Washington, DC (TLS). A new movie that tackles all of the global warming lies emanating from Leftist collectivists is sure to turn the world of 'politically correct' science upside down. Film-maker Martin Durkin has assembled a stellar team of scientists and experts from around the world to discuss why the focus on human activity as the primary source of global warming is wrong-headed.
Entitled 'The Great Global Warming Swindle,' the documentary features an impressive list of scientists, climatologists, and professors in oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.
The experts state unequivocally that the concept of man-made global warming has become so thoroughly politicized that no one seems willing to consider alternative points of view or to question the obvious flaws in the theory.
The film examines an alternative theory that explains global temperatures, based on research by Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish Space Center. The professor and his team found that as solar activity increases, and the sun flares, cloud formation on earth is significantly diminished and temperature rises.
According to Dr. Ian Clark, Professor of Isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology at the Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, 'Solar activity over the last hundred years, over the last several hundred years, correlates very nicely, on a decadal basis, with temperature.'
John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, NSSTC University of Alabama, is adamant that the notion that there is a 'consensus of scientists' who believe mankind is the source of global warming is simply not true. In fact, Christy counts himself as one of thousands of scientists who believe that those with a political agenda have hoodwinked the public into accepting a theory that cannot be supported with observable data.
This riveting film should be enough to set the Left's heads to spinning. The Liberty Sphere hopes that it gains a broad audience so that the real truth about global warming can be heard.
Read the entire description of the film here:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Monday, March 05, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I saw this movie. It was a farce, lead by no-name "scientists", many of whom have no climatology background and in some cases no peer-reviewed publications in a decade or more. It was extremely selective of information shown and used the exact same tactics to "prove" their point as they claim are being used by the glol warming movement. It essentially called the environmental movement as being a marxist-communist driven movement and a stopped short of calling it a grand conspiracy theory. It then had the gall to insinuate the movement was then stiffling development of African nations by denying them coal and oil mined from their own countries (as opposed to it being sold off to western nations instead, with profits in the pockets of corrupt governments and contracters instead of the people). It started off on shaky ground, and when it realised their point was unable to be reasonably made, turned around and tried to blame all the ills of the world on those with the least impact on it. Simply unbelievable.
Mmmm. Obviously we are not talking about the same scientists I mentioned in my article. They are each scientists with distinction in their respective fields.
The obvious reason you would disparage them is that you are one of the ones the movie vilifies. You have bought into the 'big lie,' and thus, you are driven to try to cast doubts on the expertise of the detractors.
Nice try, but no cigar.
Anyone with half a brain, and recognizes the climate history of the earth, knows that the theory that man is the cause for global warming is a sham from start to finish.
Martyn
I hardly call lying about one's own credentials worthy of distinction (e.g. Tim Ball), especially when the university you claim to be a professor at has asked you to stop saying that. As for the others, they may have distinction in their own fields (although not much according to a quick scan of peer-reviewed publications reveals) - unfortunately most cannot call that field climatology, the topic of debate.
Would you suggest it appropriate to discard a highly researched and reinforced theory by the quibblings of a few fringe scientists? (or ex-scientists as it may be) The reputations and credibility of these individuals are paramount to the message of the film.
I have not bought into anything. I believe global warming to be a well supported theory in need of more work. I am not a climatologist, but a scientist whose work relates to the alteration of atmospheric chemistry by biogeochemical processes, so I have a certain degree of understanding.
Good luck
Apparently not enough understanding to recognize the wide variances of global temperatures long before mankind had appeared on the earth.
The one thing you guys also always seem to miss is that little yellow ball in the sky called THE SUN. Never in any of the discussions of the fiction called 'man-made global warming' does anyone seriously discuss the sun's activity and influence on this process.
Sorry, but once again, I am not buying it. Such glaring ommissions and gaps suggest a political agenda and nothing remotely resembling science.
Martyn
Err... you're kidding, right? You are actually suggesting climatologists are neglecting to consider the sun?
Look - basic rundown - the greenhouse effect is real, and without the world would burn by day and freeze by night. This effect is tempered by many factors, including CO2 levels.
Over the history of the planet the climate has changed dramatically numerous times. This has been primairly due to 3 main factors - position of the earth to the sun (frequent changes in orbital eccentricity, axial orientation, and degree of tilt), composition of the atmosphere (CO2 and other components), and tectonic movements altering landmass positions and therefore ocean currents.
Any of these factors may potentially override each other, and we are currently in a position where ocean currents are limiting, orbital eccentricity is slightly oblong, and tilt and axial orientation is neutral. Despite what the movie states, global temps have been and continue to rise with fluctuations for the last century and are continuing to do so. It is a short term trend by global standards and difficult to state with certainty, but a correlation is easily appaent with rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures, especially when considering the RATE of increase. This is the key, and always neglected by "you guys".
I am not interested in global warming from some lame-ass tree hugging hippie dippy position. I am interested from a we are potentially screwing everyone and everything, and we need to take a long hard good look to make sure we don't screw things up. We certainly have ability to do so, don't kid yourself.
Anyway, I doubt that will do anything to change your thoughts, but I wanted to make my position clear. Good luck.
The problem is that your cohorts who contribute to policies issued by the U.N., and the religious dogmatists of The Weather Channel, and the like, conveniently fail, almost without exception, to mention the many factors that contribute to global warming AND COOLING.
And without fail, the purveyors of this point of view always seem to want more government control over individuals through regulation and limitation of the actions of human beings.
Since I obviously do not know you, I am not making this accusation against you. But I know what I read, see, and hear in the media, and in printed information on the subject. Invariably, I am made to feel responsible for whatever warming is occurring (in spite of the fact that satellite data shows very little variation in average global temperatures for the last 50 years).
When scientists stop pairing their observations with political prescriptions that seem to do nothing but target ONE SINGLE FACTOR--the activity of man--then I may begin to take seriously the points of view they take.
But, what is clearly nothing more than theory has become religious dogma, not science. Scientific inquiry ALWAYS holds data up to question--ALL of it. And that includes the 'consensus theories' that have become part of the accepted norm, in spite of the questions that eat away at the heart of the theory.
But, best wishes in your quest for truth. You are entitled to your point of view.
Martyn
Post a Comment