The Great Global Warming Swindle

[dlkenny]

Just thought I'd post this for anyone who might be interested. It's a documentary video by the BBC and includes many very highly respected scientists, some of whom were IPCC scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk...related&search=

[PolyNewbie]

Great show, great experts. Watched it Saturday. Everyone has to see this before they use global warming to create another system of control.

[dlkenny]

Note that they never once deny climate change but they've got some serious evidence that opposes the CO2 theory. According to these guys the greatest carbon sinks in the world are the oceans and the oceans emit CO2 when heated and absorb CO2 when cooled. Therefore as the sun warms the earth the oceans warm and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, hence the correlation between the rise in temperature and the rise in CO2 levels. What I find interesting is that I've never before heard anyone explain that the rise in CO2 levels lags behind the temperature rise, this like they say in the video adds serious doubt to the theory. Also, they clearly show that the changes in the Earth's temperature is very closely linked to solar activity and not so clearly linked to CO2. Watch the video, I found it very informative.

[Charles Anthony]

There are more than one Global Warming threads that are currently active. It is not necessary to create a new one.

[dlkenny]

My apology, I put this on and then was reading the following post on global warming and posted it there as well. Next time I'll watch for other related posts.

[Topaz]

There are more than one Global Warming threads that are currently active. It is not necessary to create a new one.

I guess people need to use their eyes, ears and common-sense when dealing on this subject. Some scientist are right and some are wrong. Watch the poles melt and if the oceans do come up to a higher level than you will see alot of the island in the world disappear. I think man has added to the problem when we enter into the "Industrial Era" and with the tech of today. I hear a someone say that when 9/11 happened and no planes were flying, the skies over the US become bluer and clear.

[Martin Chriton]

If you hear any scientist say you shouldn't question theory X, you should have serious doubts about what they're suggesting. Scientists that aren't even willing to question their theory should be ignored.

Most likely, as that video showed, human CO2 output has had a negligible effect on the climate change we're seeing today.

The one good thing that has come out of this CO2 scare mongering is the push to reduce our dependence oil consumption. Hopefully someday we'll get good electrical cars and more nuclear power plants.

[Keepitsimple]

It's so darn frustrating to see how well-meaning people here in Canada are being used as pawns. This video is a straight-talking must-see. It's a well-rounded program that makes Al Gore's presentation look like a farce in comparison. There are many good political and social points issues that are touched on. With the importance that is currently attached to "Global Warming", I encourage anyone who has an opinion on the subject to view this hour-long video in it's entirety.

[noahbody]

It's so darn frustrating to see how well-meaning people here in Canada are being used as pawns. This video is a straight-talking must-see. It's a well-rounded program that makes Al Gore's presentation look like a farce in comparison. There are many good political and social points issues that are touched on. With the importance that is currently attached to "Global Warming", I encourage anyone who has an opinion on the subject to view this hour-long video in it's entirety.

Is it too late to take back Gore's Oscar and give him a Razzy?

[Eldrick Woods]

Just thought I'd post this for anyone who might be interested. It's a documentary video by the BBC and includes many very highly respected scientists, some of whom were IPCC scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk...related&search=

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I'm assuming this is an innocent mistake.

1) This is not by the BBC

2) Some of the facts have been very loosely presented.

3) The Director has a shady past of misrepresenting facts and footage used in his 'documentarys'

Carl Wunsch appeared in the film here's his story.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...2031455,00.html

Don't believe everything you watch!!! Do your own research including the motives of some of the people who appear in this film. It doesn't take much. Most of them are associated with some very right-wing lobby groups. Who happen to get funding from Exxon Mobil and other energy corps. Just a thought.

Cheers

[dlkenny]

Just thought I'd post this for anyone who might be interested. It's a documentary video by the BBC and includes many very highly respected scientists, some of whom were IPCC scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk...related&search=

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I'm assuming this is an innocent mistake.

1) This is not by the BBC

2) Some of the facts have been very loosely presented.

3) The Director has a shady past of misrepresenting facts and footage used in his 'documentarys'

Carl Wunsch appeared in the film here's his story.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...2031455,00.html

Don't believe everything you watch!!! Do your own research including the motives of some of the people who appear in this film. It doesn't take much. Most of them are associated with some very right-wing lobby groups. Who happen to get funding from Exxon Mobil and other energy corps. Just a thought.

Cheers

I've done some research and there's over 17000 scientists documented around the world who have spoken out to date. I've seen some of this evidence before and I think this is pretty well put together. One of the scientists in the film admitted to having been paid by an energy company but I know that Richard Lindsen of MIT is a legit scientist and he was on the IPCC. Dave Rutherford also had another scientist from UVic here in Canada that is on the IPCC and he was talking about the implications of sunspots on climate change and how it affected the "global cooling scare" of the 1970s. This is all in the video but it's elsewhere too, and I think that's what these people are trying to say is that the body of science is wider than what is being presented by socialist lobby groups. The alarmism is overkill. After the interview with the UVic scientist I went and did some looking around for information on this subject and I found a growing consensus that this is indeed happening. Nobody is saying that CO2 doesn't have any impact but that it's a very minute impact compared to the effect of the sun on climate. I've also seen an argument that the CO2 being released by the burning of fossil fuels is simply the re-releasing of CO2 into the atmosphere that was absorbed by plants millions of years ago while those plants were alive. This makes sense because matter isn't created or destroyed but absorbed and released by the earths ecosystems. The carbon in the fossil fuels came from somewhere and it's quite possible that it came from the atmosphere.

Thanks for the post.

[B. Max]

Don't believe everything you watch!!! Do your own research including the motives of some of the people who appear in this film. It doesn't take much. Most of them are associated with some very right-wing lobby groups. Who happen to get funding from Exxon Mobil and other energy corps. Just a thought.

Cheers

Well I see you've done your reseach on the science of smear.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...2-25717,00.html

No where does Carl Wunsch say CO2 causes global warming nor does that seem to be his field anyway. Whether he likes it or not he was not there to prove anything, but only to speak about oceans and their part in CO2.

[Eldrick Woods]

I've done some research and there's over 17000 scientists documented around the world who have spoken out to date. I've seen some of this evidence before and I think this is pretty well put together. One of the scientists in the film admitted to having been paid by an energy company but I know that Richard Lindsen of MIT is a legit scientist and he was on the IPCC. Dave Rutherford also had another scientist from UVic here in Canada that is on the IPCC and he was talking about the implications of sunspots on climate change and how it affected the "global cooling scare" of the 1970s. This is all in the video but it's elsewhere too, and I think that's what these people are trying to say is that the body of science is wider than what is being presented by socialist lobby groups. The alarmism is overkill. After the interview with the UVic scientist I went and did some looking around for information on this subject and I found a growing consensus that this is indeed happening. Nobody is saying that CO2 doesn't have any impact but that it's a very minute impact compared to the effect of the sun on climate. I've also seen an argument that the CO2 being released by the burning of fossil fuels is simply the re-releasing of CO2 into the atmosphere that was absorbed by plants millions of years ago while those plants were alive. This makes sense because matter isn't created or destroyed but absorbed and released by the earths ecosystems. The carbon in the fossil fuels came from somewhere and it's quite possible that it came from the atmosphere.

Thanks for the post.

Wow. Are we watching the same film. This Video is NOT claiming there are 'other ideas' and trying to present them in fair way. There's a very clear agenda.

- Co2 is not the cause of global warming

- Man is in no way responsible for Global Warming

- The Co2 "theory" is a conspiracy of communist and money hungry scientist trying to fund themselves

If you want to make documentary about alternative views on the subject then do so. But I watched this piece of propaganda and of the roughly 75 minutes. 55 of minutes is dedicated to opinions and speculation about everything from the mass conspiracy to the leftist organizations trying to hold us down to anecdotal stories about every thing the from sun spots to scientist who won't speak out of fear for their jobs. Mysteriously, no one mentions a name. The claim - "I know a few personally".

Sure you do. I can say that too. Anyone can say that BS. It doesn't mean it's true. The whole Prime Minister Thatcher portion LMAO!!!! Man. It's pasted together rather poorly I might add.

You can say what you want about Gore's film. at least, It's not excerpts from interviews edited and patched together.

Gore's film is a presentation put to film. From start to finish. Builds his case and presents his conclusions. He gets a little out of hand at the categorical declarations or doom and gloom, but all in all it's what you expect from a documentary. "The Global Warming Swindle" on the other hand is slick marketing and nothing more.

This is not just a caring citizen trying to bring out the truth. Listen to music and look at the camera angles used. It's marketing and manipulation 101. I have no doubt there's some well meaning people in the video. And some make good scientific arguments but that's a very small portion of this crockumentary. It makes Michael Moore look like a professor.

[Eldrick Woods]

Don't believe everything you watch!!! Do your own research including the motives of some of the people who appear in this film. It doesn't take much. Most of them are associated with some very right-wing lobby groups. Who happen to get funding from Exxon Mobil and other energy corps. Just a thought.

Cheers

Well I see you've done your reseach on the science of smear.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...2-25717,00.html

No where does Carl Wunsch say CO2 causes global warming nor does that seem to be his field anyway. Whether he likes it or not he was not there to prove anything, but only to speak about oceans and their part in CO2.

Carl Wunsch makes it very clear. He believes humans are "likely" responsible for Global Warming. I quoted likely for a reason. There's no way to be absolute about the climate on the earth ( parts of the earth are still a huge mystery to us ) all we can do is analyze the evidence and make sound conclusions, but we also can't dismiss the notion that we have an impact. Certainly not after watching this piece of trash. If the evidence was so sound! Why not just do a presentation and film it like Gore? Why all the glitter and anecdotal claims about corruption and greed?

All you need to do is put together a slide show. Don't even mention Co2. Make a 90 presentation about sun spots and weather data etc. Put the facts our there in plain view. from start to finish. Make your case. What makes me skeptical of this movie is the amount of anecdotal accounts it should raise a flag.

[Keepitsimple]

Gore's film is a presentation put to film. From start to finish. Builds his case and presents his conclusions. He gets a little out of hand at the categorical declarations or doom and gloom, but all in all it's what you expect from a documentary. "The Global Warming Swindle" on the other hand is slick marketing and nothing more.

This is not just a caring citizen trying to bring out the truth. Listen to music and look at the camera angles used. It's marketing and manipulation 101. I have no doubt there's some well meaning people in the video. And some make good scientific arguments but that's a very small portion of this crockumentary. It makes Michael Moore look like a professor.

There is a reason why this film concentrates on the social/political motives of the alarmists. The evidence presented is compelling - especially the 800 year lag in CO2 and the hand-in-glove relationship of sunspot activity to the planet's natural warming and cooling cycles. Once you accept that either the alarmists are wrong or at the very least, there is a rational and realistic line of debate opposing a significant mad-made contribution to Climate Change....then you have to ask the question - why would there be such a massive mis-representation of facts? And for that answer, as the video portrays, you have to go back to the beginning. That's why the film is as long as it is.

Notwithstanding the accuracy of any side of this issue, the truly shameful and in many respects, heinous act, is the attempt to "shut down" an opposing Scientific point of view. This is an affront to Science itself which can only move forward by being able to poke and prod every assumption, theory and conclusion. Demonizing researchers and scientists as "denyers" and "sceptics" takes us back to the days of the Inquisition, Salem witch-hunts and Nazi Germany's Cristelnacht book-burning. Absolutely disgusting. This is how you end up with a Police State where a government simply imposes it's will on people - so not matter what side of the argument you are on, we should all be very, very concerned.

If you haven't watched the entire video with an open mind, take the time (everybody). I somehow doubt that the CBC be be showing it anytime soon.

[noahbody]

All you need to do is put together a slide show. Don't even mention Co2. Make a 90 presentation about sun spots and weather data etc. Put the facts our there in plain view. from start to finish. Make your case. What makes me skeptical of this movie is the amount of anecdotal accounts it should raise a flag.

Like it or not, this documentary raised some interesting questions for the pro-Co2 crowd to address. This is how science works. If the statement about the rise/fall in Co2 following the rise/fall of the earth's temp is true, it would suggest the initial theory is false. So is this statement true or false?

[Eldrick Woods]

Just thought I'd post this for anyone who might be interested. It's a documentary video by the BBC and includes many very highly respected scientists, some of whom were IPCC scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk...related&search=

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I'm assuming this is an innocent mistake.

1) This is not by the BBC

2) Some of the facts have been very loosely presented.

3) The Director has a shady past of misrepresenting facts and footage used in his 'documentarys'

Carl Wunsch appeared in the film here's his story.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...2031455,00.html

Don't believe everything you watch!!! Do your own research including the motives of some of the people who appear in this film. It doesn't take much. Most of them are associated with some very right-wing lobby groups. Who happen to get funding from Exxon Mobil and other energy corps. Just a thought.

Cheers

I've done some research and there's over 17000 scientists documented around the world who have spoken out to date. I've seen some of this evidence before and I think this is pretty well put together. One of the scientists in the film admitted to having been paid by an energy company but I know that Richard Lindsen of MIT is a legit scientist and he was on the IPCC. Dave Rutherford also had another scientist from UVic here in Canada that is on the IPCC and he was talking about the implications of sunspots on climate change and how it affected the "global cooling scare" of the 1970s. This is all in the video but it's elsewhere too, and I think that's what these people are trying to say is that the body of science is wider than what is being presented by socialist lobby groups. The alarmism is overkill. After the interview with the UVic scientist I went and did some looking around for information on this subject and I found a growing consensus that this is indeed happening. Nobody is saying that CO2 doesn't have any impact but that it's a very minute impact compared to the effect of the sun on climate. I've also seen an argument that the CO2 being released by the burning of fossil fuels is simply the re-releasing of CO2 into the atmosphere that was absorbed by plants millions of years ago while those plants were alive. This makes sense because matter isn't created or destroyed but absorbed and released by the earths ecosystems. The carbon in the fossil fuels came from somewhere and it's quite possible that it came from the atmosphere.

Thanks for the post.

I agree 100% the alarmist are coming on strong. But they're fighting a very strong misinformation campaign by energy companies. Which is not a theory it's a fact. They're ( Energy Companies ) fighting and with good reason. Can you imagine a world without fossil fuels? Can you imagine Exxon, Shell, BP? Without fossil fuels?

The knee jerk reaction is part of the history. We all know what happened when tobacco companies started to feel threatened. In spite of all the evidence they convinced people smoking was not harmful.

I admit, there are extremes on both sides. But this video... come on. It's so ..... Well, I'm lost for words. Amzign I know.

[Eldrick Woods]

Like it or not, this documentary raised some interesting questions for the pro-Co2 crowd to address. This is how science works. If the statement about the rise/fall in Co2 following the rise/fall of the earth's temp is true, it would suggest the initial theory is false. So is this statement true or false?

HAHA You're not dealing with an amateur nice try. Debating 101.

The first problem is we haven't confirmed whether the Co2 rise followed the temperature rise. It was a claim in the movie but I haven't read a peer reviewed paper on this. Again. I'm not denying or confirming at this time. I'm doing my research.

Here's an example or your strategy. Let's say we're debating the merits of gravity. And I say. Well If I find an Object that doesn't fall to the earth that means there's a problem with the law of gravity? True or False? Of course the answer is true but you haven't found that object. Therefore, both the question and answer are pointless.

[Eldrick Woods]

There is a reason why this film concentrates on the social/political motives of the alarmists. The evidence presented is compelling - especially the 800 year lag in CO2 and the hand-in-glove relationship of sunspot activity to the planet's natural warming and cooling cycles. Once you accept that either the alarmists are wrong or at the very least, there is a rational and realistic line of debate opposing a significant mad-made contribution to Climate Change....then you have to ask the question - why would there be such a massive mis-representation of facts? And for that answer, as the video portrays, you have to go back to the beginning. That's why the film is as long as it is.

Notwithstanding the accuracy of any side of this issue, the truly shameful and in many respects, heinous act, is the attempt to "shut down" an opposing Scientific point of view. This is an affront to Science itself which can only move forward by being able to poke and prod every assumption, theory and conclusion. Demonizing researchers and scientists as "denyers" and "sceptics" takes us back to the days of the Inquisition, Salem witch-hunts and Nazi Germany's Cristelnacht book-burning. Absolutely disgusting. This is how you end up with a Police State where a government simply imposes it's will on people - so not matter what side of the argument you are on, we should all be very, very concerned.

If you haven't watched the entire video with an open mind, take the time (everybody). I somehow doubt that the CBC be be showing it anytime soon.

Good so it's clear

There is a reason why this film concentrates on the social/political motives of the alarmists

I said this at the beginning it's big on hyperbole and grand claims. I was shot down for not watching the movie. The movie is filled with fluff.

Ok I think you're being a little over dramatic. This is hardly the Nazi-Germany and/or the Inquisition. No need to get crazy. We're adults.

This reminds me of the Cancer debates. There are people who believe there's a cure for cancer and it's being bottled up by the corporations. To ensure a profitable health care system. After all, treating Cancer is BIG BIG money. Do you really think such a secret can exist? No way. There's too many people involved something will be leaked.

If there's a 'secret' about global warming being suppressed. The 'smoking gun' if you will, It would be leaked? An internal memo instructing these scientist to follow course would make it's way into the news. Like the memos from ICE and tobacco companies in the past.

Until there's evidence of foul play you can't claim foul play. And those anecdotal accounts are not evidence they are hearsay. I'm looking into the CO2 rise following the Temperature rise point........

[JerrySeinfeld]

This is the best thing I've seen in a long time in this insanely left wing world.

hooray!

I have started many threads on here to bring some balance to the fanatical religion of climate change and this film does a far better job. I love it when they quote the lead author of the IPCC!!!!

[PolyNewbie]

I believe that if the threat of global warming was real and there was a genuine threat to the planet then politicians, lawyers and corportaions would have started doing something about it to save their own skin a long time ago.

Desalinization plants in Africa powered bu nuke plants would have given us enough trees to such up all that access CO2.

[Eldrick Woods]

This is the best thing I've seen in a long time in this insanely left wing world.

hooray!

I have started many threads on here to bring some balance to the fanatical religion of climate change and this film does a far better job. I love it when they quote the lead author of the IPCC!!!!

Not really it's only seen by about 15k people. it's a relative blip on the radar. I'm sure it will get more play. The problem with more exposure is more scrutiny. We'll see if it holds up.

"insanely left wing world" LOL. Some of the stuff that gets posted here. Those darn lefties. with their clean air and conservation ideas. Communists! hehe

Cheers

[Keepitsimple]

Here's a link that I have found to be very simple to read - it presents a straight forward breakdown of Greenhouse gases. From this, you will be able to see exactly how much CO2 currently comes from natural sources and how much is anthropogenic in nature.....and you will be able to clearly see all the gases that make up the "Greenhouse Gases" and what part of that is actually CO2.

Take a peek - it's easy and informative viewing:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[Canadian Blue]

This is the best thing I've seen in a long time in this insanely left wing world.

hooray!

I have started many threads on here to bring some balance to the fanatical religion of climate change and this film does a far better job. I love it when they quote the lead author of the IPCC!!!!

Insanely left wing world, dude where have you been the past 15 years.

As for the fanatical religion of climate change, one of the scientists in the film claimed that he was mislead, and compared the film to propaganda.

Either way, I won't be shedding any tears if Exxon Mobil loses some profit because they have to cut down on production.

[stevoh]

Here's a link that I have found to be very simple to read - it presents a straight forward breakdown of Greenhouse gases. From this, you will be able to see exactly how much CO2 currently comes from natural sources and how much is anthropogenic in nature.....and you will be able to clearly see all the gases that make up the "Greenhouse Gases" and what part of that is actually CO2.

The majority of CO2 does come from natural sources, and natural sources also absorb that CO2 in a "carbon balance". That is why CO2 has been increasing after industrialization, we release it, but we don't absorb it back through carbon sinks.

Are you suggesting that the increase in CO2 in the last 100 years, from 288 to around 380 ppm has nothing to do with man? Because, according to ice core samples, this concentration has not been seen on earth for at least the last 400 000 years. What else has changed in the last 100 years that has contributed to such an increase in CO2 concentrations?