The Great Global Warming Swindle

Joelle - thanks for the clarification.

Before you think further about this documentary, know this about the director. Martin Durkin was previously in the Revolutionary Communist Party and then its offshoot Living Marxism. They believe in a crazier religion than Scientology, in which we all come from a planet named Zarg and you are either a nob or yob. I had to go look this stuff up, it just got more and more interesting. Heh, it's really strange what cult like groups believe.

He has also made a number of debunked documentaries, purposely misled his interviewees, then edited/distorted their views. In fact, he has already been interviewed as having fudged his graphs in Swindle. One of the main scientists on this very special has stated he was grossly misrepresentated among other things. Whether you believe in global warming or not, this source cannot be trusted. Most of what this special contained is being debated and debunked at www.realclimate.org

Instead of attacking the character of the video's director, how about refuting some of the facts presented?  The hockey stick is down the drain, the computer models are known to be wildly inaccurate and, over the past 1500 years, there were significant warming and cooling cycles that had nothing to do with modern man's activities.

"The hockey stick is down the drain,..."

Wrong.  Although the data has been better refined the basic concept behind the hockey stick is still supported by the vast majority of climate scientists.

"...the computer models are known to be
wildly inaccurate ..."

Which ones?  Recent studies of glacier cores samples have shown the models to be MORE accurate than expected. 

 "...over the past 1500 years, there were significant
warming and cooling cycles that had nothing to do with modern man's
activities...."

Yes, but none have happened as quickly, have risen as much, or have been as closed correlated to ghg emissions from human activities. 

A. With regard to the hockey stick, developed by a Ph.D. student at the University of Massachusetts named Michael Mann, it does not reflect the warming and cooling periods known to have occurred within the past 1500 years, and two Canadian statisticians, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, have examined Mann's algorithms and found that any random data plugged into the equations produced the same hockey stick.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

B.   With regard to computer climate models, see

 http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/numerical_models_integrated_ci.html

(Excerpt)

“As with all fluid mechanics models, the flow field of a climate model (i.e. the entire atmosphere) is divided into three-dimensional grids of small volume elements designated by latitude, longitude and altitude. Each volume element of the grid is then characterized with parameters such as pressure, temperature, wind velocity, etc., and equations that relate these factors. Air and energy that leave one volume element enters the adjacent one. When summed across all volume elements, the model keeps track of the flows of air and energy in the entire atmosphere. Many factors must be accounted (see below). Boundary conditions must be set: in this case, the boundary of the atmosphere is land or ocean surface on the bottom, and some boundary in space on the top; these yield rules (e.g. air cannot flow into the surface of the earth). Then, Initial Conditions must be set: this means that the grid's equations are "populated" with the known values of the parameters characterizing the atmosphere such as pressure, temperature, and humidity profiles measured today.

Finally, the computer calculation can commence: A unit of time (a second, minute, day) is assumed to pass and the computer calculates the next "state" of the model based on the initial conditions, the boundary conditions and the other equations of the model. This process is repeated again and again, with the new state being the initial condition for calculating the subsequent state, until e.g. 100 years has passed.

Errors can accumulate rapidly. Let's list some of the factors that must be included (by no means an exhaustive list):
Solar flux
Gravity, Pressure
Temperature
Density
Humidity
Earth's rotation
Surface temperature
Currents in the Ocean (e.g., Gulf Stream)
Greenhouse gases
CO2 dissolved in the oceans
Polar ice caps
Infrared radiation
Cosmic rays (ionizing radiation)
Earth's magnetic field
Evaporation
Precipitation
Cloud formation
Reflection from clouds
Reflection from snow
Volcanoes
Soot formation
Trace compounds
And many, many others

Even if mathematics could be developed to accurately model each of these factors, the combined model would be infinitely complex requiring some simplifications. Simplifications in turn amount to judgment calls by the modeler. Can we ignore the effects of trace compounds? Well, we were told that trace amounts of chlorofluoro compounds had profound effects on the ozone layer, necessitating the banning of their use in refrigerators and as aerosol spray propellants. Can we ignore cosmic rays? Well, they cause ions (electrically charged molecules) which affect the ozone layer and also catalyze formation of rain-drops and soot particles.” 

C. With regard to the severity of recent warming and cooling cycles, when grapes are grown in Greenland and in northern England, as they were about 1000 years ago, I might start getting concerned.  I am not going to become concerned about a possible 1 degree increase over the past 100 years that occurred mostly before 1940 – even accepting the statements of the IPCC.

response to"A" above

- as you point out there has been only ONE article (McIntyre and McKitrick) that questioned the "hockey stick" graph - compared with hunderds of articles in peer-reviewed science journals that support the basis of the "hockey stick" graph

- this article was written by two individuals who are NOT climate scientists  

- after the article was written there were many artilces by actual climate scientists that pointed on the flaws in McIntyre and Mckitirck's work (for a summary see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/on-yet-another-false-claim-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/ )

response to "B" above:

This is an article written by a business manager NOT a climate scientist, in which he makes a completely irrelevent analogy between predicting specific events and predicting climate trends. 

 response to "C" above:

I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but you might want to try new sources.  The extent of the British grape growing industry is the same is it was during all historic periods (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/).  There is no evidence grapes ever grew in Greenland - you probably are confusing Greenland with "Vineland" which most historians think refers to Newfoundland or New England (http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/vineland-was-full-of-grapes.html and http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green.html).

 

I think we've gone back and forth on this enough.  We'll leave it to a free people to decide whether or not they wish to destroy their economy and way of life on the basis of the evidence for and against substantial, man-made global warming and the predicted results of the measures being presented..

"..wish to destroy their economy and way of life..."

Another wild claim that is not supported by any evidence.

The nations, cities, businesses and individuals who have done the most to reduced ghg emissions, have not suffered econimically and in many cases have been better off economically.

Myself and most other people I know who have made significanct changes to reduce ghg emissions actually have a felt an improvement in their "way of life."

The Stern Report offered considerable evidence that not acting on climate chagne would have a much more negative affect on the economcy than acting to stop climate change. 

 

Back to the orginal subject of the film.

Here is a quote from one of the scientists that appeared in the film:

" What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which

there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why

many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely

accepted by the scientific community. ...

This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

...

My appearance in the "Global WarmingSwindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation

has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly

with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to

its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be

taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest."

I sincerely hope that the scientist being referred to above has not suffered too much for telling the truth about man-made global warming.  There have been many cases reported of scientists and academics who were cut off from funding, ostracized, denied tenure and denied publication access for questioning the politically correct position.  Two state climatologists have been dismissed, the Weather Channel president has indicated that noone who works there can question man-made global warming, and one left-wing columnist has suggested that questioners should be considered the same as holocaust deniers.  The facts are coming out, and the position is cracking; one can tell because of all the efforts to declare the debate to be over and the question settled.

I hope the above scientist was able to remove the noose from around his neck.

"...that the scientist being referred..."

You completely missed what is going on here.  The
“documentary” completely misrepresented the scientist's position.
The scientist supports the anthropogenic climate change theory. But
the documentary attempted to portray him as a denier. Apparently the
film makers couldn't find enough scientists to support their position
so they had to resort to flat out lies and distortions.

“...the facts are coming out...”

Which facts???

The reality is that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change
is accumulating on an almost daily basis.

You should try reading some real science journals instead of
ideological conspiracy theories.

There appears to be a concerted effort on the part of Google and YouTube to prevent people from seeing this video.  They keep changing the URL.  I have just updated the entry with the current, correct URL.