http://www.garagetv.be/video-galeri..._Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx My summary of it: The first part explains the alternate theory to global warming. That is, CO2 is not a causative factor of climate change but actually a product of a much bigger, more obvious factor of climate change.. the sun. The second part explains global warming's anti-capitalist roots, propaganda, and what I find terribly saddening at the end, the prohibition of modernization in third-world countries. To be fair and honest, StOx is banned, so unless he returns sometime soon I don't expect as much of a vigorous opposition to the film.
Old, was on Channel 4 and i think there was a counter documentary debunking it, but from what i know recently there have been alot of scientists defecting from supporting climate change to being a skeptic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception_and_criticism Also In an official judgement issued on 21 July 2008 the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on "due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Ofcom_investigation_of_complaints
Yeah there's nothing going on. Our Co2 emissions are having no effect at all on the earth's atmosphere and environment. Let's all just burn more fossil fuels. Screw clean coal. We don't need it. Burn baby burn. The earth is the same today as if we'd never been here.
Do even the global warming people take themselves seriously anymore? They don't even call it global warming anymore, because they aren't sure if it's warming. For example the glaciers in Canada have been growing at record paces. Greenland's largest glaciers also, for example, have doubled their usual rate of growth. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml The bbc reported Greenland's largest glaciers are now growing at a a rate of 7.2 miles per year (as opposed to half that in prior years). It should be no surprise, a few decades ago, Time magazine proposed the idea of "global cooling", then we started having a warming phase and they promoted "global warming", now it's getting cold again, so they started putting out reports that CO2 might cause "global cooling" instead of warming. Basically covering their asses any way you look at it. It's all a sham to push the one world government. If you want a global government, you have to push a "global problem". So far the political leaders' "solution" has been precisely global governance. Bush is pushing for a global carbon tax, the Clintons are pushing for a global carbon tax, Obama is pushing for a global carbon tax, McCain is pushing for a global carbon tax. They always have the solution prepared in advance for the public to consume. See a trend? You're all waking up about 30 years too late to take your country back. As for CO2, pleaaaase! The #1 cause of CO2 in the world is living life. Cows are the #1 cause of CO2. Cows emit more CO2 than all transporation combined (cars, planes, trains, ships, etc.). Humans emit twice the CO2 of all the cars in the world. So what is the solution to getting rid of CO2? Kill all CO2 emitting life on earth? So if you REALLY believe in global warming, it is your duty to get a shotgun and start shooting cows. But lemme guess you're a sissy vegan who can't harm animals...that's too bad, guess the planet has to die then, lol.
Nate, from about 6 months ago, the specific causal chain was discussed... http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=8091409&postcount=17
Care to debunk any of the issues or just broadcast an opinion? Note the fear that exists when an alternate theory is considered.. I find it hilarious.
I am debunking it by presenting a counter argument. My counter argument is to simply show you just how ridiculous your argument is by agreeing with it. If we were to believe that global warming isn't taking place, then everything I said above is true, so I don't see anything funny about it. But hey I've got this weird uncle who bursts out laughing for no apparent reason sometimes. We don't make fun of him, so it would, I guess, be unfair to do so to you. So you go on lil fella, enjoy the voices in your head.
Northpoint, sorry I couldn't respond earlier, I procrastinate with the shopping thing.. I skimmed the thread, and while there was good discussion in the later threads, there wasn't much said on this theory - besides maybe a snippet of your post that oxygen is decreasing while CO2 is increasing. What I want to know, from you or anyone is what is specifically mentioned in the video - Are the graphs and science they show wrong or only half-true? Simply, what is wrong with what is there? I'll be open-minded.
Nate, to be fair, I haven't yet watched your video - so I might be off mark. Sorry, I'll watch it and post my thoughts. What I was referring to might have been in that thread, or another one that emanated from it - I had an exchange with Supper over the isotopal concentrations of CO2, measured, actual data. The changes in isotopal ratios indicate not only changes in overall atmospheric CO2, but changes in the kind of CO2. That second change is important - it suggests a line of causality, and not mere correlation. The causality points to combustion, e.g., man-made effects. I will also say that in my very narrow corner of the universe, I've seen it firsthand - we're heating up. Wine is getting flabby, and has for some time, by being baked out by increasingly longer and hotter seasons, in formerly temperament climes. Colder grapes are moving ever northward, as well. And fisheries are being dramatically affected. This isn't conjecture, but what I have literally seen over my time as a chef.
I would be pretty convinced of global warming if this were true (and if i knew science better to understand it). Is there any sources for this?
This film is an excellent example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I actually spent the last hour-and-a-half watching it, and I must admit...it's a good show. I found myself wondering if climate change really is a phantom after all. Then I did some research on the film itself, and discovered that there were serious problems with every aspect of the "polemic"-from scientists who said their words had been taken out of context, to "convincing" graph data that had been wholly fabricated, to the poor reputation of the producer, Martin Durkin. Durkin, who lives under a ton of bad press over his deceitful media coverage, responds to his detractors with such bits of wisdom as "You’re a big daft cock" and "Never mind a bit of irresponsible film-making. Go and fuck yourself". This is an effective-even genius piece of propaganda. But dig beneath the surface, and there are enough holes in this film to drive a hundred coal trucks through. The sad part is, most viewers will be sold.
Not to double post, but I may not edit my last post and I do feel the need to respond to the anonymous (green?) rep saying, I would like to say that refuting the science in the film is a job for scientists...and that I doubt any of us on this forum are really qualified to pass conclusive judgment on the poorly understood science of climate change. I am actually not committed to the current model; it may in fact be in error. The history of science suggests that this may be the case. I do not base my environmentalism or support of renewable energy on climate change theories. There are many more concrete reasons to prefer clean, sustainable alternatives to coal and oil, and it is disingenuous that the film denies this is the case. In fact, oil and mineral exploitation is rampant in Africa right now, and to the extreme detriment of the local people in every case. It is rather absurd to suggest that the poverty of these people is caused by the recent attention to renewable energy. The film does a very good job of supporting its own internal logic, so I leave it to the legion of climate scientists to refute these claims. However, as a participant in media arts, it is within my domain to judge the motives, accuracy, and character of the individual responsible for this film. He is also not a scientist, but-as the record plainly indicates-a disreputable character with a habit of distorting information. Quoting his abusive and cavalier responses to detractors seems to make the case quite neatly. And please make your comments in the thread so that everyone can see next time.
Good points and all true, but most of the same can be said about Mr. Gore's film. It really is all propaganda. I am born and raised in Juneau, AK and good ole Al had a moment in his film where he showed the glacier about 6 miles from where I lived. He then talked about how global warming caused it to move back and showed previous pictures. What he failed to mention is that some glaciers receed while others move forward. This particular glacier had carved out the whole valley on its way back there and has been receeding for millions of years, of course my truck caused that.
The climate change "debate" is very much like the evolution "debate" in that one side have science, evidence and facts on their side and the other have conspiracy theories and carefully selected articles written by people who happen to agree with them. If you disbelieve in man made climate change simply refute any one of these statements and win yourself a Nobel prize. 1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas 2. We produce, through the burning of fossil fuels, Co2 which is released in to the atmosphere.
I think it's a bit more of a complex issue than that, considering life forms like trees and plants thrive on CO2. What do you have to say regarding the article that says global warming has halted?