One of the very first global warming films: 'The Greenhouse Conspiracy'

The Greenhouse Conspiracy (1990) A “Channel 4” documentary, was recently added to YouTube (h/t to Leo Hickman) Video follows. It is interesting to see what was being said 25 years ago in the context of what we know today. On the day it aired in August of 1990, the Sunday Times ran a 3,000+ word feature story by Hilary Lawson, the program’s producer and presenter.

climate-conspiracy-article-times-1990

Of course, if that program ran with that title today, the incompetent and serially abusive Stephan Lewandowsky and his collection of SkS bots would be all over it with “Moon Landing denier” accusations.

Producer & Director: Hilary Lawson

Scientists featured:

Patrick Michaels

University of Virginia

Richard Lindzen

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Reginald Newell (1931-2002)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Tom Wigley

University of East Anglia

Robert Balling

Arizona University

Roy Spencer

NASA Space Flight Center

Sherwood Idso

US Conservation Labs

Stephen Schneider (1945-2010)

US Center for Atmospheric Research

David Aubrey

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Julian Paren

British Antarctic Survey

John Mitchell

Meteorological Office

Peter Jonas

University of Manchester

John Houghton

Meteorological Office

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

124 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alx
March 12, 2016 7:19 am

“I don’t put much stock in looking at the direct evidence”

Money quote in the video.
Funny that it was put in the context of being able to determine the probability of a roll of dice. These people are truly clueless as to how silly they sound.

Paul Martin
March 12, 2016 8:07 am

In case anyone wonders, I don’t think the presenter/director of this documentary has any connection with Lord Nigel Lawson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Lawson

Khwarizmi
March 12, 2016 8:16 am

Schneider’s NCAR model of the climate system – 1990comment image
Isn’t it rich? Aren’t we a pair?
Me here at last down on SimEarth / You up in SimAir
But where are the clouds?
Why aren’t they there?
Send in the clouds.
Schneider at 28:21:
==============
We take our models, and when we let the sun get higher it gets warmer, and we let the sun go away it gets colder.
I remember once talking to a U.S. congressional hearing on this, and one of the senators said to me:
“You mean to tell me you guys have spent a billion dollars of our money telling us that the winter was cold and the sun was hot?
And my answer was, “Yes sir, and we’re very proud of that!”
===============

charlie
March 12, 2016 8:22 am

Yep, nothing much has changed. CAGW was claimed to be a big crisis back then, and it’s still a big crisis now, although nothing much has happened in the intervening 26 years.How many years do we have to save the planet now?

son of mulder
March 12, 2016 9:26 am

Just watched the video. It certainly demonstrates that there has been very little “climate change change” since 1990. Also at such an early stage in the satellite era and with relatively primitive versions of climate models, it’s clear that the believers belief was either political or self serving, they are not stupid people. The data just wasn’t there to provide statistical significance. Little has changed there since except the historic data has been changed to favour warming.
The film is a great find.

March 12, 2016 10:46 am

Just watched the video. Both the scientific and the political message are completely current, here now 26 years later.
There was zero scientific evidence in 1990 that CO2 was affecting the climate, and there is zero such evidence today. Climate models couldn’t predict nothing about the future climate in 1990, and they predict future-nothing today.
All that, after some 100 billion $pent in the US alone since then. What other branch of science has cost so much and produced so little.
What other group of scientists has produced such social disruption and hatred for having been treated so well? (Academic progressives is the only other group I can think of that has acted with equal villainy.)
Politically, the hatred is just as violent as in 1990, much more public, and is now angling towards gulags for skeptics.
Of all the people interviewed Steve Schneider had the fixed stare of a fanatic, and was most obvious in his repudiation of science, saying in effect, I don’t need no stinkin’ data. His belief in climate models was as complete as the justification was absent. Tom Wigley, on the other hand, just seemed duplicitous and slimy in a composed British sort of way.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 13, 2016 1:24 pm

Tom Wigley, on the other hand, just seemed duplicitous and slimy in a composed British sort of way.
He’s Australian, just sayin’.

n.n
March 12, 2016 11:54 am

There are at least four logical, intersecting domains: science, where engineers earn their living and people pass their lives; philosophy, where we speculate about distant things; fantasy, where independent confirmation is not forthcoming; and faith, where independent confirmation is not possible.
Science is based on a frame-based philosophy that implicitly acknowledges accuracy is inversely proportional to the product of time (or just motion) and space offsets from an established reference. Its theories begin with axioms or assertions with a goal to reconcile external observations. Mathematics is indeed a science in that it begins with axioms and seeks to reconcile them. The difference can be observed in the process. While mathematics need only seek internal consistency, engineering is forced to discover external consistency, and science or the study and practice of acquiring knowledge seeks to discover principles that are internally, externally, and mutually consistent.

Reply to  n.n
March 12, 2016 12:43 pm

Science is not axiomatic. Theories are always under-determined but explicitly falsifiable hypotheses invented to explain observations.
Science has been removed from axiomatics since Galileo.

Reply to  n.n
March 12, 2016 3:49 pm

n.n
March 12, 2016 at 11:54 am
There are at least four logical, intersecting domains: science, where engineers earn their living and people pass their lives;

I may have been inappropriately “programmed” in University but we were told very clearly by both the Engineering Faculty and the Science Faculty that we were separate and distinct. Maybe that was a university territorial thing.
Undoubtedly there are Engineers with PhD’s that are scientists. When I went to school they told us we were not doing science but “applying science to real world solutions” as opposed to studying and investigating things that were not understood. Our application of science was to solve problems for people using (well understood) science (The brackets are because we often pushed the boundaries).
My “engineering degree” says “Bachelor of Applied Science”. I always liked that because that is what I did, right down to digging and drilling holes to install sensors to make things do what we engineered them to do. How they worked to produce a signal may have been science, but hooking them up to a SCADA system was engineering.
Speaking of which, off to a week of skiing in the mountains so I have just turned on my home monitoring system so I can watch it from a thousand kilometres away. Science and Engineering are marvelous things regardless of what we call them.
Thanks.

March 12, 2016 1:00 pm

This has been available on YT for ages, under the title “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.

Reply to  GregS
March 12, 2016 1:22 pm

Oops – looks like this is a different movie – apologies. I’d definitely seen this one on YT many years ago though.

Reply to  GregS
March 12, 2016 4:42 pm

“the greenhouse conspiracy” was uploaded to you tube in 1911. Better late than never.

Reply to  GregS
March 12, 2016 6:18 pm

Dan,
Other important 1911 events:
“British physicist Ernest Rutherford discovers the structure of an atom.”
“Mexican Revolution: Porfirio Diaz, president since 1877, replaced by Francisco Madero. ”
🙂

March 12, 2016 2:35 pm

Dan Harrison on March 12, 2016 at 9:22 am
Terrific post on the path the mind takes to be a supporter of the CAGW meme. I know I’ll refer to it in the future.
Thanks

March 12, 2016 4:41 pm

43:56 Body language reveals the decision to be less than forthcoming Prof Wigley.
Great flick btw …. thanks for sharing.
It’s a fine summary of the four pillars and how they crumble under fairly simple review.

March 12, 2016 4:43 pm

I saw it when it aired on the Discovery Channel decades ago. It was quickly pulled. They wanted to get it on PBS but were turned down. For years, I looked for it on the net but found only transcripts. But it’s been on YT for a few years now. It holds up great, better than the more recent “Swindle” version. For one thing, the mentions the benefits of more CO2 for plants.

VB_Bitter
March 12, 2016 7:20 pm

The song remains the same…to quote a well known rock group.
Some things change and some things remain the same…. I know cagw proponents
will say these ‘skeptic’ arguments have been debunked, But actually have they?…..From my reading they are still unknown issues and can still be argued now….. 25 years (and a lot of funding) later.
This is a pretty interesting documentary….and if it was run now would still be pretty accurate and timely.
The funding question to Wigley at CRU and the global cooling question to Schnieder and their answers are really pretty revealing I think.

clipe
March 12, 2016 7:21 pm

Patrick Michaels
“I had trouble warming up to that one too”

clipe
March 12, 2016 7:26 pm
clipe
March 12, 2016 7:52 pm

Ok, I think I’ve got how to post you tube video starting from where I want..
https://youtu.be/Z9j54rWnmeo?t=42m27s

Reply to  clipe
March 13, 2016 1:57 pm

The people have changed but the song remains the same.

Nikolai
March 13, 2016 4:23 am

Is there any online resources for the article “Lawson, H., ‘Conspiracy in the air: A cold hard look at “global warming”‘, The Sunday Times, 12 August 1990;” above? As far as I can see The Sunday Times archive only goes back to 2000 (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/sitesearch.do?querystring=%22Conspiracy+in+the+air%22&x=48&y=9&sectionId=2&p=sto&bl=&pf=all), and The Times Historical archive goes up to 1985 (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/archive/). Any idea where we can find a full copy of this article?

March 13, 2016 11:45 am

I think the chief value of this documentary is that it shows that the whole CAGW industry IS a political movement. Proof? Not a thing has changed in the science in 25 years since this documentary was produced after trillions spent on research and mitigation (w. mills and solar, etc.) How likely is it for a real science to resist learning anything new with the largest investment in research ever done on any science. Cern is comparatively a tiny investment and look at the new discoveries. The US government spent more on climate science and its industry than it did on Hubble or getting to the moon. And no progress on the science!! Only in a 19th Century political ideology movement would this be possible, not a science.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 13, 2016 11:46 am

Someone should find the producer and fund an update to this documentary.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 13, 2016 12:16 pm

+10
Crowdfund it.
+ 100
also to CO2islife (I think i remember right) idea of open source (crowd fund the server) for all climate data. I’d add same for any pharmacy health based research and certainly any chemical based tox research. You’d reign in alot of nonsense by getting a grip on climate, drug and toxicology fields.
Now, back to fishing.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 13, 2016 12:21 pm

Cash cow promoted by those that would profit. Look at the glimmer in Wigley’s eyes as he salivates over his little kingdom of 12 researchers. Btw, Wiggly the wiggle worm is an apt moniker. Yes, call me trashy.
The more this doc sits with me the more I lean towards a faux industry built up to support shakedowns executed by trial attorneys.
It’s pretty gross. Wigley is a poster child.

Dan Harrison
March 13, 2016 5:39 pm

A paragliding pilot’s simple explanation of increasing CO2 as a negative feedback on global warming
In The Greenhouse Conspiracy I observed that a negative feedback theory is well known to meteorologists and other scientists including Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser, an American Meteorologist associated with the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories for 23 years, and the Air Weather Officer for the U.S. Air Force for 20 years, who was referenced in the video with a publication on this concept. The following is a simple explanation for the layman from a paragliding pilot’s perspective.
The study of local weather effects as a paragliding pilot has led me to the conclusion that with a substantial lag of, perhaps several decades, an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere may have a net cooling effect globally through a series of local weather related mechanisms.
As a cross-country paraglider pilot I’m always looking for lift in the form of atmospheric thermals to keep me airborne. And lift is all about local weather. The sun heats some types of terrain faster than others, the heated air rises and the Paraglider goes up in these thermals. We can actually fly many miles cross-country this way without landing and without motorized power.
Consider what happens to local weather with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. We’re already seeing it. Vegetation explodes everywhere even into former desert areas. As plant life flourishes the local terrain is modified. (1) Plant debris accumulates becoming peat and topsoil. (2) This plant debris, peat and topsoil absorb rainwater, which would otherwise have been lost through drainage. (3) Water that is transpired during photosynthesis, possibly together with some of the water that has previously been absorbed by the peat and topsoil during dryer periods, evaporates into the atmosphere. (4) This vaporization of liquid water requires 586 calories of heat energy per gram of liquid water and makes undergrowth below the forest canopy even cooler during the heat of the day than the canopy shading alone.
So far there’s nothing new here. Nor is what happens next, although the specifics are less well understood by the layman. Water vapor added to air decreases the density of the air into which it is mixed—as molecules of H2O are lighter than O2 and N2, but the loss of 586 cal/gram to vaporization simultaneously decreases the temperature of this mixed vapor/air. The net result is that this moister forest air after further heating will rise in thermals later in the day. But it’s very important to note exactly how and where these thermals rise.
In more barren local landscapes, on the outskirts of a forest for example, the air near to more exposed ground is warmed faster and to a higher temperature by the sun than the nearby forest, thus reducing the air density in barren terrain through rapid heating. This exposed, hotter, less-dense air is easily triggered to rise as thermals, and is immediately replaced by humid air drawn out of the nearby forest, which is in turn heated and rises too creating a circulation that takes forest moisture to higher elevations to form clouds. (Note that the return circulation typically drops the same air, now dryer and cooler, directly onto the forest.)
Paragliding pilots have long known to avoid the areas directly above forested regions when looking for lift. But the tree line at the edge of a field is a good trigger point for thermals. Paragliding pilots will seek to find these thermals to take advantage of the lift they provide.
Once rising air has cooled—through expansion at higher elevations—to the local dew point, clouds are formed as the moisture in the air condenses. Much of this moisture will be the moisture that was transpired by the forest plant life and from water that was stored in accumulated plant debris, peat and topsoil in the nearby forests. In fact paragliding pilots use these clouds to find the lift that’s feeding them.
But as these clouds develop they block sunlight from reaching the ground. When more moisture is available from the forests to form clouds, more clouds are formed to block the sunlight from reaching the ground. The areas shaded by newly formed clouds will cool very quickly, cutting off thermal production in the shaded regions. The clouds have absorbed or reflected the sunlight back into space.
So what does this mean for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
We already know that the Earth is greening as a result of increasing CO2. And this growth in plant life is global including encroachment into formerly more arid regions. (I’ll note here that an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere makes photosynthetic plants more tolerant of dryer air. This is because the stomata, or holes, on the underside of leaves through which CO2 is absorbed and water is lost do not need to open as wide—or to stay open as long—to take in the CO2 needed for the photosynthetic process. As a direct result less water is lost through the stomata making these plants more drought tolerant.)
So this global increase in plant life, resulting from an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, may add up to a truly global effect in the following manner. Increased plant life slowly modifies the local terrain by adding carbon debris, which accumulates as peat and topsoil. This results in storage of more water, which when evaporated increases the moisture content in the atmosphere, and ultimately, increases the quantity of clouds in the troposphere. This may add up to a significant effect globally by reducing the reflectivity, or albedo, of the planet.

March 14, 2016 4:14 am

Im guessing the producer is stacking shelves in Tescos now ?

Jon
March 14, 2016 5:44 am

One interesting visual tidbit: interviews are often conducted at outdoor sites with large-scale views in the background, or in cars in cities, and more often than not, heavy, thick air pollution (ground level ozone) is clearly visible. This lines up well with my memories of that era and stands in stark contrast with the cleaner skies of today.

Resourceguy
March 14, 2016 9:28 am

Fascinating sea-ice extent chart from Richard Verney above. It fits nicely with the AMO chart of long cycle ocean temps.Taken together, the talk of a coming ice age in the 70s and major campaign of global warming that came afterward is all just ignorance of longer term cycles.

Resourceguy
March 15, 2016 8:00 am

This will be useful imagery to contrast when the Thames freezes over and the AMO is matching historic lows.

VB_Bitter
March 15, 2016 1:17 pm

Looks like Lawson did not end up at Tescos after all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Lawson

Peter B
March 15, 2016 2:55 pm

Great discussion. It seems like a Perfect Storm: govt is not going to kill a great tax; since Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power got black crosses but now comes the green tick; the CAGW meme is research grant heaven; and as Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear so well hypothesizes, fear (via climate) continues to be the management tool of choice.

March 16, 2016 3:57 am

Thanks Rick
That was an excellent link to the past.
Bookmarked.