FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
hendu



Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 141
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:47 pm    Post subject: The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film Reply with quote

Check it out: link
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

see also http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2071&highlight=swindle
and, http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=swindle&start=120
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hendu



Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 141
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Matt. I didn't know it was posted already. Is it possible to delete my post?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

being in the same sub-forum as 'global warming bunk' is a good place for the thread if you ask me Cool

but handy to have the other main references all linked off'of here
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hendu



Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 141
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sound
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Angry Buddha



Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi !

Controversy time for reflexion

some professor -Chris Merchant- saying . . .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573&q=THE+GREAT+GLOBAL+WARMING+SWINDLE


. . . against the tv documental "THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE" :

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=THE+GREAT+GLOBAL+WARMING+SWINDLE

Sure it is nice with some debate about this issue showing the other side of the coin, more that just opinions from this hegelian side of things, healthy at least.

My take, something is fishy anyway when they don't mention at the Media Corp. propaganda the Sun's effect variabel in the weather debate. Doesn't the Sun energy, capacity and cicles matters at all ?
For a few years ago "the earth gone be freeze" and now the mantra is "the ice is melting" ?

I think more should been debate in this important matter.

yours /TAB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
most-illogical



Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure, the "other side of the coin" for the concept of a heliocentric solar system was what the Church spouted.

http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html


Deconstructing Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle


Those of you watching Channel 4's slick documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, may be forgiven for second guessing the foundations upon which many of us rest our policy research. The big guns were wheeled out to cut into Global Warming theory, and to the layman it could have appeared to be a bloodbath. Even the Channel 4 announcer took a swing before the start: "Climate change; is it down to the car you drive, the airmiles you clock, the light you didn't turn off? Questionable."

The documentary had plenty of big names, and much name-dropping of institutions and awards. The content, however, was riddled with old half-truths and some straw man arguments thrown in for good measure. The main content is summarized below, and annotated with comment and links for better info. I would be happy to discuss any of my comments here - feel free to make corrections, improvements, additions below.

1. Climate is always changing, this temperature is not strange. We shouldn't worry, as warming will bring "vineyards ... [a] wonderfully rich time." (Philip Scott) Climatologists have never denied that temperature variation has been a part of the Earth's history. What is worrying, however, is that the levels of CO2 are higher than they have been for 650,000 years (link) and likely in 20 million years (link), and the rate that current changes are taking place (see here and here) are much faster than they have been in the past. And while we may have vineyards and a wonderful time here in the UK, the developing countries will certainly get the short end of the stick.

2. Historically, CO2 trends appears to lag global mean temperature increases; CO2 doesn't drive temperature change. Yet another old argument. Oddly, they laugh at Al Gore's comment that the relationship between CO2 and temperature change is "complicated", suggesting he was glossing over the details and hid the truth. (If the carbon cycle isn't complicated, I don't know what is!) They then proceed to give an overly simplistic view of the climate, stating that during the heaviest industrialisation post-WWI, there was global cooling - therefore CO2 had no effect. They fatally neglect the time lag for warming from CO2, or the cooling impact from aerosols like SO2. But Real Climate to debunk their claim here: the apparent lag of CO2 from temperature in the historical records is a result of feedbacks which release more CO2.

3. Human's can't change the atmosphere - it's so immense. [Update 15.03.07: Having read the transcript, I see that misheard Stott's comment. He indicated the Sun was so immense, suggesting we were just small fry with no impact. I think my comment still holds, however.] Logical fallacy here - appealing to emotion and wonder. For a really accessible example of humans impacting the climate, we just have to look at the impact that the lack of airplane contrails had on temperature in the US after 9/11 (link).

4. Humans contribute only a minor part of total CO2. This is also not disputed. However, we do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that humans have contributed to recent increases in CO2 concentrations (link, link). It appears, that by disrupting the natural balance of the carbon cycle (which involves the atmosphere, plants, animals, oceans, and geology), we are able to warm the planet.

5. The surface of the Earth is warming faster than the troposphere, which is the opposite of what greenhouse warming theory would suggest. This argument has been going on for years. However, a 2004 article in Nature (link, and more discussion here) puts rest to these concerns, and the IPCC Fourth Assessment report will conclude that the troposphere is warming at least as quickly as the surface - consistent with theory. The confusion of whether the troposphere was warming quickly enough arose from a cooling bias from the stratosphere (which cooled as a result of less ozone). [Update 15.03.07: See also a US CCSP report which Christy himself co-authored here. It said: "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. ... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."]

7. Cosmic rays can explain warming, as they affect cloud cover - which has a cooling affect. The argument from Nigel Calder and Danish space science skeptics has featured on this blog before, and on BBC's Newsnight - where Calder was thoroughly demolished by an atmospheric physicist from Imperial College. Basically, the Danes have found that cosmic rays produced ionized particles, an published it in a peer reviewed paper here. The article made no mention of global warming or climate change, but Calder and the Danes wrote a book anyway, making numerous jumps of assumption to say that those ionized particles would produce more clouds and thus cool the Earth. However, those assumptions have not been peer-reviewed, and there exists no long-term trend for cosmic ray flux, while global mean temperature keeps rising. RealClimate has discussed his claim (here). More arguments for cosmic rays came from Nir Shaviv et al. These have also been questioned in peer-reviewed literature here and discussed in RealClimate.org here.

6. Media and scientific self-interest in reporting more and more dramatic results. The global warming community needs to perpetuate itself to keep the money flowing. This, however, is not an argument against the science, but a clever tactic by the documentary makers to get the audience thinking that it is all a big conspiracy. Yet they fail to mention that hysteria is not new to the media - see crime, pedophilia, and immigrants as other examples. As for self-interest in science, it is of course in anyone's interest to promote the importance of their work - for publicity or money. However, the documentary makers failed to show how this debunked the theory of global warming.

8. Environmentalists say industrialisation causes global warming, and thus want to stop industrialisation and the great improvments it has given our lives. A straw man argument if I've ever seen one. By associating CO2 emissions with industrialisation and economic growth, the documentary plays an emotional trick by making us think that the quality of life we have will be taken away from us if the environmentalists had their way. While CO2 emissions are indeed associated with industrialisation, it is not a relationship that cannot be undone. For example, Vestas in Denmark have generated immense wealth by producing wind power generators. China has recently decoupled economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions growth (link) [Update 15.03.07: Better info in this and this article. Thanks, Bruce, for the comment.].

9. "Developing countries are coming under intense pressure not to develop." They finally claimed that environmentalists are stopping developing countries from installing fossil fuel plants, forcing them instead to use expensive renewable source of energy instead. This was called "anti-human". Unfortunately, no evidence was presented on this point - no data on World Bank projects, or similar. They did, however, visit a hospital that had been fitted with a solar panel, which could power either the fridge or the lights - but not both. The inference was that if environmentalists hadn't stopped the building of a fossil fuel power stations, the hospital could use the fridge and lights at the same time. Yet did the documentary prove that the hospital was in proximity to be wired to the grid at lower cost than the panel? You bet they didn't! [Update 15.03.07: See a further discussion regarding rural renewables in a new post by Chiara from In the Green here.]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi most illogical

i was wondering if for comparison you might perform a similar exercise on Al Gore's documentary movie An Inconvenient Truth?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shroom



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:29 am    Post subject: Proof that CO2 does not cause global warming Reply with quote

Promoters of the hype, such as "most –illogical" (above) are too rationalistic. They are explaining how the sun can come up in the west and go down in the east.

I "prove" that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming. Proof is a figure of speech, but it means concrete evidence and logic in stead of promotion of subjective values as fact.

In regard to the supposed 30% increase in CO2 caused by humans, it's not credible to assume nature has a fine line which it never crosses, while humans crossed it by adding 1% as much CO2 to the air as already there, per year, and ended up with 30% more in the air. Decay and respiration add 33 times as much CO2 to the air as humans, but it doesn't cross the mysterious line. How can the human input be multiplied by a factor of ten, but the much greater input by decay and respiration not be multiplied by anything?

There are many reasons to believe that the supposed measurement of a 30% increase in CO2 in the air over the past 150 years is a result of ice core data being low. The procedure looks like junk science, in my opinion. No laboratory was able to extract CO2 data from the ice cores, until one laboratory claimed to have found a method by rapidly crushing the ice in a vacuum. Everything about that procedure smells of baloney. Vacuums cannot be created instantly. A high vacuum would remove some of the gas from the ice during evacuation. The nitrogen and oxygen also had to be measured to determine percent. Then the source of the samples is extremely questionable. Over thousands of years, the CO2 could have diffused, rounding off the peaks; or it could have reacted with surrounding substances. Also, direct measurements of CO2 in the air have been made over the past 150 years, and they were as high then as now. All in all, the evidence indicates that the ice core data is low, particularly since basic principles of science indicate that humans cannot be responsible for 30% of the CO2 in the air.

Recently, a publication in Nature shows evidence that the ice core measurements were low. This evidence is summarized by Tim Ball at Canada Free Press, linked here:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm

My proof that carbon dioxide cannot create global warming is this: Radiation from the sun cannot be picked up by CO2, because it is too high in frequency. Instead, the sun's energy heats the surface of the earth, and then the energy leaves the earth's surface through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. Carbon dioxide can pick up 8% of the infrared radiation leaving the earth's surface due to the bandwidth of it's absorption peaks.

There is not a significant amount of infrared radiation leaving the surface of the earth for CO2 to absorb. This fact is demonstrated with night vision equipment. A flashlight will swamp night vision. Moonlight is stronger than the radiation picked up by night vision. This amount of energy is not relevant enough to create global warming.

I use an upper limit of 5% of the energy leaving the earth's surface as infrared radiation simply as a talking point, while the real number would be much smaller. With this number, an estimate of the amount of temperature increase caused by CO2 is infinitesimal, as indicated here:

claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C
95% due to various things --- 31.35°C
5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C
8% of infrared radiation picked up by CO2 --- 0.13°C
3% of CO2 produced by humans --- 0.004°C
5% of absorption "unsaturated" for global warming --- 0.0002°C

Increasing the human input from 3% to 30% doesn't come close to salvaging the concept.

_________________
Global warming is caused by oceans heating, not greenhouse gasses.
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More proof that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming



INTERPRETATION OF THE GRAPH:

This comparative graph on the effects of Solar Irradiance (SI) upon Tropospheric Temperature (TT) versus Carbon Dioxide (CO2) upon TT clearly demonstrates that the observed Delta TT depends almost exclusively on SI, instead of on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The red shaded area in the graph indicates the deviation of the TT observed in nature with respect to the expected temperatures from the algorithm applied by the IPCC that was adopted for delineating the Kyoto Protocol (:: Delta TT - :: Delta [CO2]). The discrepancy between the real Delta TT is 1.124, which is a very high uncertainty that allows us to reject the hypothesis about the anthropogenic cause of the increase in the atmospheric CO2 and the Global Warming.

The violet shaded area represents the deviation of the TT observed in nature with respect to the expected temperatures starting off from the algorithm that implies the law of Stefan-Boltzmann and the deviation of the SI (TTf :: TTi - SIf :: SIi) obtained from the investigation of Judith Lean and colleagues and the team of NOAA/NGDC. The discrepancy between Delta TT observed in nature vs. the Delta TT expected by applying the Law of Stefan-Boltzmann for Delta RS is 0.08, which is into the acceptable parameters of uncertainty. From this, we infer that the increase in the concentration of gases with a high Specific Heat (CO2, Methane, steam, etc.) as the past and the current Global Warming are generated by the positive fluctuations in SI, the precession of the equinoxes and, probably by the small alteration that the terrestrial axis underwent as a result of the December 28, 2006 Indonesian Tsunami (a fluctuation of ca. 0.02").

Something extremely important to note, as evidenced by this graph, is that the CO2 concentration began to increase during the Maunder Minimum, caused perhaps by the great amount of atmospheric dust that obstructed the solar light before reaching the photosynthetic systems with an adequate intensity or a specific wavelength for the process. When the increase of CO2 started, there were neither automobiles nor human industries, and the world human population was very small (about 100 million persons in the world).

Nasif Nahle
Director

http://biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html#anchor_22
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mark1360



Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Replacement of 70% of fossil fuel energy by alternative energy would take 30 years and cost $200 billion/year extra. For the slow of skull that is a $6 trillion tab for being politically correct and empirically stupid.
_________________
hgfdhgs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Janama



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 410
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The debate over this TV program has hotted up in Australia. The ABC, our public broadcaster is planning to show the Great Swindle and Tim Flannery and Robyn Williams are screaming bullshit!!. Tim Flannery is our global warming guru who wrote a book on it and became Australian of the Year - Robyn Williams is the science reporter for the ABC.

here's a letter to the National Paper this morning.

Quote:
Don't ignore the contrary opinion
SCIENCE journalist and broadcaster Robyn Williams says scientists are divided 10,000 to 1 in favour of the belief that burning fossil fuels will cause disastrous warming (The Age, 25/5).
One might accept such a ratio of contrary views with regard to a proven proposition — that the earth is round, for instance. No scientist would accept such a ratio with regard to a proposition based on consensus opinion. Scientists are paid to doubt consensus opinion. Even under the circumstances of extreme political correctness associated with the climate issue, there ought to be many who are doubtful of the forecasts of global warming disaster. And so there are.

Scientific reporters should encourage rather than denigrate their contrary opinion. Such reporters should think about the proposition that the fraction of charlatans is probably much the same on both sides of the argument, which means there are many more in the "pro-disaster" camp.

Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge, atmospheric scientist, Sandy Bay, Tas
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.