the great global warming swindle

HoldingFolding · #1 03-12-2007, 04:12 AM

Apologies if this has been posted before. A friend of mine sent me this & I'd be interested to hear opinions as to the validity of their arguments. (you might want to skip the first 10 minutes which seems to contain unnecessary hyperbole)

Metric · #2 03-12-2007, 06:28 AM

Thanks for the link. I'm by no means an expert in this particular field, but the people interviewed in this video certainly seem to fit the profile of "reasonable scientists" more than a lot of the crusaders from the other side that I've met or watched.

context · #3 03-12-2007, 08:52 AM

I found the arguments (against the human causes of global warming) very persuasive - I wasn't expecting to.

I've read other people claim that various statements made are incorrect. But without spending a lot of time studying the data it's difficult to know whether to believe "expert" A over "expert" B.

For example: The argument about the expected temperature gradient from the earths surface through the troposphere. The idea that CO2 induced warming would see temperatures rising as you move from the surface to the top of the troposhpere. The programme claimed that this isn't seen in any (of many/all?) recording studies performed. This is a major problem for proponents on human caused global warming - it's actually a massive/fundamental blow to their theories/arguments. But, I've read others who claim that more recent studies, including satellite bases observations, have shown the "expected" temperature gradient.

So, who do you believe?

Nielsio · #4 03-12-2007, 08:53 AM

Another state scam uncovered.

ianlippert · #5 03-12-2007, 09:29 AM

Another good arguement from the film is that CO2 emissions didnt really get going until 1940. Although the industrial revolution has been around for a couple of hundred years, it has mostly been limited to very few geographic areas. The graphs presented in the film claim that the current warming trend started early in the 20th century and actually dipped (global cooling scare) after 1940. It seems really hard to believe that if human CO2 causes global warming we would see it within 50 years. The movie claims that it takes the oceans 800 years to warm up, 50 years is nothing on a geological time scale.

I really liked the arguement that global warming causes an increase in CO2, they even show the graphs where CO2 lags behind global temperatures implying the causation. If the data presented in the film is true, there is no way I could possible believe in global warming any more.

Phil153 · #6 03-12-2007, 09:52 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...on_director%29

This is the director of the film. He also made a documentary claiming that silcone breast implants are GOOD for a woman's health.

LOL. The guy has a history of ignoring large bodies of contrary evidence, and manipulating and editing informations and interviews unfairly. He is no doubt getting paid handsomely by corporate interests. You should take everything he says with a grain of salt.

Hopefully wacki will come in and address the points raised.

Phil153 · #7 03-12-2007, 10:29 AM

I haven't watched the whole thing, but one thing that stood out very sharply is the graph of solar strength and temperature. Notice how he stops it at 1975. That's incredibly dishonest. We have data all the way to present day. Want to know why he stops at 1975?

Because the temperature starts rapidly pulling away from the solar strength line, all the way to the present day.

The guy is dishonest, and almost certainly getting paid by oil companies. Contrast this with some of the scientists he interviews, who strongly believe human induced warming is real, yet present all the facts including contradictory evidence.

pvn · #8 03-12-2007, 10:30 AM

Cliff notes?

The once and future king · #9 03-12-2007, 10:37 AM

Two of the Scientists in the Film actually agree with Global Warming, yet the film didnt mention this, it just misrepresented their views via editing.

LOL at the way they presented numerous scientists who didnt agree with man made global warming yet the only source they sited for the case for MMGW was "Al Gore's emotional film."

The documentary made no attempt at balanced debate. There are literally thousands of scientists that are pro MMGW and the film didnt reference 1 of them. Indeed it presented pro MMGW scientists as anti MMGW.

Anyone who is influenced by this film is a sucker. Not because they dont agree with MMGW but because they can be influenced by so totally overt biased media programming.

context · #10 03-12-2007, 10:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...on_director%29

This is the director of the film. He also made a documentary claiming that silcone breast implants are GOOD for a woman's health.

LOL. The guy has a history of ignoring large bodies of contrary evidence, and manipulating and editing informations and interviews unfairly. He is no doubt getting paid handsomely by corporate interests. You should take everything he says with a grain of salt.

Hopefully wacki will come in and address the points raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which implies the guy likes to make comments that run counter to perceived wisdom. But, that doesn't mean the scientists interviewed in the film are wrong.

Where is this "wacki" of which you speak?