Global Warming Is Not Man-made… Relax!
by matt @ 1:20 pm. Blogged under Philanthropy, Science & Technology, Living and Dying, Thinking, TV Shows, Movies
Last Thursday I watched a documentary on Channel Four which I found to be the most enlightening programme I’ve seen in quite some time. Controversial in it’s topic for even suggesting that global warming might NOT be manmade, ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ covered just why there is no correlation between CO2 increases in the atmosphere and rises in global temperature, apparently quite the opposite is true (albeit with a lag of a few hundred years due to delayed changes in sea temperatures).
A range of scientists at MIT, astrophysicists, weather experts and former science news editors were interviewed, with all of them debunking documents published by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the entire CO2 theory as complete nonsense. All insisted at the same time that, as much as they’d love to get some cash from the oil companies, they have never received a penny from them so have no hidden agenda. However, rather than simply take on board what was presented to me, the next day I purchased Al Gore’s TV documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ to get the opposite view.
Having now watched both environmental documentaries the main thing which stands out about An Inconvenient Truth is how little time is spent discussing scientific fact relating to the proof that man is to blame for global warming. Instead, Al Gore discusses in a ‘Sesame Street Friendly’ format how increases in CO2 seem to coincide with global temperature rises because that’s what his high school teacher taught him, but at no point does he demonstrate absolute proof that they are linked (nothing not debunked by Channel Four anyway). Furthermore, by squashing graphs to ensure that the post war ‘temperature dropping’ period doesn’t stand out I felt very much that it was too ‘inconvenient’ for him to address – after all CO2 was rising during that period too so how does one explain that fact? Al Gore doesn’t even try.
The large proportion of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ addresses what will happen as a result of global warming – and nobody disputes those facts at all; melting ice, rising sea levels, population displacement and more unpredictable weather - it certainly seems to me that the threats are very real. Quite some time is spent showing Al Gore’s election failure, after which he decided he best go back to his ‘save the world’ slide shows, and being American he of course tells us of how global warming caused hurricane Katrina which devastated New Orleans – and how Ground Zero will be flooded if sea levels rise – but does any of this emotional heartstring tugging make it manmade? Can we also blame Avian Flu on increases in global temperature - flu pandemics have occured for centuries?
Mr Gore believes that when all the ice melts in Greenland it could potentially rush into the North Atlantic and switch off the thermal currents which regulate temperatures, throwing Europe into an ice age – wouldn’t that mean we wouldn’t have global warming anymore? I’m also not sure what evidence there is that arctic ice helps cool the planet by reflecting sunlight – what percentage of the Earth’s surface is covered with ice?
Turning to Channel Four’s ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ the key argument of that documentary was that when plotting historical temperature rises against rises in CO2, there is not and never has been a direct relationship. Indeed in the post-war era global temperatures came down for four decades, whilst our own CO2 output was increasing at a tremendous rate. Still more puzzling is that natural sources of CO2 by far exceed anything we might be putting into the atmosphere.
The alternative view of this programme is that the warming is coming from the sun, analysis of solar activity (sun spots etc.) correlates with global temperature changes rather precisely for the past four hundred years of our climate records, and we know that temperatures have gone up and down similarly throughout the Earth’s history. There was even a short medieval ice age (Little Ice Age) in the UK when the Thames froze over quite regularly.
I particularly liked one analogy of the current manmade global warming belief ‘It’s like driving a car which starts heating up, and deciding to ignore the engine as the source of that heat and instead focusing on a single wheel nut’. The more I watched the more I couldn’t believe how much influence the media have had over us in making us think it’s our all own fault. Clips taken from television programmes of the 1970s – filmed during a period of global cooling, demonstrating that by now we’d all be living in another ice age, only add weight to the absurdities of the current ‘disaster scenario’ reports we are presented with.
So where did this ‘CO2 equals warming’ notion come from? According to Channel Four, governments run by people such as Margaret Thatcher, desperate to prove the benefits of nuclear power over traditional fossil fuels, encouraged research into proving the connection – and of course got what they paid for. From that point on climate scientists have gone on to receive ever increasing amounts of funding from governments the world over, and are now in a situation where an entire industry is dependent upon believing the manmade warming argument.
Most eye-opening of all was seeing a co-founder of Greenpeace describe how he himself thought the CO2 argument was bogus, and that instead he felt environmentalists were using it as an excuse to curb globalisation and human endeavour in the global economy (I’m paraphrasing). His main concern is the impact it is having on stopping the development of poorer countries and their peoples who are dependent upon cheap and available fossil fuels.
Whichever argument you believe (and I strongly recommend watching both documentaries), there is no question that we should avoid polluting our atmosphere and the destruction of our environment and in that regard research into cleaner energies is not a waste of time. Al Gore’s desire to drive environmentalism into the hearts of all of us is to be celebrated if it means a better world for our future generations. We should just bear in mind that even with all our efforts, there may be nothing we can do about global warming anyway, so don’t be too disappointed if the energy efficient light bulbs and cold showers don’t stop your home from being flooded. I will breath a little more easily from now on in any case.
Technorati Tags: global warming, al gore, inconvenient truth, channel four, ice caps, temperatures, hurricanes, co2, carbon dioxide
Loading ...
March 13th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I’ve seen both presentations, too, and I think they both stink. Mr. Gore’s presentation focuses too much on him, and Swindle focuses almost entirely on an elaborate background scenario that pretends to know what’s going on in other people’s heads and has absolutely no supporting evidence.
Neither does a good job of presenting the data. What the data shows is that, when the CO2 level was lower and essentially constant, solar activity was the main driving force. That’s changed since 1900. CO2 concentration is higher now, and it is changing rapidly. Now CO2 concentration is a bigger driver than solar activity. But neither presentation shows that. Both show data graphs to make their point; unfortunately, the graphs are misleading.
I’ve made a good-faith effort to present the most reliable data I could find in a web page called Global Warming: A Guide for the Perplexed.
What I’ve concluded is that global warming is a reality and that CO2 emissions are an important factor. But there are practical solutions. Renewable energy, nuclear energy, and conservation won’t just minimize global warming; they also offer important environmental, economic, and national-security benefits.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
As I suspected, it wasn’t too long before George Monbiot, debunked the The Great Global Warming Swindle on C4.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html
I only managed to see a brief excerpt of the Channel 4 programme on Newsnight, but it appears that the main argument is based on very shaky foundations. I think in debates like these, we can take nothing on face value…
March 14th, 2007 at 7:34 am
I think there is no doubt that man made global warming does exist but the government is using this as an excuse to control us even more and raise further taxes.
World leaders who go on about this should also put their own homes in order ie Al Gore’s house in Tennessee has twenty room and it uses more electricity in a month than an average household in a year.
And when Camilla had forgotten her favourite shoes, on a recent overseas trip with Prince Charles, they were sent out to her on a special plane!
March 19th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
I like ‘bluffers corner’ on george Monbiot’s climate change book promotion site, especially the way he tears apart a letter David Bellamy wrote in New Scientist magazine:
http://www.turnuptheheat.org/?page_id=5
March 20th, 2007 at 2:16 am
It is important to note that the most in-depth research that disproves the man-made global warming theory is done by… The U.S. Government. Let’s face it, any pro-active actions that could be taken to save our environment, directly affects the economy. ie, the eventuality of banning harmfull chemicals, moving towards alternatives to cars or gasolines. All actions that would result in plants closing, loss of millions of jobs. The impact the loss of profits on gasoline and other fuels would no doubt cause the economy to collapse. All this to say that being environmently friendly is very bad buisness. I myself will not put any weight in any of these reports unless they come from an unbiased source with no political agenda. Forgive my grammar, I am not english.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:28 am
I forgot to note that I do not beileve any report, either the ones that support man-made or natural global warming. They both have financial agendas behind them. There is no unbiased information pertaining to this subject anywhere. However I believe that taking steps to save our environment is just plain old sound advice.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Their program was a little tardy, Michael Crichton very eligantly covered all these issues back in 2005 in his book “State of Fear”
March 21st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
(oh and Mr Crichton cites some articles from peer reviewed scientific journals in his appendix), not sure anyone can claim the same from Mr Gore or Channel Four…
Happy to be corrected though…
April 12th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
That RobC guy is wrong. The industrial revolution started well before 1900 and as such CO2 emissions would have been extremely high then aswell. Solar activity (a tht emoment we have a “lazy” sun apparently) means that cosmic rays, normall diverted by the sun, are having a greater impact on the Earth aswell, and there is alot more evidence to suggest this is the main driving force behind this supposed “climate change”. Another issue is that CO2 is heavier than “air” - ever watched dry ice? the vapour doesn’t rise - it goes down and all dry ice is, is frozen CO2
April 19th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Greetings all, im rather new to all this global warming stuff, but suffice to say that the comments from the UK folks seem pretty fair and good to me. I live at 6,000ft above sea level, so sunburn is always a concern instead of how much i or u or anyone else breathes. I like AndrewD’s comment about CO2 goes to the ground, does this mean the ground is warming equally and radiating right back up in the atmosphere? Yea what about that? I’m so tired of al gore and his agenda, your certainly right that it’s all about big money. Given all this, it does not dismiss that something is taking place on our planet, i suspect that the UFO’s are making CO2 contributions as well, with all their technology (or lack thereof). Since most of us can’t get our hands on the “Real” data that supposedly these claims are made on, like statistics, it can be easily intrepreted to fit anyones agenda, i only wish i had one!!
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
AndrewD, in 1900 the CO2 concentration was about 295 ppm, compared with about 290 ppm in 1850. Now it’s over 380 ppm. Do you see there’s a difference? Also, there’s a difference between the way CO2 behaves when it’s a very cold mass by itself and when it’s mixed with air. Scientists have been measuring CO2 in the atmosphere for a long time. Don’t you think they’d have noticed if it wasn’t there?
May 7th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
This has some very useful information. My team and I are having a debate next Monday about how global warmning is NOT man-made.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Keep us posted on the outcome of the debate Jessie… and I now have a new topic for your next debate - the expanding earth
July 11th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
According to this BBC online video ‘A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun’s output cannot be causing climate change’.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:36 am
I gather Al Gore’s next film/ publicity project will be “Crisis in America - The Continents are Drifting Apart”.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Metaphorically speaking or geographically? Neither would surprise me.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Greetings from the US. For five years I worked at a non-profit evironmental agency here in Washington, DC dealing with everything from global warming to deforestation to the depletion of the ozone layer. About two years ago, I was even able to meet Al Gore at a company-related fundraiser.
The inconvienent truth about Gore is (to put it bluntly); he’s an ass. His environmental record is shameful and EVERY promise he ever made to get into office was unfulfilled. The President of my non-profit openly detested the man. But Gore’s ineptitude isn’t the point I want to make.
In the years I worked there I saw much more than an angry boss and dinner with a donkey. I noticed that every piece of information we had seemed to indicate that while there is indeed an overall warming trend taking place globally, the impact humans contribute is a fraction of naturally occuring factors. And by ‘fraction,’ I really mean roughly 5%. Just try to find anything online about how much of an impact we truly have. You can’t. You get convienent half-truths and generalizations like ‘contributes to,’ but no numbers or percentages… because if you actually knew that driving a car produces 0.0000000001% of greenhouse gas emissions, you wouldn’t care. The Earth cycles through hot and cold regularly.
I’d also like to mention that the same scientists who worry about GW turning the Earth into some venusian hell are also the ones who claimed in the same global warming reports that it will reduce the temperature desparity between night and day, reducing stresses on ecosystems and “amplify many of the positive botanical effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, and produce few, if any, deleterious climatic effects.”
In summation:
Ozone Layer: Real
Global Warming: Real
Human Contribution to GW: Minimal
Al Gore: Jerk
March 10th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I find that very interesting MP and the Al Gore; Jerk part very amusing.
One little point: even if we aren’t contributing to GW that much it isn’t a bad thing that we are all making an effort to be more environmentally friendly is it?! The mis-information can be a bonus!
March 14th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Hey Suzie,
You are absolutely right. If we were able to curb our appetite for fossil fuels with alternative fuels, stop deforestation, et cetera, we would slow global warming. It was not my intention to be misleading, it just frustrates me when the only information available to the general public comes pre-selected from biased PoVs. The average person would be better served if they knew the truth and were able to make thier own decision, as opposed to having one crammed down thier throat, then regurgitated to others at water coolers and subway terminals.
As far as I can see, there are only two real reasons stopping industrialized nations from going 100% green; First is stubborness. I for one enjoy the powerful aroma of cam2 coming from the exhaust of my car. I seriously doubt (even with $6k a year in tax breaks from the gov) I will ever abandon the gasoline engine until it is pried from my clutches by the EPA.
The second and arguably bigger reason is money. Being the capitalist society we are, that’s really what anything boils down to. And no business anywhere wants to have to completely rebuild an infrastructure. Only legislation can get that accomplished. Simply switching everyone’s vehicles to electric would cause chaos in the economy (even more than is already present /sigh), and to top it off, the US is 70% dependant on coal for it’s electricity. COAL. If I drove a pure electric car, I would be responsible for about 20,000 miles worth of coal-fired electricity every year.
Apologies, I’m going off on a tangent here. But the simple truth is, going green is hard.
A last note on the subject of legislation: Here in the states, it’s a big shock to most people when they discover the politician who has done more for green energy laws than anyone else is… Arnold Swarzenegger. 4? years in office and he has passed more state laws to limit pollution and create a mandatory hydrogen fuel station grid for all of California. It really makes people sit back in awe as they see what can happen quickly when there are no special interest groups puppeteering canidates.