The great Global Warming Swindle

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Cris, Jan 29, 2008.

  1. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    The great Global Warming Swindle

    This is a 1 hour documentary that potentially destroys the notion that global warming is man made.

    I couldn't see if this has already been shown in this forum. My apologies if this is a repeat.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. sandy Banned Banned

    I have posted dozens of similar comments/links/proof and been threatened with banning. The global hot air fan club is alive and well around here. I wouldn't push it if I was you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Should be in pseudoscience.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    About the 40th time around for that piece of intellectually dishonest, politically motivated, and thoroughly debunked crapola.

    There is a note at the top here about "Global Warming threads".
  8. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member


    This is a somewhat well made BBC production so I hope it carries some weight. The first point it makes is that the notion that global warming is man made is a political movement and not a scientific one.

    And for once we may indeed agree on something.
  9. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    spider, iceaura,

    I'm not following this debate closely at all and I found the video while looking for something entirely different. But I found the analysis fairly substantial.

    So what's wrong their analysis?

    The mod can move or delete this if it has indeed been dealt with already - I don't come here often to know any better.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Here's your first clue:
    That shouldn't have been the first point. The science should have been the first point. But there's a reason they put the politics front and center: pretty soon you'll be watching someone tell you things like, say, that Al Gore's graph shows the temperature increasing first, and the CO2 later, thereby disproving Gore's claims - and instead of wondering whether a bright guy like Gore, not to mention all the hundreds of professional scientists and informed people Gore talked things over with and showed his movie to, could really have missed something so obvious,

    and rethinking the assertions of that "Swindle" movie in consequence

    you'll be taking the assertion of "disproof" as given, as evidence of more political bias and irresponsibility on Gore's part.

    In general: don't get your science from videos.

    And merge this thread with one of the other dozen, or move it to pseudoscience (good idea), or something.
  11. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    The statistics and the methods they use to demonstrate the sunspot connection to climate were bogus and frankly naive.
    As a show it was entertaining, but factually it was wrong.
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    It was thoroughly demolished by the experts when it aired in Australia last year. The doco was followed by a panel discussion which included a number of scientific experts, as well as climate change skeptics. The members of the IPCC were the most impressive.

    You should search the internet to see all the mistakes made in the doco. They are well documented.
  13. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    The documentary has far more integrity than Gore's film, in that it features direct commentary from climate scientists...speaking for themselves.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    What's that got to do with integrity ?
  15. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    The point I noted was man's contribution to CO2. While Co2 is a greenhouse gas it is a very small component of the atmosphere and while it is noted that man has increased the amount of Co2 over the past 100 years or so by some 35% that is still a small fraction of a very small fraction.

    I find it difficult to see how that small change to a minor greenhouse gas can warrant the apocalyptic claims being made for man made global warming.

    Here is the atmospheric breakdown as I understand it showing Co2 at 0.036%.

    Nitrogen N2 78.08%
    Oxygen O2 20.95%
    *Water H2O 0 to 4%
    Argon Ar 0.93%
    *Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
    Neon Ne 0.0018%
    Helium He 0.0005%
    *Methane CH4 0.00017%
    Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
    *Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
    *Ozone O3 0.000004%

    So what am I missing?
  16. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    You are missing the simple physics involved - that's all. Even a tiny increase in the very small amount of CO2 in the air has a MAJOR effect on the Earth's ability to retain solar energy.
  17. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member


    Do we know for sure the correlation since the Earth in the past has been significantly hotter than now and where man was not present. I assume these other hot times were not caused by increased Co2.

    Even recently in the 1940's when man was starting to create more C02, global temperatures droped for some 30 years. That's the opposite of what would be expected if man were the cause of global warming.
  18. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Invalid arguments. Do you actually know nothing about the ice cores AND the fact that there's a big delay in the CO2 heat-retaining effect???
  19. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    No I dont. I'm just a layman trying to visualize and make sense of what is being claimed. Real science is hard and I'm not a scientist like most of the population.

    What I'm looking for is something that is consistent and makes sense to my limited knowledge. I'm reluctant to believe what I am told especially when I see apparent experts say the opposite as in the video from this thread. Even if I take the time to study the science carefully how can I be sure I have reached the correct conclusions when experts from the movie claim the opposite.

    So from my limited perspective, which I suspect is similar to the bulk of the population, how can I seperate politics, opinions, science, and truth, from all the information flying around?
  20. Laika Space Bitch Registered Senior Member

    Cris. Not that it really matters, but this documentary was not produced by the BBC.

    Regarding the science: the documentary has been thoroughly rebutted, as several people here have said. Quite a lot of information can - of course - be found on Wikipedia. Another good source of information is The Royal Society's webpage.
  21. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member


    Yes you are correct - it was put out by Channel 4. The maker was Martin Durkin. Definitely a controversial character.

    Interesting that many people bought into this and even -

    "The film was awarded the prize for Best Documentary at the Io Isabella Film Festival held in Southern Italy"

    But it seems it has been widely edited and altered for distribution in many countries.

    As for the references - thanks - but there are so many more. As I follow many more links, some obviously dubious, I still do not find a concensus that mankind is the culprit.

    Is the truth out there? Perhaps - but I feel like I have entered a vast library and told there is your answer. That simply doesn't help.
  22. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Well, there IS a lot of data out there but you do have to search for it.

    The thing is, there are several subjects that the average citizen HAS to rely on the experts for simply because not everyone is trained in every scientific field nor has access to very expensive equpiment with which to conduct their own tests.

    You should also keep in mind that with a subject like this there are some VERY powerful interests out there (like oil and coal companies and various heavy industries) that have a tremendous amount of money (billions!!) at stake - and are doing all they can to descredit the issue of climate change.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    One way would be to pick a small, definite, critical point that you find important, and become expert in just that - so you can use it to evaluate sources, and get an idea of whose expert opinion is more reliable.

    You seem to think that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small, and therefore of doubtful significance. That's something you can read up on: atmospheric composition and its effects, the effects of the gasses in the air on earth and other planets.

    Then, with your new understanding of CO2's trends and effects in the atmosphere, you can evaluate the "Swindle" movie's presentation of that issue to your former self - and come to your own assssment of the ethics governing that movie.

Share This Page