re "The Great Climate Swindle" documentary

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:46 pm

til661 wrote:It's interesting that you don't want to actually counter any of the things that i mention

I am glad you mention the links, and I and others will surely find the links interesting, and I hope scientists will debate both sides.

The issue is that it isn't an open & shut case.

Also, even if Global warming is man made, it is wrong to put "limitations" on developing countries use of "dirty" fuel, without the developed world subsidising the "clean" fuel. i.e. there is a moral dimension issue here .. including "taxation" on citizens of developed countries so the governments can waste the money on needless wars (i.e. taxation here is just a form of income distribution from the masses to the few]

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:48 pm

Thanks Kate

til661 · Post by **til661** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:55 pm

none of that has anything to do with the science of climate change. it is rather like the tactics of creationists who want to 'teach the controversy'. they wheel out 1 or 2 dissenters (often with no qualifications in the field they are talking about) and pretend there is a 'debate'. Sadly for the sceptics on this issue there is no debate because they don't produce the peer-reviewed papers that are essential to even begin a debate. Now as I said they (or you) can find me some peer-reviewed papers and not opinion maybe it would be a discussion otherwise the makers simply do not have a leg to stand on. Oh and i'll think you'll find that developing countries aren't affected by these rules anyway so that is a moot point.

Post by **faceless** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:02 pm

Inuit seek answers to Arctic sun quirks

Some Inuit say they hope scientists coming to Nunavut for research as part of International Polar Year can help shed light on changes they're seeing in the sun — particularly, how it's been showing up more often in the usually always-dark winters. For the past several years, residents in the High Arctic have observed that the winter dark season is ending earlier than usual, with the sun coming up at a different place than what people are used to seeing.

"The people [are] talking about earlier sunrise, more light in the dark season, instead of being more total darkness than before," Grise Fiord resident Larry Audlaluk said Thursday, adding that he has heard similar observations from people in other Far North communities. "There are notices of more daylight earlier, and the dark season is not the real dark season that we used to know."

A bit further south, Igloolik Mayor Paul Quassa said hunters have noticed the same phenomenon. "This year, the sun started coming up so fast that it's almost like April when it's mid-February," he said. Both Audlaluk and Quassa were part of an International Polar Year planning workshop Thursday in Iqaluit.

Wayne Davidson, who is the resident meteorologist in Resolute Bay, said the likely cause of this "rising sun" mystery is a temperature difference between the very cold air over the snow and the air above, which has been warmer than usual. Glaciologist Dr. Roy Koerner, with the Geological Survey of Canada, agreed, comparing it to sticking a fork into a glass of water: the fork appears to bend where it enters the water, he said. "So you get the same effect: you get this bent effect. Except in this case, the sun, which is just below the horizon, looks as if it's above the horizon, just a bit of it," he said.

Both Koerner and Davidson said they believe a warming climate is responsible. They said they hope Inuit and scientists working during International Polar Year can work together on more in-depth analysis of the observations.

https://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007 ... u-sun.html

-----------------

I thought this was an interesting turn on the subject - could it actually be that there is a slight shifting in the position of the earth's axis?

til661 · Post by **til661** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:10 pm

The last two paragraphs answer your question. Leaving aside the fact that this is reliant on hearsay (residents in the High Arctic have observed...) it states that

Wayne Davidson, who is the resident meteorologist in Resolute Bay, said the likely cause of this "rising sun" mystery is a temperature difference between the very cold air over the snow and the air above, which has been warmer than usual. Glaciologist Dr. Roy Koerner, with the Geological Survey of Canada, agreed, comparing it to sticking a fork into a glass of water: the fork appears to bend where it enters the water, he said. "So you get the same effect: you get this bent effect. Except in this case, the sun, which is just below the horizon, looks as if it's above the horizon, just a bit of it," he said.

nothing to do with the earths axis

Post by **faceless** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:19 pm

til661 wrote:nothing to do with the earths axis

just thought I'd get it out of the way in case of future points...

til661 · Post by **til661** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:24 pm

Fair enough mate. Sorry for being so curt, as you may be able to tell, this absolute travesty of a tv show has irritated me somewhat

The fact that on every site i see has individuals or groups of people coming out of the woodwork decrying global warming on the basis of a tv show, a tv show for god's sake is a scary thing indeed

Post by **faceless** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:38 pm

til661 wrote:Fair enough mate. Sorry for being so curt, as you may be able to tell, this absolute travesty of a tv show has irritated me somewhat

The fact that on every site i see has individuals or groups of people coming out of the woodwork decrying global warming on the basis of a tv show, a tv show for god's sake is a scary thing indeed

it's understandable for sure - so many people will leap at anything they can to try to prevent themselves from having to accept the truth.

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:28 pm

til661 wrote:nothing to do with the earths axis

mmmm.... I see a bit too much certainty in this .. almost like a religion .. as if it HAS to be global warming .. even when the prceeding paragraph said "... the likely cause .. "

p.s. I wonder when the mainstream would directly address the issue : Is the sun more active now .. and how does that affect the earth ?

faceless wrote:it's understandable for sure - so many people will leap at anything they can to try to prevent themselves from having to accept the truth.

Problem is "accepting" the "truth" here is a recipe for giving even power to the government (including, and especially in taxation which mostly goes to central spending, and not to any real search for alternative fuels)

til661 · Post by **til661** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:33 pm

Yet another ridiculous strawman argument. Oddly one which is also used by creationists e.g atheism is a religion. Now either put up a counter argument to the facts i've given you or please cease wasting my time. If you'd even taken the time to read any of the links i provided you would see that the 'mainstream' has answered these solar claims. Now i've heard the old chestnut about 'medieval vineyards' (see realclimate) but i've never heard anyone even attempt to point to evidence of there being an increase in solar activity in the last few decades. the obvious reason being that there is the sum total of no evidence to support this, certainly not to the extent that would precipitate the dramtic rise in temperature (see the hockey-stick graph)

heres another link

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... smic-rays/

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:36 pm

My edit overlapped with the reply ..

"I wonder when the mainstream would directly address the issue : Is the sun more active now .. and how does that affect the earth ? "

Note comment in https://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007 ... ting_.html

-------------------
I thought the programme's claim about CO2 rises lagging temperature rises was powerful. The article you link to which you claim debunks it only says that there could be a feedback mechanism causing 5/6 of the warming. The link to the further reading is dead.

Occam's Razor clasped in my hand, I will believe the Channel 4 programme for now.

Posted by: Bishophill | March 09, 2007 at 08:19 PM
-------------------

Post by **faceless** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:44 pm

GG_Fan wrote:
faceless wrote:it's understandable for sure - so many people will leap at anything they can to try to prevent themselves from having to accept the truth.
Problem is "accepting" the "truth" here is a recipe for giving even power to the government (including, and especially in taxation which mostly goes to central spending, and not to any real search for alternative fuels)

How can it give the government more power if you consume less? It would actually remove some of their power if people were more independent and acted responsibly on their own basis.

til661 · Post by **til661** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:51 pm

ok i'll copy and paste it for you

"
There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth's climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth's cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark).

Svensmark's failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started.

The fact that there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for earth's climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how changes in the UV radiation following the solar activity affect the stratospheric ozone concentrations (1999) and how earth's temperatures respond to changes in the total solar irradiance (Meehl, 2003). Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify the mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for cloud condensation nuclei and are related to the amount of low clouds. As for this latter issue, the jury is still out."

Now as you can see Svensmark suggested this theory could be responsible for global warming while neglecting to mention that the trends simply did not allow this to be a cause of recent warming. As it mentions IF there was an increased level of solar activity it WOULD have repercussions on the earth's temperature, but unfortunately as the graph on the page shows there is no evidence of a trend.

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:54 pm

Hi Faceless. It would be a carte-blanche for restrictions & taxations, c.f. my earlier posting re :
---------------------
"Another area of focus is likely to be green taxes - now that global warming is the new religion, Mr Brown no longer needs to rack his brains for more obscure stealth taxes. The magic words "reduce CO2 emissions" will enable him to justify just about any new assault on our wallets he cares to make."
---------------------

p.s. I just came across this :
https://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts

til661 · Post by **til661** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:59 pm

Junkscience is run by a paid lobbyist for eXXon mobil who also is journalist on Fox News. Try again.

From his wikipedia page

Milloy is a paid advocate for Phillip Morris and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.[5][28][6][10] The content of junkscience.com, which is represented as independent, has been reviewed, revised, and edited by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.[6]

In January 2006, Paul D. Thacker reported in The New Republic that Milloy, who is presented by Fox News as an independent journalist, was under contract to Philip Morris through the end of 2005.[5] Philip Morris documents showed that Milloy was budgeted hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments while writing for FoxNews.com.[10] In the May/June 2005 issue of Mother Jones, Chris Mooney reported that non-profit organizations operated out of Milloy's home have also received large payments from ExxonMobil during his tenure with Fox News.[29][5]

A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."[5] Regarding ties to ExxonMobil, a Fox News spokesperson stated that Milloy is "...affiliated with several not-for-profit groups that possibly may receive funding from Exxon, but he certainly does not receive funding directly from Exxon."[29]

Journalists who take money to write pieces favorable to corporate interests are widely considered to be breaching journalistic ethics.[30][31][32][33] Milloy's association with the Cato Institute has since ended; however, as of October 2006, he continues to write for FoxNews.com, where he is described as a "junk science expert."[34]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy