The Great Global Warming Swindle

[jkinbkk]

Now I'm a firm believer in this school of fact!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeY8oqAGhyA

Try to watch all 8 parts

[shamus]

Life with an open mind is essential.

Only problem with programmes like this is they are very very rarely aired in the mainstream media unless they have a frontman that can be mocked/ridiculed/...(think Michael Moore, you know that fat fanatic) I believe this was aired on Channel 5 in the UK. Zeitgeist is getting airtime on ControversialTV. The 'green industry' and 'environmental tax agencies' will not worry until The Angry Mob see's it on a mainstream channel because then it must be true and can be immediately adopted as personal opinion.

The Angry Mob would now have a commonly shared opinion,feel brave enough to voice it. These regurgitators of 'common beliefs' have so much political weight and use it unknowingly, passively, unconciously submissively.

You have read my post and now know I have seen Zeitgeist and The Global Warming scam. Try and tell me you don't find it easy to put me in that 'conspiracy theorist' group, writing off my opinion. Because I watched 2 documentaries with an open mind.

More often than not I think it is getting better.

IMO

[thaimite]

Excdellent main stream video (UK Channel 4). It is so good even Al Gore is now convinced!

Al Gore Admits CO2 Does Not Cause Majority Of Global Warming

[rabcbroon]

UK Telegraph

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate

[glegolo]

jkinbkk,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. But it is dangerous like hel_l to spread around

this stuff. People can actually believe you.

I personally can only speak as a non scientist and do not know especially much about these things.

However I do know that, as they mentioned in the video you recommend people to look at, weather-

changes do occur on our planet. But it is common knowledge that these changes are taken place

during a period of time like 10.000 - 100.000 years, and NOT over a period of time of 50 year!!!!!!!!!

I am born in the 50´s and I can witness to the change in weather we have seen now. I personally think

it is so stupid to spread arround this shit on the internet, but we have the freedom to write whatever we

please more or less. and that is OK by me. But be also prepared to be critisied than.

To others.. there is a huge change in weather because of different reasons that I cannot tell you. So read

the "real" media instead when it comes to these things, they are far more important than we maybe

not realize.

Glegolo

[rabcbroon]

jkinbkk,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. But it is dangerous like hel_l to spread around

this stuff. People can actually believe you.

I personally can only speak as a non scientist and do not know especially much about these things.

However I do know that, as they mentioned in the video you recommend people to look at, weather-

changes do occur on our planet. But it is common knowledge that these changes are taken place

during a period of time like 10.000 - 100.000 years, and NOT over a period of time of 50 year!!!!!!!!!

I am born in the 50´s and I can witness to the change in weather we have seen now. I personally think

it is so stupid to spread arround this shit on the internet, but we have the freedom to write whatever we

please more or less. and that is OK by me. But be also prepared to be critisied than.

To others.. there is a huge change in weather because of different reasons that I cannot tell you. So read

the "real" media instead when it comes to these things, they are far more important than we maybe

not realize.

Glegolo

So what do you believe - as you seem to sit right on some fence.

PS The weather changes constantly - this is undenialbe. Thats why the hoaxters changed the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. The point to consider is that the banksters intend to use this scam to tax you into oblivion under the guise of saving the planet. Think Copenhagen - next month, think cap and trade. See a picture emerging - no. Oh, well!

Oh yes, Al Gore stands to make billions of dollars out of the cap and trade scam

Edited November 24, 2009 by rabcbroon

[teatree]

Another good documentary on a similar line to 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' is 'Global Warming: Emerging Science and Understanding'. They break down how any global warming, or cooling, can easily be explained by natural forces, chiefly the Sun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFxxdH67kwY

[teatree]

jkinbkk,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. But it is dangerous like hel_l to spread around

this stuff. People can actually believe you.

I personally can only speak as a non scientist and do not know especially much about these things.

However I do know that, as they mentioned in the video you recommend people to look at, weather-

changes do occur on our planet. But it is common knowledge that these changes are taken place

during a period of time like 10.000 - 100.000 years, and NOT over a period of time of 50 year!!!!!!!!!

I am born in the 50´s and I can witness to the change in weather we have seen now. I personally think

it is so stupid to spread arround this shit on the internet, but we have the freedom to write whatever we

please more or less. and that is OK by me. But be also prepared to be critisied than.

To others.. there is a huge change in weather because of different reasons that I cannot tell you. So read

the "real" media instead when it comes to these things, they are far more important than we maybe

not realize.

Glegolo

What is dangerous is not having a clue as to what is happening with the climate and blindly believing whatever is thrown up by the corporate controlled media.

You cannot afford to let the mainstream media do all your reasoning for you.

[Jonathanpattaya]

I am sceptical, however, the cynic in me suggests that it is a good excuse to add yet another tax to everyone's bill

[rabcbroon]

I am sceptical, however, the cynic in me suggests that it is a good excuse to add yet another tax to everyone's bill

Good point Johathan. Who was it that said: 'only the madman is absolutely sure'

Edited November 24, 2009 by rabcbroon

[Jonathanpattaya]

P.S. Remember the Millenium Bug?

Nuff said!

[Trickcyclist]

who do you believe?

[MrRichard2009]

Dumping alternative energy stocks should have little to do with global warming or not .... more to do with energy trends, and your opinion on peak oil or not. Solar wind ect are coming around for more reasons than global warming. Diversification , pollution, ect. The investment should be dumped or kept based on the company and its financial merits. The trends are clearly in the direction of a more diverse selection of energy production and tech that is more efficent....... climate change or not

[shamus]

Another coincidence being the link between the rise in importance of global warming and rise in the strength of economies the U.S and U.K cannot manipulate. Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere comes China but wait you can't do it the way we did it. So what if you're sat on a billion tonnes of coal, popular world belief says burning it would end the world and kill our children...think of the poor little children.

As an aside please someone answer this for me:

Glass A contains 12 pieces of ice

Glass B contains 6 pieces of ice

Both are at the same temperature, which will warm the quickest?

Now think on a global scale. Are the 'scientists' (whoever they may be???) really surprised the rate of warming is increasing. Warming will not follow a straight line. It's illogical.

Climate change is real, mans influence is greatly exaggerated by profiteers.

IMO

Reason for edit - I used it's old name - global warming

Edited November 24, 2009 by shamus

[shamus]

Never forget man made climate change is NOT proven. It's a scientific theory. IPCC states as much.

An industry, taxes and caps have emerged from a theory.

[endure]

UK Telegraph

The upmarket version of The Sun

[endure]

FYI once upon a time The Telegraph use to be a wonderful newspaper. It understood the difference between news and opinion. Now it's just another cheap rag.

[Mrjlh]

Never forget man made climate change is NOT proven. It's a scientific theory. IPCC states as much.

An industry, taxes and caps have emerged from a theory.

Well....some one better start explaining the hundreds of very large "Icebergs" off the coast of New Zealand! Maybe these are "props" for a movie.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091123/ts_af...aclimateiceberg

Edited November 24, 2009 by Mrjlh

[Jingthing]

Never forget man made climate change is NOT proven. It's a scientific theory. IPCC states as much.

An industry, taxes and caps have emerged from a theory.

That is a false argument and shows a lack of understanding of how science works. Evolution is also the "theory" but accepted as a valid theory by almost all scientists, except those who are fundamentalist Christians posing as real scientists. My understanding is that man made climate change is accepted by 99 percent of legitimate scientists (excluding oil industry hacks). Maybe you don't care about the future of our species, that's your choice, but don't hide behind false arguments. Edited November 24, 2009 by Jingthing

[shamus]

'My understanding is that man made climate change is accepted by 99 percent of legitimate scientists'

This is the sort of statement I'm talking about.

Who are these legitimate scientists? What makes a 'legitimate' scientist? Where does 99% figure come from. I'm open minded. I do care about loss of species. More species are lost through deforestation than climate change.

People use the emotive pictures of Polar bears on thin ice but polar bears have survived periods of far greater warmth and cold than we are in. I think we have been living in such a stable climate recently that we overhype such natural change.

If I could see such a list of proffessors/doctors/scientists who's specialist field this is I would start to believe in mans actions having a significant effect on the climate. There are many videos and statements from leading scientists contradicting your argument. Your 99% statement leads me to believe there must have to therefore be thousands upon thousands of climate specialists out there??

I am not debating man has an effect on climate change but I dont feel it is AS significant as the governments of developed countries are keen to point out.

I'm risking giving you a gang member here Jingthing because that's how ThaiVisa forum works sometimes...

'Well....some one better start explaining the hundreds of very large "Icebergs" off the coast of New Zealand! Maybe these are "props" for a movie'

I'm questioning 'man made climate change' and I believe it's a revenue stream but I'm open minded for you to convince me otherwise

[rabcbroon]

FYI once upon a time The Telegraph use to be a wonderful newspaper. It understood the difference between news and opinion. Now it's just another cheap rag.

So the real news is reported in the????????

[rabcbroon]

Never forget man made climate change is NOT proven. It's a scientific theory. IPCC states as much.

An industry, taxes and caps have emerged from a theory.

That is a false argument and shows a lack of understanding of how science works. Evolution is also the "theory" but accepted as a valid theory by almost all scientists, except those who are fundamentalist Christians posing as real scientists. My understanding is that man made climate change is accepted by 99 percent of legitimate scientists (excluding oil industry hacks). Maybe you don't care about the future of our species, that's your choice, but don't hide behind false arguments.

Although the majority of the attention around ClimateGate has focused on emails exchanged between CRU scientists, the real smoking gun proving deception and fraud can be found in the code of climate models which prove that temperature numbers were “artificially adjusted” to hide the decline in global warming since the 1960’s.

Attempts on behalf of the establishment media to characterize the scandal as “rancor” amongst scientists completely obfuscates the real issue, which is the fact that man-made climate change proponents gamed their data models to make them produce the results they wanted.

Not only do we have emails where CRU Director Dr. Phil Jones talks about pulling tricks in climate models to “hide the decline” of global temperatures, but within the code of these models we also find blatant evidence of manipulation.

“People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing,”

[rabcbroon]

A BBC Weather presenter who was discussed by scientists in the “climategate” emails says he was forwarded the material more than five weeks before it was made public on the internet.

Paul Hudson, a weather presenter and climate correspondent for the BBC, notes

on his blog “I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October,”.

Hudson says he saw the exact emails that were either hacked or leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University placed on the internet last week.

“The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.” Hudson notes.

Following the publication of a 9th October article Hudson wrote for the BBC entitled “

whatever happened to global warming?“, in which he questioned the science behind the theory of human induced warming, the BBC correspondent was discussed within emails to which several of the CRU climatologists were privy, including Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Tom Wigley and Philip D. Jones.

Hudson’s article, which pointed out that there had been no increase in global temperatures since 1998, spurred Kevin Trenberth, one of the leading authors of the IPCC report on climate change to make the following comment within the private emails to his colleagues:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a

travesty that we can’t

[shamus]

FYI once upon a time The Telegraph use to be a wonderful newspaper. It understood the difference between news and opinion. Now it's just another cheap rag.

So the real news is reported in the????????

Nobody should take info from one source.

Most of my news comes from the Telly or internet. Al Jazeera for the suffering and conflicts (ie the important stuff) Sky News and CNN for most other news and BBC news for MPs expenses and the terror bulletins.

[shamus]

Thanks for this rabcbroon.

I live in West Yorkshire ans see Paul Hudson on the local news daily and have done for approx 10 years.

He used to strike me as being firmly in the man made global warming camp. Something has changed in him recently, he talks about 'weather events' now and often finds historic comparison to what is happening.

Working for the BBC too eh, refreshing...

[rabcbroon]

Thanks for this rabcbroon.

I live in West Yorkshire ans see Paul Hudson on the local news daily and have done for approx 10 years.

He used to strike me as being firmly in the man made global warming camp. Something has changed in him recently, he talks about 'weather events' now and often finds historic comparison to what is happening.

Working for the BBC too eh, refreshing...

Yes indeed, lets hear what the firm believers in the new religion of ('planet worship') have to say

[Birdman]

well, we could change our way of life, and if there is no global warming, we would have done something positive anyway.

or, we could change our way of life, and if there is global warming, we would act against that.

btw: http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/

[rabcbroon]

well, we could change our way of life, and if there is no global warming, we would have done something positive anyway.

or, we could change our way of life, and if there is global warming, we would act against that.

btw: http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/

Well - we will indeed change our way of life. As reported in the BKK post today (pg 5); to sustain the present life style of the Americans (read west in general) we would need 5 planet earths.

Ok so with the global warming myth we have a reason to reduce consumption - and it is going to be drastic and painfull. Global warming was invented by the 'Club of Rome' as part of the global governance agenda. Agenda 21 - you may want to look at those 2 key things. Club of Rome and Agenda 21.

[Birdman]

well, we could change our way of life, and if there is no global warming, we would have done something positive anyway.

or, we could change our way of life, and if there is global warming, we would act against that.

btw: http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/

Well - we will indeed change our way of life.

......................

Question is: WHEN???

Some illnesses can be cured, if proper treatment will be done timely.

[rabcbroon]

well, we could change our way of life, and if there is no global warming, we would have done something positive anyway.

or, we could change our way of life, and if there is global warming, we would act against that.

btw: http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/

Well - we will indeed change our way of life.

......................

Question is: WHEN???

Some illnesses can be cured, if proper treatment will be done timely.

Yes thats true my friend - blindness can be cured if treated timely