re:how about a little commonsense

Posted by Matthew on Thursday 9.08.2007, 01:41 PM

I would be inclined to agree with you. However, I've seen more than once not just on the documentary that these "top scientists" are not actally top scientists and indeed some of them not even scientists, programme producers or reviewers.
Doesn't it seem odd that the report and scientific findings of such a ground breaking discovery are not obviously available when you google search? Such a discovery would be like a bible. It just seems like a newspaper headline as there is little reference to it.
The papers make erroneous predictions and people forget when they're prooved wrong, that's how they get away with it.
There is also a rumour the sunspot theory has been discredited as the solar activity has remained level and temperature continued to rise but since about 1998 it has levelled, just like the solar activity. There will inevitably be a small lag.
Let's face it it's a much better correlation than the co2 one but why hasn't this been discredited too?too politically incorrect which is what everything in this world is becoming about these days, political correctness.Please take this on board anyway, if you don't completely agree.

Delusions of grandeur

Posted by sheetal kashyap on Sunday 10.06.2007, 10:21 AM

I found the documentary intriguing. I am not informed enough scientifically to comment seriously on the technical arguements, but i did feel that the programme was productive and valuble in that it led me to question a theory that i had previously 'swallowed whole'. The arguement that global warming would not lead to increased storm activity i did agree with entirely. I also agree with the assertion that warm periods in the past are associated with periods of wealth and productivity. In the later middle ages vinyards were common in the UK as far north as (i think) yorkshire, yet as far as i am aware this period is not associated with the desertification of southern italy.
One thing that doesnt ever seem to be questioned is the view that manmade global warming is 'unnatural' and a very bad thing. It is disengenous to refer to human activity as unnatural, when in arguably all that we do is a particularly unusual form of genetic variation.
I do wonder about the models for carbon and methane output, which suggest that ruminants are a major source of warming gases,more so (am i right here?) than (fuel burning) human activity. Why not ban cattle farming then?
All agree on the fact that climate has varied greatly in the past, without killing nearly everything on the planet - why should it do so now just because its 'all our fault'? Evolutionary theory also teaches us that biological diversity and development is driven by change. Biodiversity will not remain in stasis any more than language or human society does. The world will change around us whether we like it or not.
From a socialogical point of veiw I am intrigued by the similarity in human behaviour between global warming theory and suggested solutions, and the practise of sacrifice to appease the gods in many societies. It appears to me that we are applying a very similar form of logic - that if we dont offer to give something highly valuble to us to an intangible entity then we risk our society being destroyed in a fit of revenge.
It is my view that this represents a great human misconception, in that we tend to belive that we are so important that we can in fact appease and control the forces that govern our evironment, when in fact the opposite is clearly true, we are at the mercy of environmental change in just the same way as any other species - perhaps more so due to our current inflated population level.
I wonder if this is a religious concept bought about by the development of and practise of farming, where to a small extent we have learnt to influence, though not control, our immediate environment and food source, and thus developed the concept that we are capable of extending our influence further. Do aboriginal societies have a similar perception of sacrifice?
Well, this is a late contribution to this thread of blogs, though i hope it warrants a reply from someone. Ta ta.

How about a little common sense

Posted by on Saturday 24.03.2007, 11:45 PM

If you are not convinced Mr. Durkin is the real "swindler", please consider the following:

The 4th report by UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in 2007 and compiled by 600 scientists from 40 countries, states that global warming is "unequivocally" happening and that there is a "90% chance that it is caused by human activity."

If all 600 scientists from 40 countries not only had made a mistake with regard to the global warming data available to them, but as suggested by Martin Durkin were deliberately "lying" about the causes of global warming, it would surely belong in the Guinness Book of Record as the best organised hoax in the history of mankind.

And in addition to the 600 scientists add another 2000+ research assistants and support staff in laboratories, research stations and universities across the globe, who somehow are all lying consistently about the cause of rising temperatures. And then there are all the UN staff, who naturally also will have to be involved too to pull off this amazing stunt.

The sad fact is that there is no easy way out. Our world is changing and our lives will change before we are through with global warming. No time to waste on silly conspiracy theories, which is founded on nothing more than flawed film making.

re: Informative

Posted by on Wednesday 14.03.2007, 10:45 AM

"The fact that ice cores show consistently that temperature rose first and [800] years later CO2 increased in the atmosphere... ...I think it was misleading that Al Gore's film used that same data in support of the greenhouse effect theory."

Just how did Al Gore's graphics manage to show the correlation (peaks & troughs similarity), along the same time base, when there was a 800 year time lag between temperature rise/fall and then CO2 rise/fall?

Was this deliberate deception?

By displaying such a long time span (650,000 years) it would be difficult for the viewer to spot the lag of 800 years, but should still be just visible. If you look very closely, I think you can just see it.

Temperature is in WHITE, not the traditional RED (see right-hand legend "Temperatue" and hear Gore's commentary).

Or am I wrong? If I am, then did Al Gore create a scientific FRAUD by removing the lag from the results?

If I am not wrong, then Gore's own evidence disproves his statements. Did he deliberately use RED (normally used for temperature - from the "red" bulb thermometer) to bring about his deception?

Can Gore be prosecuted for this scientific fraud? If not, then for dis-information?

I am certain that if he entered into a scientific debate then he has a certain "liability exposure" now, as an scientific advisor to the public at large.

Surely he can now be sued for wrongful advice? Any person or company, suffering as a result of his wrongful advice, surely has a case for damages against him, no?

Its not about Martin Durkin its about facts

Posted by on Tuesday 13.03.2007, 07:01 PM

All documentary film makers’ work represents their own viewpoint through careful editing. I don't really know anything about Martin Durkin but for the comments below. And judging from those, he's done what every other film maker, newspaper editor, interviewer and tabloid does everyday. He edits the information to show a particular point of view. Mike Moore's documentaries are perfect examples of that. This debate is about climate change (specifically global warming) and whether its man made or natural. It’s about finding what is the most plausible cause and hopefully find definitive proof of that. Personality or personal history of the film maker is not proof of anything. I can make similar accusations against Al Gore’s honesty. For example, he says that the snows of Mt Kilimanjaro are subsiding because of global warming (no mention of deforestation being the cause), that lake Chad has almost dried up because of global warming (no mention that its the most irrigated lake in Africa and one of the most shallow and nearly dried out in 1908 and 1984), that Polar bears are threatened by global warming (the population has been increasing steadily since the 80's and is also hunted by the Inuit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml), that ice core studies show that CO2 and temperature relationship are linked in that C02 causes the temperature increase (in fact they show the opposite), that the "hockey stick" shows the dramatic increase of temperature rises in the last century (there is controversy over the validity of this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy), that hurricanes and tornados will ravage the earth and sea levels will rise 7 meters (global warming should be reducing the amount of violent weather and even the much hyped IPCC report states that the max range of sea level rise is 23 inches). All the while we are told to reduce our carbon footprint, yet Al Gore's home uses 20 times the US national average of electricity (of which he "buys" carbon offsets from a company he owns). Now that’s misleading and dishonest, but in his case, the film gets an Academy. The only evidence shown of man made warming so far has been circumstantial (0.7 degrees celcius rise in the last 100 years) and based on consensus science. I want real evidence and proof, not computer models that 'predict' the future or science that is influenced by government policy. We shouldn’t base our beliefs on a single documentary but do our own research to get to the truth. Wikipedia is good source of information and this provides a starting point on both sides of the climate debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_controversy

Why so frightened of debate?

Posted by on Tuesday 13.03.2007, 05:24 PM

Whaaaa whaaaa whaaaaa. That nasty man won’t just lie down and agree with me and instead wants to think for himself, and worse still he wants other people to make up their own minds. It’s not fair, we know what’s best for everyone and we are going to whine like children until everyone believe in the new anti-capitalist / anti development crusade. We are going to lobby the government until they start giving Asbo’s to non believers. Whaaa whaaaa whaaaaaa……….. Guys, wise up. If you’re right then you shouldn’t be worried about a bit of criticism and few ideas that are different to your own. If you’re right then the truth will stand for itself. However the fact you’re all whinging so much leads me to conclude that you don’t really have much faith in your arguments/convictions. But then the left has never had much time for debate or ideas that don’t exactly fit with the party line.

Why Annoyed

Posted by on Sunday 11.03.2007, 09:54 PM

The scientists point of view is represented with no more bias than in Al Gore's polemic.

The Great Global Warming Swindle:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q;=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl;=en

Why so quiet about the maker Martin Durkin?

Posted by on Sunday 11.03.2007, 03:49 AM

It has been mentioned numerous times in the below posts that Martin Durkin's credability as a film maker leaves a lot to be desired. Why is it that those that support the programme have thus far made no comment about him? I guess the silence about Martin Durkin and his previous dishonest film making practices speak volumes.

Science compromised

Posted by on Sunday 11.03.2007, 01:07 AM

The most significant comment in the programme which for me rings true, is that criticism of any aspect of Man made Global Warming theory leads to ridicule of the criticism rather than a proper scientific refution. So the "Scientific Research Process", already compromised by confidentiality demanded by corporate sponsors, is now further undermined by politics, propaganda (now called spin).

Much of the program was "soft" argument (understandable) BUT the temperature profile with altitude was cited as proof that greenhouse effect is negligible - if this argument is false then could the counter-argument be given

a proper dabate is needed

Posted by on Saturday 10.03.2007, 06:12 PM

I was very impressed by the documentary. For over 10 years all I have heard is that humans are causing global warming. About time the opposing argument was heard. Now what is needed is a proper televised debate between the two sides. This debate is something that should take place immediatly before more millions of taxpayers dollars are spent

Imformative? or was it trying to misinform?

Posted by on Saturday 10.03.2007, 03:35 AM

In response to the previous post.
You say you found this programme imformative but the time lag between temperature change and CO2 output has been well known to scientist for a while now and isn't a new revelation. The trouble with this programme was that it picked holes in Al Gore's film without allowing the makers on An Inconvenient Truth the chance to defend the footage shown. The difference with this programme was that they were deliberatley and directly attacking Man made global warming theories without allowing any responce to their charges. As far as I'm aware Al Gore's film wasn't attacking any theories.
As another poster below has posted the maker of the " The Great Global Warming
Swindle" Martin Durkin has a history of dishonest and agenda driven bad film making and has been in trouble with the Independent Television Commission. This is hardly the credentials of a film maker who merits too much trust with the truth.

Informative

Posted by on Friday 9.03.2007, 10:14 PM

I found this documentary informative and its theories on climate change persuasive. The fact that ice cores show consistently that temperature rose first and years later CO2 increased in the atmosphere and that there were times when the atmosphere held up to 4000 ppm of CO2 (current level are 380) without the world ending or turning into a fireball show that there is more to climate than CO2. I think it was misleading that Al Gore's film used that same data in support of the greenhouse effect theory.

I'm surprised people are attacking this film as one sided. It's the other end of the global warming debate. Just like Al Gore's film was about man made Global Warming (and by the way that film didn't even have any scientist explaining any of the theories).

I don't believe there is a global warming conspiracy as such. I think that the global warming is being used by media, green groups and politicians each with their own agenda. The less we question it or speak out, dissenting views will not be heard.

Bias

Posted by on Friday 9.03.2007, 09:40 PM

So where was the disagreement in "An Inconvenient Truth"? If you want to be annoyed, get angry over the way the AGW lobby stifles dissent (try googleing "Global Warming Dissent" for some truly infuriating stories of suppression). That's the main problem, and it starts with the UN who have been making unjustified claims since they got on this bandwagon (just look how many people they now employ in the environmental part of their empire).

The director has a prior record of distortion

Posted by on Friday 9.03.2007, 07:28 PM

Martin Durkin

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

In 1997 television producer Martin Durkin from the TV company Kugelblitz made a series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which targeted environmentalists, presenting them as 'the new enemy of science' and as comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible, the series argued, for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World. (Crimes against Nature , The Revolution Has Been Televised )

Channel Four had to broadcast a prime-time apology after Against Nature drew the wrath of the Independent Television Commission which ruled, 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.' (See CHANNEL 4 SAVAGED BY TELEVISION WATCHDOG )

Having seen the programes in advance, the Guardian's Environment correspondent, John Vidal, sought to identify the perspective from which the programmes had been made, 'I only know of one broad group which consistently uses this sort of argument about "environmentalism''. The Far Right. In the US, the Wise Use Movement is linked to the militias and its members beat up environmentalists who they call ''commies''. In South America and Asia, corporations and landowners spend millions killing them and bribing or influencing politicians against their arguments. Against Nature appears to peddle their line, yet C4 either can't see it or approves.'

Vidal's conclusion was understandable as the series provided a platform for a whole string of contributors from the Far Right but those behind Against Nature were not the usual right wing suspects. Rather, as Guardian columnist George Monbiot noted, the critical links were to a network then centered on the magazine LM, formerly known as Living Marxism , the monthly review of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP).

Monbiot writes, 'The assistant producer of Against Nature, Eve Kaye, was one of the principal coordinators of the RCP/LM. The director, Martin Durkin, describes himself as a Marxist, denies any link with LM, but precisely follows its line in argument. The series starred Frank Furedi, previously known as Frank Richards, LM's regular columnist and most influential thinker, and John Gillott, LM's science correspondent, both billed as independent experts. Line by line, point by point, Against Nature followed the agenda laid down by LM: that greens are not radicals, but doom-mongering imperialists; that global warming is nothing to worry about; that "sustainable development" is a conspiracy against people; while germline gene therapy and human cloning will liberate humanity from nature.'

Durkin's hidden agenda and controversial methods did not stop Channel 4 from making further use of his services, as Private Eye noted in February 2000, 'What does Channel 4 do with programme makers condemned by the TV watchdog, the Independent Television Commission (ITC), for using underhand editing techniques? The answer is, er, hire them to make another programme... Despite the damning ITC judgement the programme was seen at Channel 4 as somthing of a triumph, and science programmes commissioning editor Sarah Ramsden recieved high praise. Now Durkin is back with TV company Kugelblitz to make another programme in defence of genetic modification for Channel 4's 'Equinox' series.'

'Modified Truth: The Rise and Fall of GM' was broadcast on March 20 2000. It presented GM food as perfectly safe and as much needed to feed the starving in the Third World. Dr. Tewolde Gebre Egziaber of Ethiopia was among multiple signatories from the Third World who complained in a joint letter following the programme that it was a propaganda vehicle that made use of the Third World's rural poverty to support the monopoly control and global use of genetically modified food production by transnational corporations and emotionally blackmail the UK public into using GM (Joint Letter).

Two scientists critical of genetic engineering who were invited to contribute to the programme, Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Mae-Wan Ho, both subsequently complained that they were misled about the content and were not given a chance to reply to attacks on their positions (Pusztai's comments). Dr Ho said , 'I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position.'

They are far from the only ones to complain about Durkin's methods. Contributors to a Durkin-directed Equinox programme about breast implants, which argued implants reduce the incidence of breast cancer, complained of the programme makers' deceptive tactics: 'In discussions with Martin Durkin's "Kugelblitz" crew as to the content of their proposed "science documentary" on silicone breast implants last year, we were totally and unequivocally misled as to the intent and content of that piece.' Durkin's proposal for the programme had earlier been rejected by the BBC because it 'ignored a powerful body of evidence contradicting his [Durkin's] claims'. A researcher hired to help Durkin make the Equinox programme resigned because, 'my research was being ignored. The published research had been construed to give an impression that's not the case. I don't know how that programme got passed.'

Articles on Martin Durkin and his programmes by George Monbiot:

Getting your science from charlatans: This man takes liberties with facts

The Revolution Has Been Televised: Channel 4's Against Nature series turns out to have been made by an obscure and cranky sect.

Crimes Against Nature : A new Channel 4 series would be laughable, had it not been given three hours of prime time TV
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

Rehash of old discredited arguments

Posted by on Friday 9.03.2007, 03:09 PM

I was annoyed that there was nothing new from the anti-climate science camp. The C4 programme just rehashes arguments that are years old and have long been resolved by the climate research community. The rise in sulfate aerosols explains the 1940-1970 cooling. Contrary to what the skeptics want you to believe, a CO2 initiated ice age termination is unnecessary to prove today's global warming is man-made. A demonstrable feedback effect is quite sufficient.

The ratio of man-made to natural sources of CO2 is an irrelevant comparison since nature also removes large amounts of CO2 from the air. It is like saying a gift of £10 a week makes no difference when one earns £200 a week in salary. But if £190 of that goes to paying rent and bills, then you bet it makes a very big difference.

As for the sun being responsible for global waming, one only has to check the data: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
The plot of sun irradiance from 1978-2006 shows an 11 year oscillation, but more importantly it is clear that the sun was no hotter in the last decade than it was 20 years ago. Meanwhile look at what happened to temperature:
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm

The latest entry on the RealClimate.org blog also takes on the latest version of the cosmic ray/cloud cover connection: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

Proof of a Global Swindle? Not really.

Posted by on Friday 9.03.2007, 02:13 PM

The correlation the programme made between temperature fluctuations and sunspot activity was based on records that went back 400 years, sounds impressive yes but they were basing that on astronomers observations that we have no idea how accurate and under what conditions these observations were made and who exactly made them and where they were observed.
There was also the case of the man who "beat" the Met office at predicting the weather purely by looking at sunspots.
Well I've lost cont of the times I too have "beaten" the Met office without looking at sunspots. The Met office as a matter of routine say that they can't predict weather longer than a five day period so any long term predicitions of " we are in for a really severe Winter" are more likely to be Media driven rather than Met office driven as suggested in the programme.
If this guys was so confident about predicting weather by Sun spots then why didn't the programme put the guy on the spot and ask him to predict the weather on a certain future date, surely if he got it right then would not that have given the Sceptics, theory something to bragg about??
Another commentator exclaimed that man was much too small and insignificant to possibly have any impact on climate..... well if that's true then the Global Dimming theory, which claimed it is laimed by scientists was purely due to man made pollutants in the atmosphere must also be bogus then?
Another slighty contradictory argument that the programme put forward was that there was no rise in temprature after the 1940's when man's carbon production was at it's highest, but the sceptics already made the point that temprature rises would take decades or even centries after the event to manifest themselves, so if we follow that argument then we wouldn't expect to see temperature rises after the 1940s.
In conclusion the layman, which frankly most of us are when it comes to climate science, is non the wiser... the programme is telling us not to believe what we have been told.....well that's true, why should I believe what you Skeptic guys have just told me??
The maker of this programme Martin Durkin has been in trouble with ITC before when he made another documetory against the envirometal movement, apparently he distorted the views of the interviewees. Hardly the background of an honest programme maker without an agenda!
What is really needed is a big televised debate between the top scientist in the fields and get them to answer each others concerns over their theories, only then will the public get better feel for who's argument holds more water.
A programme entitled the "Great Global Warming Swindle" was never going to be balanced programme.
So far from proving that manmade Global warming is a swindle I think it is prudent to be skeptical about the claims of the skeptics.

I agree with Annoyed

Posted by on Friday 9.03.2007, 10:46 AM

The program made two claims that appeared to counter the man-made climate change thesis. The first is that previous warming episodes preceded the rise in C02, rather than the other way round. The second claim is that historically global temperature changes match sun-spot activity much closer than C02 levels. All other arguments it made came across as very weak.

The complete failure of the program makers to put either technical point to a single scientist who supported the man-made climate change thesis (i.e. the vast, vast majority) gave the impression that either the establishment weren't aware of these points, or that they were deliberately ignoring them.

It took me seconds worth of research to find that this was not the case. For example, it appears that climatologists have long been aware of the 800 year lag between the start of previous warming episodes and the CO2 rise. But this doesn't prove that C02 doesn't cause warming as claimed in the program - it merely proves that C02 didn't trigger those previous warming episodes. It seems more likely that warming causes C02 release, and C02 release causes warming, in a positive feedback loop.

The program makers simply want to say something controversial, because it helps them sell their advertising space. And it's never difficult to find scientists who can help by saying they've made a discovery that proves everyone else is wrong. This is not a scientist's nightmare, as depicted in the film: it's every scientists dream!

Annoyed

Posted by on Friday 9.03.2007, 01:13 AM

The documentary really annoyed me, and not because I'm a feverish hippie.

There are clearly warranted arguments against the theory of a human cause for Global Warming, which the programme covered very well. However not once did it allow a scientist who believes in the theory to represent their case in their own words, instead the narration spoke for them, almost sneeringly. Indeed the only response featured was a brief excerpt from an IPCC press release that wasn't about the science.

Such obvious bias casts a shadow on what might be a valuable feature of the climate change debate that's otherwise very seldom heard.