“The Great Global Warming Swindle”: Response by Geoff Wexler

“The Great Global Warming Swindle”: Response by Geoff Wexler
rtfhtml

This programme shows that artificially created CO2 is not the cause of global warming. This is a remarkable achievement considering that so much research on the attribution problem points to CO2 as being the main cause of the last thirty years global warming. It had looked as if the alternative explanation based on sunspots was not doing at all well during the last few years because the sunspots had leveled off whereas the temperature had just kept rising. So what was wrong? The idea behind the new approach is quite revolutionary, it involves overthrowing the calendar, the evidence and the physics.

No, it is not 2007 now as you have been told. The date is now 1975 or 1988 depending on which source you use. Applying these corrections has the effect of removing most of the contentious warming from the data. What’s left correlates quite well with the length of the sunspot cycle especially if you start with an obscure set of temperature data , pull it about a bit and attribute it to NASA for the sake of familiarity. Going back in time there was a shortage of sunspot data, so it is convenient for educational reasons to make it up. After all, it makes it easier to see the relationship between the two curves if they coincide completely.

This programme is exploiting the trust which people tend to have in Channel 4. Many people justifiably believe that graphs are not normally faked and that people introduced as as scientists do not normally deliberately misinform. It is important that skeptics should be allowed the space to express their disagreement with the consensus. What is unacceptable is that journalists with an agenda of their own should be allowed to present a distorted and censored review of the data and the arguments with which they disagree. This is especially important when considering the fact that this censored information has probably not been supplied before on televison and certainly not in this series.

I show how this programme achieves a propagandist objective by the way it frames its interviews and the way it excludes information about the consensus theory. The programme asserts that CO2 is normally assumed to be the cause of the warming, thus censoring out all the research on this problem. Physical Climatology is based on the understanding of mechanisms not just on correlating patterns in time, although you would not think it from this programme. In addition I include evidence, produced by others, that the data used by this programme for making such correlations, is out of date, suspect or even manipulated by the programme makers.

Full Document here:

rtfhtml