Monday

The Great Global Warming Swindle

HT: LGF
The film below, from UK Channel 4, is well worth your time... It's a look at the exacting science, omitted and re-worked by global warmists, from the papers of Top Scientists... who now present:
"The Great Global Warming Swindle."
Today: 'Scientists are threatened with death for 'climate denial'
Also, an interesting reveal & trace of the origins of these warmists groups, environmental lobbyists, and corruption in the IPCC...
Links below (open to new window)
An important new paper in the journal Energy & Environment upsets a key scientific claim about climate change:
Researchers question key global-warming study
Polipundit posts:
More dismantling of the canard
that is man made global warming
~~~~~~~~
*Comment missing? Refresh by clicking on the subject title.

3 comments:

RobC said...

I watched this piece of anti-science propaganda camouflaged as a plea for scientific rigor, all 76 minutes of it. My estimate is that 70 minutes of it is nothing but political whining: some bizarre account of Mrs. Thatcher's suborning of scientists in order to break the coalminer's union and environmentalists' turning it into a political cause to enforce communist doctrines, all owing to a contemptuous hatred of all of mankind in general and of poor people in particular. Still, credit where credit is due: the film is slickly produced, with splendid graphics and music, and warmly confident experts assuring us it's all crap.

I can't say for sure how anyone could take all this seriously, but I'll offer the opinion that people find it much more interesting than global warming, which actually is pretty boring stuff.

The remaining 6 minutes or so that addressed the facts surrounding global warming were filled entirely with misinformation and irrelevancies, which may be summarized as follows:

1) Solar activity explains past changes in Earth's temperature.

No one challenges this notion. It's clear that when the CO2 level was lower and essentially constant, solar activity was the main driving force. That's changed since 1900. CO2 concentration is higher now, and it is changing rapidly. Now CO2 concentration is a bigger driver than solar activity.

2) Solar activity matches temperatures in the last 100 years better than CO2 concentrations, especially 1940-1970

This is plainly false. Solar activity clearly increased between 1940 and 1960. To justify this claim, the producer presents a sunspot plot that doesn't even resemble the data. He doesn't give a reference, so one can only speculate, but it appears that someone used a smoothing procedure on the data, and somehow made it appear that sunspots decreased between 1940 and 1960, even though the real data clearly show that they increased.

What happened between 1940 and 1980 is actually well-understood. Pollution during and after the war, when industrial activity was raised to unprecedented levels, caused temperatures to decline. Particulates and aerosols have a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight and by causing clouds to form. About 1970, serious efforts were started to control particulate emissions from fossil-burning power plants, and the temperature data clearly show that global warming accelerated.

Furthermore, and more importantly, solar activity peaked in 1980, but temperatures have continued to rise. The only factor that can explain this is greenhouse-gas concentration.

3) CO2 levels lag behind temperatures by 800 years or so.

First, this reading depends on proxy data, since records don't go back that far. But it could well be true because it's so consistent. If it is true, it's not good news. The proxy records show what you'd expect anyway: global warming causes greenhouse gases. Since greenhouse gases cause global warming (an inescapable fact of physics), we could face a compounding effect, where greenhouse-gas concentration and temperature reinforce each other all the way to the worst case. This is the possibility that causes the most concern.

With respect to global warming, however, all this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not artifical CO2 emissions are causing an increase in global average temperature.

4) Troposphere data don't reflect the same degree of heating as would be expected.

This is outdated, incorrect information. Here's a quotation from the Executive Summary of the Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Analysis Product 1.1:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

5) Artificial emissions aren't sufficient to explain the increase in CO2 concentrations. Natural emissions are greater.

This is plainly false. According to the International Energy Agency's "Key World Energy Statistics", 26,883 million tons of CO2 are emitted from artificial sources per year. That is 0.87% of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the concentration of which is rising roughly 0.5%/year. So, if 60% of the emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere, it explains all of the increase. But it's true that other greenhouse gases are contributing as well.

----------
I've noticed a willingness of people to accept this argument without any reservation, even people who brag about how naturally skeptical they are. Perhaps the reason is that the subject usually is discussed in bits and pieces, so people don't have a reference point from which to consider misinformation. I've put together a coherent exposition of the facts on a web page called Global Warming: A Guide for the Perplexed.

Calvin Jones said...

It appears that the recent Channel 4 and More4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has left many viewers doubting that today's climate change is largely humanly caused. In this email, anyone so affected by the programme is urged to view the following information:

1. An introduction to the flaws of the programme. http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/ (or Google "climate denial", go to 9 Mar post.)

2. How a similar docu on Channel 4 by the same director Martin Durkin in 1997 was rapped by the ITC, in particular for misleading four featured interviewees and distorting their views. See Parags. 8-11 of http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2001694,00.html

3. Prof. Carl Wunsch says: I was misled and misrepresented in the 'swindle' documentary http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

4. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414 (or Google "Realclimate", go to 9 Mar post.) Climate scientists' view of some of the key flawed or discredited claims made by the programme (some of which you may have seen elsewhere). A site praised by Scientific American, with explanations for the medieval grapes, why Thames stopped freezing, and loads more.

5. http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3268874#post3268874 - with THAT graph clearly explained, plus a clear guide to the links of some of the interviewees.

6. Royal Society and science academies around the world joint statement on climate change: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3226 (or via Google "Royal Society").

7. A blog discussion on the programme, including details of apparent breaches of the Broadcasting Code, and how to complain. http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820 (or Google "Climate Campaign Portal".)

MB said...

These mass-googled "website-sized" comments I'm seeing on most sites who have posted this video, prove that there may still be some interest in exploring scientific data before creating 'warming laws', and enforcing them.

But keep in mind, you won't see those who hold skepticism goggling down and copy-pasting in a frantic effort to shape opinion...And there's a good reason. haha

>"breaches of the Broadcasting Code"
As in "gaging of free speech."

Market Currents

Morning Stock Talk

Twitter / investment


Think Liberty... Support Small Businesses

Forbes Market News

European Politics

ECB | Euro foreign exchange reference rates

ECB - European Central Bank

Quick Video News

Breitbart

TheBlaze

NewsBusters

The DC Video

CNS News

CNS Headlines

I Hate The Media