Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News The great Global Warming Swindle

  1. Mar 10, 2007 #1

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

    Oops 1 hr 15.56 min. :surprised

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

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

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 10, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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. Mar 12, 2007 #3
  5. Mar 12, 2007 #4
    I'm not sure why these repeatedly pushed with no additional merit of argument continue to rebirth.
  6. Mar 12, 2007 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Can you rephrase that in English? :bugeye:
  7. Mar 13, 2007 #6
    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.
  8. Mar 13, 2007 #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: Mar 13, 2007
  9. Mar 13, 2007 #8
  10. Mar 13, 2007 #9
  11. Mar 13, 2007 #10
    Hmm. Has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reviewed those reports?
  12. Mar 21, 2007 #11

    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.
  13. Mar 21, 2007 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  14. Mar 21, 2007 #13
    Where is that video? That link no longer works.
  15. Mar 21, 2007 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: Mar 21, 2007
  16. Mar 21, 2007 #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.
  17. Mar 21, 2007 #16
    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.
  18. Mar 21, 2007 #17


    User Avatar

    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 tendancy 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.
  19. Mar 21, 2007 #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.
  20. Mar 21, 2007 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  21. Mar 21, 2007 #20


    User Avatar

    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: Mar 21, 2007
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook