New Climate Short: Don't Panic -- Flaws in Catastrophic Global Warming Forecasts
After releasing my first climate video, which ran over 50 minutes, I had a lot of feedback that I should aim for shorter, more focused videos. This is my first such effort, setting for myself the artificial limit of 10 minutes, which is the YouTube limit on video length.
While the science of how CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause
warming is fairly well understood, this core process only results in
limited, nuisance levels of global warming. Catastrophic warming
forecasts depend on added elements, particularly the assumption that
the climate is dominated by strong positive feedbacks, where the
science is MUCH weaker. This video explores these issues and explains
why most catastrophic warming forecasts are probably greatly
You can also access the YouTube video here, or you can access the same version on Google video here.
If you have the bandwidth, you can download a much higher quality version by right-clicking either of the links below:
- 640 x 480 Windows media version, 86MB
- 320 x 240 Windows media version, 31MB
- Quicktime 640 x 480 version, 245MB
I am not sure why the quicktime version is so porky. In addition, the sound is not great in the quicktime version, so use the windows media wmv files if you can. I will try to reprocess it tonight. All of these files for download are much more readable than the YouTube version (memo to self: use larger font next time!)
This is a companion video to the longer and more comprehensive climate skeptic video "What is Normal -- a Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory."
Posted on January 24, 2008 at 12:03 PM | Permalink
Nice! Concise and to the point. Well done.
Posted by: Frederick Davies | Jan 25, 2008 8:31:32 AM
Is there a citation for the McIntyre & McKitrick conclusion that instrument bias may be contributing as much of 1/2 of the warming? Wasn't this something that Anthony Watt's SurfaceStations.org was integral, as part of MICHAELS and McKitrick paper?
Posted by: mccall | Jan 26, 2008 3:03:04 PM
The narrative claim for above occurs at time ~6:25!
Posted by: mccall | Jan 26, 2008 3:05:25 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.