Conspiracy theory rebuttal


GGWS is a conspiracy theory. It should be filed along with rubbish such as "The Lunar Landings Were Faked!" and "The CIA Imploded The WTC!" etc.

Here's a rebuttal:-

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

Principal points:-

a) CO2 levels today are higher than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. GGWS 'forgot' to mention this.
b) He agrees that temperature changes preceded CO2-level changes during the last ice-age. So on this everyone is agreed - historical temperature changes (prior to about 1960) are NOT caused by CO2-level changes.
c) Global Warming theory doesn't have a problem with a cooling troposphere.
d) Both camps agree that solar influences were the main driver of temperature rises between 1900 and 1940.

My conclusions? Global Warming theory is based largely on records of climate data from the last 40 years, and large-scale theoretical modelling of the future.

Now check out this chart:-

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

Figure 2. (2nd page) shows that the solar activity / temperature relationship was shot to pieces in about 1980. And apparently the chart in GGWS ended in 1980. They 'forgot' to show what happened after that....

A couple of good blogs on the matter...

http://reasic.com/2007/03/10/the-great-global-warming-swindle-questions-answered/

and

http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

and some charts and analysis here...

http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/swindlers/

Take everything you read with a large pinch of salt, particularly if someone appears to be contradicting virtually every climate scientist on the planet. Conspiracy theories are usually jammed full of lies, innuendo and straw man arguments.

reply

You are right. But then oil industries actually liked that movie. It helps protects oil industry revenues, the war machine and occupation in Iraq (along with Iran, Afghanistan, future occupations in Indonesia, East Timor, Gulf of Thailand, North Korea - all oil rich for the next decade after Middle east oil dries up). I am sure these kinds of video are more to see. You have to agree that people who watched it are 6: 1 agree with the Swindle movies. A better explaination is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

reply

Of course the wacko liberals always turn to wikipedia for evidence. Are you kidding me?! Then again, reading your nonsense about oil industry revenues and Iraq "occupation" shows you up for what you really are: A textbook marxist with the eco chic attached to yourself, or more like a watermelon: green on the outside and red on the inside.

reply

nice how you dont counter any of the arguments that where made... but just go on the attack kinda says enough doesnt it.

reply

by - dennis_vdboorn on Sun Jul 8 2007 11:14:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nice how you dont counter any of the arguments that where made... but just go on the attack kinda says enough doesnt it.


Dennis, didnt you read what he said, Eg how they cut the last 17 years off the solar activity compared to temp Why?

Because as the solar activity reduced dramatically the temp shot up even more dramatically, so it exposed his lie of solar activity being related to temp. His whole basis for why their isnt global warming...

reply

[deleted]

Just because, as you state, the oil industry liked this movie doesn;t automatically make it uncredible.

What I resent is the extreme leftists (feck u greenpeace!) using global warming theories as an excuse to move forth THEIR agendas. Extremism in any form is always bad! We should become less dependent on oil, we should invest in better, cleaner, renewable technology, and we should care about the environmental impact of our actions but don't use global warming to sell it to me. It's equivalent to George Dubya using Septmeber 11 to sell me the war in Iraq!

Where have all the critical thinkers gone?!?

reply

I see your point, but the two situations are a little different. There no evidence that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, while there is a lot of evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming. Certain groups are being alarmist to push their agenda, but a critical assessment of the evidence still leads to the conclusion that AGW is happening, and it will have, on balance, detrimental effects.

The fact that the oil industry liked this movie doesn't make it uncredible, but, by the same token, the fact that Greenpeace and Al Gore hated it doesn't make it credible. (I know you don't think that way, but there are many who do.)

reply

Thanks so much for your links. They're helping me a lot with a document I'm writing.

reply

a) CO2 levels today are higher than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. GGWS 'forgot' to mention this.

They argued that CO2 was irrelevant; any numbers relating to CO2 prevalence, therefore, would be equally irrelevant.

b) He agrees that temperature changes preceded CO2-level changes during the last ice-age. So on this everyone is agreed - historical temperature changes (prior to about 1960) are NOT caused by CO2-level changes.

The film cited this to indicate that there is no historical precedent for carbonogenic global warming

c) Global Warming theory doesn't have a problem with a cooling troposphere.

I'll have to examine this issue; but this was a rather minor topic in the film.

reply

"They argued that CO2 was irrelevant; any numbers relating to CO2 prevalence, therefore, would be equally irrelevant."

The question is, are they right?

It doesn't seem so:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores

I encourage you to check out those two articles, but if you're curious, here's a nice meaty rebuttal. I'm curious if you think this man is lying, and if so, why?

This is from RealClimate.org:

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

To read more about CO2 and ice cores, see Caillon et al., 2003, Science magazine

Guest Contributor: Jeff Severinghaus
Professor of Geosciences
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego.

reply

yea, very nice rebuttal..

all it says is that the lag only means the first 800 years of warming isn't caused by co2. If this cycle of feedback really is the case, why doesn't the world just keep on warming up.. what is it that cools it back down after this 5000 year warming up period?

With all that co2 in the air of 4200 years of co2 release the world should keep on warming up, but it didn't did it..

reply

"With all that co2 in the air of 4200 years of co2 release the world should keep on warming up, but it didn't did it..."

is there infinite co2 on earth? nope, there's only so much that can be released through natural warming (co2 in the ocean, trapped in ice... etc). so why would the world keep warming when there are mechanisms that will soak up the co2 in the air over time (plants, the ocean... etc)?

hope that helps.

reply

Ignorance is not an argument. Why does everybody assume his intellect is the be all and end all of science? If you can't explain all of science's questions within 3 seconds of navel-gazing, science must be conspiring against you. Why don't you ask questions as they are supposed to be asked? You know, as actual questions, not as arguments.

reply

The British Courts have ruled that about a dozen claims in Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" were flat-out lies.

Have they done the same for this movie?

No?

Well, guess which documentary is far more credible?

Gore's movie has *zero* credibility.

reply

It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion. Nothing in the judge's comments detracted from that. (Kevin Brennan)

reply

But the Global Warming crap has been proven to be false many times to its extent. These scientists falsify data to make the problem worse...who would really pay attention to them if it was shown to not have as significant an impact? They are in it for the publicity now.

God loves you for He died on the cross to Save you.

reply

My conclusions? Global Warming theory is based largely on records of climate data from the last 40 years, and large-scale theoretical modelling of the future.


But they have records for 1 million years winter and summer cycles!

CO2 is far higher in the last 100 years and rose thru that period directly linked to production of energy etc.

reply