If you enjoyed 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'...?

Question

are you willing to examine the other side of the argument?

Below is a link to a film on Google Video which shows the Swindle, and after each argument made in the film, a scientist from Edinburgh explains what was correct and what was incorrect about that argument.

Global warming skeptics are often complaining that those of us who accept anthropogenic global warming are unwilling to examine their evidence. Are you willing to examine ours?

In fact, global warming acknowledgers have not only watched but also critiqued the Swindle:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmiWWRxilUTSp6o0wEK_amYjzKIX?qid=20070618161907AAqHvit

Are global warming skeptics willing to do the same for this film?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573

This video also deals with specific issues such as sunspots, which are often discussed here. Even if you don't care about the GGWS, I encourage all global warming skeptics to watch and answer this video.

Parrot - have you tried downloading the movie (download button on the right of the page) and playing it on Google Player? I've also got a Mac, and that's how I watched it. It sounds like your problem is with your internet connection rather than a Mac issue.

Answer 1

3DM - You might (or might not) find this scientific critique of TGGWS better.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

Answer 2

IF you think logically, then its easy to tell that global warming is not some sort of hoax and that the idiots in "The Global Warming Swindle" are truely idiots.

We know that CO2 is what helps the earth mantain its temperature, by trapping adaquate amounts of heat in the earths surface to keep the earth at temperatures livable. We also know that when we produce energy through the burning of CO2 we are releasing it into the air. When there are over 6 BILLION people on this earth emitting CO2 dayly, HOW COULD WE NOT CAUSE SOME FORM OF GLOBAL WARMING???

50 Million years ago, while the earth was inhabited by dinosaurs(Including temperatures warm enough for dinosaurs to inhabit Alaska), Scientists believe that the fossil fuel resevoir was non existant. This was when temperatures were 7 degrees Celcius higher than today. We are beginning to see the bottom of the fossil fuel resivoir now... so you tell me what you think will happen...

Answer 3

I watched that before I ever started posting on Yahoo Answers.
It doesn't look at the entire movie; it cherry picks by focusing primarily on the alternative hypotheses provided - the weakest part of Swindle, which is why I don't plug the movie. What Swindle does a decent job of is demonstrating how misleading a lot of global warming science is. Chris Merchant conveniently overlooks any mention of these portions of the film.

However, Swindle is almost as guilty as the people they critique by making it appear that THEIR answer is the only possible answer.

It would be refreshing if someone like Merchant would look at his own science with as critical an eye as he does that of others.

Answer 4

What's annoying though, is that Google Videos won't play on my Mac for some reason. They load about five minutes of the film then stop. So I can't view it. Do you know of anywhere else I can watch it? I'd like to check it out even though I very probably already agree with him.

Edit: Ah, thanks. That should work nicely.

Answer 5

Lets start of with the little ice age and medieval warm period. He made the comment that "it could be true" but "statistically speaking the medieval warm period is not warmer". He also shows the man hockey stick graph as proof. The author of the hockey stick graph, Mann, is not a statistician. The government sponsored Wegman report says that statistically he can not make that claim. The Mann hockey stick graph is also highly controversial. Many proxy studies from all over the world show the existence of the Medieval warm period and little ice age. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

He claims that aerosols were responsible for the mid century cooling. If that were the case, aerosol concentration should have shot up following WWII, but they did not. Sulphates, or aerosols fell after the second world war. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
And if you look at the graph, that global warming theorist claim as proof you have high levels of sulphates, low levels of co2 during the early part of the century , but temperatures still rose. Why? On the same page, look at the level of scientific understanding that the IPCC gives for aerosols, low. So how can you say with certainty that aerosols are the cause?

The ice core sample that show co2 lagging temperatures. Do you not think it is misleading when Al Gore gives that as proof of man made global warming? The professor of the film claims that Milankovitch cycles causes temperatures to start rising with co2 acting as an amplifier, but does a poor job proving his point. He gives no time graph when the Milankovitch cycles are at its peak and its minimun and its correlation with temperatures. He just makes this claim and wants us to believe it. I am not saying it is not true. But one of the reason I am a sceptic is that I do not take people's words for granted. I want proof. He even makes the claim, "it might work like this". In my dictionary this means it is theory that has not been proved.

As for the sun spot theory. Tim Paterson is a believer. If you look at this page he shows the same correlation. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf So this professor is misleading people by implying that the producer of the film manipulated the graph. Others also show the same thing. And he does not stop at 1980. Sun activity does not decrease after 1980, but rises. During the 90's we have strong el ninos that account for much of the warming. What is even more telling is his quotes:
“I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007...“[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. " Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere.

I do not mind when people make claims that co2 is the cause of the current warming trend. But when you make claims "the science is setteled", "the debate is over" and then you give theories to account for irregularities in the co2 theory, but I am going to remain a sceptic.

Answer 6

gbrench is a hippie freak who knows nothing about science. He needs to lay off the medicinal pot and wake up to what is happening for real around him.

Answer 7

You are so wrong!! I would suggest pulling up stakes and go to the midwest!!!!WERE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!SAVE THE PLANET, SAVE THE TREES!!!