The Great Global Warming Swindle

Did anyone watch this on Channel 4?

I have thought for a long time that global warming has nothing to do with C02 levels. Good to see some real experts explaining how stupid the current environmental propaganda is.

For those that missed the programme, this is worth looking at.

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/...e-greenhouse-effect-is-a-myth-say-scientists/

I didn't see the program but, what scientists does not tell us that the temperature change is 800 years before the C02 levels were raised. C02 is NOT a pollutant it is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere it is essential to life its what all plants use in order thrive. Without Co2 there would be no life on earth. So let get that very clear. It has increased and it is undoubtedly the case that the human activities have led to the increase. But that does not prove that it is the cause of warming. You see it is just the correlation. For example during much of the last century the climate was cooling while C02 was rising. So how do you explain that?

Ho forgot to say Mars is also warming but you wont here this on the news
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html?source=rss


Lets face it, Its a new TAX for us to pay...Its called Globel Warming, most will fall for it.

Saw it advertised and thought, well yeah the planet's been going through these cycles for millions of years, also CO2 great for trees, plant more trees, they eat CO2 by the bucket load and give oxygen.

But maybe man has helped speed things up, er but thinking , the ozone layer , radiation shield protection from space rays , is that still buggered ? Not heard Ozone mentioned for a decade or so now really, but I must confess my heads been in a bunker for some time now.


Saw that poker film , rounders though. great cast.

hmm unless this is a cunning 5/10 year plan to get a UN sanction for china to comply , and bugger their industrial output because they barbecue bricks like no one else can, they'll say up yours then then U.S. can flatten china?

Its worrying to see Bush, even think green and alternatives to oil , no wonder hes going out ..

All of it worryingly makes sense to me....

Another one is the "smoking can damage your health" myth. We have been inhaling dusty, smoky air for thousands of years (from general dust and smoke pollutants in the air). How then can smoking cigarettes cause you grief?

Well of course it can, and so does polluting the atmosphere cause the earth harm. How many "scientists" disagree with the global warming "myth". Probably the same amount that disagree with the "smoking damages your lungs" story.

Very good program, made credible by hard evidence.

It's very hard to know who to believe, and the govt's propaganda, backed up by the environmentalists religous type support is very powerful. This makes it hard to know who to believe.

When government scientists tell us things we just believe them, forgetting that they have a political reason for saying what they do.

This is what prisonplanet journalist Alex Jones makes of global warming. He takes things a step further than the documentary.

I fell for it. I planted/scattered 20,000 acorns in the autumn, to offset all my future carbon emmissions!

Lets just watch how the mainstream media ignores this programs claims, or better still whitewash them, sticking with the forming global governments (new world order) propaganda story, perpetrating a lie designed to rob us of money through global taxation, reduce our freedom through restrcictions (legal and moral) on travel (domestic & international), ensuring that only the rich will be able to afford cars and air travel in a few years time.

I'm surprised C4 dare show this program.


Down with the new world order!

The program pointed out how the tree huggers have basically embraced the governments propaganda, turned it into a religion and are doing their dirty work for them.

The neocon global elite new world order have realised that global warming is an excellent way to get more tax out of us and to restrict our freedoms of movement, and to track our movements through in car GPS devices that tax us by the mile, thus enslaving the populations and maintaining the current balance of wealth power and control.

Outstanding programme - managed to cover all the bases: the stuff at the end about the African villages denied electricity was food for thought - environmental activism is a rich nation's priviledge. I also enjoyed the clips from the 1970's BBC programme predicting the terrors of the upcoming iceage!

I need to do a bit more reading around the science but I thought the arguments correlating the earth's temperature to sun-spot activity, the CO2 lagging temperature changes historically (ie CO2 levels are an effect, not a cause of temperature change) and the weather balloon experiments showing the troposphere was not warming as greenhouse theory would have predicted were all pretty damning to the currently prevailing view.

The political arguments were also interesting: climate change lobbyists always charge the few people who dare to stand up to their view as being in the pay of the oil companies: this made it clear how frighteningly big the global warming 'industry' is, and how big their incentive is to keep dissent shouted down.

Should be compulsory viewing in schools, if only to balance the arguments...

Two of the scientists were on Richard & judy yesterday.
Judy (unsurprisibgly) linked global warming with recycling. There is no connection. We recycle as we're running out of land-fill space. I think recycling will always be good.

I still hate SUV drivers, and don't see any need for cars with engines bigger than 2 litres.

JTrader said:

Very good program, made credible by hard evidence.

It's very hard to know who to believe, and the govt's propaganda, backed up by the environmentalists religous type support is very powerful. This makes it hard to know who to believe.

When government scientists tell us things we just believe them, forgetting that they have a political reason for saying what they do.

This is what prisonplanet journalist Alex Jones makes of global warming. He takes things a step further than the documentary.

Click to expand...

I saw the program and saw no hard evidence. Only theories.

Main FUNDAMENTAL point about global warming which is taking place is that yes the planet has gone through cycles in the past but THE RATE OF CHANGE IS SO RAPID THIS HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE in the history of earth.

Anybody notice there was not one scientist to speak againts all the ones who spoke about the swindle. If for every one scientists, 100 esteemed professors and leaders in their field spoke for the global warming theory, everybody might get a different perspective.

I was laughing my head off about Thatcher bribing reports to be in favour of global warming. This is precisely what the oil giants are doing in the US - literally offering money and surprisingly this was not mentioned. Also the US was pushing these scientist to come out with reports in their favour prior to Kyota agreements. Big money indeed. Big BILLION $ lies.

The natural disasters are far more extreme than ever before. I don't recall such disasters in the history of earth other than those made by man like the TITANIC believing in its vain superiority.

I SADLY FEAR AS IT IS HUMAN INSTINCT TO BELIEVE IT WAS JUST A HOAX, WE WERE SWINDLED AND LIED TO - WE CAN CARRY ON WITH OUR LIFE - IS AN EASY OPTION AND IT IS THE ONE WHICH WILL BE CHOSEN - naturally by man.

I would have liked the program to produce a balanced view with other scientists and for that reason believe it to be purely biased proganda program.

Jack o'Clubs said:

Outstanding programme - managed to cover all the bases: the stuff at the end about the African villages denied electricity was food for thought - environmental activism is a rich nation's priviledge. I also enjoyed the clips from the 1970's BBC programme predicting the terrors of the upcoming iceage!

I need to do a bit more reading around the science but I thought the arguments correlating the earth's temperature to sun-spot activity, the CO2 lagging temperature changes historically (ie CO2 levels are an effect, not a cause of temperature change) and the weather balloon experiments showing the troposphere was not warming as greenhouse theory would have predicted were all pretty damning to the currently prevailing view.

The political arguments were also interesting: climate change lobbyists always charge the few people who dare to stand up to their view as being in the pay of the oil companies: this made it clear how frighteningly big the global warming 'industry' is, and how big their incentive is to keep dissent shouted down.

Should be compulsory viewing in schools, if only to balance the arguments...

Click to expand...

This bit about the atmosphere warming up first and not earth doesn't make scientific sense. Otherwise space would be warm too. The earth is warmer because the sun's rays are hitting it. The atmosphere is much thinner especially high above so no reason why it should warm up.

The arguement is CO2 traps the heat in the lower atmosphere and so the planet warms up.

At least this was my understanding. This program is a pure and outright plan to deceive people.

I once again point out there was not one scientist to put an alternative view or asked to explain their questions. When you consider these sceptics are outnumbered by hundreds that's twisted.

Atilla said:

I saw the program and saw no hard evidence. Only theories.

Anybody notice there was not one scientist to speak againts all the ones who spoke about the swindle. If for every one scientists, 100 esteemed professors and leaders in their field spoke for the global warming theory, everybody might get a different perspective.

I would have liked the program to produce a balanced view with other scientists and for that reason believe it to be purely biased proganda program.

Click to expand...

Time is prescious.

The program was wanting to air the unpopular (politically) view that GW is a political prpaganda machine.

So why would a program aimed at ceasing a rare opportunity to air the alternative view give prescious time to the people whjo they claim was lying. I think it is good that this program didn't waste time giving a balanced argument - this was not the aim.

The non-onjective, politically aligned mainstream media does too much debunking & whitewashing (political dirty work) as it is. Just watch the Conspracy files - 911 on BBC2 the other week as an example (13 debunkers/whitewashers compared to 3 911 truth movment people).

No doubt the mainstream media wil either try to discredit this program now, or just ignore that it happened, in order to continue the current escalation of the accepted view. Therefore why would this program (that admitted it was made by people who all believe this alternate explanation for the carbon - temperature relationship) give any of its valuable & limited airtime to any debunkers who were wanting to whitewash the debunkers.

This program presented what the mainstream politically correct view of GW is, they just didn't have people on who supported it, to argue its merits.

Atilla said:

I once again point out there was not one scientist to put an alternative view or asked to explain their questions. When you consider these sceptics are outnumbered by hundreds that's twisted.

Click to expand...

This is precisely why they did not promote the alternative view - they are vastly outnumbered as it is and have little or no chance to air their views to a national audience, due to how the mainstream media is non-objective and is here to support the government!!!!!!

JTrader said:

This is precisely why they did not promote the alternative view - they are vastly outnumbered as it is and have little or no chance to air their views to a national audience, due to how the mainstream media is non-objective and is here to support the government!!!!!!

Click to expand...

I see your and their point but do not accept it.

Let's forget the 1 : 100 for and against arguement. Why not have 1 to 1 scientists explaining or commenting on their theory.

I like a balanced debate so I can make up my own mind.

Like good politicians, their news fits what we want to hear and so we'll give them our vote.
The world is such a twisted place it's unreal.

Perhaps, i am sometimes too quick to favour & support the underdog.

But I really had no problems with how the program was presented, this is a minor detail. Getting the alternative non-government friendly theories and evidence across is whats important to me. People with a decent brain can weigh this against the accepted mainstream version of events.

You say they did not present scientific evidence, I saw plenty.

I accept you point, in an ideal world, such programs would be non-biased and could present 50/50. However, this is not possibly when the minority are being silences are have little opportunity to air their views.

Therefore when they do get their (perhaps 1 and only) 90 minute chance to air their views, why should they do anything other than try and promote their version?

People who think the mainstream media is anything but biased, and accept everything they see and hear without question are very much mistaken.

Atilla said:

This bit about the atmosphere warming up first and not earth doesn't make scientific sense. Otherwise space would be warm too. The earth is warmer because the sun's rays are hitting it. The atmosphere is much thinner especially high above so no reason why it should warm up.

The arguement is CO2 traps the heat in the lower atmosphere and so the planet warms up.

At least this was my understanding. This program is a pure and outright plan to deceive people.

I once again point out there was not one scientist to put an alternative view or asked to explain their questions. When you consider these sceptics are outnumbered by hundreds that's twisted.

Click to expand...

If you got two plastic bottles and filled one with CO2 and one with air and left them out in the sun, the CO2 bottle would be the warmer as it is more effective at trapping heat. Therefore global warming theory goes that with CO2 levels rapdily increasing in the troposphere it should be heating up even more quickly than the earth's surface. It isn't, as the satelite and weather balloon observations have shown.

I agree the programme was provocatively one-sided, but hitherto that's exactly what the pro-GW debate has been too. BBC have just finished a series of prime-time programmes plugging an entirely unchallenged view of global warming and which in places was disturbingly 'tabloid' (eg the tidal waves bursting through the Thames Barrier and deluging London). In the circumstances it was acceptable for C4 to show an equally one-sided view, from another perspective.

Of course what's needed now is for someone to make a documentary or show a televised debate where scientists from both sides are allowed to make points and rebut challenges.

JTrader said:

Perhaps, i am sometimes too quick to favour & support the underdog.

But I really had no problems with how the program was presented, this is a minor detail. Getting the alternative theories and evidence across is whats important.

You say they did not present scientific evidence, I saw plenty.

Click to expand...

There is a big difference between evidence and theory.

They talked about meteor showers and cloud formation. Theory - relevance debatable

Sun activity and electromagnetic radiation. Theory - relevance debatable

The earth's weather cycle. Fact but this is a cover up. Changes usually occur gradually over 000's of years. Not like within 100.

CO2 emmissions levels. Fact.

Tremedous increase in CO2 emmissions and the rapid increase temperatures. Both facts. + Physical observations.

I remember at school we were told the next ice age is 10,000 years away not in the next 100 years.

By all means we should debate and test results but look at the weight of opinoin and arguements. To say weight of opinion and arguements justifies this kind of biased reaction is a recipee for disaster. It's feeding on the need for man to believe all is well.

Jack o'Clubs said:

If you got two plastic bottles and filled one with CO2 and one with air and left them out in the sun, the CO2 bottle would be the warmer as it is more effective at trapping heat. Therefore global warming theory goes that with CO2 levels rapdily increasing in the troposphere it should be heating up even more quickly than the earth's surface. It isn't, as the satelite and weather balloon observations have shown.

I agree the programme was provocatively one-sided, but hitherto that's exactly what the pro-GW debate has been too. BBC have just finished a series of prime-time programmes plugging an entirely unchallenged view of global warming and which in places was disturbingly 'tabloid' (eg the tidal waves bursting through the Thames Barrier and deluging London). In the circumstances it was acceptable for C4 to show an equally one-sided view, from another perspective.

Of course what's needed now is for someone to make a documentary or show a televised debate where scientists from both sides are allowed to make points and rebut challenges.

Click to expand...

I agree we need a balanced debate and would have preferred such a documentary.

Basic physics tells me if you place a black bag and transparent or silver bag up in the air the black bag and air in that bag would heat up more. I agree about CO2 trapping heat but don't understand why the upper atmosphere should heat up instead of the planet and lower atmosphere.

The upper atmosphere is less dense and so less particles and less likely it is to heat up.

Don't understand it well enough but it's counter to physics, my past reading and understanding.