Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Great Global Warming Swindle « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 11

karen anderson

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#15 : March 16, 2007, 10:05:27 AM

He reported the thread about FBI abuses & it was removed. What a jerk!



Guest
#16 : March 16, 2007, 11:30:58 AM

His sig is a famous statue that I find a much more unique way of expressing Gradkowski distaste than some around here who call him 'Gradsucksi'.

acacius

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4906
Offline
#17 : March 16, 2007, 02:48:55 PM

Quote
Carl Wunsch 11 March 2007

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.


The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,...). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.

I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality [i.e. see this previous RC post]. They also are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats. I've paid more attention to the extreme claims in the literature warning of coming catastrophe, both because I regard the scientists there as more serious, and because I am very sympathetic to the goals of my colleagues who sometimes seem, however, to be confusing their specific scientific knowledge with their worries about the future.

When approached by WAGTV, on behalf of Channel 4, known to me as one of the main UK independent broadcasters, I was led to believe that I would be given an opportunity to explain why I, like some others, find the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful. I am, after all a teacher, and this seemed like a good opportunity to explain why, for example, I thought more attention should be paid to sea level rise, which is ongoing and unstoppable and carries a real threat of acceleration, than to the unsupportable claims that the ocean circulation was undergoing shutdown (Nature, December 2005).

I wanted to explain why observing the ocean was so difficult, and why it is so tricky to predict with any degree of confidence such important climate elements as its heat and carbon storage and transports in 10 or 100 years. I am distrustful of prediction scenarios for details of the ocean circulation that rely on extremely complicated coupled models that run out for decades to thousands of years. The science is not sufficiently mature to say which of the many complex elements of such forecasts are skillful. Nonetheless, and contrary to the impression given in the film, I firmly believe there is a great deal to be learned from models. With effort, all of this is explicable in terms the public can understand.

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.

Many of us feel an obligation to talk to the media---it's part of our role as scientists, citizens, and educators. The subjects are complicated, and it is easy to be misquoted or quoted out context. My experience in the past is that these things do happen, but usually inadvertently --- most reporters really do want to get it right.

Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics". There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.

The letter I sent them as soon as I heard about the actual program is below. [available here]

As a society, we need to take out insurance against catastrophe in the same way we take out homeowner's protection against fire. I buy fire insurance, but I also take the precaution of having the wiring in the house checked, keeping the heating system up to date, etc., all the while hoping that I won't need the insurance. Will any of these precautions work? Unexpected things still happen (lightning strike? plumber's torch igniting the woodwork?). How large a fire insurance premium is it worth paying? How much is it worth paying for rewiring the house? $10,000 but perhaps not $100,000? There are no simple answers even at this mundane level.

How much is it worth to society to restrain CO2 emissions --- will that guarantee protection against global warming? Is it sensible to subsidize insurance for people who wish to build in regions strongly susceptible to coastal flooding? These and others are truly complicated questions where often the science is not mature enough give definitive answers, much as we would like to be able to provide them. Scientifically, we can recognize the reality of the threat, and much of what society needs to insure against. Statements of concern do not need to imply that we have all the answers. Channel 4 had an opportunity to elucidate some of this. The outcome is sad.



Content of Professor Wunsch' Letter:

Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---
in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most con**CENSORED**uously the notion that the Gulf
Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/#more-417

acacius

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4906
Offline
#18 : March 16, 2007, 02:50:20 PM

David Miliband, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK):

Quote
The following key allegations are paraphrased from the programme “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.

1. The high temperatures seen in the last few decades are not unique. Temperatures are naturally variable and have been higher in the past, for example, during the Medieval Warm period (800-1300AD).

It is true that temperatures have been higher than today’s in the distant past. However, for the Northern Hemisphere at least, it is clear the rapid warming of the past half century has resulted in a level of warmth not seen in at least 500 years, and likely for at least the past 1300 years. For the Southern Hemisphere, long records of temperatures are more scarce and therefore it is difficult to draw such clear conclusions. The important characteristic about the current warmth is that it is global, whereas many previous warming periods have occurred over smaller areas.

Globally, eleven out of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the warmest 12 years since records began in 1850. Over the past century, temperatures have risen by 0.74°C, with 0.4°C of this warming since 1970.

Climate models indicate that if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, by the middle of the century the world could reach a level of warmth not seen since the peak of the last interglacial period, around 125,000 years ago. At that time, sea levels were around 4 – 6m greater than today.

2. The key piece of evidence used by scientists to prove the warming effect of greenhouse gases is that in the past, on timescales of hundreds of millennia, global temperatures have followed carbon dioxide concentrations, i.e. when temperatures are high, carbon dioxide levels are high. But this is not true, changes in carbon dioxide concentrations actually lag behind changes in temperature.

Firstly, this is not the key piece of evidence for human-induced climate change. Basic physics tells us that an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations will have a warming effect on the climate. Levels of carbon dioxide alone now far exceed that at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. The trend and pattern of current warming is consistent with what we would expect for the observed rise in greenhouse gases.

Secondly, it is true that temperature changes appear to have preceded CO2 changes through glacial-interglacial cycles in the distant past. However, this just suggests that CO2 was not the initial driver of the glacial cycles. The evidence suggests that CO2 levels rose as a result of warming, possibly as the surface of the ocean warmed. As CO2 has a warming effect on the climate, it would then act as a feedback – stimulating additional warming.

Now human emissions are causing the rise in CO2 levels, and therefore, the resulting warming of the climate.

Aside: Climate models predict that the positive feedback effect between temperature and CO2 seen in the distant past could happen again in the future if global temperatures reach high enough levels.

3. The trend in carbon dioxide concentrations over the past century does not match that of temperature, and therefore, carbon dioxide can not be the key driver. For example, in the middle of the century, when emissions were growing rapidly, temperatures actually fell.

It is true that the trend in CO2 concentrations over the last century does not exactly match the trend in temperature. But we do not expect it to. This is for two key reasons. Firstly, there is a time lag between warming and changes in CO2, caused by the inertia in the climate system. Secondly, greenhouse gases are not the only determinant of temperature. Aerosols, which are also emitted from human activities, are also important and can be shown to explain much of the cooling seen in the middle of the 20th century.

Climate models represent the lag in the response of the climate, and the influence of many external factors. These show that the trend in temperatures does match what we would expect. Based on these analyses and others, the recent report of the IPCC concluded that most of the warming over at least the last 50 years has been caused by the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations.

4. Most of the 20th century warming occurred before 1940, when carbon dioxide emissions were still relatively low.

This first statement is not correct. Global temperatures did rise during the first few decades of this century, but much of the warming seen this century has occurred since around 1970 (0.4°C of the total 0.74°C warming). Global temperatures have risen almost continuously since 1950. The linear growth rate in temperature during the past 50 years is nearly twice that of the last 100 years. While the IPCC concluded that much of the warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to greenhouse gases, the cause of the warming in the first half of the century is not clear. Current thinking is that it was likely a mixture of natural and human factors.

5. The patterns of warming in the atmosphere do not match what we would expect for a warming caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations and therefore, can not be the cause.

This is not correct. The patterns of warming in the atmosphere do match what we would expect. Previously reported discrepancies were due to problems with early versions of observed data from satellites and radiosondes. These errors were corrected a few years ago.

6. Human emissions are only a tiny fraction of total natural emissions and therefore can not be important in causing climate change.

It is true that human emissions are relatively small compared to natural emissions, particularly from ecosystems and the oceans. However, these natural emissions are in balance: the amount emitted is then reabsorbed. Human emissions tip the balance and lead to an accumulation of gases in the atmosphere. The human source can be shown through, for example, examining the chemical make-up and distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere.

7. There is no evidence that human emissions are causing the current warming trend.

This is not true. As stated in the recent IPCC report, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, due to human emissions, have caused most of the warming observed over the past half century. Both the spatial patterns and trend of warming can only be explained by the inclusion of human emissions. It is very unlikely that the rapid increase in global temperatures seen over the past half century could be caused by natural factors alone. For example, the most recent report of the IPCC concludes that the warming effect of human emissions is around ten times that of solar variations.

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.

9. Past changes in climate have been driven by natural factors, such as changes in solar radiation and cosmic rays. It is most likely that these same natural factors are causing the current warming.

It is true that natural factors have driven climate changes in the past. But it is considered very unlikely that the rapid increase in global temperatures seen over the past half century could be caused by natural factors alone. Both the spatial patterns and trend of warming can only be explained by the inclusion of human emissions.

It is clear that changes in solar radiation are a significant driver of the climate. However, there is strong evidence that changes in solar radiation could not have caused the rapid warming observed over the past half century. The warming effects of changes in solar output since pre-industrial are estimated to be less than around one tenth that of human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Despite recent claims, there is no scientifically robust evidence suggesting that cosmic ray variations have, or could even, play a significant role in recent warming. Variations in cosmic rays over the past few decades can not explain the long-term global warming trend.

10. Observed changes in sea ice are due to natural factors.

Sea ice extent does change naturally, but the current reduction in sea ice extent is in line with what we would expect in a warming world.

11. The scientific process is biased.

The IPCC is the most authoritative voice on climate change. Its assessments represent the consensus of thousands of scientists worldwide, based on peer-reviewed research. Objectivity is ensured by the broad and open review process and shared responsibility for the report. No one government, organisation or individual has sole responsibility for any part of the report.

http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/archive/2007/03/14/5960.aspx

acacius

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4906
Offline
#19 : March 16, 2007, 03:02:40 PM

It is good because when you get at the 4:09 mark the Lead Author for the IPCC Professor Christy (the UN report everyone uses to be professional bedwetters about this) says he doesn't believe what everyone claims the IPCC believes. the problem is people don't read the science part of the IPCC and only read the summary for politicians which isn't written, by and large, by the scientists.

Is this Prof. John Cristy from UAH?  (I can't watch the video at work.)  Since his paper in 2003, the data has been corrected and even he stated in the executive summary of the US CCSP report that he authored:

“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. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”


http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

ABuccs Fan

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#20 : March 16, 2007, 03:44:23 PM

You are such a jerk, Karen. Are you afraid someone might show you to be the fool you are? Why are you afraid of anything Buccs front office? That pretty much affects our fanship nowadays.  If you don't like it, go start the whiney, baby TBBBB board.  Now that I think about it, I object to your sig--it's better than my body. Get a life!
Soul searching? Good for you Karen.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#21 : March 16, 2007, 03:45:00 PM

David Miliband's repsonses boil down to "climate models say" but the problems with those models are not dealt with, his other reponses are almost funny:

1. "It is true that temperatures have been higher than today’s in the distant past. However, for the Northern Hemisphere at least, it is clear the rapid warming of the past half century has resulted in a level of warmth not seen in at least 500 years" Yes, that's why we talk about the Little Ice age and the Medevial Warming Period.

2. "The evidence suggests that CO2 levels rose as a result of warming, possibly as the surface of the ocean warmed. As CO2 has a warming effect on the climate, it would then act as a feedback – stimulating additional warming." I love this, this reponse requires horrible amounts of doublethink to even make it work. the notion is that the theory can be wrong...and still be right. the problem is David if the CO2 doesn't cause the initial warming than whatever feedback mechanism you want to use will still happen.

3. "It is true that the trend in CO2 concentrations over the last century does not exactly match the trend in temperature. But we do not expect it to." REaly, that's a good theory that you no longer can even disprove. The fact that CO2 trends don't match and don't even roughly correlate to temperature would seem to have some relevance but manage to not.

4. "Global temperatures did rise during the first few decades of this century, but much of the warming seen this century has occurred since around 1970 (0.4°C of the total 0.74°C warming)." This is only ture in terms of raw increases not net changes. The global average temp in 1940 was much, much higher than in 1970, temperatures have only recovered since then and done so out of synch with much CO2 growth.

5. The problem with the "Correction" that you you reference in your other post about Christy is that the report still states they can't make the data work. From your report "For global averages, observed changes from 1958 through 2004 exhibit amplification: i.e., they show greater warming trends in the troposphere compared with the surface. Since 1979, however, the situation is different: most data sets show slightly greater warming at the surface." so during the height of the C02 era of climate change, the era when the models should be working, they still can't get the darn data to line up. Oopsie.

6. "The models use fundamental physics and chemistry to simulate processes within the climate system and are rigorously assessed to ensure their reliability." Which is why the models don't give the same results because we all know how fundamental physics has the big range of error, plus they can't accurately "predict" the past. Yeah, good answer there.

The rest aren't even really arguments.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#22 : March 16, 2007, 03:47:09 PM


Is this Prof. John Cristy from UAH?  (I can't watch the video at work.)  Since his paper in 2003, the data has been corrected and even he stated in the executive summary of the US CCSP report that he authored:

“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. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”


http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf


Just so it doesn't get lost:
For global averages, observed changes from 1958 through 2004 exhibit amplification: i.e., they
show greater warming trends in the troposphere compared with the surface. Since 1979, however,
the situation is different: most data sets show slightly greater warming at the surface.

In other words, no, wrong, the data still shows the wrong results during the time when it should be seeing the greatest consistency. The most tropospheric warming comes during the worst global cooling in direct opposition to the model's perdictions.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

karen anderson

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#23 : March 16, 2007, 09:32:25 PM

You are such a jerk, Karen. Are you afraid someone might show you to be the fool you are? Why are you afraid of anything Buccs front office? That pretty much affects our fanship nowadays. If you don't like it, go start the whiney, baby TBBBB board. Now that I think about it, I object to your sig--it's better than my body. Get a life!
Soul searching? Good for you Karen.
Only a jackass changes someone's quote to fit their purposes.  And we're not talking football in here you a$$hole. If you don't like the thread stay the hell out instead of tattling like a school girl. Moron.



Guest
#24 : March 16, 2007, 09:37:12 PM

Irony.

miamicanes04

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2130
Offline
#25 : March 16, 2007, 09:49:47 PM

Abuccs is just a weasel, ignore him
You're just a Red Sox fan, which doesn't make you any better than bed pan sludge.

Great defense there... Anyway who cares it is JUST baseball.




Guest
#26 : March 16, 2007, 09:54:53 PM

Abuccs is just a weasel, ignore him
You're just a Red Sox fan, which doesn't make you any better than bed pan sludge.

Great defense there... Anyway who cares it is JUST baseball.
And it's JUST football, WTF is your point? Red Sox 'fans' are scum.

miamicanes04

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2130
Offline
#27 : March 16, 2007, 10:04:07 PM

Abuccs is just a weasel, ignore him
You're just a Red Sox fan, which doesn't make you any better than bed pan sludge.

Great defense there... Anyway who cares it is JUST baseball.
And it's JUST football, WTF is your point? Red Sox 'fans' are scum.

What a generalized, biased, and ignorant comment. O and BTW don't even try and get me started on why football is better. I realize it is JUST an opinion, but football is life man. Go to Boston and see how many fans you don't think are real there. Hell come to Fort Myers...




Guest
#28 : March 16, 2007, 10:09:36 PM

Abuccs is just a weasel, ignore him
You're just a Red Sox fan, which doesn't make you any better than bed pan sludge.

Great defense there... Anyway who cares it is JUST baseball.
And it's JUST football, WTF is your point? Red Sox 'fans' are scum.

What a generalized, biased, and ignorant comment. O and BTW don't even try and get me started on why football is better. I realize it is JUST an opinion, but football is life man. Go to Boston and see how many fans you don't think are real there. Hell come to Fort Myers...
Oh they breathe, but they're scum.

Anytime you're ready to dance big boy...

miamicanes04

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2130
Offline
#29 : March 16, 2007, 10:17:33 PM

Abuccs is just a weasel, ignore him
You're just a Red Sox fan, which doesn't make you any better than bed pan sludge.

Great defense there... Anyway who cares it is JUST baseball.
And it's JUST football, WTF is your point? Red Sox 'fans' are scum.

What a generalized, biased, and ignorant comment. O and BTW don't even try and get me started on why football is better. I realize it is JUST an opinion, but football is life man. Go to Boston and see how many fans you don't think are real there. Hell come to Fort Myers...
Oh they breathe, but they're scum.

Anytime you're ready to dance big boy...

You win on the baseball thing. I can tell you though there are some good Red Sox fans.

Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 11
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Great Global Warming Swindle « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools