jo_hamilton
on 9th Mar 07, 13:06:48 said:
Did you see 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on Ch4, Thurs 8th March? What did you think of the programme? you can see the background info on the programme, and vote via this link to the Channel 4 website. Post your comments below.
geoff
on 9th Mar 07, 13:40:36 replied:
I saw some of it but it was too Americanised and emotional for
me - really put me off watching it. Doesn't seem very appropriate
for a British audience.
fred
on 9th Mar 07, 13:57:35 replied:
A fine example of tabloid TV journalism, consisting largely of
tightly-edited soundbites and very little extended analysis.
Sure - many of the issues that it featured were, in
themselves, respectable pieces of science, at least as far as
identifying past drivers of climate are concerned. But the fact
that cosmic ray levels may have influenced terrestrial climate over
the past 545 million years doesn't mean that anthropogenic CO2
isn't doing so today.
And in all the discussion of the correlations between global
temperature and atmospheric carbon throughout the
glacial-interglacial periods, absolutely no mention was made of the
Milankovitch cycles. While variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt
do explain many past climatic variations (and the fact
that atmospheric carbon levels trailed rather than led temperature
changes), they do not explain currently-observed warming
trends.
Likewise, much was made of John Christy's work indicating that
satellite and radiosonde measurements of tropospheric temperatures
were incompatible with carbon-driven warming. However, there was
absolutely no mention of the fact that most of this discrepancy has
now been dismissed as an artefact caused by measurment
inaccuracies.
But the crowning irony of the programme was to suggest that
current concerns about global warming are driven by scientists'
venal desire to obtain more research funding by promulgating
environmental scare stories. It asks us to believe that national
governments are more willing to fund "pro-global warming" research
than Exxon-Mobil is to underwrite studies showing the opposite. A
brief glance at the past relationship between the tobacco industry
and research on smoking and health should lay that particular
conspiracy theory firmly to rest.
All in all, a wonderful piece of sophistry that simply cries out
to be subjected to a detailed and merciless refutation.
geoff
on 9th Mar 07, 13:58:50 replied:
Just realised that my previous comment was on the Al Gore
Inconvenient Truth program. Doh!
jo_hamilton
on 9th Mar 07, 23:02:37 replied:
For some very interesting background profiles, and
discussion, on people featured in the programme, see the
latest posting on http://www.climatedenial.org/ .
Answers to some of the FAQs that the programme raises can be
found on the Met Office website http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/2.html.
icurtis
on 10th Mar 07, 06:18:54 replied:
Just been pushed out of bed at 5.30am by 'climateX spiderman'
(you'll see him later). Seeing a recording of Swindle last
night it was intriguing to put it in context - the day after
- with the rest of the day.
Particularly Radio2, where Ken Bruce in his morning show managed
to get carbon footprint and pigmy hippo into the same sentence.
(Coincidentally, the last time I listened 2 weeks ago even
dear ol' Wogan was enjoying the phrase). Panorama new
boy Jeremy Vine followed this with his Radio2 lunchtime show, where
over 28,000 listeners voted 4X4s off the road, put up againist HGV,
caravans, tractors, bicycles, and horses.
And Mr Angry Steve Wright-in-the-afternoon was the
guy given the job of reading out the results, being forced to
admit he was a 4X4 owner... even suggesting he might have to sell
it. When he thought about it, he wasn't even sure
why he had one, as it was too big to fit in the garage, and he had
to climb in the back in order to get in. Come on Wrighty,
do it..and give some prizes for listeners doing the same.
For the rest of his show, Wright kept on reading out the new
EU
agreement on 20% renewables by 2020.
PS:
A good reply to Swindle re the science is on the Real
Climate site, including an admission by Carl Wunsch that he
had been duped by the TV producers. However, of equal interest is
how viewers reacted, because not many will find their way to the
Real Climate site
fred
on 10th Mar 07, 21:24:51 replied:
An excellent rebuttal of many of GGWS's points is contained in
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
by Sir John Houghton, FRS CBE. According to Wikipedia, he is
the co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
(IPCC) working group, the lead editor of first three IPCC reports,
and was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of
Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the
Hadley Centre.
Don't know if the reference to his rebuttal article has been
inserted as a hyperlink - if not, can someone with more technical
savvy than me hyperlink it please.
fred
on 10th Mar 07, 21:29:34 replied:
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
Maybe this one worked. Hope so.
gobion
on 12th Mar 07, 14:49:18 replied:
The problem with programmes like this one is that 10-minutes
after it has been shown I get my stepfather on the phone asking
questions about it. Unfortunately he tends to believe the last
thing told to him and as ever in my opinion they didn't do enough
to show the agenda being pushed there...
I did notice the letter in the Sunday Observer refuting the
claims in the show signed by various luminaries including Myles
Allen from ClimatePredicton.net. I'm pleased to see them tackling
it.
Cheers,
Gobion
djs
on 13th Mar 07, 19:01:49 replied:
Wow what a day in the media- I think the GGWS may have even
helped -no publicity is bad publicity etc. Radio 4 led on the big
announcement and all over the place the airwaves were full of
clmate change debate ,Jeremy Vine on 2 did his bit with Mark Lynas
and Milliband, great day for all our climatechange
superheroes!!!
dave
on 14th Mar 07, 15:36:24 replied:
Frankly... I didn't like how they stopped showing the records at
about 1980. I also think it's fairly obvious that the director knew
what he wanted footage of. It's easy to tell that a lot of "if"s
and "buts" and "maybe"s have been simply cut out. Oh, and I'm
fairly certain (and will look for a better source in a moment) that
humans emit more C02 than volcanoes.
ojwoodford
on 15th Mar 07, 11:28:04 replied:
As someone who feels they understand the basic drivers of
climate, it did make me stop and think that I am taking a lot for
granted. Having said that, the program was full of annoying
contradictions. I'll go and read the rebuttals that people have
posted links to, to make sure I have the full picture.
dave
on 15th Mar 07, 17:22:02 replied:
Here's an interesting article that came up on Digg, the gist of
which indicates that the graphs shown in the program were far from
unbiased against global warming. Interestingly, I've had a friend
repeatedly claim that all who oppose the program are conspirators
in some kind of "plot". I can understand the need to be cautious,
but some of this conspiracy theory is bordering upon hysteria, not
to mention paranoia.
ian
on 19th Mar 07, 14:13:39 replied:
Likewise there has been an interesting discussion about the
programme here. A lot of strong opinions from both sides
of the fence on this and some good articles linked in the
comments.
I think my main concern with the climate change issue being so
divisive is that this isn't an ideological issue - it's a purely
scientific issue, not a political one, not a cultural one... and
yet we have people acting as if this is some conflict of science
versus society. This issue shouldn't be another creationism vs
evolution debate - there are no scriptures that say that the earth
was created in 6 days and on the 7th God gave man an SUV and saw
that it was good.
In principle, I can respect a climate sceptic provided that the
result of their scepticism is to go out and do peer-reviewed
studies to try and produce more accurate data. That's what the
scientific method is all about... but these people, influenced by
their socio-political bias, who promote a kind of "climate denial",
claiming it is some culture conspiracy, are causing a great deal of
harm to the public's perception of what, to me, is a very simple
issue:
There is a correlation between carbon emissions
produced by human activities and rising global temperatures. While
the precice levels of influence and the specific ways that these
changes will manifest are varied, complex and in some cases
uncertain, the fact of the matter is that we would be incredibly
foolish as a society to risk ruining the environment we have with
practices that can be avoided by implementing alternative measures.
It's really straight-forward and the fewer of these programs that
complicate that issue we have the better, imho.
