what do you think of this documentary?

Question

it explains well this global warming, from a different point of view. it is 1 hour and 13 minutes long

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=documentary&hl=en

Answer 1

Ive have watched and listened, it didn't impress me that much. Some interesting comments and points, but felt it was far to one sided and biased. Not one of Channel 4's best moments airing that. After watching I investigated a bit more.

The BBC has rejected the the producer Mark Durkin's work previously for the 1998 documentary on breast implants which was later shown on Channel 4. The BBC whose in-house researcher concluded that Durkin had ignored a large body of evidence contradicting his claims in the program.

He is understood to have once been closely involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party and its later offshoots Living Marxism (or LM magazine) and Spiked, a magazine and associated political network which promotes libertarian views, and is highly critical of environmentalism.

In 1997, Channel 4 broadcast Durkin's documentary series Against Nature. The Independent Television Commission 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. For these reasons, Channel 4 later issued a public apology on prime time TV.

Durkin's documentary which argues in favor of genetic modification was broadcast on Channel 4 on March 20th 2000, also met with complaints. A joint letter signed by a number of scientists from the Third World was issued in protest of Durkin's claims in this documentary. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a scientist featured on the program, later said of her participation in the program: "I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position."

The Great Global Warming Swindle was a 2007 documentary film which premiered on Channel 4 in the United Kingdom on March 8, 2007. The film has drawn wide-spread complaints from the scientific community, citing numerous errors and misleading claims. Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists featured in the programme, has said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed. He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator.

Wunsch has said that he has received a legal letter from the production company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he agrees to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented nor misled.

Dr Armand Leroi from Imperial College London wrote to Durkin on the 9th March 2007 to complain about the distorted science that the programme contained. Durkin's response to Dr Leroi's email was "You're a big daft c*ck". The science journalist and author Simon Singh who was copied in on the email pleaded with Durkin to engage in a meaningful discussion, to which Durkin responded, "...Go and f*ck yourself".

The show attracted 2.5 million viewers and an audience share of 11.5%. Though there have been 246 complaints to Ofcom as of April 25, 2007

Answer 2

Refused is ******* dead the documentry. It's about a band from the 90s that had a sound so influencial to music but was too early for their time. All this screamo, emo, hardcore crap you hear today is a watered down version of Refused.

Answer 3

I have seen it before. It is interesting. I agree with some of it and don't agree with some of it. It is just the political opposite of "An Inconvenient Truth". That is to say, both films are political propaganda dressed up with selected scientific trappings.

Answer 4

sound great. I love talking about global warming

Answer 5

I tend to agree with the video.... But wouldn't it be nice if the earth was a little greener and healthier... and if we all slowed our pace just a little bit?

Answer 6

Nice a lil long but very informational.

Answer 7

The theory of man-made global warming is false. Anyone who believes otherwise has not investigated the evidence or is purposely remaining ignorant to the legitimate opposition to global warming. I have given up an one and a half hours to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” so I ask you to do the same and watch the movie detailing the opposition.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=great+global+warming+swindle.
And another video for those of you short on time: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
Some more general resources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4
http://www.john-daly.com/

CO2 is not causing the globe to warm the opposite is true, the warming is increasing the atmospheric CO2. When the world heats it gradually increases the temperature of the oceans which serve as the largest CO2 sink. As the oceans heat up they release CO2 which is stored in them. The information comes from the same data Al Gore uses, the temperature always goes up before the concentration of CO2 goes up.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/ninelieslaunch.pdf#search=%22vostok%20figure%20125%22
This is the entire record of temperature verses CO2 record. This is the same data used by Al Gore but anyone with a fifth grade education can see that temperature rises before CO2:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif
The global warming crowd tends to hind this graph, they will only show graphs of the last 20 or so years in which CO2 appears to cause a temperature increase. However when you look at the full data set you see that the current warming trend is not the result of CO2, CO2 rises after temperature. The global warming crowd uses the zoomed in graph to mislead you also they tend to use thick lines on the graph so you can’t make out what rises first. As you can see the temperature rises first and then CO2 starts to skyrocket, that’s why graphs of only 20 years seem to show CO2 leading temperature.


CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere. Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, makes up 1-4% of our atmosphere, this gas is acknowledged to be the main greenhouse gas. All human activities combined contribute only 6 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Animals, through respiration, decomposition, etc contribute 150 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere. So humans contribute only a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere which is already in very small concentrations in the atmosphere.
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html This is where my data came from, it is an interesting site, it displays the same graphics as Al Gore in his movie but it tells how low the human contribution is. So Al Gore is using the same data but coming to a different conclusion, who do you want to believe a politician with no scientific training or the NASA CO2 laboratory, a group of scientists who spend their entire careers studying CO2.

We know the greenhouse effect is real it is a necessary effect to keep our planet at a habitable temperature. However if our current warming is due to greenhouse gasses it would cause warming in the troposphere , but the troposphere is actually getting cooler.
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/. That points to other explanations to our current warming.

So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.
http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/642-2.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar_activity.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040803093903.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=900
The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses. Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mgs-092005.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mgs-092005-images.html
Another theory is that ocean currents play a role
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-03/UoCS-Nrol-1903100.php

The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N46/EDIT.jsp
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

The global warming crowd also insists our seas are rising due to global warming, however this is not entirely correct. Seas in certain areas are rising, there is no global sea rise. The seas have been rising ever since the last ice age: http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Sea_Level_png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
These two sources show that sea level increase now has actually leveled off from a very steep rise for the past 20 thousand years. For proof of this look here:
http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/markhotd.htm
A mark left by Sir James Clark Ross, an Antarctic explorer, in 1841 is still visible. Not only that but the mark was placed in 1841 to show how high the sea was, not only is the mark visible it is 30cm above current sea levels. Now it is possible that the mark was placed at high tide and the picture taken at low, but even then the mark would still be above current sea levels. The seas have risen dramatically over the past thousand years not due in any part to us. If you want proof of that take a look at one of the dozens of ancient underwater cities that spot the globe. When these cities were built they were on land now they are deep underwater: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s1107203.htm
This shows a dramatic increase in sea level during human time but long before the world became industrialized.

The global warming crowd also claims a scientific consensus on the issue, this is wrong in two ways. One, there is no consensus, this is a false claim to make you believe in global warming by suppressing the opposition. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Second, even if there was a consensus it would mean nothing, science is not politics, you don’t vote on theories to determine their legitimacy.
Here’s 21 pages of websites that disagree with global warming.
http://www.climatechangedebate.org/documents/CCD_read.pdf
The thought that the only scientists who disagree with global warming are paid by oil companies is simply a stupid statement with no reality. This is the most illogical argument by people in support of global warming. Aside from being completely false it begs another question: Who pays global warming supporters? The answer is big environmental agencies that make millions off of global warming each year by teaching, publishing books, and selling environmentally clean products.

The IPCC is the main supporter of global warming, their statements are defended blindly by people who don’t want to admit that global warming is not real. People will claim that they took into account natural sources of CO2, they didn’t. Take a look for yourself:
http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm. That is the latest IPCC report, read the entire report, do a search of the documents, there is absolutely no mention of natural sources of CO2. The natural sources have been completely ignored. Also people will claim that the IPCC took the sun into account in their report, this is not entirely correct, while the sun is mentioned the report it’s effects have not been accurately represented.
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm. The IPCC did not take into account the Svensmark factor. This would greatly reduce the effect of solar radiation on the earth. Look back up to the solar resources to see the effect of the sun correctly represented.
Also allegations have been by IPCC scientists who disagreed with the IPCC statements. They say that their research was censored or taken out of the IPCC report. This is not the first time the IPCC has lied, they forged the famous “hockey stick” graph, which later resulted in a reissuing of the IPCC report.
Here’s another source that disagrees with the IPCC: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept1004GlobalWarmingPG.pdf
And another: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/ipccreview.htm
And another: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

Quotes form politicians, CEO’s, and others are not proof of global warming, they issue these statements to get votes and customers. Scientists are able to get published and get time on the media by supporting global warming. The IPCC continually lies and misrepresents data so they keep their jobs.

In regards to the precautionary principle that says we can only help if we switch over to alternative energy, this idea is not correct. While this may seem legitimate it only helps the first world, third world countries can not afford to switch to the more expensive energy options. Also the US currently spends 4 billion dollars a year on global warming research which could be better spent on research for disease or to fight poverty. For an excellent example of how the precautionary principle is harmful you do not need to look further than DDT. This pesticide was cheap and incredibly effective but it was banned because of it harmful effects on egg shells. Now thousands of people die every year in third world countries because of malaria, a disease that could be easily controlled with DDT.

I hope anyone who believes in global warming they will take a look at the resources I provided. These resources should convince you that global warming is not man-made, it is caused by cycles in the earths climate. If you are not convinced I hope you at least take a new look at global warming as an unproven idea. Remember that global warming is big business for anyone who aligns themselves with it.

I could not go this entire post without mentioning global cooling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
http://www.michaelkubacki.com/cooling.htm
In the 1970’s it was claimed that there was a consensus on the fact that the world was headed into an ice age. We have seen once before how damaging a false claim about our climate change can be to our world. Most of the global warming crowd does not want you to know about this scare because it is so similar to the scare today. Government panels were formed and claimed the world was headed to an ice age, evidence poured in supporting the claim, a consensus was claimed, then the whole issue just faded away. That is what will happen with the false scare of global warming.