The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie

[The Brain]

There's no way I'm going to watch an hour long movie on Teh Great Global Warming Swindle Seeb.  But please feel free to summarize what you think is the best evidence it is a swindle.

A 5 sec click-through reveals that it has old white guys talking.

[mongers]

There's no way I'm going to watch an hour long movie on Teh Great Global Warming Swindle Seeb.  But please feel free to summarize what you think is the best evidence it is a swindle.

Read all about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

[Viking]

According to these guys, it all comes down to the sun, and is it not man-made.

Actually isn't just down to the sun. The effects of the 8 and 11 year solar cycles are accounted for in most if not all climate models and the temperature is increasing when corrected for those effects. Temperature really is rising, the cause of this rise is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and human activity is the significant contributor to this increase.

Painstakingly taking you through the evidence has long since become tedious and a waste of time. NASA has a website devoted to the actual evidence.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

This is real siegy. It really is happening and it will fuck up alot as it continues to happen. Pretending that it doesn't happen is denying reality and your self delusion on this topic will only prevent you from dealing with the problem itself. The only question that serious and informed people can discuss is what we should do about it.

Please understand Siegy, this is real, it really is happening, it isn't a hoax or a scam or anything like that. The only scammers and hoaxers are the ones telling you it isn't happening and you don't need to do anything about it.

[Josquius]

Waitt, the sun? I thought it was the moon that siege had it in for?

[Eddie Teach]

The only scammers and hoaxers are the ones telling you it isn't happening and you don't need to do anything about it.

Same question I asked Siege, what do they have to gain from this?

[Viking]

Waitt, the sun? I thought it was the moon that siege had it in for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

solar output has certain cycles which affect the amount of the radiation the sun gives off. One of the arguments duringthe 1990s when the termperature was rising quickly was that this was due to the solar cycle. This was in part the case, the solar cycle should have resulted in increased temperatures, and it did. However in the early 2000s the cycle turned and temperatures should have fallen. Temperatures were stable, this is why the historic max temperatures are all in the late 1990s early 2000s.

Both arguments have been made to dismiss global warming. Either "it's all due to the sun" when temperatures are rising faster than expected and "look, temperatures are stable" when temperatures should be falling.

Stuff like solar cycles and urban heat islands and all other possible causes of warming not related to the atmosphere have been accounted for in the models we have now.

[Siege]

There's no way I'm going to watch an hour long movie on Teh Great Global Warming Swindle Seeb.  But please feel free to summarize what you think is the best evidence it is a swindle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle


"The film's basic premise is that the current scientific opinion on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising.

The film won best documentary award at the 2007 Io Isabella International Film Week.[14]

A number of academics, environmentalists, think-tank consultants and writers are interviewed in the film in support of its various assertions. They include the Canadian environmentalist Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but now a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; and Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster.

Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used.[7]"

[Admiral Yi]

That's not really a summary of the evidence Seeb.

[Siege]

The film highlights what it asserts are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence supporting man-made global warming.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then.

Variations in warming rate. The programme states that all models of greenhouse effect-derived temperature increase predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. The programme asserts that current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.

Increases in CO2 and temperatures following the end of ice ages. According to the film, increases in CO2 levels lagged (by over 100 years) behind temperature increases during glacial terminations.

Relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change. The film asserts that carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide.

Influence of oceanic mass on temperature changes. The programme argues that due to the very large mass of the world's oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in oceanic mass, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature by 800 years.

Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.

Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount—just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.[13])

Influence of the sun on climate change. The film highlights the solar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The posited mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation.[16] The film argues that the activity of the sun is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth.

Previous episodes of warming. The programme asserts that the current episode of global warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the Medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in western Europe.

[Neil]

But if it was just about the money, wouldn't they be saying the opposite?  After all, there's much better money in denying climate change than there is in preaching it.

[Tamas]

But if it was just about the money, wouldn't they be saying the opposite?  After all, there's much better money in denying climate change than there is in preaching it.

Are we sure about that?

[Eddie Teach]

Unless Exxon has some secret slush fund we don't know about(ok, it probably does), I don't see where all this supposed money is coming from. 

[Berkut]

But if it was just about the money, wouldn't they be saying the opposite?  After all, there's much better money in denying climate change than there is in preaching it.

Are we sure about that?

We are.