The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Cride5]

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]

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]

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

 

[Chapuunka]

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]

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?

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

I can tell

 

[Daniel Wu]

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

Me lieks white text.

 

[Stefan]

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

 

[Kyle Barry]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

And where did you learn that?

 

[Chillum]

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

 

[Zubon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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...

epic +1 for Lux Aeterna.

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?

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

And where did you learn that?

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).