FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Australian ABC broadcasts the Swindle.

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



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 410
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:43 pm    Post subject: Australian ABC broadcasts the Swindle. Reply with quote

The ABC broadcast "The Global Warming Swindle" last night wth lottsa hoo haa, an interview with Durkin and a panel of experts. Shocked

After the 2 hour long program Lateline interviewed Carl Wunsch about why he claimed he was missrepresented.

the interview can be seen here.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1977366.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marlin



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

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Truth or Swindle?

By Paul Biggs - posted Friday, 20 July 2007

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) and Martin Durkin’s The Great Global Warming Swindle (TGGWS) are two documentaries presenting two very different perspectives on the current level of the scientific understanding of the Earth’s complex climate system.

AIT presents the science as being settled and computer models as being reliable. Everything bad in the world is caused by man-made CO2, from more intense hurricanes, tornados, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, floods, droughts, heat waves, and disease, to drowning polar bears.

The main thrust of TGGWS is that the science isn’t settled and there is an alternative explanation. The “enhanced greenhouse effect” isn't behaving as climate models suggest that it should, and climate change is being used as a vehicle for an anti-human, anti-capitalist, anti-mobility agenda by groups masquerading as “green.” Others are making a living by perpetuating the global warming industry, while bandwagon politicians seek to raise “green” taxes, control enterprise, mobility, and lifestyles via energy policy.

Scientists who subscribe to the claimed “consensus” view have described AIT as having the science “about right”. TGGWS, on the other hand, has been subjected to intense scrutiny and attacks from the day it was first shown on the UK’s Channel 4 TV.

Let’s examine some of the contentious points starting with Al Gore’s 600,000-year graph of temperature and CO2 derived from ice cores. Gore fails to mention that the graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by hundreds of years, rather than CO2 driving temperature, a point that was made in TGGWS. The ice core data tells us little or nothing about the sensitivity of climate to man-made CO2.

Israeli Physicist Nir Shaviv, who appeared in TGGWS, has published his empirical calculation of climate sensitivity of a maximum of 1C to 1.5C for the iconic doubling of CO2 to 560 parts per million. Contrast this with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer modelled scenarios of 1.1C to 6.4C.

The infamous “hockey stick” graph of temperatures for the past 1,000 years is another point of disagreement between Gore and Durkin. It consists of a horizontal “handle” of reconstructed “proxy” data showing a stable temperature, onto which modern day instrumental measurements have been grafted to show a rapid 20th century rise in global temperatures.

The use of these two different types of data alone is ample cause for concern, yet this graph was the “poster child” of the IPPC 2001 report and replaced the one the IPCC used in their 1995 report, which clearly showed a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), followed by a cooler period known as the Little Ice Age, a version of which was used to illustrate the point in TGGWS.

Research published by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (2003, 2005) showed that the hockey stick shape was the result of seriously flawed methodology. The 2006 US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel upheld the major criticisms made by McIntyre and McKitrick including the advice that strip-bark bristlecone pines should not be used in climate reconstructions.

However, the controversy over the global extent of the MWP continues, given that there are regional differences in the way the world warms or cools. The temperature rise in Australia over the past 500 years is only about half of that experienced by the continents in the Northern Hemisphere during the same period.

Both the CO2 and solar theories seem to have suffered from a correlation breakdown or “divergence”. There was a period of global cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s despite increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Solar activity also fell during this period suggesting a solar link.

Claims by CO2 driven warming proponents that the cooling was caused by sulphate aerosol pollution reflecting sunlight don’t really stand up to scrutiny, given the fact that emissions from developing countries have increased markedly since the late 1980’s.

The Svensmark/Friis-Christensen graph used in TGGWS showing a correlation between the length of the 11-year solar cycle (as a measure of solar activity) and temperature has been criticised because it stops in 1980. Butler and Johnston, using data from Armagh Observatory, Northern Ireland, published similar findings in 1996.

After 1985 solar activity started to decrease yet global temperatures continued to rise. Nir Shaviv is a proponent of a possible solar explanation for this that requires the suggested link between cosmic ray flux and clouds to be real. Svenmark’s successful pilot experiment, published in 2006 provides experimental support for such a link. A much larger experiment at CERN in Switzerland should be completed by 2010.

It is important to note that the IPCC rate the “level of scientific understanding” of solar irradiance as “low”, and solar eruptivity and cosmic ray flux as “very low”.

Professor Carl Wunsch was far from complimentary about climate models when he appeared in the original version of TGGWS. He did not appear in the ABC version because he claimed his contributions had been shown out of context and misrepresented his views.

The release of the original emails to Professor Wunsch from TGGWS makers Wag TV revealed that he was well aware of the documentary’s perspective:

… I wanted to email you to outline the approach we will be taking with our film to clarify our position. We are making a feature length documentary about global warming for Channel Four in the UK. The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence, which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth …

Assuming Prof Carl Wunsch didn't dupe himself into writing it, we have his compelling view of the Gulf Stream scare from Nature, April 8, 2004:

Sir -Your News story “Gulf Stream probed for early warnings of system failure” ("Nature" 427, 769 (2004)) discusses what the climate in the south of England would be like “without the Gulf Stream”. Sadly, this phrase has been seen far too often, usually in newspapers concerned with the unlikely possibility of a new ice age in Britain triggered by the loss of the Gulf Stream. European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream's existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet.

The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth's rotation, or both. Real questions exist about conceivable changes in the ocean circulation and its climate consequences. However, such discussions are not helped by hyperbole and alarmism. The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream anytime soon - within tens of millions of years - has a probability of little more than zero.


TGGWS malaria expert Paul Reiter resigned from the IPCC over alarmist claims about malaria and global warming. He has also poured scorn on Gore's malaria claims:

I am a specialist in diseases transmitted by mosquitoes. So let's talk malaria. I wondered how many had taken anti-malaria tablets because they had seen Al Gore's film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, which claims that Nairobi was established in a healthy place “above the mosquito line” but is now infested with mosquitoes - naturally, because of global warming. Gore's claim is deceitful on four counts. Nairobi was dangerously infested when it was founded; it was founded for a railway, not for health reasons; it is now fairly clear of malaria; and it has not become warmer. Pseudoscience will damage your health and your wealth just as surely as malaria.

Gore claimed that 35,000 people died as a result of the 2003 European summer heat wave, due to man-made global warming. Equally pertinent but not mentioned by Gore is that there are about 100,000 excess winter deaths in Europe each year, and 25,000 to 45,000 in the UK. Contrast this with the estimated 2,000 UK deaths during the 2003 heat wave. Recent peer reviewed science by Chase et al (2006), and Fischer et al (2007) casts doubt on the claim that European heat waves are due to man-made CO2.

Gore’s inclusion of hurricane Katrina suggests that increased hurricane intensity is linked to global warming, but this is not backed by the World Meteorological Organisation “consensus statement”, or a raft of recent papers. Hurricane expert Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in 2005 saying, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound”.

John Chrsity of The University of Alabama research group provides support for the claim made in the TGGWS that the planet's surface warming is greater than the warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), which contradicts climate model predictions for enhanced greenhouse warming. Previous unfounded criticisms of the Christy et al data have centred round an error correction of 0.035C, which ignored the fact that this was within the quoted margin of error in the original paper of 0.05C. Their latest data published in 2007 confirms the discrepancy between climate models and observations.

Land use change expert Roger Pielke Sr, of the University of Colorado, resigned from the IPCC in 1995 due to the narrow focus on CO2, but he didn’t appear in TGGWS. In 2005, he also resigned form the US Climate Change Science Programme (CCSP) Committee “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere-Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences” stating:

I have given up seeking to promote a balanced presentation of the issue of assessing recent spatial and temporal surface and tropospheric temperature trends. This entire exercise has been very disappointing, and, unfortunately is a direct result of having the same people write the assessment report as have completed the studies.

The broad conclusion is that the multi-decadal global climate models are unable to accurately simulate the linear trends of surface and tropospheric temperatures for the 1979-1999 time period, on the regional and tropical zonally-averaged spatial scale. Their ability to skilfully simulate the global averages surface and tropospheric temperature trend on this time scale is, at best, inconclusive. This has major implications for the impacts community.

Studies such as the US National Assessment and Chapters and the IPCC which use regional results from the multi-decadal climate models are constructed on models which have been falsified in their ability to accurately simulate even the linear trend of the tropical zonally averaged surface and tropospheric temperature trends over the last several decades. Since almost all impact studies require regional and smaller scale resolution, the current generation of multi-decadal global climate prediction models is inappropriate to use for impact prediction for the coming decades.


In conclusion, Gore’s AIT goes way beyond any consensus and doesn’t do justice to the many scientific uncertainties. Durkin’s TGGWS has evolved since the first showing in response to some criticisms, and could have made some of the contentious points clearer. However, the debate that some so badly want closed down is alive and well, albeit increasingly vitriolic. There is, however, a much bigger fish to fry than either AIT or TGGWS - namely the IPCC itself. I look forward to the same intense scrutiny being applied to the IPCC’s climate science monopoly.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6139
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shroom



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:00 pm    Post subject: Frying the IPCC Fish. Reply with quote

Frying the IPCC Fish.

Quote:
There is, however, a much bigger fish to fry than either AIT or TGGWS - namely the IPCC itself. I look forward to the same intense scrutiny being applied to the IPCC’s climate science monopoly.


Here's a good sizzler by Tom V. Segalstad:

”The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.

Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless ability to absorb CO2.

This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements...

Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims. Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous. "They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process.

In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."
--------------------------------
The original article is located here, but it's hard to access:

Segalstad's Criticisms

I have the summary above on this web page:

IPCC Fraud
...

_________________
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: Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Up against the warming zealots
Martin Durkin
July 21, 2007

Martin Durkin says his British documentary rejecting the idea of human-caused global warming has survived last week's roasting by the ABC


WHEN I agreed to make The Great Global Warming Swindle, I was warned a middle-class fatwa would be placed on my head.

So I wasn't shocked that the film was attacked on the same night it was broadcast on ABC television last week, although I was impressed at the vehemence of the attack. I was more surprised, and delighted, by the response of the Australian public.

The ABC studio assault, led by Tony Jones, was so vitriolic it appears to have backfired. We have been inundated with messages of support, and the ABC, I am told, has been flooded with complaints. I have been trying to understand why.

First, the ferocity of the attack, I think, revealed the intolerance and defensiveness of the global warming camp. Why were Jones and co expending such energy and resources attacking one documentary? We are told the global warming theory is robust. They say you'd have to be off your chump to disagree. We have been assured for years, in countless news broadcasts and column inches, that it's definitely true. So why bother to stamp so aggressively on the one foolish documentary-maker - who clearly must be as mad as a snake - who steps out of line?

I think viewers may also have wondered (reasonably) why the theory of global warming has not been subjected to this barrage of critical scrutiny by the media. After all, it's the theory of global warming, not my foolish little film, that is turning public and corporate policy on its head.

The apparent unwillingness of Jones and others at the ABC to give airtime to a counterargument, the tactics used to minimise the ostensible damage done by the film, the evident animosity towards those who questioned global warming: all of this served to give viewers a glimpse of what it was like for scientists who dared to disagree with the hallowed doctrine.

Why are the global warmers so zealous? After a year of arguing with people about this, I am convinced that it's because global warming is first and foremost a political theory. It is an expression of a whole middle-class political world view. This view is summed up in the oft-repeated phrase "we consume too much". I have also come to the conclusion that this is code for "they consume too much". People who believe it tend also to think that exotic foreign places are being ruined because vulgar oiks can afford to go there in significant numbers, they hate plastic toys from factories and prefer wooden ones from craftsmen, and so on.

All this backward-looking bigotry has found perfect expression in the idea of man-made climate disaster. It has cohered a bunch of disparate reactionary prejudices (anti-car, anti-supermarkets, anti-globalisation) into a single unquestionable truth and cause. So when you have a dig at global warming, you commit a grievous breach of social etiquette. Among the chattering classes you're a leper.

But why are the supporters of global warming so defensive? After all, the middle classes are usually confident, bordering on smug.

As I found when I examined the basic data, they have plenty to be defensive about. Billions of dollars of public money have been thrown at global warming, yet the hypothesis is crumbling around their ears.

To the utter dismay of the global warming lobby, the world does not appear to be getting warmer. According to their own figures (from the UN-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data confirms this. This is clearly awkward. The least one should expect of global warming is that the Earth should be getting warmer.

Then there's the ice-core data, the jewel in the crown of global warming theory. It shows there's a connection between carbon dioxide and temperature: see Al Gore's movie. But what Gore forgets to mention is that the connection is the wrong way around; temperature leads, CO2 follows.

Then there's the precious "hockey stick". This was the famous graph that purported to show global temperature flat-lining for 1000 years, then rising during the 19th and 20th centuries. It magicked away the Medieval warm period and made the recent warming look alarming, instead of just part of the general toing and froing of the Earth's climate.

But then researchers took the computer program that produced the hockey stick graph and fed it random data. Bingo, out popped hockey stick shapes every time. (See the report by Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Virginia and others.)

In a humiliating climb down, the IPCC has had to drop the hockey stick from its reports, though it can still be seen in Gore's movie.

And finally, there are those pesky satellites. If greenhouse gases were the cause of warming, then the rate of warming should have been greater, higher up in the Earth's atmosphere (the bit known as the troposphere). But all the satellite and balloon data says the exact opposite. In other words, the best observational data we have flatly contradicts the whole bally idea of man-made climate change.

They concede that CO2 cannot have caused the warming at the beginning of the 20th century, which was greater and steeper than the recent warming. They can't explain the cooling from 1940 to the mid-'70s. What are they left with? Some mild warming in the '80s and '90s that does not appear to have been caused by greenhouse gases.

The whole damned theory is in tatters. No wonder they're defensive.

The man-made global warming parade, on one level, has been a phenomenal success. There isn't a political party or important public body or large corporation that doesn't feel compelled to pay lip service. There are scientists and journalists (a surprising number) who have built careers championing the cause. There's more money going into global warming research than there is chasing a cure for cancer. Many important people and institutions have staked their reputations on it. There's a lot riding on this theory. And it has bugger-all to do with sea levels. That is why the warmers greeted my film with red glowing eyes.

Last week on the ABC they closed ranks. They were not interested in a genuine debate. They wanted to shut it down. And thousands of wonderful, sane, bolshie Australian viewers saw right through it.

God bless Australia. The DVD will be out soon.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22105154-7583,00.html
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.