The Great Global Warming Swindle

[B. Max]

Temperatures are at their highest level today since records began (back to about 1880) so temperature couldn't have reached it's peak around 1940

That is wrong. As is pointed out in the swindle documentary. The US historical records confirm the average temperature as being warmer in 1940.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

[shoggoth]

That is wrong. As is pointed out in the swindle documentary. The US historical records confirm the average temperature as being warmer in 1940.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

Even the swindle documentary contained global average temperature graphs which did not match the US historical records, and show temperatures were not warmer in the 1940s:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/spot..._difference.php

[B. Max]

Even the swindle documentary contained global average temperature graphs which did not match the US historical records, and show temperatures were not warmer in the 1940s:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/spot..._difference.php

Better go back and watch again. They said the average temperature was warmer in the forties, which it was. As the graph shows.

[noahbody]

The debate now shouldn't be on reputations of scientists, it should be on the statemtent about the CO2 lag. Is it true or false? If true, we're about the spend billions on a global gun registry.

Yes it did. But guess what. here's the full story. We can go through each point in the movie and it will shredded to pieces. I guarantee. This isn't California Court doubt doesn't apply here. This is science.

I'm not sure what the gun registry has to do with this debate, but I can see why you find this video so compelling it too is filled with erroneaus references that have no place in the story.

And BTW 100% YES The reputation of the scientist is important in this case because many of the 'scientists' in this video have not produced a peer reviewed paper on Global warming. We have nothing else to go on!

You asked for it.

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

When I asked if it was true or false I was asking if the statement made was factual, not if someone made the claim. The lag statement is either accurate or not. It's black or white. The reputable scientists you speak of should address this challenge and defend their theory. That's science.

It's easier to look for answers than it is to find truth.

[shoggoth]

Even the swindle documentary contained global average temperature graphs which did not match the US historical records, and show temperatures were not warmer in the 1940s:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/spot..._difference.php

Better go back and watch again. They said the average temperature was warmer in the forties, which it was. As the graph shows.

Not according to the other graph they showed multiple times in the documentary which I linked to above. I agree with you that the documentary contradicts itself.

[ScottSA]

Here is a set of videos of Michael Crichton (author of Jurassic Park and other techo-thrillers) presenting at The Smithsonian Associates and The Washington Center for Complexity & Public Policy. His 60 minute talk (plus Q&A) focuses on the topics of fear, misguided predictions and the impossibility of managing the environment with a mindset of linearity. Using the environment as an example of the ultimate complex system, Crichton exposes the inadequacies of conceiving the environment as a predictable and stable system.

Extremely entertaining talk...the first section is mainly introduction, but bear with it till he comes on. Crichton is a scientist in his own right, but also a novelist, so he makes his point succinctly but with a great deal of humour. It's well worth a watch. His novel is one of the best researched I've seen.

http://www.complexsys.org/crichton_movies/...hton_movies.htm Parts 1 - 8

[Canadian Blue]

So we should trust science fiction writers with reference to climate change.

Yeah...

[ScottSA]

So we should trust science fiction writers with reference to climate change.

Yeah...

No, you should watch the points he's making as a Harvard trained medical doctor who was invited by the Smithsonian Institute to address its fellows on the topic of complexity theory. Seems to me that makes more sense than "believing" a TV personality trained in biology and masquerading as an expert in climatology, or various "scientists" who turn out to be librarians. Ad hominem is fine if it works, but it sometimes has the effect of pissing into the wind, don't you think?

There's nothing to "believe" or not believe. Crichton gives a succinct talk, not on climate change itself, per se, but more on the scientific merits of the case put forward by the alleged environmental "consensus". Watch it or don't watch it...it don't make no never mind to me. Only be aware that the case for manmade climate change is tumbling faster than the IPCC can rewrite findings, so it wouldn't hurt to pry open your mind to the possibility that heresy might not be false just because it's heresy.

[jbg]

So we should trust science fiction writers with reference to climate change.

Yeah...

Al Gore is one.

[Canadian Blue]

No, you should watch the points he's making as a Harvard trained medical doctor who was invited by the Smithsonian Institute to address its fellows on the topic of complexity theory. Seems to me that makes more sense than "believing" a TV personality trained in biology and masquerading as an expert in climatology, or various "scientists" who turn out to be librarians. Ad hominem is fine if it works, but it sometimes has the effect of pissing into the wind, don't you think?

I don't think a former Vice President and a former presidential candidate is just a "TV personality".

As for the scientists who are librarian's, what's that based on. So far the biggest doubt has come from scientists who have been funded by big oil.

[PolyNewbie]

Al Gore is just another weasel - you can he is lying whenever his lips are moving.

[jbg]

Al Gore is just another weasel - you can he is lying whenever his lips are moving.

Bang on on that one.

[shoggoth]

One thing I notice is that the points Crichton makes about consensus in science are the same points that creationists use. Similar situation where it pays to emphasize scientists that do not accept the mainstream theory while trying to argue away the significance of there being a consensus.

[ScottSA]

No, you should watch the points he's making as a Harvard trained medical doctor who was invited by the Smithsonian Institute to address its fellows on the topic of complexity theory. Seems to me that makes more sense than "believing" a TV personality trained in biology and masquerading as an expert in climatology, or various "scientists" who turn out to be librarians. Ad hominem is fine if it works, but it sometimes has the effect of pissing into the wind, don't you think?

I don't think a former Vice President and a former presidential candidate is just a "TV personality".

As for the scientists who are librarian's, what's that based on. So far the biggest doubt has come from scientists who have been funded by big oil.

I was talking about David Suzuki. Gore is not even worthy of mention. He has zero credentials and his reputation for honesty is in tatters.

The "big oil" meme is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, "big oil" funds many of the foundations that support research on evidence of Global Warming, so one might just as profitably argue that the Church of Global Warming is funded by big oil too. Like most of the "quit smoking" programs are supported by tobacco companies, but whenever someone points out that "secondhand smoke" is less harmfull than standing on the curb at rush hour on any busy street in America, someone is always ready to point and holler that they must work for "Big Tobacco". It's just more cheap ad hominem. It's like me claiming you work for the Global Warming industry; it's meaningless and probably not true.

The funny thing is that no one knows what's happening; THAT's the point Chrichton is making. Maybe the temperature is rising, and maybe not. We simply can't measure it with any degree of accuracy. The reasons for that are myraid and involve everything from the fact that climate systems are by and large regional (the north pacific is rising and the south pacific is lowering), some glaciers are melting and others increasing in bulk, parts of antarctica are breaking off seasonally and increasing seasonally; even urban encroachment on the measuring stations themselves throws historical measurements into question. On top of that, the upper limits of the atmosphere are doing precisely the opposite to what it's supposed to be doing according to the CO2 thesis. But the most obvious questions involve the predictive models used. We don't know what to put in, much less what we get out, and every margin of error is magnified exponentially with every year out we go. Think about it. We can't even predict three days into the future of a regional or even local system, and yet we are asked to believe that 100 years of predictions, varying by as much as 400% discrepancy, is "proven". No it's not.

But let's assume that Global Warming is happening on earth. What makes us think we have any effect at all? Human output of CO2 is a fraction of that put out by natural sources. The IPCC report is of no help, since every day finds another "contributor" denying that he or she agreed to the conclusions, which happen to have been edited and rewritten after the fact in any event. So who do we believe? The Global Warming industry? How do they explain the same phenomenon occuring on Mars? How do they explain the Big and Little Optimums? Why did the Ice Age stop being the Ice Age? Well, because the earth was much hotter than it is today. A mere 800 years ago was warmer than it is today...

Actually, the theory that seems to be gaining currency, IF the earth actually is warming, is that of solar activity, which seems to correlate much more closely with actual temperature measurements, for what they are worth, than the CO2 correlation, and all WITHOUT the 800 year lagtime that Gore forgot to mention.

So yeah, maybe it's all a big plot by Big Oil. But it's much more likely that it's not. If there is a big plot involved, it's far more likely to be that of a self-serving grant industry that penalizes researchers who refuse to buy into the nonsense. In fact, it's a measure of the weakness of the Global Warming case that the new name is "Climate Change". That way we can blame hot, cold, warm and tepid on "Climate Change". In fact, the only thing we DO know for sure is that climate has always changed...since long before we discovered fire.

But here's something to think about: Who says global warming is bad? If it's happening, why would it be bad?

[ScottSA]

One thing I notice is that the points Crichton makes about consensus in science are the same points that creationists use. Similar situation where it pays to emphasize scientists that do not accept the mainstream theory while trying to argue away the significance of there being a consensus.

That's called logic, and it's not confined to creationists. Lots of people use it. It goes like this: There is not a consensus on Global Warming in spite of the best efforts of the Church of Global Warming to say there is, and even if there were, it is irrelevant. Science is not a voting endeavor, or else we would still be denying Copernicus and Galileo.

Every day another scientist timidly stands up says "errr...well that's not QUITE true...", and it's only a matter of time before the same flood that saw the demise of the New Ice Age thesis starts. Remember the New Ice Age? That was the last crisis that we got all in a tizzy about.

[Canadian Blue]

But here's something to think about: Who says global warming is bad? If it's happening, why would it be bad?

What kind of logic is that?

It's akin to saying, I've been smoking for the past 20 years and have developed lung cancer, if it's happening, why would it be bad?

That's called logic, and it's not confined to creationists. Lots of people use it. It goes like this: There is not a consensus on Global Warming in spite of the best efforts of the Church of Global Warming to say there is, and even if there were, it is irrelevant. Science is not a voting endeavor, or else we would still be denying Copernicus and Galileo.

No, not really. Those guy's were independant free thinkers. Your scientists on the other hand are science fiction writers, and people funded by some massive oil company.

The "big oil" meme is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, "big oil" funds many of the foundations that support research on evidence of Global Warming, so one might just as profitably argue that the Church of Global Warming is funded by big oil too. Like most of the "quit smoking" programs are supported by tobacco companies, but whenever someone points out that "secondhand smoke" is less harmfull than standing on the curb at rush hour on any busy street in America, someone is always ready to point and holler that they must work for "Big Tobacco". It's just more cheap ad hominem. It's like me claiming you work for the Global Warming industry; it's meaningless and probably not true.

Yeah, those poor tobacco companies have been taking a bad rap for nothing lately. Besides, what have tobacco companies ever done that has hurt people.

But let's assume that Global Warming is happening on earth. What makes us think we have any effect at all? Human output of CO2 is a fraction of that put out by natural sources. The IPCC report is of no help, since every day finds another "contributor" denying that he or she agreed to the conclusions, which happen to have been edited and rewritten after the fact in any event. So who do we believe? The Global Warming industry? How do they explain the same phenomenon occuring on Mars? How do they explain the Big and Little Optimums? Why did the Ice Age stop being the Ice Age? Well, because the earth was much hotter than it is today. A mere 800 years ago was warmer than it is today...

Are you sure about that? Because all of the research I've seen has said that the climate is getting more CO2 pumped into it than ever before.

So yeah, maybe it's all a big plot by Big Oil. But it's much more likely that it's not. If there is a big plot involved, it's far more likely to be that of a self-serving grant industry that penalizes researchers who refuse to buy into the nonsense. In fact, it's a measure of the weakness of the Global Warming case that the new name is "Climate Change". That way we can blame hot, cold, warm and tepid on "Climate Change". In fact, the only thing we DO know for sure is that climate has always changed...since long before we discovered fire.

That's because simple minded people think that seeing more snow on the lawn can refute scientific research.

[ScottSA]

[quote name='Canadian Blue' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:58 PM' post='199325']

But here's something to think about: Who says global warming is bad? If it's happening, why would it be bad?

What kind of logic is that?

It's akin to saying, I've been smoking for the past 20 years and have developed lung cancer, if it's happening, why would it be bad?

I hardly know where to begin parsing through the logic of even this simple statement. First, your premise is faulty. You are assuming that global warming is akin to lung cancer; caused by smoking. We don't even know if GW is occuring, much less whether we have anything at all to do with it. In fact it's highly unlikely that we have anything to do with it. Second, you are assuming that GW is bad, and claiming so in an effort to show that it's bad. That's a tautology that goes nowhere. I'm asking why it's bad, and you're saying it's bad because it's bad, like lung cancer. But we know that lung cancer is bad, and we know lung cancer is not Global Warming. Lung cancer is irrelevant to Global Warming.

That's called logic, and it's not confined to creationists. Lots of people use it. It goes like this: There is not a consensus on Global Warming in spite of the best efforts of the Church of Global Warming to say there is, and even if there were, it is irrelevant. Science is not a voting endeavor, or else we would still be denying Copernicus and Galileo.

No, not really. Those guy's were independant free thinkers. Your scientists on the other hand are science fiction writers, and people funded by some massive oil company.

Here we are again with baseless ad hominem. Crichton is not funded by some "massive oil company". He made his money because he writes. He writes what he writes because he's a Harvard medical doctor.

The "big oil" meme is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, "big oil" funds many of the foundations that support research on evidence of Global Warming, so one might just as profitably argue that the Church of Global Warming is funded by big oil too. Like most of the "quit smoking" programs are supported by tobacco companies, but whenever someone points out that "secondhand smoke" is less harmfull than standing on the curb at rush hour on any busy street in America, someone is always ready to point and holler that they must work for "Big Tobacco". It's just more cheap ad hominem. It's like me claiming you work for the Global Warming industry; it's meaningless and probably not true.

Yeah, those poor tobacco companies have been taking a bad rap for nothing lately. Besides, what have tobacco companies ever done that has hurt people.

And if we were talking about Big Tobacco, that might be relevant.

But let's assume that Global Warming is happening on earth. What makes us think we have any effect at all? Human output of CO2 is a fraction of that put out by natural sources. The IPCC report is of no help, since every day finds another "contributor" denying that he or she agreed to the conclusions, which happen to have been edited and rewritten after the fact in any event. So who do we believe? The Global Warming industry? How do they explain the same phenomenon occuring on Mars? How do they explain the Big and Little Optimums? Why did the Ice Age stop being the Ice Age? Well, because the earth was much hotter than it is today. A mere 800 years ago was warmer than it is today...

Are you sure about that? Because all of the research I've seen has said that the climate is getting more CO2 pumped into it than ever before.

That's because you haven't actually seen any research. Be honest. You haven't, have you? And really, you wouldn't know what it meant if you did, would you? The truth is that you've been told certain things and you choose to take them on faith...faith in numbers perhaps...faith in your sense of environmental responsibility maybe...whatever. I'm very far from a conspiracy theorist, but the fact is that the earth was quite a bit warmer numerous times in the past...think about it...how have several ice ages come and gone? For a fleeting instant, after one of the IPCC reports we thought it was warmer than it has been for the last 1000 years, due to statistical modelling by a fellow named Mann, until the infamous hockey stick graph was shown to be a joke.

Did you know that CO2 makes up less than .05% of the earth's atmosphere? That's less than half of one percent. And that human made CO2 is a fraction of a fraction of that? Do you really imagine that cutting back on some fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the earths atmosphere is going to freeze the climate in place?

So yeah, maybe it's all a big plot by Big Oil. But it's much more likely that it's not. If there is a big plot involved, it's far more likely to be that of a self-serving grant industry that penalizes researchers who refuse to buy into the nonsense. In fact, it's a measure of the weakness of the Global Warming case that the new name is "Climate Change". That way we can blame hot, cold, warm and tepid on "Climate Change". In fact, the only thing we DO know for sure is that climate has always changed...since long before we discovered fire.

That's because simple minded people think that seeing more snow on the lawn can refute scientific research.

This makes no sense. Simple minded people are the folks who believe things because someone keeps yammering that it's true.

[Canadian Blue]

I hardly know where to begin parsing through the logic of even this simple statement. First, your premise is faulty. You are assuming that global warming is akin to lung cancer; caused by smoking. We don't even know if GW is occuring, much less whether we have anything at all to do with it. In fact it's highly unlikely that we have anything to do with it. Second, you are assuming that GW is bad, and claiming so in an effort to show that it's bad. That's a tautology that goes nowhere. I'm asking why it's bad, and you're saying it's bad because it's bad, like lung cancer. But we know that lung cancer is bad, and we know lung cancer is not Global Warming. Lung cancer is irrelevant to Global Warming.

Drought, hurricanes, possible flooding, etc.

Here we are again with baseless ad hominem. Crichton is not funded by some "massive oil company". He made his money because he writes. He writes what he writes because he's a Harvard medical doctor.

When did medical doctors become experts on climate change?

He can probably diagnose my flu, but I somehow doubt he know's much about climate.

And if we were talking about Big Tobacco, that might be relevant.

Dude, you mentioned big tobacco.

That's because you haven't actually seen any research. Be honest. You haven't, have you? And really, you wouldn't know what it meant if you did, would you? The truth is that you've been told certain things and you choose to take them on faith...faith in numbers perhaps...faith in your sense of environmental responsibility maybe...whatever. I'm very far from a conspiracy theorist, but the fact is that the earth was quite a bit warmer numerous times in the past...think about it...how have several ice ages come and gone?

A radical liberal group known as "scientists" have come out with report after report warning of the effects of climate change.

As for the earth has gone through quite abit warming in the past, if you look at the research, we are actually warming much more quickly than in the past. It's also good to see that you can't provide any link's to back up this statement.

Did you know that CO2 makes up less than .05% of the earth's atmosphere? That's less than half of one percent. And that human made CO2 is a fraction of a fraction of that? Do you really imagine that cutting back on some fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the earths atmosphere is going to freeze the climate in place?

Probably.

This makes no sense. Simple minded people are the folks who believe things because someone keeps yammering that it's true.

Not really, people think that since they see more snow than global warming must be a myth, much like all of the Exxonmobil researchers and Science Fiction writers you refer to. That's what you were referencing was how they changed the term from global warming to climate change.

When the "experts" keep yammering, I tend to listen to what the "experts" have to say.

So far you haven't provided any experts. I provided link's earlier, and so far you have none.

[PolyNewbie]

Canadian Blue: What kind of logic is that?

It's akin to saying, I've been smoking for the past 20 years and have developed lung cancer, if it's happening, why would it be bad?

No it isn't. I think you should stick with The Little Hobo & Baywatch and leave logic to others.

CanadianBlue:That's because simple minded people think that seeing more snow on the lawn can refute scientific research.

If the scientists say there will not be snow and you see snow on your lawn then the scientists are wrong.

You should watch that Michael Chrighton speech posted here earlier.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Just wait and see what happens people. Glaciers are melting pretty fast on this continent. The proof is in the pudding I would say. The last time I went to the Columbia ice fields it was a short walk from the parking lot to the ice, now you have a long hike to get there.

Set that aside for the moment, now lets look at this a different way. If there is global warming were are screwed, if there isn't then there is no problem right. So since we don't know for sure one way or another what do we do. Some people would have us pretend that it isn't happening at all. That is risky, but the other side of the coin is that is may be really expensive if we ignore the problem. The question seems to be should we do something about it or not. I say not, but I believe that there is indeed global warming.

I say do nothing because I don't think we can reverse it. Its a natural event, and I don't care if we caused it or not I simply don't think we can either stop it or reverse it. My recommendation is that we as individuals do what we can to mitigate the effects on ourselves and our families. Adapt or die. I think it will happen whether we spend money on it or not. I think that no matter how much we spend it will not change a damned thing.

[ScottSA]

When did medical doctors become experts on climate change?

He can probably diagnose my flu, but I somehow doubt he know's much about climate.

It is painfully apparent that you haven't watched even one of the videos. If you had, you wouldn't have said that, because he's speaking about complexity theory, and only peripherally addressing "Climate Change". He, and a lot of people, are quite well qualified to look at the statistics involved, and in fact it was an amateur statician who blew the lid off Mann's hockey stick graph. (It's also notable that in spite of widespread acknowledgment that the graph was completely wrong, the IPCC kept using it for another decade in its reports, but that's another story having to do with poor peer review.) Perhaps it would be a good idea to watch the video before you trot out the ad hominem.

It is equally obvious that you know very little about the subject of "climate change" yourself. If Global Warming were happening, the weather would actually get milder, not rougher. That's why the term in usage has changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", so that things like the fact that the US just had the coldest winter in decades ( http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/...pping-the-news/ ) can skip by un-noticed. One of the more hilarious logical gymnastics was when the Bancroft-Arnesen trek to bring attention to GW was called off because one of them got frostbite. They had even brought swimming suits so they could swim through open stretches of the arctic ocean. Their response to the unexpected cold: "They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1 So in effect we can blame EVERYTHING on Global Warming, including frostbite and cold winters. This kind of thing is the height of disingenuity, and the Church of Global Warming seems to have lost all sense of irony.

[shoggoth]

And that human made CO2 is a fraction of a fraction of that?

About 25%, that is the rise in atmospheric co2 concentration from pre-industrial 280ppm to 382ppm today is virtually all human caused.

The "global warming swindle" documentary is an example of distortion of the facts rather than presenting them fairly. Their claim that volcanoes emit more co2 than man for example is BS

[ScottSA]

And that human made CO2 is a fraction of a fraction of that?

About 25%, that is the rise in atmospheric co2 concentration from pre-industrial 280ppm to 382ppm today is virtually all human caused.

The "global warming swindle" documentary is an example of distortion of the facts rather than presenting them fairly. Their claim that volcanoes emit more co2 than man for example is BS

We have absolutely no way of knowing that any increase in atmospheric CO2 is human made or not. If the oceans are in a cyclical warming phase, they are much more likely the culprits. And remember, we're still talking about 25% of .05%. It's at best negligible. 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?

And both the bristlecone pine and the atmospheric tests on ice core samples show that CO2 is a byproduct of warming trends with a lagtime of 800 years. Talk about a distortion of facts in "An Inconvenient Truth".

[shoggoth]

That's called logic, and it's not confined to creationists.

Yet it is not logical. Consensus isn't some meaningless phenomenon as creationists and crichton alike would like to claim. Consensus allows lay people to get a good idea of where the science is at. The strength of consensus is that it's more often correct than minority views.

For every consensus theory that has turned out wrong throughout history there have been dozens of minority theories that have turned out wrong. So yes it is illogical to assume a minority theory held by half a dozen experts is just as likely as one held by thousands simply on the basis that thousands of experts have been wrong in the past.

It goes like this: There is not a consensus on Global Warming in spite of the best efforts of the Church of Global Warming to say there is, and even if there were, it is irrelevant.

There is a consensus on global warming. The official positions of the NAS, the AAAS, NASA, NOAA, etc have a lot of common ground on this issue. The fundamental common ground shared is they all accept the recent co2 rise has been manmade, and that will cause warming. Furthermore they do not accept the sun has caused the entire 20th century warming.

Every day another scientist timidly stands up says "errr...well that's not QUITE true...", and it's only a matter of time before the same flood that saw the demise of the New Ice Age thesis starts. Remember the New Ice Age? That was the last crisis that we got all in a tizzy about.

And unlike global warming today, there was no consensus on the issue from those scientific bodies above. The 1975 NAS report for example said that the direction of future temperature was uncertain.

[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.