Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Global warming swindle?

March 12th, 2007 . by Matt

Is global warming a man made threat to humanity, or is not man made and might actually be good for humanity? This documentary argues that global warming is not man made, but is just a natural part of the earth heating up and cooling down over time. It further argues that global warming would be a good thing.

Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there’s no need to feel bad.

According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn’t your fault and there’s nothing you can do about it.

We’ve almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they’ve got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.

Watch this along with Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, and decide for yourself.


26 Responses to “Global warming swindle?”

  1. comment number 1 by: MikeRossTky

    A must see video program!!

  2. comment number 2 by: empraptor

    I’m watchint it right now.

    What I don’t trust about anti-global warming organizations is that if you look into them they turn out to be funded by the energy industry.

    These “scientists” wave around their PhD’s saying this and that but won’t submit their papers to peer review or can’t pass the scrutiny of their peers.

    There is a reason why so few scientists contest global warming. Because there is global warming.

    I suspect that the quacks’ method is to pore over data in past research papers, picking and choosing tidbits that appear to discredit global warming.

    Global warming is happening. And more evidence continues to gather that burning fossil fuels is causing it. There is no reason we can’t live with current standard of living or better. There needs to be more investment into alternative energies, especially nuclear.

    Whether global warming is good or bad is another matter. Who knows what global increase in temperature will bring… other than rise in sealevel. But I’d rather not find out. I think risks involved in changing climates overrides whatever unknown benefits it may bring.

    Rather than filing this entry under “Scams” in reference to the global warming crowd, it’d be more fitting to apply it in reference to the video you posted.

    One of the scientists that appear in the video:

    Patrick Michaels

    He has received substantial financial support (in research funding and consulting fees) from the fossil-fuel energy industry.

    You’ll find most scientists who think there is no global warming have industry funding. Sure, they could genuinely think what they say is true and industry funds them because of that. But the funding makes it easier for them to ignore the mountain of data for global warming and focus on the mole hill that is anti-global warming.

  3. comment number 3 by: T_K

    One of the scientists interviewed in the program was not impressed…
    “Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been “completely misrepresented” by the programme, and “totally misled” on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.”
    http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

  4. comment number 4 by: Avery

    Best way to spread propaganda: claim the other side is spreading propaganda.

  5. comment number 5 by: stumpjumper

    To me it does not matter if the “global warming” is true or not, but I believe the “movement” is making our lives better for sure. All those emissions form automobiles were making people sick (asthma, latex allergies and so on) in the first place. Now people are buying cleaner cars that save some money and give them cleaner air. Did you guys know, next generation of Toyota Prius is going to get more than 100 mpg! That is the future.

  6. comment number 6 by: Kenji

    While I enjoy reading this blog for Japan, Korea, etc., issues, obviously, its expertise is not in climate science. Please refrain from entering this debate if you have limited knowledge of the relevant science. I am not endorsing Gore’s documentary as entirely factually correct, but I know that Martin Durkin is full of sh*t. If you are interested in real climate science, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414#comment-27434

  7. comment number 7 by: Matt

    While I enjoy reading this blog for Japan, Korea, etc., issues, obviously, its expertise is not in climate science. Please refrain from entering this debate if you have limited knowledge of the relevant science. I am not endorsing Gore’s documentary as entirely factually correct, but I know that Martin Durkin is full of sh*t. If you are interested in real climate science, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414#comment-27434

    Kenji, I am not endorsing any position. The only one I have thing I have recommended is “decide for yourself”.

  8. comment number 8 by: MikeRossTky

    Global warming is happening. And more evidence continues to gather that burning fossil fuels is causing it. There is no reason we can’t live with current standard of living or better.

    No one disputes that the Earth is warming. Little ice age ended in 1850. For an ice age to end, the Earth needs to become warmer!

    What evidence do we have that points to CO2 being the cause of this warming? Did it end the little ice age? Can we point to just the past 50 years? There is some circumstantial evidence, but there is little in the area that can explain what is taking place other than models enhanced to fit the end result.

    The bigger question is “What should we do about it?” No one argues the need to live more environmentally clean way. But at what cost?

    The Thames River was a poluted river that one held their nose to come close to in the 1920’s. Today it is a clean river where one can fish and eat it. Is warming of the Earth a problem equivalent to the Thames? If the answer is yes, then we should make the sacrafice. If the problem is man made, thn we should attempt to address it with reasonable actions. But if it is “natural” and the warming is not human in cause, then we need to be one with nature.
    Resistance will be futile.

  9. comment number 9 by: smackout

    How can we possibly prove that Global warming is happening? Yes there are signs now but scientific measures that determine this are by Earth standards extremly new, and thus without data gathered over a greater period of time this can niether be credited or discounted. Using this theory to put into place massive polciy chages can actually have the effect of leading us into a world wide recession.
    Here are some facts from an article in the Washington Post:
    The skeptics point to the global temperature graph for the past century. after rising steadily in the early 20th century, in 1940 the temperature suddenly levels off. No — it goes down! For the next 35 years! If the planet is getting steadily warmer due to Industrial Age greenhouse gases, why did it get cooler when industries began belching out carbon dioxide at full tilt at the start of World War II?

    Now look at the ice in Antarctica: Getting thicker in places!

    Sea level rise? It’s actually dropping around certain islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans

  10. comment number 10 by: eli

    My ability to panic over global warming was depleted when the hockey stick graph was proven nonsense. It turned out the statistical model they used *always* turned out a hockey stick, no matter what data was entered. Keep in mind this was *the* supposed proof for global warming for years — the result of rotten methodology. Climatology has an abysmal record and shouldn’t entirely be trusted to make the kinds of trillion dollar decisions necessary to ‘reverse’ global warming (if such a thing is even possible or desirable).

  11. comment number 11 by: empraptor

    MikeRossTky,

    It used to be that they denied flatly that global warming was happening at all. Now they can’t do that without being laughed out of the house so they have fallen back to saying it’s natural.

    The carbon in the billions of tons of petroleum we burn every year
    that previously had been buried is now within the system relevant to earth’s climate (adding to the problem, every year). Rather than looking at the fact that carbon flows in and out of ecosystems, it would be more productive to look at the excess carbon accumulating. Plants and animals don’t magically absorb carbon. They use it to grow, and it takes energy to absorb carbon dioxide. Unless there are big patches of desert that we’re planting on, the amount of carbon absorbed by current set of trees won’t change much. There are signs that the ocean is saturated with carbon dioxide as it is so that eliminates another buffer. With current growth in carbon production, the accumulation of carbon in the system will reach a point of no return.

    It could be argued that farming is absorbing carbon. The carbon gets fed to children who grow and absorb carbon (and since they’re getting fatter in the US at least, they are storing away carbon better and better). Ignoring the fact that this would be terribly inefficient… increase in population will increase energy use. That kind of feedback will eventually collapse as we run out of resources to support the large population increase. Then people die off and carbon is back in volatile form again.

    What can we do? I know what the US could do. It could stop subsidizing oil companies, put heavy taxes on fossil fuels and use the revenue to build renewable and nuclear power plants. Alternative energy become competitive to fossil fuel energy. Demand for fuel-efficient and electric cars will go up to a point where car companies will actually listen. The benefit of electric cars come not only in the greater miles/J but also that once there’s infrastructure to accomodate them changes in energy sources can be made at the power-plant level rather than at consumer level.

    Or cause some volcanoes to erupt. Bomb volcanoes at strategic positions? I don’t know what the optimal solution is. But we should do something rather than plug our ears and pretend there isn’t a problem. Even if some attempts make things worse, we should try different solutions. Given enough effort and time we can get it right.

    —-

    One of the arguments in the video sticks out as pure propaganda. That the global warming movement is bad for developing countries is nonsense. No politician or liberal hippie is going to forbid fossil fuel use to the developing countries that cannot afford to invest in new energy technologies. If anything, cost of fossil fuel and FF-based products should be lower than what it would have been without the movement since there would be less demand.

    The video also goes on about how water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas and therefore carbon dioxide is non-issue. I hope the makers of the video would give more credits to people studying global warming. They would have considered this. Why does the documentary not point out the obvious implication of water vapor being a greenhouse gas? Global increase in temperature will increase water vapor in the atmosphere and create yet more warming. This could be tempered by increase cloud formation. But just the fact that they refrain from exploring the makes me think they have an aversion to suggesting warming is plausible.

    I also doubt their graph of “Mideival Warm Period”, “Little Ice Age” and “Now”. What study of 12th century climate informed them that the global temperature average was higher than it is now? Methinks the producers of the show are being very selective. And what is the point of showing how Europe flourished during the warm period? Will the warming now bring Alaskans prosperity? What of everyone else?

    Why is it so hard to believe we’re causing the warming? We caused the ozone depletion. I’m sure there were denials then from users of CFC but kicking and screaming they were made to stop. And we’re better off for it.

  12. comment number 12 by: Kenji

    Kenji, I am not endorsing any position. The only one I have thing I have recommended is “decide for yourself”.

    That’s a fair point, but when one side of the debate is so preposterous because it’s not grounded in real science, I believe it is irresponsible to frame the debate as if there are two competing views among “scientists.” The comments to this blog show why.

  13. comment number 13 by: Matt

    That’s a fair point, but when one side of the debate is so preposterous because it’s not grounded in real science, I believe it is irresponsible to frame the debate as if there are two competing views among “scientists.” The comments to this blog show why.

    Both are works in the audio visual medium, which is why I included both in my post.

    I think it would be better for you to cite examples of why one side is preposterous, otherwise it comes down to people having to just take your word for it. I doubt you expect that.

  14. comment number 14 by: MikeRossTky

    empraptor,

    Thanks for responding. I have nothing against sound use of resource. Just don’t like the idea that we need to suddenly jump to the hysteria of “global warming” that is being churned out by the left. I doubt that we are at a “tipping point” and doubt that any solution that is being proposed by the political climate will actually “solve” any problems.

    For specifics, I don’t think there is room here to go into every detail. I have collected much information at my blog. If you can read Japanese or follow the URL to the English sites, you should be able to get much info.

    Let me cover some specifics:

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

    The above URL is the first in series of 8 articles about “Deniers”. I think it provides good background. Similar to what was covered in the video.

    Regarding graph of “Medieval Warm Period”, “Little Ice Age” and “Now”there is actually some interesting sites on the Internet. For example, this site: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp has information about the medieval warm period. Quite a bit of study was conducted around the world. It actually surprised me. (Thus bring up the question of what was in the original hockey stick graph!!)

    Another interesting search you can do is warming that is taking place on all of the other planets. The warming on Mars have been reported in articles such as: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

    But do a google search on “Global Warming Jupiter” or any other planet and you will see that they are all warming. We can’t blame the warming on other planets on humans. (This URL has collected many of the studies on other planets: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html but a search on google or yahoo will give you additional sites!)

    To me, it is a coincidence that graph of the level of rise in temperature and the rise in the CO2 took place at the same time in the recent years. It fails to explain what started in 1850 and what is taking place on other planets. The political aspect of this movement can not be ignored.

    More I study this, the less I see “human” as part of the equation. That is why I guess I’m a “denier””.

  15. comment number 15 by: empraptor

    So I finished the rest of the video. That was actually not bad, once you get to the ocean releasing CO2 slowly in response to temperature changes and climates being determined by solar activity.

    I don’t see why CO2 has to be the major contributor of current warming if data from solar activity fits the global temperature trends better.

  16. comment number 16 by: empraptor

    MikeRossTky,

    I can’t read Japanese. Thanks for the links.

    But I’m having a hard time understanding why Mars and Jupitor warming helps the solar-activity-disrupts-cosmic-rays-and-thereby-disrupts-cloud-formation hypothesis. Do clouds form on Mars at all? Do clouds in Jupitor form in similar ways that clouds do here?

  17. comment number 17 by: MikeRossTky

    empraptor,

    What is common with Mars, Jupitor and the Earth? The Sun. If all of the major planets and some of the large moons are warming, why wouldn’t the Earth warm up as well?

    Scientifically, the science community has spent all its resources to back up the claim of CO2. Not enough resources have been used to look at other causes. You need to go dig around quite a bit to find non-CO2 studies and news releases. This makes a big difference in policy decisions that are being made. Being a conservative, I don’t want any government spending any of my hard earn money on things that are not productive. Simple test I would apply is, would I ask my next door neighbor for money out of his pocket to solve a problem?

    Warming is taking place, but I believe it is more natural than man made. I believe that money spent on global warming could be spent drilling wells for water and spraying DDT to get rid of malaria. It is just not at the top of the “to do” list. I’m also not convinced that the world will be “bad” if it is warmer. Nature can take care of itself. We give it too little credit. The earth has been warmer in the past than today.

    At the same time, I’m not against environmentally sound policies being put in place. It just need to make economic sense! (Which majority does, unless some politics gets in the way…)

  18. comment number 18 by: T_K

    Mike, the Mars study is not too sound in terms of credibility. If Abussamatov insists on the minute effect of CO2, he’s ignoring everything we know about the greenhouse effect.

  19. comment number 19 by: MikeRossTky

    T_K,

    Abussamatov’s study is based on NASA’s observed data. Data=facts. The data itself is not in question. The conclusion of his study maybe, thus causing his study to lack credibility. His ignoring of greenhouse effects does not change the fact that Mars’ south pole has diminished for three years in a role. Similar is observed in Jupiter. Should we dismiss this fact as well because we don’t like the study’s conclustions.

  20. comment number 20 by: empraptor

    MikeRossTky,

    It is not enough to say that the Sun is the only common factor affecting the three planets. For all we know, there are other common factors or the major cause of warming on the other planets could have a different cause.

    And since they propose in the video a mechanism by which sunspots correlate to earth temperature, I’d expect any analogy involving Mars or Jupiter to show similar mechanisms. Cloud formation on Mars or Jupiter that correspond to sunspots might work.

    Otherwise, the observation is worthless. It’d be better to just stick to the data from Earth.

  21. comment number 21 by: empraptor

    It seems the problem with greenhouse gases causing global warming that the video keeps harping on has been resolved.

    Attribution of recent climate change

    Two papers in Science in August 2005 [10] [11] resolve the problem, evident at the time of the TAR, of tropospheric temperature trends. The UAH version of the record contained errors, and there is evidence of spurious cooling trends in the radiosonde record, particularly in the tropics. See satellite temperature measurements for details; and the 2006 US CCSP report [12].

    Temperature Trends in Lower Atmosphere

    Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
    near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
    challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced
    global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
    global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
    data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
    discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
    radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
    have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

  22. comment number 22 by: eli

    Regardless of your belief on Global Warming, the recent IPCC report says we will have a warming of 2 degrees centigrade over the next hundred years. Whether such a small amount is worth expending billions of dollars correcting is a question categorically un-answerable by science. In fact science cannot answer *any* policy questions, cannot endorse the precautionary principle, and can’t even point us in the “right” direction, because those are un-testable philosophical hypotheses. Anyone who says otherwise has a deep misunderstanding of what the scientific method is and does.

  23. comment number 23 by: T_K

    Mike,
    The fact may be that Mars’ ice sheet is diminishing. Another fact is that the axis has tilted to expose the southern hemisphere to more radiation. It’s the sun that’s melting the ice, sure, but not in any way that can be connected to Earth. Martian wobbles do not concern us. I hope. 😉

  24. comment number 24 by: beechtreem

    First of all, no one credible is saying Global warming is a hoax. What they are saying is that man-made global warming is a hoax. They argue that CO2 has little effect on global temperatures and that anyways, humans produce only 6% of total CO2 emissions. (volcanos produce much more.) They argue that warming is the result of solar phases that have historically warmed and cooled the earth.

    The director of the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle which is causing all the controversy, is not to be trusted. He is Martin Durkin.

    He has also written and directed documentary in favor of silicon breast implants, and a pro-genetically-modified food documentary.

    Here is what has been said of them:

    Modified Truth
    Durkin’s documentary on genetic modification which was broadcast on Channel 4 on March 20th 2000, also met with complaints.[5] A joint letter signed by a number of scientists from the Third World was issued in protest of Durkin’s claims in this documentary. [6] Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a scientist featured on the program, later said of her participation in the program: “I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position.”
    Equinox
    The 1998 documentary on breast implants was shown on Channel 4 only after it had been rejected for broadcast by the BBC whose in-house researcher concluded that Durkin had ignored a large body of evidence contradicting his claims in the program.[1] Another researcher hired by Durkin to work on this same documentary allegedly quit her job, claiming that her research had been ignored and that “the published research had been construed to give an impression that’s not the case.” She is also reported to have said: “I don’t know how that programme got passed. The only consolation for me was that I’m really glad I didn’t put my name to it.” [1]

    Martin Durkin

  25. comment number 25 by: MikeRossTky

    NASA has just announced a new study has concluded that the Sun has a long term impact on the climate.

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319

    So when we look at Mars, Jupiter and other planets in the solar system and see that all are seeing increase in temperature, we know where to potentially (and partially) blame.

    The Sun.

    MikeRossTky


  26. […] The myth is not that the Earth is warming, but that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing the Earth to warm. In fact, according to the documentary, “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” (h/t Matt of Occidentalism), a closer look at data from ice records do in fact show a correlation between temperate and CO2; with CO2 following temperature by a couple hundred years. […]