The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Brian Ellis]

Schmo

I don't have time to watch all of it, but I have watched the first 20 minutes. There is nothing new in the arguments or the argumenters. It is amazing how cleverly they use out-of-context facts to argue their lies. For example, if you take the top graph in Fig SPM-3 of the IPCC report, this shows the global temp from 1850 to 2005, they extracted a stretch from 1930 to 1980 to show the dip during and after the 39-45 war, without offering any explanation. Then they pretend the temperature today is lower than the 1940 peak, but that's because their graph stops at 1980. In fact, it is KNOWN that the dip was due mostly from natural causes and, to a very small extent, from the fact that fuel consumption was greatly reduced during and after the war, at least in Europe. You are too young to know the privations we went through from 1940 to as late as 1956 but I remember cold E. Scottish winters with little house heating, little hot water (we were allowed to have a family bath with 5" of lukewarm water in it once a week), no private cars on the road etc.

Then the qualifications of some of the interlocutors? A financial politician, an astrophysicist specialising in meteorites, a Greenpeace activist, an economist, a journalist writing for a popular pseudo-scientific magazine etc. Pleeeeze! And most of the quotations are single sentences obviously taken out of context from a longer interview. Clever editing will tell you anything. If you compare that with Al Gore's film (and I'm no fan of his), at least he, on the main, follows a consistent theme sequence, not hopping about from idea to idea.

You are right, I, as a scientist, was not impressed by the journalistic essay, any more than I'm impressed by a lot of political or journalistic printed matter, either for or against the anthropogenic effects of climate change (including An Inconvenient Truth, for the most part).

I asked TX whether he had even read the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Unless I missed his answer, I don't think he replied, probably meaning he hadn't. Now I ask you, and any other naysayer, the same question. Have you? It's only 21 pages. It does not bring in any arguments (this is only an executive summary of the full report with all the sources and references, due out next month), but it states the findings in plain language. Read it before you continue, here, please.

[TransformX]

I asked TX whether he had even read the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Unless I missed his answer, I don't think he replied, probably meaning he hadn't. Now I ask you, and any other naysayer, the same question. Have you? It's only 21 pages. It does not bring in any arguments (this is only an executive summary of the full report with all the sources and references, due out next month), but it states the findings in plain language. Read it before you continue, here, please.

This http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf is 18 pages. I see lots of stuff with lots of -likely- and -very likely- statements. Unlike you, even they aren't all that certain about a great deal of things. Now, since I've yawned through that document maybe you'll answer my questions from before.
A quick summary would be - without the cold war, there wouldn't be a space race, without a space race, there wouldn't be such a great technological leap, allowing for stronger computers, better sensors of all kinds, pacemakers etc. -If- global warming is unnatural (caused my human activity), isn't that a fair price to pay for all that. With all due respect to mother earth/gaia/tree hugging etc. this planet is one out of many. If you see no reason for venturing out of it, then there was absolutely no reason why venture out of Europe towards America and many other places. The ocean, deserts etc were far more treacherous back then than space is nowadays, try to keep that in mind.

Back on the thread topic: Global warming isn't such a big issue. With the great advances we've reached during the last few decades, it's a matter of a few more decades before we can control the global and later even the local weather.

-360 The discovery of the alphabet will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls. You will give your disciples not truth but the semblance of truth: they will be heroes of many things, and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing. ("Phaedrus" by Plato)

10 Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further developments. (Julius Sextus Frontinus)

1486 So many centuries after the Creation, it is unlikely that anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value. (report to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain)

1819 Artificial lighting drives out fear of the dark, which keeps the weak from sinning. (Kölnische Zeitung)

1825 What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches? (Quarterly Review)

1865 Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value. (Boston Post)

1876 This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us. (Western Union memo)

1903 The most important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplemented by new discoveries is exceedingly remote. (Albert Michelson)
.
.
.

[Brian Ellis]

Back on the thread topic: Global warming isn't such a big issue. With the great advances we've reached during the last few decades, it's a matter of a few more decades before we can control the global and later even the local weather.

This is not the thread topic. We are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate. IMHO, it is a big issue, a very big issue. You (and I) live in a country which is arid. This winter, you got less than your average ration of rain, except, strangely, in the Negev (weather-, not climate-driven). Your reaction: shrug shoulders, go to hi-tech and build more desalination plants, so what? My reaction? Economise water as well as we can and try to make do without building more desalination plants, even if it is hard. Why? Because this weather phenomenon may well be a part of climate change (see http://www.cypenv.org/Files/climate_change.htm for a century's temp and rainfall graphs for Cyprus and tell me that we are not getting less rain). Notice I have not yet introduced any man-made CO2 interpretation: this is hard observational FACT. So let's introduce a hypothesis that the IPCC may be right. You have built a number of desalination plants: these require enormous amounts of energy to run. Where does this come from? From burning fossil fuels. So you emit even more CO2 which will only accelerate the rainfall reduction. Does it not worry you that you may be taking an action which could accelerate the problem you are trying to solve?

Now, let me tell you something: Israel is one of the moderately bad countries for producing CO2, per capita. Have a look at the bottom chart of http://www.cypenv.org/Files/east_med_energy.htm
Yes, your per capita CO2 production is 10.56 tonnes per year for every man, woman and child. Yes, Cyprus is, unfortunately, not far behind with 10.26 tonnes. Many European countries emit between 5.6 and 8 t/y. Just ask yourself why, when central European countries have very cold winters and hot, humid summers. (OK, we are a long way behind the USA and the ME oil producers, but that's another story: it's interesting that the figure for the USA is >20 times higher than Switzerland, which has a higher per capita GDP!)

Now, have a look at http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/files...ublic%20health and tell me what you think. Where is your hi-tech approach to this problem, which has nothing to do with climate change but is concomitant to the combustion of fossil fuels.

Yes, there are likely and very likely terms in the report. These are defined as mathematical confidence levels and are used for easy reading. "The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely [BE: >90% probability, officially] due to the combined influences of greenhouse gas increases and stratospheric ozone depletion." Both the latter are man-made. I recently was talking to one of the authors of the report who is a US EPA director and a PhD. I asked him about the terminology and he told me that it was decided to use these terms very conservatively and, in most cases, where "very" is used, the consensus is "extremely". "Extremely" (very sparingly used) really means a quasi-certainty.

Compare this with the categorical denial of many of your protagonists who refuse to accept even a chance that the scientists might be right. For example, an Israeli astrophysicist has been quoted as saying that even if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature would not rise from that cause by the end of the century. At least, he is safe from incrimination because he will be dead long before then!

End of futile arguments, please.

[TransformX]

This is not the thread topic. We are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate. IMHO, it is a big issue, a very big issue. You (and I) live in a country which is arid. This winter, you got less than your average ration of rain, except, strangely, in the Negev (weather-, not climate-driven). Your reaction: shrug shoulders, go to hi-tech and build more desalination plants, so what? My reaction? Economise water as well as we can and try to make do without building more desalination plants, even if it is hard. Why? Because this weather phenomenon may well be a part of climate change (see http://www.cypenv.org/Files/climate_change.htm for a century's temp and rainfall graphs for Cyprus and tell me that we are not getting less rain). Notice I have not yet introduced any man-made CO2 interpretation: this is hard observational FACT. So let's introduce a hypothesis that the IPCC may be right. You have built a number of desalination plants: these require enormous amounts of energy to run. Where does this come from? From burning fossil fuels. So you emit even more CO2 which will only accelerate the rainfall reduction. Does it not worry you that you may be taking an action which could accelerate the problem you are trying to solve?

Well, I have two options which as far as I know, involve minimum burning of any kind of fuel, I'll trust you to judge their feasibility:
1. dig a canal to bring water from the mediterranean sea to the dead sea.
2. The Negev has vast desert-like, open areas, why not use those for collecting solar energy?

Now, let me tell you something: Israel is one of the moderately bad countries for producing CO2, per capita. Have a look at the bottom chart of http://www.cypenv.org/Files/east_med_energy.htm
Yes, your per capita CO2 production is 10.56 tonnes per year for every man, woman and child. Yes, Cyprus is, unfortunately, not far behind with 10.26 tonnes. Many European countries emit between 5.6 and 8 t/y. Just ask yourself why, when central European countries have very cold winters and hot, humid summers. (OK, we are a long way behind the USA and the ME oil producers, but that's another story: it's interesting that the figure for the USA is >20 times higher than Switzerland, which has a higher per capita GDP!)

Israel spends a LOT of energy on cooling during the summer. This with bad insulation etc mean a lot of wasted energy. Also, Israel produces most of its energy from coal, gas and oil, which in turn produce far more CO2 than nuclear or gravitational energy.

Now, have a look at http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/files...ublic%20health and tell me what you think. Where is your hi-tech approach to this problem, which has nothing to do with climate change but is concomitant to the combustion of fossil fuels.

Yes, there are likely and very likely terms in the report. These are defined as mathematical confidence levels and are used for easy reading. "The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely [BE: >90% probability, officially] due to the combined influences of greenhouse gas increases and stratospheric ozone depletion." Both the latter are man-made. I recently was talking to one of the authors of the report who is a US EPA director and a PhD. I asked him about the terminology and he told me that it was decided to use these terms very conservatively and, in most cases, where "very" is used, the consensus is "extremely". "Extremely" (very sparingly used) really means a quasi-certainty.

Compare this with the categorical denial of many of your protagonists who refuse to accept even a chance that the scientists might be right. For example, an Israeli astrophysicist has been quoted as saying that even if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature would not rise from that cause by the end of the century. At least, he is safe from incrimination because he will be dead long before then!

End of futile arguments, please.

All the information you've supplied has nothing for or against technology. I suppose you'll agree to some extent that technology has been far from maximized, or even put to moderate use due to politics. I'm not talking about global politics, I'm talking about the well known corruption. If you check the Global Corruption Report, you'll see some of what I'm talking about. If there's 50% less corruption, you'll have a much much less polluted planet. Then again, who cares about causes these days, we just love symptoms. Don't go blaming the industry and the human advances for your dying planet, take it out on those who constantly hold humanity back.
It's much like that plastic recycling fiasco. The government makes the people pay extra for the plastic bottles so it'll suddenly be worth of bringing back to be recycled. What was the outcome you ask? People spent more than they should have just so criminal families could monopolize the market of plastic bottles. This means that this particular recycling costs more, pollutes more, steals the money from hard working people and diverts it to crime - All for the benefit of the planet, YAY!
I'm not burning used car tyres in my back yard, dancing and howling and not giving a flying sh!t about the environment, but at the same time, I'm against following the latest 'save the planet' trend and blindly doing outright stupid and criminal things. We don't deal in absolutes here.

[Dilitante1]

It's a shame, but after reading this thread, I am reminded of information I read recently that points to solar reasons effecting climate both here and Mars and pointing away from human causes. Just a few ideas and facts to think about.
here's the links:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

[schmosef]

Brian, with respect, all you did was watch the introduction.

The same people were interviewed throughout and even specifically spotlighted at various times throughout the show.

Yes, they did only show little bits of each interview at a time but if you actually watch the entire programme I think you'll see that it was so they could group parts of each interview by topic, not because they were trying to quote out of context.

Further, many of the points you raise (both in this thread and at other times) were directly addressed.

I believe that you would do well to review the entire show before you pass judgement.

[schmosef]

Here's an interesting development:

This expert in oceanography quoted in last week's debunking of the Gore green theory says he was 'seriously misrepresented'

[schmosef]

and something else:

Canadian "denier" threatened with death -- and it is not reported in Canadian news

[Marshmallowman]

tell these people global warming and ocean level changes are not happening

http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=363625

About 2,000 people on Papua New Guinea's low-lying Carteret Islands could be among the first in the world forced to relocate because of rising sea levels put down to global warming.

Saltwater already has invaded much of their freshwater sources and destroyed food gardens.

Storm surges and high tides aid the sea's invasion and the islanders are receiving relief supplies to help them cope.

The atolls lie around 85km north-east of Bougainville where the autonomous government responsible for the region is developing a plan to shift the islanders to the mainland.

Bougainville Deputy Administrator Raymond Masono said the first resettlement could still be a year away.

The Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG) had approved a relocation plan but an overall program to ensure the islanders could meaningfully participate in Bougainville's economy had still to be finalised, he said.

"We want to do it in a systematic fashion rather than just a knee jerk reaction."

When an integrated program was finalised, the ABG would enter negotiations with plantation and other landowners to ensure appropriate sites for the Carteret settlers and those from other atolls, Masono said.

The Carterets, with a population of 2,050, were the worst affected by rising sea levels but another 3,000 people on the Mortlock, Fead and Tasman atolls were also feeling the effects, he said.

"There's a general understanding among the people that their situation has been caused by global warming causing the sea level to rise."

The last batch of relief supplies was sent to the Carterets two weeks ago, Masono said.

The islanders have been battling the sea's takeover for many years, building sea walls and planting mangroves, but storm surges and high tides continue to wash away houses and food gardens.

The Carterets were named after British navigator Philip Carteret who came across them in the sloop Swallow in 1767.

Some estimates say the atolls will be submerged by 2015.

Low-lying atolls in Kiribati, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands are also reported to be in danger of submersion because of global warming.
AAP

[schmosef]

tell these people global warming and ocean level changes are not happening

http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.a...oryName=363625

I don't think that anyone in that programme was disputing the existence of global warming or that the ocean levels might be rising. They are saying that there is not conclusive proof that it is our fault, or that we can do anything about it.

[Marshmallowman]

fair enough.

But I just had an odd thought, variations in the Sun's output do indeed influence the temperature of earth that is a known fact.

So you would think that increase the levels a significant heat absorber like CO2 will actually increase the effect of variations in the Suns output.

It may actually seem like a more signifcant effect than we previous thought, because we probably have increased its effect.

I just think have CO2 at the levels we have now and having reduced the earths ability to fix that Carbon, relying on developing a magic technology to fix it in the future is a worrying attitude. Because currently we do have all our eggs in one basket.

A point I would like to point out to a few people, any scientist worth is salt not going to say unequivocally that we are causing global warming, because the scientific principle lies on disproving things. Unfortunately the only way its going to be disproved beyond "we probably caused it" is when it is probably to late.

There is an interesting phenomenon going on here, it seems every year another source of global warming found and they are generally said to be causing heating. Yet that is used as reason to say we should continue adding/increasing heating components to/in the equation, you would think it would make you want to at least attempt to cool and moderate our climate.

I think we should put large mirrors in space that heat up the earth, that we can be sure the CO2 effect is insignificant...you know it makes sense

[RichL]

Then they pretend the temperature today is lower than the 1940 peak, but that's because their graph stops at 1980. In fact, it is KNOWN that the dip was due mostly from natural causes and, to a very small extent, from the fact that fuel consumption was greatly reduced during and after the war, at least in Europe.

Are you actually claiming that the second world war was environmentally friendly?
All that fevered mass production, wanton destruction of property and materiel, lots of explosions, gunfire and whole cities burning must have partially offset the small numbers of private cars on the roads at least slightly.