The Other View on Global Warming
Tipped off by blogging's uber conservative, I took an hour and fifteen minutes to view the Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," It's well worth a look, and can be found on Google Video.
The film interviews a group of climate change septics, and presents their theories on how the world's climate is regulated. It goes into some length about the systems that drive climate change. In a nutshell, the film argues that variations in climate are caused by changes in the sun's radiated output. It certainly sounded plausible to me.
Predictably, they had a swipe at Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth." In particular, they cited the segment that struck a chord with me, where Gore points out the relationship between climate and CO2 levels. They highlighted an aspect of the relationship that was not mentioned by Gore; that CO2 levels have historically lagged behind changing climate, by a period of about 800 years. On the face of it, this omission seriously damages Gore's argument.
I found it interesting that they didn't press on with their critique of that part of Gore's film. Gore goes on to show the variations in CO2 levels over the past million years, then dramatically demonstrates how present CO2 levels are significantly above the highest previous levels. He concludes with a visual demonstration of the alarming levels of CO2 that will be present in 50 years at the current rate of increase.
It's disappointing that the makers of this film took a swipe at Gore for a critical omission, when they themselves omit to mention the current unprecedented levels of CO2 compared to the highest levels over the past million years.
This is the crux of the argument as I see it. Yes, CO2 levels have historically lagged climate change. I accept climate is a very complex system driven by the sun's energy. But they didn't speculate on what could happen when the relationship between climate change and CO2 levels is reversed, ie, when the change in CO2 levels runs ahead of natural changes caused by variations in the sun's intensity.
In the absence of any natural explanation, and unlike the past, the increase in CO2 levels is being driven by human causes, not by climate change. The sun's still driving the system, but the system now has the new variable of rapidly increasing amounts of CO2.
Footnote: The film covers a broad range of other issues regarding climate change. There are sites providing detailed critiques of the documentary. A couple are here and here.
6 Comments
Leave a comment
Post a comment
Note! This site runs a spam filter which, among other things, looks out for certain words which it uses to guess whether the post is junk. For this reason, avoid using words related to gambling, ie, poker, roulette, casino etc, or names of certain sexual performance enhancing drugs. Posts that contain these words are automatically junked.
It may also moderate comments that contain more than two URLs, including your web page URL.
If you get a message that your comment has been moderated, and it hasn't materialised within a day or so, please email me so I can retrieve it.


There is well documented evidence of the fraudulent nature of this documentary. While some of the facts may be true, the story line is aimed at attacking the Global Warming movement and as such presents science in the wrong light.
It's been pretty well proved that this programme was politically motivated and a severe distortion of the facts. In some cases using data nearly 20 years old from the IPCC that is now regarded as wrong due to more recent data being made available and the research updated. The graphs used in the film were particularly misleading, just plain wrong acording to todays research. One example of rebuttal:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
You must be a complete tool bag to be giving oil company backed global warming flat earthers any oxygen on this argument.
Its much easier to cause doubt in people, than to convince people of something.
dd
----
http://connectthroughvalues.com
Thanks for the compliment,
Smokeydd.Did you actually read what I wrote?
What do you mean Tony? I'm pretty much agreeing with you. Did you confuse me with "dd" below?
I got into a great argument on a message board with a sceptic recently about this doco. I found this blog very helpful:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/guides-by-category.html
Apologies, Smokey. It was 'dd.' I'll correct the comment.