Analysis of Great Global Warming Swindle Essays

Analysis of Great Global Warming Swindle Essays Analysis of Great Global Warming Swindle Paper Analysis of Great Global Warming Swindle Paper and its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. The most up-to- date figure for the Northern Hemisphere, from EPIC (2007), is reproduced in Figure 3, which shows 12 different reconstructions. These consistently show that, for the Northern Hemisphere, the past century is exceptionally warm, and that the warmth of recent decades clearly exceeds that of the Medieval Warm Period in all cases. The United States National Academies published a report in 2006 (NAS 2006) that reviewed the published scientific evidence on surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2000 years. It found that evidence for regional warmth during medieval times [centered around AD 1 000] can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain. 1 5 Based on a review of the scientific literature, the report concluded none of the large- scale surface temperature reconstructions show medieval temperatures as warm as the last few decades of the 20th century. Very clearly, the documentary has misrepresented the early EPIC figure, and ignored all EPIC updates to this figure. The analyses published by the EPIC strongly contradict the documentary. Another such scientific inaccuracy is the claim that the rising temperatures of the planet stared to plateau around 1940 and then didnt continue to rise again until 1970, and therefore that this represents evidence that human activities dont influence the climate. This is clearly a tactic employed by the movies makers and interviewees to manipulate the audience as the logic behind this is very flawed. The years leading up to and during the second World War were a time of great industrialization for many countries in the northern hemisphere (which contains a majority of the Earths landmass), causing large amounts of carbon dioxide to be pumped into the atmosphere. This industrialization also created a large amount of pollutants that stayed in the lower atmosphere which reflect incoming sunlight back into space, thereby causing temporary cooling. These lower level pollutants, including sulfate aerosols only have residency times of a few months (as opposed to about 1 00 years for CO)1 6 and therefore arming resumes (refer to figure 1 in appendix). The current data from the EPIC shows that since then, the temperature has been increasing faster than it has in the last 1 0,000 years 17. While there were clearly many attempts at manipulations and scientific errors in the Global Warming Swindle, there were a few valid points that were made. The argument that Global warming is (in some cases) being used in such a way that keeps developing countries from the rapid development needed to create better standards of living for the general population in a valid one. It is very simple for the theory to be seed in a way that makes actions such as preventing the use of fossil fuels in developing countries seem valid, despite the fact that this often a necessary step in the development process. Developed countries currently emit a vast majority of global greenhouse emissions and the media frequently depicts countries such as China and India as the colloquially termed bad guys because they refuse to maintain the necessary reductions in greenhouse emissions. The movie showed a short clip of an interview in a hospital in a rural area of an developing countries where the power from a solar panel was Leary not enough to power the hospital. Such instances are common in rural areas of Africa where Nags, in an attempt to reduce Global emissions, install inappropriate technologies. The movie is also has a sound format in that it is in documentary style? (disregarding the validity of the points presented), and it shows clips from various different scientists and Climate skeptics in different fields. Climate change Skeptic Bicorn Lombard has been criticized for using very few researchers belonging to a very narrow spectrum of fields to validate his clams 8. In comparison, The Global Warming Swindle has resented a decent number of sources and experts. The general format was also such that it intertwined interviews, narration and visual aids. This method is quite effective in maintaining the interest of the audience throughout the movie. The inaccuracies presented in AY Gores An Inconvenient Truth needed to be responded to and the general idea of creating a documentary to address this issue was a good one. AY Gore only barely presented the other side of the argument and there are some very valid cases relating to the fact that Global Warming may not have anthropogenic causes. In fact, if the Global Warming Swindle is correct in its assertion that Global warming isnt manmade then there really isnt much that can be done and our resources really would be better spent elsewhere and any real action would mean convincing every nation on Earth to cut down on fuel emissions-which data suggests, is unlikely. Despite these valid points, arguments can be made to the contrary, especially with consideration to their presentation and the omission of certain information. The Global Warming Swindle implies that there are official expectations for developing countries to cut emissions by the same amount s developed countries. This isnt true. The Kyoto protocol explicitly stated that there was nothing expected from developing countries in this regard 19. This was yet another attempt to manipulate the audience into believing the producers agenda. The inclusion of this fact may have made the movie seem a little more credible and balanced but this information is Omitted. For the most part, it is now understood that economic development has to go hand in hand with climate policy. There is currently no legitimate environmental movement that says that the worlds less developed should have their access o energy restricted. There is also a very valid argument to the effect that sustainable development is a possible route towards economic development. Regardless, even if sustainable development doesnt occur, the use of fossil fuels for development in developing countries wouldnt have a significant effect on the environment. Costs estimate that the upper bound for the annual cost of emissions reductions consistent with the stabilization of CO levels would equal about 1 % of the worlds GAP by 205020. This shows that, despite the cost, continual development is possible and that these actions will reverent the possible occurrence of Global Warming related phenomena that could have a detrimental effect to global development. The issue about how scientists now use the theory of manmade global warming to fund their research is completely true. On the other hand, this is not a new phenomenon. In order to prove or disprove a theory, scientists need to find sources of funding for their research. Obviously using arguably the most in vogue scientific issue of our time is an easy way to get funding. Before the theory of Global Warming was being researched, scientists still had to present their research and find modes of funding. Therefore using this as a way to argue that Global Warming isnt the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases seems a weak argument that is rather off topic. The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science. Skepticism in science is a healthy thing, and the presence of orthodox scientific skepticism in climate change is ubiquitous. Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views.