The idea that natural variability in solar activity is the primary cause of current climate change change has never stood up to the scrutiny of the scientific peer-review process.
Credit: iStockphoto
From beyond the unintelligible diatribe, came a voice of reason: "Rome is burning and we are fiddling around trying to make sense of it all".
It was the final comment from the studio audience in the debate following the 12 July 2007 screening on Australia's ABC TV of the deeply flawed British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Finally, here was someone who cared less about the fine details of the science, and more about the government policies needed to address climate change. His comment cut to the core of this often baffling debate.
Squabbling within the scientific community is a fact of life – it is the hallmark of rigorous science. But it begs the question: is it really necessary that every cabbie in downtown Dunedoo is up on the latest in Earth simulation models before we act on climate change?
While it is great that there is increased public awareness about the serious threats posed by global warming, we should leave the technical debates to the experts. While some people may argue this is elitist or paternalistic, to others it is purely common sense.
Overwhelming evidence
When a medical expert diagnoses us with a disease, do we distrust them and then proceed to attempt to decipher the intricacies of human physiology? We must remember it has taken climatologists years – if not decades – to understand the complexity of the nature and causes of climate change. Discussing specialist detail in the public domain is likely to make people feel that it's all 'too hard' or 'beyond them'. The result? People switch off.
Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle premiered on Britain's Channel 4 in March to a torrent of criticism from the scientific community. The film audaciously tried to argue against the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, which indicates 20th century global warming is largely due to increases in greenhouse gases from human activity. It is the consensus view contained in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Assessment Report developed by 2,500 scientists from 120 countries – one of the most heavily reviewed reports in history.
The central tenet of the documentary – that natural variability caused by solar and volcanic activity is the primary cause of recent changes to global temperatures – has never stood up to the scrutiny of the scientific peer-review process. The IPCC has reported that variation in global average temperature since the Industrial Revolution can only be reproduced by models that take into account both natural and human factors.
There is little, if any, relationship between the solar cycle and recent increase to global temperatures. Being generous, solar variations account for 5 per cent of the observed warming of the globe since the dawn of the industrial era. Similarly, CO2 emissions from volcanoes are less than 2 per cent of the annual CO2 emissions generated by human fossil fuel use.
Misleading and misguided
By giving a consensus opinion and an extremely radical point of view equal weighting, an illusion of controversy about the science is created when in reality there is none.
Shouldn't we trust that our scientists are kept in check by the professional peer-review process, rather than a documentary filmmaker notorious for claiming that breast implants improve women's health? It's a spectacular example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.
At best, this film is a misleading and misguided polemic. At worst, it is a blatant propaganda piece based on pseudoscience. The Great Global Warming Swindle misrepresents the current state of knowledge in climate science in order to confuse public opinion, distracting us from the real issue of seriously debating risk management in our increasingly warming world. The main take home message of the IPCC reports is that the technology needed to prevent serious warming is here with us today. What we do right now will determine whether the warming we face is small or big. That choice is ours.
In these early years of the 21st century, we're looking at a renewable energy revolution that's as huge as the one that took us from the days of horse-drawn carriages and gas lamps, to the era of cars and incandescent light globes. According to the Australian Conservation Foundation, the amount of solar energy that hits Australia in one summer day alone is equivalent to 50 per cent of the energy the whole world uses in six months. Yet despite this enormous potential, less than 5 per cent of Australia's total energy consumption comes from renewable resources like solar power.
Resistant to change
Currently, the Australian government's stance on climate change is fixated on negativity and a resistance to change. They select economic modeling that exaggerates the loss of competitiveness of traditional fossil fuels, creating a sense of paralysis. In reality, moving towards a low-carbon economy represents the greatest business opportunity we have ever seen. It has the potential to create enormous economic opportunities and help us to achieve environmental sustainability.
Meanwhile, CO2 concentrations, global temperatures and sea level rise are already near or above the 'worst case scenarios' projections of the IPCC. Timing is therefore crucial for both for the planet and business opportunities. There is no longer time to indulge distractions by manipulative, junk science documentaries based on faulty scientific analysis advancing a 'business as usual' political agenda. Denial and inaction are no longer justifiable. The real science of climate change is out there.
Joëlle Gergis is a climate scientist and freelance writer in Melbourne, Australia.
The Global warming "swindle"
I nearly freaked out when I heard ABC TV were actually going to run this tripe. A clear case of so-called "journalistic impartiality" giving equal time to the lunatic fringe.
In hind site I'm very glad it was the ABC who ran it and not a witless commercial channel that would have screened it as sensationally plausible without further comment. The ABC had the good sense to run it and then go straight into a decent debate about it.
The whole point about this so-called controversy is this: We can never be 100% sure that human activity is producing global warming. But that doesn't matter! What does matter, however, is that the overwhelming body of evidence points to it being the case. It is the consequences of not acting on that realisation are too terrible to contemplate. We cannot afford to take the risk of not acting.
As to the government not being willing to place the economy "in danger" with carbon emission reduction schemes, all I can say is "what a crock!". On the contrary, developing the technologies and industries for a new low-carbon age represent the greatest economic opportunity of at least the last 100 years. Australia is very well positioned to become a new industrial power and a leading energy supplier in the new economy. We have the talent and we certainly have the resources - sun, uranium, thorium. The paradigm change will come, either under our control sooner or beyond our control later when the oil runs out and we are suffocating and drowning in our own effluent. The new world leaders will be those nations who take the lead now, while it is up for grabs.
"Global Warming"
It seems everyone is a bit shy of the point, especially the author of this article. "Global Warming" is unavoidable. It's a part of Earth's continuing maturity, a sort of solar system coming of age. It won't be the first or last time it occurs. We cannot change it, no matter what carbon footprint reduction method we select. It is caused by another part of Nature, i.e., Sol, our planetary system's sun. Relax and adapt.
Climate Distractions - wake up people
People who accept man made climate change as real and want governments to change poloices without knowing the implications of these changes are just plain stupid.
They should completely research on their own 1. the famous Hockey Stick Curve and 2. Scientific reviews and reactions to the IPCC climate models.
Both are highly flawed and politicized. Commonsense and scientific enquiry does not prevale corrupt science and sheep do.
There are alot of honest brilliant climate and earth scientists out there that can give you a better ideas of what is going on. Give these people a go. Check them out.
Climate change
The first comment I have is that science does not work by consensus. Consensus is largely a political concept. Science is at root a theory building and testing process, which relies upon experimental methodology. Every major breakthrough in the history of science that I can think of has gone against the prevailing opinion among scientists and non-scientists alike. My second comment is that while I'm not fully convinced, I'll stipulate to the assertion that green house gases produced by man are a contributing factor in global warming. Even so, it does not follow that reducing or even eliminating those emissions will prevent climate change. Finally, what we do know is that the earth has been going through a cycle of warming and cooling for millions of years and science has no explanation (theory) for that cycle. What is undeniable is that human activity is not the explanation for it. The last peak in the cycle was around 80,000 years ago and the average temperature was higher than it is now as were sea levels. It is also the case that we happen to be on schedule for the peaking of a warming period in the cycle at the present time. Should we attempt to reduce or eliminate man made atmospheric pollution? Yes. Will doing so stop climate change? No. The peak of a warming period has historically always been followed by a significant cooling period. Perhaps we should be just as concerned if not more concerned about how our civilization will handle a significant decrease in average temperature.
Swindle
What do we mean by "human activity", just the fossil emissions or all of the human activities, like our destruction of the ocean food chains that create a emitter rather than an absorber of Co2.
Do we consider the Co2 emissions of humans, cows, goats and sheep which equal the total coal emissions and are equal to 33% of ALL fossil emissions.
Fact is the population of 6.5 billion, emits one kg per day per person, like 6.5 billion kgs per day, and when added to the animals mentioned output gets up to 9 billion kgs of C02 day. Which when taken yearly is a massive amount of Co2.
ALL the planets animals, probably, very hard to define numbers really, probably exceeds ALL fossil emissions including volcanoes and individual scientific GHG emitters.Like the outputters of doom and gloom.
And while fossils are going to run out,we are simply going to get more numerous.Like over 10 billion in 40 years.
I think the program made a lot of sense, it certainly swindled no-one while the science anti side was too busy trying to push individual theories.The presenter was woeful, as he always is.
Renewables are a joke, stuff enough cool muck down into the core to heat up and eventually its going to cool down. Try solar energy and you have a planet full of solar panels. Making houses solar systems just generates a very big shed full of short life batteries, very expensive batteries at that. Try wind generators and its a planet that is more likely to take off driven by wind.
To solarise my house to provide my requirements of 35kw costs $65,000 and will not output a milliwatt into the grid.
Think about it seriously, billions of solar panels and/or propellors.
We need nuclear, absolutely and definitely. Its clean, it outputs nothing but a few pounds of rubbish. And its going to last until we come up with H3 fusion, in a hundred years or so.
Just get off it and stop frigtening the population. Go find a anthill to look at. Or look at the expanding universe and theorise about the black holes and the effect when/if it hits the sides of Gods test tube.
Its a theory as valid as the one about climate change.
Fix the ocean, and you fix everything. Mostly. Cut human population growth and you fix the rest. Fossils will run out before you know it. So thats fixed that.
Easy as pie and peas for lunch.
Most of this garbage is trying to protect the coal industry, union rubbish again. It's a dead duck, a dying industry and should be let die as fast as it can possibly get to be dead...
Cheers MaxG
The reason that I think that
The reason that I think that we should not stop squabbling about the science is that much of it is questionable. Once again I hear of this overwhelming agreement about the causes of Global Warming however, despite all the ABC bias against the documentary in its presentation, here is what the people who watched thought …
ABC POLL
Do you think human activity is a significant contributor to global warming?
Voting has now closed.
Results:
Yes 52.23%
No 45.14%
Don't know 2.62%
Total votes: 2060
Here is the link
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/
You forgot to mention this ???
Opinion v.s expertise
It would be very interesting to know how many people who voted in this ABC poll – and have posted comments here - actually have a university degree in science?
The point is that the public is forming an opinion on very complex science based on snippets of what they get from the media. How can someone without a deep technical understanding of climatology really have an 'informed opinion' ?
It is irrelevant that 45% of 2060 people in Australia with limited or no knowledge of the science don't think human activity is a significant contributor to global warming. Honestly, how would they know?!
I'd be more inclined to listen to the opinion of professionals who have actually analysed the data and are qualified to comment meaningfully on the technicalities of this debate.
Take a read:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
Saving the Planet: Regardless of which side you are on
The debate on global warming as shown several prominant trends in philosophical and scientific thinking:
1. You cannot prove anything (consider the work of Karl Popper), you
can only falsify it. Curently, there is no absolute proof whether
current global warming is man-made or generated by something else.
Similarly there is no sound falsification of any point of view.
2. Although we scientists are meant to be objective, it is impossible
for any human being to be absolutely objective. The lack of evidence
possessed by the man-made global warning side of the debate and the
overinterpretations of people on the other side indicate that almost
everyone in this debate possesses some degree of subjectivity.
3. Most importantly to the debate, often when reasoning we can come
to the same conclusion regardless of the philosophical starting
point. In this debate we all should be looking after our people
better than we are currently if current global warming is due to
carbon dioxide emissions. If global warning is caused by other
physical means like solar and volcanic activity, then both
terrestrial and extraterrestrial phenomena can be responsible for
placing Earth's environment on the edge of catastrophe. This implies
we should look after our planet so not push the environment over
this edge. See, no matter which side of the debate you are
subjectively on, planet Earth needs tender loving care.
We can get from the above the notion that no matter we subjectively believe (based on whatever "evidence" we choose) global warming is human-induced or not we should accept the responsibility for minimalising our carbon dioxide emissions to look after our planet.
What would you prefer? Choose to have an excessively materialistic that is rife with pollution and stress levels; not to mention an increase in the incidence of specific diseases due to high pollution and stress. Or, opt for a lesser materialistic society that has lesser demands on processes that elicit carbon dioxide emissions and encourages a pleasant, less stressful, healthier and happier living environments for all living species.
Reduce CO2 with iron fertilization of oceans
Here is a challenge to global warming alarmists: If the increasing temperatures are such a terrible threat to earth and humanity, then we should be doing all we can to reduce atmospheric CO2, not only by reducing emissions, but also by sequestering what is already there. I've suggested that more research should go into fertilizing the oceans with iron, which promotes plankton growth, which absorb CO2 from the water (which has absorbed quite a bit of CO2 already). The usual reaction from the alarmists is: "NO! NO! NO!, it will never work, we will be altering the environment, etc, etc". The alarmists are a close minded bunch who seem to have one main goal: stop capitalism and promote more socialist policies to control how people live.
If there is one reason why so many people remain skeptical, it is because the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) have adopted global warming as their weapon against capitalism.
How about actually solving the root-cause of the problem?
What's so "closed-minded" about treating the problem, rather than the symptoms? Symptomatic solutions, like seeding the oceans with iron, would be exponentially expensive and would not be without their own raft of problems. It's like the children's nursery rhyme about the old lady swallowing the spider to catch the fly.
Why not solve the actual problem instead, by de-carbonising energy production and transport systems with renewable energy sources (btw, nuclear is not a renewable energy source)?
How is this an anti-capitalist solution? In all likelihood it will be the same companies in charge of energy production, peddling less greenhouse-polluting technologies. Why would governments around the world adopt "anti-capitalist" policies to deal with climate change?
You, my friend, need to pull your head out of the sand and get with the program!