Please have the patience to read and/or print the following link:

http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm

The Great Global Warming Swindle (GGWS) is a controversial documentary on climate change by British television producer Martin Durkin. This documentary argues against conventional scientific understanding of the degree and cause of recent, observed climate change.

The overwhelming view amongst climate scientists is that twentieth century global warming is largely due to an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from increased industrialization during the last 100-150 years.

Durkin presents an alternative view that recent global warming is neither significant nor due to human activity.

The documentary does not attempt to argue the latter view through any critical deconstruction of climate science orthodoxies. Rather, it contends that modern climate scientists are at best seriously misguided in their collective opinion on the nature and causes of global warming, or are at worst guilty of lying to the rest of the community. Publicity for the documentary leans heavily towards the latter, stating that global warming is “the biggest scam of modern times”.

In summary the documentary is not scientifically sound and presents a flawed and very misleading interpretation of the science.

While giving the impression of being based on peer-reviewed science, much of the material presented is either out-of-date, already discredited or of uncertain origin. A number of the graphs and figures used in the documentary are not based on any known or published climate data, while others are presented schematically, and hence may confuse and mislead the viewer.

So who is swindling who?

(Reproduced with permission)

It seems as though the GGWS program is going to strongly work against its own purpose and reinforce the view that global warming is anthropogenic and is highly significant in its magnitude.

By all indications, the vast majority of people are going to see straight through the highly flawed scientific basis for the notion of it all being one huge swindle. The debate after the program is bound to concentrate on this aspect.

But is this good or bad?

It is probably bad, because it will reinforce the need to put huge amounts of effort into the issue…when there is stuff-all that we can do about it.

Look at the rate that China is opening up new coal-fired power stations – about two every week! Their growth rate in CO2 emissions is simply overwhelming. Yes they are making some efforts to be more efficient. But that is aimed at improving average per-capita efficiency. It certainly doesn’t mean reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions, or even significantly slowing the huge rate of increase.

I think it is a crying shame that GGWS is not going to be seen to be significant. If it was, a good part of our collective energies could be redirected away from this futile global warming issue and onto the much more important issue of genuine sustainability.

At the core of the sustainability issue lies the continuous expansion paradigm that at present seems unchallengeable.

It is time that we addressed continuous population growth and the concomitant continuously increasing demand for all manner of resources….and fought back against the absurd notion that lies right at the heart of just about all national economies and political regimes around the world – the concept of innate unquestioned continuous growth – that we must be continuously growing or else we will fall into recession and social decay.

This is what really matters

Davsab, if that critique is the best response then it's a pretty lame, nitpicking effort ........i.e. the essence of the doco remains unchallenged.

Perhaps you can explain how high carbon dioxide in the past has never prevented subsequent cooling. Shouldn't be hard for you to explain. lol

Also, i feel you really need to be more specific in your use of this terminology ..."climate change". What is your definition of climate change? Are you simply believing that climate should be constant and any change can only mean humanity is sinfully responsible? Or to put it another way, climate change itself is the problem and that someone needs to be accorded the privilege of deciding the optimal climate for all humanity?

I have no idea who is correct.
However as ASPO points out the projections in the IPCC report assume
a continous supply of oil, gas and coal till the end of the century.

It just won't happen and the supplies will not be enough to produce the
required projected CO2.

So thats the end of it actually, no point in arguing whether man is to
blame or not.

You can also read about GGWS's arguments (please have the patience to read and/or print) here:
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

The Great Global Warming Swindle (GGWS) is a controversial documentary on climate change by British television producer Martin Durkin. This documentary argues against the misguided scientific understanding of the degree and cause of recent, observed climate change.

The mistaken belief amongst climate scientists is that twentieth century global warming is largely due to an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from increased industrialization during the last 100-150 years. Piffle!

Durkin presents a more likely view that recent global warming is neither significant nor due to human activity.

The documentary contends that modern climate scientists are at best, seriously suffering groupthink and at worst, have become members of a cult like religion.

In summary the documentary asks some scientifically sound questions and presents an alternative hypothesis to the flawed and very misleading interpretation of the heavily politicized IPCC.

The documentary is based on peer-reviewed science and calls on the opinion of some of the world's leading climate scientists.

Are you being swindled? TONIGHT AT 8:30PM ON ABC TV...DON'T MISS IT!

(Re-edited without permission)

Keiran, your figures are wrong.

We were not "due" about now to come out of an ice age. The last (Milankovitch) ice age ended about 8,000 years ago. The "Little Ice Age", probably due to the Atlantic's slower version of El Nino in which the Gulf Stream slows to a crawl, wasn't cold enough for year-round snow in Iceland.

Carbon dioxide is not 0.054% of the atmosphere, but only 0.038%.

Human activity has contributed "only 1% of that" in just the past nine months.

We have increased the concentration by half since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Even so, almost half our emissions to date have been absorbed into the ocean and the biosphere. As the surface layers of the ocean warm up, and as the concentration of dissolved CO2 there rises, it will cease to be able to absorb CO2 and become a net CO2 *source*.

In previous warming periods, warming waters have caused CO2 levels to rise as a positive feedback. This time around, the oceans are still absorbing it, but it can't go on forever.

High CO2 levels don't prevent cooling, because temperature doesn't stop CO2 slowly falling again. The circulation of ocean waters will carry CO2 to the depths and allow more to dissolve at the surface. As the biosphere adapts to the new climate, plants are able to bind carbon (eg. wood, peat, coal).

You are right to say the climate has changed before, and changed dramatically; right to say that 5 or 65 million years ago the earth was warmer than today. But two things are fundamentally different this time around:

(1) This time, warming is not due to natural causes. We have our foot on the throttle, and can choose to floor it or to ease off.

(2) This time, six billion humans are utterly dependent on agriculture and will suffer devastating consequences from unpredictable changes in rainfall.

Kieran, please stop preaching complacency.

It is time to be afraid. Be very afraid, then do something about it so we can get on with the Industrial Age in a sustainable manner.