The great Global Warming Swindle

In summary: The climate scientists seem quite convinced, and that's good enough for me.The arguments in the film are mainly comprised of ad hominems directed at the environmental movement and of long-discredited notions.The biggest problem with the film is that all but one of the "scientists" presented in the field are not climatologists. To anyone who thinks that their arguments hold water, I issue a challenge: find one paper in a peer-reviewed journal in the last five years which disputes anthropogenic global warming. If there really is a debate in the climatology community, then it shouldn't be too hard, right?In summary, the film "The Great Global
  • #1
Andre
4,311
74
Enjoy!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=%22The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle%22 [Broken]

Oops 1 hr 15.56 min.

(spin off from: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=159338 , where I promised:

More to follow

But that thread went in another direction, anyway, some reactions somewhere in a mail group:

After watching that programme last night...It occurred to me that this could be an excellent opportunity to separate the believers from the rational thinkers.

If you watched the programme, what was your reaction?
Are you now busy defending your beliefs, or are you readjusting your evidence-based opinion?

Being hyper-rational, I now see the CO2 model for what it really is - a load of unutterable bollocks, and anyone who follows it is a tantamount to a religious nutter.

But seriously, it was an eye opener.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I watched this last night and I found it very interesting. Much of the film has already been discussed on several forums I visit; particularly issues about the sun causing global warming/cooling, CO2 levels lagging behind global warming/cooling, and it all being about money.

I'll be sure to send this to as many people as I can. Maybe we can make this as famous as that 911 Loose Change video :wink:
 
  • #4
I'm not sure why these repeatedly pushed with no additional merit of argument continue to rebirth.
 
  • #5
denverdoc said:
I'm not sure why these repeatedly pushed with no additional merit of argument continue to rebirth.
Can you rephrase that in English? :bugeye:
 
  • #6
Evo said:
Can you rephrase that in English? :bugeye:
The arguments in the film are mainly comprised of ad hominems directed at the environmental movement and of long-discredited notions.

The biggest problem with the film is that all but one of the "scientists" presented in the field are not climatologists. To anyone who thinks that their arguments hold water, I issue a challenge: find one paper in a peer-reviewed journal in the last five years which disputes anthropogenic global warming. If there really is a debate in the climatology community, then it shouldn't be too hard, right? In fact, you already have the name of some "scientists" who dispute GW, so start with them.
 
  • #7
I am not college educated. I have barely looked at the issue of global warming. Why is it so easy for me to see through this junk, and not so easy for other people?
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Manchot said:
To anyone who thinks that their arguments hold water, I issue a challenge: find one paper in a peer-reviewed journal in the last five years which disputes anthropogenic global warming.

For starters:

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf
 
  • #10
Andre said:
Ah. the yawn team. Highly amusing, The movie is right but we are more right, right?

Beware of scrutiny though, about positve feedack for instance.

Hmm. Has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reviewed those reports?
 
  • #11
Hmmm.

I don't think I'm quite foolish enough to think I know better than the vast majority of the climate scientists, or that I'm somehow more qualified to weigh data outside of my specialty.

The climate scientists seem quite convinced, and that's good enough for me.
 
  • #12
StuMyers said:
Hmmm.

I don't think I'm quite foolish enough to think I know better than the vast majority of the climate scientists, or that I'm somehow more qualified to weigh data outside of my specialty.

The climate scientists seem quite convinced, and that's good enough for me.
That's the problem, isn't it? The climate scientists don't all agree. Some say one thing publicly to be politically correct, but say the opposite when talking to friends. The ones I know say there is not enough evidence to say that GW is not going through a natural cycle. So, I guess, I will have to go with what they tell me.
 
  • #13
Where is that video? That link no longer works.
 
  • #14
Evo said:
That's the problem, isn't it? The climate scientists don't all agree. Some say one thing publicly to be politically correct, but say the opposite when talking to friends. The ones I know say there is not enough evidence to say that GW is not going through a natural cycle. So, I guess, I will have to go with what they tell me.

I'm currently being taught (as a physics undergrad and also in a required political science course) that the climate scientists supporting GW outnumber the skeptical climate scientists. Our university shares space with IARC, the International Arctic Research Center (easy google) and climatology is a huge part of that. We have people here from Japan, India, Germany, Italy, and so forth...

I'll also note there's no religious traces in the college of natural sciences here at all.

I'm not supporting the claim. I've become totally agnostic in this argument because I'm a laymen. I may be a third year physics undergrad, but I don't understand the statistics or some of the methods (because of terminology/jargon) in any of the journals I read (whether they are for or against GW).

I judge harshly people who have the same relevant education as me or lower and think they know the answer, whether it's for or against.

I've come far enough in my science education to realize also, that even the experts can be wrong, so I have decided that I will only consciously make conclusions about physical reality after I have a) convinced myself through fully understanding the theory, b) performed the experiment, and c) confirmed my results with other people's results.

This is my goal. But I'm well aware that it's easy to slip, because you have to start with some sort of assumptions, and knowing when to drop or adapt new assumptions can be tricky. Sticking with one assumption too long can be a waste of time and dropping a valid assumption will cause much pain and toil (depending on how many adjustments you have to make to your model)

My current assumption is that the globe is warming naturally as it is, and that anthropogenic contribution is notable (but I think nature plays a significant enough role as it is). I don't however think that the end of the world is coming.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Actually, I see quite the scientific consensus. There is 'disagreement' in the same way that there is 'disagreement' about things like evolution, or a 6000 year-old Earth. That is to say... none of any reasonable consequence.
 
  • #16
I've come far enough in my science education to realize also, that even the experts can be wrong, so I have decided that I will only consciously make conclusions about physical reality after I have a) convinced myself through fully understanding the theory, b) performed the experiment, and c) confirmed my results with other people's results.

Yeah, I've been there. :) At some point, you'll realize that isn't realistic either, and you'll learn to provisionally accept the methodology of science, hoping for the natural error correcting mechanism to do its job.
 
  • #17
StuMyers said:
Actually, I see quite the scientific consensus. There is 'disagreement' in the same way that there is 'disagreement' about things like evolution, or a 6000 year-old Earth. That is to say... none of any reasonable consequence.
Except the key difference here is that it is the anthropogenic global warming prophets of doom who are demanding belief in their theory should be akin to religion; unquestioned and accepted simply as a matter of faith.

Instead of defending their position through 'superior' science they have a tendency to resort instead to ad-hominem attacks on their detractors which one can only presume is because their theory is so shaky. Afterall if their theory is sound it should be easy to prove the agnostics and unbelievers wrong without having to misrepresent data or tell out and out lies which unfortunately seems to happen all too often.
 
  • #18
That's not really what I'm seeing. I'm seeing a pretty standard scientific consensus.

I've attended lectures by Jim Hansen on a few occiasions, and he doesn't seem to fit the 'prophet of doom' description.

And the er... ad-hominem irony wasn't lost.
 
  • #19
There are naturally-occuring cycles in nature. There are also oscillations that can be exaggerated if we give just a little "tap" here or there. The people who are panicked about climate change are concerned about these little human inputs. The nay-sayers who proclaim that human activity cannot possibly influence our climate have not proven their case, nor have they shown any evidence to advance their claims. We humans may or may not have an effect on the global climate. The idiots who proclaim with great authority that we humans cannot have any effect on the global climate are probably wrong, and are at least intellectually deficient and perhaps culpable for the damage that we are doing to our world. I am not only addressing climate change here, but also pollution of the environments downstream of coal-fired plants, etc.
 
  • #20
StuMyers said:
That's not really what I'm seeing. I'm seeing a pretty standard scientific consensus.

I've attended lectures by Jim Hansen on a few occiasions, and he doesn't seem to fit the 'prophet of doom' description.

And the er... ad-hominem irony wasn't lost.
Perhaps from the knowledge you gleaned at these lectures you might be able to throw some light on the following?

The current average temperature rise of .13 C per decade is the same now as it was in 1910 when reliable records began.

The extra humidity through extra water vapor (the major greenhouse gas) has so far proven beneficial with the Sahara desert having shrunk by 300,000 Km2 in the past 20 years.

The rate of increase in sea levels has remained fairly constant for the past 80 years and it is known that sea levels have been rising for 1000s of years. To be precise studies have shown that sea level rise (SLR) between 1920-1945 was 2.03 mm p.a. whereas between 1946 - 2003 SLR has been 1.45 mm p.a. so the rate of SLR is actually decreasing not increasing as the GW models predicted.

The total ice mass of the Earth has increased over the past 30 years with the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland gaining 2" between 1993 - 2003 thus reversing a 6000 year old trend whereby the ice sheets steadily melted..

The Arctic was actually warmer by 1 C between 1925 and 1935 than it is today.

There has been no nett change in global average rainfall for the past 100 years.

There has been a steady decrease in hurricanes since 1970. In fact Dr. Landsea, a UN author, resigned when his lead author on a political platform announced (that is lied) that hurricanes had become more frequent.

The temperatures the UN uses to calculate average global temperatures are obtained from readings taken near expanding towns and cities which makes the data victim to the heat island effect which is potentially serious as it is possible that the Earth is actually cooling not warming.

In some places during the middle-ages the average temperatures were 3 C higher than they are today. In fact the available records from the time which are incomplete suggest this increase applied globally.

During the Cambrian period CO2 levels were 7000 ppm compared to 350 ppm today and yet average global temperatures were lower then than now.

The mean global temperature of this the current interglacial period is 2C less than previous interglacial periods whilst CO2 content is 100 ppm higher.

Oh and finally the IPCC which is being touted as this international body of independent scientists who cannot be disputed is actually comprised of UN member states government appointees. Many of these are not scientists at all but civil servants and even a substantial number of lawyers and accountants!

I note they have quietly backpedalled on their prior claims that global warming would lead to an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes when the actual data proved to be in diametric opposition to their forecasts, just as they also backpeddled hugely (30% reduction)on their estimate of human contribution to GW.

So man-made global warming problem? What Problem?

And as for the motive for this scaremongering;

Scientists are savvy, political creatures. Here they are looking at a project which will deliver enormous funding for them for many years to come and so of course they are only too happy to do a bit of Bush like fear mongering to secure their funding.

Then you have those 'green' scientists who have their own indirectly related environmental agendae who again are only too happy to jump aboard the global warming bandwagon as a means to an end.

And of course the 'not so green' scientists who work in competing fields such as nuclear energy who again have a strongly vested interest in attacking the competition.

Finally you have the politicians who have now achieved their ultimate goal. They can now tax the very air you breathe.

Just as you don't need to be a professional politician to argue against gov't political policies so you don't need to be a scientist to recognise scientific bull****.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
switch from the global warming debate to something people see, like all the rivers that have become sespools, a whif is self explanitory. the most important would be rainforest rivers, in that case i'd support immigration in exchange some of the land stay protected with monitoring by the world community. they still own the land but get and get a good deal (some $) that works out for everyone.

save a cardinal tetra! lol

no but really here is a very incomplete list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critically_endangered_species

lots reefs with small islands need to be left alone, no need to bring more killer ants and such that whipe out the natives, life untouched for thousands~millions of years has a way of working out just right, leave it like that. you'd have to scorch the Earth and repopulate every native species and people generally suck at playing god so i doubt that would work well.

thats your fight right there.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
StuMyers said:
you'll learn to provisionally accept the methodology of science, hoping for the natural error correcting mechanism to do its job.

yeah.. that's the inevitable part I'm trying to put off as long as possible. It really sounds depressing when you put it like that though.
 
  • #23
@Art: The real world situations appear to be quite a bit more complicated than you write.

For starters, I know that increased rainfall over Greenland/Antarctica, proposed due to GW, has been the principle reason the sheets are 'thickening' while the edges continue to melt at increasing rates. I also know that comparing the Cambrian climate to the climate now, is quite silly, as the principle driver of greenhouse/icehouse conditions measured over millions of years is the configuration of the continents. This has nothing to do with glacial/interglacial cycles in the current icehouse configuration. Most of what you write seems a mish-mosh of unreferenced talking points. I'd suggest starting at realclimate.org and read what some of the actual climate scientists are writing. But, if you want to start with your favorite talking point, I can try and go through them one by one. I'm not by any means an expert, but based on what you write, I don't think you really need one.
 
  • #24
Pythagorean said:
yeah.. that's the inevitable part I'm trying to put off as long as possible. It really sounds depressing when you put it like that though.

Heh. It's not that bad. Once you realize that you're mortal, and cannot possibly be an expert on everything.

What flavor of physics do you fancy?
 
  • #25
StuMyers said:
Heh. It's not that bad. Once you realize that you're mortal, and cannot possibly be an expert on everything.

What flavor of physics do you fancy?

that's been kind of tough for me to pinpoint because I like them all for different reasons.

Bose-Einstein Condensates, Optics, Atomic/Particle physics are my ideal, but I'm taking a job in infrasound this summer, and I've been excited about it.

I don't think the way they split up physics particularly concerns me, it's more about what specifically I'm doing in that field. In this case, I'm analyzing and identifying real Infra sources around the town. That to me is awesome. Remote information, regardless of what branch of physics it is.
 
  • #26
StuMyers said:
@Art: The real world situations appear to be quite a bit more complicated than you write.

For starters, I know that increased rainfall over Greenland/Antarctica, proposed due to GW, has been the principle reason the sheets are 'thickening' while the edges continue to melt at increasing rates. I also know that comparing the Cambrian climate to the climate now, is quite silly, as the principle driver of greenhouse/icehouse conditions measured over millions of years is the configuration of the continents. This has nothing to do with glacial/interglacial cycles in the current icehouse configuration. Most of what you write seems a mish-mosh of unreferenced talking points. I'd suggest starting at realclimate.org and read what some of the actual climate scientists are writing. But, if you want to start with your favorite talking point, I can try and go through them one by one. I'm not by any means an expert, but based on what you write, I don't think you really need one.
Actually Art is spot on with his statistics. We've already looked at the actual data in other threads.

There is actually a lot of conflicting data. Scientists thought that ocean temperature would affect hurricane activity, with higher surface temperatures causing greater activity. What they found in most parts of the world is the exact opposite. Also, hurricane frequency and severity has been declining.

Don't forget that Greenland was once "green". The Vikings settled there when the land was lush, but had to eventually abandon their settlements when the temperature continued to decrease and land became covered with ice & snow.

Just because a person doesn't jump on the "GW OMG we're going to die" bandwagon doesn't mean that they are against environmental protection, that they are against stopping or slowing pollution, that they are against alternative fuel supplies. That's a fallacy. I am all for all of these things, I just know enough about history and have read enough of the reports and dated one of the nations top atmospheric scientists, that has to meet and present to Congress annually, to know that the panic is unwarranted. It's mainly a scare tactic aimed at the uninformed masses to get them to push for environmental reform. Not a bad thing, but it's too likely to backfire and cause a kneejerk reaction that may cause even more harm.
 
  • #27
Pythagorean said:
that's been kind of tough for me to pinpoint because I like them all for different reasons.

Bose-Einstein Condensates, Optics, Atomic/Particle physics are my ideal, but I'm taking a job in infrasound this summer, and I've been excited about it.

I don't think the way they split up physics particularly concerns me, it's more about what specifically I'm doing in that field. In this case, I'm analyzing and identifying real Infra sources around the town. That to me is awesome. Remote information, regardless of what branch of physics it is.


Experimentalist, then. :smile: You're smart not to get to enamored to a specific subfield, IMO. Where you end up is almost never where you begin. I started in HE-nuclear and somehow ended up in structural biology. Go figure.
 
  • #28
StuMyers said:
@Art: The real world situations appear to be quite a bit more complicated than you write.

For starters, I know that increased rainfall over Greenland/Antarctica, proposed due to GW, has been the principle reason the sheets are 'thickening' while the edges continue to melt at increasing rates. I also know that comparing the Cambrian climate to the climate now, is quite silly, as the principle driver of greenhouse/icehouse conditions measured over millions of years is the configuration of the continents. This has nothing to do with glacial/interglacial cycles in the current icehouse configuration. Most of what you write seems a mish-mosh of unreferenced talking points. I'd suggest starting at realclimate.org and read what some of the actual climate scientists are writing. But, if you want to start with your favorite talking point, I can try and go through them one by one. I'm not by any means an expert, but based on what you write, I don't think you really need one.
Great, so explain point by point how the information I provided fits in with man-made GW and the climate model predictions. And maybe you could also explain the following;

Why has concentrations of methane in the air actually been falling since the last report published in 2001 as opposed to increasing as predicted!

And likewise the UN’s models have recently been found to be at variance with the observed rise in sea temperatures. They predicted an increase whereas sea temperatures have actually fallen. Why is that?

Despite the evidence to the contrary the 2007 draft concludes that it is very likely that we caused most of the rise in temperatures since 1940. It does not point out that for half that period, from 1940 to 1975, temperature actually fell even though carbon dioxide rose monotonically – higher every year than the previous year. This was the period when at the time scientists claimed human activity was pushing us into the next ice age. Why the divergence between CO2 and temperature and why do you think they presented this evidence in such a misleading way?

Why does the IPCC use ridiculously high population growth figures in their forecasts. Figures which are at total variance with the UN's own expert demographers' projections?
 
  • #29
er... It's my understanding that southern Greenland is still quite green, and the name was actually a bastardisation of Gruntland.
 
  • #30
It's not really my job to refute every talking point that 'Art from the internet' regurgitates. Especially since many of them seem rather spotty, to be honest. Pick your favorite, and I'll see what I can do.
 
  • #31
StuMyers said:
It's not really my job to refute every talking point that 'Art from the internet' regurgitates. Especially since many of them seem rather spotty, to be honest. Pick your favorite, and I'll see what I can do.
:rofl: I actually like them all and you did offer to explain them one by one. I guess I'm just not the 'believer' type and so lack the 'faith' :biggrin:

btw I looked at your realclimate site and it definitely has an evangelical religious flavour to it. Even some 'GW believer' posters complained about the patronising and ad-hominem attacks made on anyone who dared question the faith.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
StuMyers said:
Experimentalist, then. :smile: You're smart not to get to enamored to a specific subfield, IMO. Where you end up is almost never where you begin. I started in HE-nuclear and somehow ended up in structural biology. Go figure.

Absolutely experimentalist as career. Because I can do theory with little budget in my free time.

If I do theory as career, it seems more like being an artist where you can either become wealthy or starve; meanwhile you can't do experiments on your own unless you can afford the budget.
 
  • #33
@Art: Well... that's kinda the problem. A few of them are obviously silly, and would never have made it past any sense of rigourous debate. This makes me question exactly how rigorous you guys have been in considering data. Plus... I'm guessing you're not actually climate scientists.
 
  • #34
Pythagorean said:
Absolutely experimentalist as career. Because I can do theory with little budget in my free time.

If I do theory as career, it seems more like being an artist where you can either become wealthy or starve; meanwhile you can't do experiments on your own unless you can afford the budget.

I agree. Loved theory myself, but a wise old man once told me that there were two kinds of theoretical physicists... the very best, and those who should find another line of work.

Experiment can be hit or miss. I left HE-nuc primarily because of the funding situation (did my first 2 years of grad school at PHENIX). Applied sciences do a better job of paying the mortgage, no question.
 
  • #35
StuMyers said:
Experiment can be hit or miss.

I was hoping it was less so than theory, anyhow. I figure if I pay attention to where the money is going, I'll be ok.
 
<h2>What is "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?</h2><p>"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a controversial documentary film that argues against the existence and causes of global warming. It presents alternative theories and evidence that challenge the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change.</p><h2>Who made "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?</h2><p>The film was made by British television producer Martin Durkin and was first broadcasted on Channel 4 in the UK in 2007.</p><h2>What are the main claims made in "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?</h2><p>The film claims that the rise in global temperatures is not caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, but rather by natural factors such as solar activity. It also argues that the consequences of global warming have been exaggerated and that policies to reduce carbon emissions are unnecessary and harmful.</p><h2>Is "The Great Global Warming Swindle" scientifically accurate?</h2><p>Many scientists and experts have criticized the film for being misleading and inaccurate. The film cherry-picks data and misrepresents the current state of scientific knowledge on climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports the existence of global warming and its link to human activities.</p><h2>What is the impact of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on public perception of climate change?</h2><p>The film has been widely criticized for spreading misinformation and creating confusion about the reality of climate change. It has also been used by climate change deniers to discredit the scientific consensus and delay action on reducing carbon emissions. However, it has also sparked important debates and discussions about the role of media in shaping public perception of scientific issues.</p>

What is "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a controversial documentary film that argues against the existence and causes of global warming. It presents alternative theories and evidence that challenge the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change.

Who made "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

The film was made by British television producer Martin Durkin and was first broadcasted on Channel 4 in the UK in 2007.

What are the main claims made in "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

The film claims that the rise in global temperatures is not caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, but rather by natural factors such as solar activity. It also argues that the consequences of global warming have been exaggerated and that policies to reduce carbon emissions are unnecessary and harmful.

Is "The Great Global Warming Swindle" scientifically accurate?

Many scientists and experts have criticized the film for being misleading and inaccurate. The film cherry-picks data and misrepresents the current state of scientific knowledge on climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports the existence of global warming and its link to human activities.

What is the impact of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on public perception of climate change?

The film has been widely criticized for spreading misinformation and creating confusion about the reality of climate change. It has also been used by climate change deniers to discredit the scientific consensus and delay action on reducing carbon emissions. However, it has also sparked important debates and discussions about the role of media in shaping public perception of scientific issues.

Similar threads

  • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
4K
Back
Top