The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Keepitsimple]

One of the biggest claims of "Swindle" is that warming comes first and Co2 follows by 800 years. IPCC can very easily disprove this by showing the data that they used in a manner that people can understand. In Gore's movie, his "graph" had such large periodic increments that it looked like warming and Co2 coincided. If the "scale" of the graph was recalibrated to show the relationship every 100 years for example, then one side or the other would be proven right or wrong - as long as the data is accurate. I look forward to the IPCC and Al Gore clarifying their data. This is how science is supposed to work.

[White Doors]

what changed 400,000 years ago? answering that question will go away towards answering your last question.

[Canadian Blue]

Yes, but we haven't seen anywhere near the kind of change that is happening today, and what many are prediciting will be happening in the future.

[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.

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?

Actully, I'm not suggesting anything. I thought some people might want to understand how many Greenhouse Gases there are - and how much of that is CO2. A lot of people don't know that CO2 makes up only a little more than 3% of GHG. As to how much of that 3% is man-made and how much is natural - that's still open for debate.

[White Doors]

Yes, but we haven't seen anywhere near the kind of change that is happening today

I don't know that that is true.

They had a medievel warm period. The had the mini-ice age.. all of this was not too long ago geologically speaking.

[stevoh]

what changed 400,000 years ago? answering that question will go away towards answering your last question.

Thats kind of a non-answer. Depending on the ice core samples used, some indicate that the CO2 concentrations have not been this high for almost 800 000 years. None show that it has. Its not that something changed 400 000 years ago, its that the ice core samples only go so far back.

So I ask again, what has changed in the last 100 years to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere that hasn't occured in the last 400 000? At the current rate, we could be seeing concentrations in the region of 600 to 800 ppm by 2100. Where is this extra CO2 coming from? Why isn't it remaining balanced like it has for the previous hundreds of thousands of years?

[JerrySeinfeld]

what changed 400,000 years ago? answering that question will go away towards answering your last question.

Thats kind of a non-answer. Depending on the ice core samples used, some indicate that the CO2 concentrations have not been this high for almost 800 000 years. None show that it has. Its not that something changed 400 000 years ago, its that the ice core samples only go so far back.

So I ask again, what has changed in the last 100 years to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere that hasn't occured in the last 400 000? At the current rate, we could be seeing concentrations in the region of 600 to 800 ppm by 2100. Where is this extra CO2 coming from? Why isn't it remaining balanced like it has for the previous hundreds of thousands of years?

You're splitting hairs. Look at the big picture: saying there is more CO2 in the air today and saying that it's warmer -- especially when CO2 is a very small component of GHGs -- is tantamount to saying the aids crises in africa was caused by the fall of communism in russia. Just because they coincide in time doesn't show a causal relationship.

And yuo're missing the most important part of the film: the fact that this mass hysteria and demonizing of critics is NOT the "scientific way". It's political.

[PolyNewbie]

Jerry Seinfeld:Just because they coincide in time doesn't show a causal relationship.

Absolutely - in fact The Great global Warming Swindle shows that global warming may cause CO2 and that there is a direct causal relationship - looks that way graphically anyways. Looks linear too.

[shoggoth]

Increasing co2 causes temperature to rise (immediately)

Increasing temperature causes co2 to rise (not necessarily immediately)

Both are true

Roughly a quarter of co2 in the atmosphere today is man made.

There is good evidence that at the end of cold glacial periods temperature starts increasing first and co2 follows about 600 years later. In turn that co2 rise will contribute to the temperature rise which continues for thousands of years more.

[Keepitsimple]

What's the chances of this documentary being shown on Canadian television anytime soon? Slim to none - and that's a shame. Scary, actually.

[Slavik44]

I only watched a couple minutes (time constraints), I wonder how old this movie is (?) does anyone know? Because it uses the claim about the lack of warming in troposphere, something that is blatantly false.

[Keepitsimple]

I only watched a couple minutes (time constraints), I wonder how old this movie is (?) does anyone know? Because it uses the claim about the lack of warming in troposphere, something that is blatantly false.

It's very new - as you can see, it refers a lot to Gore's movie so it's made in the last 6 months. What makes you think that there is less warming in the troposphere - did it scare you that it might be true?

[Slavik44]

I only watched a couple minutes (time constraints), I wonder how old this movie is (?) does anyone know? Because it uses the claim about the lack of warming in troposphere, something that is blatantly false.

It's very new - as you can see, it refers a lot to Gore's movie so it's made in the last 6 months. What makes you think that there is less warming in the troposphere - did it scare you that it might be true?

No, I questioned how old it was because recent evidence prooves the troposphere is warming at what would be the expected rate and faster than previously thought....

as per...http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/threat/threat6.htm

As of 2004

So if this movie was made recently than it is using old information now proven false. I am not a big human cuased global warming junky, I have not read enough information on it to make a truly informed decision, but I did feel it important to mention this, yes.

[shoggoth]

The whole documentary is filled with out-of-date information. Most of it's graphs for example appear to be out of date.

[Keepitsimple]

I only watched a couple minutes (time constraints), I wonder how old this movie is (?) does anyone know? Because it uses the claim about the lack of warming in troposphere, something that is blatantly false.

It's very new - as you can see, it refers a lot to Gore's movie so it's made in the last 6 months. What makes you think that there is less warming in the troposphere - did it scare you that it might be true?

No, I questioned how old it was because recent evidence prooves the troposphere is warming at what would be the expected rate and faster than previously thought....

as per...http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/threat/threat6.htm

As of 2004

So if this movie was made recently than it is using old information now proven false. I am not a big human cuased global warming junky, I have not read enough information on it to make a truly informed decision, but I did feel it important to mention this, yes.

Slavik - firstly, I apologize for my comment "did it scare you?". It appears that you are one of the rational posters on this issue - and I don't care what side of the debate people are on as long as they can keep a bit of an open mind on the subject. I'll look into this a bit more - my original research found that there was an anomoly that could not be explained - the troposhere was warming in one hemisphere but not in the other - so maybe this guy only did his tests on the hemisphere that was warming. Regardless, I'd like to draw your attention to a remark in the link you provided. It says:

"The new tropospheric data does not suggest that the pace of global warming is increasing or decreasing".

Secondly, here is the Manifesto of the organization of the link (From Greenhouse to Green House) - I've bolded one sentence that demonstrates how "out there" and alarmist this organization is and therefore we should attach an appropriate level of scepticism to this single scientist's report:

Vision

A world in which human-induced climate change is capped at a level that will allow all of humanity to prosper, by means that promote global, social, environmental and economic justice.

Mission Statement

To build a massive coalition, that will create an irresistible public mandate for political action to stop human-induced climate change.

Manifesto

Catalysing a popular mandate for political action on climate change.

Without urgent action, climate change will devastate life on earth. Hundreds of millions of people, particularly the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, will be put at severe risk of drought, floods, starvation, and disease. By the middle of the century up to one third of land-based species could face extinction.

Politicians have so far failed to take sufficient action to avoid this. Yet the choices made in the next five to ten years will determine the extent of the devastation faced by future generations. We can save millions of lives and a multitude of species by keeping the average global temperature increase under 2°C. To achieve this, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak and be falling irreversibly by 2015.

High emitting countries, with their responsibility for historic emissions, must reduce their emissions to make certain that this goal is achieved. But because all countries share the obligation to ensure that damaging global warming is permanently avoided, each must commit to policies to guarantee that global greenhouse gas emissions decline beyond 2015.

Before this decade is out, world leaders must have lived up to their duty to prevent catastrophic climate change, via open transparent and accountable mechanisms, processes that promote global, social and economic justice and through the use of environmentally sustainable technologies. We will act to ensure that they do.

[Canadian Blue]

Reported.

This is what I mean when I talk about the ideologues that simply hurt the political process. Some people have a genuine hate of people based on shallow misperception's. I have met Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats, all of whom are good people, just different ways of thinking how the government should be run. It is harmful to see people who seem somewhat totalitarian in their ideology. Especially with NowDefeatPoverty, we can see how hateful such a person is, and can have an idea of how they would prefer to see a world where no one disagreed with them.

You right-wing trolls that question Global Warming probably fantasize about your prepubescent kids while with your wives. Expecting god or Billy Graham or Cheney to feed you in a few decades when droughts remove bread from supermarket shelves? Fucking idiots. Every single Conservative. ...I suppose a few of the farmer's daughters and Catholic school girls are okay.

Don't you see how absurd that statement is, especially since you made reference to people who are underage as those that you imply you have a sexual attraction too. Which is obvious to most people.

[NowDefeatPoverty]

Don't you see how absurd that statement is, especially since you made reference to people who are underage as those that you imply you have a sexual attraction too. Which is obvious to most people.

The age of consent is 14 in Canada. Please, enough with the personal attacks.

[jbg]

You right-wing trolls that question Global Warming probably fantasize about.... Expecting god or Billy Graham or Cheney to feed you in a few decades when droughts remove bread from supermarket shelves? Fucking idiots. Every single Conservative. ...I suppose a few of the farmer's daughters and Catholic school girls are okay.

That's a bit extreme, and elipse is being reported.

[jbg]

Don't you see how absurd that statement is, especially since you made reference to people who are underage as those that you imply you have a sexual attraction too. Which is obvious to most people.

The age of consent is 14 in Canada. Please, enough with the personal attacks.

Enough with off-topic sexual references.

[Martin Chriton]

You right-wing trolls that question Global Warming probably fantasize about your prepubescent kids while with your wives.

So we're not suppose to questions things now? I'm tired of hearing this bullshit.

Time to be educated -- we have this thing called the scientific method, you can wait until they teach you this in elementary school or read it here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.

The scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity. Further, it is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods.

This is what intelligent people do -- we questions things.

Fucking idiots. Every single Conservative

I guess you were the idiot.

[Canadian Blue]

Alright NowDefeatPoverty, now that we know you can legally have sex with a 14 year old, [which I consider pretty creepy if NowDefeatPoverty is over 18] can you please tell us how 36% of the population are all pedophiles? As well I didn't reference age of consent laws, but since you seem to be guided more by sexual feelings, rather than rational ones, we shouldn't take what you say seriously.

Either way, I think the education system has failed you, if you can't behave like an adult, and have some tolerance to people who have a different point of view then yourself.

[dlkenny]

Increasing co2 causes temperature to rise (immediately)

Increasing temperature causes co2 to rise (not necessarily immediately)

Both are true

Roughly a quarter of co2 in the atmosphere today is man made.

There is good evidence that at the end of cold glacial periods temperature starts increasing first and co2 follows about 600 years later. In turn that co2 rise will contribute to the temperature rise which continues for thousands of years more.

Not even close, less than 4% of CO2 is man made. In addition, if you include water vapour which makes up well over 99% of all of the Earth's greenhouse gases, the human contribution to global warming through CO2 emissions is about 0.117%. (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)

This number is really insignificant, if you consider this as a function of the warming over the past thirty years (less than one degree celsius) it accounts for about one one-thousandth of a degree change. The sun is a much better indicator.

[noahbody]

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.

Saw a clip of Gore in front of Congress. He made the analogy that the planet had a fever and when your baby has a fever you take it to the doctor. Then he went on to say when the crib is on fire, you don't wait to see if the baby is fire-retardant. That's pretty compelling stuff.

[geoffrey]

Saw a clip of Gore in front of Congress. He made the analogy that the planet had a fever and when your baby has a fever you take it to the doctor. Then he went on to say when the crib is on fire, you don't wait to see if the baby is fire-retardant. That's pretty compelling stuff.

Oh Gore. He's been proven a liar and even admitted to exaggerating to scare people into action. I wonder when people will realise that it kind of hurts his crediability.

[jbg]

Saw a clip of Gore in front of Congress. He made the analogy that the planet had a fever and when your baby has a fever you take it to the doctor. Then he went on to say when the crib is on fire, you don't wait to see if the baby is fire-retardant. That's pretty compelling stuff.

Just because an analogy is compelling, even shocking, doesn't make it factually accurate. Global warming is a fraud.