Debunking the Great Global Warming Swindle debate

[Swamp Gas]

inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html


Deconstructing Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle


Those of you watching Channel 4's slick documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, may be forgiven for second guessing the foundations upon which many of us rest our policy research. The big guns were wheeled out to cut into Global Warming theory, and to the layman it could have appeared to be a bloodbath. Even the Channel 4 announcer took a swing before the start: "Climate change; is it down to the car you drive, the airmiles you clock, the light you didn't turn off? Questionable."

The documentary had plenty of big names, and much name-dropping of institutions and awards. The content, however, was riddled with old half-truths and some straw man arguments thrown in for good measure. The main content is summarized below, and annotated with comment and links for better info. I would be happy to discuss any of my comments here - feel free to make corrections, improvements, additions below.

1. Climate is always changing, this temperature is not strange. We shouldn't worry, as warming will bring "vineyards ... wonderfully rich time." (Philip Scott) Climatologists have never denied that temperature variation has been a part of the Earth's history. What is worrying, however, is that the levels of CO2 are higher than they have been for 650,000 years (link) and likely in 20 million years (link), and the rate that current changes are taking place (see here and here) are much faster than they have been in the past. And while we may have vineyards and a wonderful time here in the UK, the developing countries will certainly get the short end of the stick.

2. Historically, CO2 trends appears to lag global mean temperature increases; CO2 doesn't drive temperature change. Yet another old argument. Oddly, they laugh at Al Gore's comment that the relationship between CO2 and temperature change is "complicated", suggesting he was glossing over the details and hid the truth. (If the carbon cycle isn't complicated, I don't know what is!) They then proceed to give an overly simplistic view of the climate, stating that during the heaviest industrialisation post-WWI, there was global cooling - therefore CO2 had no effect. They fatally neglect the time lag for warming from CO2, or the cooling impact from aerosols like SO2. But Real Climate to debunk their claim here: the apparent lag of CO2 from temperature in the historical records is a result of feedbacks which release more CO2.

3. Human's can't change the atmosphere - it's so immense. [Update 15.03.07: Having read the transcript, I see that misheard Stott's comment. He indicated the Sun was so immense, suggesting we were just small fry with no impact. I think my comment still holds, however.] Logical fallacy here - appealing to emotion and wonder. For a really accessible example of humans impacting the climate, we just have to look at the impact that the lack of airplane contrails had on temperature in the US after 9/11 (link).

4. Humans contribute only a minor part of total CO2. This is also not disputed. However, we do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that humans have contributed to recent increases in CO2 concentrations (link, link). It appears, that by disrupting the natural balance of the carbon cycle (which involves the atmosphere, plants, animals, oceans, and geology), we are able to warm the planet.

5. The surface of the Earth is warming faster than the troposphere, which is the opposite of what greenhouse warming theory would suggest. This argument has been going on for years. However, a 2004 article in Nature (link, and more discussion here) puts rest to these concerns, and the IPCC Fourth Assessment report will conclude that the troposphere is warming at least as quickly as the surface - consistent with theory. The confusion of whether the troposphere was warming quickly enough arose from a cooling bias from the stratosphere (which cooled as a result of less ozone). [Update 15.03.07: See also a US CCSP report which Christy himself co-authored here. It said: "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. ... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."]

7. Cosmic rays can explain warming, as they affect cloud cover - which has a cooling affect. The argument from Nigel Calder and Danish space science skeptics has featured on this blog before, and on BBC's Newsnight - where Calder was thoroughly demolished by an atmospheric physicist from Imperial College. Basically, the Danes have found that cosmic rays produced ionized particles, an published it in a peer reviewed paper here. The article made no mention of global warming or climate change, but Calder and the Danes wrote a book anyway, making numerous jumps of assumption to say that those ionized particles would produce more clouds and thus cool the Earth. However, those assumptions have not been peer-reviewed, and there exists no long-term trend for cosmic ray flux, while global mean temperature keeps rising. RealClimate has discussed his claim (here). More arguments for cosmic rays came from Nir Shaviv et al. These have also been questioned in peer-reviewed literature here and discussed in RealClimate.org here.

6. Media and scientific self-interest in reporting more and more dramatic results. The global warming community needs to perpetuate itself to keep the money flowing. This, however, is not an argument against the science, but a clever tactic by the documentary makers to get the audience thinking that it is all a big conspiracy. Yet they fail to mention that hysteria is not new to the media - see crime, pedophilia, and immigrants as other examples. As for self-interest in science, it is of course in anyone's interest to promote the importance of their work - for publicity or money. However, the documentary makers failed to show how this debunked the theory of global warming.

8. Environmentalists say industrialisation causes global warming, and thus want to stop industrialisation and the great improvments it has given our lives. A straw man argument if I've ever seen one. By associating CO2 emissions with industrialisation and economic growth, the documentary plays an emotional trick by making us think that the quality of life we have will be taken away from us if the environmentalists had their way. While CO2 emissions are indeed associated with industrialisation, it is not a relationship that cannot be undone. For example, Vestas in Denmark have generated immense wealth by producing wind power generators. China has recently decoupled economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions growth (link) [Update 15.03.07: Better info in this and this article. Thanks, Bruce, for the comment.].

9. "Developing countries are coming under intense pressure not to develop." They finally claimed that environmentalists are stopping developing countries from installing fossil fuel plants, forcing them instead to use expensive renewable source of energy instead. This was called "anti-human". Unfortunately, no evidence was presented on this point - no data on World Bank projects, or similar. They did, however, visit a hospital that had been fitted with a solar panel, which could power either the fridge or the lights - but not both. The inference was that if environmentalists hadn't stopped the building of a fossil fuel power stations, the hospital could use the fridge and lights at the same time. Yet did the documentary prove that the hospital was in proximity to be wired to the grid at lower cost than the panel? You bet they didn't! [Update 15.03.07: See a further discussion regarding rural renewables in a new post by Chiara from In the Green here.]

[Swamp Gas]

Oh, this is hilarious. Joe Barton, the Great Oil industry climate change skeptic speaks. ;D ;D

www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54808


THE HEAT IS ON

Gore plan would 'ban new cars and people'

GOP congressman blasts former VP at hearing: 'You're not just off a little. You're totally wrong'

Posted: March 21, 2007

2:30 p.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com



U.S. Rep. Joe Barton

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, today told former Vice President Al Gore his theories on global warming are not supported by the facts and if Gore's desires are implemented, there would be no new businesses, cars or even people allowed in the United States.

"You just gave us an idea for a straight CO2 freeze, if I heard you correctly. I think that's an idea that's flawed. If you take that literally, we can add no new industry, nor new cars and trucks on our streets, and apparently no new people," Barton, who represents the 6th District in Texas, said. "People are mobile-source emitters. Every person emits 0.2 tons of CO2 a year, so an absolute true freeze would be no new industry, no new people, and no new cars."

During a hearing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Barton challenged the "facts" being used to promote Gore's campaign for a new war on global warming, portrayed in Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore has called such warming "a crisis that is by far the most serious we've faced," and described it as "a true planetary emergency."

But Gore's claims that climactic changes that are forecast in coming years should be blamed on increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and will produce rising ocean levels, more dangerous weather and widespread flooding or drought weren't supported by the facts, according to Barton.


"The first thing I want to address is the science of global warming as portrayed by the vice president's film, 'An Inconvenient Truth.' This is something that I think we absolutely have to get right. Even the mainstream media, Mr. Vice President, are now noticing that global warming science is uneven and evolving. We need to be deliberative and careful when we talk about so-called scientific facts," Barton, the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said.

"In your movie, you display a timeline of temperature and compared to CO2 levels over a 600,000-year period as reconstructed from ice core samples. You indicate that this is conclusive proof of the link of increased CO2 emissions and global warming. A closer examination of these facts reveals something entirely different," Barton said.

Barton said a Science magazine article he was submitting for the record shows that historically, increases in CO2 concentrations actually lagged temperature changes by up to 1,000 years.

"The temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa. On this point, Mr. Vice President, you're not just off a little. You're totally wrong. And it's not just this one article; the president of the National Academy of Sciences agreed, under oath, last summer in an Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing on this very point," said Barton.

Barton also noted that "historically, and repeatedly," CO2 levels have far exceeded concentrations now being reported, which are in the range of 380 parts per million.

"Indeed, CO2 levels in the past have exceeded 1,000 ppm, and average earth temperatures have been much higher then than they are today. We know these things. … t remains a fact, and is clear from the data we do have, that for hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels followed temperature rise, not the other way around, as you preach," he said.

"You've also asserted that global warming will cause sea levels to rise by over 20 feet. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report indicates a rise of at most 23 inches.

"You state that there will be more and stronger hurricanes because of global warming. The IPCC report does not support this claim. You also state that malaria has been exacerbated in Nairobi because of global warming. The World Health Organization report does not support this allegation. In fact, malaria is not exclusively a warm weather disease – inhabitants of Siberia have long experienced malaria outbreaks," Barton noted.

Barton said without a doubt legislation needs to keep four things in mind: "We want to be sure it actually helps the environment; we want to keep the lights on at an affordable price; we want to keep the American economy strong and American jobs here, and we can't get out in front of what is technologically possible at the current time."

Barton said there are, in fact, some good ideas that Gore has promoted, and Congress already has acted in most of those cases. "They include more efficient use of electricity in heating, cooling, appliances, and lighting; more energy efficient buildings and businesses; more fuel efficient cars, hybrids and fuel cell cars; better designed cities, mass transit and fuel efficient trucks; increased use of renewables; and carbon capture and sequestration. These are good ideas; they are not just reasonable responses to climate change, but they're good energy policy as well.

"We have before you one of your tables from your book, I believe. I'm happy to report that in the last Congress, under the chairmanship of myself and with the strong and able support of Mr. Dingell, the current chairman, we reported out and passed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on a bipartisan basis. If we look at that piece of legislation, we'll see that many of the things you've recommended, we've already done," Barton said.

"You want more efficient systems for heating and cooling and appliances and electronic equipment. In the Energy Policy Act we did that in Titles 1, 9, and 13. You want end-use efficiency design in buildings and businesses to use far less energy than they currently do. We did that in Titles 1, 9 and 13. You want increased vehicle efficiency, cars that run on less gas and more hybrid and fuel-cells cars. We attempted to start that process in Titles 7, 8, 9, 13, and 15. You want to make other changes in transportation efficiency, better mass transit systems and heavy trucks that use less fuel. We did that in Titles 7 and 9. You want increased renewable energy – wind, solar and biofuels. We do that in Titles 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18. And finally you think that we need to research and try to capture and store carbon from power plants and factories. We start that process in Titles 4, 9 and 17. So on many of the things you recommend, we not only agree with you, we've already done it," he said.

Other Gore ideas, however, are flawed, Barton said.

"Your suggestion of a carbon tax is a something that would harm our competitiveness, raise costs to American families, export jobs, and actually do very little to improve our environment. Likewise, a Kyoto-style cap-and-trade system for CO2 will mainly increase the price of electricity while providing few, if any, environmental benefits. These proposals, especially considering that neither of them includes large emitters of greenhouse gases such as China and India, fail the common-sense test that any legislation should meet: they provide little benefit at a huge cost," Barton said.

"A carbon tax on the American people, or instituting a cap on carbon without the participation of nations like China and India, is an attempt to reverse global warming similar to a doctor telling an overweight, sedentary chain-smoker to wear a seat belt. China is adding a coal power plant a week, and will add more coal-fired electricity generation this year than the entire state of Texas currently has. When you were vice president and you jetted into Kyoto to sign the Kyoto Protocol, you rejected requests of people like myself and Chairman Dingell to insist that China and the developing nations be included in that same protocol.

"Let's look in Europe when they tried to instigate their cap-and-trade. In Germany electricity wholesale rates have risen 30 to 40 percent and they're facing job losses. Despite all the efforts of the European nations that signed Kyoto, almost none of these countries are on target to meet their Kyoto obligations. Cap-and-trade isn't working in Europe; it will not even be tried in Asia, and it should not be unilaterally imposed in the United States of America," Barton said.

Even as Gore prepared to appear before the House committee, Czech President Vaclav Klaus was calling the issue a new religion, and describing it as the modern equivalent of communism.

"It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom," the Czech leader has said.

"As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants," said Klaus, responding to questions posed by the two lawmakers. "Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism."

[Swamp Gas]

A little bit on Barton......


thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/07/rep_joe_barton_.html


Rep. Joe Barton, 'anti-climate-change fundamentalist'

by Plutonium Page

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) doesn't have much in his background that qualifies him as a critic on climate science studies... not unless you count the fact that he has received substantial donations from the global warming industry oil and natural gas industry.

So, Rep. Barton's in the pocket of the energy lobby, and you have to wonder if that plays any part in his recent participation in the GOP war on science:

In what observers are calling an unprecedented request, a member of the U.S. Congress has asked prominent researchers for all the raw data underpinning an influential historical study that shows that the earth’s climate has been warming dramatically since 1900.

In a letter dated June 23 and sent to three scientists, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) charges that other researchers have found methodological flaws and data errors in their study, which has become known as the hockey-stick paper. Barton also asserts that the researchers have failed to share their raw data and the computer code used in the analysis.

However, scientists familiar with the research say that the hockey-stick paper has already stood up to intense scientific scrutiny and that the raw data are already available. They say that the request is simply politics and is meant to intimidate climate scientists from further linking global warming to human activity.

This makes me want to scream. Who the hell does this asshat think he is? Oh yeah. He's a Republican congressman. Never mind, my mistake. Sorry about that.

Anyway, look below the fold for more on hockey sticks, Barton, and blatant intimidation tactics.



So what's this "hockey stick" paper?

Well, it takes data from a variety of sources (tree rings, ice core composition, etc.) and puts it all together to show increasing temperatures. In other words, they generated the following plot, which, if you use your imagination, looks like a hockey stick (click image to enlarge):



(If you have access to the journal Nature, the reference is Nature 1998, 329, 779–787.)



What do I mean by the "GOP war on science"?

Well, I've written quite a bit about that, but the article sums it up in one paragraph:

Barton’s requests come as a growing number of scientists charge that President Bush has been attempting to make the science on global warming appear uncertain. Rick Piltz, a government employee in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, recently resigned because White House officials were making excessive changes to the program’s reports.


Barton's intimidation tactics letters

He wants it all, and he wants it now:

In letters to Michael Mann, an assistant professor with the department of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and two of his colleagues, Barton wrote: “Provide the location of all data archives relating to each published study for which you were an author or coauthor.” Barton also asked for curricula vitae, lists of all sources of financial support for research, and the computer code used to generate the hockey-stick analysis.

The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) also received a letter from Barton requesting a list of “all grants and all other funding given for research in the area of climate.” The letter also asks for details of any violations concerning the sharing of information and enjoins NSF to describe “in detail how your agency has supported or disseminated the information in the Mann et al. studies.

According to scientists who have read the letters, the letters sound as if Barton doesn't have an actual climate scientist advising him. And the best quote from the article is the one I've highlighted in bold:

“What a pain,” says Frank von Hippel, a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University and a former assistant director in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. “It looks like the work of these anti-climate-change fundamentalists,” he added. “These guys are really feeling their oats.”

I'm not one of those "framing" people, but damn, if "anti-climate-change fundamentalists" isn't a great way to start talking about this idiots, I don't know what is.

All of the scientists intend to respond to the requests, although Mann points out that all of his data are available on the internets. But that would be too easy for Barton.



Here's the conclusion to the article. Read it, and you'll see why all of this anti-science stuff perpertrated by the GOP really pisses me off:

In June of this year, the presidents of 11 national academies of science signed a statement that climate change is real. “Action taken now to reduce significantly the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change,” wrote the presidents. Signatories included scientific leaders from the U.S., U.K., China, India, and Russia.

This statement was largely ignored by major media outlets in the U.S.

Yes, it's real. Either that, or all of those damned presidents of those national academies are a bunch of delusional idiots.

Nope, that would be the President of the United States, and all of his oil-loving constituents and their GOP CongressCreatures.

[Don Smith]

I have not settled on a "fixed' position about climate change.
My cynical side is suspicious of any generalizations made, as it tends to be a system to co-opt most "populist" movements and marginalize them.
I do not dispute that climate change is real event, the massive die offs of birds,(especially in the Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream shift has moved the fish away from the nesting areas of the water fowl, millions of dead and low survival projections for the future), the fast melting of polar ice, all point to conditions of extreme danger for the planet.
Perhaps any discussion of this should be regarded as a good thing, as the general awareness of anything "scientific" is disregarded by the consumer society on their way to the mall.
I fear that this will become politicised and made into another "issue", which can be argued by two(!) points of view.
Very much like having a debate about cancer while the patient dies.
The great hope people seem to have in Gore, seems out of touch to me also, as any study of Gore's past and investments,(let alone his roll over and grease it up surrender of the White House), show that he is more of the same.
I do wish there were an easy answer to the questions, I do know that the usual suspects are not the one's to be in charge of this inquiry.

[Swamp Gas]

I think the Climate Change skeptics are focusing on Gore because he is an easy target for them to focus on. If you take him out of the equation, you are left with the overwhelming majority of climatologists saying one aspect of Climate change, Global Warming, is being accelerated by Human Activity. The majority of people who shun the idea that humans are indeed the major cause of this particular cycle would be the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush limbaugh, Exxon/Mobil (until recently), GW Bush, Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, Nuclear Industry, and Fundamentalists. They all have some stake in "targeting" hippies, environmentalists, progressives, gays, vegetarians, etc. The Bible itself in I think it is Revelation 8 talks of "Burning all the trees and plants" before God comes back. Man Coulter hates liberals, so she has a stake, The Oil, nuclear, and energy companies want to continue to pollute, and the Fundies hates Gays.

I know Gore rolled over with Bush in 2000, and that still baffles me. He also backed NAFTA and GATT. Bad idea. I do not see him as some Illuminati Stooge like a lot of the Libertarians see him as though.

BTW, I think Global Warming is a prelude to another Ice Age, as happened before to Planet Earth, except now there are billions of humans present.

[Swamp Gas]

More garbage by these "accredited scientists". They are distorting and misquoting.....The one thing Right-wingers are great at doing.

observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html


Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'


Ben Goldacre and David Adam
Sunday March 11, 2007
The Observer

A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.
He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.


Article continues

The film, shown on Thursday, was made by Martin Durkin. In 1997, he produced a similar series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which attacked many of the claims of the environmental movement.
Durkin said: 'Carl Wunsch was most certainly not "duped" into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said.'

Channel 4 said: 'We feel it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the scientists featured now has concerns about his contribution, we will look into it in the normal way.'