Is The Theory About Global Warming Being Caused By Mankind Just A Lie?

Question

Up until Thursday I believed that global warming had been brought about by mankind pumping out carbon emissions as preached to us by politicians and so called mainstream scientists.

However, after watching 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on Channel 4 (to be repeated this Monday evening on More4) I am now convinced that this is all a lie!

As the programme showed we have had fluctuations in climate before - such as the mini ice age of the 17th century and a previous period of global warming back in the 13th century when there were vineyards producing quality wine in the north of England - both well before the industrial revolution.

The programme also systematically debunked the claims made in Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' and showed them to be just pure and utter nonsense.

Is there just a mass conspiracy by the developed nations to try and blame global warming on man made activities in order to thwart the economic growth of developing nations such a China?

Answer 1

Yes, we have had climate changes in the past. Yes, past climate changes were sometimes caused by changes in solar output.

But NO, the current warmth is NOT caused by an increase in the sun's output. We have good satellite data on solar irradiance that goes back to 1978, and that data shows that -- after accounting for the normal 11-year solar cycle -- the sun's output has actually been declining since 1978, even as the earth has been getting warmer in that time.

Answer 2

Any one can misrepresent science to prove / disprove global warming.

The last 15 years have been hotter than any time in known history. The storms are more frequent and more intense.

Air quality is at its worst.

Last two fluxuations have not been as long or as high as now.

According to most climate experts we should be in a cool period.

Even China is worried about polution and warming given how much flooding they have had.

Australia is never been so dry. Africa is also dry.

Al Gore can be debunked by careful quotes and just as easily proved by others. The politicans and business can not be trusted, they profit from the chaos of climate and war and trade - they are the ones conspiring. A simple conspiracy - they do what they think they can get away with for more for them and to stay in power.

China is ahead of America on reducing polution. America is doing nothing about polution. No mass conspiracy to hold back developing nations.

Answer 3

First of all, Al Gore is not a scientist and does not speak for the community. He did a nice thing trying to get out the word but a lot of his film is unfortunately mislead. Putting that aside, yes 'fluctuations' have occurred in the past, but are brought on slowly during millions of years. They have also brought on mass extinctions.
By the way, I'm not trying to insult you with what I'm going to say, I'm just insulting the people that are influencing you. To think that climatologists, who have spent there entire lives studying events such as the ones you speak of, have overlooked those same events while examining global warming is preposterous. In other words, when it seems too obvious, for any sane person to miss, your probably the one missing something. Finally, don't be influenced too easily, look at all the views and try to way the facts yourself before making up you mind.

Answer 4

Apologies in advance if I sound uptight, irresponsible journalism like this annoys me no end.

I watched the programme and I have to be honest and say that it was one of the most distorted and dangerous pieces of journalistic sensationalism I've seen in a long time.

The whole ethos of the programme being that global warming is a swindle. Why then, did it not once, anywhere, in the entire programme, actually dispute global warming. It pointed fingers at the media for only publishing exciting stories, complained that mundane matters went unreported, reminded us that some people blame all weather events on global warming, accused TV of dramatisation, pointed out there was money to be made in climate science and so on.

The point is that none of those issues (or the others that were reported) disputes global warming, there was no evidence put forward to back up claims that were made. It was classic TV designed to prey on gullible minds.

Looking at the points you made - there have indeed been periods of warmer and cooler weather in the past but a statement like this is meaningless without context. To put it into context, there have been warm periods but never as warm as it is now http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png (they conveniently forgot to mention that), they also forgot to mention that the onset of these warmer and cooler periods was slow http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png and managed to overlook the fact that temperatures are currently rising 39 times as fast as natural variation would suggest http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Temp_data.htm

There may have been vineyards in the north of England, there are still vineyards in the north of England http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html and tropical gardens in Scotland http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/poolewe/inverewe/index.html - talk about distorting the truth and being guilty by omission.

As for debunking An Inconvenient Truth, if 'systematic' means 'failing to debunk one part' then yes they did. What you're referring to (I believe) is that increased CO2 levels have come after global temperature changes whereas today it's the other way around. All scientists know this, it's called the Feedback Process - A leads to B and B leads to A, it's irrelevant which comes first; higher temperatures increase CO2 levels and higher CO2 levels increase temperatures. Rather than debunking it what they did was display either an incredible level of ignorance (considering they're supposed experts) or they withheld the facts of they deliberately lied.

Global warming is not being blamed solely on man made activities, it's blamed on a combination of natural and anthropogenic activities (damn, they forgot to mention that as well). As for thwarting the economic growth of China, yet another thing they conveniently forgot to mention is that China is exempt from protocols such as Kyoto and is free to develop as it sees fit.

Anybody can create a documentary to suit their own objectives if they omit key components, fail to address the fundemental issue and rely on misinformation.

The bottom line is that global warming is very real, 984 out of 984 INDEPENDENT reports concur. The programme, knowing full well that it was unable to produce any evidence to disprove global warming, didn't even attempt to do so.

I will say that the programme was well made but I would guess that the number of people who know something about climate that have been swayed by the programme is nil, simply because they're able to sort fact from fiction.

I'm not debunking the entire programme, there were some valid points made that should have been addressed responsibly, instead they were lost in a diatribe of unsubstantiated garbage.

If you want to watch the programme at any time it's available online... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=label%3A%22global+warming%22

Answer 5

I also saw that programme, and yes, it was interesting.
I believe that there has been conspiracies with this issue, and that the world is being manipulated, but that is true about a lot of things.
I also think that even if all the programme was true, then what changes, If the world is heating up naturally it still doesn't remove the fact that we are abusing the planet, we are running out of landfill space, we are using up our fossil fuels, we are using meat products - which mean more animals are bred for meat which may or may not cause co2 emmisions, but it does mean that our demand for meat means a lot of the worlds lands have to accomodate them, which means that native species are getting pushed out, important forests are being chopped down etc.
Whether or not this is true we should all be doing our bit.
(btw: I am not a vegetarian, but I only eat 'free range', I am lucky to live in a rural area, where I can visit a farm and even collect my own eggs there - but I do realise this would be difficult for most)

Answer 6

Don't rush to any more hasty conclusions - plug the elements detailed in the programme into the models (assuming that they're not there already) and see what happens.

How about getting a response rom the AGW modellers on the issues raised.

Have these factors been omitted because they are insignificant? If not what is their reponse.

I was a very strong AGW advocate and it's caused me pause for thought. But don't lurch from one extreme to the other - the debate is now out in the open, lets watch the two sides meet and resolve the issues raised.

If the consensus is that its not important - we have a problem, AGW is real; if not then the models are wrong - Hooray, panic over!!!!!!!!

Answer 7

There is hard data that the period that we are now in is hotter than any since good records have been being kept. As to the exact cause of why this is happening - hell we can not even tell if it is going to rain next week. However, the stakes are high enough to take some action based on the possibility of man made effects. What has to be worked out is a balance between growth, which is needed to fight poverty in the world, and the possible harm of changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. But it needs to be done in a calm reasoned way. What we have now is too many people on both sides that have a political or economic stake in the answer.

Answer 8

It seems to me that, without going into all of the scientific evidence that there is available for anybody to check out, we seem to be so full of our own self importance that we think that we can change the world catastrophically.

Many, many, moons ago when I was in school, I was reliably informed by my teachers that most of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice between 20 and 10 thousand years ago, sometimes to a depth of 600 metres. These same teachers also told me that the stuff eventually melted. That's true! Now, their reasons for this happening they say, was because the earth was controlled by the power of the sun, volcanic explosions and maybe the occasional tilt of the planet by a few degrees to assist in the heating of the air, hence melting of the ice. It still is, I think.

These days, we hear that all powerful man and his greed is warming up the planet, according to historical records. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anybody has yet found the cave drawings which can be loosely interpreted as prehistoric man's record of exceptional warmth and ice retreat. Or are they a well kept secret?

Anyway, ever since records have been kept over the past 2 to 3 hundred years, I will admit that there has been an increase of the overall temperature. But that seems to have been the case for the past several thousand years. (It's this thing with the ice.) How can anybody say that there has or has not been a rapid increase in temperature say 2000 or 6000 years ago? Likewise a rapid decrease? I can check the scientific findings that have been published, I know. But surely they are purely the conjecture of some government or otherwise funded egg head? We can all read books. Yet when we relate the basis of that book to someone else, we miss out whopping big chunks, sometimes vital to the story. Well, so can the egg head. He, or she, doesn't publish all of their findings. (Lies, damn lies, statistics, springs to mind here.)

You may well gather from this that I am anti the global warming hype. I am also just one man of 6 billion sharing this vast, complicated and so very powerful planet. I don't think that even altogether, en masse, at the same time, the same moment, we can do anything to damage this planet. It will defeat us because we are so puny in comparison. We may scar it, but it will go on living. And guess what? It will outlive us!

I said at the top that we are full of our own self importance and think we are all powerful. I still think that. But I also think that we are so far up our own backsides that we can't see the daylight.

Boy, I feel as if I'm on a roll now. Don't get me started about the 'supposed' damage we do to the ozone layer.....

Answer 9

There's so much money and political power at stake that it's difficult for someone not in the field to get an objective answer. During my college days in the 70s the popular scare was "the forthcoming ice age" supported by similar data.

The one point I dont get is your last statement about: thwarting the growth of China etc. If anything those promoting the dangers of global warning are letting the developing countries off the hook. If you look at the Kyoto accord, there are clamps on the industries of western countries, but essentially a free pass to China and other developing countries.

Answer 10

I think a lie is a bit strong but climate change is much more complicated than many people (and indeed politicians) claim.
The true answer is that we just do not know for sure and that at the moment there is a lot of very bad science being used by the media and the green lobby for their own agenda.
IMHO the global warming debate is overshadowing the more important problem of over population and scare resources.

Answer 11

Keith P, how is measurement of solar irradiance using sattelites from the last 30 years going to indicate what is happening with a global warming trend of a century or more.

I suggest reading the study below which shows significant increases in solar irradiance over the last 150 years, and its correlation to global temperature.