New Documentary Claim: 'Global Warming Is Lies'

New Documentary Claim: 'Global Warming Is Lies'

Source Link: www.lse.co.uk

‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world’s poor.

Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 3/4/2007 by shots]

Interesting, refuting decades of scientific research and thousands of scientific pubications with.....a glitzy video.

Not buyin' it.

Well, the only issue I have is with the title. Global warming may be occurring. The problem is, the greenheads won't accept that it is cyclical, and not caused in a major way by human influence.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, the only issue I have is with the title. Global warming may be occurring. The problem is, the greenheads won't accept that it is cyclical, and not caused in a major way by human influence.

You haven't read a single posting from those of us who think that you deniers are wrong have you? Not a single one. You have your opinion and that is it. If you had reads the posts from people like me you would have read that the majority of us, like the majority of scientists acknowledge that there are many different aspects to global warming including cyclical and including human.

Take off your blinders josbecky.

You you you you you. Is that your defense, grover? Get off my back.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, the only issue I have is with the title. Global warming may be occurring.

May be? You have doubts as to whether the average temperature is increasing, regardless of cause?

The problem is, the greenheads won't accept that it is cyclical, and not caused in a major way by human influence.

Prove that it is part of a natural cycle. Climatologists have been trying to decades to match it to a natural cycle, it doesn't match any of them. THe only causal explanation that fits is that its caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Interesting, refuting decades of scientific research and thousands of scientific pubications with.....a glitzy video.

Not buyin' it.

Actually it is being refuting by thousands of scientific publicantions and research papers which some just don't want to accept...

Even for a while I thought it could be possible mankind's activities were making worse Climate Change, but the more research i did, the more i realized it is a scam to make countries like China the new superpower while choking the economies of countries like the U.S....

Amazing that those that keep proposing that mankind is at fault keep want to accept the policymakers' idea of "combating global warming" by puting choking the economies of countries like the U.S. and Canada while allowing nations like China to continue to raise their greenhouse gas emissions which pretty soon will be surpasing the U.S. and happens to be one of the worse countries dealing with pollution and the release of chemicals and gases in our atmosphere and oceans.....

Originally posted by Muaddib
it is a scam to make countries like China the new superpower while choking the economies of countries like the U.S....

That is patently absurd. So all the scientists around the world are all scheming to bring America down. Give me a bloody break.

Should be interesting, if only to see if the director of this programme will repeat what he did in a similar programme back in 1997.

On that occasion the Independent Television Commission found that “the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing” and that they had been “misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”

According to a recent Guardian article, "Channel 4 was later obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has ever made".

Full article - Another species of denial



zero lift

Originally posted by Nygdan
May be? You have doubts as to whether the average temperature is increasing, regardless of cause?

Nygdan, of course the temperature is rising.

However, not enough to be alarmed about. 3/10 of a degree Celsius, if I am not mistaken. Not a whole lot. Just enough to possibly re-farm Iceland for a century.

And of course, to balance out that tiny change, the ice is melting and sending cold water south, cooling the warm water that travels to the north. So as the North Pole melts, the equator will cool and the ice will come back.

It all levels out. To be so prideful to think that we can destroy a planet is beyond me. All the asteroids that have hit Earth, all the catastrophes, hell the moon broke off and the planet is still here.

We aint runnin nothin.


Edited because I am an ass, and need to chill out.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by cavscout]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, the only issue I have is with the title. Global warming may be occurring.

May be? You have doubts as to whether the average temperature is increasing, regardless of cause?

The thread title is 'Global Warming Is Lies'. That's what I have a problem with. The cause is indeterminate, imo.

The problem is, the greenheads won't accept that it is cyclical, and not caused in a major way by human influence.

Prove that it is part of a natural cycle.

No, you prove that it is caused exclusively by human influence.

The Chinese burn excessive coal for power generation, and will continue to do so until at least 2010. Don't point fingers at the US.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, the only issue I have is with the title. Global warming may be occurring.

May be? You have doubts as to whether the average temperature is increasing, regardless of cause?

The thread title is 'Global Warming Is Lies'. That's what I have a problem with.

So you agree that the earth is warming?

The cause is indeterminate, imo.

Why do you feel its indeterminate? You did just say that it was caused by a natural cycle, that is not indeterminate though no?

No, you prove that it is caused exclusively by human influence.

Its not based on one peice of evidence, its a multitude of evidences that have been accumulated over decades of research. The correlation of warming with co2 concentration increases, that co2 is a green house gas, the amount of heat being trapped in the atmosphere, it not corresponding to astronomic drivers of climate or other non-human drivers, it matching climate models, etc. Which of the many lines of evidence that have been presented over the years are you rejecting and why?


[qoute]cavscout
However, not enough to be alarmed about. 3/10 of a degree Celsius, if I am not mistaken. Not a whole lot. Just enough to possibly re-farm Iceland for a century.
Let me ask you something, global warming is usually taken as a 'liberal' issue, but its not its a conservative issue and a patriotic issue. THe United States is where it is today because of, in part, climate. What happens if the climate changes over time and the US has to, in addition to importing oil, import food to feed its population, becuase the agricultural centres have shifted? What happens when cities like NYC and other coastal cities dwindle in population and importance because of flooding via rising sea levels?

And of course, to balance out that tiny change, the ice is melting and sending cold water south, cooling the warm water that travels to the north. So as the North Pole melts, the equator will cool and the ice will come back.

No, thats not actually how it works. Infact, by injecting ice melt, it screws up global ocean ciruclation, which is in large part driven by salt concentrations. Adding more freshwater at the poles, which is the very region where salty water is supposed to sink, will prevent it from sinking. This can shut down things like the Gulf Stream. This is important, because the Gulf Stream keeps the british isles warm. Look at whats on the same line of lattitude as the british isles. Newfoundland, etc. These are much colder areas than England. At previous times when there wasn't a gulf stream, england, and northern europe, were frosted over.

Yes, its not going to happen over night. But consider the effects that the Little Ice Age, which was natural, had on the history of europe. Europe became famine ridden, likesay africa is now. Do you think it would've been worth it for that generation to have done somethign to prevent it, if they could?

Its simply wrong to say that climate is going to 'balance out' in the long run, or that climate change isn't going to hurt us.

To be so prideful to think that we can destroy a planet is beyond me

We;re not going to destroy the planet. The ones that are going to be hurt most be this stuff are us. The planet can deal with climate change, its happened before. And when it does happen, humans suffer, not the planet.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Interesting, refuting decades of scientific research and thousands of scientific pubications with.....a glitzy video.

Not buyin' it.

Oh come on now....you know that global warming is a political tool dont you. Climate change may be real, but evidence of human impact is biased. Did you know Al Gore fired any scientists that disagreed with him, therefore scaring most of the rest into compliance? Did you know that even if we were to stop all CO2 emissions this very minute, theres not a damn thing that wouldchange in the next century? Did you know the rest of the solar system is heatingup as well? I guess humans must have done this to Mars as well right? lol. Look I support a green environment....because I think we are killing the planet in other ways like clear cutting (notice how nobody talks about this now since everyone talks about global warming), pollution, overfishing, etc....but chew on this...the last hottest year was about 90 years ago....we had barely any CO2 emissions then, so what was it? Oh thats right, they changed the way they measured temperature....thats right.

Originally posted by Or_Die_Trying
Oh come on now.

No I'm being totally cereal. Like, for realsies.

Did you know Al Gore fired any scientists that disagreed with him

If you think that Al Gore is "King of all Science" then I'd say that, at the least, you are mistaken.


When you have evidence that posits a better causal mechanism for global warming that man-made greenhouse emissions, feel free to bring it up here.

Infact, feel free to publish it in a scientific journal, since no one's been able to come up with a better explanation.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Prove that it is part of a natural cycle. Climatologists have been trying to decades to match it to a natural cycle, it doesn't match any of them. THe only causal explanation that fits is that its caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

I guess you haven't read much on the subject then because it is common knowledge that since the start of the Holocene, the last 10,000 years after the last Ice Age, temperatures have on the overall been steadily increasing meanwhile during those 10,000 years, and even longer, we have had about two dozen large Climatic Change events.

large climate changes in Europe/Near East during the last 15,000 calendar years (note that these dates are in 'real' years not radiocarbon years).

14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates. Rapid deglaciation begins.

13,500 y.a. - climates about as warm and moist as today's

13,000 y.a. 'Older Dryas' cold phase (lasting about 200 years) before a partial return to warmer conditions.

12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid stepwise onset of the intensely cold Younger Dryas. Much drier than present over much of Europe and the Middle East, though wetter-than-present conditions at first prevailed in NW Europe.

11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly over a few decades, back to relative warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Isotope Stage 1).

11,500 - 10,500 y.a. - climates possibly still slightly cooler than present-day.

9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's

about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool phase lasting about 200 years, about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas. Wetter-than-present conditions in NW Europe, but drier than present in eastern Turkey.

8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates generally slightly warmer and moister than today's.

(but; at 5,900 y.a. - a possible sudden and short-lived cold phase corresponding to the 'elm decline').

Since about 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present

2,600 y.a. - relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas

(but; 1,400 y.a. [536-538 A.D.] wet cold event of reduced tree growth and famine across western Europe and possibly elsewhere).

(Followed by 'Little Ice Age' about 700-200 ya)

www.esd.ornl.gov...

The above are most of the Climatic Change events that have happened for the past 15,000 years, except the Medieval warming period, which started in the 800s and ended around the 1300s when there was an unusual warming event.

The thing about the Climatic Change event which we are currently undergoing is that there are several natural factors which are converging and haven't happened together in a long time. Such as the Sun's activity which has increased in the past 60 years more than in the past 8,000 years, and the heliosphere being weaker allowing more energetic particles to enter our solar system, the fact that the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since 1845, and it is now 10% weaker in most areas while at others it is 30% weaker, an event which hasn't happened for 780,000 years.



The above is a record of the polarity of earth's magnetic field for the past 800,000 years.



The above image shows the increase in suspot numbers which has increased in the last 60 years more than in the past 8,000+ years.

The main premise of the "mankind is at fault for Climate Change crowd" is that CO2 emissions have increased which they claim is the reason why temperatures have increased, and they blame mankind for this.

While it is true that mankind has added CO2 emissions and other gases in the atmosphere, the amount of anthropogenic CO2 and other gases being released by mankind amount to about 0.28% of what the natural factors release into the atmosphere and is absorbed by our oceans and plants, mostly absorbed and released by our oceans, which have in store 98.5% of all CO2 in existance.

It is also a known fact that the atmosphere of Earth in the past has had a lot more CO2 than the current levels, which has been fluctuating and doesn't stay "balanced' for millions of years, as some want to believe.

Since our oceans hold most of the CO2 that is found on Earth, when temperatures increase in the oceans more CO2 is released, and as a matter of fact temperatures have been increasing before CO2 levels began increasing.

Temperatures have been increasing since the 1600s, meanwhile CO2 emissions started increasing in the middle of the 19th century, only a small part of it because of mankind activities.

There is also the fact that the geological record has shown us time and again that increases in CO2 emissions always lag temperature increases, that is, temperatures increase first, then CO2 emissions increase. Which is exactly what has been happening in the current Climate Change cycle we are in.

Mankind activities are not the reason why temperatures have increased, or why we are in the current Climate Change cycle.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Global warming yet another scam for the money spinners. Yes the Earth warms up and it cools down, sometime it occurs over as long period of time sometimes not. Is there proof the Earth is warming up yes and we dont need thousands of scientists to prove it, we have thousands of natural indicators.

Is man repsonsible for the warming, insufficient evidence has been obtained to indicate we are, as the scientists, (and I use that word losely) Scientists I may add who are in the pay of Goverments and powerful industries, are not looking at any other causal effects, no mans the reason so the next job is how much money can we make from this scam, no lets not look if the Earth/Sun/Planets are going through a rapid change, nah thats a waste of money, no lets tell everyone more lies and who benefits from these lies, well I guess we all know the answer to that one.

Nuke weapons, ships, powerstations they pollute, trillions spent on wars and the means to fight it, that dose not pollute dose it, no we want more weapons, more nukes. no lets make more lets throw away more.

So on the one hand you have these well paid scientists telling us we have to live like cavemen and on the other you have Goverments and their industrial backers wanting us to spend and pollute more. So which is it, is it head for the caves or lets spend/burn more.

One day are sun will use up its energy, it will grow and grow as it goes through this process, it will steralise the Earth and all near planets and will eventually go supernova and the whole cycle will start again. But dont tell anyone this becasue the scientists are planning to sell us survival suites

While on part i agree with magicmushroom, i also think that part of the problem is that most of the governments of the developed nations know what is happening, but not only are they using the current Climate Change cycle we are in to squeeze more money from the rich nations, which boils down to getting money from the people, but they know that if the true factors are revealed, it would enduce panic in some people, just like what happens when people know a hurricane is about to hit their town.

Once most people understand that the claim that "mankind can stop or reduce the effects of Global Warming/Climate Change" is shown to have been a lie, the hope and wish of those people who think mankind can stop or mitigate nature will dissapear and reality will sink in. Climate Change will continue to happen no matter what mankind does, plain and simple.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by Muaddib]

BTW one more thing, if you think that temperatures are warm today, just wait for the next solar cycle which is supposed to be one of the most active we have had in a while and which will peak in 2012.

When the solar cycle reaches its peak in 2012, it will hurl at Earth mammoth solar storms with intense radiation and clouds of high-speed subatomic particles millions of miles across, the scientists said.
................
The solar storms in the past have knocked out huge power grids and screwed up global electronics and data communications, but "the next sunspot cycle will be 30 to 50 percent stronger than the last one," the scientists said in Monday's statement.

Reaching that 50 percent threshold would make it the most intense solar cycle since the late 1950s and the second worst since the early 1700s, Peter Gilman, one of the researchers, said in a phone interview.

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2006/03/07/MNGAFHJJL91.DTL

Not to mention the fact that the charged particles from the intergalactic cloud we are in, which is not only composed of dust as some want to claim but has charged particles such as plasma, ions and nucleons, which our solar system is absorbing will be increasing exponentially until 2013.

What is surprising in this new Ulysses discovery is that the amount of stardust has continued to increase even after the solar activity calmed down and the magnetic field resumed its ordered shape in 2001.

Scientists believe that this is due to the way in which the polarity changed during solar maximum. Instead of reversing completely, flipping north to south, the Sun's magnetic poles have only rotated at halfway and are now more or less lying sideways along the Sun's equator. This weaker configuration of the magnetic shield is letting in two to three times more stardust than at the end of the 1990s. Moreover, this influx could increase by as much as ten times until the end of the current solar cycle in 2012.

www.sciencedaily.com...

In the above article they claim these particles won't do much to Earth, but they do so on the premise that these are only dust particles, but intergallactic/interstellar clouds not only are composed of "dust".

If those intergalactic/interstellar particles which are increasingly being absorbed by our solar system were only "dust", as some want people to believe, then we would be seeing cooling temperatures on Earth, but we are seeing the oposite, and in fact we are seeing warming trends in all planets in our solar system, including Earth, as well as an increase in the activity of the sun.

We are in for some interesting times, and these changes are not going to be good for a lot of people.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Told you so.

There are a lot more of us that believe the case for Global Warming is exaggerated than most people think. Let me quote Dr. David Deming of the University of Oklahoma at Al Gore's Global Warming alarmist meeting on the O.U. campus Thursday:

"Like Socrates, we ought to be skeptical anytime anyone says they have a monopoly on the truth," Deming said, calling global warming "a scientific question, not a moral one, and it should be decided on the basis of the facts" instead of emotion.

Deming, a geophysicist, said that geologists, and not meteorologists, should be believed when it comes to the issue and that "we don't understand earth's climate system" because of its complexity.

He said that during the last few years, media coverage of the issue has "degenerated into national hysteria" and said Gore's book and documentary is the "largest single factor driving this debate today.

"I don't have a Hollywood movie ... but I do know how to use the library," Deming said, declaring that "global warming is no more real than Bigfoot."


Looks like Al's free lunch is over. Maybe he can sell those overrated and undeserved statues he got in Hollywood last week on Ebay.


[edit on 4-3-2007 by TheAvenger]