VIDEO: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Thanks DrC. This film was on and off google video so I figured that once it became available again I'd link it for those who had not seen it. Grab your own copies as it may well 'disappear' again. :rollseyes

AN EXCERPT FROM: <br />
New Scientist: Climate change, who is swindling who?<br />
AT: <br />
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070322124449279">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070322124449279</a><br />
(See this link for live links and additional materials)<br />
--------<br />
<br />
** NEW SCIENTIST MAGAZINE **<br />
A Few Quick Points On Errors Made in the Program: <br />
1) Volcanoes do not emit more carbon dioxide than human activities combined. If they did, the curve showing the rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would be punctured by irregular jumps, representing each volcanic eruption. Instead, it's smooth.<br />
<br />
2) The latest IPCC report shows that the combined warming impact - of all human activities, is roughly ten times that of natural factors, namely solar irradiance. See the bar chart here. <br />
<br />
3) The period of cooling between 1940 and 1970, which the film claimed was proof that the global warming hypothesis is flawed, has a simple and proven explanation. <br />
......It was caused by industrial sulphate emissions, combined with a cluster of volcanic eruptions , which also emit sulphates. The industrial sulphates have since been partially cleaned up thanks to clean air laws adopted in developed countries. This figure , published by Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 2004, shows how climate models can reconstruct 20th century temperatures, including the mid-century cooling, using different factors that contribute to both warming and cooling global temperatures. <br />
<br />
One of the scientists (Carl Wunsch) who contributed to the film has complained very openly about how his interview was distorted. You can find his complaints here and here . This is a quote from the letter he wrote in the UK daily The Independent: <br />
<br />
""In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important - diametrically opposite to the point I was making - which is that global warming is both real and threatening. ""<br />
<br />
For more about the programme's flaws see: <br />
• an interesting entry on the progamme's director, Martin Durkin, on Wikipedia ("he has caused consistent controversy over the alleged bias found in many of his documentaries"). <br />
• RealClimate (a blog run by climate scientists: "it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time") <br />
• Steve Connor's article in The Independent ("graphs used were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong") <br />
-------------------<br />
<br />
BRACEWELL: <br />
Impressive presentation does not necessarily reflect reality. This producer seems to make his living from presenting sensational, but “dubious” data. Above is a Wiki link to Durkin, but this one I found impressive: ( Monbiot.com » Modified Truth Durkin presented on Channel 4 a documentary that showed silicone breast implants are safe and even reduce the breast cancer risk. <br />
<br />
I have not seen a good reference linking sunspot activity to measurable solar output (the technical term is \"solar irradiance\"). If true, this should have been easy. Sunspot activity has been correlated with economic growth, and crop yields – but not increased solar irradiance. <br />
<br />
I chased down a little of the 'solar output is increasing' and all said that the output increase does not account for the warming we have seen (see below). <br />
<br />
I have been studying through RealClimate for a year now, and am always impressed with the scholarship. Although somewhat technical, I have consistently found it informative to slog through cross-reference the concepts presented. Here is the RealClimate take on the program. <br />
<br />
As I see it, the bottom line is: <br />
Argument over causation is interesting but irrelevant. <br />
CO2 and methane do influence temperature. <br />
Putting more up will increase temperature. <br />
Temperatures do change - as does species composition on earth. <br />
<br />
It just kinda sucks when yours is at risk. <br />
<br />
Below are papers on solar irradiance <br />
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070322124449279">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070322124449279</a><br />
<br />

Bracewell, what you don't seem to get is that the presented "facts" used by BOTH sides is "information" that has been massaged according to what is being "looked for".

Show me the raw, unaltered data in it's original form, and not some bogus results that come from politically tilted science at best.

Until then, don't expect me to buy into your snake oil pitch simply because some individual with a few letters behind his name, funded by some organization or another with a specific agenda to pursue says "such and such" is indeed the case.

A few hundred years ago, most "scientists" bought into the then current dogmas that the earth was both flat, and the center of the universe.

People like Copernicus were labeled heretics for having dissenting views.

So, I ask, what's your next point of attack going to be?

Maybe a scientific Spanish inquisition complete with burnings?



---
If George W. Bush and Tony Blair are really Christians, then pork and shrimp are Kosher.