What then is the "convenient truth"?

[Naffnuff]

I saw that documentary when in first appeared. Very interesting indeed. I especially liked the fact that it was this crazy Swede who originally came up with the whole concept. How typical! :laugh:

Of course, I am not an expert on the subject, but I think that "chunk of salt" should be taken both ways. The fact that it was "proven fraudulent" only means that it was disputed by somebody else, perhaps scientists, but not necessarily so. Time and again, journalists go in way over their heads, and even if they were proper scientists, basically you can prove anything with enough money and political support. I can pick tons of examples from the top of my head from my own country where massive propaganda campaigns have led to a gradual public acceptance of initially unpopular ideas.

Probably no one really knows whether or not this hypothesis has something going for it. But as soon as politics get involved uncertainties turn into certainties, that is how it has always been. In fact, "the scientific process" is almost never allowed to run its course, especially not in a case such as this. So for a non-scientist such as myself, the best approach is just to weigh motives against motives. And I must say that for me at least, Al Gore's part in it does not add to the credibility of this otherwise very suspect hypothesis. Not that I have anything in particular against him, I just expect him to do his job, if you know what I mean.

[Naffnuff]

And just a side note, which one should I really believe:
a) Group of thousands of scientists around the world
or
b) A person, whose reputation is from earlier documents rather suspectable, and who claims the Global Warming is just a big fake?

That group of "thousands of scientists around the world" would be the IPCC. Well, I think it is worth pointing out that the contributors to that glorious institution are appointed by the governments of the various UN member states. And governments are, the last time I checked, governed politically, and not necessarily all that wisely.

As I said, I am not a scientist myself, but I meet quite a few natural scientists, including climatologists, at work, and in fact most those whom I have spoken to about this subject are highly sceptical, not to say furious at what they see as a very flimsy hypothesis and a complete disregard for the scientific process. And conversely, all "scientists" who harass us about how we should really kill off all those cows because they let out so much gas are flagrant pseudo-scientists, such as "human ecologists" or "social geographers" or some other horrific title. These are my very personal impressions regarding this matter.

[Vicsun]

So, let me get this straight: you claim that every single one (or most) of the 130 countries that have appointed scientists have picked special scientists that have the will and ability bypass the peer-review process, because those governments have a vested interest in perpetuating a myth about global climate change? My mind is boggling so hard right now I can feel it all the way down in my pants.

As I said, I am not a scientist myself, but I meet quite a few natural scientists, including climatologists, at work, and in fact most those whom I have spoken to about this subject are highly sceptical, not to say furious at what they see as a very flimsy hypothesis and a complete disregard for the scientific process.

Out of curiosity, where do you work? Studying at the natural science faculty of a major university, I've had the pleasure to meet quite a few climatologists as well, and every single one I've spoken to considers global warming is a closed-and-shut case.

Exactly! They can make a film called The Global Warming Swindle that can lead to the gradual public acceptance of an initially unpopular idea! Oh my!

[Naffnuff]

@Vicsun

First of all, I do not find snubs and ridicule very convincing, as you probably understand. Please try to stay civil, and present me with some arguments if you want to discuss. I am not the agent of some Willy Wonka bent on baking the world; this whole new Global Warming frenzy just seems a bit unreasonable to me. And I know governments and supranational organizations have been wrong in the past, since truth is not politics and politics is not truth. Is that a crackpot statement as well?

As to the internal machinations of the IPCC I am unfortunately quite ignorant. I only know what I have read on their home page, and things such as how the contributors are appointed and on what criteria remind me more of a political institution than a board of scientists. But I really think this is beside the point. I mean, if we all take the very phrase "thousands and thousands of scientists" as a proof in and of itself, are we not acting a bit too much like sheep? I think so, hence my reaction. Rather, I think we should look at the evidence, in so far as we can, and each one make up his own mind.

I work at one of Sweden's major Universities, though as a scholar, not a scientist. I have not misrepresented what I have heard said there, but perhaps where you are enrolled, things are different.

[Kipi]

That group of "thousands of scientists around the world" would be the IPCC. Well, I think it is worth pointing out that the contributors to that glorious institution are appointed by the governments of the various UN member states. And governments are, the last time I checked, governed politically, and not necessarily all that wisely.

Actually, at least here I would say it's other way around: Scientists discover something, and different political groups consider whether masses would like them more if they included the discovery to their political ideas.

So, basically, here politicians take stuff from scientists, not the over way around. So, please don't generalize if you aren't absolutely sure

Oh, and I have read articles of non-IPCC scientists, and majority, if not all, agree with the scientists of IPCC...

[lythium]

might as well go for a swim then...

On scientists and IPCC:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

In other words: "thousands and thousands" of scientists get paid to find proof for a hypothesis, not to see if it's actually true, it's a multibillion moneytree.

Furthermore, the list of IPCC contains not only scientists that agree with the IPCC report. It also includes businessmen (nonqualified) and scientists that don't agree with the CO2 theory, people who have never allowed their name to be on the list. (One of the scientists in the documentary is or has been on the IPCC list for some time, without his permission). And besides, as Naffnuff pointed out does a large number of believers make something true? If another documentary gives me a similar set of graphs and arguments, then the number of believers behind it, doesn't or at least shouldn't give the one with a larger number an objective advantage.

I can't exclude the fact that the swindle documentary is doctored (as seen in DW's link). But if anything, it does give another plausible theory to explain global warming. As far as I can see through what (little) information I get through the media (which in the inconvenient truth is a similar comparing of graphs as in the g.g.w.swindle, but explained differently), the theory put forth in Durkin's documentary is at least as plausible as the CO2 theory, so as far as I'm concerned there is reasonable doubt, which means I have to reject both. (I find that inconvenient, because now I don't have an explanation for why my icecream melts a little faster... )

Also, the title of the Durkin documentary seems wrong to me, as it does agree with the fact the globe is warming, it just gives a different explanation.

And as a result of the bad title, you have guys like Vicsun yelling there IS global warming going on. Uh huh. You're right, dear chap.

The swindle is not about the fact the earth is warming, it's about the now widely accepted cause of the warming: human activity and CO2 emission in particular.



I'll have to read the latest links you guys posted, I didn't have the time right now. The wiki looks promising.

[Naffnuff]

@Kipi

What do you mean, "do not generalize"? Did I? Did I say I was sure of anything? No, all I said was that I am suspicious of any politically controlled organ, especially when they claim to promulgate Truth. In fact I think you guys seem more convinced than I am. Are you absolutely sure?

This is my model of how politics work:

A myriad institutions with varying degree of potential influence strive 1) to influence policy making 2) to perpetuate themselves. These institution do not spring from the ground, nor are they changed over night. They have a history and a way of operating, they all evolve over time, and after a time, most of them do not even operate as intended by their creators. Furthermore, institutions influence each other in infinitely intricate patterns. Governments are institutions, so are private companies, NGOs and the UN. We have this peculiar institution called general elections, which has had the most wayward and unforseeable effects on policy making and society as a whole.

However disappointing it may seem, scientists have very little part in all this. And when they do take part, it is as part of teams and of institutions over which they have virtually no control. To the great disappointment of everyone except themselves, they very rarely come across some sort of Newtonian revelation; that is why these things only become certainties when politicians get interested. Rhetorics demand striking imagery, lest the public fall asleep or lose interest. When politicians strive to influence, they exaggerate in a way that the scientist would find unthinkable.

@Vicsun

Maybe you have heard of this little thing called diplomacy. Governments do talk to each other. A lot. And it does not all necessarily make it to the headlines. You seem to think it preposterous to assume that governments should make deals covertly. Well I think it equally preposterous to assume that governments would not want things to proceed as smoothly as possible. And things do not go smoothly in the limelight.

Politics is not about finding truths. Sometimes there is more wisdom of government in lies, while the truth would be untenable. And, to paraphrase Nietzsche, why insist on truth when life is what we all really strive for? In this case, we have a winner, at least for now. Was the winning side right from a scientifical point of view? Who knows? That tiny shread which may have existed by way of evidence is buried beneath a massive mountain of politics.

In fact, so long as they do not kill off all cows or prohibit me from flying on holiday, this whole thing is probably all for the better. Nuclear power and alternative fuels are much better options than being dependant on the Middle East or Russia. And since most people are so intellectually retarded I suppose they need some "Absolute Truths" to chew on to keep out angst and boredom, whether it be some backwards fantasy religion or this Little Shop of Greenhouse Horrors.

I notice that many people get annoyed at the fact that I do not feel guilt at anything that is either outside of my control or not of my doing. Only last week I was called a "murderer of my own children," still not very convincing as an argument, but all the more interesting from a psychological point of view. And do not say it is a natural reaction in the face of global extinction, because these schemes to bind other people with guilt are as old as mankind itself.

[VonDondu]

On scientists and IPCC:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

In other words: "thousands and thousands" of scientists get paid to find proof for a hypothesis, not to see if it's actually true, it's a multibillion moneytree.

By the same token, there are lots of people who have a vested interest in the continued use of fossil fuels, and THAT is a multi-TRILLION dollar money tree. You don't suppose that has anything to do with global warming denial, or "skepticism" as you like to put it?

If you're going to toss accusations of intellectual dishonesty at everyone who believes there is strong evidence of global warming just because you think that scientists only care about grant money, then I can throw it right back at you and say that people in the oil industry, for example, only care about money and they certainly don't care about science. Their agenda is so transparent, it's laughable. They have a HUGE financial interest in the suppression of all evidence of global warming. We can hardly take their "skepticism" seriously. Why should anyone care what they think?

Yes, "vested interests" automatically implies intellectual dishonesty. Oh yes, how can we argue with that?

[Xandax]

By the same token, there are lots of people who have a vested interest in the continued use of fossil fuels, and THAT is a multi-TRILLION dollar money tree. You don't suppose that has anything to do with global warming denial, or "skepticism" as you like to put it?

If you're going to toss accusations of intellectual dishonesty at everyone who believes there is strong evidence of global warming just because you think that scientists only care about grant money, then I can throw it right back at you and say that people in the oil industry, for example, only care about money and they certainly don't care about science. Their agenda is so transparent, it's laughable. They have a HUGE financial interest in the suppression of all evidence of global warming. We can hardly take their "skepticism" seriously. Why should anyone care what they think?

Yes, "vested interests" automatically implies intellectual dishonesty. Oh yes, how can we argue with that?

Just as we saw with the Ozone-layer and CFC debate back in the 80s.

[Vicsun]

@Vicsun

First of all, I do not find snubs and ridicule very convincing, as you probably understand. Please try to stay civil, and present me with some arguments if you want to discuss. I am not the agent of some Willy Wonka bent on baking the world; this whole new Global Warming frenzy just seems a bit unreasonable to me. And I know governments and supranational organizations have been wrong in the past, since truth is not politics and politics is not truth. Is that a crackpot statement as well?

The IPCC is neither a government nor a supranational organization in the traditional sense, so while your last sentence is a truism, it's not relevant.

As to the internal machinations of the IPCC I am unfortunately quite ignorant. I only know what I have read on their home page, and things such as how the contributors are appointed and on what criteria remind me more of a political institution than a board of scientists.

All material used by the IPCC is peer-reviewed and published in scientific literature which makes it scientific in nature.

But I really think this is beside the point. I mean, if we all take the very phrase "thousands and thousands of scientists" as a proof in and of itself, are we not acting a bit too much like sheep? I think so, hence my reaction. Rather, I think we should look at the evidence, in so far as we can, and each one make up his own mind.

So, you think you're more qualified than trained climatologists to interpret data?

Maybe you have heard of this little thing called diplomacy. Governments do talk to each other. A lot. And it does not all necessarily make it to the headlines. You seem to think it preposterous to assume that governments should make deals covertly. Well I think it equally preposterous to assume that governments would not want things to proceed as smoothly as possible. And things do not go smoothly in the limelight.

Governments can't agree on simple trade deals; the concept of 130 governments covertly agreeing to appoint thousands of scientists that all have an agenda and are able to bypass the peer-review process is deserving of ridicule.

Politics is not about finding truths.

Which is why we're appointing scientists, whose job luckily for us, is finding the truth.

And, to paraphrase Nietzsche, why insist on truth when life is what we all really strive for?

My mind is starting to boggle again. Hold me.

In fact, so long as they do not kill off all cows or prohibit me from flying on holiday, this whole thing is probably all for the better. Nuclear power and alternative fuels are much better options than being dependant on the Middle East or Russia. And since most people are so intellectually retarded I suppose they need some "Absolute Truths" to chew on to keep out angst and boredom, whether it be some backwards fantasy religion or this Little Shop of Greenhouse Horrors.

Cool, we agree on something - especially that bit about most people being intellectually retarded.

edit:

And as a result of the bad title, you have guys like Vicsun yelling there IS global warming going on. Uh huh. You're right, dear chap.

Surprisingly enough, this is my normal tone of voice.

[Naffnuff]

@Vicsun

Wow! You win! Amazing! I don't know what hit me! You just proved that what I had to say was internally inconsistent, and that I was misusing nomenclature, which by itself actually made the Greenhouse Effect real! Way to go, Socrates!

@Everybody else

I would be happy to continue the discussion with all of you who actually think that all parties have to gain from a thorough analysis of any subject.

[Xandax]

@Vicsun

Wow! You win! Amazing! I don't know what hit me! You just proved that what I had to say was internally inconsistent, and that I was misusing nomenclature, which by itself actually made the Greenhouse Effect real! Way to go, Socrates!

@Everybody else

I would be happy to continue the discussion with all of you who actually think that all parties have to gain from a thorough analysis of any subject.

Well, you can be sarcastic towards Vicsun all you like, but he does have points you apparently do not want to address, and thus wave off with the sarcasm.
At the core of all conspiracy theories is the belief that "governments" (or who the target is) can keep something as complex as the theory indicates under wraps and in this example in agreement across many countries and scientific communities, which otherwise have difficulties keeping many other agreements for far simpler and much more harmless things.
Theories like this are way complex (130 countries, "buying" off larger parts of the scientific community and so on...).
And at the same time assuming that the "opposing" but similar conspiracy theory, as DW also indicates, are not true

[Naffnuff]

Well, you can be sarcastic towards Vicsun all you like, but he does have points you apparently do not want to address, and thus wave off with the sarcasm.
At the core of all conspiracy theories is the belief that "governments" (or who the target is) can keep something as complex as the theory indicates under wraps and in this example in agreement across many countries and scientific communities, which otherwise have difficulties keeping many other agreements for far simpler and much more harmless things.
Theories like this are way complex (130 countries, "buying" off larger parts of the scientific community and so on...).
And at the same time assuming that the "opposing" but similar conspiracy theory, as DW also indicates, are not true

I was not trying to avoid to address anything, in fact, I could easily have avoided sticking my neck out just by not posting in the first place. If you think Vicsun had a point, maybe you read too much into his post. I only saw a few retorts, so I responded in kind. Are you surprised at this?

Now as to this talk of a "conspiracy theory," many people these days seem to think that the word itself invokes some kind of mystical power, automatically refuting everything in its way, on the tacit assumption that no conspiracies exist. Well, I say conspiracies are very much an everyday event. It is the basic principle of every joint endeavor, of every company or state. But this is just to say that the public is not, and probably should not be, aware of what is going at all times. You do not expect to know everything that goes on at Ford or Microsoft, do you, or the CIA? So why do you assume you should know about every deal your Prime Minister closes with his colleagues in other countries. In fact, I expect them to come to terms in secret as often as possible, since the parliamentary process is so messy and unpredictable, and not least because they are better acquainted with each other than with the people they allegedly represent.

Now that I have admitted to being a conspiracy theorist (just to humour you ), I wish to stress that I think politics is a much more complex and less straightforward process that this. See my post above for an outline.

[mr_sir]

For it to be a conspiracy on the scale which is being suggested, then that's a lot of people that need to be kept quiet from leaking the truth ... all the thousands of scientists that they have to make sure do not decide to publish papers telling the "truth", all the government officials, all the leaks that exist in all governments and so on. I'm not saying that there is no way there is a conspiracy, but it is very doubtful that even the most powerful men in the world could pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude with that number of people involved.

I personally believe global warming is a natural occurance that happens every so often and I also believe that at some point, probably not in my lifetime, the Earth will begin to cool again as it heads towards the next big ice age. However, I do not believe that there is a conspiracy, I believe that carbon emmisions etc. are speeding up this process so in a way we as a human race are influencing it, but we are not the initial cause (we are simply making it worse).

As for the conspiracy theories: I have to ask, what do the world's governments have to gain by lying about global warming considering the amount of money they make from tax on petrol and oil (in the UK this is a large proportion of the actual price people pay for fuel), the amount of rich and powerful men that have shares and investments in fossil fuels and the manufacturing industry etc., and so on ... surely if they were going to try and cover things up they would cover up the theory that carbon emmisions are causing global warming because they all have a lot to lose as a result of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

[triline beta]

@ mr. sir
Hear,Hear!

[Naffnuff]

In fact, I did not mean to suggest a conspiracy of that sort. I suppose I got a bit carried away there, and I do must say I was not all that benevolently understood.

I did in fact suggest something more in the line of a sum of forces that have been at play for the best part of three decades, and not all of them out in the open as with everything else. And I do think that these forces have to be analysed quite apart from the actual evidence. And so far as I can tell, there seems to be no certainty that man-made CO2 is causing the present trend of global warming. Correlation is not the same as causation. And even if it is so, it is equally uncertain whether such a warming would harm the planet in any substantial way.

Furthermore, there are quite a few real and most palpable environmental disasters around the world even as we speak. I think it would be a true tragedy if these were to be somehow forgotten now that everybody seems to have their heads full of CO2.

[Vicsun]

...And so far as I can tell, there seems to be no certainty that man-made CO2 is causing the present trend of global warming...

How can you tell, exactly?

[Lady Dragonfly]

Xandax

Global warming is not a new phenomenon, and along side other inconvenient truths such as holes in the ozone layer and a decreasing amount of fossile fuels have been discussed and attempted countered for many years in many countries.

Kipi

Also, what if the Global Warming was lie? That would mean that not only US is behind it, the rest of the world as well. And that would make a conspiracy theory too big to hardly be a possible.

Vicsun

So, let me get this straight: you claim that every single one (or most) of the 130 countries that have appointed scientists have picked special scientists that have the will and ability bypass the peer-review process, because those governments have a vested interest in perpetuating a myth about global climate change?

Out of curiosity, where do you work? Studying at the natural science faculty of a major university, I've had the pleasure to meet quite a few climatologists as well, and every single one I've spoken to considers global warming is a closed-and-shut case.

VonDondu

If you're going to toss accusations of intellectual dishonesty at everyone who believes there is strong evidence of global warming just because you think that scientists only care about grant money, then I can throw it right back at you and say that people in the oil industry, for example, only care about money and they certainly don't care about science. Their agenda is so transparent, it's laughable.

With all due respect, this documentary and the whole discussion IS NOT about whether global warming exists or not. We discuss the existing disagreement about the POTENTIAL CAUSES of the current global warming, so please do not put words in your opponents' mouths. Thank you.

As Mr_Sr said,

I personally believe global warming is a natural occurance that happens every so often and I also believe that at some point, probably not in my lifetime, the Earth will begin to cool again as it heads towards the next big ice age. However, I do not believe that there is a conspiracy, I believe that carbon emmisions etc. are speeding up this process so in a way we as a human race are influencing it, but we are not the initial cause (we are simply making it worse).

Very reasonable opinion.

I would also like to quote John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002):

"Houghton rejected claims that observed changes in global average temperature are within the range of natural climate variability or that solar influences are the main driver; that the troposphere is warming less than the surface; that volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning; that climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change; and that IPCC processes were biased. Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature, but then writes that the programmes assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC [is] NOT TRUE. For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."

He is talking about the diagram Al Gore presents as the ironclad "proof" of CO2 being the main culprit (which is challenged by the documentary).
It seems that many people (thanks to the politicians) adopted the CO2 theory as an Absolute Truth that has to be protected from the doubting heathens (who, of course, sold their souls to the oil companies) at all cost. NaffNuff nicely addressed that attitude already.

Vicsun

How can you tell, exactly?

And what exactly is your own opinion?

[Naffnuff]

How can you tell, exactly?

That is my point, you cannot tell. And that goes both ways. All they can see is that there is an increase in temperature, as well as an increase in CO2 emissions. So they correlate, but does the one cause the other? Also, no one that I know of disputes the fact that the levels of CO2 follow the levels of temperature by about 800 years. The explanation given for this, according to Wikipedia, is as follows:

"Due to the large oceanic mass, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in the mass of the ocean, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature lag temperature increases by 800 years."

Again, this sounds to me like a hypothesis. Unfortunately there is no way of travelling back in time to test it.

Also, there have been times in the far past when the weather was much warmer than now, about 6 degrees or so. And when they compare the average temperature of 2004 with those of the middle ages, the latter are given as mean temperature on a decadal basis. So individual years may well have been just as warm or warmer.

[Naffnuff]

With all due respect, this documentary and the whole discussion IS NOT about whether global warming exists or not. We discuss the existing disagreement about the POTENTIAL CAUSES of the current global warming, so please do not put words in your opponents' mouths. Thank you.

Thanks for pointing that out! I did not even notice it until now. Of course I agree that the weather has become warmer. I even notice it. I hope we were all discussing whether or not man-made CO2 is the cause.