Watch a full repeat of the 70 minute programme here or 8 x 10 minute clips here.
Forums > Climate Change in the Media > The Great Global Warming Swindle
Did you see 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on Ch4, Thurs 8th March? What did you think of the programme? you can see the background info on the programme, and vote via this link to the Channel 4 website. Post your comments below.
from fred on 9th Mar 07, 13:57:35
A fine example of tabloid TV journalism, consisting largely of tightly-edited soundbites and very little extended analysis.
Sure - many of the issues that it featured were, in themselves, respectable pieces of science, at least as far as identifying past drivers of climate are concerned. But the fact that cosmic ray levels may have influenced terrestrial climate over the past 545 million years doesn't mean that anthropogenic CO2 isn't doing so today.
And in all the discussion of the correlations between global temperature and atmospheric carbon throughout the glacial-interglacial periods, absolutely no mention was made of the Milankovitch cycles. While variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt do explain many past climatic variations (and the fact that atmospheric carbon levels trailed rather than led temperature changes), they do not explain currently-observed warming trends.
Likewise, much was made of John Christy's work indicating that satellite and radiosonde measurements of tropospheric temperatures were incompatible with carbon-driven warming. However, there was absolutely no mention of the fact that most of this discrepancy has now been dismissed as an artefact caused by measurment inaccuracies.
But the crowning irony of the programme was to suggest that current concerns about global warming are driven by scientists' venal desire to obtain more research funding by promulgating environmental scare stories. It asks us to believe that national governments are more willing to fund "pro-global warming" research than Exxon-Mobil is to underwrite studies showing the opposite. A brief glance at the past relationship between the tobacco industry and research on smoking and health should lay that particular conspiracy theory firmly to rest.
All in all, a wonderful piece of sophistry that simply cries out to be subjected to a detailed and merciless refutation.
from jo_hamilton on 9th Mar 07, 23:02:37
For some very interesting background profiles, and discussion, on people featured in the programme, see the latest posting on http://www.climatedenial.org/ .
Answers to some of the FAQs that the programme raises can be found on the Met Office website http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/2.html.
from fred on 10th Mar 07, 21:24:51An excellent rebuttal of many of GGWS's points is contained in http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
by Sir John Houghton, FRS CBE. According to Wikipedia, he is the co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) working group, the lead editor of first three IPCC reports, and was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.
Don't know if the reference to his rebuttal article has been inserted as a hyperlink - if not, can someone with more technical savvy than me hyperlink it please.
from fred on 10th Mar 07, 21:29:34
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
Maybe this one worked. Hope so.
from gobion on 12th Mar 07, 14:49:18
The problem with programmes like this one is that 10-minutes after it has been shown I get my stepfather on the phone asking questions about it. Unfortunately he tends to believe the last thing told to him and as ever in my opinion they didn't do enough to show the agenda being pushed there...
I did notice the letter in the Sunday Observer refuting the claims in the show signed by various luminaries including Myles Allen from ClimatePredicton.net. I'm pleased to see them tackling it.
Cheers,
Gobion
from dave on 14th Mar 07, 15:36:24
Frankly... I didn't like how they stopped showing the records at about 1980. I also think it's fairly obvious that the director knew what he wanted footage of. It's easy to tell that a lot of "if"s and "buts" and "maybe"s have been simply cut out. Oh, and I'm fairly certain (and will look for a better source in a moment) that humans emit more C02 than volcanoes.
from ojwoodford on 15th Mar 07, 11:28:04
As someone who feels they understand the basic drivers of climate, it did make me stop and think that I am taking a lot for granted. Having said that, the program was full of annoying contradictions. I'll go and read the rebuttals that people have posted links to, to make sure I have the full picture.
from dave on 15th Mar 07, 17:22:02
Here's an interesting article that came up on Digg, the gist of which indicates that the graphs shown in the program were far from unbiased against global warming. Interestingly, I've had a friend repeatedly claim that all who oppose the program are conspirators in some kind of "plot". I can understand the need to be cautious, but some of this conspiracy theory is bordering upon hysteria, not to mention paranoia.
from ian on 19th Mar 07, 14:13:39
Likewise there has been an interesting discussion about the programme here. A lot of strong opinions from both sides of the fence on this and some good articles linked in the comments.
I think my main concern with the climate change issue being so divisive is that this isn't an ideological issue - it's a purely scientific issue, not a political one, not a cultural one... and yet we have people acting as if this is some conflict of science versus society. This issue shouldn't be another creationism vs evolution debate - there are no scriptures that say that the earth was created in 6 days and on the 7th God gave man an SUV and saw that it was good.
In principle, I can respect a climate sceptic provided that the result of their scepticism is to go out and do peer-reviewed studies to try and produce more accurate data. That's what the scientific method is all about... but these people, influenced by their socio-political bias, who promote a kind of "climate denial", claiming it is some culture conspiracy, are causing a great deal of harm to the public's perception of what, to me, is a very simple issue:
There is a correlation between carbon emissions produced by human activities and rising global temperatures. While the precice levels of influence and the specific ways that these changes will manifest are varied, complex and in some cases uncertain, the fact of the matter is that we would be incredibly foolish as a society to risk ruining the environment we have with practices that can be avoided by implementing alternative measures. It's really straight-forward and the fewer of these programs that complicate that issue we have the better, imho.
reposted from: www.climatex.org
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments
1 comment:
The question has to be asked: why is there so much energy being put into resisting what science is clearly telling us? Vested interests?
When it comes to large scale issues, suddenly we have experts everywhere, and people's opinions suddenly hold great power.
In my blog post, I've got a few reports (one from New Zealand, the other - UK).
http://greghardwick.blogspot.com/search/label/Climate%20Change
Post a Comment