Topic: Carbon Dioxide & Global Warming - Case not proven...

[James]

I have just watched the repeat of the Channel 4 programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

It posed a short number of questions that I would like to pose here to see what other people think, especially those with an interest in climate and ecological affairs, as there didn't seem to be any real counter arguments put forward in the programme.

They were particularly scathing about the way the IPCC approached the counter arguments (they said that basically it didn't bother to record them at all). If anyone has something on that I'd be interested.

So here goes...

1) Atmospheric carbon does not lead climate change it follows it. A couple of sources were given, showing that increases in CO2 lag behind global warming by anything up to 800 years.

2) If Greenhouse gases were causing global warming it is predicted that the temperature of the Troposphere should be increasing ahead of increases at the surface. This is not supported by either satellite evidence or weather balloon data. The troposphere is roughly constant, while temperature at ground level is increasing. Which suggests the culprit is not greenhouse gases at all.

2) The Sun has more effect than anything else, and its activity can be used to reasonably predict the average expected weather pattern. Looking back through the record of sun-spot activity (which appear to go back some time) is an excellent predictor of global temperature. Far closer than atmospheric CO2, which appears not to relate well if at all. Human activity accounts for a small proportion of atmospheric CO2. The most significant greenhouse gas is water vapour, which is better predicted by sunspot activity than CO2 emissions.

There was more, but this will do for an opener...

So, as the Sun is the key driver (and quite possibly the only driver) for Global warming (and therefore cooling), why do we bother to attempt to limit human generated CO2 emissions (a small proportion of the total CO2) which appear to have no effect on global climate, but merely follow the changes in temperature?

If people want I will try to find appropriate links to the graphs they were referencing, but here is a link to the programme website http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html


James.

[James]

This link takes you to some graphs.
I haven't read it all, but they do look avery similar to some of those shown in the program, which is also mentioned on the page.

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/


James

[rob-magic]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 - By Bob Carter;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

[James]

An interesting article, but it doesn't answer the question I have posed, namely that the sun is the culprit by such a huge margin that warming and cooling will continue regardless of carbon emissions...

Just had a quick look at the IPCC website, but could find no mention of the effect of variation in the suns output in the "The Physical Science Basis" bit. http://www.ipcc.ch/

I'm sure it must be somewhere, but I couldn't find it.
Help required from someone who understands the arguments (and the IPCC website...)!


James

[rob-magic]

'The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.'

This quote from the about IPCC section.

This is a gov related site. The gov are trying to save their plans and investments in this area. It seems unlikely you will find the info you are looking for here.

Don't use wipikedia either (see Ziopedia.org).

Scientists who work against the norm are discredited not only by other scientists, but by the media aswell.

Are you aware that the icecaps are melting on other planets also?

[James]

This quote from the about IPCC section.

Rob,
What this says is sensible.
Why would it conduct research when there are lots of scientists doing it?
I am interested in the research it talks about, and what they have included any on the suns activity...

James

PS
Wikipedia has a whole section on scientists who don't think the received wisdom is correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_theory
At least five refer directly to solar influence...

[Mart]

I look forward to a tax demand for sunlight calculated by my body mass index.

Such arguments will receive no credit as the taxation options available in relation to heavenly bodies are limited, this is a shame as I am reliably informed that there are 100 billion stars in 'our' galaxy.

I think if you look at pictures of smog etc hanging over industrial sites and cities you can accept that the chances of it being a good thing are limited, but the bandwagon is rolling and it will take an unstoppable argument from someone with the reputation of Einstein to stop it.

If there is an argument counter to the view held by them what knows better it will be quashed and ignored, fair play to Channel 4 for having the nerve though.

[James]

I fear it is a bandwagon effect.
I'm hoping one of TS's Green types can enlighten me as to the error/omissions of these graphs.

James

[Simon]

I must watch this when I get time:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/XttV2C6B8pU" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/XttV2C6B8pU</a>

I had a quick look at http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/ and while it's full of impressive-looking graphs, I'm not entirely sure it proves anything, and I'm not even sure what some of them mean. Will study more carefully when I get time (I seem to be saying that a lot at the moment).

Meanwhile, here's a critique of the documentary from http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/03/364852.html

Global warming caused by human activity is a giant hoax! Bush and the oil companies were right all along, I knew I should have had more faith! So says a channel 4 documentary broadcast last Thursday, ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, produced by Martin Durkin. It effectively attributes the green movement to a neo-imperialist agenda to prevent the world’s poorest regions from developing.

Just like Al Gore’s recent venture into factual film making, Durkin’s account is staggeringly one sided, and has as much to do with a personal political agenda as it does with a discussion of climate science. Unlike Gore however, Durkin utilizes extremely dubious information, discredited long before the documentary went to air.

Central to the case put forward in the 90 minute documentary, is the claim that the sun is responsible for all fluctuations in global temperature, with anthropogenic factors playing an insignificant role in recent warming trends. Such a delightfully simple explanation, why didn’t the worlds finest minds realize this before? Graph’s do show a correlation between solar irradiance and global temperature, but what the film crucially omits is the fact that once non-anthropogenic factors - such as solar sunspot changes, cosmic ray cloud nucleation changes and volcanic activity - have been taken into account, it is apparent that the earth should at present be cooling, not warming (1).

The sun’s energy alone does not create our climate, the atmosphere traps heat in what is known as the greenhouse effect. It is the quantifiable anthropogenic changes made to the atmosphere which explain the present rise in temperature. Theories of Cosmo-climatology such as those advanced in the film have not remained credible under peer scrutiny, and as such are not taken that seriously in the scientific community (2). Furthermore, the graph used to prove the relationship between solar rays and temperature turns out to be a little less accurate than was claimed (3). To retain balance in this article, it is necessary to say that Durkin might respond by suggesting that climate scientists who disagree with the cosmic rays theory (the majority) are not doing so due to lack of credible evidence, but as part of a conspiratorial proto-fascist resurgence led by environmentalists, as Durkin effectively claimed in a 1997 documentary “Against Nature”, aired on channel 4.

Prior to bringing the spurious cosmic rays theory into play, Durkin displays ice core data proving that increases in temperature precede increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. From this it is inferred that humanity can‘t be involved in global warming…thus, it must be the sun! Again only part of the story is told. CO2 and temperature are presented as entirely un-correlated, rather than as strongly coupled variables in a feedback relationship. CO2 is not responsible for initiating warming, but amplifies it once it is underway, as we are now witnessing (4). The film should also have mentioned that there is a considerable lag between emitting CO2 and the increase in temperature – we will not witness the effects of current emissions for some time yet.

A further attempt to sever the link between human activity and global temperature came with a focus upon the plateau in global temperature between 1940 and 1980, a period when CO2 emissions were rising. Again lying by omission, there was no attempt to explain that this plateau has been attributed to the greater prevalence of sulphate aerosols (which cause cooling) during this period.

Many of the most potent weapons in the pub climate skeptics arsenal were also brought out over the course of the film. Firstly, the medieval warm period, where one could grow grapes in the UK -. The film neglected to mention that this was a regional fluctuation rather than a global change (5). Secondly, the so called mini ice-age, again a regional fluctuation, specific to Western Europe, and insignificant compared to the global trends we are now experiencing (6). Thirdly, the claim that volcanoes are responsible for greater CO2 emissions than humans - something that flatly contradicts all available evidence, which shows the sum total of all CO2 emitted by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions (7).

Anybody even scratching the surface of contemporary debates on climate change would be aware of the weak foundations of the case put forward. However, the content is understandable given that the only scientific advisor employed for the documentary was a certain Martin Livermore, whose sole scientific qualification is as the Director of The Scientific Alliance, an organization that has no affiliation with any recognized scientific body. The Alliance was set up by in 2001 by Robert Durward, the fiercely anti-green director of the British Aggregates Association, and Foresight Communications, a Westminster public relations and lobbying company, to “counter scare-mongering by the so-called green lobby”. The Scientific Alliance, like most of the contributors to the program, has strong links with the US public relations organizations that have been so effective in setting the Bush agenda on climate change. Indeed, many of the scientists used as authoritative voices on the documentary will be familiar to those with an eye on corporate greenwash, as figures who have received direct funding from fossil fuel industries (Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Patrick Moore) or lack credentials as climate scientists (Philip Stott, Piers Corbyn) (8).

The scientific community is never unified on any issue, and if you have the money it is possible to assemble a team of scientists to defend your vested interests should they be threatened by other scientific discoveries. This happened in the past when the link between lung cancer and smoking emerged, and in recent times a denial industry has arisen to confuse the issue of climate change. Although by no means perfect, the IPCC was established to remedy the confusion that results from a multitude of different voices pitching into the debates on global warming, with agendas concealed beneath a façade of scientific neutrality. It presents us with a moderate line on climate change, taken from the thorough examination of contemporary peer-reviewed scientific literature. It happens to be the case that even the moderate line on climate change is extremely troubling (9), and the IPCC is most frequently criticized for under-stating the problems faced (10).

Understandably, many people would rather listen to comforting assurances that the carbon economy can continue in full swing. Many will also pay handsomely for them, as channel 4 has demonstrated.

Given the serious implications of any discussion surrounding global warming, how was it that such an obviously misleading documentary came to be broadcast? Of course anti-dogmatism is the lifeblood of science, all theories must be continually challenged, and this is to be encouraged in the public arena - but only when these challenges are based upon theories proven by credible evidence -something this film conclusively failed to provide.
Unfortunately this was not simply a case of well meaning ignorance on the part of those involved. Durkin is well known to channel 4, in the past they have aired a number of his clumsy forays into the world of scientific controversy, none of which have passed without incident. They include 1997’s “Against Nature” which attempted to paint environmentalists as proto-fascists (later reprimanded by the Independent Television Commission for misleading interviewee’s over the purpose of the documentary and misrepresenting their opinions through selective editing ) (11), an edition of Equinox which linked silicone implants to the prevention of breast cancer (rejected by the BBC whose in house researcher stated that Durkin was ignoring evidence contradicting his claims), and a hopelessly ill informed portrayal of the GM crop debate in 2000 (multiple signatories from the Third World complained in a joint letter following the programme that it was a propaganda vehicle that made use of the Third World's rural poverty to support the monopoly control and global use of genetically modified food production by transnational corporations and emotionally blackmail the UK public into using GM) (12). Serious complaints about the misinformation distributed in these films has obviously not deterred channel four from once again giving Durkin funding and a primetime slot. The complaints have begun to accumulate, including one from Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the most credible sources used in the film, who is considering legal action against channel 4, claiming that his views have been “completely misrepresented” to imply that pollution has nothing to do with global warming, calling the film “as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two” (13).

The final section of the documentary was the most enlightening. Neglecting to mention the environmentalist mantra of contraction and convergence (allowing people living in poorer nations to increase their emission levels up to a sustainable level, should they want to, whilst the biggest polluters contract dramatically to sustainable levels), nor the fact that the Kyoto protocol does not apply to the worlds poorest nations, nor that the less economically developed regions of the world will be worst affected by climate change, Durkin claims that anthropocentric global warming is a conspiracy drawn up by the global elite to lock poorer nations into ‘under-development’, to the benefit of the wealthy. Therefore ceaseless growth of the carbon economy must continue! Durkin’s political background involves strong ties to the (now disbanded) Revolutionary Communist Party, a group that went so far left it came out again on the right (14). The RCP believed, similar to fundamentalist Christians seeking to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem to usher in the apocalypse, that the demise of capitalism will be speeded by exemplifying its worst effects on the human population of the world and its ecosystems. All attempts to bring about social and environmental justice are opposed as delays to the revolution, but hidden beneath right wing libertarian rhetoric of extreme opposition to state interventionism. It is no wonder then that many associated with this group have been welcomed with open arms by the corporate press, and others whose interests are threatened by the curtailment of consumption necessary as a response to global warming. ‘The Great Climate Swindle’ provides a perfect accompaniment to the advertisements upon which corporate media entities such as channel 4 rely upon for their survival.

As it stands, the coming century is likely to bring droughts, floods, famines, resource wars and mass migrations on a scale never seen before. Responses to the impending crisis are at present hopelessly inadequate, and if one doesn’t feel motivated to join the growing protest movement in some capacity, perhaps it would be best to pray that Durkin and co. are correct.

(1) http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861403.jpg
(2) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
(3) http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
(4)  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
(5)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ipcc7.1-mann-moberg.png
(6)  http://www.pages2005.org/mediaroom/paperpics/mann1.gif
 http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/images/cetann.gif
(7)  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72
(8)  http://www.climatedenial.org/
(9)  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6179409.stm
(10) IPCC for policy makers, 4ar  http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf
(11)  http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/19980402000124.html
(12)  http://www.biotech-info.net/joint_letter.html
(13)  http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
 http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2031457,00.html
(14) http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/

And from a comment on that article, another critique from John Houghton, formerly of the IPCC and the Meterological Office: http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

The Great Global Warming Swindle
Programme directed by Martin Durkin on Channel 4 on Thursday 8 March 2007.
Critique by John Houghton, President, John Ray Initiative. Download 5 pages PDF or Word.

Some background on Martin Durkin can be found on
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39 and
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/

The programme purported to debunk the science of Global Warming describing it as ‘lies’ and an invention of hundreds of scientists around the world who have conspired to mislead governments, and the general public. The most prominent person in the programme was Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer who is not a scientist and who shows little knowledge of the science but who is party to the creation of a conspiracy theory that questions the motives and integrity of the world scientific community, especially as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The material presented was a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming as presented by the main world community of climate scientists and by the IPCC.

For the best and latest statement of the science, you are referred to the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report published in February 2007 (see: www.ipcc.ch).

You are also referred to a 2-page statement by the Academies of Science of the 11 largest countries in the world (the G8 plus China, India and Brazil) addressed to the leaders at the G8 Summit at Gleneagles in 2005 giving a clear and urgent message about the reality of Global Warming and its likely consequences and also endorsing the consensus of the IPCC. This statement by the Academies is unprecedented. There could not be a stronger statement supporting the work of the world scientific community by the most eminent scientists in the world.

You are also referred to JRI Briefing Paper 14, Global Warming, Climate Change and Sustainability: Challenge to Scientists, Policy-makers and Christians" by Sir John Houghton, 2007 that can be downloaded from: http://www.jri.org.uk/brief/Briefing14_Houghton.pdf (11mb).

Here I briefly point out the main lines of evidence for human-induced climate change and then address some of the main arguments presented in the programme.

1. First, it is important to note that the main lines of evidence for human-induced climate change not addressed in the programme were:

    * * growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mainly due to fossil fuel burning to a level greater than for at least 600,000 years;
    * * observations of global warming at the earth’s surface (in magnitude and pattern) consistent with the increase in greenhouse gases, the basic science of which has been known and understood for over 200 years.

2. Climate is always changing – TRUE. However, the programme also argued that changes in global average temperature over the last 50 years and as projected for the 21st century are within the range of natural climate variability as observed over the last few millennia – NOT TRUE.

Many of the prominent climate changes over past centuries have been regional in scale. Global Warming is concerned with global scale changes. The IPCC 4th Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers has a particular section summarising the conclusions of detailed studies using a wide range of paleoclimate data. It concludes that ‘Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years.’

3. That carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round - TRUE. The programme went on to state that this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC – NOT TRUE.
For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide.

4. The troposphere is warming less than the surface – NOT TRUE.
This raises a debate that took place in the 1990s but which has now been resolved. There is now agreement among the scientists involved in measurements that trends in satellite observed tropospheric temperatures when properly analysed agree well with trends in surface temperature observations. The programme also stated that warming should continue to higher levels. That is not the case. In fact, higher levels are observed to be cooling, consistent with the science of global warming that indicates that there is warming below and cooling above the ‘blanket’ of additional carbon dioxide.

5. Volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning – NOT TRUE. In fact, none of the large volcanic eruptions over the last 50 years feature in the detailed record of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

6. Changes in the sun influence climate – TRUE. They cited the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century when no sunspots were observed, as a probable example. Solar influences are the main driver of global average temperature in the 20th century – NOT TRUE.

Changes in solar output together with the absence of large volcanoes (that tend to cool the climate) are likely to have been causes for the rise in temperature between 1900 and 1940. However, the much more complete observations of the sun from space instruments over the past 40 years demonstrate that such influences cannot have contributed significantly to the temperature increase over this period. Other possibilities such as cosmic rays affecting cloud formation have been very carefully considered by the IPCC (see the 3rd Assessment Report on www.ipcc.ch) and there is no evidence that they are significant compared with the much larger and well understood effects of increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

7. Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change - NOT TRUE.
In the programme, this was illustrated by a statement made by a youthful Professor Smagorinsky, a pioneer in climate modelling, speaking in the 1980s explaining some of the inadequacies of early models. Climate modelling has developed enormously since then. Modern models include detailed coupling of the circulations of atmosphere and ocean and detailed descriptions of the interactions between all components of the climate system including ice and the biosphere. They have been tested thoroughly in their ability to reconstruct current and past climates. The 30 or more major modelling groups in the world regularly compare their methods and their findings. Contributors to the programme with their parodies of climate models just demonstrated their complete ignorance of the significance and capabilities of modern models.

8. The IPCC process stifles debate and is used by scientists to further their own self interest – NOT TRUE.
I chaired the main meetings of Working Group I during the production of the first three IPCC scientific assessments. I can say categorically that the process was very open and honest. The aim was to distinguish between what was reasonably well known and the areas where there is large uncertainty. The chapter groups had complete freedom to investigate and assess the scientific literature and draw their conclusions.

Contrary to the impression given in the programme, no one ever resigned from being a lead author in Working Group I because of their disagreement with the process or the final content of their chapter. In fact, no one ever communicated to me a complaint about the integrity of the process.

I should mention, however, a case of disagreement that occurred in Working Group 2 of the IPCC that dealt with the impacts of climate change – a more complex area to address that the basic science of Working Group I. Professor Reiter who appeared in the programme described how, unfortunately, his expert work on malaria failed to get recognition in the relevant IPCC chapter.

Even Professor Lindzen, who appeared at length on the programme, stayed the course as lead author within Working Group I, expressing his satisfaction with the report’s chapters as good scientific documents. He has often, however, gone on to express his view that the conclusions of the Policymakers Summary did not faithfully represent the chapters. But he has never provided any supporting evidence for that statement – nor, to my knowledge, has anyone else who has quoted that statement originating from Lindzen.

It is important to note that IPCC Policymakers’ Summaries are agreed unanimously at intergovernmental meetings involving over 200 government delegates from around 100 countries. This agreement is only achieved after several days of scientific debate (only scientific arguments not political ones are allowed) the main purpose of which is to challenge the scientific chapter authors regarding the accuracy, clarity and relevance of the summary and most especially its consistency with the underlying chapters. Agreement at such a meeting has ensured that the resulting document, so far as is possible, is scientifically accurate, balanced and free from personal or political bias.

Reference was made in the programme to an article in the Wall Street Journal in 1995 about the 1995 IPCC report accusing the IPCC of improperly altering one of the agreed chapters before publication. This was a completely false accusation as was pointed out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, September 1996, 77, pp1961-1966.

9. Action on climate change by developed countries may have a negative influence on development of the world’s poorer countries – POSSIBLY TRUE.
A strong non scientific point made towards the end of the programme concerned the possible effect of pressure from the developed world on developing countries to develop without use of fossil fuel sources of energy. There is something inherently unfair in such pressure that could hamper growth of developing country economies especially when rather little is being done by developed countries to reduce their own fossil fuel emissions. Further, the greater proportion of the damage from climate change will tend to fall on developing countries. The responsibilities of developed countries therefore are clear, first to reduce their own emissions as rapidly as possible and secondly to assist developing countries with resources and skills to develop their energy and other requirements in sustainable ways.

[Webmaster's note: Sir John Houghton was co-chair of IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002, and Director General of the UK Meteorological Office 1983-1991. Brief biographical information is available here and here and here.]

[James]

Thanks Simon, this will keep me amused for days!

James

[James]

One thing still bugging me...
The correlation between the sun spot activity and temparature is so strong (accepting the errors at the end of one of the graphs) that I would like to find an article which explains why is it so strong (and the reasons for the differences at the end), ideally in simple(ish) language.

100 years of reasonably close curves (1860-1960+ depending on where the errors are) needs more understanding from me.

Hopefully in one of the links you have given me I will find what I'm looking for...

James

ps. In Bobos response while clearly detailed, the first reference is to a graph from new scientist. I thought they were a popular science magazine. Would have been better if Bobo had referenced the ACTUAL source, not a popular science title...

[AndyP]

Folks,

Sorry I haven't had time to read all the posts here but I hope to do so later. I didn't see a link to George Monbiot's excellent piece in the Guardian yesterday, which discredits much of the 'evidence' used in the Channel 4 fiction shown last week:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

Cheers,

Andy

[Simon]

Here's another critique that was brought to my attention today: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

Sorry if I'm doing a rob-magic (no offence intended, Rob  ) just posting links and copy/pasting articles without putting forward any of my own views, but I still haven't watched the programme, so I can't really comment on it until I have watched it. Will watch it soon, promise 

[AndyP]

Simon,

I am doing the same (although I have watched the programme). Here is info from the Climate Outreach and Information Network:

http://coinet.org.uk/information/swindleresponse

Swindle Response

COIN has been receiving a number of inquiries from people confused by the Channel 4 'documentary' directed by Martin Durkin, entitled the 'Great Global Warming Swindle'. A large number of climate scientists and campaigners have already responded to the points raised by Durkin's collection of climate change deniers - and so we thought that we would bring together some of the most incisive criticism available on the Internet.

Perhaps the best summation of the science can be found at RealClimate:

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

While Sir John Houghton CBE (founder of the Hadley Centre) responds here:

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

And the Royal Society gives its view here:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6089

The background of some of the commentators used in the documentary is discussed by George Marshall, George Monbiot and Ross Gelbspan in these links:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/14/stuff-and-nonscience/

Professor Carl Wunsch (MIT), who was interviewed for the programme, gives his response to the distortion of his views and the misleading agenda of the film-makers here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds

While other intriguing opinions appear in the blogs below:

http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/

http://www.madcomments.co.uk/the-great-channel-4-swindle/

Finally - if you want to really examine the science in detail - go to the comprehensive Fourth Assessment of the International Panel on Climate Change (release February 2007). Its conclusion? Climate change is real, its happening, and its caused by human activity:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Cheers,

Andy

[CogDis]

Not had time to read Simon's post yet, but here's another link you might think significant - from your friendly neighbourhood Environment Research Council: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp#recent - they've been running an online debate for the last couple of months where doubters and dissenters have been raising queries to be answered by scientists working on the subject. The debate's over - but the link is to a summary of the points raised and answers given.

Also the Indie had a general putdown on the Chan 4 program: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
And also this from the guy quoted in the program:Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece



I think there is a bigger general issue about how we and (especially) politicians make judgements on scientific and technical issues. We don't have direct access to the satellites, equipment or raw results, if we did, we don't have the knowlege and experience to interpret the results or place them in context or know where to look for credible confirmation/counter evidence. At the moment specialists from different countries and academic institutions seem to me to be coming to the same conclusions - global warming is definitely happening, greenhouse gases are definitely contributing. The bottom line for the CH4 program seems to have been '2% of climate scientists can't be wrong' (though I gather a good number of the contributors weren't scientists of any kind).

[James]

Science is often treated appallingly badly by those who should know better.
A classic is Evolution vs Intelligent Design, primarily in the US.

James

ps - still reading the links.
Thanks guys.

One thing still nagging, but I've still lots to read through ...

[debj]

MPs and Royal Society criticise Channel 4 climate documentary 

Paul Flynn, the Labour MP for Newport West, yesterday tabled an Early Day Motion condemning the use of “junk science” on the Channel 4 programme The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on 8 March.
The motion says the programme presented previously discredited claims as facts and misrepresented the view of one of the scientists interviewed.

The programme has also been criticised by the Royal Society. Its president Martin Rees said, “Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world’s population has the best possible future.”

 http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6089

Personally I am going with the Royal Society and the IPCC as the safest option. The only way this argument will end is with  catastrophic climate change (do nothing) or possibly mitigated climate change (reduce greenhouse gases).

[Simon]

I'm slowly working my way through that film, but they've just said something which doesn't sound right.

Apparently (according to the film) cloud formation is driven by "cosmic rays", being subatomic particles given off by supernovae (which, the film helpfully informs us, are far outside our solar system - of course they are, otherwise our solar system would orbit around them rather than around the sun  ). Rising water vapour meets the cosmic rays, and that's what triggers the cloud formation. When there's a lot of sunspot activity, it increases the strength of the solar wind (charged particles given off by the sun) which "blows" a lot of the cosmic rays away, so fewer clouds form, resulting in higher temperatures.

Ignoring for the moment whether or not increased sunspot activity results in a stronger solar wind, and how that affects the levels of cosmic radiation reaching the earth....

Surely clouds are going to form anyway? Water evaporates, the vapour rises until it reaches a layer of air which is cool enough to condense it, it condenses, and clouds form. Regardless of whether or not there's any incoming cosmic rays.

Plus, surely dust in the atmosphere is going to be a bigger factor in triggering condensation of water vapour than subatomic particles are?

[CogDis]

As a different take on the subject, this is one of Germany's leading climate scientists http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,472200,00.html, his line is not to deny it's happening - he says it is - but that there will be winners and losers, we don't know enough to say for sure what will happen, but change will take decades and so we'll have time to adapt. (I could certainly get used to mild winters and hot summers.) Stronger storms? Not good, certainly, but how many will we have?

Is it a good argument? (He blames religious attitudes for the 'panic' about global warming BTW) (and the 1960s)

Coggie

[CogDis]

The BBC has a report along the same lines http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm - climate scientists saying "yes, it's happening - but there's little science to back up the wilder claims being made about the consequences".

Obviously there are many factors at work, and few of those are fully understood. Governments, firms and individuals have to make decisions on the balance of probabilities - and those probabilities are judgements of scientists working in the field. We are at three or four removes from the science - what do we base our judgements on?