'm a noob

PPPS Enjoying this debate, folks.

[Bobby]

Well, was pretty much what I expected. Dumbed down presentation, dodgy facts and misleading statements. A few fruitcakes (Piers Cobryn e.g. ) thrown in too. There was also nothing in the programme that I haven't read about before in relation to arguments against AGW.

I still believe in AGW, it wasn't convincing enough I'm afraid to change my views.

Edit: Another thing, the media never came up with the theory of AGW. The world's scientists climatologists, geologists etc did. So it's unfair I think to say that people have been "fed" global warming as if it's some part of a sinister propaganda effort. The media may well twist things and hype things up - that's what they do - but it's scientists in labs and so on that came up with AGW theory. Listen to them, not the media.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Magpie

[davehsug]

I think you'd have to be very feeble minded to have your views changed by the programme, but if it makes people think a little more & question the "facts" that are presented to them then it was worthwhile.

Incidentally, what was that bit about mosquitoes there for? Didn't see the relevance of it myself.

Dave

[Admiral_Bobski]

1. The use of various graphs that 'prove' so many other things cause warming when they don't coorelate even remotely as well as the CO2 one. I particularly enjoyed the solar cycle one. Not only was it represented incorrectly but they chopped the end off - the bit where temperature continues to climb but the solar cycle drops to a minimum. Hmmm... I didn't see CO2 dropping. Nobody denies the solar cycle has a strong impact on climate change but temperatures are rising in spite of it.

Actually there is some correlation between temperature and various other factors, sunspot cycles being just one of them. What do you feel was incorrectly represented? I have to admit that I was hoping for an explanation of the divergence in the graph post-1975, and was annoyed that they so brazenly showed the temp graph continuing but the solar cycle one stopping and didn't even mention it. Still, that's an avenue of discussion and research for a later date, until the wider debate has died down a bit...

2. Sea level rise - another misrepresentation. The footage of the storm surge striking London is unrelated to the discussion they had.

Again, what do you feel was misrepresented? As for the footage, it was being used to highlight the "end of the world is nigh" approach being used by the pro-AGW lobby in support of their claims, despite the fact that the evidence doesn't support those images.

3. Cosmic rays...

I'll come back to this one tomorrow when I've had a chance to mull it over a bit!

4. Industrialisation of 3rd world countries will not help their population. Energy and mineral exploration will be funded by companies from the west who will bring in their own workers. If we really want to help their populations we need to invest in decentralised energy production. Advances in solar technology mean that it is becoming a very efficient form of energy production.

Of course industrialisation will help their population - it would give them heating, it would give them cooling, it would give them light, clean water, more effective sanitation, better medical supplies and better access to those supplies... The list goes on. In essence, it would give them everything that we have and they don't. It's not just about jobs - it's about quality of life, and a better quality of life gives a better life expectancy. And while solar technology may be becoming more efficient, it isn't becoming affordably cheaper.

5. More than a few of the featured scientists including Patrick Moore have ties to Exxon and other companies with a vested interest.

Ties with oil companies are irrelevant - it's the science that counts. Besides, as has been talked about on here many a time, and was mentioned in the programme, if that's some kind of dismissal of professional skeptics then virtually all pro-GW scientists can be dismissed because of their connections with governments. If you're talking vested interests...

C-Bob

[Thundery wintry showers]

I started watching this program, largely expecting a lot of unfounded views, circular and/or unsubstantiated arguments etc. I was pleasantly surprised by it; although there are some arguments that were presented that I could refute in a few seconds flat, other arguments did seem to carry far more weight and did seem reasonably plausible.

1. The use of various graphs that 'prove' so many other things cause warming when they don't coorelate even remotely as well as the CO2 one. I particularly enjoyed the solar cycle one. Not only was it represented incorrectly but they chopped the end off - the bit where temperature continues to climb but the solar cycle drops to a minimum. Hmmm... I didn't see CO2 dropping. Nobody denies the solar cycle has a strong impact on climate change but temperatures are rising in spite of it.

This was the main gaping wide hole I found in an aspect of the program's coverage. I also noticed that they related the recent temperature trends in the Arctic to solar variation, which is all very well, but they deliberately avoided correlating global temperature with solar output- which shows a strong correlation for the 1910-1940 warming, but much less of a definite correlation for the post-1980 warming.

I have to admit to having been largely convinced by the IPCC Report and related stances- and I repeat what I said on another thread; I search for the absolute truth in all situations, even if it isn't what I want it to be, therefore I have to be as unbiased as possible, therefore I consider it a very good thing that a TV program was aired that presented some of the alternative views, to give me a more complete picture. I still commend the IPCC report in the sense that they at least made an effort to be unbiased, unlike most climate change groups, but fallible humans will never be able to eliminate bias completely especially when politics is involved.

The program hasn't significantly changed my views on global warming. I have always felt that humans are most likely contributing to climate change- and this is the case even if CO2 isn't an important forcing mechanism, because human activities are causing many other chemical substances to be released in excessive quantities. I will be particularly interested to see what the climate change scientists on the "GW end" have to come up with against some of the more convincing counterarguments.

It doesn't change my manifesto either- I still believe that we should take action against pollution, but favour no-regrets policies over bringing in a large stick.

[Mondy]

Let's be forthright here, the GW doom merchants aren't going to change their minds on the basis of one C4 programme. That would be too much like admitting defeat.

However, the fact that the programme was even commissioned, made and then aired in a prime evening TV slot is evidence enough that the pro-GW lobbyists might not just get it all their own way.

There's GW doubting afoot and the noises are getting louder.

Nothing annoys the public more than the feeling that they're being sold a dud. Only time will tell - meanwhile, tonight's programme at least goes a little way to redressing the balance over GW hysteria that we've all had to endure for so long. If you tell people something for long enough they'll start to believe in it (that's what Orwell maintained in that great masterpiece 1984).

Isn't living in a democracy great? No one needs to take GW as gospel just because 'everyone' says it's true.

PS This is my first post (lurker for a long time).

PPS No need to be kind to me just because I'm a noob

PPPS Enjoying this debate, folks.

Excellently thought out first post, almac.

I just wonder how many more lurkers or posters agree with your sentiments.

[almac]

I think you'd have to be very feeble minded to have your views changed by the programme, but if it makes people think a little more & question the "facts" that are presented to them then it was worthwhile.

Incidentally, what was that bit about mosquitoes there for? Didn't see the relevance of it myself.

Dave

I think 'that bit about the mosquitoes' was there to show that the IPCC cannot be trusted with the facts. They claimed that mosquitoes don't live below 18C, whereas one of their former scientists and world authorities on the subject said they can live below 18C. I'm sure it was just a TV ploy to cast further doubt on the credentials and postulating of the IPCC.

Incidentally, there's a lot of 'feeble minded' people about Dave. Just look at all those who readily embraced the notion of GW.

[osmposm]

Yes, some interesting stuff later on, particularly about the politics - amidst the silly visuals with jolly sound effects. HOWEVER, even from my small knowledge there were some grotesque twistings of the facts. The early part seemed hopelessly simplistic and/or incorrect, especially about the Medieval Warm period....all the usual vineyard guff, as if vines were not growable and indeed grown well north in the UK today. The Thames used to freeze in the Little Ice Age, gosh, really? Um, how come it froze on numerous occasions during the MWP, too? A great emphasis on Urban Heat Island effects as an explananation for higher temps - no mention of the calculations made to compensate for that, or for readings from non-urban areas. And as for the comforting notion that it is beyond mere humans to alter climate....well, I think it's well-established that deforestation can and does, and that diverting large rivers may well do so; and I'm not sure I'd want to be around after the detonation of even half of our nuclear arsenal.

I am not knowledgeable about the credentials of most of the impressive-sounding scientists they used, but any programme that allows Piers Corbyn to tell a plain lie about what the Met Office predicted for last - i.e. 05-06 - winter has to be suspect: did their researchers not think to check with them what they actually forecast? I seem to remember that they called it remarkably well. I know that is weather, not climate, but it reflects badly on the reliability of their other "expert" opinions, surely?

[parmenides3]

Evening all. No surprise; nobody has changed their mind about anything much, it seems.

My opinion? At first I thought it was clever, but after a while it got repetitive and I gave up, because the material was all so familiar.

What I did watch contained carefully phrased sentences which did not say what they appeared to, quotations which had no proper context, so may or may not have been what the people were actually referring to, cherry-picks from wherever they could be found, blatantly deceptive graphs based on old or incomplete research/data, and overexaggerated claims of conspiracies and vested interests which were no more than opinions.

Almost every image and sentence was a carefully constructed deception or misrepresentation.

I don't expect the doubters to agree with me, or even to care what I think. I don't expect the AGWers to be fooled for an instant. I certainly have neither the time nor the desire to go over the same material for the thousand and oneth time to 'prove' AGW.

Does anyone remember the Hitler diaries? That one sold a lot of newspapers.

:)P

[Bobby]

Yes, some interesting stuff later on, particularly about the politics - amidst the silly visuals with jolly sound effects. HOWEVER, even from my small knowledge there were some grotesque twistings of the facts. The early part seemed hopelessly simplistic and/or incorrect, especially about the Medieval Warm period....all the usual vineyard guff, as if vines were not growable and indeed grown well north in the UK today. The Thames used to freeze in the Little Ice Age, gosh, really? Um, how come it froze on numerous occasions during the MWP, too? A great emphasis on Urban Heat Island effects as an explananation for higher temps - no mention of the calculations made to compensate for that, or for readings from non-urban areas. And as for the comforting notion that it is beyond mere humans to alter climate....well, I think it's well-established that deforestation can and does, and that diverting large rivers may well do so; and I'm not sure I'd want to be around after the detonation of even half of our nuclear arsenal.

I am not knowledgeable about the credentials of most of the impressive-sounding scientists they used, but any programme that allows Piers Corbyn to tell a plain lie about what the Met Office predicted for last - i.e. 05-06 - winter has to be suspect: did their researchers not think to check with them what they actually forecast? I seem to remember that they called it remarkably well. I know that is weather, not climate, but it reflects badly on the reliability of their other "expert" opinions, surely?

Indeedy, in fact the programme might have strengthened my belief in AGW, as if this is the best they can come up with, then AGW and its mighty weight of evidence seems even more likely to be correct.

[Guest Viking141]

Heres a couple of things that this programme raised for me:

1. The fairly close correlation between temperature and the solar cycle (I know this is a favourite of some on here) this theory will be very shortly put to the test as we approach the onset of the Gleissberg Minimum.

2. That CO2 increase is a PRODUCT of temp rise not the CAUSE.

3. The politicisation of the IPCC and the admission that statements by certain scientists that didnt fit with the current "orthodoxy" were omitted which leaves its credibility, as far as I am concerned, at zero. Their report has been as "sexed up" as the dossier on Iraqs WMD's were before the invasion of Iraq and yet rather than castigate them, as we have George W Bush & Tony Blair, people seem to applaud them!

4. That models are only as accurate as the assumptions they are based on and if any one of those assumptions is wrong the whole thing is way off the mark. (Garbage in - garbage out is very true here). Furthermore they can be tweaked to mean what you want them to mean. Something I have pointed out frequently.

5. That the environmental movement has been hijacked by people with an entirely different political agenda - I found the comments by the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, particularly telling and is something I have long suspected. They dont call environmentalists "Water Melons" these days for nothing you know (green on the outside - red in the middle).

I hope this programme acts as a catalyst and that scientists who dispute the almost "Jehovas Witness" like orthodoxy of AGW will now come forward and challenge this head on. After all, it took some very brave people to challenge the orthodoxy that the earth was flat.

[parmenides3]

In effect, this was just a TV summary of the average standard doubters' website, The same material can be found on Junkscience, Warwick Hughes, CO2Science, etc. etc. It'll vanish soon enough.

:)P

[Thundery wintry showers]

blatantly deceptive graphs based on old or incomplete research/data

Would agree with that; I haven't seen a single temperature graph that showed as abrupt a cooling from 1940-1970 as the programme showed, for instance. I even sceptically thought that they might have used temperatures from higher up in the atmosphere. Certainly, I was extremely sceptical of some of the stuff that the programme showed.

One point that interested me, in addition to the ones Viking flagged up (which incidentally cover most of the ones that I could see a decent case for), is the idea that climate models suggest that higher altitudes should be warming faster than the surface, when this is not true. I remember that the NOAA had stated reasons for this but it's too late in the evening to hunt now; I might do so tomorrow.

I agreed with much of what the programme said about political agendas and environmental extremism, but much of that misses the point. If the extremists are wrong, that doesn't disprove AGW at all, it merely proves that there are extremists who are as worth listening to as the likes of IceAgeNow at the other end of the spectrum.

[almac]

Evening all. No surprise; nobody has changed their mind about anything much, it seems.

My opinion? At first I thought it was clever, but after a while it got repetitive and I gave up, because the material was all so familiar.

What I did watch contained carefully phrased sentences which did not say what they appeared to, quotations which had no proper context, so may or may not have been what the people were actually referring to, cherry-picks from wherever they could be found, blatantly deceptive graphs based on old or incomplete research/data, and overexaggerated claims of conspiracies and vested interests which were no more than opinions.

Almost every image and sentence was a carefully constructed deception or misrepresentation.

I don't expect the doubters to agree with me, or even to care what I think. I don't expect the AGWers to be fooled for an instant. I certainly have neither the time nor the desire to go over the same material for the thousand and oneth time to 'prove' AGW.

Does anyone remember the Hitler diaries? That one sold a lot of newspapers.

:)P

There must be a lot of people insecure in their GW beliefs if one TV programme can elicit such a wide response.

'Almost every image and sentence was a carefully constructed deception or misrepresentation.' 'blatantly deceptive graphs'. 'overexaggerated claims of conspiracies'. That's strong, if maybe a tad overexaggerated, stuff from a GW believer.

I recall when the Hitler Diaries sold a lot of newspapers. I also recall how Watergate revealed the truth while everyone else swallowed the party line.

[parmenides3]

The models suggest tropospheric warming (there is) and stratospheric cooling (there is), but the database is a bit short to make a strong statistical case. As for you, Vikes: in order: unproven hypothesis; irrelevance (and inaccuracy); misrepresentation; inaccuracy; the last one is about politics and people, not about science. But I know these are favourites of yours, so I won't try to persuade you.

Just because enviromentalists hijack AGW to justify their own agendas, doesn't have anything to do with whether the science is sound or valid.

:)P

[almac]

In effect, this was just a TV summary of the average standard doubters' website, The same material can be found on Junkscience, Warwick Hughes, CO2Science, etc. etc. It'll vanish soon enough.

:)P

Just like the crank TV summaries that we were once fed on TV about Global Warming? We thought that would 'vanish soon enough' too - but it didn't. In fact, it's now been fed to us for so long that a lot of people take it as gospel.

It's the easiest thing in the world to dismiss material contrary to one's beliefs with a simple 'It'll vanish soon enough'. Says who? You?

[parmenides3]

There must be a lot of people insecure in their GW beliefs if one TV programme can elicit such a wide response.

'Almost every image and sentence was a carefully constructed deception or misrepresentation.' 'blatantly deceptive graphs'. 'overexaggerated claims of conspiracies'. That's strong, if maybe a tad overexaggerated, stuff from a GW believer.

I recall when the Hitler Diaries sold a lot of newspapers. I also recall how Watergate revealed the truth while everyone else swallowed the party line.

Alternatively, there might be a lot of people who are secure in their 'beliefs' who are worried that impressionable sorts might get mugged.

That wasn't a strong response; that was the polite version. And what's this about 'belief' anyway? I don't 'believe' the science I read, I analyse it and evaluate it, then decide whether to accept it or not. This is not belief, this is reason.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that Watergate was not about swallowing a party line. It was about illegally raiding the opposition's hotel rooms. You get my point, anyway: the 'winners' here are C4, who have probably done quite good ratings for the show.

:)P

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm off to bed now; will see what the state of discussion is tomorrow!

In my beliefs I tend to adopt a position of "believe that X is true if the evidence suggests so, but be prepared to change my mind if I come across a sufficient amount of contrary evidence", trying to avoid becoming fixed in my ideas.

The only way my views on AGW will change as a result of seeing that programme is if any arguments presented in the programme sound reasonable, and aren't debunked by counterarguments that appear rather more convincing. I don't think my ideas on how to combat pollution would ever be changed by the "AGW or not?" assessment as my proposals are largely independent, aiming to minimise pollution at minimal cost to humans; those would only change as a result of evidence from other topic areas.

As for CO2 following temperature and not the other way round, and the 800-year lag, anyone got any links or information on the AGW counter to that argument? I'd be very interested to know what it is.

[parmenides3]

This, for example, is where I get my evidence from: http://www.agu.org/pubs/current/gl/

That includes the material which debunks the stuff they used tonight, like the cosmic rays.

:)P

[HighPressure]

I am amazed at the AGW fanbase here, they have their fingers in their ears going la la la and their eyes shut, all these scientists are not mad. The saying 'no smoke without fire' comes to mind here of course it was old arguments and yes they show the graphs they want, but that is no different to the IPCC. I am always concerned about anyone who believes in any argument in its entirity both camps have their own politcal agenda, both seek the answers they want. Two totally opposing arguments on the same subject is counter productive. My big hope is that enough good scientists will break away from both camps to form a sensible organisation free of outside pressures and polictical agenda's.

I want to see the arguments of CO2 induced warming argued alonside that of Solar activity and debate reopened across the board. Simply there are too many doubters for any one body to suppress the otherside, as a not very scientific person I can tell one thing is that both sides scientific theories are just that theories with little or no proof to back them up, just their own sets of dodgy graphs.

Not goo enough for me I am afraid..

[parmenides3]

Perhaps some the evidence from here would be satisfactory? http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acpd/recent_papers.html

HP, there is no suppression going on here. You can tell by reading the posts.

:)P

Alternatively, perhaps soem people might want to dip into these publications, as I do, regularly; they are open text, so you don't need to subscribe: http://www.copernicus.org/COPERNICUS/publi...n_journals.html

:)P

These journals, which I also peruse at times, are subscription, but you can read the abstracts: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-archive

How many more links would people like to scientific journals which contain the actual research and the actual results from the actual scientists who do the actual work? I've a few more to go, yet.

:)P

Edited March 9, 2007 by parmenides3

[jethro]

I am amazed at the AGW fanbase here, they have their fingers in their ears going la la la and their eyes shut, all these scientists are not mad. The saying 'no smoke without fire' comes to mind here of course it was old arguments and yes they show the graphs they want, but that is no different to the IPCC. I am always concerned about anyone who believes in any argument in its entirity both camps have their own politcal agenda, both seek the answers they want. Two totally opposing arguments on the same subject is counter productive. My big hope is that enough good scientists will break away from both camps to form a sensible organisation free of outside pressures and polictical agenda's.

I want to see the arguments of CO2 induced warming argued alonside that of Solar activity and debate reopened across the board. Simply there are too many doubters for any one body to suppress the otherside, as a not very scientific person I can tell one thing is that both sides scientific theories are just that theories with little or no proof to back them up, just their own sets of dodgy graphs.

Not goo enough for me I am afraid..

Agreed, the most sensible post so far tonight.

[parmenides3]

If you can't cope with the science, this site prvides an easy-to-read summary of some of the important papers published every month: this is January's version: http://www.ukcip.org.uk/news_releases/38.pdf

:)P

[almac]

Alternatively, there might be a lot of people who are secure in their 'beliefs' who are worried that impressionable sorts might get mugged.

That wasn't a strong response; that was the polite version. And what's this about 'belief' anyway? I don't 'believe' the science I read, I analyse it and evaluate it, then decide whether to accept it or not. This is not belief, this is reason.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that Watergate was not about swallowing a party line. It was about illegally raiding the opposition's hotel rooms. You get my point, anyway: the 'winners' here are C4, who have probably done quite good ratings for the show.

:)P

Belief/reason; let's be honest, that's nit-picking symantics. Do you believe in GW? After a spot of reasoning you probably do.

My gripe is about swallowing the whole GW line; this steadfast refusal to waiver in the face of any contrary evidence, no matter how slight.

Surely we owe it to ourselves not to have such closed minds.

[parmenides3]

Perhaps. as I have, you might want to dig out one or two of these papers: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...bs/ref2006.html

The point I am making should be obvious by now. I read the science. And I know how to spell semantics. And the distinction between belief and reason is not a matter of semantics, anyway. And who says I, or anybody for that matter, am swallowing the whole GW line? Let me make this simple; there is no contrary evidence. maybe one day there will be. After thirty years of struggle, though, by those who wish the world to be otherwise, there is still no contradictory evidence.

I do not have a closed mind. Ask anyone on NW. Even better, ask anyone who knows me. To me, the closed mind is the one which is incapable of reason.

:)P

You can read the abstracts for these, too. I'll confess, i've only read about a hundred of them: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/subproject_publications.php

:)P

Edited March 9, 2007 by parmenides3