Global Warming Swindle - now the truth is out

[DougHuntingdon]

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsi ... ramme.html

[ryan costa]

It will be interesting to see how the Global Climate Change works out. Sure, if it is 80 degrees one day and 25 degrees the next the average doesn't change much.

I'm not up on paleoclimatology very much. But one fascinating thing is that grassland ecosystems didn't really evolve until about 23 million years ago, in the Neogene period. If this is because the climate for grasslands had never existed before this(in the history of plant life), we could be in trouble. If the world is turned into a checkerboard of swamps and deserts a lot of changes will have to take place to minimize loss of life and optimize quality of life for most Americans and Canadians.

[Brian Pedaci]

Yo Dougie, you might want to do a bit more reading before you go spreading that link around any more. Looks like you're the one that got swindled.

[Bill Call]

Even some global warming alarmists are saying they have overstated their case. By a lot.

Here is a Newsweek article that has a very sensible take.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Global warming hysterics should keep one thing in mind: If the Earth warms as much as they think it will in 75 years the Earth will still be cooler than it was 1000 years ago.

[ryan costa]

This was a poor article.

First, it claims anti-Global Warming advocates assume there is an "optimal temperature". This is untrue, nor do intelligent Global Climate think in simple terms of "average temperature".

The author claims climate modeling tools used to prove global climate change are "outdated" and as inaccurate as those that mis-predict what the local weather will be like next week. Um...the U.S. has led the world in the field of Super Computers for most of the history of Super Computers. A large portion of the use of Super Computers is in analyzing and predicting weather patterns.

The author claims there hasn't been an increase in average temperature directly proportional to measured increase in atmospheric C02. Take a snow cone. breathe across it heavily while place your hand on the other side to feel your breath. Some of the ice cream will melt. The phase change of ice to liquid absorbs heat, while your breath will feel cooler.

This article is crap journalism, like something Stephen Moore would write.

[DougHuntingdon]

Brian

I have watched the whole movie, while I believe only a summary is provided in the link I gave. Even if you believe 100% in MANMADE global warming and that electric cars will cure it, I think it is healthy to look at a documented contrary opinion.

With what specific points of the Global Warming Swindle video do you disagree, or are you disagreeing just because you like Al Gore?

Let me help you (example):

"From the video, John Doe, Professor of Climatology at Harvard University, stated that humans only create 30 megatons of carbon dioxide per year."

Response by Brian: obviously this is propaganda, because no other scientist or study can corroborate John Doe's research. In fact, a study by Mr. X of ABC Institute shows that 420 megatons are released from 2000 coal plants alone, study by Ms. Y of Harvard Univ shows that 800 megatons are released from coal plants and autos, and study by Mr. Z of Russian School of Atmospheres shows that approximately 30 megatons are released ONLY from RUSSIAN cars."

Doug

[Brian Pedaci]

I neither particularly like nor dislike Mr Gore. I dislike easily-refuted "documentaries" that take more liberties with the facts than that which they are reputing to disprove.

Did you read the bit where the filmmaker was confronted with proof that he'd monkeyed with the graphs to prove his point?

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.

I'd LOVE to see a good, reasonable, solid argument against global warming. Love to. This just isn't it. They used completely faked data. The man has absolutely no credibility.

Rather than try and take apart this film point by point, I'll let smarter people than me do it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573


That is, if you really do care. Maybe you'll find the truth inconvenient to your arguments

[DougHuntingdon]

Brian

While I am disappointed that you could not come up with a single point, I appreciate you pasting the other link. I am not afraid to view alternate views, and I will check it out.

Doug

[Brian Pedaci]

I could have posted points, but I'd only be copying what the man in the video said. More honest to just post the link and let people go through it themselves.

The faked data in the graphs is the biggest turnoff for me anyway.

[DougHuntingdon]

Ok I watched half of that video. Again thanks for posting it.

Here's another recent article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Perhaps the tide is finally starting to turn, and I'm not talking about the ocean.

Doug