As anyone of us knows, television programs are not based on the
merit of the content. There are power interests and they decide what
comes on TV.

I don't know if the interests favour the "swindle"
movie or not. A more important question, it seems to me, is there merit
in the movie?

So, I'll rephrase the question: Does the "swindle" movie merit TV time? And how does it compare with Al Gore's movie?

In an earlier post, I accepted that the same standard should be applied to Al Gore's movie as the "swindle" movie.

I'm not defending Al Gore's movie in full (it would be much too long and I don't agree with all parts of it).

My
aim of this post is to just throw out some sensible questions that I
feel should be raised about any documentary. I'll tell you what I
found. You are free to make your own judgement, of course.

So, let's look at the central premise of each of the movies.

1) "Swindle" movie: The rise in global temperature is caused by solar activity.

If someone or somebody raises a new possibility or theory, what is the honest and rational response to it?

First,
ask yourselves these questions. How many of you checked this claim
yourselves? What sort of sources did you use? When the letter of the 38
scientists (mentioned in the last newsbusters article) was published,
did you check it out? Those are some of the very basic questions anyone
interested in
the truth should be asking.

At a gross level, how many people and which ones are advocating such a theory? We can go to more details.

The allegations of the letter make the following points (you can check whether they are true or not yourselves):

a)
There's no such graph as mentioned in the movie, they tried to find a
graph which is very close to that, by one of the authors.
b) The graph, again is till 1975 (not a major point).
c) It relied on 1990 data. Ignored later data, as recent as 2006.

d) Misrepresents the author's point.

e)
The latest data suggests no such correlation. And the extent of solar
activity is too little to justify the rise in temperature.

2) Al Gore's movie: The rise in global temperature is caused by rise in man-made CO2.

The
most impressionistic part of the movie is the graph which Al Gore lays
down and shows the correlation between CO2 and temperature. As I
recall, he says, "the actual relationship is quite complicated, but
there's a correlation". Something along those lines.

You can ask the same questions of Al Gore's movie too.

There are people who make the claim that CO2 lags behind temperature and thus it can't be the cause.

A
few questions. How many of you cross-checked the claim? Did you try to
find out if the "other" side had rebuttals? Did you give them a chance?
Or, did you accept the claim in the movie on the face of it?

Well, here's my understanding of the basic process. Remember, we're talking historical timescales now, 600,000 years.

a) In the past, temperatures rose (let's say for reasons unknown, maybe the Earth's orbit wobbling or many other causes).

b) This led to rise of CO2.

c) This led to more temperature rise.

And
so on. So, the critical point is: CO2 is an amplifier. And indeed, CO2
peak would lag behind temperature peak for precisely this reason. This
is precisely the point of the IPCC report.

Now, if we skip step a) and do step b) by burning fossil fuels and other stuff, the same effect would be there.

My sources are papers in "Nature" and an explanation on realclimate.org.

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

I
don't claim my version is the truth. But, to me, it seems that the
questions I raise are the bare minimum for anyone interested in finding
out the truth.

'Dope', dem?

JDW

News media: Scoreboard for terrorists

If you are going to whine about spelling... get a life

S&T

We have to embrace our pain and burn it as fuel for the journey.

For what its worth. I Emailed Fox News and pleaded with them to include a NewsBusters segment on one of thier shows. What else can we do?

Take heart, Sick, there is little sign that the majority of people are believing all this hype in the media.  I haven't seen any marches, on Washington, demanding legislation to curb CO2.  I haven't noticed any public outcry designed to force the Senate to reconsider Kyoto. 

The press has done a damn good job of keeping dissent off the front pages of the paper and the MSM, in general, has presented the view that this is all settled science,  and it's created little in the way of convincing the public. 

What we see here, and on other websites, are the rantings of those people that have been caught in the web of disinformation about Global Warming, and little else.  These people will believe anything that blames humans, in general, and the United States in particular, of ruining the planet.  They are a small minority.

Noel is correct that opposing voices, in the scientific community, are beginning to speak out, even though they fear a loss in funding.  That, in itself, shows that, not only is the science not settled, but the arguments about CO2 are flawed.  I just hope the real debate begins before the Democrats gain enough power to push this country to ruin with the policies advocated by the wackos in the environmental community.

Never argue with an idiot.  They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Corizine – what a joke.  I’m from NJ.  When Corizine was in Washington, (before he was recruited to replace the outgoing and disgraced Jim McGreevey as Governer of NJ in order to keep the NJ Democratic Machine running), he pushed for tougher seat belt laws.  So what happens?  He almost dies in a car crash because he wasn’t wearing a seat belt.  Just another indication that Liberals know what’s best for us – but don't ever make the mistake of assuming it applies to them.  Liberal hypocrisy is astounding.

PS - for those of you not from NJ.  One of Corizine’s first official acts after being installed as  Governor of NJ?  He raised the State sales tax to 7%.  Highest in the country.  That is on top of the highest property taxes in the country.  And he just negotiated a deal with the State teacher’s union to guarantee them free health benefits for life!  At the current escalation of health insurance costs, the State budget is again expected to be bankrupt in 5-10 years.  Who can spell even more taxes???

Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"

H,

I will take it a step further.  From my reading and understanding of the data, I have a cautioned interpretation of ice core data and it's validity; my hypothesis is the it is skewed to the negative or colder temperature records (which would bolster the AGW'ers case---unfortunately).

I really question the accuracy of the ice core data as a proxy for temperature--even in the last 1000 years.  Are you familiar with unconformities/disconformities in rock strata?  They represent hiatus' in deposition and most often exposure and erosion.  If you use this principle in relation to ice core data for temperature one would have to question that data's validity.  As some or most of you may know, del18O measurements record temperature data and by this ratio, the more negatively skewed the colder the temp and vice versa for the positive.  With that being said, seasonal variations should be recorded in the ice with more negative values for the winter and (relatively) positive for the summer.  however, during the summer, even though snow falls in the polar-glacial regions depositing snow with a higher delO18, the is also more of a chance of surface melting in the sun and runoff, hence destroying record of that higher temperature (i.e. an ice/snow 'unconformity).  This would result in, on average, lower temps recorded in the ice.  In addition, be it summer or winter, sublimation will also destroy part of this record--however, again, it will skew data to the negative or lower temp.  In summary, it doesn't seem that the ice data would record the most accurate reflection of temperature, be it seasonal or the average, and rather would represent cooler temperatures than were actually experienced.  In light of this I think it is difficult to accurately correlate measured surface temperatures, from the recent, with those recorded in the past via ice cores.

Again, and unfortunately, if there is any validity to this theory it further helps "their" case.  Yet something else we have to educate them on!!