Global warming causes...biggest con since 9/11... Mars proof

[johndoe]

"However your support for the Kean Commission Report "

i don't believe i've ever even mentioned it.

"However rather than derail discussion on this thread"

how has it been derailed? it started about global warming and it's still about global warming.

"If critics wish to see this area moderated or structured differently I'm happy to listen to alternative suggestions."

hpw about a "seperate but equal policy"?

[ian neal]

[johndoe]

"but discussion of critics posting outside CC is not global warming related."

then that wouldn't have been my derailment, it would have been yours. my last post here before you deleted it and started discussing if i could post here was about the amount of man made co2 in the atmosphere.

"If you consider the Kean report to be unsatisafactory and support the global call for a new independent investigation, then you are not a critic and therefore free to post anywhere. I had made the assumption that you are a critic on the basis of your previous posts but if this is not the case I'm happy to revise this and welcome you as a supporter for a further investigation"

am i a critic of the "9-11 truth movement" that believes totally in the idea of direct government involvement in 9-11? yes

would i object to further unbiased and proper investigation? no

what does that make me?

[ian neal]

Hi John

I reply here

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=60679#60679

[insidejob]

[johndoe]

"It is factual because seems to be generally accepted that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by one-third from the beginning of the industrial revolution."

actually it's closer to 40% but never mind. i got the maths wrong there the first time i did it too.

"But what if the question was, what proportion of CO2 is there in the atmosphere?"

my question is misleading because i didn't answer the question you didn't ask?

"Below, the figure given is 400 parts per million. That is, CO2 is around 0.5% of the atmosphere."

well first and foremost your first figure doesn't correspond at all to your second. and your second figure is wrong anyway.

co2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere if you count it by volume and 0.06% if you count it by weight. either way your figures were way off. but i'll forgive you for that.

"What is it, some sort of super-gas?"

pretty much. without it earth's temperature would plummet and would end up as one big lump of ice and everything would be dead. so yes it is pretty super.

"And what is the most important greenhouse gas? Water vapour. It makes up 98% of the atmosphere."

wrong in every conceivable sense. first of all water vapour makes up only 3% of the atmopshere and second of all it isn't a greenhouse gas, the effect of stratospheric water vapous is totally nulliffied by multiple factors by cloud albedo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg

oh dear insidejob that wasn't even a good lie.

"“In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present.” "

well that would happen, cold temperature and ice = less co2 absorption.

if you are going to try and discuss this insidejob don't waste my time with total falsehoods.

[insidejob]

[James C]

After his silly, subjective and poorly researched attack on the 9/11 movement I view Monbiot with more caution than I did. That said, he has written very good articles and books on how the common man is being duped by politics and greedy corporations.

Anyway, here's his response to Channel 4's programme.

Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change

[johndoe]

"If CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the Earth during an ice age how is it a greenhouse gas?"

it did, that's why the ice age stopped.

"This is just gobbledygook. "

no it's the carbon cycle.

"but rather shows what the scientists think has contributed to the global warming that has occured since the industrial revolution. "

no it doesn't. it shows : Global average radiative forcing estimates and ranges in 2005 for anthropogenic greenhouse gases and other important agents and mechanisms.

"This makes CO2 is magically gas."

oh it is, it's responsible for all live on earth.

"This is not the same as saying that water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas,"

the graph seems to show otherwise. water vapour = cloud = reflecting light = less heat.

and yes tim patterson is a tool and manipulated evidence:"IT'S SOMETHING LIKE 98 PERCENT, BY VOLUME, OF ALL GREENHOUSE GASES."

note how he counts by volume and not by co2 equivalent.

[Gibson]

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen 211.xml

[truthseeker john]

My car has a leak in the petrol tank and time is running out. Ah well, never mind, I may as well put another hole in it…

[SHERITON HOTEL]

The producer of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' CH4 last week Martin Durkin also made that four part series back in '97 called 'Against Nature' in which he again attempted to debunk environmentalism and accused all environmentalists of being Nazi's. I don't know what this says about the credibility of his latest work and his claim the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has no effect on climate.

[uselesseater]

Poisoning the well Sheriton? I'm surprised at 9.11 truthers making use of such fallacies.

Well they're not all Nazis but there are a lot of scientists who advocate killing large proportions of the population to save the earth. Different reason to the Nazis but same end result.

Also there are a lot of Environmentalists who would advocate stringent enviromental laws. i.e. a totalitarian form of government.

No body wants to kill the planet but thats what they are doing with GM crops, GM plankton and plenty of other stuff, while phoney Eco Warriors run around and panic about CO2.

Temperature leads CO2 increas by 800years so, considering this , saying CO2 causes GW is an astonishing perversion of logic, reversing cause and effect.

Anyway, I'm not a scientist so lest see what the Climatologists said when surveyed.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:ow1l7H0RYkAJ:w3g.gkss.de/staff/bray  /BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf+dennis+bray+survey&hl=en& ct=clnk&cd=2

In the results of a survey of climate scientists conducted in 2003 [3] one question on the survey asked “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? A value of 1 indicates “strongly agree” and a value of 7 indicates “strongly disagree”. Countries, and number of responses from each country are as follows: USA n = 372; Canada n = 14; Germany n = 56; Italy n = 14; Denmark n = 5; Netherlands n = 4; Sweden n = 5; France n = 5; U.K. n = 18; Australia n = 21; Norway n = 3; Finland n = 3; New Zealand n = 6; Austria n = 3; Ethiopia n = 1; South Africa n = 3; Poland n = 1Switzerland n = 7; Mexico n = 3; Russia n = 1; Argentina n = 1; India n = 3; Spain n = 2 Japan n = 3; Brazil n = 1; Taiwan n = 1; Bulgaria n = 1

To the question posed above there were 530 valid responses. Descriptive statistics are as follows: Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of mean = .080; Median = 3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84; Variance = 3.386 Frequencies:

1 strongly agree 50 (9.4% of valid responses)
2 134 (25.3% of valid responses)
3 112 (21.1% of valid responses)
4 75 (14.2% of valid responses)
5 45 (8.5% of valid responses)
6 60 (10.8% valid responses)
7 strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of valid responses)

So much for 99.9% in agreement, Milliband you bucket of slime!

Don't tell me. American Climate Scientists don't count as they're all funded by big oil

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I believe oil was at the root of the 9/11inside job and the "war on terror". How much water vapour is released whenever you burn fossil fuels? I've asked this on several forums. Durkin has upset an Oceanographer scientist for distorting his comments in the show, he's demanded Ch4 never broadcast it again.How many scientist concur with the 'sunspot global warming' theory? Does the earth have an infinite capacity for human population growth? Durkin conveniently left out any mention of the anthropogenic destruction of natures CO2 sink.

I don't get it, why can't we have a definitive answer re. global warming?

[johndoe]

"How much water vapour is released whenever you burn fossil fuels?"

well that would depend on a. the fossil fuel whihc you are burning and b. how muich of it you are burning,

"I've asked this on several forums."

and probably not got an answer for the above reasons.

"I don't get it, why can't we have a definitive answer re. global warming? "

definitive as in 100% of people agreeing on it? doesn't happen with anything, take hollow earth nuts for instance.

"Well they're not all Nazis but there are a lot of scientists who advocate killing large proportions of the population to save the earth."

if you do not save the earth then they'll die anyway and far more.

[uselesseater]

if you do not save the earth then they'll die anyway and far more.

Save the earth from what? Humans?

So you get rid of a few billion for the greater good?

Precisely the logic evil people use to justify killing people, why do you think normal people man death camps?

It's always for the greater good.

[johndoe]

"So you get rid of a few billion for the greater good?"

or get rid of everyone and everything. your call.

[ian neal]

That is not the choice that faces us John.

FYI here is the latest bulletin from medialens who despite their blindspot on 9/11 usually write good stuff (atleast IMO)

MEDIA ALERT: PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

The Scientists Are The Bad Guys

On March 8, Channel 4 screened The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that branded as a lie the scientific consensus that man-made greenhouse gasses are primarily responsible for climate change.

The film was advertised extensively on Channel 4 and repeatedly previewed and reviewed in newspapers. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker declared:

“Only very rarely can a TV documentary be seen as a pivotal moment in a major political debate, but such was Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle last Thursday. Never before has there been such a devastatingly authoritative account of how the hysteria over global warming has parted company with reality.” (Booker, ‘A turning point in climate change,’ Sunday Telegraph, March 11, 2007)

Peter Hitchens commented in the Daily Mail:

“If you were worried about those snaps of polar bears clinging to melting ice-floes, sentenced to a slow death by global warming, you may now relax. They'll be fine. Channel 4 has paid in full for its recent misdemeanours by screening, last Thursday, the brilliant, devastating film The Great Global Warming Swindle.” (Hitchens, ‘Drugs?’, Daily Mail, March 11, 2007)

Doubtless like many who saw the film, the Financial Times’ reviewer was left bewildered:

“Not so long ago, the venerable David Attenborough on the Beeb was telling us that human-driven global warming was real and was coming for us. So that was settled. Now Channel 4, like a dissident schoolboy, is scoffing at the old boy's hobbyhorse and I don't know what to believe.” (’Slaughterhouse three,’ Financial Times, March 10, 2007)

The film opened with scenes of wild weather and environmental disaster accompanied by dramatic captions:

"THE ICE IS MELTING. THE SEA IS RISING. HURRICANES ARE BLOWING. AND IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT.

“SCARED? DON'T BE. IT'S NOT TRUE."

This was immediately followed by a series of equally forthright talking
heads:

"We can't say that CO2 will drive climate; it certainly never did in the past."

“We imagine that we live in an age of reason. And the global warming alarm is dressed up as science. But it’s not science; it’s propaganda.”

And:

“We’re just being told lies; that’s what it comes down to.”

The commentary added to the sense of outrage: “You are being told lies.”

This was indeed superficially impressive - when several experts make bold statements on the same theme we naturally assume they must be onto something - but alarm bells should already have been ringing. This, after all, was ostensibly a film about science - about evidence, arguments, research and debate. Why, then, the language of polemic and smear?

The remarkable answer is provided by the film’s writer and director, Martin Durkin:

"I think it [the film] will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys. It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.

“It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total *.” ('“Global Warming Is Lies” Claims Documentary,’ Life Style Extra, March 4, 2007; http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=globa l_
warming_is_lies_claims_documentary)

Compare and contrast this with the aim as described in a letter sent by the makers of the film, Wag TV, to Professor Carl Wunsch, a leading expert on ocean circulation and climate who subsequently appeared in the
film:

“The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth.”
(http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response)

Wunsch comments:

"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled." (Geoffrey Lean, ‘Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4,’ The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article234752 6.
ece)

We will hear more from Wunsch in what follows.


Deeply Deceptive

The film presented viewers with an apparently devastating refutation of the "theory of global warming". And these were not picky, esoteric criticisms. Durkin insisted that the world’s climate scientists are guilty of the most fundamental error imaginable: increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the cause of higher temperature, as the experts claim. Quite the reverse: increasing atmospheric CO2 is itself the +result+ of rising temperature.

As evidence for this contention, Durkin argued that global surface temperature dropped dramatically between 1945-1975, at a time when CO2 emissions were rapidly rising as a result of the postwar economic boom. According to Durkin, if CO2 emissions were responsible for increasing temperature, then temperature should not have fallen between 1945-1975. Clearly, then, some factor other than CO2 emissions must have caused the subsequent global temperature rise.

But Real Climate, an internet site run by climate scientists, such as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt and Dr William Connelley of the British Antarctic Survey, describes Durkin’s discussion of the 1945-75 period as “deeply deceptive”. (Real Climate, March 9, 2007;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled)

In this section of the film, Durkin focused heavily on a graph depicting temperature changes. The graph, Real Climate comments, “looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected”. It appears to show a dramatic cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping between the film’s version of the global temperature record:

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t63/izzy_bizzy_photo/capture.jpg

and the temperature plot that normally appears in the scientific
literature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.

Without knowing more details of how Durkin may have manipulated the data plotted in his graph, it is difficult to comment on the presentation. What we can say is that Durkin’s "four decades of cooling", implying a relentless temperature drop over 40 years, is not an accurate description of the trend over this period. There was some cooling for
+part+ of this time but also some plateauing, with fluctuations up and
down.

But why did the temperature not simply rise in line with the post-war increase in greenhouse gas emissions?

In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere. These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”. By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2. By the 1980s, however, stronger warming had exceeded this masking effect and global temperature has since continued to rise. As Real Climate notes, by failing to explain the science behind this phenomenon the programme makers were guilty of “lying to us by omission.”


The Ice Cores

The film repeatedly gave the impression that mainstream science argues that CO2 is the +sole+ driver of rising temperatures in the Earth's climate system. But this is not the case. Climate scientists are well aware that solar activity plays a role, though a minor one at present, as do long-term periodic changes in the Earth's orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles. (See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

The point is that there is a vast body of evidence that very strongly supports the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the most important, are +primarily+ responsible for +recent+ global warming. The 4th and most recent scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes:

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [.i.e. probability greater than 90%] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." ('Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,' Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, February 2007, page 10;
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)

We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments. Antarctic ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years behind temperature rises at specific times in the geological past. This, argued Durkin, +proves+ that CO2 cannot be responsible for global warming - instead global warming is responsible for increasing levels of CO2. But this was a huge howler.

What Durkin's film failed to explain was that the 800-year lag happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years. (See:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores  )

Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic change in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains why the rise in CO2 initially lags behind the temperature rise:

"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." (Real Climate, 'What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?’, December 3, 2005;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores  /)

The best current explanation for the lag of 800 years is that this is how long it takes for CO2, absorbed by the ocean in an earlier warm period, to be "flushed out" at the end of an ice age. Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback. (See Caillon et al., 'Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III,' Science, 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731)

Professor Severinghaus summarises:

"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway."

Durkin’s analysis, then, was way off the mark.

The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility. In September 2006, the Times reported the latest findings from researchers writing in the top journal, Nature:

“Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. ‘The solar contribution to warming... is negligible,’ the researchers wrote in the journal Nature.” (Anjana Ahuja, ‘It's hot, but don't blame the Sun,’ The Times, September 25, 2006)

The film's other scientific claims can be similarly dismissed. Carl Wunsch - who, as discussed, appeared in the film - comments:

“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.”
(http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response)

For further help in understanding the weakness of the film’s claims, see the following resources:

Real Climate, 'Swindled',
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled

Campaign Against Climate Change, including a rebuttal to the film by Sir John Houghton, who chairs the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820

Royal Society: Facts and fictions about climate change:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761


“I Was Duped” - Déjà Vu?

Many readers will be aware that Durkin has previous ‘form’. In 1997, Channel 4 broadcast his three-part series, Against Nature, which suggested present-day environmentalists were the true heirs of the Nazis. (See George Monbiot, ‘The Revolution Has Been Televised,’ The Guardian, December 18, 1997; http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12/18/the-revolution-has-been-tel ev
ised/)

Several interviewees who appeared in the film felt they had been misled about the programme-maker’s agenda. Responding to complaints, the Independent Television Commission (ITC) found that the editing of interviews with four contributors had "distorted or misrepresented their known views". (Geoffrey Lean, ‘Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4,’ The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article234752 6.
ece)

In addition, the ITC found: "The interviewees had also been misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part." (Paul McCann, ‘Channel 4 told to apologise to Greens,’ The Independent, April 2, 1998)

Ten years on, it appears that history may have repeated itself. In his letter of complaint to the film-makers cited above, Carl Wunsch writes:

“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 embarrassing, 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.”
(http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response)

Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.

Greenpeace provides a fascinating online ’map’ detailing how Exxon funds these climate sceptics. Go to: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831 (click ‘Launch’ then click ‘skip intro’)

In his book, Green Backlash, environmental journalist Andrew Rowell noted that Fred Singer has also attacked scientific and environmental stances on other green issues such as ozone, acid rain, automobile emissions and even whaling. Singer has worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun.

According to the Environmental Research Foundation, a non-governmental
organisation:

“For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change.” (Quoted, Sharon Beder, Global Spin, Green Books, 1997, p.94)

Rowell wrote that a quarter of Patrick Michaels’ research funding was reportedly received from companies such as Edison Electric Institute, the largest utility trade association in America. Michaels’ magazine, World Climate Review, was funded by the Western Fuel Association and a video produced by him was funded by coal companies and distributed by the Denver Coal Club. (Rowell, Green Backlash, Routledge, 1996, p.143)

Both Singer and Michaels represented the fossil fuel lobby’s Global Climate Coalition and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leader in global warming scepticism.

Journalist Ross Gelbspan noted that in May 1995, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. Gelbspan said of Lindzen:

“I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth. That's not to say Dr Lindzen doesn't believe what he says, but it is to say that he stands in very sharp distinction to really just about virtually all of the climate scientists around the world.” (Tony Jones, ‘Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight,’ Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 7, 2005; http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1318067.htm)

Journalist George Monbiot wrote of Philip Stott:

“Professor Stott is a retired biogeographer. Like almost all the prominent sceptics he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change. But he has made himself available to dismiss climatologists' peer-reviewed work as the ‘lies’ of ecofundamentalists.” (Monbiot, ‘Beware the fossil fools,’ The Guardian, April 27, 2004; http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1829315,00.ht ml
)

Paul Driessen is a fellow at two right-wing think tanks in the US, which are part of the Wise Use movement. One of the think tanks is headed by Ron Arnold, who has spent the last twenty years attacking the environmental movement. His fellow director is a fundraiser for America's gun lobby. The list goes on...

By contrast, Greenpeace spokeswoman Mhairi Dunlop said her organisation had been interviewed by Durkin but none of the material had been included in the film:

"They interviewed us but I guess what we said didn't fit in with the [story] they were peddling." (McCandless, op. cit)

Following the film’s broadcast, Professor Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society - the government-sponsored academy of sciences for the United Kingdom - has said that many factors contribute to global warming but it is clear that emissions of "greenhouse gases," particularly CO2, are to blame for most of the current temperature rise. Rees added:

"Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future." (Ibid)

On March 11 the Observer published a letter from a group of climate scientists responding to Durkin’s film:

“This programme misrepresented the state of scientific knowledge on global warming, claiming climate scientists are presenting lies. This is an outrageous statement...

“We defend the right of people to be sceptical, but for C4 to imply that the thousands of scientists and published peer-reviewed papers, summarised in the recent international science assessment, are misguided or lying lacks scientific credibility and simply beggars belief.” (Alan Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council, Brian Hoskins, University of Reading, Jo Haigh, Imperial College London, Myles Allen, University of Oxford, Peter Cox, University of Exeter, Colin Prentice, QUEST Programme, letter to the Observer, Sunday March 11, 2007;
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2031117,00.html)

Viewed from one perspective, Channel 4 has done a huge public disservice in spreading absurd and mendacious arguments guaranteed to generate confusion. This at a time when a fragile momentum is building on the need to take urgent action on the very real threat of catastrophic climate change.

But from another perspective it may well be that this film does for climate scepticism what Tony Blair’s “dodgy dossiers” did for the pro-war movement ahead of the invasion of Iraq. Wildly distorted propaganda often does have a powerful initial impact. But stretched beyond a certain point of unreality, it also has a tendency to turn on, and bite, the propagandists.

Durkin’s grandiose prediction that his film “will go down in history” will surely prove correct, although perhaps not for the reasons he imagined.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Send a complaint to Channel 4: http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE?New,Kb=C4_Author,Comp an
y={2EA1BB9C-510E-44A5-A481-01EB1DDA1669},T=CONTACT_VE,VARSET_TITLE=Gen er
al

See material on 'Complaining to C4', including a model letter, at http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820

Send a complaint to Ofcom: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/

Please send a copy of your emails to:
editor@medialens.org

Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us at: editor@medialens.org

This media alert will be archived shortly here:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

[johndoe]

"That is not the choice that faces us John. "

oh but it is.

the greenhouse effect will run away if you tamper with it.

[ZUCO]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2033091,00.html


I share George Monbiot's view that science needs dissent and debate (Comment, March 13). That's why I commissioned The Great Global Warming Swindle: to reflect the views of the significant minority of respected scientists who do not agree with the prevailing consensus on climate change. The response to the film has been lively and opinionated, but some clarification is needed.

With regard to reports that one contributor says he was "misled" by the programme and "misrepresented" within it, Channel 4 has a detailed correspondence which shows this is not the case. The view that Professor Egil Friss-Cristensen, head of the Danish Space Centre, "incorrectly handled data" and used "faulty methods" in his research is contested in his response, and he has demonstrated a good correlation between solar-cycle length and temperature. Professor John Christy, head of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, also disputes the claim that he has been "proved wrong", and his most recent (2005) data on the heating of the lower atmosphere have not been challenged. There were many other voices in the film that present a powerful argument.

Director Martin Durkin and his production company have made numerous well-received factual programmes for broadcasters in the UK and internationally. It would be dishonest of Channel 4 to refuse to commission him because he is "discredited", as he is not.

The debate the film has started is to be welcomed and the range of opinions it has generated is reflected in Channel 4's output on the subject of the environment. This year we are presenting a range of programmes on the environment, many of which have as their premise the influence of CO2 as a driver of climate change. In the same week that The Great Global Warming Swindle aired, George Monbiot presented a compelling investigation into government strategy for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
Hamish Mykura
Head of science, Channel 4

George Monbiot is guilty of the sins of those wedded to orthodoxy down the ages. He links those who believe the sun's activity affects climate change with those who think Aids is not caused by HIV, and with conspiracy theories like the World Trade Centre being deliberately blown up. This is scientifically irrelevant and proves nothing. Whatever our ignorance about the Earth's complex climate systems, the fact is that our sun's active behaviour is atypical when viewed over thousand-year timescales. When the sun was less active, as in the 17th century, the Earth chilled. Agatha Christie put it nicely: "Any coincidence is worth investigating," said Miss Marple, "then you can always discount it if it is just a coincidence."
Dr David Whitehouse
Farnborough, Hants

[Ravenmoon]

Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government
If world government is to be achieved by consent, the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity

Daniel Taylor
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Proponents of a system of world government and the tyrannical measures that accompany it have seized upon the popular issue of global warming to advance long existing plans for global governance. World government has been the desire of power hungry organizations and the individuals running them for many years. The Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and their think tanks like the Club of Rome are all such organizations. Council on Foreign Relations member James Paul Warburg, who was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, a prominent banker, stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950 that, “We shall have world government whether or not you like it -- by conquest or consent.”

Terrorism, economics, and global warming are all reasons given by proponents of world government as evidence of the necessity for a new world order. If world government is to be achieved by consent, as Mr. Warburg put it, then the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity.

In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called "Limits to growth." The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.

Today, global warming and climate change in general have become foundational issues for one of the largest political movements of our time. As more focus is placed on global warming, the solutions which are being presented to the world often have nothing to do with what many are saying is the root cause of the problem. Scientific evidence has emerged, highlighted in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which supports the theory that the sun is in fact a major driving force behind global warming. Ice core samples show that CO2 levels (which are blamed by many to be the initiating force behind a rise in global temperature) rise 800 years after an initial rise in temperature. Other data gathered regarding solar activity show a clear connection between fluctuations in the sun's activity and temperature variations on earth. If the sun is in fact the culprit for changes in the earth's temperature, world taxes, global government and other solutions we are being given are not cutting to the root cause of climate change.

In response to the conventional explanation of global warming, several calls have been made by various individuals to create a system of world government, and put into place rigid controls over the lives of millions across the world.

Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

Gordon Brown, the potential future Prime Minister of the UK, stated recently that a 'new world order' must be created in order to combat global warming.

Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a professor at the University of Texas who has a following of dedicated environmentalists, made startling comments regarding population reduction to a group of students and other scientists in April of 2006. Because of the negative effects of overpopulation on the earth, Pianka proposed that the Ebola virus be used as a tool of population reduction. Pianka also praised China's one child policy, saying that, "China was able to turn the corner and become the leading world super power because they have a police state and they are able to force people to stop re-producing."

Everyone, regardless of your position on global warming or the environment, must take into consideration the solutions that we are being given, as well as the forces behind them which seek to create a global system of domination and control.

http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/global_warming_hy steria_serves_a.htm

[insidejob]

[johndoe]

"(And then it no longer had any significant impact because it lost its magical powers.)"

no the earth would get hotter. and then what happens. more heat = more erosiion = more absorption = less co2. and around and around we go.

if you want to continue debate on this then how about you actually try learning anything about it.

"You also want us to believe that CO2 is so powerful that a relatively small increase in it over the past two centuries has caused significant warming. "

40% is not small.

"I don’t know about you, but I depend on oxygen."

and water, and co2. without the greenhouse effect the temperature of earth would drop a good 20 degrees.

"You’re saying that X amount CO2 will have far greater impact on the climate than the same amount of water vapour."

yes, because it's a more effective greenhouse gas.

"I want to know whether you are saying that 0.05% of gas in the atmosphere is such a threat?"

yes.

[Newspeak International]

Obviously, those tasked with the implementation of climatic runaway greenhouse effect due to CO2 emissions would favour the extreme case
of human cause and effect.
Although the case for is on very shakey ground,and just smacks of political manouvering for tax increases.

A futher burden on the taxpayer.

I think by now most of us here has an idea of what's really going on.

[conspiracy analyst]

Arnold Terminator, Monbiot and Galloway are all in agreement that 9/11 was no conspiracy why should we doubt them about ...global warming?

If you live off the corporate media to ply your trade, you are only given a chance if you sell their line.

If I pickup yellow pages and call a plumber for a leak in my house and an electrician turns up, I would think hes mad if he had no plumbing skills, would
I not?

How could any of these media pundits and a governor argue its all a con?
Very few bite the hand that feeds them. Many more make a career out of it.

Monbiot is positioning himself into a special adviser for a 'new' Brown government.

[johndoe]

"I think by now most of us here has an idea of what's really going on. "

really newspeak? how much studying have you done into the matter?

[ian neal]

Latest fro mdeia lens

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

March 21, 2007


MEDIA ALERT UPDATE: CHANNEL 4'S CLIMATE SWINDLE - THE DISTORTIONS CONTINUE


On March 13, we published a Media Alert analysing some of the gross flaws and distortions in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 film written and directed by Martin Durkin. (See:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php)

The film has been subject to intense criticism. Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, London, wrote to Durkin:

"There is much more that could be said about your programme - such as the gross caricature that it gave of a scientific community which, contra your film, continually debates the various causes of global warming - but, as I said, I am not a climate scientist. But it does show
- what abundant experience has already taught me - that, left to their own devices, TV producers simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth. I am very disappointed."
(http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/durkinemails)

Durkin responded with a single sentence:

"You're a big daft c***." (Ibid)

Simon Singh, the author of Fermat's Last Thorem, who had received both the above emails, sought to reason with Durkin:

"I suspect that you will have upset many people (if Armand is right), so it would be great if you could engage in the debate rather just resorting to one line replies. That way we could figure out what went wrong/right and how do things better/even better in the future." (Ibid)

Durkin replied at greater length but signed off with: "go and f*** yourself [uncensored in original]". (Ibid)

Durkin has since attempted a marginally more serious response in the Telegraph, where he writes:

"The ice-core data was the jewel in the global-warming crown, cited again and again as evidence that carbon dioxide 'drives' the earth's climate. In fact, as its advocates have been forced to admit, the ice-core data says the opposite. Temperature change always precedes changes in CO2 by several hundred years. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way round. The global-warmers do not deny this. They cannot." (Durkin, ''The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?', March 17, 2007; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/18/ngreen 21
8.xml)

As we discussed in our previous alert, the ice-core data show that the initial warming that ends an ice age is caused by a change in the Earth's orbit around the sun, allowing more solar heat to reach the planet. The point is that rising temperatures then release CO2 from the ocean back into the atmosphere, so creating even stronger warming under the usual greenhouse effect. The ice-core record of glacial-interglacial events is well understood by climate scientists, but Durkin persists in misrepresenting the science.

Durkin continues:

"During the post-war economic boom, while industrial emissions of CO2 went up, the temperature went down (hence the great global-cooling scare in the 1970s). Why? They say maybe the cooling was caused by SO2 (sulphur dioxide) produced by industry. But they say it mumbling under their breath, because they know it makes no sense. Thanks to China and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then. Why isn't it perishing cold?" (Ibid)

Durkin asserts, without evidence, that "SO2 levels are far, far higher than they were back then". In fact, although China and other nations have experienced rapid industrial growth, the Clean Air Acts in the United States, and equivalent legislation in Europe, have significantly cut levels of sulphate aerosols in the developed world. Scientists have observed that the global dimming trend of previous decades reversed in 1990. Since then, global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions has been clearly seen in rising temperatures.


The Ties That Bind - Furedi, Durkin And Sense About Science

In our previous alert, we noted that Durkin was responsible for the 1997 series Against Nature. He has also been involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), founded and chaired by Frank Furedi, a professor of sociology at the University of Kent. RCP published a magazine called Living Marxism (LM) to which Durkin claims to have had no connection. However, the connections between Durkin and Furedi, and other RCP personnel, are clear, as George Monbiot has noted:

"The assistant producer of Against Nature, Eve Kaye, was one of the principal coordinators of the RCP/LM. The director, Martin Durkin, describes himself as a Marxist, denies any link with LM, but precisely follows its line in argument. The series starred Frank Furedi, previously known as Frank Richards, LM's regular columnist and most influential thinker, and John Gillott, LM's science correspondent, both billed as independent experts. Line by line, point by point, Against Nature followed the agenda laid down by LM..." (Monbiot, 'Living Marxism's interesting allegiances,' Prospect Magazine, November 1998;
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1998/11/01/far-left-or-far-right/)

Fast forward to March 17, when the BBC highlighted comments by two scientists which appeared to support Durkin's thesis that claims of human-induced climate change have been hyped. The BBC website gave the story top billing, reporting that:

"Two leading UK climate researchers say some of their peers are 'overplaying' the global warming message."

The Independent on Sunday explained further:

"The comments of the two meteorologists, Professor Paul Hardaker and Professor Chris Collier, both of the Royal Meteorological Society... threatened to revive the row over the scientific view of global warming after the broadcasting of Channel 4's polemic The Great Global Warming Swindle 10 days ago, which took issue with the view set out in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth." (Lean, 'Climate experts hit back after being accused of overstating the problem,' Independent on Sunday, March 18, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article236899 9.
ece)

As well as being covered by BBC radio, TV and online, Hardaker and Collier's comments were mentioned in the Observer, Telegraph, Mirror, Sunday Express, Sunday Times, and the Sunday Star.

Hardaker and Collier were speaking at a conference organised by an organisation called Sense About Science (SAS). The director of SAS, Tracey Brown, has worked with Frank Furedi for a number of years. The website GMWatch.org comments that Brown is "of course part of the climate-change denying LM network to which Martin Durkin also intimately connects". ('Another LM network swindle';
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7654)

The assistant director of SAS, Ellen Raphael, has also studied in Frank Furedi's department at the University of Kent.
(http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=151)

A glance at the SAS website reveals that financial contributors include AstraZeneca, BP, Dixons, GE Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Halifax Bank of Scotland, Pfizer, Unilever, and so on. (Donors list and funding policy;
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/63)

The BBC described Hardaker and Collier as "leading UK climate researchers", but this is not the case. Writing in the Independent on Sunday (IoS), Geoffrey Lean noted of Hardaker:

"He pointed out that he and his colleague were not experts on climate change." (Lean, op. cit)

Lean also reported that confusion surrounded the views of Hardaker and Collier after Hardaker told the IoS "he could not think of a case where a scientist had overstated the position" on climate change.

How convenient that the big-business funded Sense About Science - linked to Furedi and RCP, which are linked to Durkin - produced two scientists appearing to challenge the consensus on climate change.


The Media - Writing Against The Bias

Whatever the views of Hardaker and Collier, the fact remains that most serious climate experts are in broad agreement on climate change. In December 2004, Naomi Oreskes of the University of California at San Diego reported in the leading journal, Science, on her analysis of a sample of 928 papers published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 under the keywords "climate change". (Quoted, Naomi Oreskes, 'Beyond The Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,' Science, 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686, DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)

Of all the papers, 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or climate issues in the geological past, taking no position on current human-induced climate change. Remarkably, not one of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

By contrast, consider climate reporting in the mainstream media. In the November/December 2004 issue of Extra!, Jules Boykoff and Maxwell Boykoff reported on their study, 'Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the U.S. Prestige Press,' published in the July 2004 issue of the journal Global Environmental Change. They analysed articles about human contributions to global warming that appeared between 1988 and 2002 in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. Their findings:

53 per cent of the articles gave roughly equal attention to the views that humans contribute to global warming and that climate change is exclusively the result of natural fluctuations. 35 per cent emphasised the role of humans while presenting both sides of the debate - thus more accurately reflecting the scientific consensus on climate change.

Boykoff and Boykoff, then, found that media coverage "significantly diverged from the IPCC consensus on human contributions to global warming". In other words, they found that "the US press systematically proliferated an informational bias". (Jules Boykoff and Maxwell Boykoff, 'Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias - Creating controversy where science finds consensus,' Extra! November/December 2004;
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978)

The deeper point being:

"By giving equal time to opposing views, the major mainstream newspapers significantly downplayed scientific understanding of the role humans play in global warming." (Ibid)

This is no accident. In exact contradiction to Durkin's thesis, state-corporate power is in fact loath to recognise, much less tackle, the climate change crisis. The reason is simple enough - the corporate system is legally and structurally tied into generating maximum revenues in minimum time at minimum cost. Action to avert climate change threatens to massively raise costs, and to undermine traditional centres of power in the fossil fuel industries. Noam Chomsky explains:

"The basic principle, rarely violated, is that what conflicts with the requirements of power and privilege does not exist." (Chomsky, Deterring Democracy, Hill and Wang, New York, 1992, p.79)

If the threat of climate change is at last beginning to exist for the mainstream media, it is thanks to the sheer weight of evidence provided by climate scientists warning of impending disaster. But again, the truth is the exact reverse of Durkin's claim - these scientists have struggled mightily to be heard because they are "writing against the bias", to use Graham Greene's phrase, not with it.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to Steve Herrmann, editor of BBC Online. Ask him why the website describes Hardaker and Collier as "leading UK climate researchers" and why it gave their views such prominence.

Email: steve.herrmann@bbc.co.uk

Send a complaint to Channel 4: http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE?New,Kb=C4_Author,Comp an
y={2EA1BB9C-510E-44A5-A481-01EB1DDA1669},T=CONTACT_VE,VARSET_TITLE=Gen er
al

See material on 'Complaining to C4', including a model letter, at http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820

Send a complaint to Ofcom: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/

Please send a copy of your emails to:
editor@medialens.org

Media Lens has published an article on the BBC's Newsnight website. See
here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/bbcs_iraq_coverage_biased _or_balanced.html

[rodin]

So you don't think the fact that the rest of the solar system is warming in sync with Earth is indicative that man's contribution to Global warming if any must be a fraction of the observed effect?

[johndoe]

"So you don't think the fact that the rest of the solar system is warming in sync with Earth is indicative that man's contribution to Global warming if any must be a fraction of the observed effect?"

exactly. each are very different planets and trying to compare changes in them is very awkward.

[ian neal]

I think the 'swindle' documentary failed to give a fair and balanced presentation of the science. No one is denying the influence of sun spots and solar activity on earth's climate, but it is one factor in a very complex picture.

I could give you my opinion but despite having studied climatology at university and professionally, I wouldn't pretend to be any kind of authority so it wouldn't actually mean that much.

I don't dismiss the theories presented in 'swindle' out of hand. There is considerable uncertainty when it comes to understanding and modelling climate change. But given that at the other extreme we are talking about the very real risk of runaway climate change and the future viability of the planet, I would always take the precautionary approach. What we are not well served by is biased and distorted presentations of the science and that is what Durkin's film is.

I wouldn't trust Durkin any more than I would trust Blair. He has considerable form in misrepresenting science and the views of the environmental movement for very dubious motives and this was a particularly true of this documentary. In particular I found his argument that there is some kind of sinister conspiracy between the vast majority of the world's climate scientists and the green movement to be laughable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)