I watched this clip yesterday and found it to be very informative?

Question

Have you seen it?What does it tell you about the subject of global warming?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3mvz6QwXXE&NR=1

Answer 1

The thing about "Swindle" is that it's based on arguments that have long been discredited, misrepresented science, and cherry picked information.

For example, all charts shown in "Swindle" ended in 1980.[1] Well gee, that's because there is no denying that most of the warming during the 20th Century happened after 1980. (Not to mention that the person who made many of their charts got the math wrong.[2])

Another example is the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 per year than CO2 from anthropogenic sources. This is, of course, an outright lie.[3]

Answer 2

It tells me that somebody is making a bunch of money off the 'swindle' movie!

Answer 3

who are these two people?

Not informative at all, nothing new and only comments which are not backed by any figure.

WHICH DIRECTION GOES A REPORT WITHOUT ANY FIGURES??? THE TRASHCAN !!!!

Same deal for this clip.

Answer 4

Today here is what we know:  many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more destruction.  Blacktop (roads and parking lots), buildings, air pollution (causes lung and other diseases), deforestation, duststorms (which increase hurricanes and cyclones and cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's), solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels) are human problems we need to fix to keep life on earth sustainable! The federal government needs to adopt a pollution surcharge to balance the field and advance new technologies. We must pay the real price of oil (petrochemicals) including global warming, cleanup and for health effects. But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with little evidence! The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes. But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and they form clouds cooling earth but causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). But humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms. The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small one all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).

President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected.

Answer 5

I found it interesting.  However, I am  not going to go out campaigning that the increase in trees is the cause of global warming.

By the way, to the people above, this clip has nothing to do with the movie the great global warming swindle.

It would be nice if I could hear some rebuttals.  Unfortunately, the alarmists have resorted to their same old tactic.  Do not discuss the science, attack the man, repeat the mantra.   A job well done by Bob.  (Unless he edits his responce later on)

Answer 6

Those two clearly are not very bright from the beginning. They have no scientific back ground, so to say that scientists are liars and the facts don't hold water, is really just stupid.

Look at it this way, even "if" the sun is getting bigger in a natural cycle, all we (industrialized humans) are doing is exacerbating the problem of climate change by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases.

Also it really doesn't take much thought to understand when we burn stored carbon from 400 million years ago, (that was extracted out of the atmosphere by plants), this in-turn is what made our planet the livable temperate place humans in the last 2 million years have called home. I don't know about you but I don't want to live in a place that has tropical insects and disease clear up into Canada.

But what is really at issue is an earth in balance with regards to it's climate system. When increases in heating of the earths surface and oceans happen, something of opposite reaction must also happen. This is where the extra heat from the equator will clash with the cold of the arctic more violently. Winter will not go away, because the planet will always have the poles, when sunlight does not reach it, it will be a frozen place. Just the same for the whole planet, If the sun died right now we would be living on a giant ice ball in no time.

Answer 7

You better watch BBC Documentary on the subject - incidentally(?) called the same - The Great Global Warming Swindle. They creators actually consulted scientists from USA, Canada, UK. Find torrents on web. Very informative.

My impression was the same about the global warming: something was shady there, and this movie proves we are a manipulated crowd with no gray matter in the brain.

Answer 8

nope, didn't watch it.

however, it apparently talks about 'global warming swindle' which is clearly wrong.

if it talks about volcanoes and CO2,  the real truth is down in sources.  it's from the USGS.  if it were not true, Bush's minions would have had it corrected, or removed by now.  the fact that it's still there implies that it cannot be refuted.

<<There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

HERBERT SPENCER>>

however, there is another bar against all information -- wasting time verifying all of the information one already knows to be true prior to analyzing the problem that is in question at the moment.  that's what the oil companies want you to do.  waste your time looking at irrelevant stuff so you don't ever get to the real problem.  and apparently you're falling for it.

in general, it's fairly easy to tell when that's going on.

when someone posts things that you obviously know to be wrong, particularly when there's more than one such instance, they want you to waste your time.

then it's time to ask why they're doing that.

there are most certainly stupid people on both sides of the debate.

the ones i hate most are, "The whole world is going to end."

it makes me look stupid, and i really don't need help.

global warming, along with the world population increase is going to cause major problems, wars, deaths, etc, around the  world.

but we'll probably still be here, squabbling about tax cuts and budget deficits.

Answer 9

This is a particularly poor discussion between two people who are uneducated on the issues and hardly good representatives of their respective positions.

There are few facts here, and many of those "facts" that they state, are mostly nonsense.

On both sides.

EDIT (by request of eric) - The guy in the glasses rambles on about uncertainty in the residence time of CO2.  Residence time is important in explaining why water vapor doesn't cause an increase in temperature and CO2 does.  But....

The global warming models don't rely on it.  Instead they mostly use the relationship between the known emissions of CO2 and the measured increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over time.  So he's trying to sound scientific by using the words, but it's meaningless.

I really don't feel like dissecting his every point, since he's not worth it.  OK?

Real information on global warming here:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...