The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Cedars]

Now, as to global warming, the scientific consensus is that solar output isn't the culprit, and that man made CO2 and methane are largely responsible. Unfortunately, the media hasn't at all been responsible on this issue, so while there is virtually no debate in scientific journals, there is tons of debate in politics/media. The debate over global warming has as much substance as the evolution/intelligent design circus.

-Will

 

There is plenty of debate remaining on the suns role.

 

BBC News | Sci/Tech | Global warming - is the Sun to blame?

 

SPACE.com -- Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

 

Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report

 

EO Library: Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) Page 3

 

Not a science report, but references things being reported:

World Climate Report » Neptune News

 

Global warming hits Mars too: study

[Rincewind]

Our national public television station (the ABC) played this program last Thursday evening and followed it with an interview with the filmaker, which featured some challenges to some of the claims. This was then followed by a panel discussion between several scientists on both sides of the argument.

 

You may still be able to watch it here:

 

The Great Global Warming Swindle

 

There is also an article pointing out some of the more glaring problems with the documentary here:

 

The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle - Features - The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science

[CraigD]

I saw a filler piece on one of the cable channels that Penn & Teller did on recycling. They used the Borat approach and went & interviewed government & industry officials as if making a documentary. All in all, the officials admited that recycling costs more than it saves in many instances. Very informative, well researched, and humorous ta boot.

Penn and Teller are, IMHO, a great asset to the rational, skeptical, scientific community :thumbs_up

 

However, it’s important, I think, to avoid falling prey to fallacious reasoning in drawing simplistic conclusions from presentations from any source. For example:

1. Hippies believe human activities are contributing significantly to a threatening global warming trend
   
2. Hippies are so scientifically illiterate that they’ll sign a petition to ban [ce]H2O[/ce] if referred to as “dihydrogen monoxide”
   
3. Therefore, hippies are wrong in scientific conclusions
   
4. Therefore, human activities are not contributing significantly to global warming
   

In addition to the pure, formal logical error ([math](A \rightarrow \neg B) \nrightarrow (\neg B \rightarrow A)[/math]), this reasoning relies on the demonstrably false conclusion that all “hippies” are of similar scientific literacy.

 

Some seem to apply similar logic in criticizing recycling, ie:

1. The recycling of some materials is impractical and counterproductive
   
2. Therefore, all recycling is impractical and counterproductive
   

Some materials collected for recycling are of arguably little good, and may even cause waste management problems. Materials that fall into this category often do so for reasons including

• They recycled material has different characteristics than the original
  
• Market demand for the recycled material is smaller than supply
  
• Recycling costs are similar to or greater than costs of producing the material from original resources
  

Of common recycled materials, metals, especially aluminum, almost never fall into this category. Glass, paper and plastic often do.

 

The connection between recycling and global warming varies by material. Aluminum from recycled supplies require about 5% of the energy (about 3e6 J/kg vs. 6e7 J/kg)– almost always in the form of electricity, which is often generated from [ce]CO2[/ce]-producing sources - and is effectively identical to that derived from ore. Glass manufactured using recycled glass requires about 70% as when made from raw silica sand (about 4e6 J/kg vs. 6e6 J/kg).

 

Paper and plastic are degraded each time they are recycled, as the molecules and fibers become shorter, until it’s eventually of limited usefulness.

 

(sources: Wikipedia article “Aluminum”, Recycling Information)

[Turtle]

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle

 

A documentary that attempts to explain how the current ideas about global warming, have no scientific basis.

just a warning It is rather long.

 

;)

 

YouTube has removed the video because of a copyright claim from WAG tv :eek: ; or so the banner says when you go to the video link. darn shame. >> YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

Penn and Teller are, IMHO, a great asset to the rational, skeptical, scientific community

 

However, it’s important, I think, to avoid falling prey to fallacious reasoning in drawing simplistic conclusions from presentations from any source....

 

Well writ & well reasoned. I concur. While I missed the above vid, Penn & Teller's simply had me rotfl. grace to the great wisdom of noodly appendi. :Alien:

[InfiniteNow]

YouTube has removed the video because of a copyright claim from WAG tv ;) ; or so the banner says when you go to the video link. darn shame. >> YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

While I remind you that most of the claims made in this presentation have been debunked, including an article this week indicating that the sun has been cooling over the past 20 years despite our climate getting warmer, below it is still available split into 8 sections:

 

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 1 of 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 2 of 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2S5OGS-g9g

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 3 of 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufPWwsUu_k

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 4 of 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9Ku1_gruaQ

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 5 of 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zalexeUwtNw

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 6 of 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvkX3jNjPK8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 7 of 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=660hjo4f6Ig

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 8 of 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0c9K4QGIMY

[Erasmus00]

There is plenty of debate remaining on the suns role.

 

BBC News | Sci/Tech | Global warming - is the Sun to blame?

 

SPACE.com -- Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

 

Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report

 

EO Library: Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) Page 3

 

Not a science report, but references things being reported:

World Climate Report » Neptune News

 

Global warming hits Mars too: study

 

Compare to these four or fives studies (most of which suggest that on top of carbon emissions, the sun is also playing a role) the entire cover to cover contents of any issue of any journal specializing in climate science.

 

Go to your local university, go to the department specializing in such things, and ask each scientist who works on such things. Its rare to find ANY climate scientist who debates the man-made angle (I couldn't find one at University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign). Also, your links make my point- the non-scientific media misrepresents the debate. The percentage of professional climate scientists who disagree with global warming is on par with the percentage of professional biologists who dispute evolution.

-Will

[Michaelangelica]

I think the show is a fraud

It was recently shown on ABC TV

Here is some criticism both for and against

Science Show

Saturday 14 July 2007

 

Listen Now - 14072007 |

 

* 00:00: Sun not responsible for recent warming

* 09:30: Study of climate sceptics

* 23:02: Treating depression

* 30:50: Starlings

* 5: Paul Nurse

 

 

 

Saturday 30 June 2007

 

Listen Now - 30062007 | Download Audio - 30062007

 

* 00:00: Mark Lynas and Six Degrees Read Transcript

* 12:17: Human activity and climate change Read Transcript

* 22:44: Climate models and The Regional Climate Group Read Transcript

* 32:20: Human responsibility and climate change Read Transcript

* 38:35: Scientific responses to The Great Global Warming Swindle Read Transcript

* 44:40: Global warming effects on ecosystems Read Transcript

 

There is also a forum on ABC TV website where people discussed the programme after it was shown

[HomoSapiens]

Global warming- False

Climate change- True

 

Evolution- True

Co2 causes the world to die- False

Sun rays effecting world's resources and climate- True

 

This is what it really means.

[Cedars]

Now, as to global warming, the scientific consensus is that solar output isn't the culprit, and that man made CO2 and methane are largely responsible.

 

I posted those links in response to the above statement, to show that there isnt 'scientific consensus' on solar output. There are plenty of unknowns within the realm of climate study, including the solar impact.

 

Compare to these four or fives studies (most of which suggest that on top of carbon emissions, the sun is also playing a role) the entire cover to cover contents of any issue of any journal specializing in climate science.

 

Go to your local university, go to the department specializing in such things, and ask each scientist who works on such things. Its rare to find ANY climate scientist who debates the man-made angle (I couldn't find one at University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign). Also, your links make my point- the non-scientific media misrepresents the debate. The percentage of professional climate scientists who disagree with global warming is on par with the percentage of professional biologists who dispute evolution.

-Will

 

These were not the only studies regarding solar impact, they were the ones I posted, in an order that shows ongoing study by various institutions looking for answers. It is not a field that is closed to debate, just as climate change is not closed to debate, regardless of what the IPCC wants you to believe.

 

Your analogy of creationism vs evolution is also misleading in that while I personally am skeptical of the impact of man on global climate change, I am not denying that climate change occurs (where creationists deny evolution), and I can only assume dragging in creationists into this topic is to insult anyone who doesnt follow the leader (in this case the leader being global warming alarmists).

 

I am also very aware that 1,000 years is nothing on the geologic time scale, let alone 100 years of spotty reliable temperature data, let alone 25 years of semi-coherent solar data. You bet I am skeptical of absolute proclamations declaring "its all cuz of people".

[Erasmus00]

I am also very aware that 1,000 years is nothing on the geologic time scale, let alone 100 years of spotty reliable temperature data, let alone 25 years of semi-coherent solar data. You bet I am skeptical of absolute proclamations declaring "its all cuz of people".

 

The scientific consensus isn't "its all because of people." Its that CO2 in general, and man made CO2 in particular are causing large scale climate change. Certainly the sun might have some effect, but consensus is that it makes a much smaller contribution.

 

The reason I mentioned creationism/evolution is that its the only other field I can think of where there is virtually no debate among scientists but a large debate in the media.

-Will

 

Edit: I missed this "It is not a field that is closed to debate, just as climate change is not closed to debate, regardless of what the IPCC wants you to believe"

 

Again, I suggest picking up any climate science journal, or going to any university and talking to professors in the climate/meteorology departments. Climate change is accepted science, the i s have been dotted the ts have been crossed. The people we pay to study such things have weighed in. Its only the media and political circus where a debate still continues.

[InfiniteNow]

Global warming- False

Climate change- True

 

Evolution- True

Co2 causes the world to die- False

Sun rays effecting world's resources and climate- True

 

This is what it really means.

 

I'm guessing you read mostly the news and tv sound-bites, and not the scientific research itself?

[CraigD]

Global warming- False

Climate change- True

How about “climate change characterized by an increase in average atmospheric temperature, and an increase in total atmospheric heat”?

 

Reducing the description of a phenomena to a couple of very politically volatile “buzz phrases” and marking each true or false is not, I think, accurate or informative.

Evolution- True

Co2 causes the world to die- False

Sun rays effecting world's resources and climate- True

I don’t disagree with any of these pronouncements, but question the relevance of “[ce]CO2[/ce] causes the world to die”. Outside of some roughly 40 year old, now discredited scientific speculation about “the Venus Syndrome” (discussed in 4133), I don’t believe any serious scientist suggests that “the world will die” due to any near-future climatologically phenomena. Rather, the consensus is that an increase in global temperature would produce climate and sea level changes having a negative impact on human wellbeing.

[Zythryn]

The reason I mentioned creationism/evolution is that its the only other field I can think of where there is virtually no debate among scientists but a large debate in the media.

-Will

 

While we are approaching that level, I agree we aren't quite there yet. A more accurate analogy may be that the people marketing or throwing silly exagerations around in the global warming debate are akin to the people in the late 70's/80's arguing that smoking was not hazardous to anyone's health nor addictive.

 

As for the sun, yes there are a number of scientific papers raising the question about its impact in the recent warming trend. Most conclude that additional study is needed (such as the ones regarding cosmic rays) while others conclude the change in the sun's radiance has a negligable affect on the climates temperature.

 

As others have mentioned, I strongly encourage anyone interested in this topic to read the scientific journals. If you don't have subscriptions (most people don't) go to your library and check there.

 

Popular media is all about 'making a good show', conflict gets ratings. Go to the source, look at the scientific papers and you may get a better understanding of just where the scientific consensus truly is.

[Cedars]

The scientific consensus isn't "its all because of people." Its that CO2 in general, and man made CO2 in particular are causing large scale climate change. Certainly the sun might have some effect, but consensus is that it makes a much smaller contribution.

 

The reason I mentioned creationism/evolution is that its the only other field I can think of where there is virtually no debate among scientists but a large debate in the media.

-Will

 

Edit: I missed this "It is not a field that is closed to debate, just as climate change is not closed to debate, regardless of what the IPCC wants you to believe"

 

Again, I suggest picking up any climate science journal, or going to any university and talking to professors in the climate/meteorology departments. Climate change is accepted science, the i s have been dotted the ts have been crossed. The people we pay to study such things have weighed in. Its only the media and political circus where a debate still continues.

 

Let me put this another way.

 

If the existing climate models ignore the solar forcing, or under estimate its effect (and as I understand the IPCC report, they did not accept solar forcing as substancial when running their 'models'), then their results are flawed.

 

One of the links states 10 -30% of warming is solar. This is significantly different than the IPCC position and indicates much more study is needed before proclaiming "man made CO2 is causing large scale climate change."

 

They can agree all they want, if they agree on results consisting of incomplete data or bad data, they are still wrong.

[Zythryn]

Let me put this another way.

 

If the existing climate models ignore the solar forcing, or under estimate its effect (and as I understand the IPCC report, they did not accept solar forcing as substancial when running their 'models'), then their results are flawed.

 

I agree with you.

Fortunately, the first premise (if they ignored solar forcing) is false. They did not ignore the solar forcing in their models. In addition, please remember that typically a model is run many many times and the average result is taken. In a number of studies, multiple models are each run many times to get an average.

Now, if you disagree with HOW MUCH solar forcing there is, that is one thing. But don't simply discount the thousands of research papers that are connected to the IPCC simply because you are guessing that they are using a value that you think is different than the one you would use.

[Cedars]

I agree with you.

Fortunately, the first premise (if they ignored solar forcing) is false. They did not ignore the solar forcing in their models. In addition, please remember that typically a model is run many many times and the average result is taken. In a number of studies, multiple models are each run many times to get an average.

Now, if you disagree with HOW MUCH solar forcing there is, that is one thing. But don't simply discount the thousands of research papers that are connected to the IPCC simply because you are guessing that they are using a value that you think is different than the one you would use.

 

I did say Or under estimated its effect.

 

Going from memory only, I believe the amount of solar forcing they accounted for might as well have been zero and for some reason 1% or 3% keeps popping into my head.

[Zythryn]

Why even include the "ignore" part then if you knew that wasn't the case?

And, what evidence do you have that they underestimated it?

Even if they did underestimate it, even the proponents of solar forcing being largely responsible, see the correlation loosening up post 1980.

 

Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has been among the supporters of the theory that changes in the sun "can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming."[31]

 

On May 6, 2000, however, New Scientist magazine reported that Lassen and astrophysicist Peter Thejll had updated Lassen's 1991 research and found that while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 °C since 1980. "The curves diverge after 1980," Thejll said, "and it's a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate.... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect."[32]

from Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Even if the research and reports that indicate the solar radiative forcing has very little responsibility for the current warming trend. Don't you think we should do what we can? The papers I have seen all indicate that some of the forcing is our own spewing of CO2 into the air.