The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Mantas 3]

This is off the topic a bit.

Soubs- You would be familiar with aboriginal middens. Places where aboriginies sat and ate shell fish, discarding the shells all around. We have some very large ones around here in the sand hills. Some are protected, some aren't. We walk through some of them when we go for a surf. They are thousands of years old , 12000 years in some cases, some created during the last ice age. It blows my mind how big they are. In some places it looks like a few dozen tip trucks dumped them there.

[soubriquet 0]

Yes. In 12,000 years you can get through a lot of shellfish. The shell beds on Rottnest are interpreted as beach deposits, not middens, because because of the internal bedding structures. Nothing to do with the young lady in a short skirt. (Completely ot, mineral names generally end with -ite. There is a mineral called "cummingtonite". What wags we geopeople are ).

 

And on the subject of Aboriginal artefacts, exploration geos are specially trained not to spot them. Exploration managers get very pissed off when their million dollar projects get halted by archaeologists and cultural heritagists.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

About missing the artefacts! If you did spot them a great giant mythical snake might take up residence!

 

Thanks for the explanation Soubs, I sorta thought that's what you meant, but wanted to make sure I was understanding correctly. And Rotto is on our TO DO list for next week - kids are on vacation and bike riding at Rotto is one of the requests.

[soubriquet 0]

Here`s a pollen diagram. I`ve pulled it off the web, and have no opinion on it`s veracity, other than to state it shows climate change quite independently from the ice cores.

 

 

It shows a change in time (vertical axis) from boreal forest (spruce, ash), through temperate forest (oak, elm) to savannah grasses. Lots of these diagrams exist, right back through the Quaternary. They all show climate change as a normal state for the Earth.

[soubriquet 0]

Here is a piece on drowned reefs. It`s from NOAA, so is based on reputable science. It is short and written in plain English.

 

http://www.oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/islands01/background/islands/sup5_pinnacles.html

 

Some quotes, but it is well worth reading the whole piece.

 

"Along the edge of the continental shelf from the Mississippi River Delta to the DeSoto Canyon, southeast of the Florida/Alabama border, a broad band of "drowned reefs" or "fossil reefs" occur from water depths of approximately 70 m to over 120 m (230 to 400 ft)."

 

"# The Pinnacles are considered to be remnants of "paleoshorelines" when the majority of the continental shelf was exposed to air during lower sea levels associated with the last ice age, approximately 18,000 years ago.

 

# Individual Pinnacles reefs were probably formed between 10,000 and 18,000 years ago when sea levels were 66-120 m (223-395 feet) lower than present levels. Reef-building communities could not keep up with the rising seas, which reached current levels about 7,000 years ago, leading to the formation of the "drowned" reef communities that are present at the Pinnacles today. "

[thursday 1]

Article from the Telegraph which makes some interesting reading.

 

Temperatures are actually falling, not rising,

 

Nobody listens to the real climate change experts

 

The minds of world leaders are firmly shut to anything but the fantasies of the scaremongers, says Christopher Booker.

 

Full article

[Go Native 70]

If you think that makes interesting reading thursday then you really need to broaden your reading material. The guy is a fool, basically a conservative shock jock who has no knowledge whatsoever of what he is talking about.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

how so?

[Go Native 70]

From Wikipedia

 

Quote:

Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008[1], that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health[2], that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist"[3] and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans"[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".[5]

 

Although he has a fairly long and reasonably distinguished career as a journalist and writer his scientific views as pointed out above are nothing if not controversial and in most cases plainly wrong. Why would we want to listen to his ramblings on climate change when he has no real knowledge or qualifications on the subject?

[Tubby Beaver 209]

he sounds like a nut

[Mantas 3]

eer..I'd rather place my faith in the 3000 odd scientists and researchers from over 130 counties that make up the IPCC.

 

I'm am wondering though, how would he support a claim like this. (falling temperatures that is)

 

>Nothing has more acutely demonstrated this than the reliance of the IPCC on computer models to predict what is going to happen to global temperatures over the next 100 years. On these predictions, that temperatures are likely to rise by up to 5.3C, all their other predictions and recommendations depend, yet nearly 10 years into the 21st century it is already painfully clear that the computer forecasts are going hopelessly astray. Far from rising with CO2, as the models are programmed to predict they should, the satellite-measured temperature curve has flattened out and then dropped. If the present trend were to continue, the world in 2100 would not in fact be hotter but 1.1C cooler than the 1979-1998 average.<

 

Surely something like that would be very clear to all.

[gareth_oau 2]

problem you have at the moment is that if you challenge the current line of thought, its considered to be sacrilege, and you're automtically cast out.

 

climate change has become more of a religion now than a science.

 

i wonder, if in years to come we will look back at this moment in time, and see how we got it so wrong

[thursday 1]

I said interesting read cos it was not a mainstream view. Nice to have lots of differing points of view.

[JA2340 16]

Nutters exist in all areas. The GW debate has thrown up some truly wierd stuff. I, too, would prefer to accept the deliberations of a highly qualified scientific panel and the results therefrom.

[Go Native 70]

Originally Posted By: gareth_oau

problem you have at the moment is that if you challenge the current line of thought, its considered to be sacrilege, and you're automtically cast out.

climate change has become more of a religion now than a science.

i wonder, if in years to come we will look back at this moment in time, and see how we got it so wrong

More utter BS. Maybe you get your stuff from the same 'sceptic' websites that Booker obviously gets his from. Please enlighten us gareth on how you come to the conclusion that climate change has become more of a religion than a science. I'm sure your extensive knowledge in this field will make answering this very easy...

[Go Native 70]

Originally Posted By: thursday

I said interesting read cos it was not a mainstream view. Nice to have lots of differing points of view.

Actually after years of propaganda from the Bush administration (who of course was a very strong advocate for oil and other big business and rabidly anti anything UN) the sort of view being espoused by Booker has become very mainstream indeed. You will find a plethora of websites regurgitating the same crap. If you can be bothered do some research on the people who set up these websites. None have climate science backgrounds and few if any can back up much they say with any real scientific arguments that for instance could be considered for publication in a respected scientific journal. Many are not even scientists at all. They are little better than any other conspiracy websites.

[Jynxx 4]

I agree GN

[gareth_oau 2]

Go native, I'm not suggesting they are right or wrong. i'm not suggesting I'm even remotely qualified to debate it.

 

I am suggesting though, that its human nature to make profound "statements of fact", to "jump on bandwagons" and at the same time ostracise those who dont agree with the majority.

 

I recall (and not from personal expereince LOL) even the day before the Wright brothers flew, the experts were saying that it would be impossible to fly. Did not Bill Gates state that people would never need more that 640kb of RAM?

 

Even the term "Global Warming" has now been changed to "Climate Change".

 

My comments were not debating whether the experts were right wrong, but more about human behaviour, and whether hindsight will ultimately prove if we got it right.

 

i'm hoping they are wrong, (in fact, a little bit of snow here in Perth would be quite delightful!!) but at the same time, I'm hoping that we all become a little bit more responsible in how we use and abuse the things we have in our possession.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Originally Posted By: Oyuki kigan

Fer the sake of Lil' Baby Jezus!

Read some books people! Docs are good, but just as many of you don't take Micheal Moores 'facts' ast face value, neither should you watch that unbalanced "Global Warming Swindle" uncritically either.

Especially since the producers of the movie twisted the statements of one of the leading scientists featured to sell their point.

Ladies and Germs, i give you...

Carl Wunsch

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...-c4-439773.html


"Partial Response to the London Channel 4 Film "The Global Warming Swindle"
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."

It has all been said before......

Oyuki Kigan, where are you? This place is poorer for your absence.

[Mantas 3]

Originally Posted By: Go Native

Originally Posted By: gareth_oau

problem you have at the moment is that if you challenge the current line of thought, its considered to be sacrilege, and you're automtically cast out.

climate change has become more of a religion now than a science.

i wonder, if in years to come we will look back at this moment in time, and see how we got it so wrong

More utter BS. Maybe you get your stuff from the same 'sceptic' websites that Booker obviously gets his from. Please enlighten us gareth on how you come to the conclusion that climate change has become more of a religion than a science. I'm sure your extensive knowledge in this field will make answering this very easy...

Since when do you need 'extensive knowledge' on climate change to have an opinion on human behavior?

Utter BS??

[Go Native 70]

I'd think you'd need to have some knowledge of science and particularly climate science to make a comment about whether climate change has become more of a religion than a science.

 

I do agree to some extent that the incredible amount of ignorance being shown by most who comment on climate change, even about the most basic concepts of science, makes the debate similar to comments made by religious extremists.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Originally Posted By: Go Native

I do agree to some extent that the incredible amount of ignorance being shown by most who comment on climate change, even about the most basic concepts of science, makes the debate similar to comments made by religious extremists.

Do you mean in respect of people on both sides or just the nay sayers?

[Go Native 70]

Definitely both sides. My whole issue with the AGW debate is that it's hardly even about the science anymore. It's all politics, spin and conspiracies now from both sides of the debate.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

Maybe what Gareth means is that the hype around the issue of Climate Change has become more of a cult/religion, with only 2 camps for and against. That describes a religion, you are either a believer or not. You hear such conflicting "facts" that it's very hard to cut thru the BS and get to the actual realities of the issue at hand. Both sides throw statistics about like confetti that the regular Joe Bloggs finds it difficult to find fact from fiction. To quote that famous Urban philosopher, Homer J. Simpson....

 

"...anybody can come up with any number of facts to back up what is even remotely true...facts, smacts!!" (or something to that extent

[BagOfCrisps 24]

(What is the J. for in Homers name?)