The Great Global Warming Swindle (1 Viewer)

[TenRabbits]

Point by point analysis of the global warming swindle:

http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the-great-global-warming-swindle-questions-answered/

 

[Space]

Cheers for that.

I was reading in New Scientist about how that IPCC report that came out recently was seriously watered down before being published. Here's some of the stuff that was left out:

0.13 °C. The amount the atmosphere is warming each decade

1.3 times as much CO2 is entering the atmosphere compared with just 20 years ago

3 kilometres. The depth to which the oceans have warmed

3.1 centimetres. The rise in sea level each decade

90 per cent certainty that we are to blame

http://environment.newscientist.com...imate-change-what-the-ipcc-didnt-tell-us.html

British researchers who have seen drafts of last month's report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claim it was significantly watered down when governments became involved in writing it.

David Wasdell, an independent analyst of climate change who acted as an accredited reviewer of the report, says the preliminary version produced by scientists in April 2006 contained many references to the potential for climate to change faster than expected because of "positive feedbacks" in the climate system. Most of these references were absent from the final version.

His assertion is based on a line-by-line analysis of the scientists' report and the final version, which was agreed last month at a week-long meeting of representatives of more than 100 governments. Wasdell told New Scientist: "I was astounded at the alterations that were imposed by government agents during the final stage of review. The evidence of collusional suppression of well-established and ...

http://environment.newscientist.com...5943.900-climate-report-was-watered-down.html

I need to sort out my Athen's password but when I do I'll post up the full article.

 

[broken arm]

British researchers who have seen drafts of last month's report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claim it was significantly watered down when governments became involved in writing it.......

i could be wrong, but was this to make it digestible for policy makers? I know they produced a policy briefing but....

 

[Space]

i could be wrong, but was this to make it digestible for policy makers? I know they produced a policy briefing but....

According to the article:

The central charge against it is that "reference to possible acceleration of climate change [was] consistantly removed".

"The public need to know that the policy-makers' summary, presented as the united words of the IPCC, has actually been watered down in subtle but vital ways by governmental agents before the public was allowed to see it."

That's just two excerpts I've typed out from the article btw.

Here's a link to the David Aswell article detailing the changes made(which I've not yet read) to the report:

http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global Dynamics/IPCC/index.htm

Attention has been paid specifically to those alterations that change the emphasis or meaning of the text, while minor re-ordering, textual transposition and polish for meaning and clarity, have been ignored

 

[broken arm]

http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/index.htm

that site looks mentalist. what is the jist of what he is saying? did "governments" strengthen or weaken the policy briefing?

 

[Space]

that site looks mentalist. what is the jist of what he is saying? did "governments" strengthen or weaken the policy briefing?

I'll have to get back to you, but I'd say weaken by removing references to "positive feedback" or "the amplifying feedback system" which accelerates climate change even more than it already is. When I get my password sorted I'll post up the original New Scientist article it'll describe it better than I can.

 

[magicbastarder]

brilliant:

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

 

[ratmonkey]

I'll have to get back to you, but I'd say weaken by removing references to "positive feedback" or "the amplifying feedback system" which accelerates climate change even more than it already is. When I get my password sorted I'll post up the original New Scientist article it'll describe it better than I can.

A lot of government types could misconstrue "positive feedback" to mean something good.

 

[Space]

A lot of government types could misconstrue "positive feedback" to mean something good.

Out of context yes but hopefully in the context of the report it'd make sense.

 

[outoftheblue]

This is almost too surreal. From the medialens.org website.

On March 13, we published a Media Alert analysing some of the gross flaws and distortions in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 film written and directed by Martin Durkin. (See: www.medialens.org/ alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php) The film has been subject to intense criticism. Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, London, wrote to Durkin:

“There is much more that could be said about your programme - such as the gross caricature that it gave of a scientific community which, contra your film, continually debates the various causes of global warming - but, as I said, I am not a climate scientist. But it does show - what abundant experience has already taught me - that, left to their own devices, TV producers simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth. I am very disappointed.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/durkinemails)​

Durkin responded with a single sentence:

“You’re a big daft cock.” (Ibid)​

Simon Singh, the author of Fermat’s Last Thorem, who had received both the above emails, sought to reason with Durkin:

“I suspect that you will have upset many people (if Armand is right), so it would be great if you could engage in the debate rather just resorting to one line replies. That way we could figure out what went wrong/right and how do things​

better/even better in the future.” (Ibid)​

Durkin replied at greater length but signed off with: “go and f*** yourself [uncensored in original]”. (Ibid)

 

[magicbastarder]

leroi wrote to him cos he was meant to be making a documentary with him; i think that idea is dead in the water.

 

[magicbastarder]

A controversial Channel 4 film on global warming broke Ofcom rules, the media regulator says.
The Great Global Warming Swindle attracted various complaints, including claims that it misled contributors.
In a long-awaited judgement, Ofcom says Channel 4 did not fulfil obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7517101.stm

 

[Froog]

ah yes, i remember this documentary. utter sludge from start to finish. i wouldn't expect anything else from c4. here's some of durkins other "documentaries";

Against Nature
In 1997, Channel 4 broadcast Durkin's documentary series - Against Nature which criticized the environmental movement for being a threat to personal freedom and for crippling economic development.

Equinox
Durkin also produced 2 documentaries for Channel 4's science strand Equinox. In 1998 he produced "Storm in a D-Cup" which argued that the medical dangers of silicone breast implants had been exaggerated for political reasons and highlighting evidence that implants may even carry medical benefits.

The Rise and Fall of GM
Durkin's documentary which argues in favor of genetic modification was broadcast on Channel 4 on March 20th 2000, also met with complaints.[6] Environmentalist activists organised a campaign in an effort to discredit the film. A joint letter signed by a number of scientists from the Third World was issued in protest of Durkin's claims in this documentary. [7] Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a scientist featured on the program, later said of her participation in the program: "I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

 

[plug]

ah yes, i remember this documentary. utter sludge from start to finish.

don't you mean utter slush? ho ho ho.

but yeah, I agree, it's a despicable piece of work.

 

[magicbastarder]

Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.

Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...arming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

 

[broken arm]

Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.

Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...arming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

brilliant.

 

[magicbastarder]

are jury verdicts precedent-setting?

 

[broken arm]

are jury verdicts precedent-setting?

I don't think so. But the same situation has arisen in the past.

"Grounding A Hawk With A Hammer"
(Esperanza Production)

The story of how four woman risked life imprisonment in the early hours of January 29, 1996 to disarm-arm a Hawk Jet Fighter and stop it being exported to Indonesia, claiming it would be used against civilians in East Timor. The jury at their trail found the women not guilty, accepting their defence that they had acted to prevent the crime of genocide on the East Timoresse people.

 

[billygannon]

are jury verdicts precedent-setting?

It's not in this case, but using this argument can be used in defence.

 

[flashback]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html

The first evidence that millions of tons of a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists.
The Independent has been passed details of preliminary findings suggesting that massive deposits of sub-sea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats.

Bollix.