The Great Global Warming Swindle.
This "documentary" first appeared on BBC4 way back in early 2007. Despite the intervening 12 years, it's still being pushed forward as "evidence" that human-caused climate change isn't really a thing. I decided to take a look at their "evidence" and their "experts" to see what I could find.
The "Evidence":
Here is a quick summary of the claims made in the "expose" and what science actually says about each one.
First, producer Martin Durkin has a reputation for this kind of sensationalist, pseudo-science material. You can read about him in the link below.
The Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) produced a rebuttal to Durkin's vodeo. It is in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2. In particular, the claim that the earth's temperature is tied to solar activity is discussed in Part 2. If you watch the graph displayed on the original video, you will notice that it ends at 1970. What is doesn't show is how, in the subsequent 30 to 40 years, the earth's temperature has continued to increase, rapidly, while solar activity decreases.
Another of the video's main contentions is that since CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere it simply couldn't be a major factor in warming the planet. This is also addressed in the ABC videos, where scientists point out that there is a carbon cycle and that CO2 produced (primarily by living things) is matched by CO2 taken up by plants, for example. This balance has existed for centuries but human emissions of fossil CO2 from coal and oil is disrupting that balance. It is well-known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the current problem is that we are adding vast quantities to the atmosphere that weren't there before and that aren't being absorbed, hence the increase in atmospheric CO2.
The Main Contributors - Who Are They?
There were 22 names listed as main contributors to the video. I decided to check up on just a few of them, in no particular order, although there were a few names I had heard of.
Tim Ball: has a PhD in historical Geography and although he's listed in this video as a Professor in the Climatology Department of the University of Winnipeg, that university doesn't have such a Department. He's been a "consultant to the Exxon-funded "Friends of Science".
Nir Shaviv: has degrees in Physics to the Doctorate level who claims that he is not funded by oil companies. He is skeptical of human-caused climate change but stresses that there are many reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels. Unfortunately for his theory, the sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions, as explained here.
Piers Corbyn: yes, the older brother of the UK Labour Party leader. Piers is a regular speaker at climate science denial events, he calls climate science the "tool of globalists" with George Soros as a kingpin and has appeared with various conspiracy theorists, including Holocaust denier Nicholas Kellerstrom. He has a Masters degree in Astrophysics and founded the weather forecasting company WeatherAction.
Federick Singer: is a climate change skeptic going back many years. Some of his favourite myths have been listed here. He's been around long enough to have been involved in misinformation regarding links between cigarette smoking and cancer, funded by the tobacco industry. More recently, he has served as a consultant to Exxon, Shell, Unocal, Ford and GM, among others, all companies with a vested interest in promoting the oil industry. He seems to operate as a hired gun, so to speak.
Margaret Thatcher: served as PM in the UK during the 1980s. At that time, she identified climate change as a serous problem. Subsequent to that, she seemed to have a change of heart, apparently because of the "anti-capitalist" arguments of groups concerned about global warming. Apparently, a book of hers outlining "her position" was partly ghost-written after her death. So it's questionable whether what you read about her position is actually her position. Thatcher, of course, was concerned about the effects climate change actions might have on the economy. More on her position can be found here.
Paul Driessen: has an undergraduate degree in Biology. He has associations with such organizations as the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based "free-market think tank" that has been at the forefront of the climate change denial movement. Although it doesn't release information about where it gets its funding from these days, in the past, it has received large donations from Exxon-Mobile. The organization has also worked as advocate for the tobacco industry.
Patrick Moore: is a past-president of Greenpeace, although he left in 1986 over "differences in policy". Here are just a few "differences in policy" as examples: Moore was against nuclear energy in the 1970s but he's now in favour of it; He's a proponent of GMOs, something Greenpeace is against; he's attacked Greta Thunberg, describing her as "...Nazi propaganda" and "evil". He has also described her as a "puppet" with a mental disorder; he has also supported the use of the weedkiller glyphosate and once claimed it was so safe he'd drink a quart of it, an offer which, when challenged, he refused.
Carl Wunsch: an oceanographer. He has claimed that his views on this video were taken out of context and "grossly distorted". A letter from Mr Wunsch explaining his position appears here. It is worth noting that his letter was written in 2007 and the bad news about our role in climate change continues to come in. Specifically, he said this: "There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading."
Nigel Lawson (aka: Lord Lawson of Blaby): The Guardian had this tongue in cheek article about the gentleman. If, indeed, he does exist, he's currently 87 years old, and if he has any credentials in any areas of science, I was unable to find them. He has, it is reported, taken part in a debate where he claimed that Antarctic ice volumes hadn't decreased, a claim that has been refuted by satellite data. Lord Lawson, on the other hand, had no evidence to support his claim.
Patrick Michaels: does not contest that the climate is warming, but he contends that the changes will be minor and perhaps even beneficial. His 30 years of climate change denial is discussed here, and his ties to the energy industry for funding is outlined briefly here. Michaels is another in a long list of those who supported the tobacco industry in past years, using the same tactics he now uses against the science of climate change.
Martin Durkin: is the TV producer who directed this video. His credentials are rather unflatteringly described on RationalWiki. He is interviewed in a two-part ABC production. Links are given above.
John Christy: is an actual climate scientist. Along with a colleague, he collaborated on satellite data to argue that the troposphere was cooling, not warming. Unfortunately, his peers subsequently showed that his data was faulty. Christy and his colleague also support the intelligent design movement which claims that evolution is false.
Nigel Calder: was an editor and writer for the New Scientist magazine. Calder said that climate change science has been invaded by sophistry about man-made global warming. As early as 1980, he predicted that by 2030 "the much-advertised heating of the earth by the man-made carbon-dioxide 'greenhouse' [will fail] to occur; instead, there [will be] renewed concern about cooling and an impending ice age". Unfortunately, Calder died in 2014 and will be likely unable to witness the full outcome of his prophesy.
To Summarize:
To sum up, and with the caveat that I haven't tried to track down particulars about everyone associated with this video, I can say this: far, far too many of these "experts" are very old (cranks?) and some are now dead. I can understand why some of the older generation would be afraid of change, but I do hope that's more of a stereotype than reality. But seriously, why would anyone want to jeopardize their children's future by spreading such misinformation?
There would also seem to be a good number of "experts" who have received funding from the energy industry which raises the question of conflict of interest.
So what does real science have to say on the matter?
The Union of Concerned Scientists published an article back in 2009 (updated in 2017) that considered this very issue, whether solar radiation could be responsible for the heating that the earth is experiencing. That article can be read here. Their conclusion, briefly, was that although changes in solar radiation do affect the earth's climate over very long periods of time, the warming we're experiencing now can't be attributed to solar radiation. The article also has a set of useful charts that compare increasing temperatures with volcanic activity, solar radiation and anthropogenic (human) factors.
In fact, if you Google "solar radiation and climate change", you will find many articles from reputable institutions that show, quite clearly, that blaming climate change on solar activity is a failed line of discussion.
One good article is from Carbon Brief. It points out, once again, that solar activity has been deceasing recently while earth's temperature has been increasing. As well, the upper atmosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming, a clear sign of greenhouse gas-induced warming.
To finish off.... It's almost incomprehensible how otherwise sensible people can claim that climate change is a hoax and that "the climate is always changing - it's natural". Just look at what's going on and how rapidly climate disruptions are increasing. If you can handle the gloomy reality, have a look at this article, Last Days of the Anthropocene. Hard to claim that it's fiction.
It would be easy to go on, but I think the conclusion is pretty clear. As much as climate science deniers and "skeptics" want to believe it, the sun isn't the source of our planet's troubles. As Pogo put it decades ago, "We have seen the enemy and it is us".
No comments:
Post a Comment