The Great Global Warming Swindle

[shoggoth]

We have absolutely no way of knowing that any increase in atmospheric CO2 is human made or not.

Yes we do. The amount of co2 humans put into the atmosphere each year is about twice as much as co2 is actually rising. Human emissions can not only explain the entire rise, but for human emissions to not explain the rise would require something in nature to be increasingly absorbing human co2 while emitting other co2 in it's place.

If the oceans are in a cyclical warming phase, they are much more likely the culprits.

The oceans are currently absorbing more co2 than they emit due to the high concentration of co2 in the atmosphere vs the upper ocean. This is something the swindle documentary failed to comment on, instead it misleadingly implied that co2 rise today is due to a warmer ocean.

And remember, we're still talking about 25% of .05%. It's at best negligible.

Not if a doubling of co2 results in 3C warming.

When are we going to evolve to the oxygen crisis, since it's a "greenhouse gas" too, and makes up far far more of the atmosphere than CO2?

Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas

[Keepitsimple]

Here's a great article about the quality of IPCC scientists and "Lead" authors. This should be particularly enlightening to those who somehow, keep finding a way to belittle the qualifications or motivations of those who hold a contrary opinion to that of the IPCC. Please take the time to read it - it was recently published in the National Post:

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is very particular about the scientists it selects to investigate the health consequences of global warming. Those the likes of Paul Reiter needn't apply............

Link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...42df34f&k=26750

[shoggoth]

You are misnaming an ongoing research project with no confirmed conclusions as "consensus".

One of the conclusions that just about all scientific bodies related to climate accept is that human activity is contributing to global warming. That would be a consensus conclusion.

You are also leaving aside the growing outcry from scientists who allegedly "contributed" to a lot of these studies, claiming they don't agree with the conclusions publicized.

Obviously not every aspect of climate science has a consensus view, some parts are still open ended. But that doesn't mean every aspect is unknown and has no consensus.

[ScottSA]

Here's a great article about the quality of IPCC scientists and "Lead" authors. This should be particularly enlightening to those who somehow, keep finding a way to belittle the qualifications or motivations of those who hold a contrary opinion to that of the IPCC. Please take the time to read it - it was recently published in the National Post:

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is very particular about the scientists it selects to investigate the health consequences of global warming. Those the likes of Paul Reiter needn't apply............

Link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...42df34f&k=26750

These are the stories filtering out only over the last few months. The real shocker will come when the academic grant scandal starts to be revealed. Then the trickle will turn into a flood. But there is an entire industry build around the Church of Global Warming, and it'll continue to insist that "consensus" exists and actually has some meaning in the debate. As distasteful as it is, it'll hurt science in the long run, because this isn't science anymore at all...

[shoggoth]

Not very different from this

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

[ScottSA]

You are misnaming an ongoing research project with no confirmed conclusions as "consensus".

One of the conclusions that just about all scientific bodies related to climate accept is that human activity is contributing to global warming. That would be a consensus conclusion.

That's clearly not true. In fact if anything it's one of the most hotly disputed elements of the thesis.

Part of the problem lies with these kinds of specious appeals to authority. "Scientific Bodies" are political organizations built around the work of individual scientists...sort of like hospital administration is a political organization build around the work of Doctors. As political organizations, their work is not to parse through science with due diligence, but rather to position themselves at the forefront of conclusions that will drive the funding process in the best way. Global Warming is the hottest grant attraction since AIDs, and these "scientific bodies" are slathering at the trough. And why wouldn't they?

Consider that homosexuality was considered an aberration by such a "scientific body" at one time. Now it's considered quite normal by that same "scientific body". What changed? The nature of homosexuality? Or the consensus of the scientific body? Which consensus is valid?

There is no consensus in the actual science involved, and saying there is over and over doesn't make it so.

[shoggoth]

I use the position of scientific bodies as a benchmark for whether there is a consensus on something or not.

You use what?

[ScottSA]

Not very different from this

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

Cheap ad hominem. This is drawing a false parallel in order to obscure the real question, which is selection of right-think scientists. Drawing a parallel between that and creationism is like saying Hirler had scientists and therefore science is Nazism. Ridiculous and not worthy of publishing.

[ScottSA]

I use the position of scientific bodies as a benchmark for whether there is a consensus on something or not.

You use what?

Two things. The actual research, and the fact that the "consensus", if it ever existed, is crumbling on various aspects of the GW debate. Certainly the question as to whether GW is effected in the least by man is far from consensus.

[shoggoth]

Not very different from this

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

Cheap ad hominem. This is drawing a false parallel in order to obscure the real question, which is selection of right-think scientists. Drawing a parallel between that and creationism is like saying Hirler had scientists and therefore science is Nazism. Ridiculous and not worthy of publishing.

Creationists complain all the time about the same kind of right-think scientist selection. Just becuase it is claimed doesn't mean that is the actual reason.

[shoggoth]

Two things. The actual research, and the fact that the "consensus", if it ever existed, is crumbling on various aspects of the GW debate. Certainly the question as to whether GW is effected in the least by man is far from consensus.

I don't see anything crumbling, if anything it's heading the other way and the positions of the skeptics are crumbling.

For example recently corrected satellite records show warming in the lower troposphere. A lack of clear warming there used to be an argument used by skeptics against global warming. It was used to claim that the warming seen on the surface was just an artifact of urbanization. I believe even critchton used this argument in his book.

The continuing warming trend has also further weakened claims that warming has stopped, or that it never started. Further research during this recent period of warming has found that the sun can explain at most about 35% of the warming seen in the last 3 decades, and that's the most pro-solar conclusion.

The 20th century can be reproduced well using climate models, biting into the claims by skeptics that climate models cannot reproduce the 20th century trend. Then we have stuff like the swindled documentary that showed, which backfired on skeptics.

[Canadian Blue]

You are misnaming an ongoing research project with no confirmed conclusions as "consensus". You are also leaving aside the growing outcry from scientists who allegedly "contributed" to a lot of these studies, claiming they don't agree with the conclusions publicized. Consensus, even if it did have any meaning in the hard sciences, simply doesn't exist. This game has long ago turned into a political football, like AIDs, and there are bucketloads of disinformation swirling around the topic...including the meaningless meme that there is "consensus". If there were even an approximation of consensus, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes there would, because Exxonmobil doesn't like losing money due to environmental regulation's. Corporate profit down in the United States usually is always ahead of the environment. There have been numerous cases of government scientists being censored in order to downplay the role of climate change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/...&pagewanted=all

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0502150_pf.html

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com...d=137&Itemid=83

As for the Great Global Warming Swindle, I think before you buy into everything in the film you should read this article.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...2031457,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate...Attribution.png

No offence, but it's pretty telling that Polynewbie is a climate change denier as well.

[ScottSA]

Creationists complain all the time about the same kind of right-think scientist selection. Just becuase it is claimed doesn't mean that is the actual reason.

If you want to take that cut at it, I agree. But the article cited showed an expert being passed over in favor of lesser qualified but properly opinioned scientists. If the story were an aberration, we might dismiss it as such, but it's not. It's becoming a bit of a groundswell.

[ScottSA]

You are misnaming an ongoing research project with no confirmed conclusions as "consensus". You are also leaving aside the growing outcry from scientists who allegedly "contributed" to a lot of these studies, claiming they don't agree with the conclusions publicized. Consensus, even if it did have any meaning in the hard sciences, simply doesn't exist. This game has long ago turned into a political football, like AIDs, and there are bucketloads of disinformation swirling around the topic...including the meaningless meme that there is "consensus". If there were even an approximation of consensus, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes there would, because Exxonmobil doesn't like losing money due to environmental regulation's. Corporate profit down in the United States usually is always ahead of the environment. There have been numerous cases of government scientists being censored in order to downplay the role of climate change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/...&pagewanted=all

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0502150_pf.html

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com...d=137&Itemid=83

As for the Great Global Warming Swindle, I think before you buy into everything in the film you should read this article.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...2031457,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate...Attribution.png

No offence, but it's pretty telling that Polynewbie is a climate change denier as well.

No offence, but you are merely collecting ad hominem and throwing it at the subject. I can easily run out and collect reciprocating links with all sorts of scientists saying the same thing about the Church of Global Warming. I love the Climate Change "denier" label too. Precious!

[Canadian Blue]

Well, don't you think it's a bit odd that in the last posts were you made all of those claim's you weren't able to back one up with an article. As for the Michael Chricton argument, dude the guy's a science fiction writer.

As for appealing to emotion's, not really, it's more based on that thing called logic. Since the vast majority of the scientific community is in agreement that climate change is, or is somewhat caused by human's I believe it to be true. I don't see why people are afraid of cutting down on energy, or driving fuel efficient cars.

Buddy, you're the one that keeps on BSing about the "Church of Global Warming". I mean honestly, have you even provided anything to back your statements up besides talking about how it's false based on your own speculation.

[ScottSA]

Well, don't you think it's a bit odd that in the last posts were you made all of those claim's you weren't able to back one up with an article. As for the Michael Chricton argument, dude the guy's a science fiction writer.

I think we've said all that's productive by now to each other. You have not watched the talk, you haven't read my posts, and you're just repeating yourself now. I'm bored.

[Keepitsimple]

As for the Great Global Warming Swindle, I think before you buy into everything in the film you should read this article.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...2031457,00.html

You have a bit of a point on Carl Wunsch. Here is his formal rebuke to the video. If you read it, it says that he did not want to get involved in any extremist/alarmist activities - on either sides of the argument. Here's a brief excerpt:

I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality [i.e. see this previous RC post]. They also are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats. I've paid more attention to the extreme claims in the literature warning of coming catastrophe, both because I regard the scientists there as more serious, and because I am very sympathetic to the goals of my colleagues who sometimes seem, however, to be confusing their specific scientific knowledge with their worries about the future.

The full article can be found at:

Link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...wunsch-responds

[Canadian Blue]

I think we've said all that's productive by now to each other. You have not watched the talk, you haven't read my posts, and you're just repeating yourself now. I'm bored.

I'v read your post's, if I didn't I wouldn't have been able to respond to you.

I think you've been repeating yourself for the past 15 post's, ranting and raving about how a Science Fiction writer has been able to refute everything the vast majority of the scientific community has said.

Carl Wunsch also said the Great Global Warming Swindle was the closest thing to propaganda since World War 2. Which is why I'm not going to watch it if it's full of that much BS.

[ScottSA]

Here's a primer on the debate. It's not written by a science fiction writer who happens to be a Harvard trained doctor invited to the Smithsonian Institute to talk about complexity theory, so you needn't fear any lightweight theories. It will help your understanding of the subject if you read it. It might even help you realize that there IS in fact a debate out there. Toodles.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/

[Canadian Blue]

Yes I did read that page, as it turns out the biggest skeptic is, wait for it, the president of Western Fuels Association.

[ScottSA]

Yes I did read that page, as it turns out the biggest skeptic is, wait for it, the president of Western Fuels Association.

Naw, you read the synopsis of one guy. If you can't even bring yourself to watch a heretical movie, you surely aren't going to be able to plow through actual scientific reports. Pffft

[Canadian Blue]

No, I read them all, and by far the biggest skeptic was the president of the Western Fuels Association.

ScottSA, I don't think you have even read any scientific reports, besides the ones provided by Exxonmobil or Focus on the Family.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/faqs.html

[ScottSA]

No, I read them all, and by far the biggest skeptic was the president of the Western Fuels Association.

ScottSA, I don't think you have even read any scientific reports, besides the ones provided by Exxonmobil or Focus on the Family.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/faqs.html

Right. Don't forget to wear garlic next time you run into a non-consensual opinion on Global...no, wait...Climate Change.

[Canadian Blue]

I like how you charge that I'm full of emotion, when you yourself can't seem to grasp the idea that maybe human beings might hurt the environment.

Buddy, do you read anything about climate change that comes from, you know, the majority opinion?

[newbie]

Consider that homosexuality was considered an aberration by such a "scientific body" at one time. Now it's considered quite normal by that same "scientific body". What changed? The nature of homosexuality? Or the consensus of the scientific body? Which consensus is valid?

There is no consensus in the actual science involved, and saying there is over and over doesn't make it so.

Education and evolving science was the driving force for much of the beliefs we have today concerning homosexuality. Every belief can be challenged, but for me I'll go with the scientists in the field and the vast majority of climatologists in claiming the reality of global warming. And like someone else on this forum stated, even if global warming isn't happening what's wrong with reducing energy?