# The Great Global Warming Swindle



## Cride5 (Feb 5, 2010)

Food for thought...






Is the science on the link between global warming and CO2 really that solid, and should more scientific research funding perhaps be focused on preserving biodiversity and sustainable resource use.

Discuss...


----------



## miniGOINGS (Feb 5, 2010)

I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! We watched it in Geo this year, absolutely amazing. One of the guys accents is creepy though... I totally agree with this.


----------



## daniel0731ex (Feb 5, 2010)

we watched this in science calss at the the beginning pf the semester.


----------



## Chapuunka (Feb 5, 2010)

I think global warming's all political, not scientific. Some recent reports were all based on what some hikers--not scientists--said about what was going on in the mountains, not actual experiments. (I apologize if that's slightly inaccurate, I didn't do much research.) And from what I've been told, average temperatures have been going _down_, not up.

On a less serious note, I found it hilarious how during the meeting for global warming stuff met during a period of record snowfall. Or maybe it is serious: God speaks?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 5, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> On a less serious note, I found it hilarious how during the meeting for global warming stuff met during a period of record snowfall. Or maybe it is serious: God speaks?





Chapuunka said:


> *(I apologize if that's slightly inaccurate, I didn't do much research.)*



I can tell


----------



## Daniel Wu (Feb 5, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> I think global warming's all political, not scientific.


Me lieks white text.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 5, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle


----------



## Kyle Barry (Feb 5, 2010)

Don't hang on this movie's every word, for sure, it does have inaccuracies, but a lot of the points are legitimate, and should be researched further. A better movie, in my opinion, is Apocalypse No!, made by Lord Monckton, my boy (I brought him to Rutgers to do a lecture, and chatted with him for several hours; he's awesome).


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 5, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle



References in that article mainly relate to journalistic coverage of the programme, and the political response. However, there are many credible, peer-reviewed articles which suggest the link between CO2 levels and global average temperature isn't necessarily a causative one. 

See papers on this page as a starting point: http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/co2_temperature.html

Only problem is that many of you will not have free access to these articles because the outright farce that is subscription-based access to many journals. It makes it prohibitively expensive for non-academic members of the public to access the scientific research behind these questions.


----------



## Lux Aeterna (Feb 5, 2010)

So here's the deal.

Is global climate change a real phenomenon or just politicized hype? Yes. Yes, it is real, and no scientist in the world can really say otherwise in good conscience. Is global climate change due to human activity? Maybe, maybe not. Most of the evidence seems to point towards human activity being a big factor, but there's admittedly some small room for debate.

So if we're not even sure we're the problem, should we bother to care? Yes, absolutely we should. Think of it like a little miniature Pascal's wager. Suppose climate change isn't anthropogenic. If we do nothing, it carries on unabated. K. If we do something about it, it still just does its thing, and we wasted a little time. Not so bad either way. But now suppose climate change isn't anthropogenic. If we do something about it, maybe the situation gets better, maybe it stays the same. If we don't do anything about it, we (and much of the planet) are screwed.

So to all to all the global warming naysayers, what if you're wrong? Are you willing to run that risk? This is a case where taking action IS playing it safe. Also, the fact that climate change is made into a political issue is completely ridiculous. The environment isn't a liberal issue or a conservative issue, it's a people-who-live-on-Earth issue. I'd be very interested to know who funded this film...


----------



## Kyle Barry (Feb 5, 2010)

Yeah, environmental paranoia has never caused anything bad to happen...

Other than being taxed to death, things like this, leading to the death of tens of millions of people, can happen, and has.
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp

Saying we should just act because there's a chance is ridiculous, and unscientific. We should have the debate, see the truth, and act accordingly. It turns into a political issue, when, if you've seen the climategate scandal, people use the "science" to push their agenda.


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 5, 2010)

Lux Aeterna said:


> If we do something about it, it still just does its thing, and we wasted a little time. Not so bad either way.


Is 'wasting a little time' the only negative consequence of mis-informed climate policy you can think of?



Lux Aeterna said:


> If we don't do anything about it, we (and much of the planet) are screwed.



And where did you learn that?


----------



## Chillum (Feb 5, 2010)

Hands up who thinks pumping millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere is actually a _good_ thing?


----------



## Zubon (Feb 5, 2010)

Climate change deniers are just like people who reject evolution. There is an overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed evidence and an overwhelming amount of weak criticism of the evidence with illogical foundations.

The problem lies fundamentally with the scientific method. Science is not about proving a point. Scientists are very bad debaters. The best part about the scientific method is self-skepticism. Most academic papers contain a section stating known problems and weaknesses in the theory. Experiments are all done with statistics and scientists are quick to state to what statistical confidence their conclusions are known to be.

This environment enables over-spoken nuts who don't know the science, to have a big influence.

So, if climate change is a big well planned scam, why is there a scientific consensus around the world in many cultures? Why do the bulk of researchers agree with it?

People are quick to say things like "this PhD research says climate change is not true and he is smart". The scientists in this documentary were either duped into appearing and had their words twisted or are on the fringe of the scientific community.

This is just like people who deny evolution (a large part of the American population), they will always find some 'academic' who will say evolution is incorrect, falsely hinting that there is some sort of 'controversy'.


----------



## Gollum999 (Feb 5, 2010)

Here's the problem: Once someone comes up with a theory, (i.e. manmade global warming,) scientists start looking at other data and saying "Oh, yeah, that supports this theory!" and automatically assume that the original theory was correct. They get a bunch of evidence that _seems_ to support their theory, and yet they don't consider other possibilities.

Remember back before Louis Pasteur? People thought that all of the insects, bacteria, etc. in their rotting meat was actually being created _from_ the meat. They even did "experiments" that seemed to further prove their theory.
Then, of course, Pasteur came along and proved them all wrong.

Now, obviously I don't think that we should just stop taking care of our environment. I mean, we only have one Earth, so might as well take care of it, right? But, some people can take this "theory" of anthropogenic global warming _way_ too far. It is being used as a springboard for sales and politics. Most "environmentally friendly" products sell better. People are willing to pay extra money to "go green". Politicians get more support if they promise to help the environment. Etc., etc..

Also, by the way, I assume you guys have heard of Climategate by now, right? Read the article if you haven't.  (TL;DR: There's a bunch of evidence that scientists tampered with the temperature data to fit their theories.)

I could seriously talk for hours on this subject, but it's really late. I gotta get up in like 4 hours. >.< G'night all.


----------



## Dene (Feb 5, 2010)

Dunno about you guys, but New Zealand had the coldest October since 1945 last year. And I would place money on us having the coldest summer since a very long time ago too.


<---- Extreme skeptic about global warming.


----------



## It3ration (Feb 5, 2010)

Zubon, in my opinion you are not making an argument based on science, you are making an argument based on personal opinion and feelings. The idea that there is a "global consensus" is simply untrue - it's an idea propagated by the media. A good scientist leaves emotions at the door.

Much of the "climate crisis" press is spread by the IPCC, which is driven by the UN. It is certainly a political issue. Whenever you mix politics and science, you get biased science. Who do you think hands out grant money? The government. Having been in graduate academia in mathematics and computer science for several years, I saw this all the time. 

Disregarding the IPCC email scandal that has littered the news recently, the science is simply full of holes. There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles disputing man made global warming. A real scientist looks at both sides of an issue - when a large group of scientists finds major flaws in the status quo, the other side should address the issues in a scientific manor. Instead many act like five year olds and call people idiots. The truth is they're either scared that they're wrong, that they may lose their funding, or both. Saying "there's a consensus" is about as unscientific as it gets.

In the 1970's it was all about the shrinking ozone hole and our impending doom. For the past few years it has been the global warming craze. Now the media is becoming littered with claims that "they were wrong" about global warming and that we're headed towards the next ice age. Climate change has become an ideology. The same is true of macro evolution. Even disregarding the probabilistic improbability of abiogenesis, the fact that scientists claim the universe "exploded into being" is a truly insane claim. They cannot even predict weather reliably. All religious and political beliefs aside, going from "nothing" to "something" is a contradiction and a logical absurdity, requiring more faith than any parishioner.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 5, 2010)

First off, the whole point of global warming is that the *average* temperature is increasing. I don't care at all if right now it's cold where you live; that's probably due to some other effect whose short-term implications are larger than those of global warming. For instance, it may be getting colder in areas near the Arctic because some of the ice is melting and making the surrounding ocean colder (and you wouldn't have noticed because ice affects the global climate but perhaps not your personal one). Besides, there are many things about weather that a typical person doesn't know (for instance, there's a certain temperature range where snow is most likely to form, and if it's too warm or too cold it won't snow as much if at all), so it's more likely that the scientific community understands the situation better than that everyone is just ignoring a blatantly obvious fact.

Second, science doesn't traffic in scams. Contrary to the portrayal of the arrogant and obsessed "scientist" in films, actual researchers want to uncover the truth as much as you do if not more, and are willing to put a lot of effort into seeing how the world works. Theories become widely accepted because most of the data points toward them, not because a bunch of people decide they want to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Until someone really proves that the globe is not, on average, slowly getting warmer, or that human activities aren't causing that effect, global warming will remain the accepted theory - because it most closely describes what is being observed to happen.

Basically, what I'm saying is... before you reject an established scientific theory because you watched a documentary which may be citing false information (you don't know) or may simply be anti-environmental propaganda, think about whether the scientific community would believe it if it was so clearly false. A little misinformation goes a long way, and you're easier to deceive than an expert simply because you know less about global climates. If you really want to know how true a scientific theory is, go look up the evidence - read some papers on the topic and see what the numbers say. If you find a real argument against it, write a paper, and if the concern is valid others will notice.


PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GISS_temperature_2000-09_lrg.png


----------



## Erik (Feb 5, 2010)

Dene said:


> Dunno about you guys, but New Zealand had the coldest October since 1945 last year. And I would place money on us having the coldest summer since a very long time ago too.
> 
> 
> <---- Extreme skeptic about global warming.



That disappoints me Dene that you think like that. One cold winter does not say ANYTHING about the long term effect. Global warming is there, and it's probably caused by human influence. The effects are totally unpredictable, we might end up colder/warmer/wetter/dryer than we are now. 
And besides, even *if* it's not there (though I highly doubt that) don't you think it'd be a great opportunity anyway to better the way we treat the environment? 
Personally I think it's a good thing that we are now trying to make better cars/houses/machines/lifestyle, they also cause less other bad things to go in the air like PM10, NOx etc. this has a positive effect on for example huge cities where there are big smog problems.
Also the improving line in energy efficiency makes that oil will run out a little bit later, giving us a bit more time to switch to better power sources. Something the governments of most countries are underestimating and misunderstanding. 

Not saying global warming exists is for a *lot* of people just an excuse to not have to change the way they live, and it's been used in the politics a lot as an excuse to not undertake action on the are of durable energy. 'yah we don't know the effects yet so we'll just wait a bit', 'well, the techniques are not that developed yet, they are there but we are waiting for better ones', 'yes we know durable energy is necessary but we rather like to spend billions of dollars to the war in Iraq'.
Hell if even 5% of the money that's worldwide being spend in Iraq until now is being used for durable energy we'd make big steps towards a better environment (global warming or not) and a better (even cheaper) energy economy. 

Just my $0,02 but hey who am I to say something, I only study environmental management for 3 years 

Edit: there are always controversial scientist on topics like this, have you ever seen topics (except for maybe like the laws of gravity, but even on that..) where they all agreed with each other? Hell there are even scientists claiming evolution would be bs....


----------



## Sin-H (Feb 5, 2010)

I gotta take my time to watch that movie...

Basically, I believe that global warming is a politicized hype, but it is as well a scientific fact. I am rather sceptic when it comes to this topic, but nobody can deny that it actually happens.



Lux Aeterna said:


> So here's the deal.
> 
> Is global climate change a real phenomenon or just politicized hype? Yes. Yes, it is real, and no scientist in the world can really say otherwise in good conscience. Is global climate change due to human activity? Maybe, maybe not. Most of the evidence seems to point towards human activity being a big factor, but there's admittedly some small room for debate.
> 
> ...


epic +1 for Lux Aeterna.



Cride5 said:


> Lux Aeterna said:
> 
> 
> > If we do something about it, it still just does its thing, and we wasted a little time. Not so bad either way.
> ...


I see Cride5's point, though.


basically, the big fear of European scientists about the long-term effects of climate change on Europe is that if the temperature increases further, the gulf stream might stop and we'll get a new Ice Age in Europe.

I have to admit the snow hills are not as large as they used to be when I was a kid.
(Our winter was/is could, though).


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 5, 2010)

Oh great, I can see where this thead is going.

First off, Congratz to Lux Aeterna and qqwref for 2 exellent posts. 

Secondly, I personally believe that global warming is definately happening and I'm not really impressed with skeptics. But like everything, everyone is entitled to their own thoughts.


----------



## Zubon (Feb 5, 2010)

What is with this whole "climategate" thing? After hacking years and years of private emails (hundreds and hundreds) between a lot of guys, they found what scandals?

One guy said that he would "feel inclined to punch another guy". Another one said he would use a 'trick' to hide the decline. (That was in reference to leaving out data which was known to be bad). They know that tree ring data and temperature had a close correlation up until recently. So the 'trick' was to not include the tree ring data after a certain date. 

What the conspiracy theorists didn't expose, was the emails where one of the scientists denies permission to lend his name to a global warming supporting journalist by saying "It's not that simple".
Another email had the 'scandalous' quote of "I can't account for the lack of warming". This was exactly what that scientist said in his research paper previously published.

Anyway, go to any university, in any country and you will find a consensus. I am sure (as all the scientists are openly saying) that climate science is still in it's infancy and there are many things that we don't know. However, there is no way that this whole thing is one big scam trying to deceive the general population. That is just crazy!


----------



## irontwig (Feb 5, 2010)

I don't know about you guys but "opinion" and "consensus" doesn't seem like science words to me.


----------



## andyt1992 (Feb 5, 2010)

Watched this a while ago on channel 4 about halfway through it went off air in the UK? coincidence? you decide? managed to find the rest on a download site. How does global warming explain that our winters are lasting longer and getting colder??


----------



## F.P. (Feb 5, 2010)

Lux Aeterna said:


> So if we're not even sure we're the problem, should we bother to care? Yes, absolutely we should. Think of it like a little miniature Pascal's wager. Suppose climate change isn't anthropogenic. If we do nothing, it carries on unabated. K. If we do something about it, it still just does its thing, and we wasted a little time. Not so bad either way. But now suppose climate change isn't anthropogenic. If we do something about it, maybe the situation gets better, maybe it stays the same. If we don't do anything about it, we (and much of the planet) are screwed.



Do you know this video? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ


----------



## Escher (Feb 5, 2010)

F.P. said:


> Do you know this video?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ



Very interesting!
I feel I have lot of video watching and website reading to do...


----------



## Dene (Feb 5, 2010)

Erik: I'm don't care to disagree with climate change. The climate may indeed be changing. Personally, I can't see it. I look out the window and everything seems the same as it always has been. But what makes a changing climate a bad thing? I believe that it is thanks to the formation of the alps that Africa changed from the most plentiful continent in the world to being a desert wasteland. It was also thanks to this change that we exist as we do today.

I still see no evidence whatsoever that the planet is warming up. Antarctica is obviously having problems, but where is the evidence that it never used to? And where is the evidence that this is due to increasing temperatures? Could something else be causing massive ice shelfs to fall off?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Feb 5, 2010)

andyt1992 said:


> Watched this a while ago on channel 4 about halfway through it went off air in the UK? coincidence? you decide? managed to find the rest on a download site. How does global warming explain that our winters are lasting longer and getting colder??



:fp
I'm glad to see you've read the name of the phenomenon, now maybe next time you can read what it is?


----------



## Kyle Barry (Feb 5, 2010)

The problem is, nobody debates with science anymore. I have seen it in responses to my articles in the past, and here, as well, people say "scientists say this," and give out no logical arguments or scientific facts. Most of these people, I'd say, are blindly accepting the theory, doing no research of their own, and therein lies the problem. Do you guys accept evolution because scientists say it, or because it makes sense? If you saw all the facts and they seem to say evolution was a load of crap, would you not question it? Of course, you should. 
All the religious leaders in the world, believe in God. All the psychics believe in the supernatural. A lot of us, feel these things are completely wrong, for logical and scientific reasons, and you have to hold every theory to the same standard. How many of you have actually read up about both sides of the story, and formed an opinion based on facts. How foolish it is to base your entire stance on what you have been told the scientific community says. 
I can guarantee there is a bigger dissent than you think, and ignoring them because they are not in the majority, is absurd. Please, I implore you to look up the facts, because the ones who do, often start to see the massive holes in the theory. Don't be reactionaries, because as I posted before, there can be consequences, terrible ones.
We have to ask questions. A) Is the globe warming at an unprecedented rate? B) Is it because of 100 years of industrialization? C) Is there really dire consequences to not acting? D) Is there a way we can stop this from happening?
If you can't answer Yes, to all these questions, with scientific reasoning, you shouldn't be pushing hard for regulations, and taxation, especially at a global level. You may not feel massive effects of banning oil consumption, but the developing countries will be destroyed, and people will starve.
The burden of proof is on you, claiming catastrophic, apocalyptic consequences.


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 5, 2010)

Kyle Barry said:


> Most of these people, I'd say, are blindly accepting the theory, doing no research of their own, and therein lies the problem.



This is pretty much exactly my stance on the issue. The science isn't as clear cut as we would like to think it is.

Some annoying little facts which started to get me thinking...

In September, I was browsing the UK met-office website to see if there was any information on what kind of winter we were going to have - this is important to me because if its a good winter we got more Snowboarding in Scotland. At that time the long-term forecast was for a mild winter. This forecast was based on the same climate models they use to make these wild 100 year projections. Now, fortunately this winter has turned out to be great for snowboarding in Scotland, and I'm in-fact going again this weekend (for the 6th weekend this winter!). If their climate models are so drastically terrible at predicting the general climate in the next 4 months, it is beyond me how they can make 100 year predictions without any sort of doubt. As a scientific modeller myself, I find this quite ridiculous.

As I've looked into it, there are some more of annoying facts which don't seem to add up. 
* Sea level rise is said to be caused by temperature rise caused by anthropogenic CO2, however it's been on a steady increase since the 1800's (way before the industrial revolution).
* A similar story exists for glacial retreat.
* In ice-core temperature records CO2 rises lag temperature rises. How can CO2 be the cause of temperature rise, surely its the _result_ of it?
* There was a drop in temperature from around the mid 40's to the mid 70's, while the rate of CO2 rise has been relatively constant since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In addition, there is evidence that recent global average temperatures show a decline.

Finally as Kyle said, I'd urge folks not to use the media as their source of information on climate change, as its unreliable at the best of times. If you have access, look at the scientific literature...


----------



## Stefan (Feb 6, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> If their climate models are so drastically terrible at predicting the general climate in the next 4 months, it is beyond me how they can make 100 year predictions without any sort of doubt.



What can you predict more accurately?

A. The average of your next 4 solves
B. The average of your next 100 solves


----------



## Zane_C (Feb 6, 2010)

Al Gore made a nice documentary about this, "Inconvenient Truth" I think it was called.


----------



## Escher (Feb 6, 2010)

Zane_C said:


> Al Gore made a nice documentary about this, "Inconvenient Truth" I think it was called.



You mean, 'The Inaccurate Powerpoint'.
As much as I am a supporter in action to prevent negative ecological effects, reduce fossil fuel usage, encourage biodiversity and have a proper scientific analysis of anthroplogical effects on the environment, that film presents just as biased a picture as 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'; they are both polemics.


----------



## BillB (Feb 6, 2010)

What would happen if we changed the global warming question to: Are we polluting the air, water, & ground?

Bill


----------



## qqwref (Feb 6, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> If their climate models are so drastically terrible at predicting the general climate in the next 4 months, it is beyond me how they can make 100 year predictions without any sort of doubt. As a scientific modeller myself, I find this quite ridiculous.


It seems obvious to me. Short-term weather patterns can change for a lot of reasons; there's a lot of chaos in the global climate. But in the long term it evens out and you start to see trends. The current trends point towards a bad scenario, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume that if we don't change something that scenario will happen sooner or later.

Keep in mind the difference in time scales here, too, when you talk about inaccuracy. Suppose we can predict any major event to within two years based on global trends. If I said we'd have a really warm winter in two years (but it might be happening right now and it might be as much as four) you'd say I was pretty terrible at predicting things; but if I said we'd have a really warm winter in approximately 100 years, plus or minus two, you'd think that was pretty accurate. So, nobody knows what winter will be like in 2110. That's impossible to predict, same as the four-month scenario. But any good long-term model can tell you how an average winter 100 years from now will differ from an average winter today.


----------



## Dene (Feb 6, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Cride5 said:
> 
> 
> > If their climate models are so drastically terrible at predicting the general climate in the next 4 months, it is beyond me how they can make 100 year predictions without any sort of doubt.
> ...



What can you predict more accurately?

A. The average number of hours you will work each day for the next week
B. The average number of hours you will work each day in the 100th week from now


Now it's your turn


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 8, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Cride5 said:
> 
> 
> > If their climate models are so drastically terrible at predicting the general climate in the next 4 months, it is beyond me how they can make 100 year predictions without any sort of doubt. As a scientific modeller myself, I find this quite ridiculous.
> ...





StefanPochmann said:


> What can you predict more accurately?
> 
> A. The average of your next 4 solves
> B. The average of your next 100 solves



This analogy works on using past measurements to predict future ones. For example, the more samples of previous weather I take, the easier it is to establish the trend and predict what happens in future.

This principle however does *not* hold with increasing the size of any future projections. The effect is the opposite. The further projections into the future are made, the less accurate the model becomes. This is because any small errors or inaccuracies in the short term tend to have a multiplicative effect in the long term.

When making future projections, modellers can improve their confidence in the results to some degree by running it under different scenarios/initial conditions, or in the case of stochastic models will carry out multiple runs using different random seeds.



BillB said:


> What would happen if we changed the global warming question to: Are we polluting the air, water, & ground?
> 
> Bill


I believe that's a much more sensible and wide ranging issue to look at, and highlights the main problem with the current agenda. We're obsessing over the single issue of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, when (1) the science behind it isn't even conclusive and (2) there are many more important environmental issues which seem to be taking a back seat. Consider the massive and ever increasing population for example. Is that not a bigger problem?


----------



## qqwref (Feb 8, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> Consider the massive and ever increasing population for example. Is that not a bigger problem?


What do you suggest, killing people? Forcing parents to use birth control when their culture tells them the best part of life is raising as many children as you can?

Some of the problems with overpopulation are results of industrialization. In some areas of the world it is normal to have a large number of children because it's expected that a significant percentage of them will die before adulthood; when that stops happening you get a ton of people. I don't know of any ethical way to reduce overpopulation, so I think we're just going to have to deal with it.


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 8, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I don't know of any ethical way to reduce overpopulation, so I think we're just going to have to deal with it.



Deal with it how, by doing nothing? Unlike the rise in temperature, a continual rise in population is currently a certainty. It cannot grow forever. If society does nothing then we leave it to nature.


----------

