Great Global warming swindle
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary film by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the scientific opinion that human activity is the main cause of global warming.
The show was screened in the UK in March 2007 and has lead to the expected controversy and name-calling. The ABC will show a cut-down one hour version at 8:30pm on 12 July, followed by an interview with Durkin and an “expert panel” discussion. But if you can’t wait until then, youtube has the full version (split into 8 parts) available now. Below is the first segment. For the remaining segments follow this link, or read below for a brief overview.
In brief — the documentary looks at how the AGW theory predicts warming from the 1940s that should be stronger in the troposphere than on the surface. In contrast, the globe cooled from 1940 to 1975 and is weaker in the troposphere. The film also points out that the climate is always changing and humans (and polar bears) have thrived in higher temperatures previously.
Durkin looks at the problem with the Al Gore historical co2-temp link… pointing out that temperature changes preceeded co2 changes by about 800 years. He also raises questions about modelling, storm predictions & the timing for possible water level changes. Finally, Durkin builds an alternative hypothesis that the sun (and cosmic rays) may be responsible for climate change.
Some mistakes have been pointed out (eg scale errors, incorrect statements about volcanos), but much of the criticism so far has been superficial or ad hominem. While I think the film goes too far in totally discounting any contribution by man-made co2, the show does well in cutting down the over-blown rhetoric of the AGW fear-mongers.
The show includes commentary from Richard Lindzen, Nir Shaviv, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Patrick Michaels, Patrick Moore, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, John Christy and others.
Now back on the thread:
“Some mistakes have been pointed out (eg scale errors, incorrect statements about volcanos), but much of the criticism so far has been superficial or ad hominem.”
Good work Humphreys. Thats a very fair statement. Coming from you I thought I’d better alert people to it. In one brief segment with animation he mixes up aerosols with CO2 in asserting that volcanoes produce the majority of it. Volcanoes produce the majority of aerosols which cool the climate. But volcanoes produce far less CO2 (normally) then industry.
But I’m not buying these scaling errors. Rather it is more likely that Lambert is confusing the scaling.
“While I think the film goes too far in totally discounting any contribution by man-made co2, the show does well in cutting down the over-blown rhetoric of the AGW fear-mongers.”
I don’t think it does. Because none of the participants claim that CO2 doesn’t have any effect at all. But the point is that no-one has any evidence for the supposed CO2-effect. Without evidence its just speculation. I speculate about what effect it might have. But I don’t pretend that its anything BUT speculation.
Now you made a prediction that our temperature will increase by 2.5-4.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. What evidence did you have to back this wild prediction…… A good thing if true but where is your evidence?
And where is your evidence that I want to outlaw banking?(liar).
Comment by graemebird | June 30, 2007
The fact that no-one has evidence for CO2-warming is evidence itself. Its evidence of the religious nature of the energy-deprivation-crusade. And evidence that the scope of any CO2-warming….to the extent that it exists at all…. MUST BE…..cannot FAIL to be…… A good thing and a positive benefit to man and nature.
How can a mitigation of future cooling POSSIBLY be a bad thing?
It cannot.
Comment by graemebird | June 30, 2007
John - the “mistakes” in the film go far far beyond scale errors, incorrect statements about volcanos. Try the fabrication of data.
To quote one of its subjucts Eigil Friis-Christensen “We have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless”.
Any global warming skeptic who hasn’t backed far far away from this fraud is no different intellectually from a young-earth creationist.
Comment by Ken Miles | June 30, 2007
Try the fabrication of data.
You’ll have to do better than bare-faced assertion if you expect to be believed about that. I’m not saying you are one, but global warming fanatics are pretty quick to dish out the lies themselves.
I watched the doco on Google Video several weeks ago and found its premise well worth considering. It argues that global warming is reality, its cause is sunspots, and CO2 has increased as a consequence.
I always thought the evidence indicating warming was reasonably compelling. Measuring temperature, after all, is not that hard. My problem has been the assumption that it is caused by humans and that changing human behaviour will stop or reverse it. That is quite difficult to determine and the evidence is simply not there.
It would be great if both the IPCC analysis and the GGWS analysis were subjected to a similar level of science-based scrutiny. But unfortunately the CO2 inquisitors would never allow it.
Comment by DavidLeyonhjelm | June 30, 2007
No thats not right Ken. You are a bullshit-artist. Produce your own graph if you think that. You will see that the sun and the average temperature move together very closely no matter whose doing the tracking.
Comment by graemebird | June 30, 2007
In this regard Lambert produced a second graph. It just looked like a smoothed version of Durkheims and it reinforced Durkheims thesis.
But this just doesn’t matter to people like Lambert. So long as they can throw obstructions in the way of people understanding whats going on.
Lets see your version of the graph Miles. Before you start lying about other peoples work.
Comment by graemebird | June 30, 2007
David, did you bother to click the link that I supplied? The evidence is there.
If you thought that it was compelling, then that only indicates that you know bugger all about the subject.
Comment by Ken Miles | June 30, 2007
Because, obviously one website over-rules a documentary that happens to go against the norm.
And the documentary is very compelling, it is blasphimous to say that Humans arent the cause of global warming, the documentary points these things out.
Apparently, Global warming is the new pink.
Comment by Perry Ferguson | June 30, 2007
And they are only shooting down one graph, i believe the documentary hosted many graphs, and many ideas, which as David said, none have had holes put it them, aside from the one that you so insightly provided us with.
So obviously you know bugger all about the subject for believing one website.
Comment by Perry Ferguson | June 30, 2007
Perry, the website contains a statement from the researcher who is one of the big names behind the solar-climate research (and was interviewed for the documentary).
The statement provides (in detail) how the documentary fabricates data to fill in a gap that was missing in the researchers original work.
It also adds that the documentary misrepresents the researchers views.
But go on, keep on defending a obvious fraud. It simply confirms my prejudices about global warming skeptics.
Comment by Ken Miles | June 30, 2007
Perry, so it’s ok if they just commit a little bit of fraud?
Here a hint, they made shit up on the surface temperature trends.
Comment by Ken Miles | June 30, 2007
They didn’t commit any fraud Ken Miles you jerk. Any quick look on the internet would have told you that other people had deduced the length of the solar cycles during the Maunder minimum.
Now I don’t have access to the whole link because its on Springer. But this is enough to tell you that there would have been plenty of reliable sources to go to fill in the data for the purposes of a documentary.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ugqn231k304q6385/
Comment by graemebird | June 30, 2007
Notice that Miles’ pathetic accusation in no ways goes against the basic thesis that temperatures tend to follow solar activity quite closely. The Maunder minimum was a period of low solar activity (like what we wil be expecting in solar cycle 25) and this was a time when the temperatures got punishingly cold.
Comment by graemebird | June 30, 2007
And Al Gore didnt include the small fact that CO2 followed temperature and not the other way around.
We all make mistakes.
Comment by Perry Ferguson | June 30, 2007
Or maybe Al Gore read some scientific papers on ice cores and knew that temperature rises preceding CO2 levels is consistent with the current scientific theories?
Comment by Ken Miles | June 30, 2007
Ok, Now your arguing that, What the masses believe is correct?
I am glad that scientologists are a minority in that case.
Comment by Perry Ferguson | June 30, 2007
Look Miles. I’ve already proved that you are wrong. The letter you cited was yet more evidence for the anti-scientific and religious nature of your energy-deprivation crusade.
Maunder minimum solar-cycle length has been reconstructed independently of the documentary. It is you that are engaged in fraud and not Martin Durkeim.
Comment by graemebird | June 30, 2007
Just to back that last comment up here is a quote from the 2003 Science paper of Caillon and co-workers titled “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III”:
Finally, the situation at Termination III differs
from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. As recently noted by Kump…, we should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter ~4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks… that are also at work for the present day and future climate.
Comment by Ken Miles | June 30, 2007
Ok, Now your arguing that, What the masses believe is correct?
I am glad that scientologists are a minority in that case.
WFT Perry, do you even have a point?
Do you even bother to read my comments before commenting on them?
Or perhaps you’re a believer in a postmodernish view of science?
Comment by Ken Miles | June 30, 2007
is consistent with the current scientific theories?
Merely saying that you seem to believe that the larger group is correct. In which case i guess the world really was flat a few hundred years ago.
Comment by Perry Ferguson | June 30, 2007
Here’s a reconstruction right here of solar cycle length during Maunder.
Its heavy going but the result is on the last page in figure 12
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/j93.pdf
I’m by no means reccomending people grind through this but I post it merely to back up the Springerlink where access was impossible. I place the link here only to show what bullshit-artistry has gone into the ridiculous criticism of the documentary.
AND WHY WOULDN’T THE ALARMISTS TRY THIS ON.
The documentary decisively exposed them as the fraudsters they are. We wouldn’t have expected anything less then this crazed reaction.
Patching together a reconstruction for what was traditionally thought of as a gap is quite acceptable for a documentary (a DOCUMENTARY for Pete’s sakes) since in this case its not misleading anyone as to the conclusions to be drawn.
The inference is clear. Quite contrary to the bullshit alarmist thesis all forcings aren’t the same. The suns variability matters many times more then what the alarmists are pretending.
The dumb bastards were trying to ignore the effect of the sun?
While they were parading around the media with all their bullshit the solar guys were quietly going about their business. And they don’t just study our sun. They have endless numbers of other stars in the galaxy that they can study to test their inferences on.
Comment by graemebird | June 30, 2007
The sky is a-falling! The sky is a-falling! It’s punishment for our sins. Mortification of the flesh is the path to salvation. Pray for the magic of governmental intervention.
Comment by justinjefferson | June 30, 2007
But go on, keep on defending a obvious fraud. It simply confirms my prejudices about global warming skeptics.
Therein lies the truth. Ken Miles is a “true believer” who thinks anyone who does not worship at the altar of anthropogenic global warming must be fraudulent.
Tell me, Ken - what’s the difference between you and Islamic fundamentalists? You are not really interested in anyone who disagrees with your opinion are you?
Comment by DavidLeyonhjelm | June 30, 2007
Ken — I think you’re overstating the problem. I agree that the missing data pointed out in your link raises questions… but it doesn’t really undermine the point that temperatures & sun spots are well correlated. And it certainly doesn’t undermine the problems with the mainstream AGW story raised in the film.
I also agree (as I said in my post) that the documentary went too far in dismissing the possibility of human contribution to climate change. The link you supplied doesn’t contradict my version of “moderate skepticism”, and actually seems to endorse it in places.
Personally, I find the mainstream answer to the 800 year temp-co2 lag entirely unconvincing. Specifically, the fact that temperature decreases preceeded co2 decreases by 800 years seems quite problematic and something worthy of further investigation.
It’s important not to loose sight of the woods for the trees. The documentary goes too far, but still raises very legitimate questions. It sometimes seems like AGW activists use skeptic mistakes as an excuse not to confront some of the real issues of debate and uncertainty. To be fair, some skeptics use alarmist mistakes as an excuse not to confront the good arguments of the AGW activists. Neither approach is helpful.
I don’t think your implicit accusation that I (as a person who doesn’t entirely dismiss the documtary) am equivalent to a young-earth creationist helps the debate in any way. Indeed, it seems designed to shut down debate and/or to simply be insulting.
I recognise that skeptics sometimes get carried away and I value the contribution of AGW activists to the debate — but I think your contributions might be more valuable if you take our skepticism seriously and provide good evidence for your positions.
Comment by John Humphreys | July 1, 2007
“Ken — I think you’re overstating the problem. I agree that the missing data pointed out in your link raises questions… ”
It doesn’t raise serious questions. This is a documentary and it would have been twice as long and not as good if they had put in all their footnotes.
The Maunder-Minimum cycles have been reconstructed. Not to any perfect degree. But good enough to patch-in the missing information in a documentary.
It raises questions on the stupidity of the alarmist side is all.
“…..but I think your contributions might be more valuable if you take our skepticism seriously and provide good evidence for your positions….”
If you don’t do this Humphreys, you can hardly expect Miles to do so.
Comment by graemebird | July 1, 2007
John, one big problem with the solar-cycle climate link is that the correlations are very weak. While Eigil Friis-Christensen is on very strong grounds when he accuses TGGWS of fabrication of data, in his own work statistics aren’t that good. Peter Laut and co-workers have completely destroyed Friis-Christensen’s work on solar cycles and climate in a number of peer reviewed papers. The short answer is that the good correlation between solar-cycles and climate is due to incorrect maths and poor use of smoothing. A copy of one of Laut’s papers can be found here.
I just did a quick search on web of science to see if Friis-Christensen has tried to refute Laut’s criticisms. The answer is no.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 1, 2007
Now I don’t have access to the whole link because its on Springer. But this is enough to tell you that there would have been plenty of reliable sources to go to fill in the data for the purposes of a documentary.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ugqn231k304q6385/
Your in luck GMB. I have a subscription to the journal Solar Physics and I’ve read the paper that you cite. Pity that their curve of the years 1610 - 1710 doesn’t look with the curve shown in TGGWS.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 1, 2007
Merely saying that you seem to believe that the larger group is correct. In which case i guess the world really was flat a few hundred years ago.
Perry, I see that your science is as good as your history. Human beings have known for a long time that the world wasn’t flat. To use one example, the Roman natural philosopher Pliny the Elder wrote many words about theories about the shape of the earth. As he puts it But her shape is the first fact about which men’s judgement agrees. We do undoubtedly speak of the earth’s sphere. The ancient Greeks even had a pretty good go at working out the dimensions.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 1, 2007
I don’t think your implicit accusation that I (as a person who doesn’t entirely dismiss the documtary) am equivalent to a young-earth creationist helps the debate in any way. Indeed, it seems designed to shut down debate and/or to simply be insulting.
John, I have a policy of giving people the respect that I think that they deserve. I’m happy to give to credit to global warming skeptics who have done interesting work. I’m happy to try to answer any question if it is asked in good faith. However, I have a strong dislike of fraud. Whereas you may think that I’m overstating my case, I think that you are making excuses for bullshit.
Your post would have been a lot stronger if it had have ditched TGGWS and started with Friis-Christensen and others solar work.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 1, 2007
Therein lies the truth. Ken Miles is a “true believer” who thinks anyone who does not worship at the altar of anthropogenic global warming must be fraudulent.
Tell me, Ken - what’s the difference between you and Islamic fundamentalists? You are not really interested in anyone who disagrees with your opinion are you?
David, in a sense your right (not in the sense that you mean, but that’s because you have no clue). I’m a scientific fundamentalist. I believe that out of all of the belief systems out there, science is the only one which has contributed to our understanding of the natural world.
However, science is pretty odd for a belief system. Rather than taking something as true, science makes hypothesis to explain the natural world, uses these hypothesis to tease out predictions and then looks to see if these predictions are correct. And this makes science a radically different beast to other ideologies be they Islamist, creationist or global warming denierism.
So in short, it doesn’t really worry me if some pseudoscientist calls me a fundamentalist.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 1, 2007
Good stuff Ken. In a sense we have to be scientific fundamentalists. It reminds of what Bertrand Russell once said: Logically we must be agnostic but practically we’re atheists. My qualification to that is to remember that science is not a metaphysic it is a process. Enjoyed reading your posts.
Comment by Dead Soul | July 1, 2007
Pompous piffle doesn’t amount to an argument Ken. You have no more idea than anyone else. Less I suspect, given you don’t have an open mind.
I’m predicting the debate in global warming will enter a new phase in Australia once the GGWS is screened. There are plenty of people offended by the moral panic and environmental marxism that accompanies it. The documentary will prompt them to give voice to their views which will be heard by the politicians. That will lead to increased caution at the policy level, with reluctance to impose CO2 reduction measures that adversely affect economic growth rates.
Comment by DavidLeyonhjelm | July 1, 2007
Ok, firstly, it sounds like your calling us idiots.
But one of my favourite sayings is, Whos the idiot, the idiot or the guy who argues with the idiot?
Ken, your self righteous and condescending, and you seem to be a leftist idiotarian from what you have said, (The force with which you try to show us the light is overwhelming)
And while you claim to be a “scientific fundamentalist”, You have no desire to be skeptical, analyse, and sit on the fence. Which science has always been happy to do.
In my mind, it is much more plausible that Global Warming is a business, and a big business, which many people have invested in and are expecting large returns on their investments, than saying that we are the be all and end all of human existance, and our nasty industralisation is killing us.
And even if i were wrong, we live in the west, we are free to believe what we want to believe. If i were an American i would say, We dont obey the voice of authority from the queen let alone, Ken Miles.
Comment by Perry Ferguson | July 1, 2007
I am free to indulge in whatever semi plausible theorys i want to.
Just like your free to sit there with your pompous caput capitis sursum vestri arse.
Comment by Perry Ferguson | July 1, 2007
David, on the other hand, I’m predicting that despite all of the triumphant crowing by global warming skeptics, TGGWS won’t make a difference in the long run. Its purpose will simply be to confirm the absolute intellectual bankruptcy of the global warming skeptics who stand by it.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 1, 2007
Perry, here’s a hint, if you want the scientific community to take you (by you I mean the global warming skeptic community, not you personally) seriously, start doing research, formulating ideas, making predictions and publishing in scientific communities.
When global warming skeptics do this (such as John Christy’s work on tropospheric temperature trends) they get taken seriously. When they rely on fraud and misrepresentation they get treated like a pack of creationists. Simple really.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 1, 2007
Thanks Dead Soul. I take your point about science as a process. I should have made that clearer in my comment.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 1, 2007
And even if i were wrong, we live in the west, we are free to believe what we want to believe. If i were an American i would say, We dont obey the voice of authority from the queen let alone, Ken Miles.
Of course your free to believe in whatever you want Perry. I don’t want the government to arrest you, Erich von Däniken or Duane Gish for thoughtcrimes. People living in the free world can believe whatever pseudoscience that they desire. Doesn’t make them right though.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 1, 2007
Score to date: Ken Miles 23; scetics 0.
Comment by RS | July 1, 2007
Excellent english Rs, and all Ken Miles has done is remain defiant and provide us with the same theory proposed in many angles. gj.
And he has only tried to disprove one of the theorys provided in the documentary. Has said nothing about his views on the effects of Global Warming, wether it will be hugely disasterous, or merely that the world will continue on as it has.
In my opinion he is just a narrow minded fear mongering leftist.
Comment by Perry Ferguson | July 1, 2007
Based on what, Richard, you galoot? The fact you’ve found a friend as irrational as yourself?
Comment by Michael Sutcliffe | July 1, 2007
You’re right Perry - I meant septics, not scetics.
As for your comment Michael, see my response to Perry.
Regards, Richard.
Comment by RS | July 1, 2007
So, Ken provided us with research that shows that the sun theory might not be correct.
Ok, moving on.
The popular, widely accepted theory about Global warming is that temperature follows CO2 levels, where it is actually the other way around.
And i havent heard or seen anybody, try to disprove this… which is interesting because it is the part that shoots down the entire theory that everybody supports.
I thought that such a critical part of an argument might be defended when slandered?
Comment by Perry Ferguson | July 1, 2007
The popular, widely accepted theory about Global warming is that temperature follows CO2 levels, where it is actually the other way around.
And i havent heard or seen anybody, try to disprove this… which is interesting because it is the part that shoots down the entire theory that everybody supports.
Perry, I know that ignorance of basic science is pretty much a job requirement for a global warming skeptic, but this is terrible. I cited part of scientific paper which talks about the role in CO2 and temperatures in ice cores in this very thread.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 2, 2007
And he has only tried to disprove one of the theorys provided in the documentary. Has said nothing about his views on the effects of Global Warming, wether it will be hugely disasterous, or merely that the world will continue on as it has.
Perry, my most humble apologies. I didn’t realise that I was required to give my opinion on the effects of global warming. Particularly when the thread tones goes something like global warming skeptics defend and/or make excuses for the fabrication of data while getting uptight when other people don’t respect them for it.
If you want my views on the effects of global warming, either ask or google.
And if your going to give RS shit about spelling you should look “theorys” and “wether” up first.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 2, 2007
There is much crap science-propelled by grant grabbers and Luddites-Yes, we are getting warmer-as is Mars-one guy told me that had no bearing. “How about as a baseline?” I asked. Meanwhile real problems and solutions thereof are ignored such as the high chlorine exposure we get in the showerbath and the mercury in amalgam fillings.
The Freon lies have destroyed many fine systems and costs hundreds of lives. The inefrficient replacements have costs from such diverse directions as higher energy input/more free radical production/more food spoilage, etc. These fad scientists and ‘problems’ add up to billions of hours and dollars wasted and millions of people suffering needlessly. Wake up!!! Left wing, anti-life Luddites are more dangerous than almost anything I can think of as they impel policy decisions based on their guilt-ridden shrewish little souls hating capitalists so much-look at the hideous mess that remains in the old USSR. In 1917 the West’s most powerful monopolists feared the rise of a libertarian republic so much that they funded the Reds and defeated the Green army. Thus MILLIONS of people were murdered in the name of ‘helping’ mankind, Vast stretches of Russia are poisoned by inefficient and crappy industrial messes, and 95% of Russia’s people think it immoral to buy a product for one price and sell it for another. Mafias pillage and murder in all industries, and while I am an atheist the rat bastards left in Russia are immoral to an astonishing degree due to any semblance of decency being driven out by generations of religious persecution,(Communism is a faith based trip) bureaucracy, informants and dictatorships. Like cattle here they get free medicine though. What a bunch of snotbrain crap.
Comment by Dave Stanford | July 2, 2007
I’ve seen several sources showing that solar cycles correlate to average global temp very well over the last 150 years and over geological time scales.
However if it is indeed true that data was made up for the above doco it’s very disturbing and unecessary. From what I can tell, the solar cycle theory is not widely accepted and although gaining recognition, it needs more work.
Ken libertarians have good reason to be wary of socialists disguised as environmentalists. Private initiative will be much more sucessful at creating solutions to CO2 emissions if given a chance. Government intervention based on mob rule could be an economic disaster. eg/ http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html
Ken if you’re interested, there are plenty of sites on the web showing how some of Al Gore’s claims are erroneous or exaggerated even by IPCC standards.
You language indicates that you really hate climate change sceptics. I’m not sure why because I see no harm in the scientific method of continual questioning and review. However history has continually shown us how damaging and immoral government intervention can be.
Comment by Tim R | July 2, 2007
Tim R, thanks for your well reasoned comment.
I don’t hate climate change skeptics. I do however, hate the tactics that they use. When climate change skeptics try and do real science I praise them (here is one example). The big problem is that the bullshit:good work ratio is really really really poor. Hence my comparison of climate change skeptics to creationists.
Put another way, the difference in policy probably wouldn’t change significantly if either John Humphreys or myself were in charge. However, I care less about the policy and more about the scientific process I’ve given him both barrels on this thread.
And thank you for this statement However if it is indeed true that data was made up for the above doco it’s very disturbing and unecessary.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 2, 2007
I have managed to watch the full film via Youtube. For what it is (a mass media documentary) it seems to do a reasonably job of presenting the existing arguments against the mainstream position and in explaining one alternate theory for the current warming trend.
Like Al Gores movie it is heavily into the story telling mode of presentation and simplifies things. However given the intended audience both movies were right to do this. They are merely primers.
Some of the controversy seems to be discussed here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception_and_criticism
Comment by terje (say tay-a) | July 4, 2007
Thats tonight!!
Comment by Terje (say tay-a) | July 12, 2007
The debate afterwards was both engaging and comic. And for a short while the ABC website forum about this program crashed.
Comment by Terje (say tay-a) | July 12, 2007
The public panel were a complete bunch of weirdos and losers.
Comment by Michael Sutcliffe | July 12, 2007
Such is democracy.
Comment by terje (say tay-a) | July 12, 2007
I couldnt watch it, Was the Abc biased either way?
Comment by Perry Ferguson | July 13, 2007
Tony Jones was pretty hostile to the documentary, and moderated the discussion accordingly. Unfortunately the main thrust of the docu, ie to introduce some skepticism into the global warming orthodoxy, did not seem to be taken up. Instead the forum was about discrediting the doco. Hence some turns of phrase from Jones like, ‘lets counter skepticism with rational argument’. With what then do we counter credulity?
The audience was a real freaks roll call - but then the Armageddon theme of global warming does draw such people out.
Comment by Matt | July 13, 2007
A friend sent me a message telling me the film maker was a fraud, Is that how it was portrayed on the show?
Comment by Perry Ferguson | July 13, 2007
They even had a LaRouchian
Comment by Tex | July 13, 2007
The documentary was good in the sense that it busted some myths of what is accurately described as global wrming hysteria, but it made too many blunders.
In this sense, the main point that solar forcing was a good model until 17 years ago is lost. If solar forcing was so good for so long, it seems that it should have been accpeted and then asked why it broke down.
I was actually quite impressed by all of the panelists - the audience did throw up one good question as to carbon 14 samples in coal but the questioner went off the rails.
It was implied by Karoly that there is some kind of curved elasticity with respect to CO2 and temperature and that the pace of change is more important than concentrations.
Another thing was Al Gore’s documentuary never got the same kind of scrutiny.
Two points that the critics of Durkin never countered: increasing surface temperatures but cooling troposhpehere and less temperature differences will mean less violent weather.
Personally I think Jones was too harsh on the use of his graphs and cheap ad Hominen attacks.
I don’t think climate science is evolved far enough to make an adequete decision, the earth is warming and some of that is probably to do with AGW. This is the view of both Linzden and the climatologist removed from the film who appeared later on Lateline. From my basic knowledge of time series statistics, the sample size needs to be much larger than 150 observations (as I understand measurements are made yearly) and we need at least about 250.
Another issue not explained was why the Northern Hemisphere is warmer but the South isn’t. (Uban heat Islands?)
The hockey stick IS crap. Standards of data analysis have changed since IPCC 1. You don’t smooth data. It is ignorant of strucutral change, unit roots or jump-states.
A good scientific analysis would look at:
1. The contradictiary stuff produced by both sides that looks good on it’s own.
2. The sensitivity of carbon dioxide in capturing heat.
3. Jump states.
4. Trying to generate a good time-series panel data set.
5. Unit root and cointegration analysis and subsequent error correction modelling.
6. Systems equation modelling (recognising non-linearities).
7. Kitchen sink model of regression model components of each system equation (recognising non-linearities).
8. Le Chatilier’s principal rebuilt into the feedback mechanisms.
9. Data consistency in derived data sets.
With regards to policy, I think a clever system of taxes linked to a futures market is the way to go (i.e the Mc Kitrick proposal). This should be done only after the Government removes perverse incentives and regualtory bias to pollute as well as creating incentives to be more efficient (i.e profit motive in power distribuition will allow for more incentive to modernise electricity transmission and therefore reduce fuel inputs) and it is shown that there is still a net cost in not mitigating pollution.
However, China is building 500 coal fired power stations. How will taxing Australia’s output affect global warming in any meaningful way?
Comment by Mark Hill | July 13, 2007
The film was real so I guess the film maker was authentic. As far as the scientific data that was offered to support his points - it wasnt critically reviewed within the doco (or afterwards).
Comment by Matt | July 13, 2007
They even had a LaRouchian
I think they had several. Who else cares about Prince Phillip?
The carbon-14 guy was probably a creationist.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 13, 2007
You’ve got to remember La Rouchites HATE Libertarians. We are the vanguard of royalist oppression, or some other bullshit.
I don’t care about creationists, is the carbon 14 thing true?
Comment by Mark Hill | July 13, 2007
I was actually quite impressed by all of the panelists - the audience did throw up one good question as to carbon 14 samples in coal but the questioner went off the rails.
This wasn’t a good question. It was standard creationist claptrap.
How do fossil fuels get trace quantities of carbon-14? Radioactivity decay of trace quantities of heavy metals and also possible bacteria.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 13, 2007
They hate global warmers too.
Here is a talkorigins link on carbon-14 in coal http://talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html
Comment by Ken Miles | July 13, 2007
You actually haven’t said whether or not if it is true.
Comment by Mark Hill | July 13, 2007
Another issue not explained was why the Northern Hemisphere is warmer but the South isn’t. (Uban heat Islands?)
Ocean to land ratio.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 13, 2007
Sorry, yes there is trace quantities of carbon-14 in coal. But this has no relevance to global warming.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 13, 2007
A quick search on wikipedia reveals that radiocarbon dating can work up to 60 000 years.
Such an argument is not entirely favourable to creationists.
So could you tell me why this idea doesn’t mean that carbon forcing should be re-examined or further developed?
Comment by Mark Hill | July 13, 2007
Yes, the guy trailed off. But he reckoned that such evidence invalidated AGW somewhat.
Could you explain what he was getting at - very few of the audience questions actually had a point.
Comment by Mark Hill | July 13, 2007
One thing the GGWS didn’t examine was sea heights. Yes it talked about land sinking vs sea levels rising, timescales etc but it didn’t talk about recorded or at least geologically observed records of sea level changes and climate chnages. Or I was dozing off by that stage.
Comment by Mark Hill | July 13, 2007
From my basic knowledge of time series statistics, the sample size needs to be much larger than 150 observations (as I understand measurements are made yearly) and we need at least about 250.
You can construct temperature trends from more than yearly data. For example, the GISS temperature series uses monthly data.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 13, 2007
Another thing the film didn’t talk about was, despite the talk of solar forcing is the variability of distance to the sun from earth. Nor did they really explain the cosmic ray model of cloud formation very well.
Comment by Mark Hill | July 13, 2007
Ken, what is the general number of observations on this kind of data? How far back does GISS go?
If there is a richness in the data, cointegration analysis should be par for the course (papers that don’t do standard unit root testing should be severely criticised). Only recently have I seen such analysis, and one of the papers written at Boston University inferred recent warming was due to a relative decrease in SO2 levels.
Comment by Mark Hill | July 13, 2007
At first, the show seemed impressive. But jones DID raise some important points, such as that the Doco-maker likes to make spectacular shows. He once had a film with top-less women to ‘prove’ that silicon implants would somehow lessen the chances of women getting breast cancer!
Also, the graphs were not as strong as I would have liked- the climate-changers correctly pointed out that they stopped before the end of last century. More modern graphs don’t show his projected trends.
The debate afterwards seemed a bit one-sided, and I didn’t like Karoly’s style- he looked slick, and interjected a few times. However, he seemed to have read a lot, and to have answers for the deniers, such as- just because CO2 has lagged in the past, when we had heat, and then a record of CO2 increase; that doesn’t mean that we can pump CO2 into the atmosphere and not expect consequences.
Overall, the evidence seemed inconclusive, though it did raise doubts about how we interpret evidence. I was also amused by one claim in the film- that Mrs. Thatcher had started the whole Greenhouse movement by wanting scientists to find a way to make nuclear power look good, and she would then give them the funding! As shown on ‘Yes Prime Minister’, you can guarantee the right answer if you are smart enough to ask the right question!
Comment by nicholas gray | July 13, 2007
It’s hard to work out exactly what the guy was saying but here goes…
He jumped on Karoly’s statement that there is isotopic evidence that the carbon dioxide rise is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Basically, fossil fuels are depleted in carbon-14, and the carbon-14 in the atmosphere has been dropping in line with models of the carbon cycle.
The guy doesn’t know what the word “trace” means, and thought that if coal has large quantities of 14C, then it refutes Karoly’s point about isotopic evidence.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 13, 2007
Okay, thanks Ken.
Nicholas, the possible pro nuclear, anti-union and energy security aspect of early AGW research is bizzare.
I was unimpressed when I saw Monbiot as a critic. This guy wants 90% reductions in carbon emissions. What scientific basis is there for these figures? How can we do it without going nuclear or losing a large degree of social welfare?
Alternatives weren’t really mentioned. France gets or used to get all of it’s electric power from nuclear power. America gets or used to get 20%. Nuclear is a dirty word in Australia. It is only a left/right divide here. No such partisan nonsense in Scandinavia.
Comment by Mark Hill | July 13, 2007
Mark, it’s hard to answer that one easily without a lot more reading on my part (GISS produces a lot of graphs and many more datasets). In principle, you can go back to 1880, but the number of temperature stations drops dramatically, and tends to be geographically confined.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 13, 2007
I was unimpressed when I saw Monbiot as a critic.
Monbiot is overrated. He sometimes does a good job attacking BS arguments, but loses it when he starts talking about effects.
Comment by Ken Miles | July 13, 2007
From what i gather, and im no expert.
Even though the sun warming the earth through cosmic rays theory doesnt seem to stand up very well, and the fabrication with the graph on solar levels.
It doesnt seem to change the fact that CO2 follows temperature and not the other way around, now, either im missing something that disputes that, or it isnt being addressed.
But wether their theory as to possible global warming scenarios is correct or incorrect, doesnt is seem more important as to analyse that basic information about what follows what? If CO2 follows temperature then the widely accepted human global warming should be discounted.
Comment by Perry Ferguson | July 13, 2007
This is why I bang on about time series analysis.
Something like a “vector auto regression” using the Engle-Granger hypothesis could test for causation and the direction of causation (Granger causality). It could be one way, the other, both ways or non existent (and probably there would be no cointegration and no unit root). In that case they are probbaly collinear and caused by something else.
Comment by Mark Hill | July 13, 2007
I caught about half of the debate. Jones focused soley on ad hominem attacks regarding the movie, which carry little weight when looking at the overall message of the movie. I guess Jones had a tough job, but he went down a few notches in my mind.
In fact there was a lot of ad hominem thrown around from both sides which was ironic because as far as I could tell they all benefitted from their points of view except for the James Cook uni guy. That Karoly came across as being smug and condescending. True academic. And the panel wasn’t brilliant.
Who was that lady on the panel? I didn’t see how she was supposed to represent business.
Personally I thought the debate needed a bit more science in it, but I have a science background and it’s partly because I’m too lazy to go research the deeper science myself.
I’m pretty sure there’ll be massive government intervention and bureacracy creation instead of just letting the private sector satisfy people’s green desires with new technologies quickly and efficiently. So it’s hard to stay interested.
I’m pretty sure the show would have rated well and hopefully it would have added some perspective to the general public so that there is a genuine weighing up of the pros and cons, as opposed to people who treat environmentalism like a religion acting on guilt feelings and without questioning the overall benefit of the movement
Comment by Tim R | July 13, 2007
The sun does correlate very well up to 1985 or whatever it was. Better than CO2 did. And it correlates very well geologically (ie: over times of varying CO2 levels).
But maybe there’s a lag whereby CO2 has to reach a high enough concentration to effect temp. Although this seems unlikely to me. Maybe its a non-linear relationship as well.
I don’t think anyone mentioned that SO2 is supposed to be the answer to why the temp stayed low from 1940-1970 even though CO2 increased rapidly.
Does anyone know of a link that shows how much heat per molecule or mole that CO2, SO2, H2O and CH4 can absorb?
The ebola virus analogy (given by a scientist) to compare CO2 and H2O was obviously a terrible one.
Comment by Tim R | July 13, 2007
Tim, that was no lady- that was a spokesthing from the Mining Council, brown-nosing with the Climateers! She was there to prove that the mining businesses have rolled over and will play dead if that’s what everyone wants.
And Michael Duffy did raise the interesting point that Jones was a lot harder on Durkin than he was on Stern. It just proves- the more you learn, the less you know.
Comment by nicholas gray | July 13, 2007
The Minerals Council of Australia? Well I think a CEO from a coal mining/petrol company would have been better. She’s obviously got government connections.
Comment by Tim R | July 13, 2007
You folks who believe in things like “CO2 follows temperature” and “solar cycles and cosmic rays explain warming” need to be reading what real climate scientists say. See http://www.realclimate.org/ a blog by — surprise — a group of 11 actual climate scientists set up specifically to address issues such as these. It’s amazing what a difference knowledge makes.
Like everyone who has commented so far, I’m not a climate scientist either. But given a choice between the trained scientist and the guy parroting anti-science talking points, I know who I’d tend take as speaking from knowledge and reason.
I do think the climate change issue is a good one for libertarians to take up as it forces you to examine your most fundamental assumptions which is a good for everyone.
Comment by Trinifar | July 14, 2007
Trinifar, I have read RC’s position on those issues and it is underwhelming. Of course they are correct that even when co2 increases follow temp increases they may have a re-enforcing effect. It’s possible. But that hardly removes the problem. Especially, it doesn’t address why temp decreases happen 800 years before co2 decreases.
A lot of people point to the RC comment on that issue and think that they have made a point. It seems like you (the collective “you”
just want there to be an answer so you pretend there is one. It doesn’t make sense to ignore the scientists. But a healthy dose of skepticism is a good asset in life.
Climate policy is an interesting one and not one that libertarians should shy away from. I don’t believe it challenges any fundamental assumptions.
Comment by John Humphreys | July 14, 2007
John,
Of course they are correct that even when co2 increases follow temp increases they may have a re-enforcing effect. It’s possible. But that hardly removes the problem. Especially, it doesn’t address why temp decreases happen 800 years before co2 decreases.
That CO2 does have a forcing effect and that human industry has pumped an awful lot of CO2 into the atmosphere (and continues to do so at an increasing rate) are not really debated by anymore. There’s clear physical reasoning and demonstrable results to back up those claims. Because of that I find it odd to see people (not necessarily you in particular) supposing CO2 emissions as some sort of “possible” problem rather than a serious, immediate problem.
It doesn’t make sense to ignore the scientists.
On that we agree quite clearly.
But a healthy dose of skepticism is a good asset in life.
Again, we agree. Further, I think we agree that sometimes people confuse healthy skepticism with the “ignorant” (for lack of a better word) variety that’s used to find a way around science they don’t want to accept.
Climate policy is an interesting one and not one that libertarians should shy away from. I don’t believe it challenges any fundamental assumptions.
What I had in mind was this: If you accept climate change and the need to do something about it to avoid serious lasting damage to people and the planet, then you need a way to internalize its costs so the market can react. (I hope I’m using the proper libertarian terminology.) How do you go about doing that? If there is no explicit cost to an electric power producer pushing vast amounts of CO2 into the air, then there’s no reason for them not to keep building old-technology, coal-fired power plants to provide more electricity — as China is doing at an amazing rate (a couple per week).
The easiest reaction — and the one I see most often from conservatives and libertarians — is to deny the problem exists and rationalize that stance with armchair science and/or appeals to outliers in the science community. As Ken Miles notes above, it’s a style of rhetoric right from the pages of the ID/Creationist handbook. I’m not aware of anyone in these groups offering a solution to how individuals and governments should react in the (”hypothetical” if you must) case where the claims are true. What if we have only 10 to 20 years to transform to a low-carbon economy? What is the “right” way to make that change?
I was think about this as I wrote your shrinking carbon dioxide allotment.
Comment by Trinifar | July 15, 2007
“and the one I see most often from conservatives and libertarians — is to deny the problem exists and rationalize that stance with armchair science and/or appeals to outliers in the science community.”
Galelao was of course an outlier. While I do not suggest that the current crop of climate scientists on either side are his match, you cant dismiss scientists on the other side that easily.
It seems that neither side have the intellectual honesty to respect those opposed to them.
Trinifair, if you get religion you will be scary.
Comment by Jim Fryar | July 15, 2007
“You folks who believe in things like “CO2 follows temperature” and “solar cycles and cosmic rays explain warming” need to be reading what real climate scientists say.”
What then is the explanation of these apparent phenomena?
1. Do the real climate people show a causality (say Engle-Granger)test confirming CO2 leading temps and failing temps leading CO2?
2. Have they shown that the cosmic ray theory of cloud formation is untrue? (Even though it is repeatable).
Comment by Mark Hill | July 15, 2007
To explain 1. more: a failed test for temps leading CO2…
Comment by Mark Hill | July 15, 2007
Trinifar — I agree that co2 has a forcing affect, that humans have contributed to higher co2 levels in the atmosphere and that these claims are not in dispute. Further, I agree that temperatures have increased by about 0.6 degrees since 1975 and that human co2 is a probable cause of some of that change.
However, there are some problems with the AGW story in terms of size and certainty of future impact. In particular, there are significant problems with the fear-mongering extreme story promoted by some people (who also, by some amazing coincidence, tend to hate capitalism).
Unfortunately, the exagerated story is becoming accepted wisdom. Last week it rained in Koh Tao (tropical island in south Thailand) during the non-rainy season. My scuba diving instructor (an anti-capitalist) loudly explained to everybody that the unseasonable rain was caused by global warming and that it was the fault of George Bush. In the Courier Mail there is a regular section called “climate change” which reports on any unfortunate weather event. There are many predictions of doom & gloom that have less factual basis than the cosmic ray theory — but seem to be accepted by many without criticism.
It is this exagerated picture that needs deflating by a healthy dose of skepticism. Note: I’m not suggested you believe the extreme scare stories. But I also don’t hear you criticising them the way you criticise the AGW skeptics.
As for the questions raised by climate change for libertarians — it is really only a challenge for anarchists or extreme minarchists. Most libertarians accept some role for government when the consequences are sufficiently important.
As for solutions, I have previously suggested that if the government needs to act, they should introduce a modest carbon tax and use the revenue to remove/reduce other taxes. This drew a mixed reaction from libertarians… but a fair number support the concept. Hopefully my proposal will be published by the free-market Centre for Independent Studies next month.
I know there are bad skeptical/denialist arguments, but it makes no sense to only confront the worst arguments of your adversary. The “creationist” tag (not to mention “delusional”
is inappropriate.
Comment by John Humphreys | July 15, 2007
John,
However, there are some problems with the AGW story in terms of size and certainty of future impact.
I’m not aware of any science program like that of the IPCC in scope, in the number of scientists involved, in the extensive review process it is subject to which includes not only scientists but their governments. This year it’s publishing its 4th assessment report — most of which is already available (the 1st one was in 1990). We also see large corporations backing its results (even oil companies) and some credible scientists say it is far too cautious, watered down by pressure from the US and Chinese governments.
I scratch my head trying to think of a better example of good science and solid reasoning.
In particular, there are significant problems with the fear-mongering extreme story promoted by some people (who also, by some amazing coincidence, tend to hate capitalism).
Do you really want to imply that the 17 year effort by IPCC is some kind of anti-capitalist movement rather than skilled scientists doing good work? Perhaps I’m misreading you, which is easy to do in blog comments.
You aware, certainly, of how easy it is to flip that statement around: “There are significant problems with the optimisticly extreme story promoted by some people (who also, by some amazing coincidence, have a large vested interest in the status quo).” This optimistic tale is also an exagerated story which is accepted wisdom by many.
But I see no merit two sides facing off, each point a finger at the other saying “you are the extremist.”
One thing climate science, all the environmental sciences, have benefitted from is being subjected to sharp and often angry criticism from powerful people in business, think tanks, and governments for that last 40+ years. That’s why the IPCC 4th report is as cautious as it is — and so fundamentally sound. It’s also why so many business people (capitalists) support its findings. Backing sound science is sound business for without a environmentally secure world it’s hard to keep the economy going.
Note: I’m not suggested you believe the extreme scare stories. But I also don’t hear you criticising them the way you criticise the AGW skeptics.
I’m not sure what you think “extreme” means in this context. I don’t find the IPCC doling out extreme scare stories. What they are saying is that we need to keep global warming at or under 2 degrees Celius by the end of the century and that that is a feasible goal. Since they have the science to back it up, I don’t find that extreme and see no reason to criticize them. AGW skeptics on the other hand earn the criticism they receive. AGW is not in doubt, the only part open to rational skepticism are the various ideas about how to mitigate its affects.
My issue is trying to convey what it means to the world economy to actually meet the goal of 2 C or less by 2100. Your proposal of a modest carbon tax is a good first step — but only if it is the first of many steps. So far neither the US or China, by far the largest CO2 producers in the world, have no plan whatsoever for reducing carbon emissions — none, not a single bullet point. We could be investing in new technology, stimulating the economy and innovating, but that’s happening at such a modest level it will be a long time before any of it matures.
My background is in engineering and business development and I’ve seen how fast the hi-tech sector can react. But what we are faced with is a transformation of the world’s low-tech energy infrastructure, and the difficulty is not like that of a chip manufacture bringing up a new line to produce the next generation CPU that will run twice as fast in half the space while consuming half the power. Apples and oranges. We are talking about the need to transform trillions of dollars of capital investment in traditional “brick-and-mortar” technology across (at least) the developed world while simultaneously doing the R&D to find the right mix for its replacement.
That’s what I find extreme, alarming, and all too realistic. Time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. This used to be the kind of thing that “young” nations like the USA and Australia were good at — with our vigor and vitality and all that. Do we still have what it takes or have we become old, stuffy, and complacent?
Comment by Trinifar | July 15, 2007
Do you really want to imply that the 17 year effort by IPCC is some kind of anti-capitalist movement rather than skilled scientists doing good work?
He didn’t say the ‘IPCC is some kind of anti-capitalist movement’, what he said was along the lines of anti-capitalist sympathies (and not specifically directed at the IPCC). But what’s so invalid about implying that? (And I’m really asking the question here, I don’t claim to be an expert). The UN has been around for a lot longer than 17 years and I wouldn’t say it’s ever had a period of pro-capitalist sympathies. Say, for example, you were a well regarded scientist but had pro-capitalist leanings and were suspicious of GW. How easy would it be for you to operate if you were in the IPCC? Do you give any credence to the scientist on ‘Swindle’ that claimed he had to threaten legal action to get his name off a IPCC report he disagreed with?
Comment by Michael Sutcliffe | July 15, 2007
Trinifar,
I could find myself sympathetic to a carbon tax along the lines suggested by John Humphreys. If CO2 is a problem then using government coercion to change the price of CO2 emitting energy sources works to internalise the externality and to provide incentives for investment in alternate energy sources (by raising the return on investment).
However you seem to be suggesting that we need to overlay such an intitiative with:-
1. government funded research and development.
2. government policy targeting stimulation of parts of the economy.
If the price is right the private sector will make the changes necessary. I don’t see why you see as necessary or useful any policy initiative beyond internalising the externality.
Regards,
Terje.
Comment by terje (say tay-a) | July 15, 2007
“We also see large corporations backing its results (even oil companies) and some credible scientists say it is far too cautious, watered down by pressure from the US and Chinese governments.”
So what? What did Enron do? Why is it any different if BP backs carbon trading as well? If there is the same prima facie explicit cost in a tax and a cap and trade scheme, why isn’t there any ulterior motive, but an ulterior motive for China, the US or oil companies that don’t want trading?
“If you accept climate change and the need to do something about it to avoid serious lasting damage to people and the planet, then you need a way to internalize its costs so the market can react.”
In theory that is fine. Will China, India and Africa give a shit about the Maldives or the Dutch?
Your idea presumes that Government policy doesn’t encourage excessive carbon pollution. These incentives need to be removed before the assessment to impose a carbon tax is even thought of.
Comment by Mark Hill | July 15, 2007
I didn’t say the IPCC were extremists. While not perfect, I think they represent the reasonable mainstream of climate science. But the IPCC isn’t saying that rain in Koh Tao or a flood in rural Qld is caused by climate change… the IPCC isn’t predicting decreased life expectancy & lower incomes… the IPCC isn’t suggesting significant sea level rises or dramatic changes in the next 20 years.
However, all of these “facts” (sic) are becoming common knowledge and are being heavily promoted by anti-capitalists. Most of the stories being thrown around by the alarmists have less basis than the criticisms and questions of moderate skeptics and have no basis in the IPCC reports. But for some reason all of the anger and insults are thrown at the skeptics and the fear-mongers are getting a free ride.
I hope you know better. But I note your silence regarding the exagerations and fabrications of the extreme AGW crowd.
There are denialists, skeptics, mainstreamers and alarmists. The main debate is between skeptics & mainstreamers… but unfortunately the alarmists seem to be winning in the media. And you’re letting them.
Comment by John Humphreys | July 15, 2007
However, all of these “facts” (sic) are becoming common knowledge and are being heavily promoted by anti-capitalists. Most of the stories being thrown around by the alarmists have less basis than the criticisms and questions of moderate skeptics and have no basis in the IPCC reports. But for some reason all of the anger and insults are thrown at the skeptics and the fear-mongers are getting a free ride.
John, if we are to worry about all the crazy ideas some people expound — from the Bible waving fanatic on the street corner to some California tree hugger saying the oceans are going to rise 20 meters in 50 years — we won’t have time for anything else. And I don’t see the fear-mongers getting a free ride at all, at least not in the US. Perhaps your media in OZ is very different than ours in the United States, but what I see, every day, is each and every fear-monger being brought into the public square and soundly whipped. The sad part of that is many credible, honest scientists then get treated the same way just for talking about their work. The implication being because some uninformed fear-monger said X, a scientist who credibly says X must be a fear-monger. Some of the changes happening to the planet are dramatic, and not everyone who talks about them is a fear-monger.
EO Wilson is one of the preeminent biologists of our time and a careful, insightful scientist. When he talks of the perils of reducing the biological diversity of the planet, he’s not being a fear-monger; he’s talking about the results of a lifetime of study, peer review, etc., and more than willing to show the impact reduced biodiversity has on the economy, particularly argiculture and medicine. Yet I’ve seen him dismissed by people who have not even bothered to look at his work. They don’t like what they hear and label him an alarmist.
the IPCC isn’t suggesting significant sea level rises or dramatic changes in the next 20 years.
But the IPCC does project profound negative change by 2100 if steps aren’t taken now to move to a low carbon economy, a move not being taken seriously by either the US or China, the two biggest producers of CO2. I think that’s what has everyone’s knickers in a twist.
There are denialists, skeptics, mainstreamers and alarmists. The main debate is between skeptics & mainstreamers… but unfortunately the alarmists seem to be winning in the media. And you’re letting them.
If the alarmists were winning (and again this may be a difference between our countries) wouldn’t we see more dramatic action by governments — or in the case of the US simply any action at all? We can not get a carbon tax, carbon trading, or improved car mileage standards through the US legislature, and those are all relatively modest steps which allow business, industry, and individuals a great deal of flexibility in how to respond. LiveEarth and its 7 point pledge which included banning construction of new coal-fired power plants until sequestration technology was available went complete unnoticed. On the other hand, Glenn Beck, a rightwing radio “shock jock,” got an hour of prime-time on CNN to push the very topic of this post, then CNN repeated the show several times.
If the alarmists were winning wouldn’t there be some indication of it?
From my perspective here in the United States it seems like the skeptics are winning. The mainstreamers have all the science on their side, yet are rarely seen in the media and have no power in government. I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed in this post which I wrote this morning. It will take a serious disruption of energy supply to cause meaningful change and the first to be motivated will be the large oil companies because they are the ones that need price stability most immediately. That’s not all in the post, but it’s in the book that the post discusses.
Comment by Trinifar | July 16, 2007
The energy investors seem to be looking for regulatory certainty. They don’t like dealing with the uncertainty of climate science and so they lobby for a risk free ride created by legislation. Whilst uncertainty remains it would be better if businesses lived with the risk of future regulation of CO2 rather than all of us living with the risks posed by premature regulation. I suspect that it is this desire to be free of risk that has made many in the investment community so supportive of more immediate regulation.
Alarmists come in both flavours. There are the alarmists that say a carbon tax will shut down our economies and the alarmists who say waiting another decade will result in wide spread disaster. Both flavours are a menace.
Personally I like the idea of a carbon tax linked to the tropospheric temperature. That way investors have to deal with the risk of more warming and the risk of no more warming all within a certain framework. If they build windmills and there is no more warming they lose money, if they build coal fired power stations and there is more warming they lose money. Such a process ensures that the private sector judges the science and determines the risk profile, not the regulator.
Comment by Terje (say tay-a) | July 16, 2007