A Global Warming Swindle play-by-play
Want to learn more details about the climate change "experts" that appear in the Great Global Warming Swindle? Check out our in-depth research database on the most prolific self-proclaimed climate change"skeptics."
The UK Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle " has been touted by deniers and slammed by a lot of others, including one scientist who appeared in the film. Having taken a quick glance over the movie, the first thing that jumps out is that it's the same guys we write about on DSBlog all the time. There's nothing new here that we have not heard ad naseum from the same handful of global warming deniers.
Here's a few obvious points:
Putting lipstick on a Llama: Tim Ball, retired professor at the University of Winnipeg's department of geography, has magically turned into "Professor Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg, Department of Climatology." Here's some more on Tim Ball. $100 in iTunes to the first person to find the elusive department of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. I'll even give you the list of departments at U of W to make it easier.
Climate scientists are lying to us: Off the top, the narrator states we are all being lied to. In one broad brush stroke, the Swindle film brushes off the following groups who have stated that global warming is a serious problem and we humans are to blame: the National Academies of Science (or their respective equivalent) of China, France, United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil, United States, Japan, Italy and and Germany (pdf); the UK's Royal Society (pdf ); the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; NASA; and NOAA, to name just a few.
Of course, the Channel 4 film also forgot to mention that there has been no science in the peer-reviewed scientific literature refuting the consensus view that global warming is real and humans are the cause.
The two Paul's: Paul Reiter and Paul Copper make an appearance.
The "Great Science Funding Conspiracy" is put forth by Roy Spencer . Spencer claims that "climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding."
Virginia's "Climatologist" (can I still say that?), Pat Michaels claims global warming is a big business. Darn rights it is Pat: How much did you make last year from the coal-fired electrical industry?
Nigel Calder might want to refresh his CV for "Swindle Part 2." Calder is touted in the film as the former editor of "New Scientist" magazine. Which is true, he was the editor between 1956 and 1966.
And this is all in the introductory scene.
To continue:
The Little Ice Age as evidence. Is this earth-shattering news uncovered by the crack team of researchers at Channel 4, destined to rip apart the scientific conclusions of climate scientists around the world? Have they never heard of this "little ice age?" Should someone phone NASA? Nope, here's a little background on the Little Ice Age written by an atmospheric scientist in language that is easy to understand.
The Medieval Warming period. For those DeSmog readers well-versed in the "science of global warming denial," it comes as no surprise that a mention of the Little Ice Age would be quickly followed by the next favorite bit of distracting blather: the Medieval Warming Period. Like the LIA, the MWV, has been factored into the science of climate change and factored out as a sign that somehow the global warming today is part of natural variation. Here's an explanation of the medieval warming period .
Blind betting now. I have paused the video and I am going to guess that the next little piece of earth-shattering news in the film will be the "Global Cooling of the 70's." Wish I had wagered money on that one. Here's some more information on the "Global Cooling of the 1970's."
And back to Tim Ball, who at this point in the film, is still parading as a Professor at the University of Winnipeg's department of climatology.
Water vapour makes up 95% of the atmosphere, C02 is unimportant. Again, I will first ask: Do you think the world's climate scientists are unaware of this? Do you think that they have all (in their mass money-making conspiracy) just ignored this in their scientific conclusions? The answer is no, scientists are well-aware of water vapour. Unfortunately the best debunking of the water vapour myth is quite technical, but it is the best one around and is written by a scientist here.
And surpise, surpise here comes Dr. Fredrick Singer. This is the same guy who challenged the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. Not to mention the fact that he is affiliated with 11 think tanks and associations that have recieved funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.
Then comes Carl Wunsch who is kicking himself for even appearing in the film.
Philip Stott and solar variability: "Isn't it bizarre to think that is humans, you know, when we are filling up our car, turning on our lights, we're the ones controlling climate? Just look up in the sky at that massive thing the sun." And here's where we start into the really good material. "Even humans are our $6.5 billion are minute compared to that [the sun]."
So here's some more on the skeptic's solar variability argument.
And I leave off with a seriously ticked MIT professor, Carl Wunsch, who states that: "The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two.'"
Here's the film:
>















Swindles
spin
do I win?
“Here’s some more on Tim Ball. $100 in iTunes to the first person to find the elusive department of climatology at the University of Winnipeg.” Dropdown menu.
Thanks for a great post. The
Thanks for a great post. The "Swindle" movie seems to have made an impression on some Slashdot members, e.g.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226173&cid=18326897
I posted a link to your blog entry by way of rebuttal: see my coment on Slashdot at http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226173&cid=18328073
And thanks for the thanks
As of this posting Google
As of this posting Google Video has The Great Global Warming Swindle at 125,311 views, and rising.
That's probably a few more people than are reading this web site, I'd guess.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=global+warming+swindle
Yes, but we'll still be here
%
% #2
oh?
Another example of swindle/fraud
They showed a graph to make the point that "most of the recent warming occurred before 1940 with only a small amount occurring after 1940.” They wanted to make this point since it is known that CO2 increases are much higher in recent years than in earlier years so this would "disprove" the connection between increased CO2 and increased temperatures.
To back up this "assertion" they showed a graph that clearly shows much bigger increases in temperature for the beginning half of the last century compared to the latter half.
However, the graph they produced is fraudulent. It follows exactly a graph of temperature versus time that is accepted by the climate science community. However, they moved the time axis by about ten years and cut off the last few years. This is not just an argument of the ”we said, you said” variety but is deliberate fraud. Whoever did this should be identified and taken to task.
This clearly show the levels the deniers are having to go to try and make their “science” look right.
This is discussed at stoat:
"More TGGWS fakery", http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/more_tggws_fakery.php
It's interesting: last night
It's interesting: last night the film on Youtube was entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle a BBC Documentary. As I pointed out to someone, it was shown on Channel 4 in the UK not BBC. I see today that that has been corrected.
Link here
Also there is an article in The Independent
"...Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years."
Cause or effect?
Yeah
Yeah...I'm all ears.
The CO2 Lag...and Other Things
Great Global Warming Swindle
Check out realclimate.org
If you want an understanding of CO2 and temperature correlations over the past ice ages read these two posts on realclimate.org:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/what-triggers-ice-ages/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
It always amazes me that those who discount AGW are eager to claim that there are many factors affecting present day climate (sun, CR's, etc) but when it comes to looking at the past they will only accept one factor (CO2) when it suits their false arguments.
Of course there are many factors that affect climate over geological time (note 100 years is not geological time). These are factored into the models and it is found that for the past 100 years CO2 concentrations are the main (60-70%) drivers of global warming.
In the past, orbital variation (Milankovitch cycles) was the main cause of ice ages. The change in temperature then modulates CO2 concentrations. After a lag, CO2 concentration becomes the main driver.
Good science acknowledges all relevant factors and can explain them; poor science concentrates on one factor and cannot explain changes in temperatures over a long period of time.
Ian Forrester
Co2 lagging T
is there nothing of value in it?
Sorry for the display of the
FINALLY someone with
MY GOD! Why don't you people
Why is being a skeptic
yes!
Univ Winn climate
sigh
No Leg to Stand On
I too would like to see a
climate vs. weather
Wake Up
This site is entrenched in "I am right, you're wrong" mentality. When it comes down to attaching the person, this is the bottom and is unscientific as it gets. I have great doubts about man made GW,after reading a lot of material and from all sides, and making my own judgments, the science is flawed without a doubt. Go ahead and call me names, but think for yourself for a minute - the theory and its promotion are mostly a product of the governments and government backed researchers, when was the last time they told the anyone the truth. Al Gore? if it wasn't for the GW bandwagon he would have taken his rightful place in obscurity by now. Case in point, the dangers of second hand smoke - yes this is just not true folks - the science was flawed, but it took over and is now "the truth".