The Great Global Warming Swindle

[reason]

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film - Google Video

Interesting documentary. Thought I'd share.

In a nutsehll:

1. The evidence is not convincing that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. In fact, the current warming trend started before mass industrialisation, and actually declined between 1940 and 1975, a time when more carbon dioxide was being emitted by man than ever before.

2. The evidence proposed by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth is highly misleading, there he plots a strong relationship between atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and global temperature. In fact, a more close analysis reveals that Al Gore has the causation backwards, and that increased levels of carbon dioxide follow increases in global temperature.

Edit:
2.5. The standard global warming theory also predicts a higher temperature in the upper atmosphere than the lower. In fact, data collected by weather balloons and satellites shows that warming is concentrated near the surface, not the upper atmosphere.

3. The alternative theory that changes in global temperature are predominantly caused by variations in solar activity corresponds to the facts as good, if not better than, the standard manmade global warming theory.

4. The catastrophic predictions of the environmentalist movement are mistaken, irrespective of whether man is the cause of global warming or not. In fact, the world temperature was substantially higher during medieval times, so much so that there were vineyards in northern England; much of London still bears the mark of this trade in the names of streets and districts. This was occurring during a period of global temperatures which "should" have put London under many metres of water.

5. The fears for wildlife are vastly overhyped. For example, polar bears evolved from a common ancestor of grizzly bears about 100,000 years ago, and during this period (recently from an evolutionary perspective), polar bears must have survived during millenia of higher temperatures than today. This lesson must also apply to almost all plants and animals.

6. The global warming fad has little to do with science and everything to do with politics. The The IPPC, the UN body dedicated to studying global warming repeatedly gets its facts wrong, such as claiming that global warming will cause the spread of tropical diseases such as malaria, even though malaria is not a tropical disease and some of the worst malaria epidemics have occurred in Russia.

6. The IPPC is corrupt and twists the facts. It is claimed that the IPPC adds the names of reputable scientists to the list of authors on reports, even when those scientists explicitly disagreed with the content of the report, so that the report gives a sense of consensus in the scientific community. The IPPC has also sent out reports for scientists to approve, only to then change the report at the last moment, editing out many of the disclaimers which cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory.

7. The environmentalist movement has little to do with saving the environment. In fact, the movement has become hijacked by neoMarxists and anarchists, who romanticise peasant life. The real enemy of the environmentalist movement is capitalism and globalisation; the environment is merely a smokescreen through which to push an antidevelopment agenda.

8. The consequences of this agenda hurt the poor most of all. The third world, particularly Africans, are being pressured to not use their resources, such as coal and oil, but instead adopt alternative wind and solar power. This pressure, if successful, effectively is telling the third world that it cannot develop, thus people will continue to die in their millions for the sake of wealthy westerners who can congratulate themselves for "saving" the environment.

9. The media perpetuate these myths by looking for a good story. The makers of catastrophic predictions 20+ years from now will not have to face the consequences of being wrong, so they are biased toward making their predictions interesting instead. The media laps this up with little or no journalistic integrity, and has helped fuel the global warming myth and propel it to the forefront of politics.

Edit:
9.5. The frequent images we see of melting ice around the arctic poles an ordinary occurrence, and have also occurred in the past. The main difference is that today we get to see each in great detail. The ice caps around the poles are always contracting and expanding quite dramatically, and the current activity is not to be unexpected, especially given that we are currently experiecing a rise in global temperature.

10. The global warming myth has become an industry and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, are in some way dependent upon perpetuating it. If the whole global warming myth were to burst tomorrow, many people would lose their positions of power, their jobs and their respect, so they have a vested interest in being ever shriller and touting ever more catastrophic predictions.

11. Finally, anybody who speaks out against the standard global warming theory is branded a heretic, will struggle to get funding or teach. The entire movement has become religion, and nonbelievers are not to be trusted (they must all be in the pockets of big business!) or forced out of positions of influence.

[Langrenus]

Heh, I remember watching this a couple of months back

A few interesting points I've since picked up (sorry if I don't reference back to your original numbers)

The decline in temperature during the post-war period: usually accounted for by the fact that we were also pumping out large quantities of sulphate aerosols which blocked sunlight and so reduced global temperatures (the irony being that in cleaning up pollutants to improve air quality we're probably increasing the rate of global warming)

There's really no great shortage of funding for scientists attempting to refute the global warming thesis. These funding sources are known as "oil companies" to the general public.

If you watch the programme carefully (and I'll profess I only actually caught one of these myself, others I've discovered from follow-up reading) they're very, very clever (or stupid) about what they show on the graphs. For instance, they continue to label the great 'post war boom' into recessionary periods. More importantly, the solar activity/temperature graph stops at 1980 (and apparently doesn't even match NASA records, but I'm not sure on this) - the point at which the relationship ceases to explain global temperatures. (link). There's also some controversy over other figures used

However, the programme was interesting - always worth hearing opposing points of view, and I admit that certain things didn't come across well for the climate change lobby (e.g. the scaremongering about the spread of malaria). It's always fascinating how entrenched people can become on topics such as this...

[JivinJeffJones]

.

[Haight]

I'm going to give you my opinion despite the fact that I have only read the title of this thread, thus far.

Unless you are a scientist, with knowledge applicable to this subject, and, you have access to the primary source, scientific documents held by both sides of this issue . . . the truth will remain hidden from you/us and buried below the political objectives of each group, or party concerned with this issue.

[JivinJeffJones]

.

[Haight]

You're missing the point. But it doesn't matter.


Carry on . . .

[JivinJeffJones]

.

[reason]

The decline in temperature during the post-war period: usually accounted for by the fact that we were also pumping out large quantities of sulphate aerosols which blocked sunlight and so reduced global temperatures (the irony being that in cleaning up pollutants to improve air quality we're probably increasing the rate of global warming)

That would be ironic. I would be interested to see the evidence regarding this theory. It strikes me as a conventionalist stratagem, which while not necessarily implying the theory is false, is not preferred scientific practice.

There's really no great shortage of funding for scientists attempting to refute the global warming thesis. These funding sources are known as "oil companies" to the general public.

That may be true. I have not seen any relevent data on the matter. However, I would say that a double standard does exist. The media will immediately discredit any study funded by fuel companies, regardless of the scientific merit of the paper; but the same does not hold for studies funded by government bureaucracy or an environmental organisation, despite clear vested interests on both sides.

If you watch the programme carefully (and I'll profess I only actually caught one of these myself, others I've discovered from follow-up reading) they're very, very clever (or stupid) about what they show on the graphs. For instance, they continue to label the great 'post war boom' into recessionary periods. More importantly, the solar activity/temperature graph stops at 1980 (and apparently doesn't even match NASA records, but I'm not sure on this) - the point at which the relationship ceases to explain global temperatures.

I noticed that, too. However, the links you provided seem to ignore an implication of their own graphs; even if we include the data after 1980, the rise in temperature is no more rapid than it was prior 1940. I am quite happy to accept these criticisms of how the documentary presented the facts, but these criticisms do not completely invalidate every criticism of of the standard global warming theory.

I take issue with the documentary myself. At one point it is basically stated that carbon dioxide emmissions have nothing to with global temperature, yet at another stage a graph is shown which strongly correlates the two... !?!?

[cafe]

So we're not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses to attempt to get an understanding of what is actually happening? We must simply draw our opinions from press releases?

I thought Haight's point was more along the lines of the science involved being so specialized and the data being so inaccessible that average or even above average lay-person has pretty much zero chance of figuring out what's really going on. The scientists, with their biases, pretty much control the data because we do not have the knowledge, the tools, or the money to find it out ourselves. Even if we go so far to read their studies and look at their data, we don't have the expertise to analyze and interpret the data, so we are still dependent upon the scientists and we get the biases that come with them.

[reason]

Interesting. I will have to watch the documentary because I've never heard this. I'm not sure what you mean by the start of "the current warming trend". Do you mean that global warming started then, or do you mean that it started at its current rate then? Because I don't think it's inconceivable that a sudden global rise in population levels could have a measurable impact on global temperature with no "mass industrialisation" needed. That's assuming that when you refer to the start of the current warming trend you are referring to the start of apparently man-made warming, rather than the start of man-made warming at its current rate. Also, do you know if they controlled for pre-existing warming/cooling cycles when determining the start of the current warming trend?

The current warming trend has been ongoing since 1800-1850, at the tail end of the mini ice age. The temperature has been rapidly increasing almost every year since, except the small drop from 1940 to 1975, before increasing again. The criticisms levelled at the graphs shown in the program lambast it for seemingly excluding increases since 1980. If true, that is a daming criticism, but even if so, the rate of increase after 1980 does not look noticably faster than the rate of increase between 1900 and 1940.

I may be reading the graph incorrectly, but even looking at the data provided by the rebuttal, it doesn't speak to kindly of the standard global warming theory, either.

However, it is conceivable that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the sole determinant of global temperature. There could be other variables involved which could explain this alleged decrease in global warming, such as pre-existing warming/cooling cycles. This does not mean carbon dioxide was not affecting the global temperature then, nor that it is not affecting it now.

Of course, it is more than "conceivable," but damn near inevitable that carbon dioxide is not the "sole" determinant of global temperature. However, this bare appeal to possibilities is not good scientific practice, even if it may be true. The same conventionalist strategy could be employed to save any theory, if we are allowed to appeal to bare possibilities to save a theory from refutation, then we will never falsify any theory whatsoever.

Does it actually predict "a higher temperature in the upper atmosphere than the lower", or does it predict a higher increase in temperature in the upper atmosphere than the lower?

I do not know. I am not a climatologist and have little knowledge of the specifics of global warming. I was simply relaying the content of the documentary.

Of course, if, 20 years from now, it turns out that the solar activity theory is actually correct when we've been responding to the manmade global warming theory, what harm will be done? We will hopefully have decreased our environmental impact on the planet somewhat and have developed renewable energy sources. And there will be some red faces. However, if, 20 years from now, it turns out that the manmade global warming theory is actually correct when we've been responding to the solar activity theory (ie doing nothing) or simply arguing the relative merits of both, what harm will be done? According to current projections, by then it will probably be too late to avert disastrous global consequences.

This argument is severely flawed. In short, you are claiming that we have nothing to lose. If we don't take action on global warming and are wrong, then we'll have a nigh on apocolyptic scenario on our hands; but if we do take action and are wrong, then we are none the worse for it.

Firstly, even if we are wrong about global warming being manmade, half the apocolyptic predictions might still be false, as indeed is implied by much of the evidence given in the documentary. In fact, neither of the two rebuttals provided by Langrenus challenged any of the counterarguments concerning the consequences of global warming, but only challenged the fact of whether global warming is caused by sunspots or carbon dioxide emmissions. Need I point out the policy implications? If we really are causing global warming, who cares if the consequences are negligable.

Secondly, the consequences of taking political action are not cost free. Human beings live on energy, economic development is contigent upon energy, and people die when there is not enough energy in their ecosystem to sustain them. The increase costs of alternative energy sources will have long run and difficult to observe consequences, but concrete and unavoidable consequences nonetheless. Furthermore, such actions must necessarily increase the power we give to politicians, power which is susceptible to the perversities of politicised incentives, corruption and misuse.

The consequences of taking action of global warming and being wrong may well be disaterous and deadly to billions, particularly in the third world. The fact that these consequences will be widely dispersed in time and place does not mean they can be dismissed.

Of course, even assuming this assertion is correct, those animal populations have never before been simultaneously subjected to the stress of "millennia" of higher temperatures and the stress of massive human populations.

Animal populations are always under the stress of something, whether it be a new contender in the ecosystem, changing temperatures, new counteradaptions by their predators, epidemics and other natural disasters. In this case, humans can be logged under the "new contender in the ecosystem category."

There will, of course, be individuals and groups who wish to preserve animal species that might go extinct. I wish them the best of luck with that endevour, but I don't think those same individuals and groups should be granted the right to force others to pick up the bill through the coercive hand of government. Frankly, some people just don't give a shit about the polar bears, and I think it is injust to force those people to pay for their continued existence, after all, forcing somebody to work on your behalf on threat of legal punishment is just another way of saying slavery.

I'll have to take your word for this, though it makes sense to me that malarial mosquito populations could increase with global warming.

Mosquitos are abundant all around the world, especially in antartica.

That may be true, but it's beside the point really.

No it isn't. The implication is that people shouldn't accept that environmentalist groups really have the best interests of the environment at heart (whatever that means, since the environment doesn't have "interests,' nevermind "best interests"). These groups may be pushing for neomarxist and anarchistic policies through a smokescreen, and people are being duped into supporting something they do not agree with in the name of environmentalism.

That is the implication from the documentary, anyway.

Well, I guess that's one view. The view that assumes man-made global warming is a myth.

Of course, the documentary claims global warming is a myth, but the point does not depend on believing it to be a myth. The point is that the media doesn't care if global warming is a myth.

This could be true. However, I find it very difficult to believe that scientists would have failed to take this into account.

Again, I am here only relating the content of the documentary.