The Great Global Warming Swindle on C4

[Tannhauser]

For those sufficiently interested, you can read Carl Wunsch's detailed objections to the way his views were represented on the programme here:

 

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

 

It's the first contribution after the article.

[Dragonball]

For those sufficiently interested, you can read Carl Wunsch's detailed objections to the way his views were represented on the programme here:

 

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

 

It's the first contribution after the article.

 

Nuff said in the article really...I found the channel 4 sensationalism (I cannot find it myself to call it a documentory!) totally irresponsible...

 

As it says

 

The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands have been misled into believing there is no problem to address

 

 

Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question

[jaymdee]

What's wrong with Global Warming anyway?? I recall drinking outside in a T-shirt in October last year, lovely weather - we should have wrecked the atmosphere years ago

[Rob]

As the prog pointed out, the temperature goes up and it comes down, no-one dies, and if Holland and New Orleans gets flooded it's their own fault for building below sea level.

[AJI]

From the world's governments point of view; if Global Warming can generate money then it they will make up what ever stories are required in order they can create taxes for it.

 

The science facts behind the C4 program were plain to see and on layman's terms. Any fool can see that CO2 emmisions have no bearing on global warming.

 

That is not to say Global Warming is not happening... because it is. But this is a natural cycle of the earth with its relation to the sun.

 

The simple relation is as follows:

(1) The Sun emits energy at a non-uniform rate througout it life cycle.

(2) The Earth rotates around the Sun and 'flys' through the Sun's emitted energy.

(3) Due to the varying levels of intensity of energy release from the Sun, the Earth will absorb varying levels as a result.

(4) This energy absorption primarily is absorbed by the Earth's oceans.

(5) The Oceans work on a 200 year lag.... as it takes this long for any energy absobed near the surface to work its way down through the depths of the water.

(6) A warmer ocean has a higher than average release of water vapour.

(7) Water vapour is the PRIMARY green house gas. (By a huge margin actually)

(8) More water vapour in the atmosphere means a greenhouse effect of warming the Earth.

(9) More warming of the earth generates an increase of CO2 which is also emitted primarily from the oceans.

 

 

Notice that CO2 is only mentioned at the very end of the process.

Therefore it is not in any way a cause factor of global warming.

 

The goverment paid scientists give the govermnents the answers they want to hear.... therefore the above process is mixed around to fool people to believe that human CO2 production is the cause.... which it plainly ISN'T.

 

What a lot of people don't like to hear is that global warming is purely a natural cycle, yes it is happening but it is not through human activity.

Why are we being tol otherwise ??? answer = Money

[Tannhauser]

1. Changes in solar radiation are currently thought to account for a proportion of the temperature variation only. Depending on which source you trust, solar radiation has not increased since either 1978 or 1940, during which the earth's temperature has increased most rapidly.

 

2. Water vapour does contribute to the greenhouse effect, but CO2 contributes around 9-30%. The idea that water vapour contributes a massive preponderance to the greenhouse effect is widely believed, but doesn't seem to be traceable to any actual data.

 

3. The cause and effect of temp and CO2 is complex. As you suggest, CO2 can be released as a result of other processes such as temperature rise. However, once released, CO2 itself contributes to the rising temperature. So the argument is that every time in the past there has been a rise in CO2 naturally, this has then further contributed to the temperature rise. This time, a human induced increase in CO2 is having the same effect.

 

I think the weakest argument is the conspiracy theory one. Every major scientific institution agrees on the fundamentals, from Australia to Austria, from Ireland to Japan. So that must mean that all governments have cottoned onto the same revenue raising scheme. CEOs of major corporations have also been brainwashed, despite the fact that it is in their interests not to clean up their act. Even Shell and BP, who have really considerable scientific resources and expertise of their own, now accept human induced climate change. You can imagine how reluctant energy corporations were to accept the evidence.

 

Doubtless some would argue that this is some trick for Shell et al to raise more money through selling us new products.....but that's the point at which anybody sane gives up the argument - "The surgeon general has determined that contemplating naked paranoia is damaging to your helath"

[Tannhauser]

I've been following the debate over this programme, which has been covered in several broadshhets and loads of internet sites, with interest.

 

For anyone who found the arguments convincing, I really recommend that you dig into Martin Durkin's track record. For example: he produced a programme on breast implants and cancer. When his principal researcher found a large body of evidence that there was in fact a link, he didn't want to know. She quit, but the programme went out as he intended.

 

Here's what Carl Wunsch said a couple of days ago about his appearance in the programme (you can find the original herehttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/#more-417 ...if you don't trust my editing :

 

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.

 

Many of us feel an obligation to talk to the media---it's part of our role as scientists, citizens, and educators. The subjects are complicated, and it is easy to be misquoted or quoted out context. My experience in the past is that these things do happen, but usually inadvertently --- most reporters really do want to get it right.

 

Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics". There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.

[Dragonball]

Just stop to think how much Durkin might have got paid?

 

Sorry guys - if it looks too good to be true - it probably IS too good to be true...

 

Houston...we have a problem

[AJI]

1. Changes in solar radiation are currently thought to account for a proportion of the temperature variation only. Depending on which source you trust, solar radiation has not increased since either 1978 or 1940, during which the earth's temperature has increased most rapidly.

 

2. Water vapour does contribute to the greenhouse effect, but CO2 contributes around 9-30%. The idea that water vapour contributes a massive preponderance to the greenhouse effect is widely believed, but doesn't seem to be traceable to any actual data.

 

3. The cause and effect of temp and CO2 is complex. As you suggest, CO2 can be released as a result of other processes such as temperature rise. However, once released, CO2 itself contributes to the rising temperature. So the argument is that every time in the past there has been a rise in CO2 naturally, this has then further contributed to the temperature rise. This time, a human induced increase in CO2 is having the same effect.

 

I think the weakest argument is the conspiracy theory one. Every major scientific institution agrees on the fundamentals, from Australia to Austria, from Ireland to Japan. So that must mean that all governments have cottoned onto the same revenue raising scheme. CEOs of major corporations have also been brainwashed, despite the fact that it is in their interests not to clean up their act. Even Shell and BP, who have really considerable scientific resources and expertise of their own, now accept human induced climate change. You can imagine how reluctant energy corporations were to accept the evidence.

 

Doubtless some would argue that this is some trick for Shell et al to raise more money through selling us new products.....but that's the point at which anybody sane gives up the argument - "The surgeon general has determined that contemplating naked paranoia is damaging to your helath"

 

 

 

On point (1) - currently thought by the scientists who are paid by government funding to sway the argument towards humans being the cause.

The Sun is the fundamental energy source for the Earth and it stands to reason that even minor changes have a direct affect on the Earth. Data from 100's of years show that solar activity has a direct effect on the Earth and that there is around a 200 year lag between the sun emitting more heat to the Earth showing the effects.

Increases of Earth's temp as you say from 1978 or 1948 are not within a 200 year period, the recent Earth's rise in temp must be from a solar event that ocored 200 years ago.

 

On point (2) - water vapour is the most abundant green house gas compound that traps the sun's rays within our atmosphere.

If it is a green house gas then it participates in the green house effect.

CO2 is also present but on nowhere near the same scale.

 

On point (3) - Human CO2 production is in decimal percentage relation terms to the ocean's emission of CO2 and that of animals. ie. bordering on negligable

 

 

The conspiracy part of it is not so conspiracy I think. The connection between all the world's governments, its scientists and its companies is pure and simple.... it is money. Money controls the world.

 

Scientists who do studies need funding. In most countries they apply for government aid.... the government will enquire as to what the study is about and decide whether to provide funding.

If the environmental study is about showing how CO2 emmisions are causing global wrming they get funding. If it isn't they don't get the funding.

 

Government see global warming as a free excuse to tax more... nuff said about that.

 

The likes of Shell, Esso etc. are not bothered about the reasons because everyone still needs fossil fuels. The black gold, is and will be, just like printing free money for a few more years to come.

They of course will agree with the general concencus of scientists to not be hit with further corporate CO2 taxes from the governments.

 

 

The international scientific body on climate change has many members who dissagree with their publications. They find themselves villified by their bosses if they publicise their own views. And they also then find it hard to get funding for further scientific studies when they apply for government aid.

 

 

 

All the above is basically from the C4 documentry. I am not an expert in this field but I did take in most of what the program was saying. I've not done any of my own research on this subject but the documentry also confirmed to me what I have thought on this matter for a long time.

[Dragonball]

 

All the above is basically from the C4 documentry. I am not an expert in this field but I did take in most of what the program was saying. I've not done any of my own research on this subject but the documentry also confirmed to me what I have thought on this matter for a long time.

 

But this so called 'documentory' has been shown to be discredited - including by those people who actually appeared in it !!

 

Did you read the articles linked above?

 

Just goes to show - people will believe what they want to believe no matter what... Particularly if it is good news!

[supra666]

From the world's governments point of view; if Global Warming can generate money then it they will make up what ever stories are required in order they can create taxes for it.

 

The science facts behind the C4 program were plain to see and on layman's terms. Any fool can see that CO2 emmisions have no bearing on global warming.

 

That is not to say Global Warming is not happening... because it is. But this is a natural cycle of the earth with its relation to the sun.

 

The simple relation is as follows:

(1) The Sun emits energy at a non-uniform rate througout it life cycle.

(2) The Earth rotates around the Sun and 'flys' through the Sun's emitted energy.

(3) Due to the varying levels of intensity of energy release from the Sun, the Earth will absorb varying levels as a result.

(4) This energy absorption primarily is absorbed by the Earth's oceans.

(5) The Oceans work on a 200 year lag.... as it takes this long for any energy absobed near the surface to work its way down through the depths of the water.

(6) A warmer ocean has a higher than average release of water vapour.

(7) Water vapour is the PRIMARY green house gas. (By a huge margin actually)

(8) More water vapour in the atmosphere means a greenhouse effect of warming the Earth.

(9) More warming of the earth generates an increase of CO2 which is also emitted primarily from the oceans.

 

 

Notice that CO2 is only mentioned at the very end of the process.

Therefore it is not in any way a cause factor of global warming.

 

The goverment paid scientists give the govermnents the answers they want to hear.... therefore the above process is mixed around to fool people to believe that human CO2 production is the cause.... which it plainly ISN'T.

 

What a lot of people don't like to hear is that global warming is purely a natural cycle, yes it is happening but it is not through human activity.

Why are we being tol otherwise ??? answer = Money

 

 

Got it in one, another money making scam in huge proportions!!

[Tannhauser]

On point (1) - currently thought by the scientists who are paid by government funding to sway the argument towards humans being the cause.

The Sun is the fundamental energy source for the Earth and it stands to reason that even minor changes have a direct affect on the Earth. Data from 100's of years show that solar activity has a direct effect on the Earth and that there is around a 200 year lag between the sun emitting more heat to the Earth showing the effects.

Increases of Earth's temp as you say from 1978 or 1948 are not within a 200 year period, the recent Earth's rise in temp must be from a solar event that ocored 200 years ago.

 

No arguing with the premiss that fluctuations in solar output can profoundly affect temperatures. I'm no expert on this, but as I understand it, there are two main issues with the 'solar activity' hypothesis:

 

1. The most reliable source of information for investigating solar activity is radioisotopes of carbon and Beryllium. During periods of high solar activity, the Earth is shielded from cosmic rays and levels of these radioisotopes fall. Ths can be tracked in tree rings and ice cores. Unfortunately, the levels deposited are affected by climate processes, meaning that the data isn't that secure. It's much harder to track the sun's activity from proxy records than it is to track CO2 levels. For that reason alone, it's hard to get worked up about the solar activity data.

 

2. Secondly, the correlations aren't like the CO2 data. Most everybody, even the sceptics, look at the CO2/temp data and agree that the two vary together. However, in order to achieve meaningful correlations it seems various statistical smoothing methods have to be used to treat the data. But using these, it's possible to correlate anything with anything. The famous paper on this was Christensen and Lassen, but it seems that they had to change their method of treating the data halfway through to get the correlation that they 'knew' must be there.

 

On point (2) - water vapour is the most abundant green house gas compound that traps the sun's rays within our atmosphere.

If it is a green house gas then it participates in the green house effect.

CO2 is also present but on nowhere near the same scale.

 

CO2 doesn't need to be anywhere near as important as water vapour in order to exert a powerful effect. If you will excuse the poor analogy, you could have two cars on a seesaw balancing each other. If you climb on one side, despite only being a small fraction of your car's weight, you can disturb the equilibrium.

 

On point (3) - Human CO2 production is in decimal percentage relation terms to the ocean's emission of CO2 and that of animals. ie. bordering on negligable

 

Not quite decimal percentage. Human emissions are about 3%. Again, the carbon cycle is just that - a cycle. Of course CO2 levels fluctuate naturally , but there's a net balance between the constituent phases. However, we contribute a net increase to atmospheric CO2, which is why it's risen by 35%.

 

The usual argument is that 'volcanoes contribute more CO2 than human emissions', which is just plain wrong.

 

The international scientific body on climate change has many members who dissagree with their publications. They find themselves villified by their bosses if they publicise their own views. And they also then find it hard to get funding for further scientific studies when they apply for government aid.

 

If that's not a conspiracy theory, I don't know what is. I'm reluctant to argue with it, because to me it's plain bonkers. Global warming sceptics want it both ways. On the one hand, they will claim 'there is no consensus' and 'the scientific community is split'. But this position is now completely untenable, as every single scientific organisation is saying the same thing, though they may argue over the details. So now the new position is 'if nobody's saying it, it's because they are being paid to deny it!'

 

We've gone conspiracy mad recently: to me, it's loopy to suggest that if there is no evidence for a position, someone is hushing it up.

 

If we want to play the conspiracy game, there is a damn sight more evidence for a concerted campaign by the US energy corporations to generate evidence countering global warming. They were forced to give up in the end as evidence mounted.

 

The logic that suggests it's there to raise extra taxes is so deeply flawed it makes my eyes hurt. I don't know where to start with that....

 

All the above is basically from the C4 documentry. I am not an expert in this field but I did take in most of what the program was saying. I've not done any of my own research on this subject but the documentry also confirmed to me what I have thought on this matter for a long time.

 

No, I'm no expert either. It's amateur wrestling night.

[Tannhauser]

Got it in one, another money making scam in huge proportions!!

 

Excellent argument, that man.

[AJI]

Just goes to show - people will believe what they want to believe no matter what... Particularly if it is good news!

 

Yeah that's true enough.... its why some people believe in religions, why some people believe enything that is written in black & white in tabloids, why some people believe everything that the government spurts out etc. etc.

I choose to believe in science fact based on my interperation of what credible evidence there is to support it.

I mean if we didn't have science fact then the world would still be flat.

 

From my takings of the documentry there was enough credible evidence to show that CO2 does not cause global warming. And therefore as a result the world's governments have no reason to tax CO2 emissions.

 

Nobody forced those scientists to say what they did on the program and its only now that the combined findings of the program clearly show that CO2 is not to blame and that government CO2 taxing is pure bull$hyte that now they are trying to distance themsevles from it. Maybe due to pressure from .... well ... I think I've covered this already above.

 

I did read that document linked previously and to me it seems as though that this particular scientist wanted to highlight the non-typical notition that the seas hold a huge amount of CO2 and it is released into the atmosphere at differeing rates depending on its temperature. The program rightly saw this, in my view, as a clear fact that the differing amounts of CO2 released between human and ocean was on a massive scale. The scientist, being a teacher, didn't want to completely shift the blame away from the human contribution and saw the program as maybe portraying this notion.

I mention the fact that he is a teacher because no college or school which gets funding from the governments will employ a teacher who is saying that humans are not significantly contributing to global warming.

 

Maybe conspiracy theory but when money is involved people will say and do anything.

[Dragonball]

I mean if we didn't have science fact then the world would still be flat.

quote]

 

And it isn't?

 

Sorry but this is not a 'get out of jail free card' no matter how attractive it might be...the consensus that action is required is just too high now..

 

Check out the following NASA article which I think you might find very balanced

 

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

 

and the corresponding debate held on this (which I found easy to understand) - and includes recommendations from the large companies (including Esso etc) recommending action...

 

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/gwdebate.pdf

 

 

The fun in science is to explore a topic from all angles and figure out how something works. To do this well, a scientist learns to be open-minded, ignoring prejudices that might be imposed by religious, political or other tendencies (Galileo being a model of excellence). Indeed, science thrives on repeated challenge of any interpretation, and there is even special pleasure in trying to find something wrong with well-accepted theory. Such challenges eventually strengthen our understanding of the subject, but it is a never-ending process as answers raise more questions to be pursued in order to further refine our knowledge.

 

Skepticism thus plays an essential role in scientific research, and, far from trying to silence skeptics, science invites their contributions. So too, the global warming debate benefits from traditional scientific skepticism.

 

I have argued in a recent book review that some "greenhouse skeptics" subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers hired to defend a particular viewpoint. But some of the topics focused on by the skeptics are recognized as legitimate research questions, and also it is fair to say that the injection of environmental, political and religious perspectives in midstream of the science research has occurred from both sides in the global warming debate

[Scooter]

firstly i find this all interesting..............

 

The trouble i see with this branch of science is that time scale and repeatable data...........

 

you've got people taking temp data and looking for trends over the last 20-40yrs, when we know from history there have been significant changes over the 'centuries' and at times with no chance of any meaningful influence by us.

 

Has anyone got any links to the proposed evidence for global warming..........is it simply a reported global whether station average increase?

 

Is the Earth currently on average hotter than it ever has been? if not why not?

 

Just curious............

[AJI]

The basic underlying fact about this debate its that there is no doubt that global warming is happening...... just that the cause factor is not human emmisions of CO2.

 

I do accept that CO2 plays a fractional part in combination with other greenhouse gasses (mainly water vapour) in its role to aid global warming. And that needless CO2 emmision from humans is not a good step forward.

But the main thing I object to is the way the government currently speaks about CO2 portraying it to be the one and only cause factor as to why this recent increase in average temperature is occuring.

 

The fact that it is down to the sun seems to have escaped their little money-taxing minds.

 

 

Thanks for those links Paul... I'll give them a read.

[Kip]

Tis all spin for this bloody government to enable them to rape us without so much as a kiss first. Ive been saying it's all a load of crap for ages, we are going through a natural cycle in the earths history. Look back through the ages and that will tell the story for all to see. And, did you know the biggest omitter of nasty gasses in the USA is one active volcano?

[Tannhauser]

Tis all spin for this bloody government to enable them to rape us without so much as a kiss first. Ive been saying it's all a load of crap for ages, we are going through a natural cycle in the earths history. Look back through the ages and that will tell the story for all to see. And, did you know the biggest omitter of nasty gasses in the USA is one active volcano?

 

If you still think it's a natural cycle, then 'kip' is exactly what you've done through this thread , rather than checking out for yourself any of the links on the programme, investigating who was taking part in it or attempting to look into the claims made.

 

Let's take that volcano for example. Do you have any data to back up your assertion? How about we look at some global figures from people who acually study them for a living:

 

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

 

Here's the summary:

 

CO2: Man made sources produce approx 150 times more than volcanoes

SO2: Volcanic emissions are approx 13% of man-made emissions

HCl: Volcanoes emit about four times as much as man-made combustion

HF: Volcanoes emit about twice as much as combustion

HBR: Volcanoes and fossil fuel combustion contribute about the same amounts

 

Seeing as this thread is about global warming, I guess the nasty gases referred to are those most relevant to that effect. That'll be CO2 then.

 

Of course, you could argue that you said the USA, not the world, but I really doubt there's a significant local variation.

 

**Waits for inconvenient evidence to be dismissed as "scientists finding out what they'retold to"****

 

***Also waits for someone to totally miss the point on the TV news story tonight***

[Tannhauser]

Just to add, it took just a few minutes to check out the 'one volcano in the USA' assertion. The most active volcano in the world, and hence in the USA, is Kilauea, on Hawaii.

 

Remembering that CO2 is the relevant gas (I know sulphur compounds can cause global cooling, but that isn't what we're talking about), the Hawaii vulcanologists have this to say:

 

On the Big Island, we have a significant natural source of greenhouse gas. Kilauea volcano emits more than 700,000 tons of CO2 each year, less than 0.01% of the yearly global contribution by human sources. For some local perspective, this is about the same amount of CO2 as is emitted by 132,000 sport utility vehicles (there are 118,000 registered vehicles on the island).

 

Source: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_10_22.html

 

As Paul said a few posts back, ulimately people believe what they want to, which normally equates to whatever is most personally convenient for them. It's just a shame so many are lazy about it.

[jaymdee]

I've only watched this programme today and must admit that, ignoring the arguements in this thread, to the casual viewer the arguements in the programme look very strong. In order to establish your own view, however, you need to do research to weed out the mis-information.

 

The bit I'm struggling with is that they (apparently) demonstrated that CO2 and a rise in temperature were linked but that the increase in CO2 was caused by the rise in temperature, not the other way around. None of the links people have posted seem to discuss this (unless I missed something). I read this http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 but not sure I understand it.

 

I personally don't care about global warming (waits to be flamed) and my only interest is if I'm being tricked into paying 'green' taxes unfairly.

 

I also think that having an f'ing great big ball of fire continually changing and spewing out solar winds etc must have a major effect on our climate and could easily cause the half a degree increase in temperature.

[Tannhauser]

The bit I'm struggling with is that they (apparently) demonstrated that CO2 and a rise in temperature were linked but that the increase in CO2 was caused by the rise in temperature, not the other way around. None of the links people have posted seem to discuss this (unless I missed something). I read this http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 but not sure I understand it.

.

 

Good question. Some of the ice cores do indeed show a lag with T trailing CO2. The analysis shows clearly two things:

 

1. In the past, natural rises in temperature were NOT started by CO2. Instead, they were started by other processes, maybe involving changes in solar radiation or, more likely, minute changes in the Earth's axis. This caused CO2 levels to rise.

 

2. However - and this is crucial - once the temperature rise has started, the levels of increased CO2 both keep that temperature rise going and accelerate it.

 

Looking at the same source that you are, I think this is the key bit:

 

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway.

 

What this means is that at every other time in the past, once

CO2 levels rose, they triggered further warming. It is likely, therefore, that the 35% rise in levels of CO2 post-industrialization will result in increased temperatures.

 

The big problem is that it works on a positive feedback system. Once CO2 goes up, T goes up. This tends to release more CO2. For example, the permafrost melting may allow decay processes to release more greenouse gases - which makes the T go up even more.

 

As for the tax thing - I just can't grasp that. The scientists may have got the science wrong, but it would make absolutely no economic sense to try to raise money through anti-climate change measures.