Global Warming Notes from “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

These notes are from the movie the Great Global Warming Swindle.  They are notes I took and in some cases, quotes taken from the scientists interviewed in the movie.  I can’t remember who said what, so I’m not quoting the individual source, nor am I actually putting quotation marks around the text because I’m not sure I got the actual wording correct.  My notes are following this:

The earth’s climate is always changing. There’s nothing unusual about the current temperature.  There were periods in the Earth’s history where we had three times as much CO2 as we have today and there were also periods in its history where there was 10 times as much CO2 as we have today.  None of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by CO2

Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding. Tens of thousands of jobs depend on global warming right now. It’s a big business! The whole global warming business has become like a religion and those who disagree are called “heretics”.

We can trace the current warming period back 200 years to the end of a very cold period of Earth’s history known as the little ice age. In the 14th century Europe plunged into the little ice age. We know this from the old illustrations and prints of the Thames River. These showed that Thames would freeze over, showing people ice skating on it. Prior to the little ice age there was a period known to climatologists as the “medieval warm period” which peaked around the year 1200 to 1300 AD. Wherever this warm period is described in written records, it appears to be associated with riches and prosperity. This was the great period of cathedral building in Europe. There’s also evidence in London of vineyards at that time.

There was also a very warm period during the Bronze Age known to climatologist as the “Holocene Maximum”. The polar bears obviously survived that, they’re with us today. They are very adaptable.

Climate variation in the past was purely natural, so why do you think it would be any different today? Industrial growth has changed our lives, but has it also change the climate?

Anyone who says the carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century, hasn’t looked at the basic numbers.  Since the mid-19th century the Earth’s temperature has risen just over a half a degree celsius. However, this warming began before cars and planes were even invented. Most of the rise in temperature occurred before 1940 when industrial production was rather insignificant. After the Second World War, during the “post-war economic boom” where man-made CO2 emissions were increasing dramatically, in theory, temperatures should have risen as industrial production rose. However, the temperatures actually fell for four decades to 1975.

CO2 forms only a very small part of the Earth’s atmosphere. Percentage of the overall atmosphere is .054%. Since not all CO2 is originated by humans, the portion that we are responsible for is a much smaller percent. The atmosphere is made up of a number of gases, a small percentage of those gases are what we called greenhouse gases, of the very small percentage of those greenhouse gases, 95% of it is water vapor.  CO2 is part of the remaining 5% of those greenhouse gases.

If its greenhouse warming you get more warming in the troposphere then you do at the surface. If there were no greenhouse gases the rays of the sun would bounce off the Earth back into outer space and the Earth would be cold and uninhabitable. But greenhouse gases trap some of that heat in the troposphere. All the models calculate that the warming should be strongest as you go up into the atmosphere away from the surface of the Earth, the maximum warming at the equator should take place at an altitude of about 10 kilometers. However, what we’ve seen through weather balloons and satellites is that the Earth’s upper atmosphere is not warming as fast as the surface. The theory is fairly straightforward it says that the upper atmosphere should warm faster than the Earth’s surface. That tells us that what you’re seeing is warming that is not due to greenhouse gases. Most data shows a gradual decrease in warming with altitude. So in a sense you could say that the hypothesis of man-made global warming is falsified by the evidence. Therefore the recent warming in the earth took place at the wrong place and at the wrong time. It took place in the early 20th century and at the surface of the Earth, the very opposite of what should have happened according to the theory of man-made global warming.

The evidence presented in Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” shows correctly that there is a correlation in the data taken from the ice core surveys between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. Al Gore States in his movie (as he looks at the correlated graphs of CO2 and temperature) but there is one correlation that’s very obvious: when the temperature gets higher there is more carbon dioxide. There is something in the ice core data that he fails to mention: the link is the wrong way around. CO2 increases lag behind the temperature increases by about 800 years. So temperature is leading CO2 by about 800 years. There been several major ice core surveys in all of them show the same thing so obviously carbon dioxide is not the cause of that warming. The ice core survey data shows exact exactly opposite of what the theory of man-made global warming predicts.

Carbon dioxide is a natural gas produced by all living things in few things annoy me more than hearing people talk about carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Humans are not the main source of carbon dioxide. Humans produce a small fraction, percentage wise, of the CO2 that is found in the atmosphere. Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all  human sources put together (this includes factories etc.) and more still comes from animals and bacteria which produce 150 giga tonnes of CO2 compared to 6 Giga tonnes from humans. Another large source CO2 is dying leaves, but the largest source by far of CO2 is the oceans. If you heat the surface of the ocean, it tends to emit carbon dioxide. Similarly if you cool the surface of the ocean, the ocean can dissolve more carbon dioxide. So the warmer the oceans are, the more carbon dioxide they produce and the cooler the oceans are the more they consume. Oceans are so big and so deep they take literally hundreds of years to warm up and cool down. This time lag means that oceans have what scientists call a memory of temperature changes. This explains why there is an 800 year lag between the temperature increase and the increase in carbon dioxide.

The current warming appeared long before people had cars and electric lights. If CO2 doesn’t drive Earth’s temperatures, what does? The common belief that CO2 drives changes in temperature is at odds with much of the scientific data. Humans that are 6 ½ – 7 billion in population are minor compared to the effect of the Sun.

Climate forecaster Dr. Piers Corbyn has had great success in predicting the Earth’s weather patterns by looking at solar activity. Sunspots we now know are intense magnetic fields that appear at periods of increased solar activity. For many years in the past people have observed sunspots and counted them with the belief that more sunspots led to increase in temperatures. One scientist in 1893 observed that during the little ice age there were no sunspots recorded. In 1991 a study was done that correlated sunspot activity with the temperature on Earth and a strong correlation was found. With respect to the history of the 20th century, solar activity increased strongly to 1940, and then dropped sharply to the 1970’s, then rose again after that. They then analyzed 400 years of solar activity against temperature data and once again they found that variations in solar activity were intimately linked to temperature variation on Earth. It was the Sun, not carbon dioxide or not anything else, that was driving temperature variations on Earth.

The sun also affects us indirectly to through clouds. We know the clouds have a cooling effect. A study was done that attempted to correlate cosmic rays with cloud formation in ultimately temperature. Since clouds have a cooling effect and they are caused in part by cosmic rays, what they found was that as cosmic rays went up, the temperature on Earth went down. The climate was controlled by the clouds, the clouds were controlled by the cosmic rays, and the cosmic rays were controlled by the sun. The sun is an incredibly violent beast it’s throwing out great explosions an endless solar wind that’s forever rushing past the Earth. We are in a certain sense inside the atmosphere of the sun. When comparing the temperature in the arctic with the CO2 levels they are not obviously correlated, however when comparing the solar activity and the temperature of the arctic they are correlated. The sun is driving climate change, the CO2 is irrelevant.

In the 1970s the media was reporting the threat of global cooling in the imminent Ice Age.

The politicization of this topic began with Margaret Thatcher. She didn’t trust oil and she didn’t trust coal so she thought we had to really move ahead with nuclear power. The UK’s Met Office led to the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. Once the Berlin Wall came down and global communism was failing, a lot of the peaceniks and Marxists moved over into the environmental movement to cloak an agenda that actually had more to do with anti-capitalism. If I wanted to do research, from anywhere 1990 onwards, let’s say on the squirrels of Sussex, I would write my grant saying I want to investigate the nut gathering behavior of squirrels with special reference to the effects of global warming. That way, I get my money. If I forget to mention global warming I might not get my money.

A large amount of the money in the 1990s started to be invested into the development of computer models to predict global temperature changes. The question is, how accurate are those models? Climate models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them, and there are hundreds of them. All it takes is for one of them to be wrong for the forecast to be off. All models assume that man-made CO2 is the cause of climate change rather than the sun or the clouds. The analogy that I would use is that my car is not running very well, so I’m going to ignore the engine, which is the sun and I’m going to ignore the transmission, which is the water vapor, and I’m going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere. The science is that bad!

It is one of the features that long-range climate forecasts are only proved wrong long after people have forgotten about them. Therefore, there is a danger that modelers will be less concerned about creating a forecast that is accurate than creating one that is interesting. So there’s a bias toward producing results that are dramatizable. To the untrained eye computer models look impressive.

If you’re an environmental journalist in the global warming story goes in the trash, then so does your job. It really is that crude! And the reporting has to get more and more hysterical. It is now common in the media to lay the blame for every storm or hurricane on global warming. Every meteorology textbook will tell you that the primary reason for weather disturbances is the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles. But theoretically, in a world where global warming is increased that temperature difference between the tropics and the poles would decrease, thus making it possible to have less violent storms.

We happen to have temperature records going back thousands of years in Greenland. Greenland was much warmer even a thousand years ago than it is today, yet it didn’t have a dramatic melting event. There’s a huge amount of natural expansion and contraction that happens in the arctic ice levels seasonally. People forget that ice is always moving. Images and videos showing ice breaking away from glaciers is cited as being evidence for climate change, but this is as normal as leaves falling on an autumn day in England. A scientist refers to it as “the spring break up”.

Sea level changes over the world are governed fundamentally by two factors: 1) local factors, the relation of the land and sea which more often has to do with the land rising or falling then with the sea. But with regards to 2) worldwide changes that is through the thermal expansion of the oceans, it has nothing to do with melting. That’s an enormously slow and long process.

It is also said that the global rising temperatures even a little bit will cause the northward spread of insect borne diseases such as malaria. However, mosquitoes thrive in very cold conditions. For example, mosquitoes are very abundant even in the arctic.

IPCC has censured the comments of contributing scientists. There are people who are “specialists” but don’t agree with the polemic and resigned from the IPCC, and there are a number of them that I know of who are simply put on the author list and become part of this list of the world’s 2500 top scientists, even though they do not agree with the conclusions of the IPCC report. One of these scientists even had to threaten to sue the IPCC to get his name removed.

Research related to man-made global warming is now one of the best-funded parts of science. Scientists who speak out against man-made global warming have a lot to lose. It is a common theory that those who do not agree with the theory of man-made global warming are being paid off by the oil and gas companies. The ones interviewed on the show said that that is false. Anyone who looks at this coolly and rationally and says let’s see how much merit this idea really has will be ostracized. Climate scientists who have been skeptical about the theory of man-made global warming and not only ostracize but they even in sometimes receive personal attacks and even death threats. They are even treated almost as if they were a holocaust denier.

The developing world is now coming under intense pressure not to develop. Policies being pushed to supposedly prevent global warming are now having a disastrous effect on the world’s poorest people. The “precautionary principle” is that we ought to impose draconian measures even if global warming is wrong, just in case it isn’t. They never talk about the benefits of using fossil fuels, but rather just talk about the risks of doing so. They never talk about what the implications are if you don’t use fossil fuels. People in Africa have no access to electricity in certain parts, so they must burn dried wood or dried animal dung in their huts, and as a result 4 million children die each year from the results of this indoor smoke. Many millions of women die early from cancer or lung disease as a result of the smoke. To a third world country, they know that they have moved to the “next level” when they have electricity, that is what they define as development. No electricity means that they have no refrigeration & food cannot be kept.  We in the west cannot begin to imagine how hard life is without electricity. Africa has coal and Africa has oil, but environmental groups are campaigning against the use of these cheap energy sources. Instead, they say that Africa and the rest of the developing World should use solar power and wind power. They showed a clinic in Nairobi Kenya which is powered purely by 2 solar panels. The solar panels allow the doctor to use either the lights or the refrigerator, but not both at the same time. Wind and solar power are notoriously unreliable as a source of power. They are at least three times more expensive than conventional forms of electricity. The rich countries can afford to engage in some form of experimentation with these renewable technologies but for Africa they are at the “stage of survival”. The idea that the world’s poorest people should be restricted to using the world’s most expensive and inefficient forms of electrical generation is the most morally repugnant aspect of the global warming campaign. One of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is this romanticization of peasant life and the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it is legitimate for me to call them anti-human.

The theory of man-made global warming is now so thoroughly entrenched the opposition so thoroughly silenced, it seems invincible. The global warming alarm is now “beyond reason”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s