The Great Global Warming Swindle WS PDTV XviD-REMAX

i am a 3rd year geophysics student. first off i would like to say i dont
believe that global warming is a human created problem. that was my belief
before i watched this documentary. it is clear to me that co2 has a very
minimal role in the current period of global warming. first off because
greenhouse gases are not the only mechanism for heating the earth. furthermore
of the greenhouse gases co2 is not actually a very important greenhouse gas.
the most important greenhouse gas by far (over 95%) is water vapour. methane
is also far more important, and a host of other gases. the fact is most of the
co2 produced each year is not anthropogenic and infact of all the co2 produced
each year about 9% is produced by humans, the rest coming from organic life
volcanoes, the ocean etc etc.

now if you think carefully about this the amount of co2 we are producing is 9%
of 0.0054% of the atmosphere thats 0.000486% (less than half of 1000th of the
atmosphere)

now compare the effect that would have to the........... sun!! the utterly
huge themonuclear reaction thats happening all the time. and the important
thing to understand is that the sun is dynamic its constantly in flux and
hectactly changing, both its magnetic and thermal outputs (which both effect
us directly). thus is is not a huge cognitive leap to understand that it is
going to heavily effect our planet accordingly.

i know it is a common thing for people to feel that humans have a special
place in the universe and have a say over most things that we are presented
with. but the fact is when you are dealing with something the size of the sun
we feel very insignificant. and so we should!!!!

now all of the theories presented by global warming are on the assumption that
co2 drives warming of the planet. when infact it is shown that through
geolgical history that this is not the case as well demostrated in this show
that rising/falling co2 levels are driven by the temperature.

i.e

the changing temperature effects the co2 levels far more than co2 effects the
global temperature


this is because as the oceans heat up due to the sun they release co2 (just
like how cola goes flat if you heat it) therefore the co2 levels will closely
match the temperature. however as correctly pointed out in the show the co2
levels follow the temperature rises and are therefor obviously not the cause
of the rise
in the first place.


just so there is no more confusion co2 does not harm the ozone layer. it is
cfc's (chlorofluorocarbon's) mainly found in aerosols and as coolant in
fridges that damages the ozone and is completely different to co2

my last point is co2 is not a pollutant it is a natural gas and you certainly
dont go around polluting everytime you breathe out do you?

no se ingles pero al que quiera intentar leerlo le vendria bien... estoy cansado
de leer post de gente que no tiene idea de lo que habla... dice q es mentira
seguramente xq piensa que no les va a pasar nada pero no es asi... esto va para
los "yankees" que creen que estan salvados de todo... si uds y su gobierno sigue
con las medidas que toma nos vamos a morir todos...


"the us goverment sucks... and the worst is the people that suport it and
vote... remember this when natural catastrophes ocurr in american ground"

i don't know what the reality of the situation is. i hope i will in the
future, so until then, i am willing to listen to both sides of the argument.

i have read many posts on here saying that those who don't "know" or
who "refuse to believe" are morons. sounds at best, extremist, at worst,
ignorant. one poster actually asked why this program even got aired. the new
censorship i assume. disagree and you are silenced. ironically, this is what
environmentalists accuse governments of doing. now these people might be
proved correct at some time but, including links to obviously "impartial"
sites
is not the way to convincde people that you are correct, nor is calling non-
believers morons, (sort of like calling someone a heathen, savage or
infidel), nor are messages such as: if you want to know all about co2 or
climate
change and its causes, go to e.g., w w w.enviro warrior treehuggeranticap.c o m

most posters who claim to "know' the facts know nothing more than what they
have read and/or been convinced of by articles they have read. the most
research done by the vast majority of them is no more than clicking on an
enviro site which has its own agenda(neo-marxist or anti-capitalist or anti-
somethign else), or reading all the "facts" about it on wikipedia.

we are always warned to not believe the hype. don't accept what you hear
without checking it, question your leaders, etc.. why do people so willingly
and easily accept the theory of man-made global warming but not the opposite
position? it's propaganda
either way. i suppose it is easy for people to dismiss certain information if
it doesn't come from a "politically correct" source, however, the source
doesn't always make the information right or wrong.

there are a lot of things wrong in the world that humans have sole
responsibility for but i am not convinced yet, that this issue of man-made
global warming is one of them. my mind is still open though.

p.s. eztv, i love the site. keep up the good work.

simple we were 2 billion with out consuming energy resources we will be 9
billion soon all consuming heavy... common sense tells me that we ara on the
wrong path. my house and business runs from solar power, i'm doig my 2 cents..
are you??

the real global warming swindle
a channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie.
but an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with
distortions and errors
by steve connor
published: 14 march 2007

a channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself
flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility,
according to an investigation by the independent.

the great global warming swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted,
mislabelled or just plain wrong. the graphs were nevertheless used to attack the
credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

a graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in
global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming
was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. yet the graph was
not what it seemed.

other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago
to be wrong. yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that
orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public.

channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this
newspaper's inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of wag
tv, the production company behind the documentary.

martin durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of
the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for
the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by the independent.

mr durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the
programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate.

the main arguments made in mr durkin's film were that climate change had little
if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can
instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.

one of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph
labelled "world temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in
average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.

mr durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred
between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and
1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. this showed, he said, that
global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

the programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "nasa"
but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an
email through wag tv's pr consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998
diagram published in an obscure journal called medical sentinel. the authors of
the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the oregon
institute of science and medicine and the george c marshall institute, a
right-wing washington think-tank.

however, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the c4
graph. the nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere"
temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top
one third of the globe.

however, further inquiries revealed that the c4 graph was based on a diagram in
another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of
climate sceptics. this diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information
on terrestrial temperatures compiled by nasa scientists.

however, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in
the c4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was
up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

mr durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the
bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "there was a fluff there," he said.

if mr durkin had gone directly to the nasa website he could have got the most
up-to-date data. this would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming
since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has
been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have
undermined his argument.

"the original nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we
could find," mr durkin said.

the programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period
of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. it was caused by industrial emissions
of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. subsequent clean-air
laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global
warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of
sunspot activity. mr durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first
published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the
corrected version would not have supported his argument. mr durkin also used a
schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16
years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than
during the medieval warm period. if he had used a more recent, and widely
available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed
the past 1,000 years.

:{

maybe i believe in global warming again after reading crimsons post

ugh im so confused! :~)

currently i am an undergraduate student at university of toronto who has been
accepted into graduate school and is fully expecting to start research in remote
sounding atmospheric physics.

one of the things that surprised me most about this documentary were the number
of canadian scientists who made appearances as climate septics, mainly because i
have never heard of any of them, or read or seen reference to any paper they
have published.

i tried for about 10 min to find dr. tim ball contact information from the
university of winnipeg to find out that he has been retired for 11 years!!
certainly not on the cutting edge of climate science, i did a little more
research and found this...

http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

so if these are the only "scientists" they can find to support there theory, it
really shows how absurd they are being

rotflmao!!!!!

ok folks:

it seems that there are a few people out there who actually do not have their
head up their asses on a few subjects. for the rest...

a few basics:

most of the bad info these days comes from college campuses which have become
the most bigoted censorship-born places where the \"marketplace of ideas\" is
only allowed if you agree with the majority of those present. they are totally
hypocritical.

that said, it\'s no wonder an aberration such as the widespread and ignorant
belief in poppycock like human-influenced global warming even gets dignified,
much less glorified.]

now, both barrels to the argument:

1) it\'s impossible according to the laws of physics.

2) it\'s not relevant because it happens in cycles not based on human
interaction.

ok, now to the children in the audience:

boys and girls, once upon a time people lived on the earth and we didn\'t have
any modern stuff at all! i know that this may shock you, but yes, your
grandpa\'s grandpa\'s grandpa didn\'t have any vehicles to ride in, or any
machinery to avoid manual labor with, or anything you lazy bastards take for
granted. there were no factories, industry, or anything else for that matter.

guess what, we have totally solid proof not disputed by any meaningful
scientific agency anywhere that the earth\'s mean temperature went down, and
then went up again far more so than what was measured in the last few decades.

so, here it is boys and girls: the earth actually globally warmed all by
itself. humans had no \"modern\" means to influence it whatsoever, and yet it
happened. go ask your teacher to research a relatively recent period in our
time referred to as \"the little ice age\" and see if he/she can find that in
the
history books, assuming he/she can read. from what i see on college campuses
as tenured professors, i wouldn\'t take that for granted, children! yelling
and
screaming yes, but reading, not necessarily. maybe instead you should get off
your internet and actually do this research yourself, because remember, most of
the internet is just pretty pictures that say whatever they who designed the
site says, there is no regard for truth or accuracy, just slick looks, etc.

the wackoes keep talking about \"millions of tons of carbon\" \"we\" put into
the
air. guess what? that\'s a) virtually nothing, considering the earth\'s
atmosphere is millions of millions of millions of millions of millions of
millions of tons, and thus merely millions is so far down in the noise, we
literally don\'t have the technology to measure just how little it is!
scientists will tell you that for anything in a gas, measuring stuff to parts
per billion is just about as low as we can go, yet, for that statement to be
meaningful, we would have to have instruments that are
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as sensitive as exist!
can you say scam, boys and girls?

notice also that it\'s \"carbon\" and not carbon dioxide? that\'s because
stupid
people think that when you say \"carbon\" you are referring to the image of
smokestacks spewing soot. co2 is odorless, colorless, and used by plants to
turn it into oxygen, the stuff we breathe.

\"physics, it\'s not just a good thing, it\'s the law\" explains the rest:

if you theorize the entire planet become industrialized equally [which it\'s
not] and spent 24/7 putting those millions of tons of carbon into the air to
momentarily put sanity aside and entertain these fool\'s notions, and did all
of
that for 100 years, you might raise the mean temperature of the earth by one
degree!

since we are only presently capable of doing a mere fraction of that, maybe you
can draw your own conclusion that the present noise is a scam playing on your
guilt, fear and other fud factors.

another little thought: tell me how, if it matters so much, giving money to
the likes of putin and russia for \"carbon credit\" exchange is actually
helping
anything, except of course to line the pocket of putin and russia? if al gore
is correct, he is a damn hypocrit since he is the one leading not by example,
but instead by elitist snobbery. let algore take the public plane, not the
corporate jet if it really matters!

carbon credits is just a part of the scam to separate fools and loot. either
it matters or it doesn\'t. money changing hands in lieu of leading by example
should clue you into you are being had.

some scientists who actually measure these things notice that we are currently
in the tail end of global cooling. yes, the expected trend is to yet again
have some warming for the next few decades, and then it will yet again start
cooling again, and there\'s literally nothing we as ego-tripping humans daring
to compare ourselves to overwhelming natural forces can do anything about it.

much of the bull comes from \"scientists\" who don\'t act very scientifically,
i.e., they instead of using facts, use feelies. i don\'t mind that they have
personal politics to the left, but that doesn\'t mean we \"feel\" our way
through
these decisions. there are far too many vocal groups that just want to sound
off on how they feel; they don\'t have the facts.

here\'s something for those of you still reading this, since i assume the
kiddies have already branded me some form of one-man right-wing conspiracy by
this point. there are discredited research agencies how have already been
reprimanded for falsifying data in fraudulent reseach studies. they are good
at one thing: computer modeling fraudulent manipulation. in essence, tell them
what you want as an outcome, and they will make you a computer program that
will make the outcome look real cool on a simulation. in the case of the
global warming lie, they used farfetched notions and \"feedback\" factors that
simply do not exist in the real world to guarantee the outcome while ignoring
literally thousands of legitimate factors that would prevent the paid-for
hysterical outcome their backers wanted. so, the so-called computer simulation
is rigged to lie; fools believe computers regardless of this, and this is how
you get politicians onboard with this nonsense.

back to al gore for a little bit. his propaganda film makes you feel sorry for
a polar bear that has to swim. well, guess how polar bears get to eat? they
swim for and kill seals! their natural habitat has constantly shifted for
untold thousands of years, as they try to stay at the edge of where the ice
melts to find seals, etc. and al forgot to show you the area a few hundred
miles north that is freezing up. global means global, not cherry-picked areas
where natural melting is happening.

some idiots believe that natural disasters are caused by global warming. the
disasters, like hurrican katrina are merely the convergence of available
factors at the same time. new orleans was hit by a more fierce storm in 1954,
hurricane camille. it will likely be hit again, such is the geography of the
us gulf region. no need to drag warming into it; this is seasonal and
predictable. and if warming has to do with it, where was the storm the year
before katrina? and why was this last summer not producing another katrina?
simply because you have to be utterly stupid to connect these!

some idiots thought the northeast usa had a mild winter was warming. the
second half has already set new cold temperature records in some of this very
region. they simply cannot grasp the larger concept: global temperature has
nothing to do with recent isolated events. all of this was predicted years
ago, partly due to the changeover from the \"el ninio\" effect to the \"la
nina\"
effect. these cycles also reverse periodically.

one thing isn\'t gonna reverse: the money that flows towards russia and gore
from fools who swallow this crap isn\'t cycling back any time now!

cjl

it depresses me and i am scared, how people even here at eztv, who are familiar
with the internet and the possibility of cross-referencing information, who in
general should have a higher education and a general sense of observation fall
for such cheap propaganda... as i am from europe it reminds me of a time in the
past were false science was used to do terrible things and so few people tried
to look it up or question what they heard or saw. maybe some of you should stop
watching so many good eztv releases and start using your brains again

i still want to thank eztv for the great work they are doing, i believe it is
important also to see such documentaries to engage in discussion and to get
afterwards the right message across, although it is hard work and still a long
way to go...

seriously, it is obvious that we are causing global warming. after thinking
about it for a while it kinda make sense. and this is very, very good. and here
is why:

first of all. i have to ask you, have you ever seen a polar bear? they are huge
and horribly scary. in a place called svalbard they have begun to die out, and
that is good. now, we don't need to be afraid of getting killed and eaten by
these hideous animals anymore every time we go to bed.

but then again, i don't live there so i don't really care about the polar bears.
and this is exactly the reason all of you anti-global warming idiots want to
stop this process of making the world a better place.

now let me tell you something (and this is a fact).
here where i live, we can have 3 meters with snow in a winter, and personally i
would like to see that go away. with global warming, we actually have a chance,
now we have found a way to prevent snow in the winter, and cold winters of course.

now when this is said. i would recommend everyone to start poisoning this world,
and help us turn up the heat here in north norway. give us some god damn long
sought for heat!

ps!
i bet you people against global warming like to think about babies freezing to
death!! you should be ashamed of yourself.