Climal.com | Climate Change, Environment, News, Energy, Technology

The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Channel 4 broadcast a shocking and highly emotive documentary in the UK on the 8th March 2007 by filmmaker Martin Durkin entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Was it convincing, can we really stop worrying and does the evidence stack up? Let 's go through it point by point.

N.B. Before reading what I have to say, I strongly suggest you try the following links by experts in the field (otherwise, scroll down to read the comments):

• Review by George Marshall, Executive Director of the Climate Outreach Information Network
• Review by William M. Connolley, Climate Modeller at the British Antarctic Survey
• Review by Nathan Rive, In The Green, Imperial College Centre for Environmental Policy

Also read these important notes on the RealClimate website (these explanations might be a bit complicated for the average reader, but they drive home the point):

• Swindled
• Tired Old Arguments in New Clothes

Also on the RealClimate site, one of the scientists who appeared in the programme has claimed he was misrepresented. His name is Carl Wunsch. Read his response here.

The Television Show

Michael Durkin has been behind many controversial programmes, including the Equinox documentary "Storm in a D Cup ", which argues that, far from being harmful to women, silicone breast implants are beneficial to women's health.

Few people on the majority side of the climate change argument avoided a bashing during last night's documentary, as the Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change, the Thatcher Government, Greenpeace, environmental journalists and scientists were accused of lying, perpetuating propaganda, protecting vested interests and chasing funding. An apparently impressive array of PhDs, climate scientists, meteorologists and journalists participated in the program, which appeared to debunk the 'myth' that climate change is man made.

The program skilfully combined the presentation of some facts with unsubstantiated, old or disputed ideas, culminating in the suggestion that environmental campaigners are responsible for the deaths of 4 million children in Africa every year.

Many of the suggestions appeared at first glance to support the argument very well, until I looked at my notes and realised that many of them were contradictory.

The Suggestions Made by the Program, With Responses

·Climate is not driven by carbon dioxide, man-made or otherwise.

Climate is extremely complicated, but it is known that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and has a warming effect on the planet. The best example of this is the planet Venus. Although it is much further away from the Sun than the planet Mercury, its atmosphere, which is 96% carbon dioxide, makes Venus much hotter than Mercury.

·Ice cores show that CO2 in the atmosphere coincides with temperature decreases, suggesting that carbon dioxide has a cooling effect on the atmosphere. The theory that higher levels of CO2 cause higher temperatures is an assumption.

Again, the example of the planet Venus suggests otherwise. If carbon dioxide cooled the atmosphere, Venus would be much cooler than the planet Mercury.

·Humans produce less than 10% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 amounts to only 0.054% of the atmosphere; the proportion that is man-made is even smaller. The warming effect of this amount of carbon dioxide would be small.

It seems quite odd that the program would first suggest that carbon dioxide has a cooling effect, and then say that it does have a warming effect, but only a small warming effect. The percentage is actually smaller than that. Even though the percentage appears very small, there are trillions of tonnes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Earth would be about 30 degrees Celsius cooler than it is today without any greenhouse gasses. Carbon dioxide is one of these greenhouse gasses, that amount to a small percentage of the atmosphere. If they amounted to a larger percentage, the world would be much warmer.

·Ice core records show that temperature is leading CO2 levels by 800 years, showing that high temperatures lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around. This is because when the ocean gets warmer, it releases more CO2; when it cools, it absorbs more CO2.

Climate scientists who believe that global warming is man-made believe that there are several 'positive feedback' systems on the planet. This means that as the temperature goes up, even more carbon dioxide is released. The ocean is one such feedback mechanism. This is one of the main worries of man-made global warming, that by warming the planet with our carbon dioxide emissions, we could trigger the oceans to release even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which could in turn produce even more warming.

·There should have been significant warming in the high atmosphere (Troposphere), but most of the warming we have seen is at ground level. Most of the warming took place in the early 20th Century and at ground level (not in the troposphere), against the trends of man-made global warming.

The full version of the IPCC report, due later this year, is expected to announce that the amount of warming in the troposphere has been under estimated, and that it does correlate with man-made global warming. Much warming did occur in the early part of the 20th Century, but the rate of warming in the past 30 years has been much greater than that in the early part of the 20th century.

·The post war economic boom should have brought higher temperatures due to extra CO2 emissions, but temperatures actually fell for the next four decades.

This is explained by something called 'Global Dimming'. In the post-war economic boom, pollution laws were much more relaxed than they are now. The emissions from factories and vehicles were thicker and contained pollutants called 'Sulphate Aerosols'. When these sulphate aerosols are pumped into the atmosphere, they cause the formation of extra clouds which blocks out sunlight. They also make the tops of clouds shinier, which are able to reflect even more sunlight back into space. When sunlight is blocked out, global temperatures go down.

·Temperatures increased from the mid 1970s onwards, even though the oil crisis produced a downturn in economic fortune. Less carbon dioxide was produced during the late 1970s due to the economic downturn so temperatures should have fallen, but temperatures rose instead.

During the 1970s the Iraq-Iran war, meant that oil was in short supply. Factories could not burn as much fuel, so the global dimming effect was removed. However, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere for decades, so all the greenhouse gasses that were building up since the war were now free to warm the planet at a great rate.

·The Earth's climate is always changing.

Nobody disputes this! The question is 'why?'

·The Bronze Age was much warmer than today. The Medieval period was also much warmer than today. Warmer temperatures in medieval times were associated with great wealth and Cathedral building, with vineyards in the North of England.

It probably was very nice in medieval England. Warmer temperatures would have meant longer growing seasons, leading to more food. The winters would not have been as harsh. The population was much smaller, so water shortages would not have been a problem. However, there was no mention how other parts of the world were faring, such as sub-Saharan Africa. Today, the population is incomparable to that of medieval times. There will be an increased strain on the availability of water, which is probably the biggest threat posed by climate change.

·Climate variation in the past was natural. Why is it different today?

There was no heavy industry in the past. Humans had no way of influencing the temperature of the planet. Heavy industry has only existed in the past 150 years.

·Water Vapour is the most important greenhouse gas.

This is true. Water vapour, which forms clouds, is the most important greenhouse gas. Scientists on both sides of the debate agree with this. However, water vapour can also have a cooling effect. A cloudy day in summer is usually cooler than a sunny day, as clouds block out sunlight. Cloudy nights are often warmer than clear nights, as the clouds act as a blanket to trap heat underneath them.

·There is a direct correlation between levels of solar irradiation and temperature that explains all global warming in the past and during the 20th Century.

During their programme, they showed a graph of solar irradiation versus temperature. They were quite sneaky, as their graph of solar irradiation stopped abruptly shortly after 1980 (take a look at the graph here - the red line is solar energy, the blue line is temperature). This is because solar irradiation does not explain most of the warming seen in the last 30 years.

·More clouds are produced when strong cosmic rays hit the earth from outer space. When solar radiation is stronger, these rays are deflected away from the earth and fewer clouds are produced.

The formation of clouds is complicated and there is a long way to go in fully explaining how clouds form. However, it is known that water vapour can condense on any airborne particles such as dust and pollen, to form clouds. Cosmic rays are not thought to be necessary for cloud formation, but it may have a smaller effect on climate than stated in the program.

·1000 years ago, Greenland was warmer than it is now, but its ice cap did not melt. 7000-8000 years ago, the Russian permafrost melted much more than it has now, but the results were not catastrophic.

The main worry is about future temperature rises, not current temperatures. If temperatures were to stay as they are now, we would not be worried about any further melting. But, future temperature rises are uncertain and are expected to be significant. When this point is reached, we may see catastrophic permafrost and glacier melting.

·Television shows often show large amounts of ice breaking from ice caps and glaciers. This happens every spring during the thaw.

This is true. Glaciers are constantly moving and melting. However, they are also constantly being formed higher up the mountains. The problem is that they are melting faster than they are renewing themselves. Images of ice melting and large chunks breaking off into the sea is the media's way of illustrating what is happening on a larger scale: melting ice caps.

·Sea levels are rising because of thermal expansion, not because of melting ice.

Thermal expansion causes sea level rises as well as melting ice. If you do not believe that melting ice causes sea level rises, take a glass of salted water filled up half way, allowing enough room to allow a few ice cubes to float on the surface. When the ice cubes have melted, the level of the water will have increased - try it! Either way, whether through thermal expansion of melting ice, higher sea levels are caused by warmer temperatures.

·In 1974, the BBC produced a documentary claiming that we were headed for a new ice age. Today's global warming scare is just as unfounded.

This is more than a single documentary. Billions of dollars' worth of research has gone into trying to find out what effect we might be having on the climate.

·Margaret Thatcher paid the Royal Society to find a link between CO2 and global warming to strengthen the case for Nuclear Power, in order for Britain to become less dependent on its politically militant coal miners.

This may or may not be true, but either way it does not change the science.

·The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a political body of non-scientists, which has a total disregard for science. The 2nd and 3rd reports by the IPCC are misleading.

This statement could just as easily have come from scientists who do believe in man-made global warming. The IPCC is part of the United Nations, and so is very political. However, it works both ways. The recent summary of the 4th Assessment by the IPCC was apparently 'watered down' to please pro-oil countries such as Saudi Arabia and China. Key warnings over 'positive feedback' mechanisms were left out, so the report could have been much more shocking than it was.

·The environmental lobby is just anti-economic growth, anti-car and anti-industry with an over-romanticised idea of peasant life.

Regardless of whether you agree with this or not, the environmental lobby has little to do with climate science.

·Computer climate models are over-sensitive. Alter 1 of the many parameters and the results change drastically. Only the more interesting or dramatic computer model predictions are published.

This is true. It is for this reason that climate models are now run from points in the past, up to the present day, and on then into the future. If the model does not correctly predict known weather and climate records from 1920 up to the present day, it is rejected. If the model gives an accurate picture of the climate over the past century, it is considered a useful model and is used to predict climate changes in the future. Check out the BBC's Climate Change Experiment to see the results of one of these models.

·Environmental journalists are biased towards publishing shocking stories and predictions because without them, they would not get published and would eventually lose their jobs.

This is a ridiculous statement that could be directed at any form of journalism, such as terrorism, immigration, stock market reports, cancer scares, bird flu and MRSA.

·It is hard for scientists who do not believe in man-made global warming to get funding for their research because of the prejudice towards the stance they have taken. These scientists have received death-threats and are often treated the same as holocaust deniers.

The oil industry, and oil producing countries control much of the world's wealth. There must be plenty of money available from any of these areas to fund scientists who want to disprove the man-made global warming consensus, in the same way that the tobacco industry funds studies to suggest that smoking does not cause lung cancer. Scientists who do believe in man-made global warming have also reported receiving death threats, particularly in the USA.

·Environmentalists are trying to kill the African Dream and are trying to stop developing countries develop.

Nobody is stopping African countries from developing for environmental reasons. The reasons they do not develop are political and economic.

·4 million children die in Africa every year because of smoke inhalation from the wood and dung that families burn inside their huts because they do not have electricity. Environmentalists are causing these deaths because they are preventing Africans getting cheap electricity.

Environmentalists are more concerned with the developed world's emissions and no-one is preventing African citizens from doing as they please. Developing countries are not part of the Kyoto treaty, or any other emissions control agreement. Even if these countries could afford to build large coal-fired powers stations AND build a national grid to connect every remote township, village and shantytown, the residents would not be able to afford to pay for the electricity. Even if they could, they would still need to buy the appliances, such as electric cookers, to avoid burning wood indoors. Proper chimneys and ventilation would be the best way to prevent deaths from indoor smoke inhalation.

·In an example the programme gave of an African Health clinic, the two solar panels on its roof could power either the lights or the refrigerator, but not both at the same time. Solar power is very expensive and Africans are effectively being prevented from having electricity by being priced out of the market.

Much of the renewable energy devices in remote African villages, such as solar panels, are supplied free of charge by Western citizens and businesses. This is because individuals and companies can offset their carbon emissions by purchasing solar panels and wind turbines for use in poor countries. So, whilst solar power is an expensive way of generating electricity, it is often free for African villages. Traditionally generated electricity would have to be paid for. Also, even in the developed world, it is often cheaper for isolated or remote properties to generate their own electricity from wind turbines or solar panels, because the cost of building a power line for tens of miles over rugged terrain to connect the property to the grid would be much more expensive.

Do not be swindled by this programme!

~ Paul Egan, 12th March 2007.

External Resources

Review by George Marshall, Executive Director of the Climate Outreach Information Network

Review by William M. Connolley, Climate Modeller at the British Antarctic Survery

Review on RealClimate.org: Swindled

The Programme's Graph of Solar Activity versus Temperature in the last 100 years

Cosmoclimateology - Tired Old Arguments in New Clothes

Carl Wunsch Responds to the Misrepresentation of His Words in The Great Global Warming Swindle

Modified Truth - A Report on Filmmaker Michael Durkin

Cambridge University Student Newspaper (The Varsity): global warming is primarily a man-made problem

The Guardian's Zoe Williams Comment

Channel 4 (contradicting its own documentary)

In the Green, Imperial College