The Global Warming Swindle (?/!)
Threads - The Global Warming Swindle
There is an excellent basic analysis of the arguements in this program by Bernie Hobbs here
On 11/7/2007 Jim Edwards posted:
If anyone
is planning to watch this schlockumentary on Thursday night, you might
want to have by your side this detailed critique from the Bulletin of
the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 20:
http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm
Allan Emmerson replied:
On
the end of this link is a critique of the standard of information
presentation in the GGWS documentary. It is nicely argued.
Allegations of recreancy or scandal are always popular.
But,
another reason why documentaries such as the GGWS gain currency is that
the presentation of information by the proponents of GW is of no better
standard.
I
am looking at a letter to the Canberra Times from CSIRO Plant Industry
Division Drs Gifford and Farquar "Unfortunately new myths are currently
being entrenched. One is that the study of the imapct of the greenhouse
effect alone on global and regional climate change can lead to
forecasts of climate change that will be useful to policy makers."
"
In fact, the global increase in of CO2 can stimulate plant growth by
the CO2 fertilizing effect especially on desert margins and has the
potential to slow down the rate of plant water use and decrease
evaporative cooling of the landscape..."
So
where is the reliable analysis of carbon dioxide induced vegetation
change? Tell me about marine vegetation changes, especially around
crumbling ice floes. And convince me that temperature data collection
has been sufficiently systematic.
And so on..
Adrian Carr responded:
The critique that has been forwarded as proof that the "Great Global Warming Swindle" Documentary is false, is itself false.
It fails on line 7.
Science does not operate by popular overwhelming view or consensus - end of story.
Such notions are simply the result of sloppy teaching methods and breakdowns in standards of integrity allowed by trendy educational authorities over a number. This personal opinion is supported by over 50 years experience in the teaching profession.
I don't know if GW is a fact or not and neither does anybody else. Nor, if it is, whether it is man-made or not. Note that the verb in the key sentence was KNOW not THINK, FEEL, CONTEND, or any other cosy substitute.
Long live THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. (proudly supported by many long years of experience).
I humbly request that all interested persons support True Science no matter what frustration or inconvenience is encountered. We owe it to all those worthy pioneers who went before us.
Jim Edwards answered:
Are you saying that this is NOT the overwhelming view of climate scientists?
It seems to me that the authors are merely stating a fact, echoing the
conclusions of IPCC 2007.
Such notions are simply the result of sloppy teaching methods and
breakdowns in standards of integrity allowed by trendy educational
authorities over a number. This personal opinion is supported by over 50
years experience in the teaching profession.
If you read through to the summary at the conclusion of the paper you will
see:
"Scepticism in science is a healthy thing, and the presence of orthodox
scientific scepticism in climate change is ubiquitous."
I don't know if GW is a fact or not and neither does anybody else. Nor, if
it is, whether it is man-made or not. Note that the verb in the key
sentence was KNOW not THINK, FEEL, CONTEND, or any other cosy substitute.
I presume by the word KNOW you are talking about 100% certainty, in which
case you are right, but IPCC 2007 did not say this. They claimed that,
based upon the best available peer-reviewed research, there was a 90%
probability that AGW is true.
Long live THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. (proudly supported by many long years of
experience).
I humbly request that all interested persons support True Science no matter
what frustration or inconvenience is encountered. We owe it to all those
worthy pioneers who went before us.
Adrian
Hear, hear!
Kevin Phyland commented:
The article is a nice discussion piece and answers practically all the questions that one could have except:
* it criticises the use of areal temperature records to draw global conclusions then uses the same technique.
* it had the opportunity to tackle the Maunder Minimum and didn't.
* it admits that
data prior to the 19th century is patchy at best (apart from ice cores
and dendrotechniques) then draws conclusions from it.
Apart from these minor hiccups I found the article very informative and piecemeal only in the way that the GGWS apparently is.
Thanx for the link.
Adrian Carr responded:
Thanks
for taking the time to reply Jim. I can only say that your reply is a
fair and honest opinion. I am not swayed. However, ardently you place
your faith on the 90% probability of the correctness of the findings it
must be remembered that that is on the evidence so far. Moving from
there into the realm of prediction is a very shakey business. I think
the hall full of doctors present at Pasteur's pronouncement about germs
would have carried a probability of condemnation in excess of 99.9%.
This was because of the same situation - peer reviewed evidence which
had not yet emerged. The future is a whole new world - one we should
carefully avoid. It is so enticing to predict the break-through; to be
the one to light the way - but this is not the role of Sceince.
"It
is so difficult to fight against the current, so easy to 'go with the
flow'"as Pasteur and many others found out - the hard way.
It may be a good strategy to 'get in early' but that's in another sphere far away from my love- SCIENCE.
Toby Fiander posted:
The SMH features criticism of the ABC for screening this rubbish:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/hot-reaction-to-climate-swindle-doco/
2007/07/11/1183833580553.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/36d7n6
Wolfie noted:
Can I suggest though that one of the primary reasons for television is
to entertain, now I have seen a lot of home-brewed programs online and
programs made by "unusual" sources... loads of ufo, conspiracy, free
energy etc.
While I realise that most of what I have seen is nonsense, it doesn't
invalidate them from being worthy viewing.
And surely in this case, as it has already done, debate will arise which
can only be a good thing.
I really wouldn't mind seeing more bizzare content on tv provided it
doesnt go down the cheap thrills, reality tv road
Toby Fiander answered:
OK. but this rubbish is set up as if there is equal validity in both sides
of the argument - there is not.
What is more, this is probably the balanced argument approach in action.
Science is denied, because the ABC has to show both sides of the argument,
even though one side has almost no merit.
Wolfie retorted:
But it's not the be all and end all on the subject, there are loads of
docos on this subject and the ABC will show more later. :)
There may even be a follow-up doco to this one where people point out
flaws, that might be useful.
John Windle commented:
OK. but this rubbish is set up as if there is equal validity in both
sides of the argument - there is not.
Maybe not equal, but there is validity in both.
What is more, this is probably the balanced argument approach in action.
Science is denied, because the ABC has to show both sides of the
argument, even though one side has almost no merit.
That is an amazing statement, so final when there is a real debate raging.
It sounds political.
Toby Fiander posted:
Here is something I have reproduced from the ASC list.
Toby
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies
MEDIA RELEASE
July 12, 2007
STORM OVER CLIMATE CLAIMS
Scientists from
the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies have strongly
criticized claims made by climate skeptics in a program to be aired on
ABC television tonight as lacking in scientific credibility.
They have also
given the ABC a rap on the knuckles over its decision to broadcast
scientifically misleading information in its program "The Great Global
Warming Swindle".
Professor
Malcolm McCulloch of CoECRS and the Australian National University and
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of CoECRS and the University of Queensland
warned that broadcasting such material could lead to dangerous delays
in dealing with a potentially catastrophic situation affecting
Australia's coral reefs and other ecosystems.
"This isn't a
documentary, because documentaries are about fact. If it were rational
skepticism, I'd welcome it," Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg said. "All this will
achieve is to confuse the public and policy makers about one of the
most well-researched and locked-down scientific facts of our time."
Professor
McCulloch says "This program takes a step backward in attempting to
deny the reality of global warming. It ignores recent temperature data
that shows that the beginning of this century has included the 2nd to
7th warmest years recorded - with 1998 and 2005 being the warmest on
instrumental records. Its so-called scientific data are at best
distortions or in some cases blatant misrepresentations.
"Our current era
of global warming is being driven by increased atmospheric CO2 and is
occurring almost 100 times faster than in the past - and is thus of
enormous concern. Such rates of warming have rarely, if ever, been
previously encountered by our planet.
Prof. McCulloch
says the Earth is a highly non-linear system and the possibility of
rare but catastrophic events should not be ignored. "For example, in
the IPCC report, the projected sea level rise of about 0.4m by 2100 is
very likely, based on the well-known physics of thermal expansion of
the oceans. But it is also likely that much larger increases of 6
metres or more may occur if the ice sheets of Greenland and the west
Antarctic melt.
Professor
Hoegh-Guldberg heads an international program that is investigating
coral bleaching. "The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest and
most diverse coral reef system and is truly one of the World's greatest
natural wonders," he says. "It is also a highly valuable natural
resource that generates over $5 billion a year from tourism. But coral
reefs are particularly susceptible to global warming.
"For reasons we
don't yet fully understand, when reef waters exceed a critical
temperature threshold by more than a few degrees for several days, the
corals bleach and die.
"There is also a
significant risk that high CO2 levels will cause the oceans to become
more acid, which could also kill corals and other marine life with
chalky skeletons.
Professor
McCulloch added "We know from the fossil coral record that, over
thousands of years, corals can adapt to warmer conditions. However,
there is as yet no evidence they can adapt in years or decades - and
that adds up to a significant threat that some coral species will
vanish."
Prof McCulloch
says actions taken now can substantially ameliorate some of the worst
effects of global warming. "The reduction of CO2 emissions is a key
challenge, which requires more efficient energy usage, and the
development of new and alternative technologies, such as solar and wind
power, as well as the wise use of our vast natural endowments of gas,
coal, and uranium.
"Given the
expertise and calibre of Australia's scientific community and our
technological capacity, there is a great opportunity for Australia to
play a leading role in the development and implementation of a new
energy regime, which takes advantage of our natural resources. In such
critical times, scientists have a clear responsibility, to not only get
the science right, but also in educating, not misleading the public, as
this program does."
A public forum
will be held in the Finkel Theatre of the John Curtin School of Medical
Research at the ANU from 1.40-2.30pm tomorrow (July 13) to respond in
detail to the claims. Speakers include:
* Dr Janette Lindesay, ANU Fenner School of Environmental Science: "The Science of Global Warming: Instrumental Records"
* Professor
Robert Dunbar, Stanford University School of Earth Sciences: "Lessons
from the Past: Manmade Climate Change versus Solar, Volcanic Forcing"
* Professor
Malcolm McCulloch, ANU Research School of Earth Sciences and CoECRS:
"Why we should Avoid Dangerous Climate Change: Risks, Thresholds and
Mitigation"
Following the speakers the forum will be open for general discussion and questions. The public and media are welcome to attend.
More information:
Professor Malcolm McCulloch, CoECRS and ANU, 02 61259969 or 0439 490 282
Professor Ove-Hoegh-Guldberg,CoECRS and UQ, 07 3365 1156 or 0401 106 604;
www.climateshifts.org
Susanne Hutchinson, ANU, 02 61259970
Jenny Lappin, CoECRS, 07 4781 4222
http://www.coralcoe.org.au/
[ends]
Gerald Cairns responded:
This
message is a bit late but I heard Durkin interviewed on radio and got
so angry I turned it off. I know I should have listened to the end but
this jerk needs sectioning in more ways than one. What I would like to
know is who is lurking in the shadows but been supporting his efforts,
I am sure some of the usual culprits are there.
After
watching last nights airing of the Durkin film I am even more angry
that he trotted out some of those serial offenders who abuse their
position and knowledge for wealth. Who said the Dinosaurs died out
millions of years ago, they are still with us!
Ian Lowe posted:
Living in a free
society, we can believe what we like if it doesn’t affect others.
I could choose to beleive that the moon is made of green cheese or that
bad things will happen today because it is Friday 13, because those
delusions don't affect other people. So I defend the right of Martin
Durkin to believe human activity is not changing the global climate. I
could also defend his right to make a film reinforcing that view,
combining some science with half-truths and lies. But we are not free
to act on our delusions if that affects others, so I am not free to
beleive that my neighbour's bicycle is mine, or that I have the
authority to punish people who blow cigarette smoke in my face. I do
worry that broadcasting the film might mislead the public, since that
appears to be its intention. Climate change is a real threat to human
civilisation. Hardly a week goes by without a new report in reputable
scientific journals, reinforcing the scale of the risk and the urgency
of action to slow down the alarming changes already happening. The
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, the official UN scientific
authority, represents a cautious summary of
solid science.
The Great Global
Warming Swindle is itself a swindle. Many of its claims are untrue. The
version shown in the UK said volcanoes release more carbon dioxide than
all human fuel use, when the average annual release from volcanoes is
about 2 per cent of human production. It claims medieval times were
much warmer than today when the science shows some regions were briefly
warmer, but average global temperatures were lower. It claims changes
in sun-spot activity explain the recent warming, based on a Danish
scientist’s analysis of pre-1990 evidence, when more recent data
disprove the link. It has Professor John Christy stating that
temperature changes in the atmosphere are inconsistent with the theory,
when Christy has since admitted that claim was based on incorrect data.
It displays several times a graph showing average global temperature
declined dramatically between 1940 and 1976, claiming this debunks the
science. Our hemisphere actually warmed during that period. Pollution
from coal burning caused a slight decrease in the northern hemisphere,
so there was a very small overall decline – but nothing like the
graph. The film also claimed that global temperatures have fallen since
1998, when all ten of the warmest yeas ever have been in the last
twelve.
Other claims are
true but misleading. The Earth has warmed in the past, due to natural
variations in our orbit and the sun’s output, with related
increases in carbon dioxide levels. This shows warming can release
carbon dioxide from oceans and vegetation. It does nothing to refute
the science that showed a hundred years ago that putting extra carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere traps more heat.
The film’s
fundamental point is that the climate has varied naturally in the past,
so there is no reason to believe we are causing the recent changes. Of
course there have been natural variations, but the only models that
accurately represent climate change take account of both natural
changes and the recent human influence.
Over the last
650,000 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
has varied naturally between 180 and 280 parts per million. It is now
about 380 ppm and increasing by a further 2-3 ppm each year. Average
temperatures are now about 0.8 degrees higher than a century ago, sea
levels are rising, rainfall patterns have changed significantly and we
are seeing more frequent severe weather events, just as climate models
were predicting 20 years ago. The most optimistic projection for this
century is about double the rate of change of the last hundred years,
with other scenarios giving faster change. Because of the long time
lags in the climate system, further change will happen even if we
develop a concerted global response.
We urgently need
to cut the rate of releasing carbon dioxide by using cleaner fuels and
turning them more efficiently into the services we want: cooking,
lighting, transport. Several European countries now have a target of
cutting energy use to a quarter of the present level by efficiency
improvements. That should also be our goal. Australian studies show we
could get at least 25 per cent of our power from a mix of renewables by
2020 at no significant cost. We need serious targets and a realistic
price on carbon to drive these changes.
I welcome debate
about the science of climate change. It shows we need a concerted
response. I resent this film’s claim that environmentalists
don’t care about the developing world. The poorest people will
suffer most from climate change. The people who really don’t care
are those who put short-term profits before serious action.
Toby Fiander commented:
That is an amazing statement, so final when there is a real debate raging.
It sounds political.
No, it doesn't.
The politics is in the supposition that there is merit in publicising a
position that has little merit and, after watching the program, less care in
its preparation. The implication is that some may think there is room for
complacency, when at the best, as we have discussed before, the world faces
a global re-insurance exercise, which it may or may not be practical to
undertake. The implication of it not being practical is that the current
organisation of society will have to change, probably radically and probably
suddenly.
The stupidity of showing a program which is poorly assembled and presents
arguments in didactic way, is incomprehensible, unless there is some
political agenda, like having to present both sides of an argument, even
though one has little or no merit.
What is more, I don't like being called, along most other scientists who
have something to do with meteorology or hydrology, a liar. The sooner this
snake-oil gets out of town, the better.
Ray Stephens wrote:
Personally, I'm pleased to see behavioural self reflection replacing the
usual SOP of looting and pillaging.
At least, philosophically by mind if not by actual behaviour.
The thought counts, I guess.
and:
IMO Durkin shares a lot with Stan Zamanek.
Except for one thing.
Shock Jock. Who has a good face for radio.
Of course, Al Gore's movie has a similar platform but with more altruistic
motives.
and:
Do you not believe that we drain swamps, clear fell entire forests, pave
fertile ground with concrete and tar, create a layer of dirty air on every
horizon, rivers and inland oceans dead of all life, and are the responsible
species for the extinction of many others?
And since there is ample evidence for all of the above, how then can it be
expected that burning stuff wastefully for a fraction of its energy output
has no consequence?
To my mind, it makes no logical sense to believe that the planet is immune
to us, when Easter Island appears to be where we're heading.
Gerald Cairns noted:
My
take on this is that if the ABC had not aired it some other station
would probably have done so and without the balanced critique. By
airing it they created the opportunity to have well qualified experts
address the questions raised and debunk the bloody film. It gave those
scientist who were misrepresented a chance to debunk Martin Durkin
properly. It also showed up the nay sayers among the academics who
showed their discomfort when challenged. How the great unwashed see it
is a question that we do not have the answers to.
