http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arming+scandal

British TV, Channel 4
1 hr 13 min 32 sec - Mar 8, 2007

I'm too lazy to watch a 70-minute video about global warming. Especially if it has something to do with political lobbying. The environmentalists think that we'll all die if we don't stop polluting the atmosphere and the polluters think that they'll get less money if they have to stop polluting the atmosphere. Both have very compelling evidence to back up their positions. I wish someone made a cost effective fusion reactor so we could all stop worrying about it.

<font color=skyblue>For what its worth, I think this documentary was very well put together and represents the side of "its not our fault" extremely well. They talk about
1. Why Gore is wrong and misleading with his half-truths
2. How the other side is not following scientific procedure
3. What greenhouse gases are actually doing as opposed to what the other side is claiming they are doing
4. How evidence proves that CO2 follows and does not precede temperature change
5. The fact that the sun's activity changes are being avoided in discussion
6. Why the majority of scientists that oppose the other other side are being forced into silence
7. Who these lies are hurting
8. How the whole thing began and who is to blame for the scandal of global warming
9. Various proofs for many other reasons why they are coming forth and saying that it is a swindle (Too many to try to list).

Seriously, I love this documentary and sad to see that it was the UK and not the US to produce it because this is something that US citizens will not have access to very well unless they learn about it like I did; word of mouth.

Good work, UK for producing it! </font>

Psssst. I made one in my basement....but I can't figure out how to get the power transferred, and I can't get in there any more...

Edit: Larry and I cross posted, so now I just looked retarded...

On the subject of Global Warming; if core samples from Antartica, or the Arctic show carbon dioxide levels comparable to the ones we have now, 10,000 years ago, or however far they go back, then Gore's proponents are really hoping nobody pays attention. Because if there was that much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then, either the Earth's population was one hell of a lot more advanced than we think, or human's aren't related to it. Things that make intelligent readers, as opposed to fanatic followers of either side, go hmmm.

[ 03-24-2007, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]

Well, the main problem is that the No Warming side tends to be funded by industrial interests, while the There Is Warming side tends to be either independent or funded by ecological interests.

The industrial interests are less trustworthy because they stand to make less fat loads of cash if they lose their side of the case.

Global warming is true, no one can dispute that, the main question is: Are we contributing? The answer to that is debateable. But the question then remains, to me: Why not make an attempt to halt our possible contribution to global warming? We'll have to switch off fossil fuels anyway once we hit the Oil Peak, so why not get a good head start on that? A lot of things that produce CO2 also have other harmful emissions, so why not just cut down on them Just To Be Safe but also to limit their various other pollutants?

No one has yet been able to satisfactorily answer this, except for saying that it would harm the industry. Firstly I'd say it's rather sad that anyone would put harming the industry as more dire than harming the planet or his fellow humans, and secondarily, fact is it would only harm OLD industry and OLD monopolies, new industries would spring up to work on making green energy more efficient, to give us better alternatives, or old industries would have to change to fit new demands.

As for the producer of this documentary you're putting up, maybe you should look at some of his background?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin

(For some silly reason the forum is blocking a paranthesis in the link that would lead you to the right Martin Durkin, but the disambiguation page should leave little doubt about which is the real one.)

Seems like he has a history of ignoring research, misleading his subjects and distorting their statements through clever editing. There's quite probably some of this on the Stop Warming side, too, but in this case I would not listen to this man without taking everything he says with a grain of salt.

Thanks for posting this Larry, I missed it when it was aired over here a few weeks ago.

I'd always been a bit of a sceptic towards humans being the cause of the increase in global temperature, and now I think this documentary confirms that for me.

Oh, isn't it lovely? It's not our fault! I love it when people tell me things like that :rolleyes:

Now, correlation does not equal causation, but the only thing more difficult to believe than the theory that the unfathomable amount of stuff we're pumping into the atmosphere every day has *nothing* to do with global warming is the fact that people believe it.

You're right, Mr. Durkin. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

I'm still too lazy to watch it (sorry!) but since you've seen it, could you explain this bit? I thought that it was an indisputable fact that pumping carbon from underground and burning it into CO₂ will inevitably raise the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, unless carbon is simultaneously removed from the atmosphere by, say, forestation. "Follows" gives the image that the increased amount of carbon dioxide is caused by global warming. Or is the amount of CO₂ increasing even faster than human activity would allow?

<font color=skyblue>But did you actually watch the documentary? You might change your mind. There is more evidence on that documentary than there is for the other side. But I am sure this topic will have all sorts of people voicing what they've been told to voice without hearing both sides of the argument well enough to make up their own mind.

Purple...I am rather surprised that you are taking a fence-sitting stand on it, though with your critism towards the producer, you are leaning towards CO2 as the main cause of the global warming. Since the documentary clearly points to the fact that the whole idea stems from US and UK politics, I would have assumed that you would therefore be against the idea. You shocked me! But maybe I should not be surprised because the documentary was made in the UK, so its obviously a load of garbage, right?

I wonder how many scientists in Denmark actually believe in CO2 as the main cause of Global Warming? I would have thought that since they are outside the influence of US politics, there would be more rational men and women realizing that the sun is what is causing the trouble.

Why did the atmosphere not heat up during the industrial revolution?
Why did Gore miss some vital points in his charts that will show that the CO2 levels "follow" heating?
Why is is that weather balloons prove that the upper atmosphere is not hotter than the surface of the earth...a clear way to prove that global warming is at work?
Why does nobody mention that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas that there is, and that CO2 right now is only at .025%?
Why does nobody realize that the history's volcanic eruptions has added more dangerous gases to the atmosphere than humans ever has? </font>

As far as I understand it, lot of CO₂ is trapped in the polar ice caps, and as global heating melts them, it releases more CO₂.

However, this does not mean that CO₂ does not worsen global warming, rather, it might just mean that even a little bit of global warming could cause a runaway chain reaction as the ice caps begin to melt while we are deforesting, lessening the planet's ability to re-absorb CO₂, rather than planting more forest to bind the CO₂ again.