Catastrophe Denied: The Science of the Skeptic’s Position
I have repaired the overscan issues in the DVD files and am re-posting the links, which are all good now.
Once upon a time, Al Gore had a PowerPoint deck. Several years ago, I came to the conclusion that Gore’s presentation was deeply flawed, so I made my own PowerPoint deck in response, and have been updating it ever since. Here is the most recent version
Then, Al Gore made a movie from his PowerPoint deck. He won an Oscar and a Nobel prize for his movie. Those are a bit out of my reach, so I will have to settle for actually being right. My previous movie showed my PowerPoint deck presented to a live audience, and can still be found online here. I felt the sound quality could be improved and the narration could be tighter, so I went into the “studio” to create a tighter version. The product of this is what I believe to be my best effort yet at explaining, in a comprehensive but simple manner, the science of the skeptic’s position to laymen.
I have become a big fan of Vimeo because I don’t have to break videos up into 10-minute chunks as on YouTube. The Vimeo version is here and is embedded below:
Other Viewing Options
When I get the time to break this into 9(!) parts, I will post a link here to YouTube.
You can download the 212MB .wmv file here (link on the lower right). Alternatively, it can also be found here. The .wmv is also available via BitTorrent: You can find its page at Pirate Bay or the torrent directly here.
Download the .iso file (DVD disk image) to make you own playable DVD here (beware: 1.6GB). A free tool to burn the DVD from the image is ImgBurn
The .iso file is also available via BitTorrent: you can find its page at Pirate Bay with the torrent here.
Finally, you can buy the DVD at cost, here, for $7.50 plus shipping.
Nate:
Awesome work
January 21, 2010, 3:50 pmHoi Polloi:
Hmmm.. I see already one mistake on the first slide: it’s A Critique of Mann-Made instead of Man-Made…
January 22, 2010, 6:54 ambbeeman:
Great presentation. I agree that some people will not be willing to sit down for more than an hour, and that splitting the file into the 10 minute YouTube segments will be a plus for those.
Have you thought about getting someone like John Coleman to narrate?
January 22, 2010, 11:17 amhunter:
What is this weird compulsion you have about displaying in as many ways as possible how stupid you are? The more videos you produce, the less you seem to understand. And it’s not just that you don’t understand. You’re not even capable of understanding that you don’t understand. Dopy fucking cunt.
January 22, 2010, 4:55 pmhunter (the sane one):
Keep up the good work.
January 22, 2010, 9:38 pmThe resident psycho hates it, so it is clearly even better than your typical presentation.
Jim S:
Great Job….
January 23, 2010, 8:37 amAlex M:
Good stuff, but you talk too fast, and, maybe because of this, your diction is not good. As mentioned above, there is a lot of sound information in this, so maybe it should be split into two parts, and then you would not have to talk so fast. Keep it up.
January 23, 2010, 2:14 pmChris S:
I appreciated this analysis and have passed it on to friends. Thanks for your hard work. You have done a fantastic job. Also I like the various formats.
One constructive point: perhaps a 5-10 minute summary for the attention-deficit crowd and people new to the skeptic position?
I found some of my friends don’t want to sit though the whole thing, so I end up having to summarize for them. An outline summary I think would be a big plus! and hopefully would not be too difficult to do.
January 23, 2010, 9:15 pmlyle:
Slow the hell down.
You speak way too fast. Not only too fast for listeners, but much too fast for your own mouth. That’s why you stutter, stumble and slur.
Speak each word individually. Speak the entire word, beginning to end. Then speak the next word. Try this: listen to a good professional narrator and copy his speed and cadence.
I tried to listen, and got through about fifteen minutes. Your presentation makes it unlistenable.
January 23, 2010, 9:16 pmps:
Great job. If I may ask, please, speak slowly next time. It will be much better for non native speakers. Just learn from Al Gore!
It is not only about a content, it is about selling as well. Anyhow, thanks!
January 24, 2010, 4:52 amh:
Rehearsal, editing, and attention to audio quality would make the difference…
January 24, 2010, 6:40 pmbc browser:
An excellent lecture. Thanks. I could feel a strong urge to expand on every point but I think you’ve captured it very well within those 90 minutes. That a professional speaker did not present it actually made the message more convincing to me. I am hoping more people will see it.
January 24, 2010, 9:11 pmnot-a-duck:
Fantastic analysis of the relative positions of the AGM crowd and the real cherry picking they have done to prove their pet theory. I don’t believe the scientists are trying to perpetuate actual fraud, it’s just that they are human and want to believe so badly that they have blind spots in their own methods of research. Much like those who believe they have invented a perpetual motion machine, they pick the encouraging evidence and dismiss any arguments against. In fact, it’s exactly what they are claiming the skeptics do.
Don’t worry about the nay-sayers who are criticizing your diction or pace. Apparently some people cannot separate the message from the delivery. I found your pace refreshing and easy to listen to, since I didn’t have to wait for every word. You had a LOT of information to impart, and were obviously enthusiastic about imparting it. Yes, it might be better to slow down for those of us out there who need more time to absorb the words (or those who have trouble with English in the first place.) Still, I’d rather here the enthusiasm of a well researched presentation from the person who created it, knowing that he believes in what he is doing than some Hollywood spokesperson reading from a script. You did just fine.
January 26, 2010, 8:32 ambjkrauseca:
I’m confused. The speaker spends considerable time showing that data has been biased by urban heat effects and bad station-siting and then proceeds to tell us that temperatures have risen — if the data is biased, how can wwe conclude anything?
January 27, 2010, 2:49 pmMatt:
Outstanding presentation. So easy to understand and clear. Everyone should shre this with their alarmist friends.
January 28, 2010, 2:22 pmDavid Harrington:
Nice work.
January 29, 2010, 6:21 amJoeH:
In contrast to several of the comments above, I felt the rapid pace helped keep me focused on the material. Excellent summary of the issues. Keep up the good fight!
January 31, 2010, 6:15 amPete:
Thanks for the outstanding although breathtaking presentation. At one time during your presentation you mentioned rather casually that during the latest IPCC round the process was reversed in that the summary for decision-makers was written first and the “scientific report” was put together afterwards. Being scientists myself (social sciences) I find this claim highly explosive. If this is true then we have a clear case of post-normal science which of course is no science at all but politics disguised in the language of science. In the eyes of true academics this would be the final nail in the coffin of the IPCC. So could you elaborate this a bit? Where can we find more info on this?
February 3, 2010, 2:04 amKendra:
Absolutely phenomenal! As far as sound and pace, my husband is Swiss – therefore English as second language – but he was riveted, as was I. Because of the format, it actually being in a live presentation auditorium setting, it isn’t as “easy” as the usualnarrated video, I agree.
The people I’d like to send to are enough resistant that it’d be great to have a video with everything as is, just easier to hear!
This is so far outweighed by the fact that the whole history of the controversy is presented, with such clarity that we’re very impressed. While we both already knew most of the issues, but maybe a bit disjointedly, to see it presented in such a clear logical way was a fantastic experience.
Well, I guess I’m a bit overexcited, so unable to write a soundbite about how important I think this is. I’ll be checking back for sure – your next video will necessarily have to mention the events since Nov. 10.
To other commenters – lucky you, that you have people who will look at this or anything like this, even though you have to intervene to explain or whatever. I feel like I’m swimming uphill – usually I’m fighting the usual snark when I post (my only outlet being FB, outside of a few family/friends, who “don’t get around to it.”
I guess what I’m trying to say is, keep it up!!!!!!
February 3, 2010, 1:44 pmNEILC:
Like yourself I follow this subject closely. In my opinion your presentation is the most balanced, informative and influential of anything I have seen. Great stuff.
February 5, 2010, 10:52 pmIan:
A wonderfully clear and compelling presentation. I have been reading a lot on the subject and I think you have done the best job of pulling the evidence together. Well done.
February 6, 2010, 11:58 amMikeA:
Well I looked through the slide show, and I thought it was OK. I have recently discovered that I am a ‘warmist’ but I don’t think it’s made me stupid. Warming appears to be like a 80/20 proposition to me, and I think you have captured the 20% rather well. I’d like to see all the forcings together PDO, Solar and carbon in a stacked graph. You’ve also hit the nail on the head in that it’s all about carbon sensitivity in the climate.
February 7, 2010, 1:27 pmMurano:
Where did you get all this rather massive amount of information? Your own research in your own free time? Hmmmm, maybe you got it from someone and are just reading their script? Hmmmm, I bet there is a little oil involved here. All the inconvenient truths whited out. This instead of the work of thousands of scientists. Should I be skeptical here??
February 7, 2010, 3:21 pmJohn g:
A good overview with logic about the poor cap and trade policies.
February 7, 2010, 10:24 pmWe need to protect forests and ecosystems.
We need to control many other pollutions, and stop the foolish use of land for biofuels.
Population increases are increasingly dangerous to our planet.
A carbon tax instead of payroll tax makes sense.
homesower:
Sir,
When Al Gore has all his awards stripped from him, he will lack both integrity and awards. You will still have your integrity.
I disagree with the comments about pacing. When people have lots of moving images to distract them, a slow pace is appropriate. When looking at an unchanging slide its the voice that drives the action. Should the big oil money finally flow your way and you make a true “movie” then you can add the James Earl Jones voice-over.
I had a pastor who spit out twice as many words as the average preacher. He told us we just had to listen fast. Somehow we managed just fine.
February 8, 2010, 6:21 pmBrian:
Thank-you very much for this.
Maybe we can take some of Gore’s prize money and give to you….
Brian
February 8, 2010, 8:48 pmRoger:
Comprehensive, balanced and logically developed argument. A pleasure to read; thank you.
Roger
February 9, 2010, 3:36 pmfebruary 9 2010, 2235
Charlie:
Great job.
I’m a retired scientist who supported the global warming position until a colleague working in environmental research straightened me out several years ago.
You have an excellent balanced presentation of both the scientific and political issues involved. I will now be able to better understand the global warming debate as it develops.
February 9, 2010, 9:27 pmHazel Macmillan:
How much I would like you to come to the Highlands of Scotland where everything it seems has been skewed to fit the dogma of hyped Global Climate Change or Warming. The saddest thing is that the additional collective worry over this process is eroding confidence in an already recession-based poorer community here. I have seen small signs of exasperation in the ever more shrill messages of Gore et al, it is starting feel like they protest too much. Very many thanks for making so much progress in presenting and distilling the arguments plus the evidence in such a lucid way.
February 11, 2010, 5:52 pmHans (Denmark):
Perfect! – I don’t agree with the comments about the speed being too high. We live in a fast world and you can always go back.
February 12, 2010, 2:51 pmI encourage you to make a “part II”, where you could expand on analogies with financial modelling, Ockham’s razor, newer data, the need to return to old-fashioned environment protection ideas, etc; I sense that you have some more common sense insight to share!
Steve:
Minor point about needing to show that CO2 causes warming to show that man causes climate change. What about “ocean acidification”? The scare monger are trying to build that one up too.
February 13, 2010, 12:37 pmJOHN DOUGLAS:
Speach delivery rate is related to IQ this Guy is very bright
February 13, 2010, 1:15 pmMax Beran:
Small niggle (but doesn’t detract for me from the overall excellent presentation). On several occasions you say something along the lines that methane and water vapour are much more powerful greenhouse gases than CO2. In fact molecule for molecule they are all rather similar. The reason why water vapour is more powerful is that it is much more abundant (at least in the troposphere) and absorbs over a wider spectrum. And the reason why methane is spoken of as more powerful is that it is present in much lower concentration so is in a much steeper portion of the logarithmic curve, i.e. the absorption lines are still far from saturated. This is counteracted by its shorter lifetime (or more properly relaxation time).
February 13, 2010, 4:49 pmYou also do not make as much as is perhaps merited by the importance of the process of the role of evaporation and condensation as energy transport mechanisms. This of itself acts like a negative feedback partly by meridional transport and partly by putting a ceiling on how warm the oceans could become.
RockyRoad:
I am really bothered with the language used by some Warmists–they abandon civility and launch into the meanest attacks possible. I’ve been on some of their sites and I don’t do that–it certainly doesn’t further one’s argument by leaving logical thought and becoming outright nasty. Maybe if some of the scientists identifying with the Warmists were more open to civil discussion there wouldn’t be this communication problem and accuasations of “deniers” and “flat-landers”. I think it’s a fair assumption that when expletives are used that maybe they don’t have anything else to support their position.
February 13, 2010, 5:19 pmDuncan Thomson:
Right from the beginning I have felt intuitively that the Alarmists were in fact Bullshitters. I’ve often said that the story of Chicken Little and the sky falling on our heads is a story that reveals much about human nature and the need we seem to have to want to scare ourselves repeatedly.
February 13, 2010, 7:45 pmYour presentation was the exact opposite of the crap that continues to rain down from the alarmist camp. It was logical, clear, dispassionate and believable. It also agrees closely with Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth. Global Warming: The Missing Science”. He’s another Australian who can’t stand the smell of bullshit.
Thank You a thousand times for your efforts
Twobob:
A well presented though garbled at times
February 14, 2010, 4:39 amRepresentation of the actual facts.
Al Gore presentation was for the money and award.
This was about a genuine concern to illuminate the true “facts”.
Global temperature increase in general is a good and healthy future for most of mankind.
Andy Rhodes:
Keep up the good work. It’s also good when you get under the skin of the tree-hugging leftie moronic pratts whose only pathetic childish option is to resort to abusive language because they are too stupid to understand the arguments. In the UK there is discussion about trying to prosecute the perpetrators of this apalling climate change scam.
February 14, 2010, 12:36 pmHuevo:
Hi Warren,
I’m a climate activist (“alarmist”?) and I’m glad to see such a well-thought-out, carefully composed presentation. Too much of the debate, especially among politicians, tends to be either completely ignorant of science (see, for example, Utah’s recent declaration that it’s all a conspiracy) or complete alignment with lobbyists (see Waxman-Markey). I think you arrive at the wrong conclusions for your first four “Key Climate Questions,” especially about the human scale of impacts in the case of catastrophic warming, but let’s NOT get into that now. We could argue for hours, but commenting is a pretty inefficient forum in which to do so.
What I’m really struck by is that we end up arriving at the same conclusion for the fifth Key Question: some form of carbon-limiting legislation is needed. Because there’s _some_ possibility (I’d say it’s much larger than you do, but let’s ignore that) that substantial climate change could occur, some form of insurance policy is required. I tend to think that, since the energy system in the USA is far from a free market, there are significant free lunches available under a carbon-pricing scheme. (But again, we can ignore this debate for now.)
I should also note that I agreed with your critique of the climate debate creating distractions: other pollutants are being de-emphasized, especially in China, where coal is booming. And no one, outside of the uninformed, the corn farmers, their industry, and their congressmen, thinks that corn ethanol was a good idea.
Moving forward, where’s our common ground? When there’s a carbon-pricing scheme implemented, we want it to be transparent and simple. We don’t want big government and big business to hijack it, siphoning off the taxpayers’ wealth. We don’t want it to unfairly benefit lobbyists and special interests, nor to disproportionately harm the poor. So both you and I reject Waxman-Markey.
Jeff Flake’s proposal was certainly interesting, since it’s very close to what most economists think would be the IDEAL carbon-limiting solution. (Google Greg Mankiw or Robert Stavins [http://tinyurl.com/stavins]). It didn’t seem to get any momentum, perhaps because both Democrats, tied to Wall Street money, and Republicans, tied to oil and coal money, found ways to hate it. Interesting to compare to the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR act, which would rebate all carbon-generated government revenue to citizens, equally. Either option would be far preferable to Waxman-Markey, which gives away taxpayer income to polluters and benefits derivatives traders.
I’m eager to see how we can move forward from here. Most citizens are upset at government-created bureaucracies, and yet real solutions that would make government and economy more efficient, while reducing carbon output, are being ignored.
I hope we can all put aside (for now, at least) our quabbles over degrees of likelihood of certain impacts, and recognize that we’re talking about common-sense insurance policies that work, regardless of the levels of climate feedback.
February 14, 2010, 12:45 pmHans (Denmark):
I’ll encourage you to include solar forcing in your world view. Various records (ice, sediments) show that there has been a good correlation between intensity of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and temperature over the last 12000 years (http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/), so we know that GCR force temperature and also the strength of this forcing (Svensmark is developing a theory for how that comes about, modulation by the Sun, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA). We also know that CO2 forces temperature, but as you brilliantly point out in your slides, we don’t know the strength of that.
February 15, 2010, 5:57 amNow, we know the CO2 concentration and we can measure GCR independently. It would seem natural to try and fit the temperature to a sum of these two forcing contributions + noise, where the noise comes from processes that we don’t understand e.g. complex ocean dynamics. We can also predict CO2 pretty well, and we can predict GCR based on understanding of the solar dynamics (the Sun is likely to be quiet for the next 30 years, i.e. there will be more GCR, and so temperature will be forced towards a cooler climate). After fitting to the past data, we can therefore predict the future. My guess is that we will see cooling from 1995 to 2040 by about 0.5 degrees, and then warming by 0.5-1.5 degrees from thereon until 2100, assuming that the Sun returns to a more normal state, and that China and India become industrialised.
Arno Arrak:
Looked at your ninety minute presentation “Catastrophe Denied.” You make it pretty clear to someone who wants to learn about global warming. Unfortunately, in common with many others, you accept the existence of the current warming as real when it is actually faked. In my book “What Warming?” I show how it was done. I started out with satellite temperature measurements and the first thing I noticed was that the supposed warming in the eighties and nineties just did not exist. What satellites do see in its place is a multi-year temperature oscillation where temperature goes up and down by half a degree but does not rise until the 1998 super El Nino shows up. There were five such cycles within a twenty year period and they trace out the warm El Nino and cool La Nina periods of the Pacific ENSO system. You can find them even in land-based records going back to 1860 that have not been homogenized by a running average. They have existed since the Panamanian Isthmus rose from the sea and are expected to exist for the foreseeable future. But there are irregularities and the super El Nino is one of them. It was caused by a storm surge in the Indo-Pacific region that brought a mass of warm water to the start of the equatorial countercurrent in the Western Pacific. Flow of the countercurrent carried it to South America and as it hit the coast it created the super El Nino we saw. I have a beautiful picture of this in my book. Its temperature rose twice as high as that of a regular El Nino and this made 1998 the warmest year of the century. Its warm water lingered near the coast and made the next regular El Nino 0.2 degrees higher than the rest. The La Nina that followed was abortive, did not bring cooling, and a six year warm period I call the twenty-first century high followed. That was the aftermath of the super El Nino. All this finally ended with a real La Nina cooling in 2008, the one that Kevin Trenberth of CRU could not understand in his Climategate email. Its appearance signifies the resumption of the climate oscillations that existed in the eighties and nineties. The next El Nino is now almost here and the fantastic warming from computer models has been cancelled. But back to the eighties and nineties. NOAA, NASA (Land-Ocean) and Met Office (Hadley Centre – HadCRUT3) all show a steadily rising temperature during this period. How can this be? When you put one of them, say HadCRUT3, next to the satellite temperature curve you see what is going on. First they cherry-pick the high points of the El Nino periods and then raise up the low La Nina temperatures in between. This way a horizontal temperature curv becomes a rising temperature curve. But this only works with the first four El Ninos. The fifth one is too low so they raise it up by a tenth of a degree. They gratefully incorporate the super El Nini which is next even though it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. But the twenty-first century high is too low for them so they raise it up too. NOAA is worse: while HadCRUT3 retains the much-reduced La Nina valleys between the El Ninos they stay with the peaks and jettison all low temps in between. NASA starts out like HadCRUT3 but they don’t have the nerve to change the peaks so they are all in place, and so is the start of the twenty-first century high. Only the super El Nino is off because they can’t measure it well. This is not what climate scientists should be doing. It is called scientific fraud and should be investigated. And since three organizations are involved it is also a criminal conspiracy and should be internationally prosecuted.
February 15, 2010, 8:17 amMrMr:
Wow! Great presentation. I really appreciate it. (and I liked how fast you spoke)
I wish you had discussed more about the Sun’s effect on global temperatures. Intuitively it would seem like the Sun would have the greatest effect on Earth’s temperature deviations.
February 16, 2010, 9:08 pmjohn oconnell:
Very thought out presentation.The climate debate or globle-warming or whatever you want to call it is destroying the environmental issues of true meaning!!!! land use,its so nice to here someone anyone talk about it. The ‘conservation’
February 17, 2010, 3:12 pmissues that are most important are being sufficated by the endless talk about “climate change”.Keeping the few open spaces left protected from development is a much more important issue to true evironmentalists!!! The encrouchment of mankind into whats left of the wild is the worst thing that could ever happen to this planet.What happened to defending habits of the great animals and trees of this world as the first and foremost mission of the movement.Not against the tempature but the very real threats of logging,strip-mines and dummping waste in the oceans!The other biggest threat is population control the taboo subject no one will talk about because it brings up real issuses about abortion and birth control.Things no pollitition wants to bring up.Not even Vice President Gore.Maybe I am just an old hippie but to all who want to help the planet be you a sceintist or ditch-digger do what you can in your lives to help the real threat,leaving untouched spaces for the creatures we share this planet with.Not the theoretical threats of globle-warming.
Ted L:
This is an excellent “early college level” presentation. I actually appreciated your presentation rate, since slow and ponderous speakers (like Al G) tend to put me to sleep while I am waiting for their next thought. Just a little joke (very little)… When you were talking about the “assumptions” used in the Global Warming models, I thought it might be fun to refer to algore-ithms. Har.Sorry.
February 17, 2010, 7:40 pmRG:
Very informative analysis of the whole climate change topic. Judging from the reaction of the hunter: (an ugly ad hominem attack) you have discovered a gold vein or in other words a Truth that acts as a red muleta on “warmists”.
February 18, 2010, 3:46 amGood work.
CF:
Very thorough at the popular science level. Just what most people need to help them through the maze of acronyms and statistical jargon. I am like most non-scientists, trying to get a balanced picture of this issue and so far have not been able to square the high level of alarm with my own intuitive sense of the history of the ebb and flow of climate over geological time. I was enlightened by your discussion of positive & negative feed back systems and tend to agree with you that negative feedback forces probably are more dominant with regard to climate cycles. I have always had the long range view that ‘catastrophe’ was too strong of a word, implying too short of a time frame for world-wide climate changes. I’m guessing that as sea levels have risen and fallen over the last several thousand years that our ancestors, generation-by-generation have just moved up and down the hill to keep out of the water as needed. There certainly are negative aspects of living at or below sea level but these are not really climate change issues. Thanks for a basic, understandable summary. Seems like there should be grand money available for this sort of work.
February 18, 2010, 11:30 amCF:
Very thorough at the popular science level. Just what most people need to help them through the maze of acronyms and statistical jargon. I am like most non-scientists, trying to get a balanced picture of this issue and so far have not been able to square the high level of alarm with my own intuitive sense of the history of the ebb and flow of climate over geological time. I was enlightened by your discussion of positive & negative feed back systems and tend to agree with you that negative feedback forces probably are more dominant with regard to climate cycles. I have always had the long range view that ‘catastrophe’ was too strong of a word, implying too short of a time frame for world-wide climate changes. I’m guessing that as sea levels have risen and fallen over the last several thousand years that our ancestors, generation-by-generation have just moved up and down the hill to keep out of the water as needed. There certainly are negative aspects of living at or below sea level but these are not really climate change issues. Thanks for a basic, understandable summary. Seems like there should be grant money available for this sort of work.
February 18, 2010, 11:33 amphil hayward:
I had a flat near the Mediterranean coast, which I sold 12 years ago because of the threat of rising sea levels.
I still live nearby, and levels if anything are lower. All up in increased cloud, perhaps. Climate change isn’t a simple equation.
February 19, 2010, 3:58 amNC:
You hear an awful lot about AGW skeptics being “anti-science” but, whether you agree with the conclusions or not, this is a straightforward and logical explanation of the position. Funnily, you can’t find a flip-side to this video, one that defends specifically against skeptics in a point by point fashion and that simply describes how + feedback warming is supposed to work and jibe with past stability. I can’t find it anywhere. I’ve looked many times, and whenever I do all I find is lists of petroleum companies who’ve given money to so-and-so, or websites and books with helpful suggestions for how to decrease my carbon footprint. And I’d VERY much like to FIND the mainstream defense since I feel like I’m going crazy! What am I missing here? Why does a stable system with + feedback or sitting so near a tipping point seem so anti-physical to me? I want to understand, but the person who’s willing to describe the mechanism seems to consider it proprietary information or something, because they’re not putting it out there. I’m an EE — a rare one who works almost entirely with analog circuits and I deal with stability issues and feedback every day. What climatologists can make themselves believe with incredible ease just seems absurd to me, and that makes me feel stupid. Circuits are a lot simpler than the climate, I know that, but does that mean I’m just too dumb to understand? Shouldn’t there be analogs between the two? And anyway, shouldn’t a complex system be even less likely to stay stable with latent positive or untriggered feedback than a simple one is (which is not likely at all)? I truly and genuinely want to know what I’m missing. Where’s the video that’s the obverse to this one? Will someone please comment with the link?
February 20, 2010, 3:11 pmwalter E:
Excellent work in a professional and sciebtific manner.
February 21, 2010, 12:40 pmHowever, I am afraid that the attempt to proof that ‘Global warming” is a non-scientific nonsense is hopeless. It is not about a science it is about a perception created by [mostly] non scientists in the minds of non-scientists. Global warming is a business of making huge money by presenting non-scientific threat and then suck money out of Governments and UN. (Just look how much UN agencies are spending on it.)
And a second reason for my doubts in success is that general public (to whom this brilliant presentation is appealing) does not make decisions based on science of facts. It is more than obvious that Microsoft windows is one of the worst SW products. And there have been a very powerful alternative -Linux (and Unix before that). But why almost all of us still using Windows?
Frank Dolphy:
you are still being ignored http://www.science.tv/videos/jonathon-porritt-climate-change.html
February 25, 2010, 7:13 amBob A:
Excellent work, this is what every American should watch!
February 25, 2010, 7:56 pmHenry C:
Warren, I really enjoyed the content of your presentation and talking fast just kept me on my toes. It seems that some people just don’t get it, man’s contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is small and that rising CO2 in the atmosphere, natural or man made is causing little if no threat to our climate. In fact there is evidence that the earth has gotten greener, probably due to more nutrition from CO2 for the plants. If CO2 were a pollutant why do commercial greenhouse operators add CO2 to the air to increase the concentration to around 700 PPM. Could it be they found out that plants grow bigger and stronger and produce more food? If the climate alarmists think that there is a consensus among scientists they should go to the US Senate web site and read the report from more than 700 scientists from around the world sent to the senate in 2007, updated in 2008 and again in 2009. It is a good place to send alarmists to open their eyes. Go to http://epw.senate.gov , then to the Minority site, then down on the left click on: Hundreds of Scientists dispute the Global Warming Alarmism.
February 27, 2010, 10:17 amE -:
Looks to be an error in this slide -
james hansen’s 1988 forecast to congress was grossly exaggerated
Comments on slide say 1998…looks like it should be 1988 -
Thanks -
E -
February 27, 2010, 10:31 amRon Feltman:
Super presentation that should be distributed to all interested persons. Telling it as it is with facts rather than fiction is a welcome change. I hope Gore gets to see this just to show how ignorent he shows himself to be. The IPCC should be required to apologize to the world for its obvious scam.
February 27, 2010, 7:05 pmRon Feltman:
Warren,
What are we going to do about H.R. 2454 which uses the work of the IPCC as justification for this bill?
February 27, 2010, 7:46 pmGrant Smith:
Excellent video. I for one say you speak at a normal pace. Had you gone at ‘Who wants to be a millionaire?’ speed we would have only answered 5 trivia questions in those 90 minutes! Time for the general public to have a coffee and start listening faster! Jeesh!
February 28, 2010, 11:17 amMari Warcwm:
Excellent! I have been reading a great deal about AGW and you are everywhere bang on target. Thank you. I will distribute it to the deluded and hope that they listen and learn.
February 28, 2010, 1:25 pmJohn Campbell:
Excellent presentation on all fronts. Very well done and very informative. I would highly recommend this presentation to everyone of an adult age.
On another note, in addition to what you have already developed, would it be possible to create a separate presentation as a sort of “how to” on combating problems with people who are so sold on the man made global warming issue that they simply will refuse to recognize the fallacy? Might I suggest using their own charts and graphs more closely as a one on one to illustrate that the argument the man made global warming devotional attempts to make with one graph or chart on one argument runs counter to the very graph or chart they attempt to use for another argumentative point? You seemed to have touched on this during the presentation, but illustrating such in a closer analysis for a short presentation could possibly be more effective in pointing this out to the masses of those who the UN and global warming pervayors have managed to garner and exploit as a cadre. I also think this method could be used as a teaser to draw more attention to your larger presentation.
Also, is there any point, possibly several points, that the graphs end at today can easily dovetail into historical past trends that would show the cyclical event if linked?
Nonetheless, well done.
February 28, 2010, 2:24 pmhamlock:
this is why the warmers wont debate their sience it simpley doesnt stack up. if only the broarder public could view your doco i feel the warmers would be under alot more pressure to improve their transparancey. GREAT WORK KEEP IT UP
March 1, 2010, 6:20 pmpeter brown:
Very good indeed…..Would be nice if one of the larger European news organizations could actually summon the guts to bring this work to the attention of the general public.
March 1, 2010, 8:07 pmTim:
hunter calls Warren a”Dopey fucking cunt.”
March 2, 2010, 7:25 amCan you say “ad hominem attack!” When you can’t fight them with facts,
you demonize the person– a typical AGW proponent strategy!
John Beare:
Just tuned-in to this web site and looking forward to watching your PowerPoint presentation. One minor quibble about the reference to Al Gore’s “PowerPoint deck”. His presentation was not made with PowerPoint. As a long-time Macintosh user I am ashamed to say that Gore’s presentation of 35 convenient untruths and exaggerations was made with Keynote, the Mac equivalent to PowerPoint.
March 2, 2010, 9:28 amTom:
Warren
I thought that the video was an excellent effort for an amateur.
More important was the content. Your explanations were clear (some would same ‘fair and balanced’)and your arguments compelling.
While some of the audience have short attention spans, the topic requires detailed analysis.
Very nice job!
Tom
PS. I split my time between Toronto and Fort Myers FL. Toronto’s average temp is 3 degrees warmer so far this 2009-10 winter and Fort Myers’ is 3 degrees cooler which proves, eh, nothing.
March 3, 2010, 2:47 amDave:
Great presentation. When I discuss my own position on climate change with friends — I’m not sure who to believe, really — I’m always attacked with the consensus. “There’s a scientific consensus,” I’m told. “They all agree that climate change is happening. Why would all the scientists lie?” It may be nice if this were addressed in your piece. I don’t disagree with your facts, but a great many scientists would. Why?
March 3, 2010, 9:42 amHarryDinPT:
Dave….Simply ask what consensus they are referring to?
I think Warren made this point very well.
If it is the consensus that: CO2 is a greenhouse gas; our society has been emitting CO2 at a rapid clip over the last 60 years; temperatures have risen over the last 150 years; and, at equilibrium, a doubling of CO2 from current concentrations would result in a temperature rise of a little over 1 degree C, then say they are correct. But, this does not lead to the catastrophic predictions we all hear about.
This piece by Richard Lindzen in the Wall Street Journal sums up the whole argument very well:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
And if you have the time….about an hour and a half….Lindzen speaking at Fermilab:
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/f.htm#
You need RealPlayer installed to watch the above.
March 3, 2010, 11:49 amGlenn:
I loved the preso. I’m a non-scientist and barely numerate, so the science tends to get mind-numbing very quickly on scientific sites. I have a couple of questions which I really hope folks smarter than me on this site can answer.
1. Given your statement that there has been no warming in the past 15 yrs, how do I square the recent public pronouncements that the last decade was the warmest on record and that ‘09 was the warmest year on record?
2. This is more philosophical. I necessarily give more weight to climate scientists and have read what Michaels, Spenscer, Lindzen and others have to say with interest. But they seem to be opposed by large numbers of scientists – Lindzen is opposed by others within MIT, for example. Other skeptics like yourself, McIntyre, the Wattsupwiththat, Monckton and others are not scientists, so with respect, I don’t give your’s or their opinions nearly as much weight as say Gavin Schmidt or Phil Jones. As well, the skeptical critcism seems all over the place, and some are inconclusive. Lindzen recently submitted and then withdrew a scientific paper he authored with Choi that was supposed to be a silver bullet because of very serious methodological challenges from climate alarmists and skeptics alike. The hypotheses about sun spots has yet to be proven, etc. As a layman, I’m forced to put my trust somewhere and I tell you, I don’t trust anyone at this point. I add to this the ‘asymmetric’ nature of the threat described by alarmists and, like everyone else, I would hate for us to be wrong in being skeptical. My question (and thanks for being patient) is, how do we resolve this conflict in opinion, given such serious impacts are at stake for acting, or potentially by not acting? I don’t think a ‘precautionary’ stance is adequate. We will either be responding insufficiently or unnecessarily if we pursue that course. What I can’t understand is why we can’t unify and resolve the science? I mean, if the holes you have found are valid, why haven’t scientific papers been submitted to prove your contentions resulting in a shift in the scientific communities point of view? It seems to me that we need to get definitive about the science here. How can we do that in a way that average guys like me and policy makers can trust?
Thanks for the great work – it helps me understand much about this complex topic.
March 4, 2010, 6:55 pmMike Aucott:
Warren,
First off, let me start by saying that I earned a Ph.D. in environmental science at large cost to myself, including going to a lot of night school classes, so that I could understand scientific literature and learn enough to let me get into the nuts and bolts of some of these important issues. I believe I can read and understand the arguments pro and con pretty well.
I agree with a couple points you make in Catastrophe Denied presentation, that a carbon tax is a much better approach than cap and trade, and that subsidizing ethanol production is a bad idea. If only we could agree on these points and move on.
However, the rest of your presentation about the current state of the science on global warming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and contains many misinterpretations and statements that are virtually certainly wrong.
The first 7 slides are OK. You agree with the basics. But, in my view, you start to veer off on slide 8, where you imply that because “CO2 has a diminishing effect as its ability to absorb radiation becomes saturated in certain frequency bands” that further increases aren’t of much concern. That it has a diminishing effect is well known. That’s why climate scientists talk of the effects of a doubling of CO2. A doubling of the pre-industrial level will very likely lead to 3 degrees C of warming, another doubling (which is a bigger absolute increase) would to lead to 6 degrees of warming, etc.
Next you talk about how small an amount 385 ppm is. Yes. But small amounts can present big problems, for example if the small amount happens to be a poison. CO2 isn’t a poison, but it has a big effect on the radiative balance of the earth. You seem to be implying that CO2 couldn’t be a problem because it’s concentration is so tiny. This seems to be a misleading detour.
Your discussion about positive and negative feedback and tipping points is good. But it seems to me you go awry after that. First of all, Gore was not at all talking about “feedbacks so high that they go to infinity” Feedbacks of the order of factors or two or three times the basic warming are what climate scientists are talking about insofar as CO2 is concerned. Some feedbacks are poorly understood, and are clearly positive, e.g. melting of arctic sea ice (an ice-free ocean is much darker and absorbs more radiation from the sun, leading to further warming). Climate models aren’t “built from the assumption” that there are tremendous positive feedbacks lurking out there. In fact, most of the climate models seem to have underestimated not only the temperature increase so far, but also sea level rise and the rate of arctic ice melt. The suspicion is that the models haven’t in fact done a very good job of accounting for non-linear positive feedbacks – i.e., things that kick in much more strongly than you’d predict from assuming a 1:1 relationship. Also, the understanding of the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 relies more on the paleoclimate record than it does on models. Ice core data going back over 600,000 years now show that when CO2 has doubled, the temperature has gone up by about 3 degrees C. through several glacial cycles. Why should the earth behave any differently now?
In slide #20 you claim that CO2 is a “very weak” greenhouse gas. You are correct that water vapor is stronger, and so is methane. (And so are exotic chemicals like sulfur hexaflouride). But this is not the point. It’s virtually certain that CO2 is the key driver of glacial and inter-glacial cycles, and earlier periods of warming and cooling. It seems to me that you are missing the point that the secondary effects that rising CO2 levels trigger are big, even though in the immediately previous slides you went through a discussion about secondary effects and positive feedback.
In slides 24 through 32 you spend a lot of time trying to debunk the hockey stick graph, claiming that the ocean isn’t warming, the earth’s temperature has been “flat” for the past 10 or so years, etc. etc. You are just wrong about all of this. The leaked email thing is really irrelevant to the earth’s temperature record; it has been blown out of all proportion and doesn’t change any of the science or the data. The hockey stick graph, showing proxy temperatures going back 1200 years has been hashed and rehashed, and it is stronger than ever. For more info on this, see http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/28/climategate-michael-mann-hockey-stick-copenhagen-diagnosis/ and http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/03/sorry-deniers-hockey-stick-gets-longer-stronger-earth-hotter-now-than-in-past-2000-years/
Your information about the urban heat island effect is presented as if it’s something new. This is old hat. There definitely is an urban heat island effect. But it’s been thoroughly dismissed through numerous studies as being a significant factor in the measurement of the recent heating of the planet. The ocean chart you show is too short in terms of time. If it were longer it would clearly show the warming trend over the last 50 years. There are all sorts of fluctuations in the ocean and the atmosphere due to the chaotic effects of weather, but the long-term records of the ocean and that atmosphere and the earth, and glaciers, and time of snow melt, river thaw, changing ranges of species, and more all show the same picture. The earth is warming, virtually certainly more than at any time during the past 1200 years. 2009 was a cool summer for much of the U.S. But the U.S. represents 1.5% of the surface of the entire planet. Globally, 2009 was the second warmest year since thermometer-based records began to be kept in 1880. The last three years have seen more arctic ice melting than at any time since records started in 1979. See http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ for some data on this. Sea level rise is in fact accelerating, and it’s probably the most robust measure of global warming.
In slide 36, you make a point about the time lag between the onset of temperature rise and the increase of CO2. This is also old hat. Contrary to your assertion, it doesn’t present a causality problem. It’s widely accepted that wobbles in the earth’s orbit bring on the warming, because these changes expose northern hemisphere areas that are important to glaciation or the lack of it to more solar energy. When the earth starts to warm slightly due to these orbital changes, it causes CO2 to come out of solution in the oceans, and the CO2 then contributes to more warming, which then kicks in some of the other feedbacks (e.g. more water vapor, more methane, ice cap melting) which amplify the warming. You mention this at the end of your discussion on slide 36, but don’t connect the dots.
There’s a lot more discussion up to and including slide 45 in which you talk about “upside down” data, etc. etc. It’s all trying to make the case that there’s no warming. It doesn’t fly. These critiques of the hockey stick chart, etc. have been gone over and over and found to be without merit. Again, see the web sites that discuss Michael Mann’s data, etc. noted above, and see the actual data on the warming from NASA or NOAA, e.g. website on the arctic above.
I’m not sure where you are trying to go with slides 46 and 47. The chart in slide 47 is a good one. It shows that indeed, without human forcings (i.e. emissions of greenhouse gases and land use change such as deforestation in the tropics) the climate would have likely cooled over the last 50 years. With human forcings, the climate has warmed. In other words, only the emissions of greenhouse gases, etc. can explain the recent warming. Changes in the luminosity of the sun, volcanoes, and other natural happenings can’t explain it. In fact, the models nail the actual temperature record when they include all that they should. This is not the result of “tweaking”. I fear you do not get the implications of this. It means that there’s no other explanation for the recent warming. And it also means that the models are very likely correct in the projections, which are that the earth will warm considerably unless we drastically cut emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases soon.
In slides 47 thru 51 there is more criticism of the models which seems to include some confusions. The flat period after WW II is actually quite well explained by the models as being due to aerosols from what was mostly uncontrolled coal combustion at the time, which released sulfates that exert a cooling effect. Also, there’s ample evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gases actually were quite significant as far back as the 1800s and earlier; in those earlier times it was probably mostly caused by methane from rice paddies, which expanded greatly as human population grew.
In slide 52 you say it’s “frankly hilarious watching climate alarmists try to deny the sun has anything to do with climate variability.” You have evidently read very little of what has actually been written about this. It’s widely agreed that the sun has an effect. It’s been well-measured for the past 50 years or so. It’s not a big enough effect to account for more than a small fraction of the warming.
In slides 53 to 55 you even get into the modeling act yourself with a combo of a “linear increase” that you attribute to “the rebound from the little ice age” and a sine wave factor that you hypothesize resembles ocean cycles. There’s no evidence offered why either of these factors are based on anything factual and therefore worthy of inclusion into a model, and this part of his presentation just seems silly.
The next few slides are mostly rehashing things you’ve already said. Slide 59 however is interesting. Thanks for including references on this page (and throughout!) I was able to track down the Paltridge paper. It is interesting. But this humidity issue is not at all settled. As Paltridge himself notes, measuring humidity at altitude is not simple, and is potentially fraught with inaccuracies. Also, it should be pointed out that a drop in relative humidity by itself doesn’t mean that water doesn’t still exert a positive feedback effect. But such a drop might mean that the positive feedback isn’t as strong. Let’s hope that’s the case! But it would be unwise to count on it. Again, the paleoclimate data very strongly argues that the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is on the order of 3 degrees C, which means water almost certainly plays a role.
Slide 60 again shows misunderstanding. It’s definitely true that methane seems to be leveling off. This is probably because sources of it, which include cows, rice paddies, landfills, are being better controlled and/or not increasing as fast as they once did, and methane has a short lifetime in the atmosphere, which means that its concentrations will stabilize because it will reach steady state. But this doesn’t negate methane as a contributor to positive feedback. The big positive feedback from methane that is worrisome wouldn’t kick in unless arctic permafrost starts to melt significantly or methane hydrates start to decompose. If the latter happens we’d see dramatically positive feedback.
Slides from there up to 84 repeat and rehash previous incorrect statements about there being no warming, sea level not increasing, etc. You make a big deal about a prediction Hansen evidently made in 1988 that hasn’t materialized. Other predictions made around then predicting warming have pretty much come true. Take a look in James Lovelock’s book The Revenge of Gaia for a chart showing 1988 predictions by climate models. The warming we’ve seen so far is on the high side of many predictions of that time.
I agree with you in slides 86 and 87! Carbon tax is a much better idea than cap and trade – as long as it is revenue neutral. I also agree with what you say about ethanol in slide 88! Subsidizing its production seems quite foolish.
But we part company again with the rest of what you conclude. Sure, there are other environmental problems. But in my view, global warming is THE environmental issue we face if we want to see our grandchildren’s children have anything like the life we’ve enjoyed. The chief impacts of the warming for most people will probably be sea level rise and drying of the centers of the continents. Going back millions of years, the earth was much warmer than today during several periods. And the sea level was much higher, as much as 250 feet higher. It’s also clear from the geological record that sea level can change rapidly. It is easy to become very upset by these predictions, and I think that’s why some people are starting to argue so loudly that global warming cannot be. Denial is kicking into high gear.
Thanks for reading through all of this. I hate to criticize anything that obviously represents a lot of sincere work. I just am virtually certain that you are off base on a lot of what you say. I recommend to you and anyone else who wants to better understand the current science on global warming a book that recently came out. It’s called The Long Thaw, by David Archer.
Mike
March 5, 2010, 8:23 pmtoby:
No, I didn’t get it.
I found the narration too fast for my comfort, so I looked at the pdf.
Pretty much a rehash of discredited arguments. For example, the assertions that “there has been no warming for 15 years”. First of all, we know that 15 years is not long enough to capture a statistically significant trend at the rate it is increasing, however if you go back to about 1979, there is a statistically significant upward trend. When Professor Jones of UEA tried to explain this to the press, his words were “spun” to reverse his intended meaning (as if he said there was no global warming at all).
On sea level rise go here http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ to see that the rate of sea level has changed from 1.7mm/ yr to 3.32 mm/year. YOur presentation does not explain the more rapid recent rise, while AGW does.
I could go on. The so-called urban heat effects (as you tired to demonstrate in Tucson) have been shown to be false.
Like yourself, I am an amateur in climate science with a technical background (statistics). Unlike you, I think the professional climate scientists are doing a great job, as is Al Gore, in trying to prepare people to hear some very unpleasant news. I make it my business to explore every sceptic argument, and I find them all to be capably refuted.
For example, at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Every-skeptic-argument-ever-used.html
I also think the scientists have stepped upon a hornet’s nest of people who fear that the need to take collective action will upset the economic balance demanded by free market ideology. These people command far more media attention than climate scientists, so they are allowed may any kind of wild claims of fraud, conspriracy etc without challenge. Unfortunately, you are one of the gullible who have climbed on this bandwagon.
I perfectly recognise your right to free speech and your own opinions. In the words of Cromwell “I beseech thee,think that you may be mistaken”. There is a lot hanging on it.
March 6, 2010, 1:09 pmMilo Wolff:
Understanding the Earth by calculating the “Carbon Cycle”.
This calculation recognizes that all the energy for life on Earth
comes from Sun energy that is processed, initially, by vegetable life
forms. The Sun energy falls onto green leaves and algae that contain chlorophyll
that converts CO2 in the atmosphere into carbohydrates during the day,
and emits O2 during the night. This is the origin of the O2 and CO2
that we breathe.
Energy for animal life (including us) arises and grows from eating the
carbohydrates of the leaves, fruit, the wood, and all vegetables of
every kind. All these then die. Dead matter,vegetable or animal, decays
and restores the CO2 of the atmosphere, completing the carbon cycle.
It becomes obvious that CO2 is essential to life. Without CO2 we are
all dead!
This calculation can also show that the Solar energy input to all
the various life forms (land and sea), far exceeds the energy of human
activities and industry (hundreds of times).
It demonstrates that billions of years ago, CO2 and H2O density were zero on an original dry barren Earth planet. The CO2 density then increased steadily along with N2, H20 and O2, making possible the growth of life on Earth
over billions of years. The slow growth of CO2, – as well as H2O – an
equally essential ingredient of life, parallels the formation of various life forms.
This calculation makes it obvious that the current fads of “Global
Warming”, “Evils of Carbon dioxide”, “Greenhouse emissions”, etc. are
popular delusions and politics. See the famous book, published by Mackay
150 years ago: “Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”.
History repeats itself.
Contributed by; Milo.Wolff,MIT retired, APS member of 50 years.
March 7, 2010, 5:38 pmEdison:
I just finished watching the video and I really enjoyed it. I took AP Environmental Class in highschool, so we talked about “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”. I think I’ll be sending a link of this to my old teacher. Just one thing bothered me about the presentation, I feel increases in crop production can also be largely contributed to better farming practices, irrigation, crop rotation, fertilization. We can protect and grow our crops in places we couldn’t handle before. Otherwise I agree on most of the speaking points you made.
March 10, 2010, 2:49 pm