The great Global Warming Swindle

  • News
  • Thread starter Andre
  • Start date
  • #1
4,465
72
Enjoy!

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:

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:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
ShawnD
Science Advisor
668
1
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
960
0
I'm not sure why these repeatedly pushed with no additional merit of argument continue to rebirth.
 
  • #5
Evo
Mentor
23,175
2,940
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
468
4
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:
  • #10
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
StuMyers
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
Evo
Mentor
23,175
2,940
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
drankin
Where is that video? That link no longer works.
 
  • #14
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,214
272
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
StuMyers
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
StuMyers
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
Art
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 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.
 
  • #18
StuMyers
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
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
50
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
Art
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
191
0
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
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,214
272
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
StuMyers
@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
StuMyers
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 realise that you're mortal, and cannot possibly be an expert on everything.

What flavor of physics do you fancy?
 
  • #25
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,214
272
Heh. It's not that bad. Once you realise 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.
 

Related Threads on The great Global Warming Swindle

  • Last Post
3
Replies
53
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
180
Views
14K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
9K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
10K
Top