The Global Warming Swindle

[D_Raay]

Professor Carl Wunsch who appeared on the programme has since repudiated the film and compared it to propaganda.

However the Commission also concluded that Durkin had misled his interviewees about the nature and purpose of the documentary, and that he had misrepresented and distorted their views by editing the interview footage in a misleading way [7]. For these reasons, Channel 4 later issued a public apology on prime time TV.[8]According to The Independent, Durkin "accepts the charge of misleading contributors, but describes the verdict of distortion as 'complete tosh'." [9]

Uh oops...

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by D_Raay

Uh oops...

uh huh.
what were the elements that were edited in a nefarious fashion?

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papers...o_channel4.htm

the said what he said....it wasn't completely out of context, he just didn't get chance to blab on and on in the film and cover his ass on both side, like many scientists try to do when a camera is on them.

if you think this is heinous...look up the "editing" that Gore enanged in with AIT.

I'd like you to show some real balls by debating the science they present.

drop drinking the kool-aid and answer.


environmentalism has become a fuckin religion.
complete with dogmatic thinking and faith.

[sercomdj01]

Global warming is a theory. There is no right or wrong answer. The whole thing rests upon the individual scientists opinion. Its like gods existance. No one can be sure either way. Its just the whole point of global warmin is that if we are to blame, then we need to do something about it. They're can't be 100% conclusive proof either way. Then it would be a law or fundermental and not a theory.
The arguement is do we rest on the side of causion or do we go with the cheeper option. Where do you stand on that Q?
I personaly beleive we are likly to be causing a speeding up of the global warming process. I read 2 scientific weeklies and many journals on the subject, and though evidence points in both directions - the main body of evidence suggests we are effecting the process.
I choose to read directly from scientific sources than how the media deals with a subject. Though everything in that documentary has factual basis, the cleaver editing and use of emotive phrasing can mislead and misappropriate many of the sources. But isn't that what the media does? Its politics now and is treated as such by the media.

Sorry to go all physicy on you all. But a good parable type idea to compair global warming is the big bang theory.
The history of the universe is based on infinate mathmatical differences that account for the entire makeup of the universe. Each one is different in a tiny way, just a number or constant. Of these only a finite small amouth actually have a big bang. So statistically and in veiw of probability there is less likly to have been a big bang.

BUT! Why do we go with the big bang theory so much? Well without the big bang the universe never started. And if the universe is infinate and has been around for ever, there is no creator. No god.

So despite the fact that the big bang theory isn't the best. People side with it as its not "ungodly". In other words there are politics and person beleif behind every scientific theory.

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by sercomdj01

The arguement is do we rest on the side of causion or do we go with the cheeper option. Where do you stand on that Q?

i believe we do NOT err on the side of caution when that entails dumping trillions in an unsubtatiated theory that will economicially cripple much of the world and keep the 3rd world countries stuck in the 3rd world...dying from poor drinking water and disease.
we have finite resources to put forth fixing global problems.
so we must prioritize the problems by levels likely hood and proof.
Man-made global warming is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down the list.

I personaly beleive we are likely to be causing a speeding up of the global warming process. I read 2 scientific weeklies and many journals on the subject, and though evidence points in both directions - the main body of evidence suggests we are effecting the process.

I'm not seeing that, what that am seeing is coming from people more suspect and desparate for money and grants than the "Shell Answer Man."

I choose to read directly from scientific sources than how the media deals with a subject.

smart lad.

Though everything in that documentary has factual basis, the cleaver editing and use of emotive phrasing can mislead and misappropriate many of the sources. But isn't that what the media does? Its politics now and is treated as such by the media.

an COMPLETELY unbiased report or documentary just probably isn't possible anymore.
you just have to look at the science.

The science is that Co2 does not appear to causing the warming...it lags behind by about 800 years during temperature changes.
so C02 isn't the cause, but a byproduct. That was proven by the very deep ice core samples Gore showed in his AIT movie. He just didn't mention that part.

It's the sun, people....the sun.
Global Temp change relies on cloud cover.
cloud cover depends on cosmic radiation from the universe hitting our oceans and forming water vapor.
The cosmic rays hitting the earth depend on the activity of the sun and the solar winds it emits from time to time.

The problem that the Green Left have with that...is that they can't do anything about the sun. It's difficult for them to force us to change our lifestyles and industry if the changes are coming from the sun, not us.
I'm sure they'll find a way.

[fucktopgirl]

Global warming is due to human activities as well as the warming of the sun.

Both factors are playing a very important role.... And human should change his destructive production habits and switch to less damaging energy production and think more about his actions instead of blaming the ocean and the freaking rabbit that fart in the field.

Also, i am amaze that some people see human who care about environment like a scam....the fuck is your problem?

Anyway, that documentary is bullshit....total crap!! The ocean is responsable for the co2..hahahahaha, alright then.

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by fucktopgirl

Global warming is due to human activities as well as the warming of the sun.

prove it.

Both factors are playing a very important role....

prove it.
which scientists are you referring to.
what work did they do, what process. are they credible?
if you can''t answer that, then environimentalism is just a religion to you.

And human should change his destructive production habits and switch to less damaging energy production and think more about his actions instead of blaming the ocean and the freaking rabbit that fart in the field.

to some degree, yes.
whenever possible, humans should be given the choice between better, cleaner environmental conditions or more industry or cheaper prices.
who are we to tell Ethopia how they should run thier industry.
free market ecomics....not Big Brother.

Also, i am amaze that some people see human who care about environment like a scam....the fuck is your problem?

to those in the "know" it is a scam. Many scientists know thier data is flawed and thier predictions are unsubstatiated....but they need the grant dollars, they want the lime light...and/or they feel the means justify the ends.
and the pressure from thier peers is enourmous.

Anyway, that documentary is bullshit....total crap!! The ocean is responsable for the co2..hahahahaha, alright then.

yeah. read some more books.

[sercomdj01]

Physically (sorry to talk about physics again) processes are mainly unreversable. It depends on a measurable quantity known as entropy. Studying the chemical reactions happening within the ozone layer it is possible to study there entropy (its pretty simple stuff actually that we new allready) and what reactions lead to global warming.
The process isn't reversable. IE there is no way we can go back once the damage is done. Part of the problem is chemical reactions are happening and truning chemicals into other chemicals. Once these are turned into the other chemicals (which means they no longer protect us from the suns power) they're is no going back. These chemicals cannot be maufactured on earth, and the process cannot be reversed. There is no way anyone can do anything about it, its against the laws of nature. Impossible.
All we can do is slow the effects down. Do you really want to see people been flooded? Cause its happening allready in some places. The whole of holland for example could disapear. Whats gonna happen then?

[QueenAdrock]

Originally Posted by Qdrop

prove it.

To you? That's impossible. It doesn't matter how much proof the other side is willing to offer, you're set in your ways and you're not open to hearing the other side; you're only open to debating it because you're already convinced anything the other side has to offer is crap. Quite a few people on this board are like that, and I admit I'm like that for a few issues too. It's like debating evolution, 9/11 conspiracy, all of that. These debates aren't cut-and-dry, there are no concrete infallible answers for either side. You just choose the answer that best fits your beliefs and sounds best to you based on the evidence you yourself have seen, and debate from there.

However, most of the time these debates turn into an "I'm right, you're wrong" thing and it's like two brick walls screaming at each other, and chest-beating commences as each side claims victory. It's tiring.

[DroppinScience]

I dunno, this "60 Minutes" piece (talking with scientists no doubt funded by Al Gore's pocket and nefarious scheming Earth Sciences departments from colleges worldwide fearmongering for funding... I sure hope the English department catches on to this trend!) is convincing enough that we ought to do something.

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/5...age_of_warming

[Qdrop]

sigh...
it's "Y2K" all over again.

"we're all gonna DIE!!!!"

than it never happened.


remember those "killer bees" migrating up from Texas at an astounding rate....they were projected to hitting the west coast within a year or 2...
what ever happened to the "killer Bee" epidemic?

what ever happened to the Bird Flu epidemic?

i guess Global Warming is the next "we're all gonna die!" thing, huh?

can't any of you see trees for the forest?

can't any of you see the pattern?

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by Qdrop

uh huh.
what were the elements that were edited in a nefarious fashion?

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papers...o_channel4.htm

the said what he said....it wasn't completely out of context, he just didn't get chance to blab on and on in the film and cover his ass on both side, like many scientists try to do when a camera is on them.

if you think this is heinous...look up the "editing" that Gore enanged in with AIT.

I'd like you to show some real balls by debating the science they present.

drop drinking the kool-aid and answer.


environmentalism has become a fuckin religion.
complete with dogmatic thinking and faith.

regardless of his belief that man still has a connection on some level to warming....he DID day : " am on record in a number of places as complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality "

[D_Raay]

Hey yeahwho, how much they paying you man to perpetuate the "myth" of Global Warming on a lightly traversed board such as this one? Or any one of you for that matter...

Are we all on the payroll or what? If so where's my cut?

[yeahwho]

Originally Posted by D_Raay

Hey yeahwho, how much they paying you man to perpetuate the "myth" of Global Warming on a lightly traversed board such as this one? Or any one of you for that matter...

Are we all on the payroll or what? If so where's my cut?

Just because I'm such a green slut, easily greenwashed and I have a greenie weenie too.

That is why I'm getting the greenbacks for hyping up this dream they invented called "Global Warming", hahahahahahaha!

Hey here is the Great Global Warming Swindle website with it's intense debunking ready to go. I love it.

The best thing about all of this hype is it forces many to think beyond what is being fed to them by the media, to actually think. Thinking, that is what millions of people have neglected to do before entering the "Global Warming" issue.



Here is the first volley of misrepresentations in the documentary the Great Global Warming Swindle.

[Otis Driftwood]

It's gettin' hot in hea:

An island made by global warming
By Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor
Published: 24 April 2007
The map of Greenland will have to be redrawn. A new island has appeared off its coast, suddenly separated from the mainland by the melting of Greenland's enormous ice sheet, a development that is being seen as the most alarming sign of global warming.

Several miles long, the island was once thought to be the tip of a peninsula halfway up Greenland's remote east coast but a glacier joining it to the mainland has melted away completely, leaving it surrounded by sea.

Shaped like a three-fingered hand some 400 miles north of the Arctic Circle, it has been discovered by a veteran American explorer and Greenland expert, Dennis Schmitt, who has named it Warming Island (Or Uunartoq Qeqertoq in Inuit, the Eskimo language, that he speaks fluently).

The US Geological Survey has confirmed its existence with satellite photos, that show it as an integral part of the Greenland coast in 1985, but linked by only a small ice bridge in 2002, and completely separate by the summer of 2005. It is now a striking island of high peaks and rugged rocky slopes plunging steeply to a sea dotted with icebergs.

As the satellite pictures and the main photo which we publish today make clear, Warming Island has been created by a quite undeniable, rapid and enormous physical transformation and is likely to be seen around the world as a potent symbol of the coming effects of climate change.

But it is only one more example of the disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet, that scientists have begun to realise, only very recently, is proceeding far more rapidly than anyone thought.

The second-largest ice sheet in the world (after Antarctica), if its entire 2.5 million cubic kilometres of ice were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 metres, or more than 23 feet.

That would inundate most of the world's coastal cities, including London, swamp vast areas of heavily-populated low-lying land in countries such as Bangladesh, and remove several island countries such as the Maldives from the face of the Earth. However, even a rise one tenth as great would have devastating consequences.

Sea level rise is already accelerating. Sea levels are going up around the world by about 3.1mm per year - the average for the period 1993-2003. That is itself sharply up from an average of 1.8mm per year over the longer period 1961-2003. Greenland ice now accounts for about 0.5 millimetre of the total. (Much of the rest of the rise is coming from the expansion of the world's sea water as it warms.)

Until two or three years ago, it was thought that the break-up of the ice sheet might take 1,000 years or more but a series of studies and alarming observations since 2004 have shown the disintegration is accelerating and, as a consequence, sea level rise may be much quicker than anticipated.

Earlier computer models, researchers believe, failed to capture properly the way the ice sheet would respond to major warming (over the past 20 years, Greenland's air temperature has risen by 3C). The 2001 report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was relatively reassuring, suggesting change would be slow.

But satellite measurements of Greenland's entire land mass show that the speed at which its glaciers are moving to the sea has increased significantly in the past decade, with some of them moving three times faster than in the mid-1990s.

Scientists estimate that, in 1996, glaciers deposited about 50 cubic km of ice into the sea. In 2005, it had risen to 150 cubic km of ice.

A study last year by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology showed that, rather than just melting relatively slowly, the ice sheet is showing all the signs of a mechanical break-up as glaciers slip ever faster into the ocean, aided by the "lubricant" of meltwater forming at their base. As the meltwater seeps down it lubricates the bases of the "outlet" glaciers of the ice sheet, causing them to slip down surrounding valleys towards the sea,

Another discovery has been the increase in "glacial earthquakes" caused by the sudden movement of enormous blocks of ice within the ice sheet. The annual number of them recorded in Greenland between 1993 and 2002 was between six and 15. In 2003, seismologists recorded 20 glacial earthquakes. In 2004, they monitored 24 and for the first 10 months of 2005 they recorded 32. The seismologists also found the glacial earthquakes occurred mainly during the summer months, indicating the movements were indeed associated with rapidly melting ice - normal "tectonic" earthquakes show no such seasonality. Of the 136 glacial quakes analysed in a report published last year, more than a third occurred during July and August.

The creation of Warming Island appears to be entirely consistent with the disintegrating ice sheet, coming about when the glacier bridge linking it to the mainland simply disappeared. It was discovered by Mr Schmitt, a 60-year-old explorer from Berkeley, California, who has known Greenland for 40 years, during a trip he led up the remote coastline.

According to the US Geological Survey: "More islands like this may be discovered if the Greenland Ice Sheet continues to disappear."

A self-governing dependency of Denmark, Greenland is the largest island in the world but is inhabited by only 56,000 people, mainly Inuit. More than 80 per cent of the land surface is covered by the ice sheet.


from : http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2480994.ece

[Ali]

Yeah, but how do we know that wouldn't have happened anyway?

We don't, do we?

Still doesn't mean we souldn't try and stop pumping CO2 into the sky and chemicals into our rivers, does it Q?

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by D_Raay

Hey yeahwho, how much they paying you man to perpetuate the "myth" of Global Warming on a lightly traversed board such as this one? Or any one of you for that matter...

Are we all on the payroll or what? If so where's my cut?

you're not being paid....
you're just bowing to your new religion.

facts needs not apply.

[yeahwho]

I am not going to watch the Global Warming Swindle, it is and always will be an easy way to be told what to think, rather than to actually think.

Qdrop;

I do read my links, Thanks for quoting them..now on the first one you are trying to tell me you read it yet I will point out to a little section as you scroll down called "Global Warming" and while your there, read "Solar Variation Theory" the point I'm trying to get across is this,

Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Göttingen, Germany said:

The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Over the last twenty years, however, Solanki agrees with the nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the marked upswing in temperatures is indeed to be attributed to human activity.

"Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."

CO2 is the jargon, it is not a byproduct, but since you want to be fully informed (I believe that is your intent) here is something that will even piss you off more, Carbon dioxide equivalent or CO2e, of which of course CO2 emissions makes up the bulk of when discussing mans involvement in "Global Warming".

As far as somebody being "had" on this thread I suggest you pack in your insane thoughts on trivializing a very real tragedy and start realizing that it is only going to continue to be more and more of a tragedy until denial gives into acceptance. This film and its director will be exposed for exactly what they are, another in a long line of sensationalists trying to exploit reality for their own purposes.

Nothing more, Nothing less.

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by yeahwho

I am not going to watch the Global Warming Swindle, it is and always will be an easy way to be told what to think, rather than to actually think.

Qdrop;

I do read my links, Thanks for quoting them..now on the first one you are trying to tell me you read it yet I will point out to a little section as you scroll down called "Global Warming" and while your there, read "Solar Variation Theory" the point I'm trying to get across is this,

Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Göttingen, Germany said:

The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Over the last twenty years, however, Solanki agrees with the nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the marked upswing in temperatures is indeed to be attributed to human activity.

"Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."

CO2 is the jargon, it is not a byproduct, but since you want to be fully informed (I believe that is your intent) here is something that will even piss you off more, Carbon dioxide equivalent or CO2e, of which of course CO2 emissions makes up the bulk of when discussing mans involvement in "Global Warming".

As far as somebody being "had" on this thread I suggest you pack in your insane thoughts on trivializing a very real tragedy and start realizing that it is only going to continue to be more and more of a tragedy until denial gives into acceptance. This film and its director will be exposed for exactly what they are, another in a long line of sensationalists trying to exploit reality for their own purposes.

Nothing more, Nothing less.

why do CO2 levels TRAIL increases in global temp throughout history...if they, in fact, are supposed to CAUSE increases in temperature?
this is taken directly from the deep ice core samples show right in Gore's movie.

[yeahwho]

Originally Posted by Qdrop

why do CO2 levels TRAIL increases in global temp throughout history...if they, in fact, are supposed to CAUSE increases in temperature?
this is taken directly from the deep ice core samples show right in Gore's movie.

I guess I'm going to have to remind you of something, I did not watch An Inconvenient Truth.

That question has pissed off some people enough to have to respond to this hackjob documentary, which really isn't fair because it legitimizes poor science more than it needs to be. The British Antarctic Survey/Natural Environment Council have a very clear response to this query.

The British Antarctic Survey is highly critical of the program, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years." Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4's editorial standards, the statement says: "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 program would be guilty of serious professional misconduct. It uses the feedback argument to explain temperatures rising before CO2.

[D_Raay]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6598953.stm

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by yeahwho

I guess I'm going to have to remind you of something, I did not watch An Inconvenient Truth.

That question has pissed off some people enough to have to respond to this hackjob documentary, which really isn't fair because it legitimizes poor science more than it needs to be. The British Antarctic Survey/Natural Environment Council have a very clear response to this query.

The British Antarctic Survey is highly critical of the program, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years." Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4's editorial standards, the statement says: "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 program would be guilty of serious professional misconduct. It uses the feedback argument to explain temperatures rising before CO2.

bullshit.
they got caught with thier pants down.
the CO2 house of cards is crumbling.

just like "the summer of the shark"
just like "y2k"
just like "alQueda in our backyard"
just like "WMD's"
just like "the killer Bees from mexico"

after real science triumphs AGAIN and smacks you greens into submission...

it will be on to the "impending doom from an as yet unnamed asteroid heading to earth!!! It's true! we have graphs!!"