A new video presentation from the University of Calgary on climate change has been published on the "Friends of Science" website at this link
It’s an overview of the current controversies in climate science from a skeptical point of view in a simple presentation. I’m not aware that any television station has broadcast it, however. It is quite Canadian oriented, but you get the idea. It covers the issues of climate change, with special reference to the "Hockey Stick" reconstruction.
(How Michael Mann gets away with claiming that the Hockey Stick is not important is beyond me. It really is "front and center" to the controversy, as this video presentation shows)
Particularly interesting was the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide, showing that temperature rise consistently leads carbon dioxide rise by centuries in every ice core record.
If I have a quibble with it, its that it doesn’t show enough of the supporting graphs to claims made in the video. I know (since I’ve seen the supporting evidence) that they’re there, but new viewers may not see the validity of what they are saying without seeing the supporting evidence as well.
For McIntyre and McKitrick watchers, those two appear in parts 2 and 5.
Thanks to Jeff Norman of debunkers for pointing out this site
Climate Audit 
7 Comments
John, If the new viewers of these videos have brains that are open in any way perhaps they will do a little reading.
I thought the videos were very reasonable for attracting the attention of the video generation that has seemingly forgetten about reading. If it isn’t available in a video then they probably won’t see it.
As for it being Canadian oriented, I don’t mind in the slightest if we lead the world into the light of real science. Someone has to do it.
Temperature should lead CO2 as warmer oceans are more conductive. However, as the CO2 levels rise, there is also increases of conductivity due to this. Bht Blunder here by the fake skeptics is to wrongfully assume that just because the forcing of CO2 as a green house gas is not significant compared to water that CO2 does not play another role.
Heavy math respecting tropical storm dynamics and SSTs (sea surface temperatures):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/methanehydrateclub/message/2434_
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/methanehydrateclub/message/2435
Mike
When visiting the Friends of Science web site I was prompted to look at their references and decided to re-read the late John Daly’s commentary on the hockey stick written in 2000. In light of the discussion on this web site, his article is well worth another read. I encourage visitors to this site to have another look at it.
Re: #3
I agree, but really, it’s too bad that we have two Peter H’s posting! I went back looking at it and kept wondering why Peter would urge readers to look at an article which splintered the hockey stick into 1000 pieces? I wonder if the other Peter has ever read it?
I am not a warmer, but I am not intellectually dishonest, either. I accept the Little Ice Age, but I don’t agree that it is driven by the sun. Rather, the Keeling Whorf paper more correctly points to gravity changes and the moon. In any event, the LIA cycle is no where near on track with what we see today. It is clear to this investigater that the cycle’s period has been cut in half and its amplitude doubled.
As a student of electrical signals, my concern over climate change is not runnaway warming but INSTABILITY. Anytime you have amplification that is the concern. Distortion. Instability.
What about the LIA being caused by plagues… 40% of the European farming population died off during that time… and were therefore not able to produce CO2 with their farming practices. Read Ruddiman’s paper for more info. I belive there is some merit to both sides of the “climate change” debate…
Chicken and egg.
Did the plauges cause the LIA or did the LIA cause the plauges.
Farming doesn’t generally produce CO2, it absorbs it as CO2 is plant food.