The Great Global Warming Swindle

[ticatfan3]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1965

Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.

Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.

But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."
Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.

[sukie]

I like that ice cores are the only evidence that I can find. If it is a true dangerous "forcing" then too little CO2 is way more harmful.

[JoetheDictator]

now we wait for the findings by world reknowned, at least in his own mind, climatological expert with his BA in engineering Chimpy.

[Buffalo1]

OMG another person trying to extract scientific evidence from a newspaper article. Its science read a science journal if you want real non biased scientific evidence on the relevance of global warming. I am not even going to waste my or your time arguing about some atricle from the Daily Mail in the UK citing a nobody scientist.

[ticatfan3]

OMG another person trying to extract scientific evidence from a newspaper article. Its science read a science journal if you want real non biased scientific evidence on the relevance of global warming. I am not even going to waste my or your time arguing about some atricle from the Daily Mail in the UK citing a nobody scientist.The link did not work anyways,here is another one if you have open mind.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

[TheCrystalBall]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1965

Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.

Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.

But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."
Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.


Another easily debunked garbage theory.


Myth: Since correlation does not imply causation, we should not assume that rising temperatures necessarily relate to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. For example, the IPCC does not explain away what is shown by data from ice-core samples, which show that the relationship between historic temperatures and CO2 levels has been that carbon dioxide increases follow a rise in temperature, rather than the other way around.

“Temperatures have risen and fallen significantly over the past two millennia with levels of greenhouse gases being static. The IPCC continues to blindly follow a single, unproven hypothesis and does not tolerate dissent.”
–Martin Livermore, Britain’s Scientific Alliance, in “Through the Climate Window,” BBC, February 2, 2007.

It is true that ice core studies have shown that carbon dioxide starts to increase about 800 years after Antarctic temperature begins rising following the beginning of glacial terminations—warming periods at the ends of ice ages that have occurred about every 100,000 years, most likely as a result of orbital parameters favorable to this result.

However, a glacial termination—a period of change from cold glacial conditions to warmer interglacial conditions—lasts about 5,000 years. Or about 4,200 more years after CO2 begins to increase.

While CO2 is not considered the cause of the first 800 years of warming, it certainly contributed to the ongoing warming over the remaining, on average, 4,200 years of warming. In other words, rising levels of CO2 are present in Antarctic ice core samples for about 80 percent of the warming years.

Under one possible scenario, the 800-year warming period cited above may trigger the release of deep ocean CO2 that had lain trapped under the ocean during the intense phases of the ice ages. Once released, that CO2 rises and begins to trap heat, further warming the Earth. That heat, in turn, causes the release of even more CO2, and so on, in a classic greenhouse gas scenario.

What does this mean for our situation today? Simply that a natural change in the CO2 concentration was not the initiator of our warming, not that CO2 injected by other means (i.e., combustion of fossil fuels) will not cause warming. In fact, the real concern is that the natural positive feedback process involving CO2 ejection from the ocean might further amplify the warming that humans have begun..
For More Information:

http://www.ipccfacts.org/myths.html

* faculty.washington.edu/battisti/589paleo2005/Papers/SigmanBoyle2000.pdf
* www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221
* www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
* www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6544874

[ticatfan3]

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_docume ntary
Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor.

Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.

A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."

Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don't believe you - it's taken 10 years to get this commissioned.

"I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys.

"It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.

"It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.

"Al Gore might have won an Oscar for 'An Inconvenient Truth', but the film is very misleading and he has got the relationship between CO2 and climate change the wrong way round."

One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but paleoclimatologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.

He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth's history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels.

While Prof Clark fully acknowledges that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are anthropogenic, he just doesn't see any evidence that the man-made increases of CO2 are driving temperature change.

Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades.

It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began.

This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory, because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2 and should, according to the consensus, have meant a rise in global temperatures.

The programme claims there appears to be a consensus across science that CO2 is responsible for global warming, but Professor Paul Reiter is shown to disagree.

He said the influential United Nations report on Climate change, that claimed humans were responsible, was a sham.

It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of scientists who disagreed with the findings and resigned from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by Government appointees.

The CO2 theory is further undermined by claims that billions of pounds is being provided by governments to fund greenhouse effect research, so thousands of scientists know their job depends on the theory continuing to be seen as fact.

The programme claims efforts to reduce CO2 are killing Africans, who have to burn fires inside their home, causing cancer and lung damage, because their Governments are being encouraged to use wind and solar panels that are not capable of supplying the continent with electricity, instead of coal and oil-burning power stations that could.

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, is featured in the programme, and has just released a book claiming that clouds are the real reason behind climate change.

'The Chilling Stars' was written with Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark who published a scientific paper, claiming cosmic rays cause clouds to
form, reducing the global temperature. The theory is shown in the programme.

Mr Calder said: "Henrik Svensmark saw that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars - when there are more cosmic rays, there are more clouds.

"However, solar winds bat away many of the cosmic rays and the sun is currently in its most active phase, which would be an explanation for global warming.

"I am a science journalist and in my career I have been told by eminent scientists that black holes do not exist and it is impossible that continents move, but in science the experts are usually wrong.

"For me this is a cracking science story - I don't come from any political position and I'm certainly not funded by the multinationals, although my bank manager would like me to be.

"I talk to scientists and come up with one story, and Al Gore talks to another set of scientists and comes up with a different story.

"So knowing which scientists to talk to is part of the skill. Some, who appear to be disinterested, are themselves getting billions of dollars of research money from the Government.

"The few millions of dollars of research money from multinationals can't compare to government funding, so you find the American scientific establishment is all for man-made global warming.

"We have the same situation in Britain The government's chief scientific advisor Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the Government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change."

The programme shows how the global warming research drive began when Margaret Thatcher gave money to scientists to 'prove' burning coal and oil was harmful, as part of her drive for nuclear power.

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London who also features in the film, warned the issue was too complex to be down to one single factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He said: "The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start because you can't say that just one factor can have this effect.

"The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be, or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.

"It's ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2C or 3C."

Mr Stott said the film could mark the point where scientists advocating the greenhouse effect theory, began to lose the argument.

He continued: "It is a brave programme at the moment to give excluded voices their say, and maybe it is just the beginning.

"At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous."

In the programme Mr Calder said: "The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don't agree, you are a heretic."

He added: "However, I think this programme will help further debate and scientists not directly involved in global warming studies may begin to study what is being said, become more open-minded and more questioning, but this will happen slowly."

Copyright © 2006 National News +44(0)207 684 3000

Syndicate:

[ticatfan3]

GS Did you see gore's movie? And how do you explain all the people that had their name's taken from the list of people that supposed to agree with it?

[TheCrystalBall]

GS Did you see gore's movie?

Yes.

[ticatfan3]

Yes.When they showed the peice with the 2 polar bears clinging to the iceberg that look like swiss cheese, why was that and why did they put it in the movie?

[ticatfan3]

No come back chimp or do you know I will nail your ass to the wall if you did.

[ticatfan3]

Still know answer. What little credibilty you had ,is completely gone.

[Green Lantern]

The Bush Administration has been accused once again of gagging US government scientists by getting them to agree not to talk about polar bears, sea ice and climate change during official overseas trips.




A leaked memorandum issued by a regional director of the US Department of the Interior states that officials within the US Fish and Wildlife Service will limit their discussions when travelling in countries bordering the Arctic region because of sensitivities about climate change.


"This traveller understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues," says the memo from the regional director Richard Hannon to his boss, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. ...

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2345429.ece

[sukie]

I remember science class... CO2 is a heavy gas... I cannot figure how a brick is made to float from the ocean to the stratosphere.

[Green Lantern]

Dry blamed on 'faithless Aussies'

by Liam Houlihan

A LEADING Muslim cleric has blamed the drought, climate change and pollution on Australians' lack of faith in Allah.

Radical sheik Mohammed Omran told followers at his Brunswick mosque that out-of-control secular scientific values had caused environmental disaster.
"The fear of Allah is not there. So we have now a polluted earth, a polluted water, a wasteland," he told a meeting this year.

"What are the people now crying for? The prophet told you hundreds of years ago, 'Look after the water'."

A Sunday Herald Sun investigation also found clerics railing against "evil" democracy, vilifying Jews and Christians and encouraging jihad and polygamy...

http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,21985,21359123-663,00.html

[35Pete]

I remember science class... CO2 is a heavy gas... I cannot figure how a brick is made to float from the ocean to the stratosphere.

Although I think that fossil fuel global warming is crap this is not a valid argument.

The answer is convection currents. As much air is "sucked" into the atmosphere as the quantity that is pushed down. It's an equilibrium current.

[sukie]

Why is ice core sampling the only CO2 evidence

[Green Lantern]

Why is ice core sampling the only CO2 evidence

It is not.

[sukie]

Link it since I cannot find anything else.

[Green Lantern]

Link it since I cannot find anything else.

That is for you to find. Somewhere on this forum in the last month someone else listed a whole host of different things scientists use for analysis in answer to this very accusation you made on another thread.

It is not my job to go look for it for you. You did not read it last time it was posted so I see no reason for me to spend an hour hunting for it so you can not read it again.

[sukie]

Okay chief.

[deconstruction]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1965


But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.


Great, so this single guy's theory constitutes some sort of counter evidence?
This sounds like grabbing at straws to me.

T he programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.


A few years increased carbon dioxide is not comperable to decades of massive emisions.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.



Malaria?

[35Pete]

Great, so this single guy's theory constitutes some sort of counter evidence?
This sounds like grabbing at straws to me.


Sorry decon, but if you were a scientist then you would know that a hypothesis need only one single incongruent observation to force rethinking the mechanism of a physical event.


A few years increased carbon dioxide is not comperable to decades of massive emisions.


Why not? Are you implying that there would be no differential increase in the earth temperature? Define "massive" relative to those years? That's a powerfully emotional word. I'd like to know what it means.
[/QUOTE]


Malaria?
To study atmospherics, one needs experience in atmospherics. To peer review a study, one need not be an expert in that process. One need only be an expert in the scientific process.

[ticatfan3]

People need to mopen their eyes and qusetion what king gore and saint suzuki say.
http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/2007/03/14/3748158-sun.html
The British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle is, well ... great.

The program, which aired last Thursday in the U.K. to much buzz, has since been watched by hundreds of thousands of others around the world via the Internet. It exposes numerous lies and myths presented as fact by those who believe in the unproven hypothesis that human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) is the driver of the Earth's warming climate.

The same broadcaster -- Channel 4 in the U.K. -- that recently exposed the extremist ideology being preached in Britain's supposedly "moderate" mosques has now similarly helped to tear away the veil of lies and religious zeal surrounding the global warming industry.

EXPERT OPINIONS

The film features an impressive group of experts in the fields of climatology, oceanography, biogeography, meteorology, and paleoclimatology from reputable institutions such as NASA, MIT, The International Arctic Research Centre, the Pasteur Institut in Paris, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of Winnipeg, Ottawa, London, Jerusalem, Alabama and Virginia.


That should help top the claims there is a consensus of scientists who believe in man-made global warming.

Expert after expert in this film blasts craters into the theory that CO2 -- which only makes up 0.054% of the earth's atmosphere -- has ever driven climate. Ice core records, in fact, prove the opposite, that CO2 lags warming by as much as 800 years.

The main cause of warming is, not surprisingly, the sun.

"The analogy I use," says Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, "is my car's not running very well, so I'm going to ignore the engine, which is the sun, and I'm going to ignore the transmission, which is the water vapour and I'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2. The science is that bad."

The film starts off covering indisputable facts. There was a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today -- that led to incredible wealth in Europe when the bulk of the continent's great cathedrals were built and when Britain had thriving vineyards. Then came the Little Ice Age that started in the 17th century and was so cold London's Thames River would freeze so solidly festivals were held on it.

About 10,000 years ago, during a time known as the Holocene Maximum, it was much warmer even than the Medieval times.

THE END IS NIGH?

Dr. Ian Clark, Prof. of Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology at the U of Ottawa, notes polar bears (which have become the poster-animal of the global warming industry) survived that sustained warm cycle and that volcanoes produce more CO2 every year than all human activity.

What's more, prior to 1940 temperatures on Earth were rising long before industrialization took place.

Then, when carbon dioxide emissions rose markedly in the post-war economic boom period, temperatures fell for the next three decades, again, in direct contravention of the theory being espoused and believed by so many.

Ironically, in the 1970s, just as scientists started predicting another climate catastrophe -- an impending ice age -- the planet started warming again.

The documentary ends with a quote from Dr. Fred Singer of the U of Virginia.

"There will still be people who believe this is the end of the world, particularly when you have, for example, the chief scientist of the U.K. telling people that by the end of the century the only habitable place on the Earth with be the Antarctic and humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who move to the Antarctic. I mean, this is hilarious," he says with a chuckle.

"It would be hilarious, actually, if it weren't so sad."

See the film at:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog?entry=24760&only

[sukie]

Awesome post Ticat.

"The analogy I use," says Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, "is my car's not running very well, so I'm going to ignore the engine, which is the sun, and I'm going to ignore the transmission, which is the water vapour and I'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2. The science is that bad."

[gilchristfan]

Dr. Ian Clark, Prof. of Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology at the U of Ottawa, notes polar bears (which have become the poster-animal of the global warming industry) survived that sustained warm cycle and that volcanoes produce more CO2 every year than all human activity.

I wonder why people keep saying that.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

...Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO2, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.

[35Pete]

LOL. Someone's positions are as predictable as the hands on a clock striking 12 twice.

LOL

[sukie]

Pete... Has the lag time of up to 800 years ever been explained or debunked from those long popsicles?