• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 200.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > The Great Global Warming Swindle

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12345
dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Was the title of a documentary shown on Channel 4 in the UK last night. It made me very very angry. Here's a brief outline of some of the reasons why...

Statement of technically accurate but irrelevant facts

Examples...

Carbon Dioxide is natural.

The sun affects climate

Climate was changing before humans evolved

Water vapour has a radiative forcing effect greater than carbon dioxide

These statements are all true. However, they none of them in any way disproves, or even contests the IPCC position on Anthropogenic Climate Change.

The IPCC does not think carbon dioxide is unnatural. What the hell is unnatural exactly? The only thing I can think of are those things designated as supernatural. Of which none are as decisively proven to exist as co2.

The sun affects climate. Really? Perhaps the authors of the documentary had failed to read this section of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (2001)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm

Its titled solar forcing of climate. Anyone fancy a guess as to what its about?

Climate was changing before humans evolved. Yes. I think Anyone who took science A-levels, or has read anything about chaos theory will be aware of this. The IPCC certainly are. Or as the IPCC put it in 2001

 Written by: IPCC

complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system



http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/504.htm

Water Vapour has a greater radiative forcing effect than co2. Yes. This an integral part of the IPCC's position. How exactly is this supposed to dispute things?

 Written by: IPCC

Water vapour feedback continues to be the most consistently important feedback accounting for the large warming predicted by general circulation models in response to a doubling of CO2. Water vapour feedback acting alone approximately doubles the warming from what it would be for fixed water vapour (Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000). Furthermore, water vapour feedback acts to amplify other feedbacks in models, such as cloud feedback and ice albedo feedback. If cloud feedback is strongly positive, the water vapour feedback can lead to 3.5 times as much warming as would be the case if water vapour concentration were held fixed (Hall and Manabe, 1999).



http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm

What we can determine then, is that the documentary either deliberately misrepresents the IPCC position or hasn't read it.

As far as techniques go, its a methodologically interesting one. They facts they call upon are true (obviously so) however the consequences they draw from these facts are untrue. What this suggests, is that to present an accurate picture, one must not simply lay down the facts - suggesting that there are a limited and definitive series of facts, but distinguish from the multitude of true facts, which ones are relevant to the issue at hand. In the case of the documentary, the facts are entirely irrelevant to the argument.

use of discredited data

One of the central scientific claims of the documentary was that evidence from globally respected scientists has proved that the troposphere - which should according to ACC be warming - is in fact cooling, casting a major doubt over the adequacy of the IPCC's claims. This claim is based on a paper by globally respected atmospheric scientists John Christy and Roy Spencer published in 1992.

What the documentary failed to include however, was the minor series of details, that in 2005, three seperate studies,

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...631abf93113a577

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1556

all suggest that the 1992 data was massively flawed - as the troposphere is warming in line with ACC models.

Leading Christy to admit that is figures were incorrect in August 2005

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...-climbdown.html

In this case the documentary appears to have deliberately deceptive - why use a 15 year old paper which has subsequently been dismissed by its own author as a central argument? Possibly because there wasn't much of an srgument to make.

statement of outright lies

Such as your body is made of co2

The environmental movement is the biggest threat to African development

The IPCC is driven towards sensationalist conclusions in order to make headlines and retain funding

The first statement is just stupid.

The second is misleading. If president Bush's preconditions for a US cut in fossil fuel use (a global cut - ie everyone else has the same cut, so they don't get an 'unfair' economic advantage over the US) was the position of the environmental movement this would be fair. However Bush is rarely regarded as an environmentalist. Instead, the proposal of most 1st world environmentalists, such as George Monbiot, is a global per capita carbon cap - with an emission trading scheme so that heavily polluting industrial nations can buy credits from less developed countries. The implementation of this scheme would see a massive redistribution of wealth as we in the 1st world started paying hundreds of billions of pounds to many of the world's poorest countries.

The third statement is directly contradicted by the predictions of the IPCC and the empirical observations which have been made since. In 2001 the IPCC predicted the global temperature change and sea level rise by the publication of the 2007 report. Both predictions were wrong. Both temperature and sea level had risen by more than the IPCC's predicted maximum. This would appear to be in line with comments such as Prof Bob Spicer's comment that the IPCC is 'necessarily conservative' due to the fact that it works by consensus. Indeed the program gave the Gulf Stream and it's potential disappearance as an example - this is something the 2007 report has suggested is extremely unlikely to happen.

Reliability of sources

A good place to start when analysing a documentary is ist maker...

 Written by: George Monbiot

In 1997, the director, Martin Durkin, produced a very similar series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamt up by environmentalists. It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and to edit their answers to change their meaning. Following complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing and that they had been misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.(14) Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has ever made



http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/01/30/another-species-of-denial/

Not exactly a good start... And what about his scientific sources?

A number of them, such as Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen are the same fossil fuel funded cronies that get brought out time and again...

(for a For a good assessment of Lindzen's scientific claims click here

Singer is one that I find particulary amusing... Especially as seems to crop up so often. In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [9]

Singer's deposition

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years.

That someone is paid a shedload of cash by companies who have a vested interest in deceiving the public on a certain issue does not prove them wrong, but will arise suspicion. That someone attempts to deceive the public by lying about the existence of this funding hardly allays these suspicions.

It is also worth noting that Singer has in the past ben paid by the tobacco industry - and unsurprisingly was one of the foremost scientific experts heading the campaign which claimed that the link between smoking and cancer was 'junk science.'


There's more... Much more to rip into about this program. As you can possibly tell I'm still seething about it.

There may be some doubt over the IPCC's claims, and there will always by an element of uncertainty about the effects we're having on the climate (a hitherto unknown negative feedback may kick in tomorrow - but there's no evidence that it will, and resultantly its insane to factor this in to contemporary discussion about ACC), however, the positions presented by 'The Global Warming Swindle,' were complete garbage.

It's a fantastic argument for why broadcast media sucks - a programme like that which has a lot of money poured into it, claims to be based on scientific evidence would probably present a fairly compelling argument to someone with little knowledge about the subject bar a few daily mail headlines...

frown


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche


Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8735
Posted: Written by: NYC


CO2 fire extinguishers? You're serious.

Oh my god.

Other secret CO2 sources that the government refuses to get rid of:
Soda, Kittens, Welding Torches, Bunnies, Black People, and your mother.

Scale dude, we're talking about scale.



I wonder how much CO2 is actually "locked up" in carbonated drinks... is this a reason NOT to shake your drink swallow the bubbles and prevent the CO2 escaping.


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.


jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Mynci


 Written by: NYC


CO2 fire extinguishers? You're serious.

Oh my god.

Other secret CO2 sources that the government refuses to get rid of:
Soda, Kittens, Welding Torches, Bunnies, Black People, and your mother.

Scale dude, we're talking about scale.



I wonder how much CO2 is actually "locked up" in carbonated drinks... is this a reason NOT to shake your drink swallow the bubbles and prevent the CO2 escaping.


Then it'll just be released slightly later as gas (in the physical and colloquial sense), to the consternation of all.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


PyroWill
PyroWill

HoP's Barman. Trapped aged 6 months
Location: Staines
Member Since: 4th Aug 2004
Total posts: 4437
Posted:Why dont we all just stop exhaling? There'll be a lot less CO2 that way

An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind

Give a man a fish and he'll eat 4 a day hit a man with a brick and you can have all his fish and his wife

"Will's to pretty for prison" - Simian


Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:In a sort of reply to OWD: Have a look at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-earth-connections/ for some good info on it.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Thanks Andrea... Yes I had missed OWD's post.

 Written by: OWD

You seem to know what you're talking about and have dealt with several of the documentaries claims- however, they're not really the ones that I personally found troubling.

I wonder if you could address a couple of the ones that did seem, to me, to be troubling

1. the claim that, historically, global warming follows, pretty exactly, recorded sunspot activity.





Non-Https Image Link


As this image shows... Sunspot activity in 2000 is no higher than it was in 1950. As such, attributing the current observed warming to sunspots is somewhat counter-intuitive. On the other hand, anthropogenic carbon emissions have risen sharply since 1950, as has the global temperature


Non-Https Image Link


The show went to great lengths to talk rubbish on the subject of sunspot activity and temperature... Bringing up the mythical spectre of the little ice age and medieval warms period... Both of which were covered by the IPCC in 2001

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

 Written by:

The terms Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period have been used to describe two past climate epochs in Europe and neighbouring regions during roughly the 17th to 19th and 11th to 14th centuries, respectively. The timing, however, of these cold and warm periods has recently been demonstrated to vary geographically over the globe in a considerable way (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000). Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia (Grove and Switsur, 1994). However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation (see Bradley, 1999). Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. With the more widespread proxy data and multi-proxy reconstructions of temperature change now available, the spatial and temporal character of these putative climate epochs can be reassessed.



But TGGWS spoke of ice fairs on the Thames, suggesting that the climate must have been much colder in the recent past... What they failed to omit was the fact that the Thames froze something like 22 times in about 400 years. It hasn't frozen since 1814 - so something must have changed right? Well yes...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/little-ice-age-lia/

 Written by:

The old London Bridge constricted flow through its multiple piers and restricted the tide with a weir. After the Bridge was replaced in the 1830s the tide came further upstream and freezes no longer occurred, despite a number of exceptionally cold winters. Winter 1962/3, for example, was the third coldest winter recorded in instrumental records extending back to 1659, yet the river only froze upstream of the present tidal limit.



 Written by: OWD

2. that, historically, rises in co2 levels follow global temp increase, rather than precede it.

Which the documentary claimed cast doubt on current theories that co2 (from uman activivites)caused global warming.



This is somewhat more complicated to explain, as it pertains to the multitude of factors which naturally affect the climate, and stable states within chaotic systems... I'll try and make this as simple as possible though (and probably do a bad job...)

Basically within a 5000 year warming cycle, 4200 years (in which 5/6th of the total warming occurs) there is a correlative rise in co2 and temperature. This is widely regarded as indicative that there is a feedback between carbon dioxide levels and temperature.

That co2 rise follows temperature rise denotes that in interglacial cycles (with no human influence) a rise in co2 is not the initial stimulus for global warming. There are many other factors which affect the global climate (the sun's intensity, water vapour, methane, sulphur dioxide, tectonic plate activity, changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, collision with an asteroid etc) and one of these begins the shift from ice age to interglacial period. Once the Earth begins to warm there is a positive feedback with carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere (the last 4200 years of warming).

So what conclusions do we draw from this about Anthropogenic carbon emissions... err... not many.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

 Written by:

From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]




 Written by: Jeff

The 2007 icpp report states that a significant human contribution to global warming is about 90% to 94% likely. At the risk of using evil reductionistic dualism logic (oh noes!), that means that the ipcc thinks there is at least a 6% chance of human effects not being significant.



Have you confused reductionism with subtraction??? What dualism??? Do you mean dualistic logic (binary logic or
Manichaean logic would also have made grammatical sense)??? I looked 'noes' up in the dictionary and it wasn't there... What exactly were you trying to say???

That climate science has never pretended to give absolute, definite, black and white answers?

Well it makes sense, but this is the polar opposite of binary logic - where something is black and white, right or wrong.

ubblol


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche


jo_rhymes
jo_rhymes

Momma Bear
Location: Telford, Shrops
Member Since: 10th Apr 2005
Total posts: 4525
Posted:Will: I love you!!! ubblol hahahhaha

"two little boys had two little toys, and they both gave off CO2!" ubblol


Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.


Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:More from Monbiot:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: dream




Non-Https Image Link










Don't read too much into this comment BUT, I'd fail my students if they ever turned in a graph as bias as this one. It's a classic example of stretching and truncating two separate Y axis's to prove a point.



Not commenting on global warming at all, just an off topic statement on the data used in the above discussion.



Carry on.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]


87wt2gxq7
87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham
Member Since: 12th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1502
Posted:NYCWTFBBQ??

You need two seperate Y axes because temperature and atmospheric concentration of CO_2 are measured in different units.

The axes aren't stretched - they go up in 0.2K and 10ppm intervals respectively without any distortion of the axes.

Sure they're truncated. The point of putting the two graphs together is to show the correlation, to do that you have to lay one on top of the other, and to do that you have to choose where to start the Y-axes to get them to fit on the same bit of 'paper' (okay, screen). It's not a distortion to line up the axes arbitrarily because they don't share a common zero point.

You'd seriously fail your students if they displayed two graphs together in order to show a correlation?

confused



Rouge Dragon
Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Member Since: 21st Jul 2003
Total posts: 13215
Posted:maybe NYC means the implication of causation???

or did i just make up a word?


i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...


jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: dream


 Written by: Jeff

The 2007 icpp report states that a significant human contribution to global warming is about 90% to 94% likely. At the risk of using evil reductionistic dualism logic (oh noes!), that means that the ipcc thinks there is at least a 6% chance of human effects not being significant.



Have you confused reductionism with subtraction??? What dualism??? Do you mean dualistic logic (binary logic or
Manichaean logic would also have made grammatical sense)??? I looked 'noes' up in the dictionary and it wasn't there... What exactly were you trying to say???


That's what us evil reductionists call a "joke". wink

But the important point is that there is a non-insignificant chance that some of the arguments made in the documentary are correct (though I doubt it), so it is disingenuous to present some of the hotly contested areas of climatology as absolute fact.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8735
Posted:with regard to the sunspots, the graph shows the number of spots but not the intensity, does that influence at all?

I'm not a cosmologist so wouldn't know but looking at the graph, the cycling of sunspots numbers follows a pattern. It doesn't seem that graph would support that sunspot activity effects world temperature otherwise the global temp would rise and fall about every 10 years.

you can use facts to prove anything that remotely resembles the truth.

I'll be honest, my mind isn't made up, on global warming, much like "the rainforests are the earths lungs" lie, as trees are not REALLY net producers of O2, I think (waits for someone to prove him wrong) OLD trees are net CO2 producers and young trees net O2 producers, could it be the masses of old trees ini the rainforests producing large quantities of CO2, should we cut them all down and plant new ones?


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.


Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:NYC....erm...what Jon said....

Jeff: You seem to have reduced a joke to the point where it contains no humour! That is the mark of a true reductionist wink

I would call 5% a insignificant chance at the best of times, but even if it were significant, that does not mean that any of the arguments have any more truth to them. What it does mean is that some other reason that has not already been cast aside (including solar heating) might be the MAIN cause.


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Mynci:

 Written by: wikipedia


Trees sequester carbon through photosynthesis, converting carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and plant matter. Hence, forests that grow in area or density will reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. (Carbon is released if a tree or its lumber burns, but as long as the forest is able to grow back, the net result is carbon neutral.) In their 2001 assessment, the IPCC estimated the potential of biological mitigation options (mainly tree planting) is on the order of 100 Gigatonnes of Carbon (cumulative) by 2050, equivalent to about 10% to 20% of projected fossil fuel emissions during that period.[3].

However, the global cooling effect of forests from sequestration is not the only factor to be considered. For example, the planting of new forests may initially release some of the terrain's existing carbon stores into the atmosphere. Specifically, the conversion of peat bogs into oil palm plantations has allegedly made Indonesia the world's third largest producer of greenhouse gases.[4].




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset#Climate_impacts


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Sym

Jeff: You seem to have reduced a joke to the point where it contains no humour! That is the mark of a true reductionist wink

I would call 5% a insignificant chance at the best of times, but even if it were significant, that does not mean that any of the arguments have any more truth to them. What it does mean is that some other reason that has not already been cast aside (including solar heating) might be the MAIN cause.


It's an injoke, dream has some strange beliefs. wink

5% is significant, but not neccaserily worth acting upon, and the documentary did raise a few legitimate points of contention, although I have already mentioned I disagreed with their interpratation.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


87wt2gxq7
87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham
Member Since: 12th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1502
Posted: Written by: Rouge Dragon


maybe NYC means the implication of causation???




Maybe, yep. But the graph alone isn't meant to imply causation, it's only meant to show correlation. And it's true that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. To make that link, you need a model of how one phenomenon causes the other. Which, in the case of global warming, we have.



 Written by: jeff(fake)


But the important point is that there is a non-insignificant chance that some of the arguments made in the documentary are correct (though I doubt it), so it is disingenuous to present some of the hotly contested areas of climatology as absolute fact.



No dude, surely the important point is that some hack made a documentary which deliberately took a respected climate scientist's comments completely out of context and twisted his words around to support an argument which said climate scientist didn't support. Surely?

Coz that's not only disingenuous, it's also profoundly immoral, given the seriousness of the topic.



Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)

the documentary did raise a few legitimate points of contention, although I have already mentioned I disagreed with their interpratation.



Did it? I must have blinked. Please could you list the legitimate points that relate to the 5% chance that we are not the main cause of climate change?


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Sym



 Written by: jeff(fake)

the documentary did raise a few legitimate points of contention, although I have already mentioned I disagreed with their interpratation.





Did it? I must have blinked. Please could you list the legitimate points that relate to the 5% chance that we are not the main cause of climate change?





I'll say it again. I think the documentary's conclusions were completely wrong. I think there are good answers to the objections they raised, and I think those answers are correct, but there is a non-zero change that those answers are incorrect.

 Written by:



No dude, surely the important point is that some hack made a documentary which deliberately took a respected climate scientist's comments completely out of context and twisted his words around to support an argument which said climate scientist didn't support. Surely?



I think the documentary as badly made and presented by someone who had no understanding of the subject. I think they were disengenious in their treatment of the climatologist in question. But that doesn't influence my comments above.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Yes, I know smile Thanks.

Now what points were valid?


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Sym


Yes, I know smile Thanks.

Now what points were valid?


This is going to be one of those things that degenerates into and arguement about what is meant by "valid".

The slight temperture lag, the slight difference between model and reality and the slightly uncertainty about the complex of interacting factors are "valid" in the sense that they add some uncertainty to our predictions. They have very good answers to them, which I think are correct. I don't regard them as "valid" as being some kind of deathblow to anthropogenic global warming as they were presented in the program.

If you wait long enough I'm sure someone will come along who actually does deny anthropogenic global warming, but that's not me.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Did the show focus strictly on the anthropogenic contributions to climate change or did they try to factor in some suspected natural causes, like seabed methane ?

I don't know about you guys, but I secretly want global warming to be identified as a natural phenomenon because I just don't see our society actually taking anything more than baby steps to curb our burning of fossil fuels. Myself included.



Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted: Written by: Stout

I don't know about you guys, but I secretly want global warming to be identified as a natural phenomenon because I just don't see our society actually taking anything more than baby steps to curb our burning of fossil fuels. Myself included.



I suspect that is why programs like this are so popular. By the way, it's not burning fossil fuels we need to worry about - we can pump the carbon in to the ground without too much of a problem (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration).

Personally, I really hope we ARE causing it - because then we have a very small chance of stopping it. If it was nature then we would be 100% committed to the disasters resulting from climate change. As it stands there is a tiny chance of us avoiding a lot of the problems - not enough of them to save large parts of the 3rd world, but that is a result of the inequality in this world.


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees


Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Well, according to the IPCC report, we're screwed anyway, whether climate change is natural or not ( this IMO, was a dumb move on the part of the IPCC ) they're saying that we've given the planet enough of the gift that keeps on giving ( greenhouse gasses ) that the processes that we've started will continue unabated for centuries.

But I'll go with the preferred mindset that a small chance is better than no chance and try not to draw false hope from from it, like people who play lotteries tend to do.



NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: 87wt2gxq7


Sure they're truncated. The point of putting the two graphs together is to show the correlation, to do that you have to lay one on top of the other, and to do that you have to choose where to start the Y-axes to get them to fit on the same bit of 'paper' (okay, screen). It's not a distortion to line up the axes arbitrarily because they don't share a common zero point.




So what you're saying is that it's a classic example of stretching and truncating two separate Y axis's to prove a point? Sweet, we agree.

I never said that the axis' were distorted. They're truncated without reference to the truncation which automatically gets an F in graphing. Also, by 'stretching' I'm saying that the units were arbitrarily picked (to use your wording) to fit together. Had they both been done using the same numbering system they would not have shown correlation. Therefore the numbers were picked and the axis' stretched specifically to show correlation.

I can pick ANY line and easily line it up with that graph.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]


NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:[Post deleted by Bluecat.]

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]


87wt2gxq7
87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham
Member Since: 12th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1502
Posted:at the risk of offtopic



 Written by: NYC

I never said that the axis' were distorted. They're truncated without reference to the truncation which automatically gets an F in graphing.



okay okay, so they don't have squiggly lines indicating a shifted axis. Big motherloving deal.



 Written by: NYC

Had they both been done using the same numbering system



Um... how would that be possible? Zee units, zey are different! Like I said, temperature in degrees C, concentration in parts per million.





 Written by: NYC

I can pick ANY line and easily line it up with that graph.



um, no you couldn't. Not, for example, a flat line, and definitely not any curve.



Like I said in reply to Rouge, correlation does not imply causation and sure, you can draw a graph to "show" that any two sets of statistics are correlated but to demonstrate a causal link you need a physical model to explain the causality.



But what you appear to be asserting is the notion "you can't ever show graphically that two things are correlated because a rearrangement of axes would show that they're not correlated."

In which case, oh no! for causation!

<sings>

The window!

The window!

You threw it out the window!

You can't show causation without correlation,

You threw them out the window!

</singing>





Anyway, I reckon in the interest of not killing this thread we'd better keep the lid on this particular can of worms. Another thread, if you like?



NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: 87wt2gxq7


at the risk of offtopic

 Written by: NYC

I never said that the axis' were distorted. They're truncated without reference to the truncation which automatically gets an F in graphing.


okay okay, so they don't have squiggly lines indicating a shifted axis. Big motherloving deal.




I never said it was a big motherloving deal. I said you'd get an F in my class on a graph if you did that and you would and you should.

 Written by:



 Written by: NYC

Had they both been done using the same numbering system


Um... how would that be possible? Zee units, zey are different! Like I said, temperature in degrees C, concentration in parts per million.




There are two different things you are talking about here. The scale of the numbering system and the units. They picked both units AND scale to perfectly fit to prove their point.
 Written by:




 Written by: NYC

I can pick ANY line and easily line it up with that graph.


um, no you couldn't. Not, for example, a flat line, and definitely not any curve.



Unless you number your axis nonlinearly. Or even negative and nonlinearly. I can drop a ball from a building, graph the height and numbered the axis "-1/meters^2" (or something with some tweaking) and it would have correlated. I'm not saying they did that. But with nonlinear or negative axis you can make any two lines line up. Finding a slightly increasing graph was not that hard as I proved by the population of Connecticut.
 Written by:


Like I said in reply to Rouge, correlation does not imply causation and sure, you can draw a graph to "show" that any two sets of statistics are correlated but to demonstrate a causal link you need a physical model to explain the causality.

But what you appear to be asserting is the notion "you can't ever show graphically that two things are correlated because a rearrangement of axes would show that they're not correlated."
In which case, oh no! for causation!





Never said that. Never mentioned causation or correlation. In fact, I'm quite sure that there are actually infinite incorrect things that I did not say. And, since this is the internet, I'm sure you can suggest that I implied ALL of them.

All I said originally was that it would get an F in my, or any HS teacher that I know, class.

In fact, if you don't put the squiggly lines on it, the State of New York demands that you get ZERO points on your Physics graph on our statewide regents.

If you'd like to read up on the 7th grade Math Performance Standards for Anchorage, Alaska you can see that even they find the broken axis misleading. The University of Connecticut certainly finds broken axis' important enough to mention in their guidelines for engineers.

So if you're in 7th grade or 17th grade, and you don't use broken axis', you get an F. And the 7th grades would be glad to tell you why using such a 'trick' can be misleading.

That's all I was saying.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]


FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:ubblol and you kept it short wink

Global warming a swindle? umm is this another campaign for the "New American Century"?

Btw: (taken from the first two posts of this thread) excuse if someone has pointed out the difference in the terms: "made of" and "produced by" - to me it sounds like a lie, too.

And this statement made me laugh really hard:

 Written by: whoever

The environmental movement is the biggest threat to African development



This censored mad2 is so obviously polemic and WRONG!
The only threat to African development are ppl who state crap like this... IMHO


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:double post - what the heck...

"Global warming swindle" vs. "Undermining science"

This sounds like another attempt shrug to deny the obvious and to help the public continue ignorance... and to push back pressure from greens on the US economy and international polytricks...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


bluecat
bluecat

geek, level 1
Location: everywhere
Member Since: 15th Dec 2002
Total posts: 5300
Posted:soooo. the independent did good today:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

in the paper version they show actual data versus the programmes' data. ubblol


Holistic Spinner (I hope)


Page: 12345

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [great global warming swindle] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > Staff > Double Staff > Flowers Part 0 - Warming up *help/resource 15 20 seconds each  drink after warming up...
2. Forums > The Great Global Warming Swindle [139 replies]
3. Forums > Air conditioning, global warming and the American *cough* Western way [43 replies]
4. Forums > Global Warming [66 replies]
5. Forums > Global Warming [27 replies]

     Show more..