200 / The issue that won't go away


That UK documentary on climate-change scepticism, The Great Global Warming Swindle, has surfaced again and I was urged to watch it once more by a climate-change sceptic, who asserts that "the Global Warming debate is NOT SETTLED" ... really?


I'm astonished this documentary is brought up again now. When the docu aired on ABC in 2007, it was followed by a Lateline interview with the director, Martin Durkin, conducted by Tony Jones and then rounded off with a podium discussion with a bunch of scientists, commentators etc. I'm astonished because I thought it had been accepted that the docu is discredited:

  • Scientific arguments used in the film have been described as refuted or misleading by scientists working in the relevant fields. Critics have also argued that the programme is one-sided and that the mainstream position on global warming, as supported by the scientific academies of the major industrial nations and other scientific organisations, is incorrectly represented.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

Incidentally, Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who was interviewed in TGGWS, had since said that he strongly disagreed with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used.


A worthwhile program to watch in this context is SBSs Insight with climate scientist prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford Uni (now deceased) (it aired twice ... at least I watched it twice). He fronted an audience of 52 climate-change sceptics (mostly academics) and he discussed the arguments brought forward by them. The point for me is that I have no idea about science, neither do I have any beliefs as regards sciences in general or climate-change specifically, and I would criticise climate scientists as readily as I criticise nuclear physicists - hence I'm only interested in how our government deals with global warming, being a believer that the sooner we address the technological challenges thrown up by climate-change, the more competitive our industries will be. I agree with those who say that climate-change scepticism is holding our country back - our technological opportunities, our economic prospects. http://www.sydneyphotoart.com/blog-best-kept-secret.aspx


Furthermore:

One example to support the above premise was the question posed by a gentleman, a doctor, on the Insight program (this is not verbatim), "how can it be asserted that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming caused by CO2 emissions is occurring, when human activity accounts for only 3% of CO2 emissions and 97% of CO2 emissions are natural?" After Schneider had responded (human CO2 production is cumulative whereas in nature CO2 is produced and absorbed evenly), he was repeatedly challenged by the questioner. Schneider then said something to the effect of, "Sir, you don't understand the problem."

http://www.sydneyphotoart.com/blog-carbon-dioxide-climate-change.aspx

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/reviews/3713/stephen-schneider-takes-last-stand-climate-change-insight-special

http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/302#transcript


I'd advise anyone to watch the Insight show or read its transcript - especially the dialogue between the good doctor and prof Schneider; it is very telling as an example for the stubbornness & ignorance of an apparently educated, and most likely very intelligent individual. This secondary issue of: 'But humans contribute so little CO2, how can it cause climate-change?' is central to the debate; to understand it is crucial when it comes to reacting to it and to dealing with possible solutions.


So the conundrum with anthropogenic CO2 emissions is that they accumulate, i.e the 3% are added to, they would become 4%, 5% etc. since humanly created CO2 is not absorbed by nature. For that reason it is up to humans to absorb these emissions … hence the suggested emission trading schemes (ETS) or carbon taxes to facilitate the necessary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.



Source of illustrations:  The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism  


The primary issue in the climate-change debate is whether global warming is occurring ... I correct the previous statement: The primary issue is whether recently observed global warming - over the past 100 years - is of significance, or can be disregarded as not extraordinary climate change 'due to natural factors'. The IPCC reports that in the past 100 years temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Celsius, with the rise having been gradual, but intensifying recently (it is interesting to read Schneiders elaboration on the subject of temperature variations over the past decades). Climate scientists say this rise is extraordinary in its severity; apparently when global warming occurred in past millennia, this sort of increase would have taken thousands of years, not one hundred. Projections estimate that by 2050 temperatures will have risen by 1.5 to 2 degrees, if climate-change is not abated. That sort of rise in temperatures apparently translates to a rise of ocean levels of a meter or two, which would mean that millions of people would have to move inland from coastal areas. But that's only one of the problems our children would have to deal with; desertification is another - on a long list.



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years


You will also see first hand that the Global Warming debate is NOT SETTLED

I emphatically disagree with this premise ... Wikipedia again: 

  • Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.
  • A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers" and "the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement [on climate change]. Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately—and this is hard to say without sounding elitist—mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers."


The problem in this discussion for me is this: I can understand how scientists who work in the field criticise one another, that is proper and the resulting debates should be engaged with. But I fail to see why laypeople (like myself) would have an opinion on climate-change science (and I would say this includes scientists from faculties other than climate science). We may well debate whether an emissions trading scheme would be more effective than a carbon tax (which probably would be my position), but beyond that I am inclined to align myself with the majority of climate scientists, when it comes to the question whether climate-change a) is occurring and b) is largely man-made. How big is the chance they're right? It is probably prudent to remember that if the consensus among scientists is 90% for Anthropogenic Global Warming, denying AGW is like siding with the one doctor who says you have no cancer and ignoring the nine who say you do … you can take that sort of chance if you're so inclined; I would prefer not to.



Update … I received an email with a link to  The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism  which addresses two issues relevant to my blog: Humans are raising CO2 levels (page 2), What does past climate change tell us (page 7). Incidentally, the guide also addresses the 'ClimateGate' episode, mentioned in the comment below, which purportedly discredits Phil Jones; Shooting the Messenger (page 10). For more visit John Cook's website Skeptical Science. There is also a list of the myths from The Great Global Warming Swindle and their repudiations on the site; see below.



Update … A very topical documentary was shown on SBS yesterday, Science Under Attack, watch it. 

(Sorry, it's not available anymore at this link.)


Update … comment:
"The statement "The primary issue in the climate-change debate is whether global warming is occurring" is incorrect. The primary issue in the climate-change debate is whether or not climate-change is anthropogenic. The climate has always changed, everybody knows that."


Yes, I stand corrected, my statement was ambiguous, it should read, "the primary issue is whether recently observed global warming - over the past 100 years - is of significance, or can be disregarded as not extraordinary climate change 'due to natural factors'." And then - once it is established that the rise in global temperatures since the onset of the industrial revolution is abnormal - the secondary issue is whether global warming is anthropogenic. 


It is only too obvious that climate change over long periods - not just hundreds or thousands of years, but millions of years (Ice-ages?) - has always occurred; indeed, everybody knows that. But that comment is skirting the issue of our need to address global warming that has occurred over the past century.


"I continue to believe that climate change has always occurred but the natural factors which cause climate change are so massive that they dwarf any minor change due to CO2 produced by man ..." 


This statement goes to the heart of the issue I wish to address with my blog: Indeed, every word in it is correct, but it ignores the issue at hand: The massive 97% natural CO2 production in nature is readily absorbed by nature, as it has been over millions of years. The minor 3% CO2 produced by man is cumulative ... and that is what causes our problems. This is the very issue addressed by prof Schneider in his discussion with the doctor in the Insight program.


"What the blog did not say was exactly what in the documentary "The Great Climate Change Swindle" was discredited. Please tell me what was not factual." 


See below:



Source: Skeptical Science