The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Mondy]

I see the Channel 4 forum is a scene of pro-GW'rs going "off on one" and point blank refusing to believe anything they watched last night.

I'm wondering if any of the Pro-GW on here have been swayed a little with any of the offerings last night? Or was it all too easy to dismiss? It's not a loaded question, just interested to know.

Cosmic ray theory

The argument was that an active sun deflects cosmic rays. These tend to cause cloud formation, so when the sun is most active fewer clouds form, so lowering the albedo ( link! ). This causes the surface to warm, as is observed, rather than the upper troposphere as greenhouse effect would, but it not observed. Simple really!

Actually, it would appear to be more complicated than that. No-one really knows why the strongest correlation is with low-level couds, and it doesn't apply in the high latitudes. More research is needed. Unfortunately, research funding is given only to true believers in the greenhouse effect.

[The Penguin]

Having watched the programme in question; whilst some of the arguments against AGW were interesting, the lack of explanation for the recent warming (1975-2007) was a huge ommission.

. . . . .

What also concerns me is the fact that as oceans warm, they release yet more CO2. This positive feedback mechanism feeds CO2 levels even higher and so on. If the programme had been able to satisfactorily explain the recent warming (other than AGW) then I might have been swayed but as it stands I'll keep my feet just inside the AGW camp.

TCBTS

I largely agree with you.

One of the major factors attributed to warming was increased water vapour / cloud formation. Yet no attempt was made to quantify this arguement. In a program that held a debating stance closely aligned with my own, I found this a disappointing omission.

[kold weather]

That sadly is the problem Mondy and what the program really tries to tackle, the whole thing is far more corrupted then first meets the eye i suspect, the bit about omitting people's veiws who go against the 'poltically correct' veiw of the situation is very wrong.

This plus the quite stupid sensationlism from the media is stuff that truely winds me up. The media really seem to portray doomsday and the earth ending. Great example is with hurricanes. Nearly every signle strong one nowadays usually comes with the addage that global warming could make this worse, all reaserch suggests a 10-15mb average drop in pressure by the end of the 21st century, really thats not that much to be honest, certainly not enough to justify these dire warnings.

Also a side-point, but Al Gore's DVD inconveient truth (i think) has a power station with a hurricane coming out of the top...how ironic of all the severe weather events tropical cyclones have showed no increase globally in the last 20 years!!

As for this program, it doesn't really fight the idea of global warming IMO, but more shows just how corrupt the people involved in this can be and peoples ideas are supressed who dont go against the norm.

Edited March 9, 2007 by kold weather

[Don]

I had hoped that Piers was referring to some earlier winter (as 1991 was mentioned shortly afterwards); is there any evidence to show that he was talking about winter 2005/06?

If he was, then it was a massive misrepresentation; the only people who said the Met Office predicted a very cold winter were in the media. The Met Office were suggesting a near average to fairly cold winter if I remember rightly; their predictions were very slightly out for northern and western areas (where it ended up milder than expected) but pretty much spot on in the southeast.

The Met Office actually predicted the possibility of a colder than average Winter for southern UK, but for milder than average temperatures for northern and western parts for 2005/06 and this is exactly how it panned out. The Met Office Winter forecast for 2005/06 was infact very accurate.

Don

[mushymanrob]

fascinating programme that fully explained that we do not effect the climate (significantly anyway).

ive always argued that the climate has ALWAYS varied, this was fully demonstrated in this documentary, and has done without any help from mankind!

as the amount of carbon emmissions that we pour out is only less then 0.5%, then how tf are we responsable?

science demonstrated that carbon rises inn the atmosphere followed temperature rises that occured in correlation with solar activity.

until any new science based facts arise, im happy to blame global warming on the sun! lol.

[Mondy]

I like the cut of your jib, Mushy!

[Gray-Wolf]

Also a side-point, but Al Gore's DVD inconveient truth (i think) has a power station with a hurricane coming out of the top...how ironic of all the severe weather events tropical cyclones have showed no increase globally in the last 20 years!!

I don't think you are quite up to speed with that K.W., the latest papers suggest that within the Atlantic basin there is enough evidence to prove that storm intensity and development HAS been influenced by Global Warming.

The same cannot be said for the Pacific but they reckon this is not because it isn't 'measurable' there but because of the relative wealth of observations in the Atlantic Basin (where most U.S. storms form) compared to those within the Pacific basin.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70228123140.htm

Edited March 9, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[John Cox]

I like the cut of your jib, Mushy!

Totally agree Mondy & Mushy

[Bobby]

I don't think you are quite up to speed with that K.W., the latest papers suggest that within the Atlantic basin there is enough evidence to prove that storm intensity and development HAS been influenced by Global Warming.

The same cannot be said for the Pacific but they reckon this is not because it isn't 'measurable' there but because of the relative wealth of observations in the Atlantic Basin (where most U.S. storms form) compared to those within the Pacific basin.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70228123140.htm

It's only logical isn't it that more heat = more energy = more intense hurricanes? May be some other factors, but seems logical to me. More warmth would also mean more thunderstorms and gales for us in the UK too it would seem.

I'm not one of those who believes that GW will bring doom though. In fact I am not not sure that GW will be that bad at all, it will have bad effects, indeedy, but many positive effects too. So I have no agenda to believe in GW. But the science is so convincing that GW is happening, whether it will be a bad thing is I suppose another issue.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Magpie

[Polar Continental]

Evening everyone

I watched Great GW Swindle with an open mind; I did notice one of the main contributions to the programme was made by the x editor of New Scientist magazine. I have been a fairly regular reader for a good 15 years and have found it an excellent source of interesting and none bias information, not just aimed at the advanced academic.

He had no agenda; only it seems to communicate his real belief and the information he had in front of him.

I don’t think anyone these days doubts the fact that GW is real, it’s happening, the only arguable dispute is its causes, whether Man made, Natural or a both.

I have my views, and IMO GW is a natural event and have believed for a long while that the powers that be have an agenda, and GW is a nice convenient tool to use for their arguments.

But occasionally, I must admit to having doubts, that comes with an open mind, what annoys me are the people who argue tooth and nail, that their opinions right, so set in stone, not open to any argument at all.

Example, for people to completely dismiss the afore mentioned gentleman’s views point blank, to me only shows their very arrogant attitudes, which to me only fuels even more people to take an opposing view, this is no good for any debate.

Finally I have books from the late 60’s and early 70’s suggesting that Global Cooling was a Man made phenomena and that we should take heed quickly and amend our polluting ways.

Yes we should amend our ways, a cleaner world is better for everyone, thank god we don’t all burn slack on our fire at home any more, who wants thick acrid smoke to breath in, I do my bit for the cleaner planet by cycling 5 miles to work everyday, and recycle as much waste as possible and that includes 100% of all my garden waste, back into my own garden, we all want our children to live on an unpolluted world.

Paul

[Bobby]

Evening everyone

I watched Great GW Swindle with an open mind; I did notice one of the main contributions to the programme was made by the x editor of New Scientist magazine. I have been a fairly regular reader for a good 15 years and have found it an excellent source of interesting and none bias information, not just aimed at the advanced academic.

He had no agenda; only it seems to communicate his real belief and the information he had in front of him.

I don’t think anyone these days doubts the fact that GW is real, it’s happening, the only arguable dispute is its causes, whether Man made, Natural or a both.

I have my views, and IMO GW is a natural event and have believed for a long while that the powers that be have an agenda, and GW is a nice convenient tool to use for their arguments.

But occasionally, I must admit to having doubts, that comes with an open mind, what annoys me are the people who argue tooth and nail, that their opinions right, so set in stone, not open to any argument at all.

Example, for people to completely dismiss the afore mentioned gentleman’s views point blank, to me only shows their very arrogant attitudes, which to me only fuels even more people to take an opposing view, this is no good for any debate.

Finally I have books from the late 60’s and early 70’s suggesting that Global Cooling was a Man made phenomena and that we should take heed quickly and amend our polluting ways.

Yes we should amend our ways, a cleaner world is better for everyone, thank god we don’t all burn slack on our fire at home any more, who wants thick acrid smoke to breath in, I do my bit for the cleaner planet by cycling 5 miles to work everyday, and recycle as much waste as possible and that includes 100% of all my garden waste, back into my own garden, we all want our children to live on an unpolluted world.

Paul

I was watching BBC News 24 earlier where there was a debate between an Oxford Uni climate scientist (forget his name) and Piers Cobryn. According to the scientist, the person you mention above does actually believe in anthropogenic global warming, as he has known him for some time. His words were apparently taken out of context and mis-represented by the producers.

I have my views, and IMO GW is a natural event and have believed for a long while that the powers that be have an agenda, and GW is a nice convenient tool to use for their arguments.

I must say that this is getting to me now. Look, the media and various environmental groups may well have agendas, but why you are listening to them? Listen to the scientists on the front lines of global warming, I very much doubt they have any agenda. And the vast majority of these scientists believe in AGW.

[mushymanrob]

Finally I have books from the late 60’s and early 70’s suggesting that Global Cooling was a Man made phenomena and that we should take heed quickly and amend our polluting ways.

Yes we should amend our ways, a cleaner world is better for everyone, thank god we don’t all burn slack on our fire at home any more, who wants thick acrid smoke to breath in, I do my bit for the cleaner planet by cycling 5 miles to work everyday, and recycle as much waste as possible and that includes 100% of all my garden waste, back into my own garden, we all want our children to live on an unpolluted world.

Paul

totally agree

assuming the facts given out last night were the truth (and its pretty certain they were) and therefore man isnt responsable for gw, i still dont think we should pollute our 'great mother'.. id hate it if our inconsequence regarding gw would be used as a charter to pollute.

[parmenides3]

assuming the facts given out last night were the truth

Why would you do that?

I agree with you about the pollution, 100%.

:)P

[Joneseye]

I'm sick of being fed lies about one thing or another. I WILL be making efforts to find out the infomation for myself. The difficulty is seperating the facts from the drivel.

I would just like to add that whether GW is caused/accelerated by the human race or not - we all still have a duty to keep the planet clean, continue searching for clean renewable energy sources and stop raping the planet of it's resources.. My concern is that we will switch off from the whole GW thing and become complacent with regards to looking after our beautiful planet.

J

Hi Jono and welcome to this excellent forum..

I am very much of the same opinion as yourself. The problem is definitely separating the facts from all the agenda driven drivel and for that reason I didn't watch the programme last night and do not often get drawn into these threads for that reason. I am quite happy sitting on the fence for now, but feel that the things you mention about our duties to this planet need to happen regardless of GW/AGW.

On the face of things it is fairly clear to see that temperatures have risen/are rising and there are plenty of graphs and data to back this up back as far as the 17th and 18th Century. My main problem is that we are dealing with such a young and underdeveloped branch of science where things are far from cut and dry. We cannot accurately forecast the weather more than 5 days in advance, so how are we going to fair any better trying to predict 20,50 or even 100 years away? To my mind there are just far too many variables that influence climate that we haven't yet taken into account..

Evening everyone

Yes we should amend our ways, a cleaner world is better for everyone, thank god we don’t all burn slack on our fire at home any more, who wants thick acrid smoke to breath in, I do my bit for the cleaner planet by cycling 5 miles to work everyday, and recycle as much waste as possible and that includes 100% of all my garden waste, back into my own garden, we all want our children to live on an unpolluted world.

Paul

Nice post Paul it pretty much sums up how I feel as well.

Regards

Ian

[Bobby]

We cannot accurately forecast the weather more than 5 days in advance, so how are we going to fair any better trying to predict 20,50 or even 100 years away?

Sigh... weather and climate are 2 completely different things. Can I predict the weather on August 4th, 2014? No. Can I predict though that it will be warmer than today? Yep, with almost certainty. That's the difference.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I tend to go along with the view many have expressed above- whether or not our activities are significantly contributing to climate change or not, they cannot be good for the planet, and it's well worth aiming to cut emissions regardless.

[kold weather]

Thats a very intresting report there GW, note however i mention TROPICAL CYCLONES...not hurricanes. i mean that in a global term. hurricanes may well be increasing but to pinpoint it on global warming isn't the full story IMo, because:

1:We are in a nutral cycle where the Atlantic is warm, been there since 1995 roughly.

2:GW is probably uplifiting the base by a little making it easier to get stronger hurricanes

3: As they say so themsleves, the sat data has improved amazingly...whos to say that they haven't missed tens of tropical cyclones like Delta and Epsilon in 05 during past seasons.

By the way, yes more warmth does mean stronger hurricanes, but not massivly stronger, the graph I've seen shows generally as i say 10-15mbs change in pressure, probably about 3 quaters of a category. Its not doomsday stuff put it this way like some would have you believe and no, not every hurricane becomes a Katrina either!

I think this sums it up quite nicely actually:

The Atlantic is also unique in that all the physical variables that converge to form hurricanes -- including wind speeds, wind directions and temperatures -- mysteriously feed off each other in ways that only make conditions more ripe for a storm. But scientists don't really understand why, Kossin adds.

This topic is far more complicated then meets the eye though, sea surface temps do hold a key and i can see why this idea has got support.

However here is another arguement from myself Gw, think about it and remember last July:

Warmer climate means in theory more se vere droughts in Africa...moisture over Africa decreases...and where do most storms actually come from in the beginning?

We saw last season that more dust means systems just can't get going, regardless of how high sea surface temps are.

Edited March 9, 2007 by kold weather

[Anti-Mild]

Also, like lots of other weather related events, aren't hurricanes cyclical?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that there were loads in the 30's then tailing off to hardly any in the 70's.

Or am I going crazy?

[Admiral_Bobski]

It's only logical isn't it that more heat = more energy = more intense hurricanes? May be some other factors, but seems logical to me. More warmth would also mean more thunderstorms and gales for us in the UK too it would seem.

What do you think of the assertion that warming will be greater in the Arctic than in the tropics, therefore leading to a smaller temperature differential, which has the knock-on effect of fewer storms? I'll have to watch the programme again and quote the relevant passages.

I was watching BBC News 24 earlier where there was a debate between an Oxford Uni climate scientist (forget his name) and Piers Cobryn. According to the scientist, the person you mention above does actually believe in anthropogenic global warming, as he has known him for some time. His words were apparently taken out of context and mis-represented by the producers.

You're talking about Nigel Calder, I presume. I have to say that I couldn't see any way that what he said could be interpreted differently under any other context - his comments are quite clear, and don't rely on context to give them meaning. I would be happy to concede defeat if someone were to show me that I'm wrong, but I don't see it in this case.

I must say that this is getting to me now. Look, the media and various environmental groups may well have agendas, but why you are listening to them? Listen to the scientists on the front lines of global warming, I very much doubt they have any agenda. And the vast majority of these scientists believe in AGW.

Part of the problem here, though, is that what the IPCC says is taken as gospel by the vast majority of the population. This means that the vast majority of the population don't listen to the scientists, they listen to the IPCC, assuming that the IPCC represent the "voice of the scientists". If the claims of various individuals are true (and I believe most of them are), then the IPCC is not representing the scientists' opinions, and is distorting their findings to suit the IPCC's own agenda. Governments and governmental organisations also have agendas - it's not just the media and a few isolated groups.

Another assertion in the program is that the much-lauded 2500 scientists to whom the IPCC report is attributed are not all named willingly, and many of them are not even scientists. Is anyone able to counter that claim?

C-Bob

[frozen_north]

It was interesting though to watch the program and see the co-founder of Greenpeace basically say eveything that the group beleieves in now is wrong.

[kold weather]

Yes thats true and remember the active seasons of the 40's were likely FAr more active then the records show, afterall its possible ven nowadays to miss 1-2 storms a season. imagine what it was like when we didn't have satelites, I'll bet actually actvity is no more above what it was in the 30-50's, just we didn't have the resources to see the true numbers that were likely.

I do agree with the report that GW shows mind you, that does make sense, at the same time global warming also will have other side effects that will make it harder for storms to get going in the first place, as the report says the evidence suggests one thing, but why is that happening is quite another thing to answer.

As ever its the chicken and the egg, forcing and response, hard to tell exactly waht will happen, tohugh one thing is true, globally, there has not been any real upsurge in tropical cyclones but in the Atlantic there has.

By the way here is an increasing discussion about the report if you want to read further:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-heat/#more-413

Also about the dust I mentioned:

http://voanews.com/english/archive/2006-10...FTOKEN=28621955

As for Barolinic storms, they are driven by the jet which in turn is driven by thermal gradient, so if ther eis less of a thermal gradient then it would be safe to assume there would be less storms like we know it, but more convectivion maybe?

Edited March 9, 2007 by kold weather

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

True, but suggestions that temperature controls CO₂ rather than vice versa certainly shake the argument slightly.

C-Bob

EDIT - Thanks Devonian - I look forward to that

C Bob

That is exactly it........temp controls CO2 always has and always will. All empirical evidence points to that without fail.

Re solar activity...read stuff on LANDSCHEIDT, he died in 2004 but he predicted El Ninos and La Ninas to high precision using solar cycles. This last one we had 06/07 he predicted spot on.....years ago!

Remember we have been pumping continuously massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1998 yet we cannot still pass the global temp of that year. Some will say it was big El Nino! Yes it was and so that obviously is more important than CO2! The sunspot cycle is dictating that we may not pass that..except 2011 when activity will be at a record high (short record period) but a very sudden quietening will occur in solar activity....bottoming out in 2032 and then again around 2200 so a long potential cooling period to occur. This folks will be the Gleissberg Minima...equivalent to the Maunder mininma...in case you don't know read the 'mini ice age'. By the way LANDSCHEIDT predicted that the cooling period will start in the not too distant future...probaly from 2012 by guestimate.

As I have pushed on the Enviro thread...we do not have too long to wait to see what theory is correct...after all each argument is still only real theory at present.

Did not see programme...shame. Now reading other posts to catch up

BFTP

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

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

P

Yes a bit like pro AGW reports etc. EG ITV GW story...ice berg crashes ice into water just mising Mark Austin's boat in ANTARCTICA...[iceberg in the sea during summer sheeding ice]...must be AGW according to the news report....utter crap...HOW FALSE WAS THAT. It was a spectacular shot and near miss and the average Joe in the street would think 'crikey that was incredible see the ice collapsing? I get it from many friends who hold 'intelligent' jobs but know nothing about climate, seasons etc. They believe a shot like that is GW/AGW...and that is the danger. The 'other' side [anti AGW] but not anti warming as it is happening albeit slight and natural, and its highly supported science by scientists is being blocked. Friends were shocked and confused when I told them the truth that 90% of Anarctica has been cooling for 40 years and the ice on the continent has been thickening...irrefutable evidence and evidence that is being ignored. Antartica melting is only the sea ice and only 10% is warming....

BFTP

Edited March 9, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[mushymanrob]

It was interesting though to watch the program and see the co-founder of Greenpeace basically say eveything that the group beleieves in now is wrong.

not actually what he said...

he said that when mainstream greenpeace issues were taken up by politicians then they had to resort to more extreme issues in order to still be a voice of descent...

typical of 'green' pressure groups (of which i am affiliated ) i too am now doubting (seriously) their intentions. it seems that many green issues are in fact based on incomplete science..

abit like t6he idiots who thought they were doing good by releasing mink into the environment.... I'm not happy, in fact I'm quite sad..

QUOTE(parmenides3 @ 8 Mar 2007, 11:52 PM)

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.

but the facts are still there to be cross checked at every oportunity... co2 FOLLOWS warming, it doesnt cause it... that is the salient point, plus, man only contributes less then 0'5% of co2 emissions... those are the scientific facts that are being overlooked. (by the pro- 'man is guilty' mob)

[parmenides3]

Blast: Antarctica is no the world, just a small bit of it. Strangely, though, what you offer as 'proof' against global warming (a regional lack of warming) actually serves to validate the GW argument, as it is an effect which is identified in the models and is consistent with the science of GW and the modelling. There is about an 80 year lag in the northern/southern hemispheric warming, possibly linked to the AMOC, which is identifiable in the palaeo/ice core data, and fits with the current situation quite well.

the idea of GW is that, over the planet as a whole, on average, the climate is warming. Unless the Smith & Reynolds dataset, the CRU dataset, and all of the climate labs are wrong, or lying, it is. If you can challenge the data on which the measurement of global temperature is based, you may be able to make a case. Taking a measurement of part of the planet and using it to refute a measurement of the whole planet is not a valid argument.

:)P

but the facts are still there to be cross checked at every oportunity... co2 FOLLOWS warming, it doesnt cause it... that is the salient point, plus, man only contributes less then 0'5% of co2 emissions... those are the scientific facts that are being overlooked. (by the pro- 'man is guilty' mob)

Mushy, they are not being overlooked; the faulty reasoning behind these arguments is on a thousand websites, which also point out that the first point is based on a misunderstanding of the basic science and the second point doesn't take into account the relative potency of GHGs; it's not about how much, but about how strong the effect is. It also doesn't address the issue that there is more in the atmosphere now than there has been for 650,000 years.

:)P

Edited March 9, 2007 by parmenides3