G'day all,
No, this is not my heading on the state of the global warming debate. I don't consider it a swindle or a deliberate hoax although I do believe that there are several individuals and organisations that know the information being disseminated is inaccurate and don't do anything to correct the errors. Even Mr Gore admitted that he was aware of "errors" but believed that the message was more important that "minor" inconsistencies in the science.
The Great Global Warming Swindle was a documentary shown on Channel 4 in Britain. I believe it now has its own website.
I have watched it and suggest anyone interested in the issues of global warming do so, just as I suggest that anyone interested in global warming should see "An Inconvenient Truth" and read the book.
I didn't agree with some of the science of the program when it was shown and thought that some of the "facts" presented were biased to support the supposition that global warming was a swindle. They also seemed to everemphasise the fact that climate is always changing rather than the more accurate description that climate fluctuates in this Ice Age between relatively stable periods of cold and much shorter periods of warm. Within these periods the climate does not seem to alter all that much.
The basic argument relating to CO2 never previously causing any climate change could also be argued with because of the event around 33 million years ago but basically the argument seems sound.
What I found particularly strange about the recent reporting concerning this documentary is it is being lambasted as being factually incorrect and "irresponsible" yet the same newspapers refused to print quite clear innacuracies, often quite fundamental to Mr Gore's cause in an inconvenient truth. The hockey stick curve should never have been used by Mr Gore and any criticism of him for its use is certainly deserved. His support of Lonnie Thompson's analysis of ice cores is another major issue.
So there are certainly problems with the principal documentary supporting global warming, ranging from the four polar bears that were the basis of the comment by Mr Gore that polar bears are dying in large numbers because of global warming, that tornadoes are increasing when the figures show the opposite and so on and so on. Yet this does not get any publicity.
So too there are faults in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle", however it seems to be taken as faith that this is a distortion of facts and riddled with "half truths". Indeed, it was reported because one of Australia's TV channels has bought the rights to the documentary that the broadcast was the result of some sort of dirty dealing done with the board and that they were "pushed" into it. The news story included comments such as:
"Scientists, including some featured in the program, said it contained fabricated data and misleading statements."
"Mr Williams [the Channels science reporter] yesterday accused the broadcaster of “verging on the irresponsible” for airing a program that was “demonstrably wrong”.
Now there may have been gross simplifications in the documentary but hey, it was trying to distill a very complicated issue into a short program. It seems that anything pro global warming can use data that has been discredited, that really has concerns as to its scientific accuracy and not need to explain why it did so yet any counter argument cannot do the same. The attacks on the programs were mostly along the lines that the information was distorted yet the arguments were along philosphic lines rather than scientific. The size of the Medieval Warm Period is something that is debatable and certainly isn't something that is settled science yet apparently the program was wrong in suggesting the Mediaval Warm Period was larger than the hockey stick data.
Seems the debate is OK as long as it does not contradict any of the pro global warming "facts".
Doesn't seem to be a particularly balanced way of supporting a scientific position.
Regards
Richard
