Thread: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Has anyone else here seen the British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle? If not, you should try to see it. It's very good. I think it may be available on youtube, but I'm not sure. I got a dvd of it and just watched it last night. I highly recommend it.

It puts the lie to a lot of the human-caused global warming propaganda very well.

If you're interested, I just googled it and found this website:
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

Here's a link to the google video page:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=T ... ng+Swindle

The great redistribution of wealth swindle!

The United Nations of genocide and theft is swiftly closing it's trap with gore the ass at the lead.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

The great redistribution of wealth swindle!

The United Nations of genocide and theft is swiftly closing it's trap with gore the ass at the lead.

Thanks for the reply. Have you seen the movie? Because they are quite negative in the movie towards the UN sponsored IPCC.

Here's a quote I just found on their website:
"This is too big an issue for us to rubber-stamp a ‘consensus’ view manufactured by a highly political UN body."
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co ... ensus.html

This is interesting too:


http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945

The Great Global Warming Swindle
March 19, 2007
S. Fred Singer



Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. In spite of its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science by recording the statements of real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth mainly records a politician.

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

1. There is no proof at all that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activities, such as the generation of energy from the burning of fuels. Observations in ice cores show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2, by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far, far more important than CO2, yet not well handled by climate models—and, in any case, not within our control. Greenhouse models also cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

But the best evidence we have supports natural causes—changes in cloudiness linked to regular variations in solar activity. Thus the current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings were able to settle Greenland and grow crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual”; a spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings; but this so–called “hockey–stick” result, that earth temperatures have been constant until recent decades, has now been thoroughly discredited.

2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot influence the inconstant Sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes of mitigation currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:

Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or by elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere
Ironically, all of these schemes would be ineffective even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!

3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. All agree that a colder climate would be bad. So why would the present climate be the optimum? Surely, the chances for this must be vanishingly small, and the history of past climate warmings bear this out.

But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to toy with and devote our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real ones. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Britain’s Labor Party tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!

I imagine that in the not–too–distant future, all of the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

I imagine that in the not–too–distant future, all of the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998.

Scarcely surprising, given that the record solar maximum that we experienced in the late 1990s peaked in early 1999.

Originally Posted by patbrunz

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

The great redistribution of wealth swindle!

The United Nations of genocide and theft is swiftly closing it's trap with gore the ass at the lead.

Thanks for the reply. Have you seen the movie? Because they are quite negative in the movie towards the UN sponsored IPCC.

Here's a quote I just found on their website:
"This is too big an issue for us to rubber-stamp a ‘consensus’ view manufactured by a highly political UN body."
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co ... ensus.html

No PAT, I haven't seen it.

I have, however, been researching the UN for many years and have read many documents that would make your hair curl and then fall out.

This particular issue is but one of many that they are involved in, fund and use to further dismantle nations into one big United Nations conglomerate. They are communists, dictators and globalists all in one building planning the one world government through taxes, global issues, poverty, humanitarian groups, disasters etc. etc. I could go on but there's not enough room.

Suffice it to say, they couldn't get their heads out of their collective asses without the USofA!!

It's all about spin with the like Al Gore. What he needs to do is educate himself on the fact that the Good Earth goes through warming and cooling trends all it's own, and if Nature wants to, she can flick us off like a bad tick.

I've followed the info on the core samples that have been studied from places like Iceland and Antarctica, and there is a wild pattern of warm, and cool era(s) throughout the earth's history. It has only been over the last 10,000 years that things have stablized as far as climate, which has allowed humans to proliferate the way we have. This period of stability is also the weird part, as the "norm" is a long train of drastic swings in global climate.

But at least the scientists who are studying this from an objective point, have been decent enough to state that they are still unsure of how these drastic changes occurred, and are not sure as to why the climate has been stable for as long as it has. They admit to having theories, but that's all they are, theories. Until enough evidence evinces itself, or the technology becomes sophisticated enough to make an accurate determination, these ideas will still be nothing more than that.

Points I found interesting that were presented in the documentary were:

1. There have been many times in Earth's history when it has been much warmer than now and when there has been a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than now and the world didn't end. I think it was stated in the film that one warmer period was 8,000 years ago and another was in medieval times. These were times when humans could not have been responsible for the elevated CO2 either.

2. The data shows that CO2 atmospheric increases FOLLOW temperature increases; therefore the CO2 doesn't cause the temperature increases, but is a result of the temperature increases.

3. Volcanoes, oceans, animals, and decaying plant matter each add more CO2 to the atmosphere than humans do.

What really blows me away is how people who subscribe to the theory of human-caused global warming react when you question it. They act like it's dogma and no questioning of it is allowed. It's like a religion to them or something.

Thanks Pat for putting this video up. I have been arguing with my sister for weeks over this issue. I just sent her the video.

This is such a farce. I really feel bad for the 3rd world. They need electricity to become a modern, productive society. They should not be denied this right. I hope this video shuts the carbone dioxide theory for global warming down!