Earth – The Climate Wars
The iconography of climate disaster has now acquired an almost religious inflexibility. Just as the image of the Crucifixion is inseparable from Christian devotions, the contemplation of planetary ruin is invariably attended by a set of familiar visual clichés. You’ll get glaciers slumping into the sea, polar bears looking glum, chimney stacks belching smoke, and a passenger jet shimmying into the sky through a quiver of exhaust fumes. All were present, at one time or another, in Earth: the Climate Wars, which you might take as a marker of its confessional orthodoxy. But it began with a dummy punch that seemed to suggest quite the opposite.
Episode 1 – The Battle Begins
In the 1970s the world seemed to be falling apart. From acid rain to overpopulation, ecological concerns were at the fore. And it was at this time that climate change first became a hot political issue. But it wasn’t global warming that frightened scientists, it was the complete opposite; a new ice age.Dr Iain Stewart traces the history of climate change from its very beginning and examines just how the scientific community managed to get it so very wrong back in the Seventies. Along the way he uncovers some of the great unsung heroes of climate change science, and introduces us to a secret organisation of American government scientists, known as Jason, who wrote the first official report on global warming as far back as 1979.He shows how – by the late 1980s – global warming had already become a serious political issue. It looked as if the world was uniting to take action. But it turned out to be a false dawn. Because in the 1990s global warming would be transformed into one of the biggest scientific controversies of our age.
Episode 2 – Fightback
Dr Iain Stewart investigates the counter attack that was launched by the global warming sceptics in the 1990s. At the start of the 1990s it seemed the world was united. At the Rio Earth summit the world signed up to a programme of action to start tackling climate change. Even George Bush was there. But the consensus didn’t last.Iain examines the scientific arguments that developed as the global warming sceptics took on the climate change consensus. The sceptics attacked almost everything that scientists held to be true. They argued that the planet wasn’t warming up, that even if it was it was nothing unusual, and certainly whatever was happening to the climate was nothing to do with human emissions of greenhouse gases.Iain interviews some of the key global warming sceptics, and discovers how their positions have changed over time.
Episode 3 – New Challenges
Having explained the science behind global warming, and addressed the arguments of the climate change sceptics earlier in the series, in this third and final part Dr Iain Stewart looks at the biggest challenge now facing climate scientists. Just how can they predict exactly what changes global warming will bring? It’s a journey that takes him from early attempts to model the climate system with dishpans, to supercomputers, and to the frontline of climate research today: Greenland. Most worryingly he discovers that scientists are becoming increasingly concerned that their models are actually underestimating the speed of changes already underway.
He ignores carbon dating and ice drilling which both prove the medieval warm period was warmer than today. He has ignored an awful lot of the debate, and tried to rubbish the sceptics on select examples.
Yes I am very disappointed not to hear Stewart’s take on analysis done by McIntyre and McKitrick and others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_Stick_graph) showing serious errors in the statistical analysis that suggest the hockey stick curve is an artifact of calculation.
I would also like to know his take on the fact that the raises in carbon dioxide follow temperature increases, rather than preceding them (unless I missed it).
Without addressing these two serious problems, it is hard to put aside all reasonable skepticism about anthropogenic global warming.
He went tough all that and then disproved himself in the last film. What a dickhole!
A sudden and great change in temperature 11 tousand years ago, and being only one of a dusin rapid changes, is proof that climate change is not manmade. Jeesus!
again thamk you very much. please put the high quality liks of documentary torrents. Thanks a lot.
Over population is a lie. Every person on this planet could stand in the state of Texas with 1100sf all their own.
We they say over population they mean too many undesirables like all of us common people.
Not well covered at all. Clearly biased by stating things like “there are still several scientists against global warming” (human carbon theory)… Several? Currently there are thousands a few more then several…. Pushes his agenda the entire time….
Misinformation……
Over population?
If you could build a half mile square box, you can fit every man, woman
and child on the Planet into it, and still have room to spare!
And, Human, “that means us carbon based units” Global warming, is a scam! Its big money, big business.
More jobs, for more government bureaucrats etc: means everybody pays more taxes, carbon taxes, etc:
Achem, every person on this planet could stand in Texas with 1100sf per person. The lies people believe about over population. The over population is the elite looking down on us underlings who are breathing up their air and taking up space. Have people forgotten how to do math?
Reb, your little calculation demonstrates nothing except your lack of understanding of the issues. Look back at poulation figures for pre-industrial revolution and you will see an approximation of carrying capacity post oil age (I suppose you believe that oil is never going to run out either?). The ‘elite’ looking down on you ‘underlings’ – I’ve got news for you buddy – in global terms you are the elite!
Achem – please explain to us how business is going to benefit from climate change and depleting oil reserves?
@ Paul:
Read my post properly.
Achem,
Perhaps I inferred something that I should not have. My point however is that many commercial organisations are recognising the possibility of climate change being anthropogenic and are factoring this into forward planning as a future risk.
Let’s assume however that that your belief is correct and that instead of climate change we should be simply concerned with the peak-oil scenario. Do you not think that carbon taxes are justified on the grounds that we do not pay for the real value of oil (i.e. all costs are not internalised) and that we need to start promoting alternative energy sources simply as a matter of survival?
Paul:
I agree about promoting alternate energy sources.
Then of course instead of carbon tax, transportation will be taxed and charged per mile.
The human anthropogenic co2 carbon footprint is negligible, water-vapor causes global warming, which then makes more co2.
It depends on which scientists and which computer read-out’s you want to believe.
Google, Global Warming, and come to your own conclusions.
My conclusion is, that it is a money making scam.
Achems Razor:
I think we’ll just agree to disagree on the anthropogenic contribution to climate change then. I do believe though that even if you are sceptical about this suggested link, a precautionary approach requires that you do not dismiss it entirely.
Achems Razor,
Please don’t draw your conclusions from Google. The media is controlled by a powerful biased few, who have personal interests in mind.
Look to scientific articles. They have to be peer reviewed many times before released to you. Information on wikipedia, on the other hand, could be written up by biased, unintellectual mother******. And this is from where misinformation comes.
But perhaps, as your name alludes, you’d like to keep this issue simple instead of delving deep into scientific and historical fact.
Overpopulation isn’t necessarily an issue of SPACE. It’s about allocation of resources. Hey dude, has Thomas Malthus posted to Google yet? Anyways, read about the Malthusian hypothesis.
Sorry to be rash, but I’m quite frankly surprised climate skeptics still exist.
@ WTF Mate:
You are making assumptions about where my info. comes from. I assure you it is from scientific sources. not from Wikipedia, which I agree, could be made up by anybody.
There are a great number of scientists that speak against, “human-caused”. Global warming.
I am not a climate skeptic, I do believe it is real enough, except the human footprint is negligible.
Also look into methane gas, that is far worse than co2. As a cause for global warming.
I was just ensuring you knew about the misinformation the web supplies us with. I’m glad to know you’re knowledgeable about that. Anyways… As for methane gas, the #1 source of it comes from livestock’s gas, and #2 is from decay in landfills. I would argue that each of these are definitely human caused. Our addiction to consumption of meat and consumption in general is to a completely unnecessary extent. If those few rich powerful capitalist ******** didn’t value profit over human and environmental welfare, they wouldn’t fuel–no pun intended– a society centered around unnecessary high consumption.
WTF Mate:
Correct about methane gas, check out mine and other people’s comments
on, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” here on TDF.
Global Warming is a misnomer.The correct term is “Climate Change”.Which is most definitely man-made.Not only that,it has happened before.Granted, on a smaller scale.Just take a look at Easter Island.