Global Warming Swindle?

Tim Johnson

I found this movie on Google. I would really like to hear from anyone who has examined real data in this area. The argument presented appears good, but being only a casual observer its hard to know if what is shown is true or not. Seems to me some real debate is needed in this field.

Global Warming Swindle Running time 1 hr 15 mins


Either way, its a pretty entertaining documentary. Shows clips from Al Gores movie and seemingly refutes some of that evidence. I found the evidence shown in relation to CO2 rising as a result of global warming (rather than causing it) especially fascinating. If that data shown is accurate, well, theres a lot of hot air going on for sure...;)
 
I can not speak for any evidence for or against global warming I simply do not know enough to make a fully objective opinion. I can say I feel that this culture of pressure to accept theories that are believed by a majority exists. I feel this is a dangerous position that damages the purpose of science, to seek the truth. It should always be allowed for people to have differing matters of opinion.
 
With all of the hype that has been surrounding Global Warming in the last few years, its sad to say but some of the best scientific research on Global Warming has probably already occurred. It seems a lot of scientists working on global warming these days are getting caught up in the corruptive nature of politics (with respect to science). Scientists getting paid off to denounce certain things, and others getting threatened. I find it hard to look at recent global warming findings with more than a grain of salt due to the chance that the publisher is trying to push a certain agenda (or was persuaded to do so by others.) I am a firm believer politics and science should be independent, and sadly thats not happening with respects to global warming. The whole idea behind science is to be as skeptical as possible, and some major policy makers and others with agendas do not understand that. They want scientists to say "global warming ____" with absolute certainty. However, the whole idea behind science is NOTHING is certain.

All in all, I like the debate global warming is creating, however when scientists are being forced to say certain things or leave out bits and pieces then a scientific report turns into nothing more than a paper of persuasion with very questionable evidence.
 
Dr. Gray had an interesting keynote speech at the convention. He was calling it hocus pocus.

In addition I remember as Dr. Gray pointed out that back in the 70's the scare was another ice age. Scientists were concerned that another ice age would happen.

I was listening to AM radio as I do often and their were so called "Experts" online saying similiar things. In addition, they made a common sense observation that this warming will help our planet in less temperate regions. Plants will grow more abundantly in areas they didnt before and thus will produce more crops etc...

IMO this is about taxing us and taxing us hard for our energy consumption. I have seen these kind of movements cost me $$ on the local level.

The sun has been going through cycles where it is putting out more heat is what another scientist said. That seems plausible as well.

Bottom line is how is this going to effect my pocket book when Im taxed or forced in someway to no longer drive an automobile? Thats where they are going with this crap! IMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The argument that CO2 would increase as a result of global warming is true, but does not refute global warming.

Global warming is a result of several positive feedbacks...and CO2/methane/etc vs. global temperature rise is an example of one of them, thus which occurs first is irrelevant.

Under a global warming scenario, whether it occurs from an increase in greenhouse gases or factors external to the climate system such as changes in orbital parameters, results in a general vegetation increase which increases C02...Also, as the polar ice caps and glaciers melt, greenhouse gases trapped in the ice are released. Methane trapped in the ice caps are called clathrates, and the release of all of the trapped methane would accelerate global warming substantially. There are many other examples of positive feedbacks involving the increase of greenhouse gases as a result of global warming.

The only viable argument I've heard refuting global warming has to do with the absorption spectra of CO2 being saturated, so increasing its concentration doesn't result in any additional re-emission of IR (this occurs at low-levels in the atmos). But in talking with a global warming expert here at OU, the increase in C02 at upper levels of the atmosphere is the key....Since the C02 at upper levels exists at a colder temperature, the re-emission of IR is less than what's absorbed...so warming occurs...since less IR is released to space than is emitted by Earth. But I think it would take an atmospheric chemist to refute this...maybe having something to do with how the absorption spectra of CO2 changes with height/pressure/temp.

But..it sounds like the arguments presented in the movie you referenced have been covered long ago.
 
I'm so sick of extremism on both sides, this clearly has an agenda that uses profuse misleadings and occasional blunt lies to obfuscate global warming. Why can't "skeptics" use sound reasoning without resorting to mistruths and ad hominem pleadings? I tried to listen because it had some real climatologists and occasionally would start to touch on a valid point, but it invariably ruined occasional points that it could possibly make valid. Rubbish.
 
In addition, they made a common sense observation that this warming will help our planet in less temperate regions. Plants will grow more abundantly in areas they didnt before and thus will produce more crops etc...
Sure, floods and draughts will help plants: Also spreading of Colorado beetle will help potatoes grow, besides dozens other pests and plant diseases... but no worries, chemical industry is always willing to sell you ever increasing amount of different poisons.


CO2 concentration has been rising "miraculously" ever since industrial revolution and in last decades it has been literally skyrocketing. There's no question of who is quilty for that. One favorite scapegoat of those who don't believe to human being quilty is volcanic eruptions but there hasn't been any increase in volcanic activity and actually aerosol emissions of volcanic eruptions cause sharp opposite effect, like year without summer after Tambora eruption. Also mankind's annual fossil fuel use is propably known extremely accurately and from that data amount of emissions could be calculated and I've never seen calculations showing that mankind's emissions would be incapable to increasing CO2 concentration at rate which it is rising.

As for consequencies ice core samples can't be really timed precisely enough for telling which has previously started to rise first, CO2 (&methane) concentration or temperature, only sure thing is they're all closely related. And if you put more clothes on you're bound to warm up more. Also there's possibility of earlier warming being greatly supressed by global dimming caused by aerosol/particle emissions which have been reduced considerably lately because of health and other environmental hazards.

Now how many of you would point yourself with pistol and start pulling trigger without knowing is gun loaded and when it goes off? That's essentially what mankind is doing.
In the end regardless to which direction climate goes it's not good news, ecosystems are adjusted to local climate and any fast change to either direction will cause serious problems, same goes for weather changing to more chaotic.

Here's some reading from changes happening currently:
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
And I can quarantee that here in Finland winters have changed considerably in last 15 years.


"I hope in your stumbling around you do not wake the dragon."
Babylon 5: In the Beginning



Why can't "skeptics" use sound reasoning without resorting to mistruths and ad hominem pleadings?
For same reason why "Cancer Rolls Inc" did everything it could to supress evidences of health hazards of smoking... Follow the big money.
 
CO2 concentration has been rising "miraculously" ever since industrial revolution and in last decades it has been literally skyrocketing. There's no question of who is quilty for that. One favorite scapegoat of those who don't believe to human being quilty is volcanic eruptions but there hasn't been any increase in volcanic activity and actually aerosol emissions of volcanic eruptions cause sharp opposite effect, like year without summer after Tambora eruption. Also mankind's annual fossil fuel use is propably known extremely accurately and from that data amount of emissions could be calculated and I've never seen calculations showing that mankind's emissions would be incapable to increasing CO2 concentration at rate which it is rising.

As for consequencies ice core samples can't be really timed precisely enough for telling which has previously started to rise first, CO2 (&methane) concentration or temperature, only sure thing is they're all closely related. And if you put more clothes on you're bound to warm up more. Also there's possibility of earlier warming being greatly supressed by global dimming caused by aerosol/particle emissions which have been reduced considerably lately because of health and other environmental hazards.


I looked briefly through the link you provided but was unable to find any numbers on just how much CO2 had risen. If temperatures have only risen 0.6 degrees C in the last few decades, how much has CO2 risen for it to be said that CO2 concentration has been rising "miraculously"? I'm not denying it, just curious.


The documentary did address oceanic changes somewhat. Saying that it is possible that those changes were not due to current events but possibly events, OR temperature memory? from long past just now showing up. Again, I'm no expert, but all this taken with the fact that polar caps are also melting on Mars does lead the casual observer to believe that all this could be solar related as it appears to be affecting other planets in our solar system. Surely we are not polluting Mars' atmosphere too?

It really is aggravating to me that both sides can stand up and make valid points yet there seems to be no definitive answers yet. For me, when politicians are leading the pack so to speak (Al Gore etc.), it gives the impression to me that money is motivating science to say that which pays more.

Now how many of you would point yourself with pistol and start pulling trigger without knowing is gun loaded and when it goes off? That's essentially what mankind is doing.
In the end regardless to which direction climate goes it's not good news, ecosystems are adjusted to local climate and any fast change to either direction will cause serious problems, same goes for weather changing to more chaotic.


If this is true, then we've already pulled the trigger decades ago. It seems to me making big changes either way is a mistake without really knowing what is happening yet. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with cutting pollution etc. Clearly pollution isn't helping anyone regardless of global temps....but before we do anything in the name of Global warming, shouldn't it be established that WE are causing it first? Can it be PROVEN we are causing it?
 
"I hope in your stumbling around you do not wake the dragon." Babylon 5: In the Beginning

Because its all Science Fiction. lol

Anyways. No doubt Co2 levels are rising. Taking my car and have me driving bicycles is not the solution to fix global warming. Nor taxing the hell out of me.

Somehow I feel that the large corporations that are the real abusers of pollution are behind this in some way.

Some say there are extremists on both ends. On one side I see Al Gore. On the other ( watching the documentary linked above, which was good by the way ) All I seen were some scientists doubting Al Gores lil' sci fi drama. What is the reasoning for dis information of these other scientists?? What agenda could they possibly be trying to put forward?

Whats Al Gores reasoning or agenda?
 
I looked briefly through the link you provided but was unable to find any numbers on just how much CO2 had risen. If temperatures have only risen 0.6 degrees C in the last few decades, how much has CO2 risen for it to be said that CO2 concentration has been rising "miraculously"? I'm not denying it, just curious.
You could have answered easily to your own question by little Googling.

Vostok station's ice core samples show that in last 400 000 years (which includes pile of ice ages and warm periods) atmospheric CO2 concentration has been near 300 ppmv at its highest, now it's going around 370 and literally skyrocketing considering timescale in which it is rising.

Here's some good graphs showing long term changes and changes in near history

There's also other gases which trap heat much more effectively than CO2
http://www.epcc.pref.osaka.jp/apec/eng/earth/global_warming/what.html
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/co2_change.html


I'm no expert, but all this taken with the fact that polar caps are also melting on Mars does lead the casual observer to believe that all this could be solar related as it appears to be affecting other planets in our solar system.
Orbit of Mars is much more eccentric than that of Earth so in timescale of Mars' orbital period (~2 years) it causes very big changes in polar caps. As for possible polar cap changes caused by changes in solar system's conditions we can't really say anything because we don't have necessary data of Mars' polar caps from long period.
In very long term Mars' polar caps are definitely gradually shrinking because Mars is loosing its atmosphere little by little.



Weather in here is again back in chaotic track of previous 12 months. In outside it's like one month would have been skipped, today temperature was +7C while -7C would be much closer to average of this time and at this rate snow has melted away one month earlier than average of even last ten years.
 
No matter what your background, it's best to keep an open mind when presented with any climate predictions. The media as a whole has taken one side with this issue and that's simply because they sell fear and are quite skilled in doing so.

CO2 emissions are just one factor in climate change. I haven't heard any media reports cite deep ocean currents or even sunspot cycles despite those also having noted impacts on climate. At the very least, the media (and their poster boy Al Gore) have made more people aware of the issue which I do believe is a problem...but just not the doomsday scenario they would like you to believe. The earth has natural processes in place to help counter the effects of fossil fuel emissions (e.g. oceans acting as CO2 sinks); though these alone cannot compete with the rate that these pollutants are being expelled.

At least the New York Times had the courage to counter Al Gore's claims. Maybe that article will open some more eyes? :)
 
That anyone thinks this is some fair documentary divorcing politics/agenda from science is lying, either to themselves or to us. It starts right off declaring an assertion, in a dramatic and condescending fashion with background music to elicit emotion. That has agenda written all over it, that is not the practice of a documentary or of fairness. As for the climatologists and the science:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

Carl Wunsch-MIT, one of the scientists that agreed to be in the piece:
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.
.
.
At least the New York Times had the courage to counter Al Gore's claims. Maybe that article will open some more eyes? :)

NY Times article misrepresented Gore statements on sea level, hurricanes; mis-ID'ed global warming skeptic as "rank-and-file scientist"

CounterSpin (it's near the beginning)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/

In fairness to a more skeptical climatologist in the article that is does some good work, here is his group's blog http://climatesci.colorado.edu/
.
.
Congress Probes Edits of Climate Reports

By Erik Stokstad
ScienceNOW Daily News
19 March 2007


WASHINGTON, D.C.--The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today released documents edited by political appointees in the Bush Administration that "appear to portray a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change," according to committee staff. Current and former appointees who made the changes appeared today before the panel and testified that they were trying to introduce scientific uncertainty in the reports.

The hearing followed one in January by the committee on whether the White House had politicized climate science (ScienceNOW, 30 January). Last year, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), who chairs the committee, had requested that the White House's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) turn over documents related to reports on climate science and policy. At the first hearing, Waxman complained that his staff had received only a handful of documents. Last month, CEQ agreed to release more documents and has provided eight boxes' worth to the committee.


In today's nearly 5-hour questioning of witnesses, Waxman and other representatives focused on changes made to drafts of three documents. Beginning in 2001, CEQ officials suggested 113 edits to the Administration's draft Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program that Waxman says played down the role of human activities in global warming. Another 181 changes either exaggerated or emphasized scientific uncertainties, such as changing "will" to "may" in the draft sentence "Warming temperatures will also affect Arctic land areas."


Philip Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist who was then chief of staff at CEQ, was asked to explain why he had made the changes. He said that many of his suggested revisions were based on a 2001 National Research Council report on climate change and were intended to "align these reports with the Administration's stated policy."


Cooney, now an official with ExxonMobil, made other changes to the 2003 annual report to Congress from the Climate Change Science Program and to a draft of the 2003 State of the Environment report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). E-mails show that EPA staff objected to the edits as "poorly representing the science," and the agency ultimately decided to omit the climate change section of the report. Waxman said he thought Cooney was "sowing doubt" on climate change.


Related site

Testimony and documents from the committee
 
A good source of the latest information regarding climate change can easily be found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policymakers for their Fourth Assessment Report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The full version of the report is due to come out later this year.

As far as skepticism goes, that viewpoint is fine, since there are still uncertainties still in the magnitude of certain climate feedbacks, especially concerning the indirect effect of aerosols and the lack of measurements in deep oceans (See figure 2), and not to mention the cloud feedbacks. However, the relative agreement of twentieth century trends simulated in coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models and observational data, as well as the relative disagreement between the same models run with pre-industrial values of CO2 concentrations held constant and the observed changes lends credence to the theory that the observed changes are due to anthropogenic forcing. (Figure 4 in the Summary for Policymakers)

As far as the source of the observed changes in the CO2 concentration, an analysis of the ratio between the carbon isotopes (C13, C14) in the atmosphere can be performed. Fossil carbon has little to no C14 due to the radioactive decay of this isotope, while other natural sources, such as volcanoes, have more C14 present. The measurements indicate a decrease in the relative amount of C14 in the atmosphere, consistent with the increased burning of fossil fuels. Records of total emissions from anthropogenic sources and analyses using the carbon cycle tend to prove that the increase IS anthropogenic in nature.

As for sunspot cycles, they generally have periods of about 11 years, much smaller than the relaxation time of the climate. They also tend to have a fairly small impact on the overall radiative forcing. However, long-term cycles (which there have been not enough satellite data to reasonably show this exists) could be important; the Maunder Minimum in the late 1600's, early 1700's tends to point to a relatively low number of sunspot activity, which corresponded to Europe's Little Ice Age. The record of the number of sunspots that far back is somewhat suspect...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This story was posted on Yahoo last evening. Below is a snip of the first couple paragraphs. The results are what I've suspected for a long time... Urban heat island may explain a good chunk of the "warming" going on.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070328/us_nm/california_warming_dc_2

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Average temperatures across California rose slightly from 1950 to 2000, with the greatest warming coming in the state's big cities and mostly caused by urbanization -- not greenhouse gases -- authors of a study released on Wednesday said.

The study found that average temperatures in California rose nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (nearly one degree Celsius) in the second half of the 20th century, led by large urban centers such as San Francisco and Southern California.

"Everybody's talking about the carbon coming out of the SUV exhaust or the coal plant, but in the past 50 years in California the bigger impact has been urbanization and suburbanization," said Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, one of the study's authors.
 
This story was posted on Yahoo last evening. Below is a snip of the first couple paragraphs. The results are what I've suspected for a long time... Urban heat island may explain a good chunk of the "warming" going on.

It's quite a stretch to take one study from California and extrapolate it to the entire globe. The most recent studies on global temperatures show that even when taking heat island/urbanization effects into account, there is still considerable warming at stations far from urban centers that cannot be explained.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top