Home » Global Warming, Off Topic » Climate Catastrophe Cancelled

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

20 Responses to Climate Catastrophe Cancelled

  1. Another good documentary on the global warming con job. Is there a site where a lot of these films are gathered?

    My favorite quote from this film (paraphrased):

    “The IPCC Report for Policy Makers is not writen by scientists but by policy makers themselves.”

  2. Unlike Gore’s “Invconvient Truth”, you can bet this won’t be shown in any public schools.

  3. This seems quite convincing at least on the surface. The trouble is that it is really hard to decide who is right when one hasn’t a deep knowledge and understanding of the science issues involved. This issue is so bound up with big political and scientific power groups that one needs to take all the spins on the issue with a grain of salt. I have found that unfortunately the best guideline to find truth in such big public not purely scientific issues is to take the cynical approach to “follow the money”. Perhaps a political motivation could be traced for the hyping of global warming due to fossil fuel burning-produced carbon dioxide. The major producers of this are the US and Europe. Hyping the evils of carbon dioxide could be among other factors one pointed out by DaveScot: the desire politically to take attention away from the large contribution of soot from coal burning in China and other Asian countries, especially to the accelerating melting of the North Polar ice pack.

    The other side of the coin is that following the money (or politics) also leads to the obvious motivations of the oil industry to minimize the perceived threat of anthropogenicially produced carbon dioxide. The measures necessary to limit CO2 emissions necessarily hurt profits. Even a cursory search of the Internet comes up with information that appears to confirm this likely connection. I found some information on the organization called The Friends of Science, which sponsored the video, in a website called Sourcewatch at http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....of_Science . One quote: “In an August 12, 2006 article, The Globe and Mail (newspaper) revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry.” Another problem indicated in this source is that the University of Calgary has insisted that the Friends of Science is “neither affiliated with nor endorsed by the University”, despite the video claiming it was a University of Calgary video in cooperation with the Friends of Science Society.

    Unfortunately this issue is very murky because of all the competing interests and power groups involved are influencing and slanting the information available to the public.

  4. Anyone else notice the de-bunking of the “Christian” myth that the frequency and intensity of natural disasters is on the rise (thus signifyingthe nearness of “thed end”)?

  5. magnan: “This seems quite convincing at least on the surface. The trouble is that it is really hard to decide who is right when one hasn’t a deep knowledge and understanding of the science issues involved.”

    Sorry, magnan, but this is the kind of tripe we hear from evolutionists all the time.

    If the IPCC includes the “hockey stick” graph, something clearly contradicted by a vast number of climatologists, then what does that say about their agenda?

    I don’t see what’s so hard to understand here: water vapor accounts for almost 90% of the “greenhouse gas effect”, and CO2 only 3.6%. CO2 is a “lagging” indicator, not a leading indicator of heating. It has obviously been hotter on earth in previous epochs, e.g., the Carboniferous. There’s a correlation between the sun’s activity and global temperatures.

    What’s so hard to understand about any of this?

    “Following the money” is nothing but an “ad hominem” approach to the truth. It substitutes a subjective, for an objective understanding of things. “They’re liars because they work for polluters!” Doesn’t that sound childish? Well, maybe there’s a good reason for that.

    If you want to understand global warming, why don’t you read a book or two, instead of trying to figure out who Exxon-Mobil gives money to?

  6. BTW, thanks Dave for posting this clip. Is there a way you can forward the clip to someone via email?

  7. Pav


    f the IPCC includes the “hockey stick” graph, something clearly contradicted by a vast number of climatologists, then what does that say about their agenda?

    I don’t see what’s so hard to understand here: water vapor accounts for almost 90% of the “greenhouse gas effect”, and CO2 only 3.6%. CO2 is a “lagging” indicator, not a leading indicator of heating. It has obviously been hotter on earth in previous epochs, e.g., the Carboniferous. There’s a correlation between the sun’s activity and global temperatures.

    What’s so hard to understand about any of this?

    Well actually quite a lot is hard to understand. I have mixed feelings about this debate – I often find myself arguing a sceptical position. But one thing I am sure of – it is complex and hard to understand. Mangan is right.

    For example:

    I believe the initial hockey stick paper to have been mediocre science and Mann’s reaction was unfortunate. However, there have been several other studies since which have come to the same broad conclusion. McKintyre has then argued that these are based on the same data. And so the debate goes on. Look at:

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....-round-27/

    for a flavour of it.

    Water vapour is a feedback effect and total red herring. The amount changes from day to day in response to variables such as temperature. CO2 is a long term effect. It is a bit like saying that the growth of traffic on my road is caused by the length of the queues to get on to it. See http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....cosub2sub/

    CO2 is not the only thing that causes temperature increases. No one has ever proposed that. The “lag” occurs because in the past temperature changes have been initiated by other causes (there has never been burning of fossil fuels before). This has caused an increase in CO2 which has in turn increased the temperature still further (positive feedback).

    I hope you now agree that “climate change cancelled” grossly simplifies some complex and subtle issues. I have never seen “Inconvenient truth” but I suspect it does the same from the other side. They are both political statements not descriptions of the science.

    I didn’t watch the whole of “Climate catastrophe cancelled”. It seemed to repeat a lot of stuff that has been done to death a long time ago and I got bored. But I was struck by the little bit on the 1998 El Nino. The usual pattern is for the less well informed (or more dishonest) sceptics to use the freak 1998 figure to “demonstrate” that temperatures have been dropping recently – and it is the warmers who are busy explaining that is was a freak year. I have never heard it used the other way round before!

    I think Magnan was right to say that for most of us it is more useful to study the motivations and integrity of the proponents than to try and understand the complex and difficult science. In the end we have little option but to decide whom we trust. However, it he may underestimate the forces motivating the warming side of the debate. One of the more accurate ideas in the channel 4 film (which has otherwise been largely discredited) is that if you want to get a paper published then somehow link it to global warming. It is an industry with its own momentum.

  8. markf: “The “lag” occurs because in the past temperature changes have been initiated by other causes (there has never been burning of fossil fuels before). This has caused an increase in CO2 which has in turn increased the temperature still further (positive feedback).”

    In the clip they say that the “lag” is up to 800 years. Now, is there, or is there not a “lag”? If the “skeptics” have ‘made it up’, they it would, like Mann’s misrepresentations, have been pointed out. Hence, your logic is a bit loopy. If, indeed, there is simply “positive feedback”, then once a warming cycle begins, how does it stop? Well, the answer is straightforward: the “cause” of the warming stops, and, lagging behind, the level of CO2 drops. The obvious conclusion here is that CO2 doesn’t cause warming—something else is. You know, there’s this big, bright, warmth-inducing object in the sky most of the day. Do you think that maybe it has something to do with the temperature of our planet?

    Water vapor accounts for 90% of the “greenhouse gas effect”. Have you ever been in a greenhouse? Did you choke on the CO2, or did you begin to sweat?

  9. Pav


    In the clip they say that the “lag” is up to 800 years. Now, is there, or is there not a “lag”? If the “skeptics” have ‘made it up’, they it would, like Mann’s misrepresentations, have been pointed out.

    You are proving my point that it is necessary to understand this in detail and it is not so easy. Yes there is a lag, and no one is denying it; but that only shows that warming causes CO2 as well as CO2 causing warming – which is well known. Positive feedback would lead to runaway warming but other factors kick in (e.g. the raw contribution of CO2 to temperature decreases logarithmically with increasing concentration – but now we are getting outside my very limited competence).


    Water vapor accounts for 90% of the “greenhouse gas effect”.

    Did you read the realclimate reference? The 90% figure is very misleading (the contributions of the various gases do not simply add together when you mix them). But the main point is that water vapour is not a forcing agent. Its contribution is significant but it varies in response to temporary conditions such as temperature, in fact indirectly the level of water vapour is affected by the level of CO2 (but not vice versa). As I said, it is a bit like saying that the level of traffic is caused by the queues of vehicles. Yes it is – but what causes the queues?


    Have you ever been in a greenhouse? Did you choke on the CO2, or did you begin to sweat?

    I don’t understand this. No one is saying that the quantity of CO2 is enough to affect your breathing. Also, as I am sure you know, the greenhouse effect is a bit of a misnomer. Real greenhouses mainly work by preventing convection not by trapping radiation.

  10. MarkF

    Yes there is a lag, and no one is denying it; but that only shows that warming causes CO2 as well as CO2 causing warming – which is well known.

    You got that half right. The lag is empirical evidence in the geologic record that warming causes increased CO2. There is no empirical observation in the geologic record that CO2 causes warming.

    And just for the record the amount of CO2 added by human activities is miniscule. The total amount of C02 in the atmosphere is 3*10^12 tons. The amount of CO2 emitted by human activity is 6*10^9 tons per year or 0.2% of the total. Even if anthropogenic CO2 emission rate were constant over the last 50 years at today’s rate (in fact it was a lot lower in the past) it would represent only 10% of the total. And that’s not taking into account that CO2 plays only a minor role compared to the big greenhouse driver – water vapor.

    If by some miracle of cooperation around the world total anthropogenic CO2 emission were cut in half today it wouldn’t have any significant effect on greenhouse warming. Given that food production and distribution relies on burning fossil fuels such a reduction would cause the death of billions of people by starvation. That doesn’t seem like a very good tradeoff to me. Humanity haters like Eric Pianka would surely be pleased though.

  11. Dave


    You got that half right. The lag is empirical evidence in the geologic record that warming causes increased CO2. There is no empirical observation in the geologic record that CO2 causes warming.

    I suggest you read this:

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind...../#more-430

    They can explain it much better than I can.

  12. markf

    I suggest you read this

    Been there. Done that.

    They plead ignorance: We cannot explain the temperature observations without CO2.

    The can’t explain it without CO2 because they are dismissing other explanations such as decreased cloud formation from decreased cosmic ray flux. This is an argument from ignorance. We don’t know what else could be causing the temperature increases so it must be CO2. This is the same way NeoDarwinian evolution is supported. We don’t know what else could cause macroevolution so it must be random mutation and natural selection. They have no other explanation because they dismiss the possibility that intelligence with the capability of manipulating genomic information existed in the causally connected universe before humanity appeared on the scene.

  13. markf:

    Visited your site. Here’s part of what I found:

    “First of all, saying “historically” is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn’t really matter for the problem at hand (global warming).”

    Do you notice that he defines what “historical” is not, but fails to define what it is. He can thus say anything he wants. By historical, does he mean the last twenty years? What, exactly, does he mean? If he doesn’t want to be exact, maybe it’s because he wants misrepresent.

    “We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2.”

    Here he is admitting that CO2 levels change over time, and have changed, absent humankind. That’s a big admission. He then simply adds that humankind is “overwhelming” the rates of these exchanges. So what. That just means we use CO2 faster than the earth does. But notice he’s talking about rates. We use it faster than nature does. But, then again, as DaveScot pointed out above, we contribute next to nothing to the total CO2 found in the atmosphere.

    “Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature.”

    Is this supposed to mean that since some scientist predicted lag times that we should ignore them? Again, what, exactly, does he mean?

    And, now, this startling admission:

    “What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth’s wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures).”

    Game, set, match! Higher temperatures lead to more CO2, which, in turn, leads to warmer temperatures.

    Yes, that’s right, CO2 “lags” temperature increase. It doesn’t cause it, except in a secondary way. Since you like highway analogies, here’s this one: trying to eliminate CO2 emissions as a way to stop global warming is like trying to eliminate heavy traffic by outlawing fender-benders. It will never work.

  14. See also:

    http://www.globalwarming101.co...../#myth%205

    This site supposedly answers the denial.com type posters and websites and claims to “set the record straight” on ditties like Antartic cooling (which it claims is false), the little ice age, the Viking Warm Period (which was only North Atlantic, not global) and casts a dark eye on the claims that there is little to worry about, and also poo poohs the notion of the “heat island effect” of temps being offset by “bad” measurements in and around cities (this was accounted for), etc.

    I’ll find out later if these folks are fruitloops, but for now the damage is done nontheless.

  15. More about the Tides Foundation, the “EMS”, and “RealClimate”

    http://centralops.net/co/DomainDossier.aspx.

    Tides, I say? oh…well…

    Domain lookup indicates the Who of the Whom. Plug in the goodies.
    Ever hear of EMS? You will now.

    What’s good for the proverbial goose makes nice sauce for the gander. And gander you must, thus you can learn all too well that if “money” advocacy regarding the “carbon lobby” means one thing, then surely other kinds of money are less than pure as Greenland’s snows. In order to battle those horrid oil barons who wish to cook us all alive, another sock puppet site has evolved to naysay the naysayers on Global Warming. A “web hosting” search indicates that the new player in the propaganda war to prevent humanity from being exonerated in earth-killing is a site called RealClimate.

    Real Climate is a blog spawn of the Environmental Media Services, which in turn gets money funnelled through the Tides foundation and is indeed one of many Tides sockpuppets, just as the far-left ludicrous DefCon Blog, among numerous other moonbat sites armed with questionable (at best) “facts” about science and social issues. Like Media Matters’ witchhunting of conservative talk radio, Tides also looks to the laughable Billionaire of the People, George Soros, for funding as well as the rad-enviro base.

    From the Activist Cash site, in relevant parts:

    _____________________

    Among the most unbelievable “projects” of the Tides Center is something called the Institute for Global Communications (www.igc.org). IGC is a clearinghouse for Leftist propagandists of all stripes, including living-wage advocates, anti-war protesters, slave-reparations hucksters, and a wide variety of extreme environmentalists. In February 2002 Orange County Register columnist Steven Greenhut called it “a network of the loony left” that “has to be seen to be believed… One alert posted in an IGC member conference calls for financial support for the Earth Liberation Front… Another message warns readers against cooperating with the FBI.”

    The Chronicle of Philanthropy has documented this sort of America-bashing before. In a November 15, 2001 story, the Chronicle reported that the Tides Center had given the Independent Media Center (IMC) $376,000 — ironically, from its “9/11 fund.” IMC is a notorious bastion of far left, radical viewpoints, and also serves as an organizing outpost for all sorts of large-scale protest activity. In particular, the IMC served as a “virtual” staging ground prior to the April 20, 2002 anti-war protests in Washington, DC. Visitors to the IMC web site can read the rantings of “black bloc” anarchists, violent animal-rights criminals, and an assortment of anti-American advocates, all brought to you by the Tides Center and its tax exemption.

    I assure you you heard of Tides and Fenton before now, although probably more often via “public service announcements”. Tired of being nagged about which fish are politically correct to eat? Fretting about choosing the “right” catch of the day? You just might be under the influence of SeaWeb and the Natural Resources Defense Council (both Fenton Communication clients), and their “Give Swordfish a Break!” campaign, communicated for over two years by the trusty flacks at EMS. Never mind that Rebecca Lent of the National Marine Fisheries Service said that Atlantic swordfish “are not considered endangered.” The point was to make SeaWeb and NRDC more believable and trusted when the next big enviro-agenda came along.

    Freaked out about so-called “Frankenfoods”? Worried that biotech corn will make you glow in the dark? You’ve probably been exposed to something harmful, all right — EMS’s anti-biotech message, approved and bankrolled by the large segment of the “natural” and organic foods industry that relies on Fenton Communications for its publicity.

  16. I haven’t time to answer all the points raised – but I would like to address the increase in CO2 due to human activities as this is pretty much a dead cert.

    Here is a reference (I searched around for this to make a break from real climate)

    http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

    Total CO2 in atmosphere 750 Gt
    Net human contribution approx 3.3 Gt/year
    That’s about 0.4% of current CO2.
    Over 50 years that is 20% of current CO2.

    Of course CO2 in atmosphere 50 years ago was about 600 Gt so it is more than a 20% increase, but then human contribution was lower in the 50s and 60s.

    Let’s see how this matches up to measured increase in ppm

    Preindustrial (about 1800) roughly 280 ppm (measured from ice cores)

    In 1958: 315 (see reference above)
    In 2007: 383 (see Wikpedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
    )

    So that’s almost exactly 20% in 50 years – neat uh!

    We know this is virtually all human because of the changing ratio of the carbon isotopes.

  17. markf

    The weight of C02 in the atmosphere you’re using is wrong. Check my math…

    radius of the earth in inches (5280*12*3963)
    surface area of a sphere (4pr^2)
    atmospheric pressure in pounds per square inch 14.7
    percent CO2 by weight in the atmosphere 0.05%
    pounds per gigaton 2,000,000,000,000

    The equation for the weight of atmospheric CO2 (assuming entire earth is at sea level) in gigatons is

    ((5280*12*3963)^2 * 4 * 3.14 * 14.7 * 0.0005) / 2000000000000

    which is 2910 gigatons. This corresponds with the figure I gave earlier (3*10^12 pounds) which I read somewhere without doing the calculation myself.

    There appears to be a source of confusion about the 6 gigatons emitted from human activity. That’s 6 gigatons of carbon, not carbon dioxide. A CO2 molecule has a molecular weight of 44 while the carbon atom in it has a molecular weight of 12. If we multiply 3000 gigatons by 12/44 it comes out to about 800 gigatons of carbon. I’m going to look for how that figure for human contribution was arrived at.

  18. Dave

    Sorry my mistake, I was using weights of carbon not CO2. The ratio of human to total is the same of course and strongly verified experimentally. Perhaps the easiest way to look at it is in ppm.

    Repeating from above:

    Preindustrial (about 1800) roughly 280 ppm (measured from ice cores)

    In 1958: 315 (see reference above)
    In 2007: 383 (see Wikpedia

    Almost all of the increase due to human activity (see the paper for proof). So the proportion of human produced CO2 since 1800 is about 100/380 = 25%, of which 20% since 1958.

    The comparison with water vapour is of course irrelevant – it is not a forcing agent – just a reaction to forcings such as CO2 and part of the total effect of increased CO2.

  19. markf

    Yes, the amount of increased atmospheric CO2 is roughly the same as the amount emitted by fossil fuel combustion. But no, it isn’t quite so straightforward that this is the reason it’s there. The reason it’s there is because the carbon cycle is not balanced. Human contribution of CO2 is miniscule in comparison to non-anthropogenic sources. One can just as easily attribute the excess to human activity decreasing the effectiveness of carbon sinks. Poor agricultural practices and land use changes are the other side of the coin. Vast tracts of old growth forest are cut down (or worse burned down) to clear land for human habitation and/or agricultural use. This eliminates a carbon sink that could otherwise take up the carbon emitted by fossil fuel production. Poor agricultural practices which deplete soil of nutrients also inhibits plant growth and again reduces the carbon sinks.

    In any past epochs when temperature and CO2 both rise (temperature rise always preceding CO2) the combined effect of higher temperature and more CO2 just encouraged more plant growth over a larger area and the carbon cycle stabilized.

    Why blame excess CO2 production by human activity instead of blaming a deficiency in CO2 sinks also caused by human activity?

    I’ll concede the CO2 increase is anthropogenic but it isn’t necessarily due to burning fossil fuel. It can also be attributed to destroying old growth forest and unsustainable agriculture. The question then becomes which is more practical a) reduce fossil fuel use or b) increase carbon sinks. My position is the latter is by far the more practical course of action. We’re already facing an energy crisis as fossil fuel reserves dwindle. The last thing you want to do to address that is take actions which reduce the amount of trapped energy from the sun. Making the earth cooler will only exacerbate the need for fossil fuels and decrease the earth’s capacity to grow food crops. What we need to do is take actions that put the trapped energy to good use and it seems obvious the way to do that is by changes in agricultural practices. Grow timber instead of parking lots and rotate crops so fields don’t become unproductive after a number of years. More efficient use of fossil fuels is of course a good thing for a number of reasons but the least of those IMO is to reduce atmospheric carbon.

Leave a Reply