Oddly I was a climate change sceptic, until I saw GGWS, and decided to read up on the ‘facts’ they presented so I could stop being beaten up by my mates.
However GGWS did change my mind...
...about how much I could trust C4 to tell the truth. This is not about bias reporting, the program was always going to be that, and I don’t have a problem with a group taking a side.
But C4 has blatantly distorted the facts, effectively lying by omission. In some cases they are just plain wrong eg volcanic production of CO2
There are loads of examples I found as I looking into the source material they used, but I offer this one. I traced the original research, and some of the follow up papers on what I think is the critical point of the program, that its all about the SUN. Here is a link to a pdf on the problems with this temperature–solar cycle relationship, . It does not support GW over all but does point out some problems with the analysis some people have done. C4 have taken this un-corrected data, and conveniently left off the solar graph from 1980 onwards, when the link is clearly broken, just the time when the IPCC says is the key temperature anomaly. (have a look on page 2 of the paper, there is much better graph than C4s with solar and temp).
Also I can’t find any data on the solar cycle between 1600 and 1700, the little ice age. This seems to be because the solar cycle is calculated from the number of sun spots, and as they said, there were none. Did C4 make their data up? The paper quoted above only goes back to 1700.
There are other examples, but I urge you all to check what C4 are saying, it does not look to be a reflection of the accepted science, even the climate change sceptic science.
So as I said they have change my mind, after reading the research my self, whilst Im not fully convinced of GW, I more sceptical of the sceptics now.
I wonder who doctored the figures - the orginal scientist or the scientists that wrote this paper - and why! Just goes to show even scientists can get it wrong.
There's a piece in today's Independent about the graphs.
It seems the temperature graph for the 20thC was sourced from an obscure journal, and was ultimately based on out-of-date Nasa recordings that appear to only include data from the top third of the globe. Fundamentally it was erroneous information from a very convoluted source that appears to support the skeptics argument far more than the freely and easily available data Nasa puts out now.
Seems there are also strong doubts about several of the other graphs used in the programme.
This was pretty much my experience too. I had not really bothered to look at GW science, until I watched the show. Now I believe GW is most likely caused by man made CO2.
Hopefully someone will manage to sue Durkin. He should be punished for his lies.
I read the article in Independent by Steve Connor and I am confused. It seems to be saying that the Durkin mispresented the fact that the global climate cooled down between 1940 and 1980. Now there is no doubt about this and in fact this is acknowledged in the favourite pro AGW website www.realclimate.org. Now Durkins says that CO2 does not explain this and of course it does not. Even the pro AGW theorists say this is due to sulphate aerosols that has nothing to with CO2.
Now of course this explanation (of global cooling due to sulphate aerosols) came quite recently, when the descripency in the temperature data was noted out and an explanation was required, an absence of which would falsify the AGW theory (as CO2 continued to rise through this period). The variable of sulphate aerosole and its effect on global climate explanation is an ex-post explanation and did not form part of the original CO2 explanation.
So is Martin Durkin right or wrong? What is the point of Steve Conner? He says that in 2001 IPCC 'finds' the link between man made emissions of carbon di-oxide and global warming and IPCC 'confirms' in 2006 that man made emission are responsible for global warming. IPCC report of course does not have any new findings but is essentially a review of the peer reviewed science that does not 'find' anything.
The misinformation campaign on the part of popular media is mind boggling. Durkins omissions are puny in comparison
interesting doco, one thing im a bit miffed about, is where did they get info on sun spots, solar flare, cosmic rays, temp and carbon levels from hundreds and even thousands of years ago. because they had plenty of convincing graphs spanning many hundreds (some thousands) of years. i mean how did they know the strength of the sun thousands of years ago?
Originally posted by What's in your mind: I read the article in Independent by Steve Connor and I am confused. It seems to be saying that the Durkin mispresented the fact that the global climate cooled down between 1940 and 1980. Now there is no doubt about this and in fact this is acknowledged in the favourite pro AGW website www.realclimate.org. Now Durkins says that CO2 does not explain this and of course it does not. Even the pro AGW theorists say this is due to sulphate aerosols that has nothing to with CO2.
Now of course this explanation (of global cooling due to sulphate aerosols) came quite recently, when the descripency in the temperature data was noted out and an explanation was required, an absence of which would falsify the AGW theory (as CO2 continued to rise through this period). The variable of sulphate aerosole and its effect on global climate explanation is an ex-post explanation and did not form part of the original CO2 explanation.
So is Martin Durkin right or wrong? What is the point of Steve Conner? He says that in 2001 IPCC 'finds' the link between man made emissions of carbon di-oxide and global warming and IPCC 'confirms' in 2006 that man made emission are responsible for global warming. IPCC report of course does not have any new findings but is essentially a review of the peer reviewed science that does not 'find' anything.
The misinformation campaign on the part of popular media is mind boggling. Durkins omissions are puny in comparison
just wondered if any of these scientists are suggesting bringing back sulphate aerosols to combat global warming ?
AGW theorists blame humans equally for cooling and warming (you got to give them that, they are balanced!) Sulphate aerosols was due to Industrialization and now cleaner technologies are in place, presumbly this now have led to rise in global temperatures.
It is hard to get your head around it, but once you do you realize you are to be blamed no matter what.
The misinformation campaign on the part of popular media is mind boggling. Durkins omissions are puny in comparison
This is subjective.
The fact remains Durkin doctored graphs to suit his argument. He distorted the view of scientists he has featured in his documentaries. This implies propaganda. The anti-AGW should acknowledge this.
In the same way there seems to be justified criticism of stuff in Al Gore's film.
What we need is accurate non-propaganda information.
Originally posted by What's in your mind: AGW theorists blame humans equally for cooling and warming (you got to give them that, they are balanced!) Sulphate aerosols was due to Industrialization and now cleaner technologies are in place, presumbly this now have led to rise in global temperatures.
It is hard to get your head around it, but once you do you realize you are to be blamed no matter what.
Not "no matter what". It depends on the evidence - and most importantly, what we do, when the evidence shows up.
This issue of "blame" keeps coming up and I think it can be over-emphasised. Some climatic effects have nothing to do with human activity. Others do, but that doesn't make us morally culpable. The industries involved -- producing aerosol pollution and greenhouse gas emissions -- have been going a long time and when they got started, no one could have known about the potential for harmful consequences. And they have produced great benefits too -- wealth, economic growth, and countless technologies, products and services which we otherwise wouldnt have.
So we shouldnt be too hard on humanity / corporations / capitalism for creating these problems.
The moral dimension comes in once we have evidence that our industrial processes are causing harm... and threatening human health, safety and survival. When that becomes clear, we are morally culpable if we IGNORE this evidence -- and unjustly accuse the scientists who report it of all kinds of evil motives... such as, for example, being "obsessed" with blaming humanity for anything bad.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
This has been mentioned on other therads ..Some people are so willing to accept the IPCC report but do they realise that scientific evidence was edited and even removed from the report in addition to that scientsist with weeker or stronger views either way were removed or not quoted on the report... This was to make it easier for all parties to sign up to the report...Therefore without all of the views the report cannot be valid because there is not a proper debate
Originally posted by rickyjk: This has been mentioned on other therads ..Some people are so willing to accept the IPCC report but do they realise that scientific evidence was edited and even removed from the report in addition to that scientsist with weeker or stronger views either way were removed or not quoted on the report... This was to make it easier for all parties to sign up to the report...Therefore without all of the views the report cannot be valid because there is not a proper debate
The misinformation campaign on the part of popular media is mind boggling. Durkins omissions are puny in comparison
This is subjective.
The fact remains Durkin doctored graphs to suit his argument. He distorted the view of scientists he has featured in his documentaries. This implies propaganda. The anti-AGW should acknowledge this.
In the same way there seems to be justified criticism of stuff in Al Gore's film.
What we need is accurate non-propaganda information.
Planet 4.5 Billion years old the main driving force on the climate is the sun...
This current level of warming is nothing compared to what has happened in the past..
I seen a lot of comment cutting and pasting with evidence to suit..the evidence is not overwhelming or convincing that man is responsible for this phase of warming..We are arrogant and insignificant as far as global impact goes locally it may be a different matter... This planet will regulate itself lets face it if we were capable of cooling the planet between 1940 and 1980 and the warm it up again from 1980 onwards then we should be able to terraform the moon and live on it..
There has been a lot of input on computer models some stating that they are excellent and should be relied on others who state there are that many variables that data can be manipulated to fit a theory....When scientific independence is lost either way then sureley the results cannot be relied on....
If the sun died tomorrow who would you blame for global cooling....
For me the argument that the human race is 80% responsible for global warming is arrogant and exagerates our impact...
Britain is supposedly responsible for only 2% of the CO2 emmisions if this is the case why are the british people being punished so heavily...
No doubt a response will be made showing statistics or sites to visit..dont bother iv e looked at them im still not convinced....
Anyway theres nothing I can say thats going to change the world I think ill just resign myself to the fact that Im gonna have the C*** taxed out of me so we can spend it on nuclear weapons or fight illegal wars...
From the link you post: "8. Attribution studies rely on climate models, but these models are tuned to give the right results and therefore can not be trusted.
Climate models are an essential tool in understanding how the climate will respond to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, and other external effects, such as solar output changes and volcanoes. The models use fundamental physics and chemistry to simulate processes within the climate system and are rigorously assessed to ensure their reliability." As far as I know, there is no such reliable climate model. Scientists have produced many models. None have yet proved reliable.
Climate models climate schmodels, GIGO. The basic question is "did the sun cause the planet as a whole to heat up .06 of a degree over the last seventy years?" The answer these scientist will give is that they don't have the equipment necessary to measure that. They are right. The Sun is too hot for a .6 of a degree flux to be detected with a NASA magnetomiter. But instead of looking for a better instrument, these scientists decided to invent an easier computer generated sun to read. If the question is "did the sun increase in output over the last 70 years enough to raise the temp of the Earth by .6 of a degree?" we have a better instrument available for inspection regarding this question. Methane gas is 23 times more efficient at storing heat then CO2, there for a planet with a known constituent of Methane in it;s atmosphere would be 23 times more sensitive to Solar fluxuations in the narrow band we are discussing. Is there such a planet available? Why yes! Jupiter has methane in it's atmosphere measured to be 1000 ppm. Has Jupiter's atmosphere showed any signs of global warming over the last 70 years? Yes it has! Boy has it ever. The second largest storm cloud known to man
