The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Slavik44]

A while back a user posted a video title The Great Global Warming Swindle, at the time I only watched a few minutes of it. I recently noticed an article in the paper discussing this video and thought I would sit down and watch the whole thing.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=449...warming+swindle

Whether or not you agree with global warming or disagree with global warming have no idea about it or just don't care...you should find this video disgusting. Because nearly every single claim it makes is a lie, a distortion of the truth, and or extremely misleading.

Lets look at its claims....

The two biggest claims they make, their scientific holy grail, are both false.

They claim is made that if global warming were occurring we would see this in the troposphere, its highly scientific and we wouldn't understand why, but as they tell us just trust them. Now so far they are correct. Then they tell us that there is no Warming in the troposphere. This is wrong, we have know this to be wrong for a couple years. For a recent video that is trying to scientifically debunk global warming, you would think they should be more up-to-date on the "facts" they are presenting.

They say that if Global warming were true we would see the troposphere warming, we do, does that mean they would like to change their position?

Another big thing they point to is sun spots, it is interesting. Because the number of Sunspots work in a short cyclical manner, going up and down many times in our own life time. In the video, they show us the number of sunspots up to the 1970's and say hey look it matches. why? don't they show us the next 30 years? Well because as they say, the earth has been continually heating since the 1970's, but the number of sunspots have gone up and down a number of times. In fact in our hottest year on record, we were near the bottom or the low end of the sunspot cycle...They are wrong, they have lied. In the past 30 years the sunspots and the Earth temperature have not matched.

They also look at some other claims. One they really like to focus on is the post war cooling period where CO2 would have been high, in an economic boom, and the temperature should have gone up but it didn't...in fact it dropped for a couple of decades. Interestingly, there is another side to the story. It is called particle pollution...certain chemicals when released into the atmosphere have been proved to have a profound cooling effect. It wasn't until a few decades after WW2, when we started to regulate such emissions...as they are extremely un-healthy. After this we see temperatures rise. None, of that is mentioned is this video, it is ignored, completely and utterly ignored. It is a bad attempt at misleading the public.

The video also likes to talk about stores of CO2....great, wonderfull...They should mention that the Ocean stores more CO2 than it emits. Maybe they should explain how the natural stores of CO2 are increasing, if we were to expect global warming to be caused naturally, you might think to look for a decrease in the natural storage of CO2. Instead we see an increase in the natural storage of CO2 at the same time we see an increase in the atmosphere.

They also went on to make a interesting point about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. On the surface it looks great. Until you realize where one of the worlds greatest natural stores of CO2 is.....it is under the arctic permafrost....When that melts, more CO2 would be released into the atmosphere. This is something scientists have been telling us for a while now. I would like to ask you when that CO2 would be released...take a guess...I am no scientists, but I have this theory that ice melts as temperature rises.

Finally they talk about Cosmic rays. As I said I am not a scientist...so I will just refer you to a real scientist

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ays-for-a-spin/

First, the particles observed in these experiments are orders of magnitude too small to be Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN). In the press release, this is why they talk about the 'building blocks' of CCN, however, aggrandisation of these small particles is in no sense guaranteed (Missing step #1). Secondly, the focus is on low clouds over the ocean. However, over the ocean, there are huge numbers of condensation nuclei related to sea salt particles. Thus to show that the cosmic ray mechanism is important, you need to show that it increases CCN even in the presence of lots of other CCN (Missing step #2). Next, even if more CCN were made, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud cover (or optical thickness etc.) (Missing step #3). And given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing - which despite their hand waving, is not at all well quantified (even the sign!) (Missing step #4). Finally, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades - which is tricky, because there hasn't been (see the figure) (Missing step #5). All of this will require significant work and there are certainly no guarantees that all the steps can be verified (which they have been for the greenhouse gas hypothesis) - especially the last! However, they would seem essential to justifying the claims in the press releases.

Will these results be a spur to future research? Possibly. But the ridiculous spin put on this paper is liable to continue to put off mainstream scientists from pursuing it. It's as though Svensmark and co. want to enhance the field of solar-terrestrial research's bad reputation for agenda-driven science.

When it comes down to it, we all need to be careful not to be duped, but I think in some people's effort not to be duped by Al Gore...they got duped by someone else. Either way, no matter how you feel, you might be getting duped, particularly if you go around believing in a video with out even trying to hold it up to any sort of review. I am not talking about rigorous scientific anylisation...Instead it is Slavik has taken introductory courses in Earth Science and Physical Geography...the same type of knowledge you could get reading a book or two in the Library. If you truly don't want to be duped, swindled, or mislead. Inform yourself. All to often we look for information that proves our beliefs correct and ignore all else. Challenge these beliefs instead of sheltering them...or you are just swindling yourself.

[sharkman]

So, by taking introductory courses you have enough knowledge to disprove what seasoned scientists are saying in this video? You seem to believe so.

Slavik: "... I am not talking about rigorous scientific anylisation...Instead it is Slavik has taken introductory courses in Earth Science and Physical Geography."

I'm sorry friend, but they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A few introductory courses on the subject is not enough.

[Slavik44]

So, by taking introductory courses you have enough knowledge to disprove what seasoned scientists are saying in this video? You seem to believe so.

Slavik: "... I am not talking about rigorous scientific anylisation...Instead it is Slavik has taken introductory courses in Earth Science and Physical Geography."

I'm sorry friend, but they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A few introductory courses on the subject is not enough.

That is why I provided you with information. I didn;t just say look at me I have some education...I am right they are wrong. If that were the case, you would have a point. Instead I presented information that prooves them wrong. I am not reallying on my education to do anything. I am relying on the information. Until you want to take a stab at disproving my information, all you are doing is taking part in lame attempt at charachter assassination.

I can proove provide you with links that prooves the troposphere is warming

1. Troposphere

http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/threat/threat6.htm

Please note that at one time this information was not known, so they were correct, but no longer are, now they are just lieing and misleading the public.

2. Sunspots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png

Here is a graph...where you can see sunspots going up and down...in a cyclical manner over the past 30 years. You can see how they have decreased from 2000-2005 during some of our warmest years on record.

3. Post War cooling

If you are un-aware of the information about particle pollution and aerosols, then you are in great need of a little knowledge.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-last-frontier/

4. CO2 storage in the Ocean

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sab.../sabi2683.shtml

5. CO2 storage below the Permafrost

http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Dec/20-801705.html

6. Ice Melts as temperatures rise

You got me, that was complete bullshit....

7. This is an add on

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...o2-in-ice-cores

This talks about the relationship between CO2 and heat...it also talks about the possibility of CO2 being released fromt eh Ocean as the climate warms...so now we have the ocean and the ice.

7. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2261.htm

8. Cosmic Radiation

Already gave you a link

---------------------------

Finally I would like to indulge you in this scientific credential dick measuring constest you seem so eager to start, by flaunting the scientists found in the great global warming swindle.

This is what I found....

Martin Durkin

Martin Durkin has a history of making controversial and misleading programmes with a bias against environmentalists. In 1998 his Channel Four series "Against Nature" was the subject of a complaint by Friends of the Earth. The complaint was upheld by the Independent Television Commission, who said in their ruling that the programme makers "distorted by selective editing" the views of FoE Campaigns director Tony Juniper and other interviewees and "misled" participants over the "content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part". In addition, the series came under fire from George Monbiot for its factual errors and misrepresentation of the environmental movement.

Carl Wunsch

Distortion by selective editing was also used in the Great Global Warming Swindle. Oceanographer Carl Wunsch responded angrily to the way his comments had been edited into the film. In his public response, he said

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making--- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.

Writing to Wag TV, the production company, the Professor said

I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has

Fred Singer

Singer has retired from the University of Virginia and has not had a single article accepted for any peer-reviewed scientific journal for 20 years. His main work has been as a hired gun for business interests to undermine scientific research on environmental and health matters. Before turning to climate change denial he has argued that CFCs do not cause ozone depletion and second hand smoke does not cause cancer.

Patrick Michaels

Patrick Michaels is the most prominent US climate change denier. In the programme he claimed “I’ve never been paid a nickel by the old and gas companies” which is a curious claim. According to the US journalist Ross Gebspan Michaels has received direct funding from, among others German Coal Mining Association ($49,000), Edison Electric Institute ($15,000), and the Western Fuels Association ($63,000) an association of US coal producing interests.

Peirs Corbyn

Piers Corbyn has no academic status and his role in such programmes is to promote his own weather prediction business. He has steadfastly refused to ever subject his climatological theories to any form of external review or scrutiny.

Tim Ball

Tim Ball was captioned as the University of Winnipeg. In fact he left in 1996...

[sharkman]

Hmm, I seem to have ticked you off. That was not my intent, although I appreciate your passion. There is passion on both sides of this issue, and respected scientists as well. We could get into a competition on whose scientists are better, but suffice to say that your talking points are in dispute.

[Slavik44]

Hmm, I seem to have ticked you off. That was not my intent, although I appreciate your passion. There is passion on both sides of this issue, and respected scientists as well. We could get into a competition on whose scientists are better, but suffice to say that your talking points are in dispute.

Well my scientists beat your second hand smoke causes cancer deniers any day of the week...and you have yet to counter any one of my points.

[sharkman]

Well let me say that your command of the english language seems to be improving. What other languages do you know? I only know one I am afraid.

[buffycat]

Slavik, get a few more courses under your belt then come back and talk some more.

Have you heard of the Milankovitch Cycles? Do a good course on Quarternary Geology and Paleoclimates - you might have a different outlook on things.

I'll add more later to your thread - I just don't have the time now and need to tend my garden!

But... keep in mind that the Earth System, as a whole is something which still leaves much to be understood.

[noahbody]

They also went on to make a interesting point about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. On the surface it looks great. Until you realize where one of the worlds greatest natural stores of CO2 is.....it is under the arctic permafrost....When that melts, more CO2 would be released into the atmosphere. This is something scientists have been telling us for a while now. I would like to ask you when that CO2 would be released...take a guess...I am no scientists, but I have this theory that ice melts as temperature rises.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be stating that when the earth goes into a warming cycle and causes melting, CO2 naturally rises. Therefore, the manmade claim is skeptical at best and shoudl be debated further.

[Slavik44]

Slavik, get a few more courses under your belt then come back and talk some more.

Have you heard of the Milankovitch Cycles? Do a good course on Quarternary Geology and Paleoclimates - you might have a different outlook on things.

I'll add more later to your thread - I just don't have the time now and need to tend my garden!

But... keep in mind that the Earth System, as a whole is something which still leaves much to be understood.

I am going to be very honest here, this is irratating.....

What you are doing with this current post is a blatant straw man and it is not one I will be drawn into. Suffice to say in this thread I am not interested in debating whether or not Global Warming is man made.

What I was looking at was The information found in the great global warming swindle, and showing why it is wrong.

That does not mean I was trying to prove global warming is man-made, only that the movie itself is junk.

And you can continue to sit back and make rude remarks about my level of education, but until you are willing to debate the information, you should leave this thread. I have posted the info...can I assume by your lack of willingness to address it that you know I am correct?

Yes, I have heard of Milankovitch Cycles...

Now I want you to do this for me...

First I want you to recognize that my post was not intended to prove man-made global warming...

Second I want you to recognize that my post was in concerns with the validity/fairness of the claims made in the Great Global Warming Swindle

Third I want you to tell me and every one on this forum which one of my points is wrong....

Is it

1. That Sunspot Activity is cyclical in nature?

2. That The movie only showed us sunspot activity to the 1970's

3. That past the 1970's sunspot activity has gone up and down...while as the movie itself said, temperature has been increasing.

4. That evidence in the past few years has proven that the troposphere is in fact warming at a rate that would be expected by GHG/global warming models

5. Particle Pollution/Aerosols can have a cooling effect

6. That the emission of such things was limited a couple decades after WW2 (in the 70's I think)

7. CO2 is stored under the arctic permafrost

8. Ice melts as temperatures increase.

9. That Oceans store CO2

10. That as oceans warm, they release CO2

11. That Carl Wunsch was upset with how his claims, about the Ocean, were taken out of context in the movie and misrepresented.

12. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing

These are my claims. I have provided evidence for each and every one of them. I am now asking you to debate my claims. To debate my information. Are you able to do this? If those 12 claims are so ridiculous then prove them wrong.

You are making me out to be an ignorant fool. If that is the case, that I am ignorant, and my 12 claims are ignorant, then you should have no trouble responding to them and addressing them.

I don't want any other claims introduced, I don't want any other positions ascribed to myself...other then the 12 I placed in this post.

I encourage any and all debate on those 12 claims...

The attitude you have shown...suggest that this should be easy for you. After all I am in desperate need of an education, so doit. Give me one, tell me why those 12 things are wrong AND JUST THOSE 12 NOTHING ELSE.

If not maybe you should apologize.

[Slavik44]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be stating that when the earth goes into a warming cycle and causes melting, CO2 naturally rises. Therefore, the manmade claim is skeptical at best and shoudl be debated further.

You are actually not incorrect... If you look through most of my previous posts, on this subject, you will notice I have never explicitly said that Global warming is definitely and entirely a man-made phenomenon. My post instead was to encourage people to debate the topic, to look at information, to analyze what they read and see.

So you are correct, I do believe that we need to look at these claims.

You are somewhat incorrect however, in that my position was that as the earth rises, CO2 is released from natural stores (Ice and Ocean) and this has an amplification effect...which is the actual position of Carl Wunsch, who felt he was misrepresented by the individuals who made this movie.

[buffycat]

HOLY! Maybe you should chill out a bit.

First off, my intention was not to be rude, but to let you know a 'couple' courses do not an expert make, you were the one who stated that YOU had taken them - so your claim there is fair game.

Now, as far as the documentary went the information provided was very well researched by those in their own particular field - it also points out quite clearly that the myriad of scientists involved and whose research was used for the IPCC report did not actually reach a clear consensus. That demonstrates the politiziation of science - which is NEVER a good thing.

Now, I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. Or for others so your little assignment to me will be ignored. I will however respond to a few of your original statements which I did say I would comment on later - maybe you should have waited eh? I have a life outside of this little place and did tell you I would write more later after gardening. Impatient are you? Prone to jumping to conclusions? Chill.

Now, you keep harping on CO2, fine. But you make a big mistake in your mention of the permafrost layer. The 'danger' there is that methane will be released. Methane is about forty times more efficient in heat retention than CO2. How much of the permafrost will melt? IMO pretty much as last interglacial event. How much methane will be produced is really anyone's guess as the variables involved are pretty arbitrary and dependent on many different factors.

Even among climate scientists who advocate an anthroprogenic cause to the perceived warming trends there is great debate - yet ALL do certainly take into account the Earth's natural cycles - all of them. It is simplistic to say the least that one can blame ALL things on CO2 (which by the way if far more of a threat to our oceans in abundance, than our atmosphere).

As a scientist. or science student you must realise the importance of being impartial and asking a balanced careful question when forming a hypothesis. Diligence is required so not to taylor one's proposition to what one desires the outcome to be. This is not easy, as most of us want to see our own hypothesis proved to be correct! But, nevertheless that is what science is all about.

WRT Sunspot activities, of course they are cyclical - and there is much about the sun and her behaviour which we are only beginning to understand. Can they influence our climate? I think anyone who thinks they don't is a complete fool! How exactly is still up for debate - since it is all a very new field of research and our own technology is just in its infancy. So, I haven't a clue what is bugging you there!

Now, if you are really interested in this topic, which I btw find fascinating from a geological point of view, then I would suggest in all honesty and best intentions to take a couple courses about paleoclimates, about how the actual science is done to recreated past events. This is important because many of the models we use to determine future scenarios are 'checked' against the geological knowns. Thus, they are of huge consequence to truly understand the degree of which humans are influencing the enviroment wrt climate.

That's it for now. Let's continue in a civilised manner okay?

Respectfully,

Buffy

[Slavik44]

HOLY! Maybe you should chill out a bit.

First off, my intention was not to be rude, but to let you know a 'couple' courses do not an expert make, you were the one who stated that YOU had taken them - so your claim there is fair game.

Yes I never claimed to be an expert. So continuing to bring it up is pointless and in bad taste...This forum would have no one posting on it...if every one had to be an expert. Instead I have since provided data with my claims, in order to lend more credibility to them. I would certainly hope people would not believe something just because I said so....that would be in direct contradiction to wha tI said in my Original conclusion.

"When it comes down to it, we all need to be careful not to be duped, but I think in some people's effort not to be duped by Al Gore...they got duped by someone else. Either way, no matter how you feel, you might be getting duped, particularly if you go around believing in a video with out even trying to hold it up to any sort of review. "

Maybe video was interpreted as the one I posted, but it was intended to be a general and all encompassing reference.

Now, as far as the documentary went the information provided was very well researched by those in their own particular field

I feel however, that it was presented in bad taste and out of context. The data on the troposphere was out dated, the did not discuss data on sunspot from the last 30 years, Carl Wunsch's discussion of CO2 and oceans was edited in a manner that he claism borders on fraud. Other bits of data like Aresoles were conviently ignored. a full or balanced picture was not provided on the issue of clouds and heat/CO2 relationship.

- it also points out quite clearly that the myriad of scientists involved and whose research was used for the IPCC report did not actually reach a clear consensus. That demonstrates the politiziation of science - which is NEVER a good thing.

I don't recall making any claims in concern to that.

Now, I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. Or for others so your little assignment to me will be ignored.

Again, you are being somewhat rude...I backed up every statement I made with evidence. If you are going to say my statements are composed of bad information then prove it...I am only asking what this forum requires, if you make a claim provide supporting evidence. If you claim that what I said was incorrect, then prove it.

Now, you keep harping on CO2, fine.

The movie discussed CO2, so did...do you disagree with any of my claims

But you make a big mistake in your mention of the permafrost layer.

That it melts when it is warm? Or that there is CO2 below it? (notice this was in discussion about CO2 and Temperature...so I wouldn't need to mention other thing such as methane)

The 'danger' there is that methane will be released. Methane is about forty times more efficient in heat retention than CO2.

Yes but the existance of substance B does not mean that substance A does not exist...my point is correct...is it not? That there is CO2 below the permafrost? And that when/if the perma-frost melts CO2 will be released? Is that not correct?

How much of the permafrost will melt?

Never made a claim in concerns to that...I only claimed that what is frozen can melt

IMO pretty much as last interglacial event.

So it does melt, were on the same page. I never claimed to know how much will melt, or have an opinion on that.

How much methane will be produced is really anyone's guess as the variables involved are pretty arbitrary and dependent on many different factors.

Kind of not on the original topic

Even among climate scientists who advocate an anthroprogenic cause to the perceived warming trends there is great debate

Go to my original post, and tell me where I said, we should put duct tape on the mouths of global warming deniers.

yet ALL do certainly take into account the Earth's natural cycles - all of them.

Go to my original post and tell me where I said Global Warming was enitirely caused by humans

It is simplistic to say the least that one can blame ALL things on CO2 (which by the way if far more of a threat to our oceans in abundance, than our atmosphere).

Go to my posts and tell me where I blamed CO2 for all the warming that has occured on the earth. The best you will find is that I said it could work as an amplifier.

[Slavik44]

As a scientist. or science student you must realise the importance of being impartial and asking a balanced careful question when forming a hypothesis.

I wasn't forming a hypothesis, I was commenting on some problems I noticted that were contained in the great Global Warming Swindle...I guess my only hypothesis was that if we blindly accept what anyone says we are swindiling ourselves.

Diligence is required so not to taylor one's proposition to what one desires the outcome to be.

I said the same thing in my original post, but you get the points for elagence.

This is not easy, as most of us want to see our own hypothesis proved to be correct! But, nevertheless that is what science is all about.

Again were in agreement, but I give you the points for elagence

WRT Sunspot activities, of course they are cyclical - and there is much about the sun and her behaviour which we are only beginning to understand. Can they influence our climate? I think anyone who thinks they don't is a complete fool!

I never said they didn't, just that the claim made in the movie...that the Earths tempature is directly caused by the number of sunspots...has a major problem when look at sunspot activity and the earths tempature over the past 30 years.

How exactly is still up for debate - since it is all a very new field of research and our own technology is just in its infancy. So, I haven't a clue what is bugging you there!

That the movie itself made a claim that is to the best of scientific knowledge incompatible with the last 30 years of data.

Now, if you are really interested in this topic, which I btw find fascinating from a geological point of view, then I would suggest in all honesty and best intentions to take a couple courses about paleoclimates, about how the actual science is done to recreated past events.

And I don't disagree with you, but that does not mean that I cannot point out some of the problems with the video, especially when I can back up what I say with scientific data and studies.

This is important because many of the models we use to determine future scenarios are 'checked' against the geological knowns. Thus, they are of huge consequence to truly understand the degree of which humans are influencing the enviroment wrt climate.

Very much so....Junk in, Junk out..a model is only as good as the data. But I was not making a post arguing that Global warming was Caused solely by CO2 or that it was entirely a man made phenomenon...instead just that there were a number of problems with the above video. Which I outlined, and have since provided studies and data to back up.

That's it for now. Let's continue in a civilised manner okay?

Respectfully,

Buffy

sure

[ClearWest]

Hot topic, eh?

(Pun intended:)