The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Devonian]

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)

Historically CO2 may well have followed warming. But, the fact is CO2 is a ghg. It has a warming effect - this is established science. So, when it's added to the atmosphere by us it will have an effect.

Your second number from the programme is typical of the misleading number the programme featured. Yes man's emission are only small in comparison with natural emission, but unless natural emissions (which are indeed VAST) aren't being sunk/sequestated as well we'd clearly have been asphixiated by CO2 years ago! So, there is (or was) a balance between natural CO2 emissions and sinks. That balance is being peturbed - by us. It is a small imbalance, but it is cumulative, year after year after year after year....

The carbon Cycle.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Devonian

[parmenides3]

Hegerl et. al. (2007) concludes that 70% of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere since 1950 is anthropogenic in origin. If you want to know 'how we know' this, there's a good post on Open Mind explaining it: http://tamino.wordpress.com/

:)P

[Devonian]

Hegerl et. al. (2007) concludes that 70% of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere since 1950 is anthropogenic in origin. If you want to know 'how we know' this, there's a good post on Open Mind explaining it: http://tamino.wordpress.com/

:)P

P3 the other 30%, by us but indirectly you mean? The atmosphere surely can't have naturally increase by, what, about 30% of 100pmm (270>370 or so) or 30ppm CO2?

[parmenides3]

Dunno. It might be 'at least 70%'. I'll find the paper & post a link.

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

P3 the other 30%, by us but indirectly you mean? The atmosphere surely can't have naturally increase by, what, about 30% of 100pmm (270>370 or so) or 30ppm CO2?

Why not?

CB

[Stratos Ferric]

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.

Almac, I've read a few of your posts and you seem to make a constant assumption: that those of us who accept AGW (and, for clarity, I say yet again - that is not the same as saying that all current warming is attributable to man's activities) are "swallowing" it like a one year old child swallows food, instinctively and because it's forced on them.

In terms of knowledge of weather and climate, science and data analysis, I can hold a candle to pretty much anyone on N-W, I also have a good few years on most people on here. In the early 80s I actually wrote an extended essay as part of one of my degree options titled "are the UK's winter's becoming more continental in character"? It can hardly be said that I am ideologically predisposed to take a "mild" outlook. I think it would be hard to validate any suggestion that my acceptance of AGW is based on anything other than my own assessment of facts and data. If I believe in AGW it is NOT because I have chosen to access only one side of the argument; rather, it is because in the face of ALL the evidence I have seen there is:

1 - no doubt that our climate is warming (and forgive me here, but one or two of the "naysayers" have, certainly until very recently, actually been so brazen as to argue that climate is NOT warming);

2 - A welter of well supported evidence to suggest that the likeluiest driver of most of the current increase is increased CO2 / GHG emissions.

[parmenides3]

Here's the Hegerl paper (draft version), for Dev.:

SF; I am afraid that the only posters or scientists who have any credibility appear to be the ones who agree with whatever it is the individual already thinks. I see sadly little evidence of anyone actually doubting their pre-existing opinions on this issue (I'll allow there are at least some people who are trying to stay open minded).

:)P

hegerletal_scaling_inpress.pdf

[Stratos Ferric]

I think it was simply put that man-made CO2 emissions are a drop in the ocean compared to volcanic eruptions, just as an example. Look, i'm not going to humour you or waste my time compiling lists of references. Global warming and cooling is well recorded in the geological record. You don't have to drill oil and gas for it to get to the surface, its been getting to the surface without us sticking a straw in.

That may or may not be the case, however, a couple of thoughts for you.

1 - most major eruptions lead to cooling not warming: see Mt St Helen's most recently, but Krakatoa and Tambora previously.

2 - I haven't noticed many major explosions over the last decade or so.

[davehsug]

That may or may not be the case, however, a couple of thoughts for you.

1 - most major eruptions lead to cooling not warming: see Mt St Helen's most recently, but Krakatoa and Tambora previously.

2 - I haven't noticed many major explosions over the last decade or so.

So is the lack of any important volcanic activity in the last decade or so the reason for GW? Can't have it both ways SF.

Dave

[Stratos Ferric]

Here's the Hegerl paper (draft version), for Dev.:

SF; I am afraid that the only posters or scientists who have any credibility appear to be the ones who agree with whatever it is the individual already thinks. I see sadly little evidence of anyone actually doubting their pre-existing opinions on this issue (I'll allow there are at least some people who are trying to stay open minded).

:)P

Indeed: I am endlessly amused by posters (from either side) of absolutely intransigent disposition having the temerity to accuse others of having closed minds.

What I do repeately see is the sceptics periodically "leaking" some hidden agenda - be it a desperate desire not to let go of the potenital for cold winters; an unwillingness to accept that changing behaviour might be required if AGW is ever addressed in legislative action; a prediposition to conspiracy theories; a dislike of govermental control...what I see in those favouring the AGW view is no such agenda, and if anything a tendency to take a viewpoint almost despite the fact that they would rather not do so.

[Mondy]

Just a quickie, SF.

Did you watch the programme last night or did you feel it was above your level of understanding?

[Stratos Ferric]

So is the lack of any important volcanic activity in the last decade or so the reason for GW? Can't have it both ways SF.

Dave

Er, let's replay this shall we...

the original post I was challenging made the point that volcanos were responsible for CO2 increases; ipso facto the current warming is driven by volcanos.

My point was that volcanos historically (in the measured record) seem to cause more cooling than warming (and this can be argued in any case by the tendency to throw reasonably buoyant aerosols high into the stratosphere, just increasing albedo); I don't see how this is inconsistent with my inference that the last ten years of apparently more rapid warming (on top of the warming going on before that) has NOT been accompanied by - so far as I am aware - either notable upswing in volcanic activity or any major eruptions.

You can point out how I'm having it both ways if you like, but that's going to be a might fine conjourers trick. However, so far as I'm aware my argument was wholly consistent; the one I was challenging was the one with the glaring incosistency.

And some of the sceptics wonder why I tend to dismiss the provenance of reason in SOME of their number.

[davehsug]

Indeed: I am endlessly amused by posters (from either side) of absolutely intransigent disposition having the temerity to accuse others of having closed minds.

What I do repeately see is the sceptics periodically "leaking" some hidden agenda - be it a desperate desire not to let go of the potenital for cold winters; an unwillingness to accept that changing behaviour might be required if AGW is ever addressed in legislative action; a prediposition to conspiracy theories; a dislike of govermental control...what I see in those favouring the AGW view is no such agenda, and if anything a tendency to take a viewpoint almost despite the fact that they would rather not do so.

So why do I constantly detect an almost religious fervour in the both lobbies? Those of us who accept GW but not the doomsday scenario, so beloved of most AGW supporters & so despised by anti AGW, are in the worst position of all! Attacked by both sides. I really want to keep an open mind, but be it by conspiracy theory or otherwise, I ultimately suspect the motives of politicians, who claim to be socialists, wanting to reserve our roads for the well-off, whilst making public transport unavailable & unaffordable by the majority of working people.

[Stratos Ferric]

Just a quickie, SF.

Did you watch the programme last night or did you feel it was above your level of understanding?

Mondy:

this week I got up at 04:45 on Monday to fly south to my client at Heathrow; in the evening I was in London for a meeting. On Tuesday I was up at 6 to fly to Madrid, returning by 10 the following morning. I then worked all day to around 0130 prepping for a client off-site meeting that ran right through Thursday. Between 630-830 last night I was with the client team making samba music before having dinner with them then retiring with my team until 1245 this morning to prep today's activities.

It is not, therefore, a matter of whether or not it was above my level of understanding, so much as one of being too busy to be able to find out. If it was as good as that google video link you posted at the head of the thread then I suspect that my current point of view would not have been much changed. I do not detect in any of the "enthusiasts'" support any sea-change in the wider community's understanding of the matter. What I HAVE seen today is Tony Blair on stage hailing more EEC action re CO2 emissions. Presumably he missed the programme last night as well.

An argument posting an alternative point of view re GW has no more veracity for the fact that it's on TV. In recent years there have been documentaries asking whether the Princess of Wales' death was really an accident, whether or not man really landed on the moon, whether Kennedy was killed by the CIA / FBI, whether the CIA/FBI (they get around) blew up the WTC; whether sugar is bad for us (like water, salt, iron, and pretty much any other mineral, in excess the answer is yes)...there's an industry in conspiracy theories perpetuated in no small measure by individuals predisposed to a point of view that "they've got it in for us".

[almac]

1 - no doubt that our climate is warming (and forgive me here, but one or two of the "naysayers" have, certainly until very recently, actually been so brazen as to argue that climate is NOT warming);

2 - A welter of well supported evidence to suggest that the likeluiest driver of most of the current increase is increased CO2 / GHG emissions.

1. Yes, I agree it seems fairly indisputable that our climate is warming. The stats show it to be the case. I have no argument with you here. In fact, I've never claimed the climate wasn't warming.

2. This 'welter of well-supported evidence' is precisely what last night's C4 programme was alluding to; the very reason there's a 'welter' of GW info is because governments are happy to support the notion of GW for their own means.

Likewise, if governments had been happy to support the notion of GW cosmic rays for their own means then there would surely be a well-funded 'welter' of info on GW cosmic rays.

Just because an ideology is well supported and has benefitted from much pondering and debating doesn't necessarily mean it's right. It might be more researched but not necessarily correct.

I'm really playing Devil's Advocate, if I was being honest (it's not illegal, yet). While there are many people around who still doubt GW then surely they have a right to be listened to just as much as those who've already backed the GW horse?

Last night's programme was stimulating because it dared to discuss something which has almost become gospel. It's the dogmatic approach to GW from some quarters that, quite frankly, unnerves me.

Anyway, I'm still trawling through various documents that have been linked in previous replies. Such a shame there hasn't been more funding available for a comparible amount of research into the Sun's long-term affects on the the Earth's changing climate.

Over to you Stratos...

[Stratos Ferric]

So why do I constantly detect an almost religious fervour in the both lobbies? Those of us who accept GW but not the doomsday scenario, so beloved of most AGW supporters & so despised by anti AGW, are in the worst position of all! Attacked by both sides. I really want to keep an open mind, but be it by conspiracy theory or otherwise, I ultimately suspect the motives of politicians, who claim to be socialists, wanting to reserve our roads for the well-off, whilst making public transport unavailable & unaffordable by the majority of working people.

DH,

You (in the plural) are at it again. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE show me where any of P3, osmposm, TWS, GW, Essan, or I (for example) EVER make any "doomsday" predictions. There seems to be a recurrent view on here that somehow, if one posits AGW, one either attributes ALL warming to man's activities (I have NOT seen anyone say this) or else is predicting the end of the earth tomorrow. AGW is nothing to dso with doomsday, it is simply saying that man is in some measure contributing to warming. It follows on from that that if this is the case, then man can also take actiont o diminish, stop, and possibly even reverse this effect, and therefore its consequences.

If you are in the GW camp you are not in the worst of all worlds. In my view that place on the podium belongs to those (and there have been some on here) who actually try to argue that the climate is not warming at all. If that is your starting point given ALL the evidence to the contrary then you deserve to have any argument thereafter laughed out of hand.

In your final paragraph you make my point for me re "ulterior motives" clouding judgement. It is a dangerous position indeed to try to judge an argment from the position of a political prejudice. It is precisely that sort of reasoning that lead to the pages in the history books covering slavery, the holocaust, and apartheid.

[parmenides3]

So why do I constantly detect an almost religious fervour in the both lobbies? Those of us who accept GW but not the doomsday scenario, so beloved of most AGW supporters & so despised by anti AGW, are in the worst position of all! Attacked by both sides. I really want to keep an open mind, but be it by conspiracy theory or otherwise, I ultimately suspect the motives of politicians, who claim to be socialists, wanting to reserve our roads for the well-off, whilst making public transport unavailable & unaffordable by the majority of working people.

Daveshug; if you detect religious fervor it is only in your imagination, I am afraid. But the point of your post is interesting: you are suspicious not because of the science, but because of the doom-mongering and extreme claims that some people make. You are also (justifiably) annoyed at the abuse the government makes of the science, to justify policies such as road taxing and increased parking fees, whilst not providing sensible solutions.

I applaud your suspicion of politicians and your unwillingness to be scared by the media. I can also honestly say I don't know of any 'pro-GW' poster on NW who loves, or even agrees with, the 'doomsday' scenarios. Likewise, i don't think that many 'anti-GW' posters want to see the world go to sh£t, any more than anyone else.

taking away the politics for the time being, the programme made a claim that it had an explanation for GW which showed that man is not responsible. Was the programme right? Do we have such an explanation? Some are arguing yes, some no; you read the posts, look at the links, and decide what you think.

:)P

Almac: I think it has already been linked to, but this is a paper discussing the main claim of the programme. I also notice from this paper that a documentary almost identical in description to last night's was shown on Danish TV in 2001, with Svensmark and Friis-Christensen depicted as 'mavericks' bucking the system and going it alone to pull down a vast conspiracy of lies and deceit.

Oh, for an original TV programme!

:)P

DamonLaut2004.pdf

[almac]

Do we have such an explanation? Some are arguing yes, some no; you read the posts, look at the links, and decide what you think.

Here, here. My point exactly.

The downside, however, is that the volume of pro-GW is vast and the volume of other theories is slim. It's a little difficult to make a balanced judgement based on an uneven argument.

BTW, greetings P3. I hope I didn't cause you any offence last night?

[Stratos Ferric]

1. Yes, I agree it seems fairly indisputable that our climate is warming. The stats show it to be the case. I have no argument with you here. In fact, I've never claimed the climate wasn't warming.

2. This 'welter of well-supported evidence' is precisely what last night's C4 programme was alluding to; the very reason there's a 'welter' of GW info is because governments are happy to support the notion of GW for their own means.

Likewise, if governments had been happy to support the notion of GW cosmic rays for their own means then there would surely be a well-funded 'welter' of info on GW cosmic rays.

Just because an ideology is well supported and has benefitted from much pondering and debating doesn't necessarily mean it's right. It might be more researched but not necessarily correct.

I'm really playing Devil's Advocate, if I was being honest (it's not illegal, yet). While there are many people around who still doubt GW then surely they have a right to be listened to just as much as those who've already backed the GW horse?

Last night's programme was stimulating because it dared to discuss something which has almost become gospel. It's the dogmatic approach to GW from some quarters that, quite frankly, unnerves me.

Anyway, I'm still trawling through various documents that have been linked in previous replies. Such a shame there hasn't been more funding available for a comparible amount of research into the Sun's long-term affects on the the Earth's changing climate.

Over to you Stratos...

You might like to elaborate on that one. Policy to counteract GW is not proving to be a vote-winner, nor will it until, in my opinion, we get a series of calamitous events (if we ever do) that the vast majority of people come to accept have been initiated by climate change which is demonstrably linked to man's activities. There is actually far more clout behind the sceptics camp, which is why the US has draged is heels. The republican party is in hock with the oil majors, and they stand to be hurt hard in the short term by any reduction in demand for oil. It may not be entirely coincident that the UK's softening of attitudes correlates with falling UK production; I think I'm right in saying that for the first time since the early 80s we are now a net importer of oil once more. Nobody can force legislation on China or India to stop industrialising, nor can China be stopped from (very strategically) investing heavily in Africa.

I suspect that pretty much every possible angle on climate is being well researched; even a quick scan of google will reveal that most theoretical avenues are being well promenanded. If most are dead ends I suggest that it's less to do with paucity of funded research, and more to do with paucity of correlation or proof. I don't see anyone testing the theory that all of this is actually down to night-time visitation by aliens from outer space. There, that's our answer...

An interesting if shallow programme if for no other reason it made some attempt to show an alternative line of Then again there is China who probably wipes out all our good efforts and more in a day by their industrialisation.

...

Habsish

Let's be honest, it ill becomes any of us to deny the developing world what we already have and enjoy before them, simply because the price of their getting there might be some inconvenience to ourselves.

[davehsug]

DH,

You (in the plural) are at it again. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE show me where any of P3, osmposm, TWS, GW, Essan, or I (for example) EVER make any "doomsday" predictions. There seems to be a recurrent view on here that somehow, if one posits AGW, one either attributes ALL warming to man's activities (I have NOT seen anyone say this) or else is predicting the end of the earth tomorrow. AGW is nothing to dso with doomsday, it is simply saying that man is in some measure contributing to warming. It follows on from that that if this is the case, then man can also take actiont o diminish, stop, and possibly even reverse this effect, and therefore its consequences.

If you are in the GW camp you are not in the worst of all worlds. In my view that place on the podium belongs to those (and there have been some on here) who actually try to argue that the climate is not warming at all. If that is your starting point given ALL the evidence to the contrary then you deserve to have any argument thereafter laughed out of hand.

In your final paragraph you make my point for me re "ulterior motives" clouding judgement. It is a dangerous position indeed to try to judge an argment from the position of a political prejudice. It is precisely that sort of reasoning that lead to the pages in the history books covering slavery, the holocaust, and apartheid.

I wasn't specifically referring to people on here SF, naybe "The Indepent" view is what I hate most, which is almost as obsessed by catastrophic GW as the "Daily Excess" is with the Princess of wales!

I accept GW. I don't sign up to the wholly anthropogenic part but we must be having some effect, I jsut dislike the certainty that both sides put to their view.

If I'm still around in 15 years time, things may look very different. Maybe the doomsayers will be on the way to being proved right, maybe the naysayers may have "fought back".

At the moment, I am most concerned abouy my day to day life. I want to do my bit where possible, even if AGW is pants, it make sense both financially & environmentally.

However, I want to travel & discover & learn. Our government at the moment seems to want to prevent me from doing so, either by making public transport unaffordable, or pricing me off the road.

[parmenides3]

Here, here. My point exactly.

The downside, however, is that the volume of pro-GW is vast and the volume of other theories is slim. It's a little difficult to make a balanced judgement based on an uneven argument.

BTW, greetings P3. I hope I didn't cause you any offence last night?

No, Almac, you didn't; we're a thick-skinned bunch on NW (well, some of us...). As you'll see from the sxchanges between Mondy, C-Bob, others (& me), the game is in the cut-and-thrust. we actually secretly PM each other with arguments for the other side so we can keep the threads lively.

Keep the challenegs coming. :)P

[almac]

Once more...

2. This 'welter of well-supported evidence' is precisely what last night's C4 programme was alluding to; the very reason there's a 'welter' of GW info is because governments are happy to support the notion of GW for their own means.

You might like to elaborate on that one.

Not particularly. If you look closely at my previous post - and the part that you highlighted - I said this was what the C4 programme was alluding to. It's not my claim.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

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.

Absolutely right TWS, distilled into a few sentences essentially what I was trying (and failing) to say in a rambling post a few pages back !

[Stratos Ferric]

You've not heard of Ahrhennius then?

As to the 'lies', 'trickery' and 'hypochrites'. Sorry but they're just insults - the first one particularily hurtful. I'm NOT spreading an lie and I deeply resent anyone who implies peolple like me who accept what the IPCC say are . They included his name becuase,...he had contributed - bloody obvious! But, you convict having only listened to the evidence for the prosectution...

Are you a liar? No of course you are not! Neither, thankyou very much, am I or other 'warmer's. OK? Please distance yourself from the 'liar' ad hom will you and try to find some science we can chew on??? These debate a far better if such inflamatory language is not used.

Yes I saw that one too.

One case of mosquito borne malaria outside the normal zone hardly disproves the contention that "mosquitos do not thrive when temperatures fall below 16-18C". You need to be highly knowledgeable regarding either climate or natural history to appreciate that as a rule mosquitos favour warm climates. MOndy's argument that the IPCC are lying is no more valid than an assertion I might make that the climate of the French and Spanish Med coast can no longer really be considered Mediterranean just because there have been instances of snowfall in recent winters.

That argument is just a continuation of some of the sceptics repeatedly careless use of point data to try to make an argument for change in trend.

Once more...

2. This 'welter of well-supported evidence' is precisely what last night's C4 programme was alluding to; the very reason there's a 'welter' of GW info is because governments are happy to support the notion of GW for their own means.

Not particularly. If you look closely at my previous post - and the part that you highlighted - I said this was what the C4 programme was alluding to. It's not my claim.

Yes, but you seem to accept it, and I didn't see the programme.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

the programme made a claim that it had an explanation for GW which showed that man is not responsible. Was the programme right? Do we have such an explanation? Some are arguing yes, some no; you read the posts, look at the links, and decide what you think.

When will those who demand irrefutable evidence for rival theories support funding instead of taking cheap shots at oil companies, private doners and academic bodies who would pay money to establish the facts either way?

NGW advocates will lose a "link war" with HGW supporters until the funding imbalance is corrected. Arguing from "concensus science" is two words where "censorship" would do.