AL Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth was launched in May last year. Its message is that global warming is going to roon us all, and the polar bears, too. Initially, the film received eulogistic – and, one might say, generally scientifically ignorant – reviews in substantial newspapers and magazines globally.
As it came to be watched by qualified persons, devastating critiques of the looseness of the film’s science began to appear on the internet. More than 20 basic errors, some of them schoolboy howlers, were identified.
From his film, Gore seemed to have lived his life on an imaginary planet where natural change didn’t exist, and all change was anyway morally bad. Yet the official science community, represented for example by members of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, welcomed the film. The public continued to flock to its screening, and platoons of Julie Andrews clones in dirndl skirts danced and sang in the Alpine meadows.
In March, British television’s Channel 4 screened another film about climate change that had a different message.
Made by Martin Durkin, and called The Great Global Warming Swindle, this documentary explores the science of climate-change alarmism carefully and accurately. The message of Swindle, which is to be screened on the ABC this week, is that scientific knowledge does not identify carbon dioxide emissions as an environmental harm, nor does their accrual in the atmosphere cause dangerous warming.
So how is the screening of Durkin’s thought-provoking film being received?
Interestingly, in the case of the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, which published a highly critical film review written by several high-ranking IPCC scientists. As well as six other critical reviews written in response to the British screening of Swindle, the BAMOS paper has been widely circulated in influential circles ahead of the Australian screening. For instance, through the deans of science at universities, through the influential lobby organisation the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, and through the Australian Marine Sciences Association, among others.
Imagine a well-provendered and equipped military fortress in time of war, for that is what the alarmist, pro-IPCC, climate lobby group represents. Suddenly, loping across the landscape outside the fort, and carrying just a single-shot rifle, appears a lone member of the enemy army.
Does the camp commander respond by sending out a platoon, including a psychologist with a megaphone to check what this naive infantryman is up to? Not on your nelly. Instead, the response is remarkable in its ferocity.
Three panzer divisions come tearing out of the fort – manned, as it happens, by many distinguished scientists who have volunteered for their politically correct duty of suppressing alternative views – blazing away with all they’ve got. In a trice, the landscape is turned into a moonscape, pockmarked with craters and littered with debris.
Why does this lone gunman represent such a threat to the warmaholic camp? Does it perhaps relate to the fact that on closer inspection several sections of the fortress wall are sagging, undermined by collapse from below and within? How could a lone gunman have effected that? Is it just possible that there are more powerful forces on earth than military and industrial might, or scientific authority? White ants, perhaps; or even scientific logic?
In any event, our lone infantryman is now wandering around, dazed, dirty, half-blinded, and staggering on the rim of a crater; and not a dirndl skirt in sight.
But he’s still standing. He miraculously still has four limbs, and what he is saying – that human carbon dioxide emissions are not an environmental hazard – still accords with all the facts and makes complete sense.
For you see, science is not about the triumph of the weight of numbers, nor about consensus, nor about the will of the social majority. An idea such as the greenhouse hypothesis is validated not by shouting but by experimental and observational testing and logical analysis.
And note especially that a hypothesis doesn’t care who believes in it, right up to and including environment ministers, heads of state and presidents of distinguished scientific academies. Rather, science requires that to be successful a hypothesis only needs to be clearly stated, understandable, have explanatory power and withstand testing.
It takes one person, not an army, to accomplish that, and the names of those individuals pass down through history: Charles Darwin, Wilhelm Roentgen, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Robin Warren-Barry Marshall and their like, mavericks one and all. God bless them.
Despite this reality, every day we find public figures on Australian TV and radio stations muttering about there being “a consensus” on dangerous, human-caused climate change, or that the science of global warming “is settled”. Such persons should be referred to the nearest psychologist, and gently dissuaded from inflicting their nonsense – for that is what it is – on the poor public.
Science is never settled, and it is about hypothesis testing against known facts, not arm-waving about imaginary futures that have been created by PlayStation 4 computer buffs. Consensus nonsensus.
Oh, and by the way, it turns out that our infantryman’s name wasn’t Einstein. It was Durkin. Martin Durkin, and what a service he has rendered.
By Professor Bob Carter
A geologist who researches ancient climate change.
This opinion piece was first published today in The Australian and is reproduced here with permission from the author.
The Great Global Warming Swindle will air on ABC television on Thursday night.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Carter: “It takes one person, not an army, to accomplish that, and the names of those individuals pass down through history”
What does it mean to have one’s name ‘pass down through history’?
Does that by any chance mean that a *consensus* of people examined the work of said individual, came to agree with it, and thereby ensured that that individual had their place in history?
Carter: “Rather, science requires that to be successful a hypothesis only needs to be clearly stated, understandable, have explanatory power and withstand testing. ”
You say it only takes one person to accomplish this. Actually, it takes many, many people to show that a hypothesis withstands testing.
Lets not go writing your name or Martin Durkin’s name in the history books before you have earned the right to it hey? Let’s see how history, how society, how the consensus of peers, and of humankind, judges your work.
“Oh, and by the way, it turns out that our infantryman’s name wasn’t Einstein. It was Durkin. Martin Durkin, and what a service he has rendered.
Durkin and Einstein? Pardon me while I go outside and vomit.
“this documentary explores the science of climate-change alarmism carefully and accurately”
actually it does. Too true.
Say no more !
Forget the substance of the programme – it may well be on par with Gore’s as far as accuracy goes – consider the comments above as they relate to the public footprint of each side and the extreme reaction of the true believers to anyone questionning the establishment?
Pretty spot on I’d say.
Consensus is an invalid indicator of scientific certainty unless the people doing the agreeing are on your side and have credentials to mention.
What really makes this piece stand out, in its expose of school boy scientific errors, is its scientific depth. I found its military metaphors to be highly illuminating and relevant. Cheers for quality and substance that’d bring a tear to the eye of a delusionist.
I hope you all agree, and have qualifications.
“As it came to be watched by qualified persons, devastating critiques of the looseness of the film’s science began to appear on the internet. More than 20 basic errors, some of them schoolboy howlers, were identified.”
And yet actual climate scientists could not find too much wrong with it.
“Made by Martin Durkin, and called The Great Global Warming Swindle, this documentary explores the science of climate-change alarmism carefully and accurately. The message of Swindle, which is to be screened on the ABC this week, is that scientific knowledge does not identify carbon dioxide emissions as an environmental harm, nor does their accrual in the atmosphere cause dangerous warming.”
And yet the same climate scientists, one on this blog, found basic errors all through this film. One of the errors forced a modification of the film where a graph had to be changed.
Bob Carter you have completely lost it.
“Science is never settled, and it is about hypothesis testing against known facts”
Sounds good, but being a whaling addict myself, I don’t really understand this debate. I’m pretty much completely openminded on it, as well as uninformed.
But I was interested when reading today about eastern pacific gray whales apparently starving because of climate change.
The last time this population of whales had members starving, one analysis which seemed to have found favour (back then!) was that the whale population had hit it’s natural carrying capacity. So my first thought was that maybe this has just happened again.
But maybe this climate change thing does have something to do with it anyway. If the environment is degrading then the natural carrying capacity could be reduced, which would result in some starvation. Still, the skeptics are apparently saying that the climate varies naturally anyway, right?
So what does a beginner in the topic need to understand to form an informed opinion on this subject? Any takers?
The Documentary appears to be a timely addition to the Global Warming discussion as we are being asked
“To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide”
We deserve to know the reasons behind this demand and whether they are valid before committing our Country to such an undertaking.
I may as well post the link to the article about climate change and the gray whales too huh
http://environment.independent.co.uk/wildlife/article2750456.ece
David I think it’s cruel that there’s no whaling threads ATM. Jen’s blog management is getting lax. So you know how I feel when the climate change stuff dies down – I pop over for a bit of biffo and gratuitous insults while Jen’s not looking. And fancy David describing yourself as “a whaling addict”. What’s wrong with fishing on the weekend.
Actually speaking of things aquatic and how would this affect migrating whales “A CSIRO study of the waters off the south-east coast of Australia reveals that they are warming up faster than anywhere else in the southern hemisphere.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/09/1973544.htm
And of Bolivians are getting thirsty too
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/10/1974604.htm The glaciers in the Andes mountains of Bolivia provide about half the drinking water for two million people down the mountain. But the glaciers are now melting at an unprecedented rate and will be completely gone within 20 years.
Bob, there was no devestating critique from David Brown and his politicised crew at the BoM.
In fact they lauded the movie and left critiques to serious scientists.
Luke, there is no news from the west on whaling immediately after any IWC meeting, I’m surprised that it’s been getting as much coverage as it has! (Kudos to Ann). Of course I have news from Japan on my blog.
But basically my question is – who should I believe? I finally took the initiative to look up “AGW” the other day so know at least what it stands for, but is it really a beat-up that humans are responsible for GW, or is it really a beat-up that humans aren’t responsible for GW and that it was going to happen basically regardless of us?
It seems like both sides are proclaiming that they have the science and facts on their side and dismissing the other as a bunch of loonies (as if they were anti-whalers or something! 😉 )
So which side is it that is full of it? (I’m guessing one side is, but honestly have no clue which it is)
David – you would ask me that on a Prof Carter thread. To really have a serious opinion grasshopper you need to invest a fair bit of reading time.
Firstly you should at least check the AR4 “source” documents to see what the IPCC have “really said” as opposed to have being “alleged” to be said. Most don’t – it’s easier and more fun like Sid shows to make it up. Just ask a bloke called Morner.
Next get Schillso and Woody to give a political profile test. It may hurt a bit as they have to find out if you’re a filthy dirty commie neo-marxist or not. But the political report will help you get a job in a conservative administration sometime so the pain is worth it. And you didn’t need your nose hair or toenails anyway did you. If you are a neo-con and don’t live in California you can go straight into denialism. Saves time.
Then you can peruse your way through the AGW pro blogs – Realclimate, Stoat, Deltoid, Eli Rabett, Open Mind, DeSmogblog – you’ll notice imemdiate effects – a warm glow, greater sexual prowess, and high energy levels. Some people have wins on Lotto and horse racing just from looking.
And the anti sites – ClimateAudit, Lavoisier Society, NZ Climate Coalition – but use lead glass or you’ll get leprosy. And no more than 5 minutes per day.
And fence sitters – Pielke Snr (who are really anti but trying to be cool). You’ll just develop a slight headache.
At this point your head will be swimming.
So trust me – would I lie to you – the AGW side is RIGHT ! If you chose the opposition you will die a horrible death, your hair will fall out and your wife will leave you (in that order).
But anti-whalers who you know to be total boof-heads would also be mainly AGW – and we know from first principles that anti-AGW types are all bloody thirsty barbarians that eat their children – so being a whaling enthusiast you probably have no option but to side with Bob – err sorry Prof Carter.
David and Lukey,
Just a short comment here as I’ll be away for summer holidays for some weeks( so no whaling comments from me in the mean time !).
Lukey thinks that anti-whalers are AGW people.
But, but, the Norwegians and the Norwegian whalers and the fishermen are also AGW folks. They are really worried that the Barents Sea surface temperatures have increased and this have an impact on fisheries.
Remember as well that Rune from HNA did made a statement in a paper that ” if Greenpeace really wants to help the environment, they should leave the whaling issue and focus on climate change”.
Hope you enjoy your summer Ann 🙂
Japan too is keen on addressing these kinds of issues (PM Abe is enthusiastically pushing on climate change issues, and is also a well known whaling supporter).
So Luke, you seem to be surprised, but I’m completely open minded on this.
My basic philosophy is that it’s ok to exploit the resources around us so long as we do so sustainably. This is obviously true of whaling so I’m ok with it (and whale meat is good) as well as other examples.
Thus if it’s true that CO2 is screwing us over (this seems to be the crux of AGW AFAICT) I’m all for humanity doing something about it.
Did I tell you guys that whale sashimi appeared at my local supermarket the other day (in addition to the previous whale bacon product that I had spotted)? I was thrilled as you can possibly imagine (although the meat had been frozen once… fresh was the best I ever had). But if AGW is not the bollocks that the anti-whaling campaigns are, then AGW could really throw cold water over the whole parade.
Hey who knows? Maybe some pro-whaling campaigns in western nations would help get more people on the AGW bandwagon? Once people discover the taste of whale cuisine it could really get people keen on the environment. After all it seems like Live Earth fizzed a little (it would though, featuring old reunion bands like Genesis ;-)). But I guess the world isn’t quite that crazy 🙂
Caron credits = money = power
A profound ethos is that the truth shall set you free.
In the case of our would-be famous person Mr Gore – when something is about money, his “truth” shall bind you and destroy you.
As I’m not in the least familiar with the climate change issue, it’s very difficult for me to make a statement.
But as far as I have understood from the studies that have been made in the Nordic countries, most scientists believe the climate change and warming are due to BOTH natural causes plus human induced warming.
For example in Norway, it is not the first time that the glaciers are melting away. This has happened many times before…
OK, don’t want to be nasty against the whales and polar bears, but personally I don’t mind warmer climat here in high latitudes;-)!
Note, this is not climate , but it’s quite cold here this summer!
To David, a minke was killed illegally in Norway for some days ago! Maybe WDCS will write about this!
I wonder if TGGWS would have been produced, had it not been for Gore-bull warming?
Well Paul we should be grateful to TGGWS I reckon:
“Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability,” they will report this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.
University of Melbourne climate scientist David Karoly commented: “These findings completely refute the allegations made by some pseudo-scientists that all recent global warming is due to solar effects.”
Mike Lockwood, a professor at the Rutherford laboratory, told the journal Nature that he and Dr Froehlich were “galvanised” to conduct a new and comprehensive study of solar data following allegedly misleading media reports about global warming, including those made in Mr Durkin’s documentary, which screened in Britain in March.
Thanks Martin Durkin for the leg-up.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22047040-30417,00.html
Karoly actually let himself be quoted / implying that Shaviv is a “pseudo-scientist”. !!?
I read it and I still don’t believe it…! Is this now normal behaviour in science?
Bolivia’s Melting Glacier Problem
—
First, an example of global warming in the southern hemisphere.
“A cold snap sent thermometers plunging in South America in recent days, killing three people in Chile and Argentina while Buenos Aires saw snow on Monday for the first time in 89 years.
“The temperature dropped to minus 22 degrees Celsius (7.5 Farenheit) in Bariloche, in Argentina’s southern Andes mountains, while snow flakes fell for the first time in Buenos Aires since 1918.
“…In Bolivia, heavy snowfall blocked the country’s main highway and shut down its biggest airports, the National Meteorology and Hydrology Service said. …”
http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=070709220200.0lbsxdw6&cat=null
—
Next, could something other than “global warming” impact South American glaciers?
“…The glacier mass balance, which is an estimate of the difference between the accumulation of snow and ice and their ablation by melting and sublimation, appears to be strongly controlled by the ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation). During the latter’s warm phases (El Niño), the balances are always negative. In the course of a year, the glaciers lose the equivalent of a sheet of water of 600 to 1200 mm. In the cooler and more humid La Niña phase, however, the glaciers return to equilibrium and sometimes show a small increase which temporarily checks their decline. …”
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-35174.html
No he didn’t Arnost – come off it. And WTF – you’re NOW worried about etiquette and decorum after contrarians have accused the IPCC scientists of almost everything imaginable. Hello.
Come off it Woody – El Nino has an effect for sure but you’re now down to 18,000 year old ice.
“In 1998 when this ski lift finally shut down, Chacaltaya was still 15 metres thick and losing one metre a year. That rate has since accelerated dramatically.
Dr Ramirez says Chacaltaya is now only three or four metres thick. The ice would be 18,000 years old, but he expects all the glaciers around La Paz will be gone in 20 years’ time.”
You’ll be still saying it’s just a temporary setback when there’s none left. You’re just obfuscating Woody.
A recent comment at Deltoid by Jeff Harvey succinctly summed up the denialist strategy. And it’s well used on this blog.
“First of all, the denial lobby doesn’t give a hoot about ‘science’ or the ‘scientific method’. They are distorting, mangling, twisting and otherwise mutilating science to promote a pre-determined view of the world through the bolstering of a political (i.e. corporate) agenda. No matter how rigid the empirical evidence is, this lot will find a way to stick to their guns. As David Viner, a scientist at the University of East Anglia said a few years ago, in the late 1980’s and through much of the 1990’s the idea of AGW was labeled as a ‘doomsday myth’ by the sceptics, and was treated accordingly by them. As the empirical evidence of a human fingerprint grew, many began to abandon this and they suddenly began to admit that the climate was changing rapidly, but that it was due to solar forcing or cosmic rays. This is the basis of much of their rhetoric these days, although as Viner says, in 5-10 years expect many of them to finally admit that human forcing is primarily responsible, but that its too late to do anything except adapt (assuming of course, that the ecological systems that permit human existence via a suite of provisioning services can adapt as well without a serious reduction in their efficiency).
But this is the crux of their strategy. I really and honestly don’t believe that the agenda of most of the sceptics is anything other than one which is based on promoting the status quo, as far as western economic policy is concerned e.g. via free market absolutism, unlimited corporate profiteering etc. The denialists know that they’ll never win the scientific argument, but they know that they don’t need to. All they need to do is to sow enough doubt over the scientific processes underpinning climate change as to render mute any chance of mitigation. They have taken the uncertainty over the outcome of climate change and applied it to the actual processes responsible for climate change. Its a sordid strategy that has so far worked very well. ” ENDS
So it won’t matter what’s presented to you guys – you’ll always come with something to delay and fiddle about with. Even if it’s just stonewalling. Nothing will ever be good enough as the thought simply offends your sensibilities.
I see, its all about ME. Poor Luke and friends, always being denied.
The Greenies want Earth as a ‘museum planet’ and what’s more, they want it to go back to somewhere around the Medieval Optimum.
That’s probably not a complete accident. Nice climate, religion in total control–including execution of heretics.
Almost Eden.
Museum planet – well Schillsy you’re a living fossil from the Cold War era so we’re off to a good start for the Collection. Execution of heretics – wow – that sounds like fun ! Yea !
Anyway back on planet Earth, speaking of Eden, NSW, and following on from ocean temperatures changing dramatically off the south-east Australian coast there may be swings and roundabouts http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/09/1973544.htm
As temperatures climb we may see box jellyfish moving south , turtles turning gay, and kelp forests disappearing. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22040318-30417,00.html
Although the turtles becoming feminine is probably to do with water recycling. 🙂
Australian scientists respond to the Swindle here
http://www.aussmc.org/Global_Warming_Swindle.php
Woody obviously has his head in the sand as anyone watching “Bolivia Meltdown” on our ABC last night surely knows –
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/
Since we have to put up with un-tested second had views thrust through the internet from all over by the likes of guess who let’s wonder how Woody fairs in his own domain hey
Today on local ABC radio we had a long chat with the insurance expert from IAG on the current costs of “global warming & climate change” in the Australian context, in particular major payouts for those big storms back to the QLD cyclone.
Did I hear every second one was due to global warming?
The next discussion was on how do we share those costs
No increase in recent Solar activity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm
“But this is the crux of their strategy. I really and honestly don’t believe that the agenda of most of the sceptics is anything other than one which is based on promoting the status quo, as far as western economic policy is concerned e.g. via free market absolutism, unlimited corporate profiteering etc. The denialists know that they’ll never win the scientific argument, but they know that they don’t need to. All they need to do is to sow enough doubt over the scientific processes underpinning climate change as to render mute any chance of mitigation. They have taken the uncertainty over the outcome of climate change and applied it to the actual processes responsible for climate change. Its a sordid strategy that has so far worked very well. ”
They fail to realise that the corporate world and money are just as much a part of the environment as everything else. Their profits will fall, even if they manage to hold off all attempts at prevention. Insurance companies, who have to face up to the risks now, are already cutting off insurance from many areas of the world, or planning to do so.
It’s a strategy that has been used by the creationists for years, and the tobacco companies.
Gavin, surely you can see the self interest in blaming global warming for insurance problems. It allows them to push up premiums and justify poor performance by blaming the weather. Infact if you listen to the ABC ….as you do…..they manage to get global warming into nearly every discussion….to me and any listeners in my car, it is a standard joke.
Global warming may be a justfication for your insurance premium to go up Toby, but it is also a justification for your insurance company’s reinsurance costs to go up.
So IAG wouldn’t benefits as much as you think.
In any case, your view is a cynical one. Insurance is presumably a competitive industry, and an insurance company wouldn’t try and push up premiums on a dodgy premise if that meant they could be undersold by their competitors. They’d only push up premiums if they could maintain competitiveness.
I’m confused too. Do the ABC lefties think the public is smart enough to spot the furphies?
Even the rightwing newspapers report that Carter has no relevant credentials and his employer benefits from generous oil companies. Makes you wonder who else is trying to preserve their own little corner of Eden hey schills.
Yep those profit grabbing insurance companies are pure evil, hence they helped invent & perpetuate the myth of global warming. I hear they reduce the ABC’s premium if they mention global warming x times per month. In cahoots with the scientists and actuarial mathematicians too no doubt.
All this in an environment where profit making activities are already excessively limited by interfering guvmints. We should be glad for these kind of benefits of unregulated capitalist markets and liberal property rights.
Confusing eh? Free markets and profit-making enterprises are becoming the enemy, siding with the warmers. If this keeps up, the remaining denialists will have to convert to the far left and all the warmers step to the right.
From Kyodo:
“TOKYO — Australia’s opposition Labor Party said Wednesday that if it wins the upcoming general election, it would propose that Australia and Japan work more closely together on the issues of climate change and peace-building in the region.
Speaking at an Australia-Japan Business Association conference, Labor’s Foreign Affairs spokesman Robert McClelland said his party would take cooperation between the two countries to the next level. After praising Japan for its leadership on climate change, McClelland said Labor would use Australia’s next trilateral dialogue with Japan and the United States to propose commissioning a joint assessment on the potential effects of climate change on regional security.”
——-
Labor also wants to beat up Japan over whaling, much hard than the existing establishment 🙂
we’ll tell them to start with you
Of course big business is jumping on the bandwagon, there is money to be made in a big way out of it.
Do I blame them….of course not, am I looking for investment opportunities to exploit AGW….you bettcha. However my ethics stops me short of doing what the likes of Gore are doing.
However it doesn t stop me laughing at the frequency with which AGW is blamed for just about any problem….and its only going to get worse.
Am I cynical, you bet.
Its also a strategy well used by moral equivalists SJT, dont you agree ‘luke skywalker?’
Que?
AGW is blamed for just about any problem? Hey, don’t shoot the messenger. They’ve been trying to warn you, now you get cynical because they try to warn you because they are warning you?
Nice hatchet job by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm
Funny, Svensmark and F-Christensen were available for Nature.
Piers Forster foaming at the mouth, as usual.
Compare the BBC cosmic ray graph with Shaviv’s ion chamber graph:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
Quotes from the Royal Society Proceedings A paper:
“solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown.”
“mean values will decline over the next century. This would reduce the solar forcing of climate, but to what extent this might counteract the effect of anthropogenic warming, if at all, is certainly not yet known.”
Let’s not forget IPCC AR4 LOSU of ‘low’ and ‘very low.’
The claimed 0.4C warming from 1985 includes a temperature boost from the natural phenomenon known as El Nino in 1998, concerns over a warm bias in the near surface temperature data, and the possible effect of land use changes.
“But this is the crux of their strategy. I really and honestly don’t believe that the agenda of most of the sceptics is anything other than one which is based on promoting the status quo, as far as western economic policy is concerned e.g. via free market absolutism, unlimited corporate profiteering etc.”
Careful SJT – you’ll prove Patrick Moore right.
Friends,
New evidence has surfaced which undeniably proves that global warming is caused by cars (with their parking lots) and air conditioning.
It is now beyond dispute that these and similar elements are directly responsible for the observed rise in catastrophic global warming.
See the data for yourself at
http://www.surfacestations.org/
where you will discover global cooling in areas which are free of these modern extravagances, and data which unequivocally prove global warming where entrenched capitalists and their energy-squandering toys congregate.
Should we ban capitalist excess, or simply move the sensing stations to quiet fields and forests?
Good question. Luke will of course prefer measuring parking lots and especially places with air conditioners. The latter automatically multiply heat readings.
You know what I mean Luke, its the “if you deny me its because you are in the pay of Exxon/BAT/Rio/Murdoch or a Nazi or all the above and I will ridicule you for it” Its these silly media stunts playing on emotions that are polarising the community into Holocaust deniers/believers.
Says social scientist Tom Lowe said that “the documentary showed the tendency of the climate change debate to be polarised into extreme views, “either depicting catastrophic effects as a result of man’s influence upon the climate system or, conversely, deeply sceptical views of climate change”.
Mr Lowe said the polarisation had convinced the public they could do little about the problem.
“The public is being subjected to a media-led campaign of alarmism and doubt. At either end of the spectrum are states of denial or despair. As a result, research indicates that the public feel unwilling or unable to do anything about climate change.”
Incredibly Tom Lowe then said that it was “not proper” to give equal media space to deniers.
Look, I have previously said that the show was crap and the quasi-Marxist producer on the same level as Michael Moore but to then advocate denial of media space shows just how polarised and partisan “the debate” has become.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/07/07/1183351523733.html
It was Hansen who admitted to using “extreme scenarios” to gain the attention of decision makers.
And Schneider did not help with offering up “scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
So who started campaign of alarmism and doubt ?
Schiller are you a total ninus nongus – ask yourself might there be other independent lines of evidence. Desperate Schillsbo. Desperate.
and you must be some sort of alarmist “observed rise in catastrophic global warming” – catastrophic – yet ??
Rog agree we need precise and accurate description of what the science is saying now.
That’s why when someone claims something a first check to see if the 4AR actually says that – or is it a beatup. Of course the 4AR isn’t necessarily the last word but it’s a fair source as a starter. An example being for all the public talk about the Maldives, the 4AR chapter on sea level doesn’t even mention the place.
The press need to be discriminating in their reporting of these matters and do more background research.
Schiller – “New evidence has surfaced which undeniably proves that global warming is caused by cars (with their parking lots) and air conditioning.
It is now beyond dispute that these and similar elements are directly responsible for the observed rise in catastrophic global warming.”
In an almost perfect example of how truly unscientific one AGW denier here is is the proclamation that the observed rise in temperatures is due entirely to poorly placed surface stations. The basis for this proclamation:
“USHCN Sites surveyed so far:
142
USHCN Sites remaining:
1079”
So after surveying 12% of one continent’s surface measuring stations Schiller can draw the conclusion that the entire globe’s surface record is corrupt.
So how does photographing these sites prove beyond doubt that “these and similar elements are directly responsible for the observed rise in catastrophic global warming”?
This is one of the sources for temperature data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/source-table1.html
Have a look and you can see how ridiculous the claim is.
Can someone please explain what this US based surface station survey thing is all about.
I found a curious link under NEW to the max/min thermometer page so I blundered through it.
As a veteran of installations large and small I could not help but notice the photos of pins, crimpers and tools in general. Why would any self respecting organisation be promoting 1 dollar crimpers and other such junk most likely made in Taiwan?
I could not believe the standards depicted there.
Interesting to observe the way that the ABC is controlling the discussion on the movie.
All posts in support of either the movie, or critical of the AGW alarmists does not get past the moderator.
It is interesting to read the responses to Bob’s post.
There are references to Bolivian glaciers melting, whales starving etc, all caused by global warming.
But the IPCC says that global temperature has increased by six tenths of a degree in the past 100 years.
It beggars belief that an increase of six tenths of a degree can cause the glaciers to melt, whales to starve, ice caps to melt, sea levels to rise, disastrous tornadoes to increase in intensity, droughts, floods and all of the other environmental catastrophies attributed to global warming.
Six tenths of a degree.
Well Pete – how much sea surface temperature difference do you need to have an EL Nino event .. hmmm?
But of course what you’re saying isn’t necessarily what AGW science is saying either. It’s what you think we’re saying or asserting we’re saying.
One the question of ice and water at the margins the official temp rise is in the order 1/15 all over Pete
Another looney conspiracist!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/full-of-hot-air/2007/07/12/1183833668387.html
And there’s more
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-sloppy-melodrama/2007/07/11/1183833595630.html
“The film even has trouble getting the basic numbers right, and this reflects on its overall sloppiness and its lack of care with the truth. The narrator tells us that humans emit about 7 giga (or billion) tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. In fact the (increasing) emissions from human activities are more than 360 per cent of the figure presented to the viewers. The program points out correctly that the human contribution is only about one-tenth of that emitted by the ocean (a similar amount is emitted over land) each year, creating the impression that the human part is a very small contribution.
What is not mentioned is that over the year the ocean takes that carbon dioxide up again.”
A minor point to miss, I know….
And another point.
“Another remarkable assertion in the program declares ” … that the scientific evidence does not support the notion that climate is driven by carbon dioxide, man-made or otherwise”. This is an astonishing statement that shows a complete lack of appreciation of the evolution of the Earth’s atmosphere. The early Earth (3 billion years ago) had surface temperatures far higher than those in modern times, yet the sun was some 20 per cent weaker than it is today. This “faint sun paradox” is resolved by the knowledge that the atmosphere of the early Earth had many times more carbon dioxide than it does today, and that warmth in times of a dim sun can be explained in terms of the greenhouse effect.”
The sun was 20% weaker back then, but the surface temperatures were far higher?
Luke says “The press need to be discriminating in their reporting of these matters..”
Crap, they are reporting what Hansen, Scneider et al have said and you blame the press?
Well if they were discriminating they would ask where these guys stand compared to the “consensus” analysis. They might say “Jeez James 5 metres seems at bit far from the IPCC’s 38cm” and ask why?
Face it – the press love contoversy. If you turn your back on them they resort to harlotry.
Ian
which one were you? The guy with the hoodie, or the the first one?
SJT
Quick question: “The guy with the hoodie” – do you mean the person who brought up the Kepler issue?
That’s right Arnost, the Larouche fan. Larouche and Kepler, now there’s match as perfect as Einstein and Durkin.
There is a spectroscopic effect called saturation. ie that the first 20ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has more effect on temperature than the next 360 ppm. It is a logarithmically declining effect, with very little “effect” left.
Otherwise the Ordovician Glaciation 450 million years ago could never have happened, with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels about 10 times the current level.
Not according to the physics detail in http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument
and the Ordivician was a tad more complex than is first assumed.
Geology; June 2003; v. 31; no. 6; p. 485-488; DOI: 10.1130/0091-7613(2003)0312.0.CO;2
© 2003 Geological Society of America
Obliquity forcing with 8–12 times preindustrial levels of atmospheric pCO2 during the Late Ordovician glaciation
Achim D. Herrmann1, Mark E. Patzkowsky1 and David Pollard2
1 Department of Geosciences and National Aeronautics and Space Administration Astrobiology Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
2 Earth and Mineral Science Environment Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
Results from coupled ice-sheet and atmospheric general circulation models show that the waxing and waning of ice sheets during the Late Ordovician were very sensitive to changes in atmospheric pCO2 and orbital forcing at the obliquity time scale (30–40 k.y.). Without orbital forcing, ice sheets can grow with pCO2 level as high as 10 times preindustrial atmospheric level (PAL). However, with orbital forcing, ice sheets can grow only with pCO2 levels of 8 times PAL or lower. These results indicate that the threshold of pCO2 for the initiation of glaciation is on the lower end of previously published estimates of 8–20 times PAL. The ice-sheet model results further indicate that during exceptionally long periods of low summer insolation and low pCO2 levels (8–10 times PAL), large ice sheets could have formed that were able to sustain permanent glaciation under subsequently higher pCO2 values. This finding suggests that in order to end the Late Ordovician glaciation with a rise in pCO2, atmospheric pCO2 must have risen to at least 12 times PAL. Ice sheets therefore introduce nonlinearities and hysteresis effects to the Ordovician climate system. These nonlinearities might have also played a role in the initiation and termination of other glaciations in Earth history.