• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

Of course you do realise you may have just tipped the balance with that last comment?
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

'No sun link' to climate change

By Richard Black. BBC Environment Correspondent. 10 July 2007

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.


"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

Warming trend

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple; to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

But in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as, if not faster than, at any time during the previous 100 years.


"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

Cosmic relief

The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.

But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed among others by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.

Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.

During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.

Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.

He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.

"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate. But you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."

Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.
Doctor Lockwood might be interpreting the data to suit his conclusions, in order to refute the Channel 4 Doc. But, who would you rather believe, the scientist who actually did and understands the research, or a dodgy documentary maker, with links to an extreme fringe political sect and previous for making dodgy documentaries?
 
I agree,
overall, unless there is a major flaw found in this new research, it would appear to put the tin hat on the cosmic ray/solar intensity theory.

The only sticking point from the Channel 4 doc now would appear to the CO2 graphs. Did CO2 increase ahead of rising temperatures or behind them, as the documentary suggests.

LD
 
Even then the graphs are based on data which may be flawed or may be limited and so are not truly representative.

Then there is the interpretation of those results.

There probably is a cycle involving the sun - the ice ages and warm periods probably do get caused at least partially by sun activity.

How could they not?

The thing is that we have accelerated or changed the cycles in some way. We have been warned that if we accelerate the cycles or move them a little off kilter then there will be drastic consequences.

Drastic to us anyway, since the rest of the planet will be used to this boom and bust cycle.
 
Another Channel 4 doc:

Dispatches: Great Green Smokescreen

Broadcast: Monday 16 July 2007 08:00 PM


Channel 4 News Science Correspondent Tom Clarke dissects the many 'solutions' to global warming being marketed to consumers, from tree planting and carbon offsetting to green energy tariffs.

Days after Live Earth partied for the planet, Dispatches reveals how attempts to buy our way out of climate crisis may not be delivering. Channel 4 News' Science Correspondent Tom Clarke dissects the many 'solutions' to global warming - from carbon off-setting to green energy tariffs.

Jetting off on holidays and mini-breaks - we're increasingly turning to off-setting to alleviate our environmental guilt. It's a boom industry, with dozens of new companies springing up each year to offset everything from weddings to babies' nappies.

The UK's biggest players have a collective turn-over in excess of £2m. And now big business is in on the act with Barclays, HSBC and Sky off-setting themselves and Dell and BP selling offsets to their customers.

But are offsets really the answer in the fight against global warming? Clarke investigates a number of projects - from tree-planting in the UK to pig manure in Mexico - all of which are supposed to cancel out our carbon footprint. But do these projects stand up to scrutiny?

So what else should consumers consider? Green energy tariffs look appealing, but research commissioned for Dispatches shows they often don't make a watt of difference.

Carbon labelling is being talked up a storm, but scientists tell Dispatches that labelling may not be a credible reality for some time to come.

One way of making a difference, Clark discovers, might be to take direct personal action to lower our own carbon emissions. But given the small amount of savings each of us can make as individuals, is that any more than a token gesture?

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/the+great+green+smokescreen/589267
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

'No sun link' to climate change

By Richard Black. BBC Environment Correspondent. 10 July 2007

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.


"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

Warming trend

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple; to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

But in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as, if not faster than, at any time during the previous 100 years.


"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

Cosmic relief

The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.

But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed among others by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.

Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.

During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.

Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.

He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.

"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate. But you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."

Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.
Doctor Lockwood might be interpreting the data to suit his conclusions, in order to refute the Channel 4 Doc. But, who would you rather believe, the scientist who actually did and understands the research, or a dodgy documentary maker, with links to an extreme fringe political sect and previous for making dodgy documentaries?

I read in the Scotsman last week that the Earth temperature has actually fallen in the last 10 years. This prompted many people to post comments that although the recent trend was downward the overall long term trend was very much upward. (I can't remember the article, but it was definitely in the Scotsman newspaper, I'll have to have a hunt when I get a chance).

Interesting to see that the last 10 year downward temperature trend coincides with a 20 year downturn in the Sun's output though.

Just shows how the same figures can be used to argue both sides I guess.
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
...

I read in the Scotsman last week that the Earth temperature has actually fallen in the last 10 years. This prompted many people to post comments that although the recent trend was downward the overall long term trend was very much upward. (I can't remember the article, but it was definitely in the Scotsman newspaper, I'll have to have a hunt when I get a chance).

Interesting to see that the last 10 year downward temperature trend coincides with a 20 year down downturn in the Sun's output though.

Just shows how the same figures can be used to argue both sides I guess.
I suggest you find the article in the Scotsman, because it directly contradicts what other sources have been saying, including Dr Lockwood.

I'm almost willing to bet that the 'National Center for Policy Analysis' was involved, somewhere along the line.
 
I just had a quick look but couldn't find that article.

I had a look at the last ten year Global & Hemispheric Temperatures for myself though and the temperature peaked in 1998, fell in 1999 and 2000, then rose a bit again in 2001 and has been level until 2007.

Certainly the temperature today is lower than in 1998, but I'd interpret the trend as an overall levelling out rather than a fall.

These temperatures certainly do not sound any death knells for the theory of the Sun driving Global warming from what I can see.
The Sun's output has declined for the last 20 years, and the global temperature not risen for the last 10.

Dr Lockwood seems to have focused in on the last 20 year trends because they suit his viewpoint, and ignored the trends for the rest of the century, but when you focus in on the 20 years that he has chosen you find that the last 10 years of those don't fit his conclusion either.
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
I just had a quick look but couldn't find that article.

I had a look at the last ten year Global & Hemispheric Temperatures for myself though and the temperature peaked in 1998, fell in 1999 and 2000, then rose a bit again in 2001 and has been level until 2007.

...
Where?

Could we have some links, or quotes, to back up your assertions, please? :)
 
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

The ASCII file option above the graph will give you access to the data that the graph is drawn on, and then have a look at the last 10 years.

No temperature rise in the last decade, and you could argue an actual fall since 1998, but as I said it looks more like an overall levelling out to me.

Of course the overall trend of the graph is relentlessly upwards, but given that Dr. Lockwood was focussing his study on the last 20 years I don't think that it's taking too many liberties to ask why the last 10 years doesn't match his conclusions.
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

The ASCII file option above the graph will give you access to the data that the graph is drawn on, and then have a look at the last 10 years.

No temperature rise in the last decade, and you could argue an actual fall since 1998, but as I said it looks more like an overall levelling out to me.

Of course the overall trend of the graph is relentlessly upwards, but given that Dr. Lockwood was focussing his study on the last 20 years I don't think that it's taking too many liberties to ask why the last 10 years doesn't match his conclusions.

There's a degree of selectivity in how one might represent those figures. It's quite clear that the figures do represent a shift over a 20 year time-period and probably suggest one over a 10 year period. Every year since the high of 1998 was recorded has been hotter than, in most cases considerably so, any other year since the records presented there began. One could start from 1999 or 2000 and show a very signifcant upward trend.
 
Figures can be interpreted in many ways, my point is that Dr Lockwood seems to be just as guilty of interpreting them in such a way to back up his case as anyone else.

One interpretation could very easily be;

There has been no Global temperature rise in the last 10 years, this could obviously be a "blip".
Has there been a correlating "blip" in CO2 emmissions? I think not. They have continued to rise.
However Dr. Lockwood tells us that there has indeed been such a "blip" in the Sun's output.
Therefore the Sun is responsible for Global warming.

This interpretation is not necessarily right or wrong, but its a valid interpretation of very limited data that is the exact opposite of Dr Lockwoods.

When he said "This should settle the debate" he was surely having a laugh?

I'd say what this shows is that there is nothing to be learned from studying data over such a short period, and the long-term figures still show that the Sun's output correlates better with Global temperatures than CO2 emmissions.
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
Figures can be interpreted in many ways, my point is that Dr Lockwood seems to be just as guilty of interpreting them in such a way to back up his case as anyone else.

One interpretation could very easily be;

There has been no Global temperature rise in the last 10 years, this could obviously be a "blip".
Has there been a correlating "blip" in CO2 emmissions? I think not. They have continued to rise.
However Dr. Lockwood tells us that there has indeed been such a "blip" in the Sun's output.
Therefore the Sun is responsible for Global warming.

This interpretation is not necessarily right or wrong, but its a valid interpretation of very limited data that is the exact opposite of Dr Lockwoods.

When he said "This should settle the debate" he was surely having a laugh?

I'd say what this shows is that there is nothing to be learned from studying data over such a short period, and the long-term figures still show that the Sun's output correlates better with Global temperatures than CO2 emmissions.

But the last ten year period, taken in total, is hotter than the previous ten years or any other ten year period. Even excluding the high of 1998 and taken as an average it is higher than any other single year and even the lowest figure within this period is higher than any other year in recorded history. It doesn't neccessarily prove man-made climate change but it undeniably does demonstrate a rise in temperatures.

With regard to studying short periods - the rise is consistent with the overall trend in over a century and a half of records. Also, the fact that the sun's productivity has declined over the last 20 years and temperatures have risen and remained consistently higher over that period would suggest that rather than the sun driving climate change it is of limited relevance. The data provides no link to suggest otherwise.
 
Nobody is argueing whether or not the planet is warmer now than it was a century ago.

With regard to studying short periods - the rise is consistent with the overall trend in a century of records of Sun activity.

Also, the fact that CO2 emmissions have continued to rise for the last decade whereas global temperatures have not would suggest that rather than the CO2 driving climate change it is of limited relevance.

The data provides no link to suggest otherwise.

Touche.

Exactly the same arguement for both sides of the debate.
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
Nobody is argueing whether or not the planet is warmer now than it was a century ago.

With regard to studying short periods - the rise is consistent with the overall trend in a century of records of Sun activity.

Also, the fact that CO2 emmissions have continued to rise for the last decade whereas global temperatures have not would suggest that rather than the CO2 driving climate change it is of limited relevance.

The data provides no link to suggest otherwise.

Touche.

Exactly the same arguement for both sides of the debate.

But really they're not. CO2 emissions have risen over the last ten years, the sun's output has declined and yet temperatures have remained higher than the previous ten years and at their lowest have been higher than any other period in recorded history. No scientist, let alone one involved in the study of climate, could plausibly put forward the theory that the planet is not now significantly warmer than it has been in recorded history. That being the case there has to be a reason for it and it would be ridiculous for anyone with a reputation in science to claim that either (a) the sun has driven to and maintained temperatures at their current level or that (b) the sun's lowered output has lead to a decline in temperatures over the last ten years.
 
The planets temperature has indeed remained high for the last 10 years, however CO2 emmissions have risen faster than ever.
If emmissions are responsible for rising temperatures why have they not soared in the last decade?
The Sun's output has dipped, and temperatures have stabilised.
Perhaps after 30 years of decreased solar activity they will fall. Early days?

There isn't an awful lot of recorded history when we are taking about this subject and the timescale it involves.
We all recognise that that the Earth's temperature has been higher in the past without man's contribution, something must have driven them.
What is the common denominator?

The basic principle of science is that we look for the simplest explaination, the whistles and bells theories are (very) seldom correct...there is a big glowing ball above this planet from which all of the energy on Earth is derived.

I don't expect global temperatures to fall the day the Sun's output falls, but its interesting that after a period of lower solar output the global temperatures have cease to rise, no?

IMHO Dr Lockwood published his results with the wish that it would put a spanner in the works of the those who have raised the FACT that the Sun's output correlates with global temperature better than CO2 emmission over the last century.
However the 20 year period that he has focussed on has not provided the definitive answer that he claims.
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
The planets temperature has indeed remained high for the last 10 years, however CO2 emmissions have risen faster than ever.
If emmissions are responsible for rising temperatures why have they not soared in the last decade?
The Sun's output has dipped, and temperatures have stabilised.
Perhaps after 30 years of decreased solar activity they will fall. Early days.

I would like to know how much the Sun's output has dropped by mind you. Global temperature figures and CO2 emmissions are easy to find, its seems to be difficult to find the figures for solar output.

I don't expect global temperatures to fall the day the Sun's output falls, but its interesting that after a period of lower solar output the global temperatures have cease to rise, no?

IMHO Dr Lockwood published his results with the wish that it would put a spanner in the works of the those who have raised the FACT that the Sun's output correlates with global temperature better than CO2 emmission over the last century.
However the 20 year period that he has focussed on has not provided the definitive answer that he claims.

But they haven't really levelled off. There's simply been a lesser fluctuation in the last few years. That has meant temperatures have stayed consistently higher than before. Yes, 1998 was hotter than any year since and, yes, there's very little difference in the last few years. However, if the sun's output has been decreasing for the last twenty years (although it's difficult to examine this without some numbers) then the only link that can be made is that lowered output actually increases global warming since the most dramatic rises have come after this period. These figures really do support Lockwood's theory.
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
...

IMHO Dr Lockwood published his results with the wish that it would put a spanner in the works of the those who have raised the FACT that the Sun's output correlates with global temperature better than CO2 emmission over the last century.
However the 20 year period that he has focussed on has not provided the definitive answer that he claims.
Unfortunately, it only seems to be a 'FACT' to the makers of a Channel 4 documentary which has been almost universally panned, both for its methods and its conclusions.

The simplest explanation is that, in the last 250, or so, years, mankind has set fire to trillions of cubic litres of fossil carbon that had been locked into the Earth's crust, over 100's of millions of years. The resulting greenhouse gasses act as a thermal blanket, trapping solar radiation, in the form of heat energy, within the Earth's atmosphere, with increasing tog factor efficiency.

Is the Sun contributing? Probably, Is it more of an influence than the released carbonic gasses? That sure is a shitload of released carbon, from the very dawn of time, when the Earth's atmosphere was considerably hotter, considerably more carbonated and significantly lacking in free oxygen. Think Venus.

Ultimately, it hardly matters, which came first, the Sun, or the carbonic gasses, the end result will be the same.

mucci_narrowweb__300x369,2.jpg
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.[/b]

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

Well your quoted Dr Lockwood seems to see a FACTual link until the 80's, and then he trys to rubbish over 100 years worth of data based on the last 20 years... the last 10 years of which just don't fit his conclusions.

To quote the good Dr..."You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like,"

I agree the end result will be the same..but why do we kid ourselves that we are in control, or if not in control then responsible?
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
I don't expect global temperatures to fall the day the Sun's output falls, but its interesting that after a period of lower solar output the global temperatures have cease to rise, no?

It would be if that's what happened. Unfortunately, temperatures are continuing to rise.
 
wembley8 said:
Scunnerlugzz said:
I don't expect global temperatures to fall the day the Sun's output falls, but its interesting that after a period of lower solar output the global temperatures have cease to rise, no?

It would be if that's what happened. Unfortunately, temperatures are continuing to rise.

oh my goodness you got me there!!
What is the point of having a debate when people just disregard the facts?

The temperature may well rise in the future, indeed it may well fall, at the moment despite continued soaring CO2 emmissions it has not risen for years.

In the face of the logic of the arguements I give up! ;)
 
Scunnerlugzz said:
oh my goodness you got me there!!
What is the point of having a debate when people just disregard the facts?

The temperature may well rise in the future, indeed it may well fall, at the moment despite continued soaring CO2 emmissions it has not risen for years.

In the face of the logic of the arguements I give up! ;)

I understand the point you're making but, with respect, you're quite wrong in your reading of the statistics. The facts are that temperatures have risen in any reasonable timescale. For example, in a 20 year period temperatures have risen, in the two ten year periods the average temperatures have risen. If you divide into 5 year periods then each consecutive period for the last twenty-five years have seen a rise in the average temperature.

Yes, in the last 5 years temperatures have stayed much the same. However, if you had chosen to examine the recent records in 1994 and applied your logic then you'd have to conclude that global warming didn't exist. The records would show that temperatures had dropped since 1990 (and continuously up until 1993) and had actually dropped since 1987 as well. However, the next year's result confirmed the highest temperatures since records began. The point here is that, yes, subsequent years might be cooler but the decline in those years is not as dramatic as any subsequent rises - it's pretty much two steps forward and one step back.

This trend towards increasing temperatures is not disproved by the fact that recent years have been similar - it merely suggests that the minimum temperature in this short era is likely to be warmer than the previous lows in any given period (and the fact that the lowest temperature in the last 7 years has been the 8th warmest on record and was at the time the second highest should tell you something). If you were a betting man you'd certainly put your cash on subsequent years breaking the record set in 1998 since the temperatures have remained consistently close to that level in the last 7 years. You'd be taking a risk to bet on temperatures returning to anything like the levels of the mid-80's.

All this is rather secondary to the assertion that solar activity has driven global warming. Obviously we don't have the figures relating to solar output here but if it is the case that it has been decreasing for the last 20 years then without establishing some sort of lag time between the effects of solar activity impacting later on the Earth's temperatures one has to conclude that temperatures have risen and has been driven by something else.
 
Well I am well impressed that someone has challenged Nobel Peace Prize winner Mr Gore's docurama in a British court, and it has been found wanting.

It has been ruled that Al Gore's docurama An Inconvienient Truth is not fit to be used as a classroom aid unless the other side of the theory is put to the students...bit like creationism eh?

Psuedo science has many forms.

Surely there is a middle ground?

God made Global Warming when he melted the ice caps to allow Noah to float that ark?
 
There was an article in today's Observer which I can't be bothered to quote in full but is here if anyone is interested:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... nservation

In essence his point is that climate change is happening, but that some things are being blamed on it wrongly. In the specific case of polar bears, more are being killed through hunting than climate change and if we want to save this iconic species we should do something about the former rather than worrying about the latter.

I don't know enough about the topic to know if he is right on this issue, but given that climate change appears to be happening, I do wonder if there is more that can be done around working out how to adapt to it - and even make it work for us - rather than simply weeping, wailing and gnashing teeth.
 
Channel 4 censured for programme that said climate change was a fraud
Scientists' complaint on accuracy is rejected
Kevin Dowling

A Channel 4 documentary that argued that global warning was a fraud is to be criticised by the media regulator.

On Monday Ofcom is expected to publish a long-awaited report that upholds claims by some of the scientists who appeared in the programme last year that they were misrepresented.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired in March last year, has been accused of downplaying the threat in the public mind. It sparked an outcry among environmentalists and many campaigners argue that the programme has contributed to people believing that the threat is not real.

It is understood that complaints by Carl Wunsch, a climate expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will be upheld. The regulator is expected to say that Channel 4 should have told Dr Wunsch that the programme was going to be a polemic.

The regulator will also uphold complaints made by the government’s former chief scientist, Sir David King, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But the broadcaster will not be censured over a second complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, with Ofcom finding that it did not mislead the public.

Debate has raged since the programme was shown, with many scientists claiming that it misrepresented evidence about the threat of global warming and that it rehashed discredited arguments and skewed data and charts to make its arguments stand up. In the closing moments of the program a voiceover from the climate change sceptic Fred Singer claimed that the Chief Scientist of the UK had said that by the end of the century the only habitable place on the planet would be in the Antarctic and that “humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic”.

Sir David has never made such a statement. It is thought that Mr Singer confused the comments with those made by the scientist James Lovelock, who infuriated many colleagues in the science community when he publicly questioned global warming.

Ofcom is expected to find that the programme made significant allegations against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, questioning its credibility and failed to offer it timely and appropriate opportunity to respond.

Channel 4 argues that the organisation refused to cooperate with the programme-makers.

After the broadcast, Dr Wunsch said that the programme was as close to pure propaganda as anything since the Second World War and that he was duped into appearing on it. Martin Durkin, the director of the programme, has defended it vigorously. He wrote in a newspaper: “The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong.”

The producers have sold the programme to 21 other countries and a global DVD release went ahead despite protests from scientists.

Channel 4 claimed that the public response to the programme, in the form of phone calls it received, was six to one in favour of it. The broadcaster said that the documentary was a useful contribution to a timely debate, arguing that it had a tradition for iconoclastic programming and that it had also aired programmes supporting the case for man-made climate change.

A recent poll found that the majority of the British public is sceptical that climate change is caused by human activity, with many saying the problem exists but is exaggerated.

Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of ten agreed that “many scientific experts still question if human beings are contributing to climate change”. Campaigners believe that steadily increasing economic worries are denting public interest in environmental issues and some of them have blamed the programme.

Channel 4’s head of science, Hamish Mykura, said last March that he commissioned the film because it reflected the views of a significant minority of respected scientists.

An Ofcom spokeswoman said she could not comment before the report was published. Channel 4 said that it could not comment at this stage.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 361448.ece

Note that this thread is about the Ch4 docu.

The main Climate Change thread is

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=951
 
An interesting tale... it remains to see if there's anything in it.

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists

Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.

The veracity of the emails has not been confirmed and the scientists involved have declined to comment on the story, which broke on a blog called The Air Vent.

The files, which in total amount to 160MbB of data, were first uploaded on to a Russian server, before being widely mirrored across the internet. The emails were accompanied by the anonymous statement: "We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it."

A spokesperson for the University of East Anglia said: "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this inquiry."

In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

This sentence, in particular, has been leapt upon by sceptics as evidence of manipulating data, but the credibility of the email has not been verified. The scientists who allegedly sent it declined to comment on the email.

"It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating," said Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. "You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."

In another alleged email, one of the scientists apparently refers to the death of a prominent climate change sceptic by saying "in an odd way this is cheering news".

Ward said that if the emails are correct, they "might highlight behaviour that those individuals might not like to have made public." But he added, "Let's separate out [the climate scientists] reacting badly to the personal attacks [from sceptics] to the idea that their work has been carried out in an inappropriate way."

The revelations did not alter the huge body of evidence from a variety of scientific fields that supports the conclusion that modern climate change is caused largely by human activity, Ward said. The emails refer largely to work on so-called paleoclimate data - reconstructing past climate scenarios using data such as ice cores and tree rings. "Climate change is based on several lines of evidence, not just paleoclimate data," he said. "At the heart of this is basic physics."

Ward pointed out that the individuals named in the alleged emails had numerous publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. "It would be very surprising if after all this time, suddenly they were found out doing something as wrong as that."

Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, features in many of the email exchanges. He said: "I'm not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."

When the Guardian asked Prof Phil Jones at UEA, who features in the correspondence, to verify whether the emails were genuine, he refused to comment.

The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land and sea temperature recordings that is "value added" by the unit before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny.

Prof Bob Watson, the chief scientific advisor at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, "Evidence for climate change is irrefutable. The world's leading scientists overwhelmingly agree what we're experiencing is not down to natural variation."

"With this overwhelming scientific body of evidence failing to take action to tackle climate change would be the wrong thing to do – the impacts here in Britain and across the world will worsen and the economic consequences will be catastrophic."

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: "If you looked through any organisation's emails from the last 10 years you'd find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world's leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ked-emails
 
Back
Top