An inconvenient truth.... or lie?

Hi HyroglyphxA good topic to raise. I have a hold load of issues about the whole Global Warming/Climate Change bandwagon.Firstly, I want to be clear I've no problem accepting the basic theory that industrialisation is increasing carbon dioxide levels and that this could lead to a greenhouse effect.However, if we really are causing such a rapid increase in average global temperatures that it will cause a huge rise in sea levels during this century, it would be the biggest disaster in modern history. So why is it so hard for the public to get hold of firm data? Why is all the information we get about Global Warming only in soundbite form? Why have the politicians and scientists riding on the bandwagon not deigned to provide the public with a straightforward account of exactly what they have discovered and how they discovered it?This whole leaking of secret email business perfectly sums up the problem. Why does anyone need to be secretive about the climate in the first place, unless there is an agenda to control or deceive the public?There's no doubt that Global Warming has reached religious status. All we hear are the mantras: "Global Warming", "Climate Change", "Greenhouse Gases". Anybody who questions these things is considered a heretic. Ask for any detailed information, and suddenly the whole thing becomes a lot more fuzzy. Sounds unpleasantly familiar to me.On TV last week I heard the leader of the Green Party in UK agree with the sceptics that during the past 10 years global temperatures had not risen above average. Yet she said the climate was still getting warmer!?! OK, so care to explain HOW? Where are the facts and figures backing up your claims? Why all the secrecy?These people treat the public like complete idiots.Unfortunately, most of the public are complete idiots. Which is my other big gripe on this issue. Most people prattle on about how eco-friendly they are when they haven't got a clue. I swear I heard someone say this on TV the other day when they were asked what they were doing to be eco-friendly. She said (very smugly):"I help the environment by driving a small car."The stupid bird-brain. You don't "help" the environment by driving ANY car! A small car damages the environment, only slightly less so than a larger car. There isn't some magic cut-off point where cars above a certain size are all damaging the environment while cars below that size actually help the environment. Yet it's clear most people seem to have been brain-washed into thinking that's the case.On another TV show an equally smug couple proclaimed how they'd made sure their (massive) new house was eco-friendly by installing low-energy lightbulbs. Fortunately, the presenter had the sense to point out that they had installed 80 (eighty) of these light bulbs in the ceiling of their living room alone!In the paper a few months ago, there was an article "proving" the effects of Global Warming. It showed 2 satellite photos of the Arctic ice cap. One was in September 2009, the other I think was September 1979. The 2009 photo showed a much smaller ice cap. This apparently proves Global Warming. Whoahya! Hold on a second - no dates on those photos. So one could have been taken on Sept 1, the other on Sept 30. I'd be willing to bet there's a big difference in the extent of the ice-cap between the start and the end of September. Also, no photos from other years. Maybe these were 2 exceptional years and there is no pattern of change.To summarise, please could we have proper facts and evidence presented to the public on this issue. If the facts and methods were out in the open, there wouldn't be all this controversy would there?Glad I got that off my chest.

Spot on!Ben Goldacre talks about this in his book "Bad Science". He says the problem stems from the fact that journalists are mainly gradutes in humanities and have very little understanding of or respect for science. And they seem to think that the public are as ignorant as they are (which we agree is largely, but not totally, true), so they can get away with terrible reporting of science.However, he goes on to point out that they don't think the public is that ignorant about economics, politics or sport. If you read the economics or politics section of even a tabloid newspaper, it is normally written on the assumption that the reader is very knowledgeable on the subject. Yet many people are very ignorant of those topics too, and wouldn't understand the articles.Never seen South Park. Any good? Is it a bit like The Simpsons? Never seen that either (honest).

jacortina Thanks for the links. I checked some of them out and they are actually a lot better than the information provided by the Met Office here in UK the last time I checked.You make a fair point, and I accept it is easier to get hold of certain data than I implied.However, my point was really meant to be about the way the data is presented to the general public by the media and, more importantly, by the government - at least here in UK. I think that when the governments are trying to change the way we lead our lives (well, at least putting on a pretence that they're doing that) and taxing us left, right and centre in the name of the environment, they owe it to us to present the facts properly. A major, major issue like this should at least warrant an official booklet explaining what data the government is working by to draw its conclusions and make its decisions. It shouldn't be necessary to go trawling through dozens of independent websites to try and piece together the facts.I don't think it should be difficult to put together a simple document that any intelligent person could understand that would explain how the data is gathered, how reliable it is, and what the indications are. And which also sought to explain such anomalies as why temperatures were so much higher in the 90s than during the past decade, because that doesn't make any intuitive sense as industrialisation and CO2 output must have increased during the past 10 years. There may be a perfectly good explanation for this. I'd like to hear it. When you don't get any explanation for this, or when you're regarded as a heretic just for questioning certain things, that naturally leads you to be sceptical.I reiterate that I don't want to be sceptical; I'm a thinking open-minded person who likes to see facts presented properly.

You're probably right than no organisation publishes its internal emails. But why was there such a fuss about these emails being leaked? Why give a toss if there's nothing to hide?I reiterate that I've no problem accepting the principle of greenhouse gases causing global warming.It's this whole shifty attitude that I don't like. On one hand we get dogma telling us "Global Warming! Climate Change! Temperatures rising by x degrees! Sea levels rising by x metres!" and then when you peer behind the scenes or ask questions and they don't like it.Why not?! Who are these people serving if not the public?

No, but I don't use taxpayers money to do research for the government which in turn is supposed to be working solely for the benefit of the public.It's not the fact that they didn't publish these emails in the first place. It's the fact that they made such a fuss about the emails being published. Why, why, why?

Having read Hooah212002's message 68, in which an explanation is given of the way the content of the email was taken out of context, I fully accept your argument.In the larger picture of this whole subject, though, I do still feel that the way the scientists, politicians and media present the facts to the public is appalling. It really does come across as though they're all riding not so much a bandwagon as a gravy train. If the worst-case predicted scenarios unfold, we really are in trouble and the quality and urgency of information that is forthcoming is disgraceful.The way they are all behaving doesn't reflect the reality they claim they are trying to portray. This point is expressed much better than I could by Dominic Lawson in today's Independent newspaper:Dominic Lawson: Roll up, roll up for the great Copenhagen emissions-fest | The Independent | The Independent

An entirely valid point.But there is a big difference in the relevance of the information. The public awareness of truth about subjects such as evolution, or the expansion of the Universe, etc, is not directly and urgently relevant to peoples lives in the same way that the many of the scenarios predicted by climate change is.When the HIV/AIDS problem arose in the 80s, there were huge campaigns from health organisations and governments around the world to compile the facts and present the public with clear information and advice. Sure, there may well have been mistakes and controversies (and still are some) but I don't recall governments faffing about and having massive conferences every few years to discuss the problem. They got it sorted. We need the same kind of positive action about climate change. It's the faffing about, the vagueness, etc, on one hand, combined with dogma on the other that causes people to be confused or sceptical, not only about the facts but about the true intentions, competence and sincerity of the authorities.

TazI have already told others I accept the argument you make. I wasn't fully aware of all the details of this issue and maybe jumped in a bit early - living up to my name.I will however stand by my position that the scientists and politicians don't do themselves any favours on this issue by the way they present, or fail to present, the information to the public. You talk about theft and invasion of privacy, and of course I don't mean to condone the way this information was taken and leaked, but these scientists are using huge amounts our money to carry out research on what is supposedly a problem of urgent and potentially catastrophic proportions. They are supposed to be working to save our cities and in some cases whole countries from being permanently flooded in the next few decades!If that really is the case, there should be a formal state of global emergency! Why isn't there? Why are they more paranoid about people reading their emails than investigating the problem they are paid to do?If they were much more upfront and clear with the public about the information they have and the measures that need to be taken, they wouldn't leave the door open for others with an agenda to cause this kind of uproar.In a previous message I compared the global warming issue to the HIV/AIDS issue a couple of decades ago. In the latter case there was a quick no-nonsense approach. The science was quickly collated and the public were well-informed with the hard facts.Yet we're now talking about an imminent worldwide catastrophe and what do the scientists and politicians do? They flock in their tens of thousands from all over the world for a jolly in a pretty Scandanavian town, travelling with fat expenses accounts by dozens of private jets and hundreds of limousines. What's the first thing they have to say about the imminent catastrophe? That the Maldives may disappear? That hundreds of millions of people around the world are about to lose their homes and property? No. They say: "don't look at our emails."Well they can fuck off. In this situation they are our emails, not theirs. I can empathise with others. I can empathise very well with millions (including myself) who would lose their homes if the sea level rises by as much as they are saying it could. That's why I've been willing to pay them thousands to do their research. But when they think the priority is to whinge about someone reading their emails they really are taking the piss.

I made it clear in my first posts on this issue that I am quite prepared to accept the theory of global warming. I am open-minded on accepting the scientific evidence.What I do have a problem with is the way the scientists, politicians and media who support the theory of global warming present the evidence to the public. Among other things, this has led a large section of the public to accept the general idea of climate change and global warming, but to completely misunderstand the implications.It's no good the scientists, politicians and media just constantly talking about the problem. They need to take real emergency action. And they should have started this at least 10-20 years ago. But instead they have faffed about and left the door open to others to seize upon the confusion and create controversy.We've all seen maps of the world showing the predictions for rising sea levels and flooding during this century. Huge areas of heavily populated land around the world that will either disappear under the sea or be regularly flooded. Now imagine if the cause of that was attributed not to global warming but to a terrorist group. We'd be spending billions and billions bombing the shit out of every Arab country, and at home we'd have our personal liberties impinged upon even further. I mean, just look at what happened on the basis of the flimsiest evidence for WMD in Iraq. So what has been done in the face of much greater evidence for a truly global catastrophe - virtually nothing. And all the big-wigs are doing is having another nice little jolly in a quaint old city.It's the discrepancy between the absolute assurance expressed on one hand that we face a global catastrophe - and the anger directed at anyone who suggests otherwise, as in this email incident - and the total lack of real action on the other that causes many to be sceptical or to at least question whether or not these big-wigs really believe what it is they're telling us.

Hi Taz What you are saying doesn't agree with what the scientists and politicians are telling us. They're telling us that we must and can change what we are doing, that there is still an opportunity at least to limit the extent of the damage; it's just that they're not actually taking the drastic actions that are necessary to stop the disaster they're talking about. (Obviously it's the politicians' role to take the necessary measures.)Their namby-pamby measures, such as raising taxes or offering modest incentives for people to insulate their homes better, are next to useless. To prevent a global catastrophe they need to introduce proper emergency procedures similar to those that they wouldn't think twice about in the face of war, terrorist threats, or a pandemic.

Thanks for your link. I'll check it out when I get a chance. I'm sure you're right that there are some good and reputable sites. The difficult thing for laypeople is knowing which are the best and most reputable sites. This is why I think the government is at fault (at least here in UK - I don't know what other governments are doing). If we really are facing a global catastrophe the laypeople should be given clear evidence and advice directly from the government; we shouldn't be expected to trawl thousands of sites on the internet to work out what's going on. I think this affair has shown a weekness in the value of the internet. Lazy officials use it as a referal instead of collating the evidence themselves and presenting it to the public alongside their policies. I looked at the UK government website again recently and, to be fair, it is a lot better on this issue than it used to be, but they still had links on the government site to people pontificating on YouTube. I don't consider that to be acceptable. If the government can't explain everything themselves, it gives me the impression that they don't really understand the issue, which in turn leads me to suspect that their related policies will either be ineffective or downright devious. Then again, why would I expect anything else!