The Great Global Warming Swindle

This was a programme on channel 4 in the UK. I'm glad you posted this Ironwood and I spotted it; because it gives an opposition to Al Gore's movie. Both of these are propoganda and hyped up. Watch an inconvenient truth, then watch this. Then you have a broad scope of either side, cut about seventy percent out of each film, then narrow down for fact, and you get something like the truth.

The key issue claimed in Gore's and proclaimed to be refuted in this one is co2 and heat. Gore claims the co2 precedes and therefore causes the heat, this says the co2 actually follows the heat up, which is consequently from other sources, such as the sun and a complex cycle involving radiation, solar wind, and cloud formation. Which is not even discussed by Gore. Making it difficult to see how he and his team respond and what credence and refutation they can offer.

All I know for sure is that the issue has comletely viral on a political level, and politics and science don't mix. This has been proven time and time again, science is bought and paid for.

From the conspiracist standpoint, I hear Gore's standpoint is all about a world tax, so keep an eye on that, I've seen plenty supporting that already, but never the less, since this has been made so political, the truth will be hard to find, even if it is staring us in the face.

Well, temperature does lag CO2 in the past, but only occasionally. And its not really very easy to understand either; when volcanoes erupt they do emit CO2, and admittedly other gases too, they block the sun and the temperature drops. so I'm suspicious of all this. And here's why

We have to remember that viewing the past requires inference. That is we assume that temperature lags CO2 based on a part the record. therefore infer that its temperature driving CO2. Likewise we can assume that because temperatures have generally risen since the industrial revolution and CO2 has also risen, then CO2 causes a rise in temperature.

You'll notice a cunning thing in the data used. Most of the anti-global climate modelling stuff is actually based on carbon - not carbon dioxide - I guess it would be similar to using hydrogen as an index for water. Carbon is not a gas! On the other hand, if you've read the book 'state of fear' you begin to get an appreciation of the bias in science. Certainly its a good method to add tax.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The question is by how much of an increase would it actually affect the radiative balance of the earth?

I can think of an answer to end this debate. Have an experiment where you vary CO2 in a scaled version of the earth and the sun. Vary the CO2 concentration in the air and change the sun's activity. Do these independently and you will have your answer.

nb: just thinking a bit more around the topic; I wonder if politically Europe is advocating that climate change is due to CO2 and America is advocating that CO2 varies nothing solely because of a predicted energy crisis? Do America wish to rule through natural resource like oil and are Europe considering the possibilities of other resources, partly because this is know, partly because they can add 'eco tax', and partly because it would increase their economic efficiency.

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told

Excerpt: At a news conference held in Ottawa, some of North America's foremost climate experts provided evidence demonstrating that the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed; a problem that continues to be ignored by the Canadian government. Scientists called on the Canadian government to delay implementation of the Kyoto Protocol until a thorough, public review of the current state of climate science has been conducted by climate experts. Such an analysis has never been organized in Canada despite repeated requests from independent, non-governmental climate scientists.

Surely if climate change was due to levels of CO2, then the temperature would have been rising steadily for ages, as humans produce large amounts of it, so if our populations are growing and we are destroying so much plant life through deforestation etc, then the rise in CO2 that must have caused should have shown a steady rise in temperature since proper human life was first seen.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Green House Conspiracy

(Australia 1990)

3 things that are funny about your clip Decius, one that it mentions how volcanoes cause cooling, though they throw up more Co2 than about any other natural or human phenomenon known, I think it is somewhere in competition with the vegetation, oceans, and cows.

Second, the graph ends around 2000, claiming to include the Sun's output, yet sun output graphs as of late show a spiked increase that indeed matches this graph, but it shows the opposite in terms of naturally caused heat from solar activity.

Third, this clip doesn't mention at all what any of the specific causes might be in this very complicated scenario that is by no means fully understood, no, it simply over simplifies the infinite variables into, human and natural. Making it next to useless.

Another big thing I see disputed or argued against, particulary relevant to your post Decius, is the state of computer models.

This is a ten part debate.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Supplementary Material)

Excerpt: Additional, previously unseen, footage from the eye opening 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' documentary.

It is broken down into 12 ... all » sections:

1. Climate History. 2. Sea Levels. 3. CO2. 4. Industrial Society. 5. IPCC. 6. Political Science. 7. Al Gore & Malaria. 8. Solar. 9. What Is To Be Done. 10. Our Climate Future. 11. Solar Variations And Clouds. 12. Some Real Science: Dr Tim Patterson's, Professor of Geology Carleton University, presentation on his groups seven year research project on Marine Productivity in the North East Pacific. Funded by the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council Canada, it looks into Northern Pacific fisheries and their links to climate change. Some interesting data emerges regarding a connection to climate, sun activity and the amounts of fish in the water.