The Great Global Warming Swindle

[dex]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Channel 4 UK homepage:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

the video
http://tinyurl.com/2j63qw

Worth watching - Maybe this is "The Real Secret."

Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth and retained by the Earth's gravity. It contains roughly 78% nitrogen, (normally inert except upon electrolysis by lightning[1] and in certain biochemical processes of nitrogen fixation), 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases, in addition to about 3% water vapor. This mixture of gases is commonly known as air. The atmosphere protects life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation and reducing temperature extremes between day and night.

 

[eridanus]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

From one of the scientists who "opposes" the theory of man-caused global warming:

"From the batch of emails I received this morning, I was the victim of a swindle. I spent several hours with the filmmakers discussing how complicated understanding climate change is. It was meant to be part of a balanced discussion. I will try and follow your suggestions, but they didn't let me see the film."

 

[dex]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

I watched the program and I tend to agree that the idea that (except for atomic bombs) human activity can affect the climate of the the earth is hubris.

Not a popular stance but there you are.

 

[eridanus]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

It is a theory. I'm sure you realize that 1000s of scientists disagree with you.

 

[dex]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
-----------------
I believe that human production carbon dioxide as a cause of global warming does not consitute a scientific "theory".

Watch the video and then tell me what you think.

 

[wabmester]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

I watched the program and I tend to agree that the idea that (except for atomic bombs) human activity can affect the climate of the the earth is hubris.

Not a popular stance but there you are.

Hmm, so even though it took millions of years for nature to create oil reserves, burning 30 million barrels per day should have no effect on the earth?

Edit: oops, old data. We're consuming well above 80 million barrels per day now.

 

[eridanus]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

We have at most 8 scientists (Carl Wunsch is mis-represented; see above) opposing AGW (Anthropogenic GW).

Who is on the pro-AGW side? The scientific organizations from NOAA to the AGU to NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) to the NAS to the AMS to....

Yet a made-for-ratings TV show sways your opinion to its side?

 

[ADJ]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

People, keep in mind, it's Channel 4 reporting it. Not exactly my standard for good journalism.

 

[dex]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Hmm, so even though it took millions of years for nature to create oil reserves, burning 30 million barrels per day should have no effect on the earth?

Edit: oops, old data. We're consuming well above 80 million barrels per day now.

What relationship is there in the among:
1. the time it took to create oil reserve
2. the burning rate
3. the effect (what effect? aside from decreasing the supply) on the earth

 

[wabmester]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

What relationship is there in the among:
1. the time it took to create oil reserve
2. the burning rate
3. the effect (what effect? aside from decreasing the supply) on the earth

You're familiar with the concept of equilibrium, right? Without human intervention, there is a balanced rate of carbon utilization. All living things are made of carbon. These things decompose and build oil reserves over millions of years. How can one possibly think that digging up these reserves, burning them, and releasing carbon into the atmosphere over a very short timeframe wouldn't seriously screw with the natural equilibrium?

 

[ERD50]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

How can one possibly think that digging up these reserves, burning them, and releasing carbon into the atmosphere over a very short timeframe wouldn't seriously screw with the natural equilibrium?

Without taking a side on the issue, let me say this:

Sure, that activity will increase atmospheric CO2. But, the question asked by the program is - does that CO2 lead to global warming?

It is not a totally unreasonable question, IMO. Even if the answer turns out to be, yes it does, we need to do something pronto! Debate is good.

-ERD50

 

[wabmester]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Without taking a side on the issue, let me say this:

Sure, that activity will increase atmospheric CO2. But, the question asked by the program is - does that CO2 lead to global warming?

It is not a totally unreasonable question, IMO. Even if the answer turns out to be, yes it does, we need to do something pronto! Debate is good.

I agree that cause and effect isn't easy to determine. But I was disagreeing with his assertion that the idea of human activity having some large effect on the earth's ecosystem is "hubris."

It's clear to me that we've been doing a wild chemistry experiment on the planet for the last 100 years. It shouldn't be surpising that significant changes may result.

 

[JohnEyles]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Sure, that activity will increase atmospheric CO2. But, the question asked by the program is - does that CO2 lead to global warming?

This reminds of when the tobacco industry claimed (still do ?) that there
is no direct evidence linking tobacco use to ill health effects.

 

[Texas Proud]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

First... let me say that global warming is occuring.. the question is how much is related to MAN...

If there was no global warming, Detroit would be next to a glacier.. a BIG one.. the Great Lakes were formed by glaciers.. they covered most of North America way back when... and they melted without any help for man...

The Earth has had many cycles of cold and warm... and it changes over many thousands of years.. man's contributions have only been about 100 or so... a very small timeframe to say we are causing some great catastrophy....

That being said... I do wish they would pass laws to prevent the amount of pollution we are putting in the air... the REAL problem is the health effects on the human race with all the crap... I can remember when I lived in London blowing my nose and having black soot all the time... the diesels spewed out so much you could not help but breath it in... so I don't much believe in the global warming as the models they use are crap (by their own admission).. but the dirty air can be SEEN...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

I dont care how much is related to man.

I'd just like to do what we can to slow it down. If the answer is "nothing", then lets just all step out into traffic right now. Or get onto developing warp drive.

Cuz our grandchildren wont be able to live here.

 

[sgeeeee]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

I notice that when you click on the link, the ad at the top of the page cycles between an ad for Shell Oil and Scottish Engergy.

The advertisers wouldn't affect the message, would they?

 

[wabmester]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

I dont care how much is related to man.

I'd just like to do what we can to slow it down. If the answer is "nothing", then lets just all step out into traffic right now. Or get onto developing warp drive.

Cuz our grandchildren wont be able to live here.

My guess is that the answer is "nothing." But life will go on. Equilibrium will be reestablished. It'll just be different, and perhaps not as pleasant for our species.

 

[sgeeeee]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Of course, no one really knows where this experiment mankind has been running involving unprecedented amounts of fossil fuel and the earth is going to end. Anyone who tells you different is suspect. But as far as I can tell from the literature, based on the best models and understanding we have today, the vast majority of the scientific community believes we are experiencing significant global warming caused by man. The best models science has today indicate that even if man disappeared today, we are committed to approximately 100 years of increased temperatures due to what we have already done. That’s the thermal time constant for the earth. Those same models also indicate that the amount of man-caused warming can be affected by what we do now and in the future. We can reduce the impact by reducing how we pollute.

Certainly, the earth has gone through cyclical warming and cooling trends in the past. This is true. But scientists who study the climate have spent a great deal of time attempting to understand and quantify those cycles. That information is included in their models today. Modern global climate models include descriptions of all of the cyclical data science has been able to collect – primarily through ice core sampling. Anyone who pretends that those cycles are not considered in the global warming predictions is either ignorant or dishonest. They can legitimately question the accuracy of those calculations, but the scientific way to do that is to propose alternative theories and to test those theories against the data. It is not legitimate science to simply say I don’t believe the current models are correct while not offering models that provide better agreement with the accumulated data.

The best models modern science has today suggest 1) that man has contributed significantly to global warming, and 2) that actions we can take today will reduce the impact we have on the environment in the future. The models may be wrong. They are untested for the levels of greenhouse gases we produce today. But to believe they are wrong without legitimate alternative models that exhibit an improved description of all the data is folly.

 

[Texas Proud]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

I dont care how much is related to man.

I'd just like to do what we can to slow it down. If the answer is "nothing", then lets just all step out into traffic right now. Or get onto developing warp drive.

Cuz our grandchildren wont be able to live here.

Sorry CFB, but I also don't think that everyone is doomed... it is IIRC about a 2 degree C increase... and even the projected sea level was 'revised' from 30 feet to 17 inches... And nobody has said some of the 'good' that will come from it... more land that has longer growing period... different locations will now have 'better' climate...

We will adjust to whatever happens... I just don't see all the doom and gloom they make it out to be..

 

[grumpy]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

How do we know that, if not for man's impact on climate, we would be entering the next ice age? Is man not part of the Earth's natural environment? Perhaps man's role in the overall evolution of life on the planet is to change the climate? How is this different from the early plants which released a poisonous gas (oxygen), that until then, was absent from Earth's atmosphere? There are so many things we don't know about Earth's climate and man's impact on it that I agree it is best to minimize man's impact until we have better answers.

Grumpy

 

[donheff]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

My gut reaction to all of the stuff I have read is:
1) global warming (due to man) is real, the absolute degree and impact is still unclear but the majority of scientific opinion points to bad news ahead;
2) Efforts to curtail GW will be ineffectual - we are approaching the point of no return with no consensus on the type of draconian change that would be needed to reverse GW;
3) We should be making huge efforts to determine how to live with GW - how to use new technologies to both reduce future GW increases and to minimize the negative impact of anticipated GW on life as we know it;
4) Separately, we should be doing much more to reduce our dependence on oil for national security reasons.

 

[ERD50]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

My gut reaction to all of the stuff I have read is:
1) global warming (due to man) is real, the absolute degree and impact is still unclear but the majority of scientific opinion points to bad news ahead;
2) Efforts to curtail GW will be ineffectual - we are approaching the point of no return with no consensus on the type of draconian change that would be needed to reverse GW;
3) We should be making huge efforts to determine how to live with GW - how to use new technologies to both reduce future GW increases and to minimize the negative impact of anticipated GW on life as we know it;
4) Separately, we should be doing much more to reduce our dependence on oil for national security reasons.

That is a reasonable assessment , IMO.

Now, here is a serious question - If your statement #2 is correct, and we so far down the line that changes now would be a drop in the bucket, then are we just fooling ourselves (and wasting money) with ideas like sequestered CO2 coal plants, wind farms, etc?

If so, we move to your #3, but that does not seem to be getting public attention.

Wind farms, etc could help to address #4, regardless of Global Warming.

-ERD50

 

[donheff]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Now, here is a serious question - If your statement #2 is correct, and we so far down the line that changes now would be a drop in the bucket, then are we just fooling ourselves (and wasting money) with ideas like sequestered CO2 coal plants, wind farms, etc?

If so, we move to your #3, but that does not seem to be getting public attention.

Wind farms, etc could help to address #4, regardless of Global Warming.

-ERD50

Where I differ with most greens is in the need for draconian changes in our economy or lifestyle solely to reduce emissions in an attempt to avoid GW. I don't think we can realistically forestall GW drivers that are already well underway here and accelerating in the emerging markets. But I end up back on the side of the angels in terms of alternative sources because I believe we have hocked our security to a bunch of people who do not have our best interests in mind. I think we can better sell alternative fuel efforts to the American public if we base the effort on security with the welcome side benefit of environmental improvements. The later would be a welcome side benefit regardless your views on GW.

So, invest heavily finding ways to adapt but invest even more heavily in energy independence. Make ourselves safe so we can live to adapt to the mess we have created.

 

[HFWR]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Another pov...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/10/climate.report.ap/index.html

"The report offers some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it notes that what's happening now isn't encouraging."

"The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems -- change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen -- can be blamed on global warming."

 

[sgeeeee]

Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

I'm not sure what people mean when they say that efforts to curtail GW will be ineffectual. Do you mean that man won't be able to take action for political and social reasons? Or do you mean that action won't be effective.



The first problem is very real.