Global Warming Swindle? Or Cheap Propaganda?
Posted by
Kevin
So, a UK documentary filmmaker is going to release a film to British TV purporting to show that global warming is a hoax, a vicious lie that only the brave few (like him, of course) have the guts to see through. I haven’t been able to get a copy of the program, so I cannot comment on its merits, but if his comments and the description of the content in this article are a guide, don’t expect to be enlightened.
Let’s start at the top, shall we?
One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.
He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth’s history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels.
Prof Clark believes increased levels of CO2 are because the Earth is heating up and not the cause. He says most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, which dissolve the gas.
Let’s take the first claim, that the warming spells came 800 years before the concentrations in C02. that is partially correct. The ice cores do show that, in the natural ice age/interglacial cycle, the C02 concentrations do start to appear after the rise in temperatures. What that comment leaves out, however, is that the warming periods do not start and end 800 years before the concentrations occur. The warming trends take about 5000 years, on average. So the concentrations lag the start of the wamring by about 800 years, but continue throught the rest of the 4200 years of the average warming period. In other words, the man has proven that C02 is not the only factor affecting the climate. Wow. Give that man a cigar! Not to mention the fact that it has no bearing on whether or not C02 creates a feedback loop, pushing temperatures higher, which is the actual claim related to climate change and C02. So once they get to the arguments, they start off with something that, while true, is not actually relevant to the issues at hand and does prove what the article claims it proves.
Well, maybe it gets better:
Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades.
It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began.
This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory, because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2 and should, according to the consensus, have meant a rise in global temperatures.
Ahh, no, no sorry it doesn’t. First, temperatures in the 20th century rose sharply between about 1900 and 1940. there was a cooling period between the 40 and 1970, but temperature has increased since then. In other words, the claim is correct but it is not a “discrepancy with the official line” It is the official line. As for the claim that the post war boom period should have seen the largest temperature rise, a couple of things. First, please keep in mind that C02 is not the only thing to affect the climate. I shouldn’t have to keep pointing this out, but, based on this article, apparently I do. What is not mentioned is that, even at the time, science was beginning to think that aerosols could have a cooling effect on the climate:
Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem).
… The cooling trend from the 40’s to the 70’s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
Any claim about C02 and the post-war period has to take that into account. This article does not, which implies that the documentary does not. (And don’t think we can get rid of global warming by pumping sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere. Thus were some of the things that were causing acid rain.)
Let’s move on — it has to get better:
Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, is featured in the programme, and has just released a book claiming that clouds are the real reason behind climate change.
‘The Chilling Stars’ was written with Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark who published a scientific paper, claiming cosmic rays cause clouds to form, reducing the global temperature. The theory is shown in the programme.
Mr Calder said: “Henrik Svensmark saw that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars - when there are more cosmic rays, there are more clouds.
Sigh. Shoulda known. I have already dealt with this:
He claimed that the scientist had “hit the jackpot” in their search for evidence that cosmic rays produce clouds when, in fact, the experiment had produced no actual clouds. Nor, for that matter, does the op-ed explain why these “building blocks” are guaranteed to produce actual clouds. It is an interesting first step, but it is not the proof that the author of this op-ed claims it is.
Now, anyone who would make a documentary with these claims (the quotes and information in the article come from the documentary) without providing the rebuttals that I have here isn’t a documentary. It is either the work of full fledged idiot or a piece of propaganda. Interestingly enough, the last time the filmmaker made a documentary, the channel that carried it had to apologize for the distortions in it. And who did he distort? Wow, look at that: he distorted the words of environmentalists:
TC ruled that the programme makers “ distorted by selective editing” the views of Tony Juniper and other interviewees; and ” misled” participants over the “content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”
What a surprise. A man who knowingly changed the meaning of the words of environmentalist comes out with a documentary “proving” that global warming is a lie. What an incredible coincidence that is. Once again, it seems that global warming skeptics are left with nothing but selective evidence, distortions, and dishonest omissions to rest their case upon. Not sure if I can blame, them really; it’s not as if they have any actual science on their side.
Your comments are well intentioned but may not give all of the facts. The fact remains that there is no conclusive evidence that CO2 causes global warming and in fact it is likely only a minor player if it contributes at all. Other factors are in play here and it is likely the cause of natural conditions that has changed the weather the most. Check of http://www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com for more info on a fair and balanced look.
Comment 3/6/2007
What, no hat tip?
Comment 3/6/2007
9
I’m sorry — I saw this through a google alert, I didn’t notice that you wrote on it. Link love coming up …
Comment 3/6/2007
Or maybe not - -I cannot find your post.
Comment 3/6/2007
http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2007/03/02/6006/#comment-253213
I guess you missed it. It happens. No big thing.
Comment 3/7/2007
As an open-minded, left-leaning individual, I want to judge the issue of man-made global warming on evidence and amply-supported theory. But I’m afraid I have to say that I am not at all convinced by your refutation of the two pieces of evidence you mention from the documentary blurb - the time lag in the ice cores where increased temperature PRECEDES an increase in CO2, and the dip in temperatures during the world economic boom of 1940-1970. In the case of the former, the crucial question is not whether CO2 is the ‘only’ thing to affect the climate, but whether it is a driving factor of climate change. You avoid this distinction, yet it seems pretty compelling from the ice-core evidence that CO2 is not a driving factor of the climate, since the temperature rose before the increase in CO2. You fall back on the theory of a ‘feedback loop’, but would this not create an EXPONENTIAL increase in temperatures (rising faster and faster as higher temperature causes CO2 causes higher temperature, and so on)?
In the second refutation, are you seriously suggesting that the ‘cooling effect’ of aerosol emissions off-set/over-rode the ‘warming effect’ of CO2 emissions between 1940 and 1970? This is very questionable science indeed, and assumes that only human activity can change climate (which seems strange given the enormous fluctuations in climate BEFORE there were humans on the planet). You add in brackets: “(And don’t think we can get rid of global warming by pumping sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere. Thus were some of the things that were causing acid rain.)” So acid rain is a greater menace than global warming, in your view? I think most environmentalists would disagree with you.
You have failed to refute the two pieces of evidence that suggest that CO2 emissions are NOT driving climate. This is crucial - after all, the whole ‘man-made global warming’ argument is based on the central premise that CO2 is the driving factor.
Comment 3/10/2007
Um … actually guys, I think maybe hold yer horses on this one …
I first heard about The Great Global Warming Swindle in the Barley Mow the other night (which is near Channel 4) and a couple of blokes were talking about it, and one was banging on about how he was going to take the mick out of his girlfriend for driving a green hybrid car, but the other one was like “No, no, look, I can’t tell you anything till after but look at *the title* when you get home. It’ll all become clear …” Then he clammed up with a big smug grin on his face. His mate went a bit thoughtful after that.
Thinking about it, it all makes sense:
1) Channel 4 are the guys who brought us that Chris Morris news spoof thing, Space Cadets (where the experiment was to see if they could get gullible people to believe they were in space), and that thing with Dom Joly (can’t remember the name) …
2) They’ve already tangled with the director of this film before. Last time the watchdog forced them to do an apology because his last job for them was all made up - they’d never take him on for anything serious again - they’d be roasted alive, surely?
3) The whole thing was beardies that no-one had heard of, retired ex-boffins, an ex-magazine hack and an old Thatcher crony - all of whom could afford a temporary dent in their reps, and all of whom could do with a few extra quid for an interview!
4) The clue’s in the ****ing title for ****’s sake!!!!!!
OMG we are talking April, May, June and July fool here! Getting people to believe that global warming’s all down to sunspots!? And they had it in the Middle Ages!!? And Al Gore’s chart’s the wrong way round???
I’ll be keeping my eye on next week’s Comic Relief, or maybe they’ll do a few more like this, get a few on the spot reactions and blow the game at Christmas?
Watch this space
)
Comment 3/10/2007
Wishful thinking, I’m afraid, Andrew. The show is not a hoax, and you can hold me to that. The programme presented legitimate (some of them long-standing) and serious reservations about the theory of man-made global warming. Since part of the policy deriving from this theory (now assumed to be an undeniable fact) is to seek to hinder the economic development of the Third World, no less than the quality of life of billions of people is at stake here. At the very least, the central tenet of the theory is questionable. Even those critiquing the programme (see http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9250037634/m/6360095357 for example) admit that the Gore graph is reverse-causation (i.e. temperatures caused a rise in CO2 some 800 years later), and therefore highly misleading as ‘evidence’ for CO2 driving climate. I am also yet to find a convincing answer to the question of why, if CO2 drives climate, temperatures rose in the first part of the 20th Century, before the large output of CO2 in the economic boom of 1940-1970 (during which temperatures fell). What caused the warming from 1900 to 1940? Presumably not man-made factors. Could the same factors not be responsible today? I will keep searching to try and find a satisfactory answer. (Incidentally, I do have a problem with the way the programme presented its own theories of causation as fact, rather than speculation and legitimate query. But in a way that’s only fair since the CO2-driving-climate theory is always presented as undeniable fact, every day, in almost every newspaper!)
Comment 3/10/2007
[…] I dealt with the terrible “science” and outright distortions that are apparently in the film here. […]
Pingback 3/11/2007
Here’s a link to the doco.
http://tinyurl.com/2j63qw
Comment 3/11/2007
Wow Kevin, for someone who hasn’t been able to get a copy of the film, you sure have a lot to say about it. Just a thought…
Comment 3/13/2007
I agree with Ron - you really ought to see the film before rushing to judgement. The film comes out and says that CO2 makes up less than 1% of greenhouse gasses and that it really doesn’t have too much to do with global warming at all.
You sound very bitter about this piece for some reason. Your response is filled with ad hominem attacks. Curious.
I would be curious to hear your reaction to a co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore’s statement about modern day environmentalism being the new home for neo-marxists.
By the way, what did humans do to raise the earth’s temerature between 1900 and 1940??
Comment 3/13/2007
By the way, what did humans do to raise the earth’s temerature between 1900 and 1940??
You’re joking, surely?
Comment 3/13/2007
Kevin’s response seems to exemplify the emotional (almost religious) way in which the “CO2-causes-global-warming” supporters try to rubbish the “heretics” who dare to present opposing views. Like Alex I am an open-minded individual with the benefit of a scientific education (applied physics) and though I have heard plenty of emotional rhetoric about the anticipated effects of global warming, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that human CO2 prodction is a significant contributor.
I think the problem is that many people (scientists included) have tacitly accepted the following line of reasoning:
1. The greenhouse effect can cause a rise in the Earth’s temperature.
2. The Earth’s temperature has been clearly shown to be rising.
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
4. Modern industrial consumption produces CO2.
5. Therefore modern industrial comsumption must be responsible for global warming.
I too was taking in for a while until I began to ask what evidence is there to support the logic?
What we need is proper scientific observation, evidence and critical reasoning. What we seem to be getting is reactionary hype and mud-slinging.
Comment 3/13/2007
Okay, let me restate the question: What did humans do to make the earth’s temerature rise between 1900 and 1940 compared to what humans did between 1940 and 1970 that the earth’s temperature dropped??
Comment 3/13/2007
I’d like to mention the feedback science is not a fact. You can’t disprove someone with sketchy theories.
Comment 3/16/2007
Pay a tax, change the weather. I don’t think so. Humans account for only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the biosphere annually (Google: carbon cycle). Congresswoman Pelosi’s and Senator Reid’s plans for regressive new carbon offset and green tax legislation are designed in concert with UN and Kyoto Accord mandates. The goal is to reduce human CO2 production by 1/3. How high would new carbon offset taxes on transportation and heating fuels need to be to motivate you and everyone else to cut back by 1/3? At best that level of taxation will reduce annual CO2 production by a mere 1 percent globally. Not much mitigation or hope there. Certainly 1% is not enough to make a difference in the perceived problem of anthropogenic (human) global warming gases. The impact of such draconian tax measures can only be imagined. However, it does beg the question, “If humans can’t really be expected to make much of an impact on global warming gases, how can they possibly be blamed for warming in the first place?” Why are people compelled by politicians and the media to feel responsible and guilty for causing global warming? For the answers, Google “blame, shame and guilt used as political controls”, read “Unstoppable Global Warming” and “The Chilling Stars” for the scientific facts and “State of Fear” for the political dynamics behind this renewed eco-tax controversy. Those party faithful that think this debate is over are sorely mistaken. It’s a little late, but welcome to George Orwell’s “1984”. Watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
Comment 3/17/2007
It certainly seems to me that Kevin’s reaction to Channel 4’s documentary confirms one of the Documentary’s claims… ie, if anyone dares to question the Al Gore school of thought, respond with fire and sword. Logic and scientific inquiry be damned and above all, don’t confuse the unwashed masses with open debate. Why is debate being shut off???
Comment 3/17/2007
I am often surprised by people who get so angry when you question what the believe to fact. The scientific method is all about forming a hypothesis and then trying to prove it wrong. If evidence you find proves it wrong, you either change your hypothesis or abandon it completly. The problem with the religion of global warming is, instead of trying to disprove the hypothesis of man made warming, they just look for things that must prove thier point. I could prove to you that the world is flat, all I would have to do is ignore a few facts and figures and I would have a convincing arguement. It is the same way with global warming.
To people who think the Sun Spot therory is crazy talk, think of this: Wouldn’t it stand to reason that mild fluctuations in the source of ALL global heating would have a much greater impact on the temperature than infintesimal changes in the level of an very mild greenhouse gas (compared to other gases, i.e. Methane)?
The movie mentioned does a great job of breaking down the arguments of internet inventor Al Gore et al.
Comment 3/19/2007
Gore is God….how dare anyone disagree? Besides…the polar bears are DYING people…hahahahaha.
And, I love when people attack things they admittedly haven’t seen….nice job Kevin.
Think for yourself people….look at even a little bit of data….follow the money…it’s just that simple. There’s no money to be made if it’s not caused by man. And, if you have even the slightest scientific background you’ll notice that the global warming discussion is dominated by junk science. Gee…how come the Inconvenient Truth conveniently contained almost NO scientific facts or data whatsoever, except the silly temp/CO2 graph?? And did anyone else notice the ELECTRIC lift big Al used to get to the top of the graph? Why not save a fraction of a kilowatt Al and haul your fat ass up a ladder to make your point?? Just wondering. But then I guess I’m not surprised by that if the “inventor of the internet” can’t figure out how to stream his presention to people online so he doesn’t have to FLY around to give that slide show he’s given “a thousand times”. Thanks for doing your part Al. But oh yeah, he started a pollutant trading company to profit, um I mean to offset his use.
Besides, I’m really afraid the train has left the station on this issue(even if it’s a happy, non-greenhouse gas producing train) and we’re stuck with this BS, because anyone who disagrees or points out the enormous holes in the anthropogenic global warming theory is going to be attacked by the politically correct establishment and folks like Kevin who feel obligated to comment on things they haven’t seen. And yes, I’m taking some delight in the fact that the tree-hugging wackos have finally BECOME the establishment they’ve always hated. Careful what you wish for folks.
Comment 4/2/2007
Too much emotion attached to this for people to come to rational conclusions. To doom forecasters out there: Was this a problem for you two years ago? Was it a propblem for anybody? Do you think a problem of this magnitude would have gone unnoticed until Mr Gore decided to earn money bringing this ideqa to people’s attention? Why do the Earth’s temperature records look like the record in the “Swindle” show in the 1996 IPCC report? How did 5000 years of Earth atmospheric history change in seven years? Do you think anybody in the IPCC might have ulterior motives?
Comment 4/17/2007
You quote Schneider and his aerosol cooling theory which caused global dimming between 1940 and the end of the 70s. Is this the same Schneider who also said in 1971 that an increase of a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2 would produce a temperature of less than 2 degrees and would be unlikely to occur in the next several 1000 years (this is quoted in the same article you quote in your rebuttal)?
Comment 4/21/2007
I notice that there hasn’t been an answer to John’s question last year about why there was warming between 1900 and 1940, and cooling between 1940 and 1970. I’ve heard that sulphates have been held up as the cause of the cooling period, because they help to reflect sunlight back into space. Were industrial practices different in the earlier period? Just very curious to know, as this is something that has been bugging me about the whole carbon dioxide/global warming connection. I’ve also heard that the brown clouds currently over Asia, due to industrialisation, also contain plenty of sulphates? Shouldn’t we find cooling occuring now?
Comment 1/25/2008