The Changing Climate of Global Warming

,    »  -   103 Comments
267
5.31
12345678910
Ratings: 5.31/10 from 36 users.

Storyline

The Changing Climate of Global WarmingThis documentary explores the journey of discovery from both local and global perspectives of climate change.

A balanced panel of world renown scientists discuss and debate the research while local activist and skeptics volunteer time to their cause.

According to the authors, unlike other documentaries that have given one side of the story, this film reviews all sides and lets the viewer make up their own mind.

This documentary features many local activists, politicians and scientists, as well as world renowned researchers.

Never before have the arguments been presented side-by-side so you can decide for yourself what the real inconvenient truth is about the state of the climate "science" field and the pending doom of the planet. Is it pure hype or pure science, you can decide.

More great documentaries

103 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Green

    It's really insincere to present this as a balanced documentary, when the makers themselves consider it a "response to Al Gore’s “Climate Reality” project". Really when self confessed partisan material seems even handed to you....well I'll just say you might want to look up what a cognitive bias is, particularly confirmation bias. As for starting to point out where the climate change deniers get things wrong in this video, man...you can start with the basic historical facts like that Christopher Columbus circumnavigated the world as the main denier claims (which of course he never did) and pretty much knock them down one by one. Any rational person would see it as a hint that arguments against climate change are never made by actual climate scientists...you know, the only people really qualified to understand the complexity of the field. To say that they are all lying for some reason, well that's a level of conspiracy theory thinking you don't get much outside of the right wing USA.

  2. FiFiCB

    Green, I couldn't have put it any better myself. Excellent post.

  3. jd974

    Green, watch The Great Global Warming Swindle and you'll get more than your fill of climate scientists who tear apart the "establishments" version of climate change.

  4. ZarathustraSpeaks

    Green, your bias is showing when you assume other people have to "look up what a cognitive bias is".

  5. sean c

    Of course the climate is changing, that tends to be what it does. Man has undoubtedly contributed but my jury is well out in respect of the whole caboodle making us the sole cause of modern climate change. The computer models that were constructed to predict mans continuing blame in the debacle are inherently unreliable due to a little thing called 'irriducible inprescision' when trying to predict chaotic systems. It can't be done. The effects of the sun in repect of sunspots is also left out of the equation and the effects of the cosmic wind that plays havoc with weather systems down here on earth when the suns magnetic field retracts, such as right now. One of the effects of the cosmic interference is serious clouding resulting in serious raining and all that goes with it. An aspect of climate change that appears to be ignored. Also making Co2 the bad guy so they can make us pay for the air we all breath, without question, is a major factor in the "warmers" pressing home their highly flawed arguments. We do have a pollution problem though and we should be more entusiastic in combating that rather than looking for ways for the money guys to make more money out of all us mug punters, which, sadly is how we are viewed by them. I shall look fortward to the ridicule from the rebuttle squad hovering over their keyboards waiting for me.

  6. sean c

    whoops

  7. CapnCanard

    embarrassingly bad film with horrible "science" in this film. Some simple questions: is the climate changing world wide? Yes, it always is but the recent set of changes we've just seen is happening far faster than I expected and by a vast majority of climatologists this has been accounted for by elements introduced by man. Next question: Is climate change denial legitimate? No, in all of life change is the only element that is constant. The major element here is the mathematical absolute of what is often known as "Chaos theory" i.e. sensitive dependence upon initial conditions. Wherein no one knows the initial conditions thus we aren't able to replicate the initial conditions. We can measure the conditions as they stand now and compare them to the recent past and even predict percentages but our accuracy is not 100%. Long story short, deniers are even far less accurate. And by that I mean their accuracy is zero. For some unknown reason deniers mistakenly believe they are correct in their simplistic dialectical paradigm. Where if it is not YES then it must be NO. But there are many other elements they ignore. It is difficult to combat the thinking of the very arrogant climate change deniers as they seem to believe that being the loudest makes them more correct. It is astonishingly dumb.

  8. sean c

    It was not so long ago that to deny we were the centre of the universe would get one executed. I suspect you are of that school. To even use the term "Deniers" smacks of religious extremism and is completely inacurate if it is aimed at me for example. I find the official version of the root cause of Climate change flawed in the extreme and question the recieved wisdom of scientists clearly driven by politics. The fact is we are all subject, regardless of which side of the scientific fence one stands on, to the uncertainty that chaotic systems bring to the party. Think about this The last time there was an absence of spots on the sun, like right now, our climate changed but that fact never seems to enter the debate. It was called the "Maunder Minimum" and is well documented but never mentioned by Witch Finder Generals like yourself. We do not deny the climate is changing we are questioning the cause and find it hard to believe that man is solely responsible.

  9. iconoclast63

    So ... what you're saying is that fact is impossible? That we simply are not capable of actual conclusions? Are you a m*ron? If we can't know for sure, then how the **** can you claim that deniers are disingenuous? Facts are not debatable, are they? Facts don't need to be altered when science can replicate the data again and again, do they? And you are accusing people that disagree with YOUR views as "arrogant"?

  10. lakhotason

    Sorry correction "imprecision"

  11. WTC7

    The doc is actually not really balanced, I'd say it gives more prominence, well, at least more time, to the "deniers" of global warming than to the "other side".

    It is a fact that the climate has been changing for millennia from ice ages to warm ages even when humans were not, by any comparison, a major factor of warming, or cooling for that matter.

    The last decade without the raise in global temperature has been a problem for proponents of global warming. Then the "climate-gate" occurs, a bit of tempering, nothing significant.

    From my understanding of the issue of global warming today, there is certainly no consensus among the scientists about whether the global warming is anthropogenic, even though there is a lot of effort to present it as such. My understanding of the issue aside, if a substantial number of scientist in the field opposes the forced acceptance of anthropogenic global warming/change is definitely a sign for caution.

  12. Nicolas Mullin

    This documentary hardly seems unbiased to me, in the sense that it shows you a whole lot of political debating, rather than explaining the science behind the standpoints these people are making. Just like in the documentaries originating from the mainstream side of the debate, you are handed a few experts with supposedly informed opinions, telling you what to believe and what not to believe. The whole documentary consisted of a disturbing mix of Fox News imagery and fast-paced, fast-cut interviews. All in all, I'd say it made more of a convincing argument than "An Inconvenient Truth", but that's not saying much.

  13. Pangaea

    "Any rational person would see it as a hint that arguments against climate change are "NEVER" made by actual climate scientists...you know, the only people really qualified to understand the complexity of the field"

    Never say never, Green

    enter "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" into wikipedia..
    a tiny list, for sure, yet a significant difference to your 0 conclusion.

    also, i wonder how many of that vast percentage of non sceptic scientists have done their own direct first hand experiments, rather then basing little or no experiment in context to results other scientists have run. As you rightly said, its a vast and complex situation with too many discreet variables for one person or indeed a group to conclude without referring to other "apparently" established models. Its also worth noting that that wiki page dose not state wheather these non sceptic scientists have or have not actually done experiments, or are just "stating" one or the other based on what others in their particular peer groups are saying. Its also worth noting that whatever theory is correct, its most defiantly being taken advantage of and exploited for financial gain and control.

    If you add all the above together things are not so easy to conclude either way.

    Another thing ide like to nitpick from your statement is your use of the word "conspiracy" and "all lying"

    Well first of all, it only takes a handful of lies or liars to induce a majority of people under that lie to believe it. However the majority itself dose not necessary have to be lying.

    Also, and considering what ive said, is it not healthy to question any anomalous factors in such a significant & complex theory that can and will impact in alot of areas of not only the earth but our lifestyles no matter what side of the fence you happen to be on without being ladled a conspiracy theorist?
    Mistakes are made in science.
    There are also believe it or not some nasty folks around that may not have the best interests of human kind or indeed the planet, dose that then mean acquiring a degree of caution and scepticism makes one a conspiracy theorist? .. and thus condemning anyone who questions institutionalised theories in the same general group as folks who believe that there is a spaceship the size of a moon coming to destroy the earth at the end of this year?.. or people believe that crop circles are made by green aliens from outer space that are also in conflict with an elite reptilian/human hybrid ruling class?

    lets grow up a little here, and do what scientists have been doing for millennia, question and question some more, without the fear of being burnt on a stake in front of a public gathering who's only intent is to ridicule.

    and just for the record, I myself strongly suspect that yes, of course the climate is changing, as it always has done, and yes its likely that there are many effects that humans have contributed, be it directly or indirectly... but as with anything its often coloured, exaggerated, out of context and exploited.. but hey!.. whats new there.

    :)

  14. PaulGloor

    This is starting to mirror the arguments against evolution... The people who are wrong, believe they are right and immediately begin their campaigns of outreach to protect the minds of all the uninformed. And of course, the news is all over it.

  15. Monika Ostrowska

    It is truly dissapointing to see that such a biased and populist movie is promoted here as a balanced documentary. Where was the "panel of world renown scientists" here? I noticed only local university professors and some activists. Sadly their side of story was not confronted here by those who support the scientific consensus about manmade climate change. Instead they show one scientists that is not even given a chance to explain his views and a bunch of emotional activists with whom so called American public could hardly identify. The reason why people like Bob Wagner are able to convince the uninformed public is that university professors dismiss him without proving wrong. Climate change is not a matter of belief, it is happening and human activity influences it, but those that provide us with science should be able to convey it to the public and confront deniers on every level if there is going to be any climate change policy at all. Why is there even a need for movies like this to be made? I felt that there is still a lot to do especially for those that convey data and science to the public. Instead of educating media creates a grey zone in which bias and populism grows.

  16. Stop Hurting Start Healing

    This movie is crap!
    In the Arctic we just lost sea ice area differing from the average by about the size of the 7th biggest country.
    Then we also smashed the lowest record by a margin equal to the 37th biggest country. The world is changing fast.
    Co-incidence ... I think not! We are shattering the scientific view because they are too optimistic!
    This is history not predictions.

  17. Ash NA

    Agreed. Even if, IF, the climate change is not anthropogenic the resulting changes in our waste management and energy production will be progressive. Even IF politicians, parasites that they are, jump on the back of this issue and try to use it to bolster their power-base, we will still get a better world, a more sustainable world, and therefore more progress.

    I really don't see the big conspiracy. Just a bunch of layabout conservatives who'd sooner see us dismantle the wheel and head back up into the trees to sit on our hands. These science-denying types who incongruously style themselves as 'sceptics' in order to borrow the mantle of credibility from science are not sceptics at all but bitter, reactionary cynics. I've listened to them, watched their doco's and learned only that they employ equally cynical lobbyists to manipulate politicians to their own ends, with their only weapons being fear, ignorance and outright lies.

    There was an Australian doco which illustrated this point quite clearly by attempting to show both sides, and have a representative of each try to convince the other. It comes down to lies and ignorance and stagnation versus progress and reason and planning.

  18. Stop Hurting Start Healing

    Who is Dr Bob Wagner = Dr Robert M Wagner. The first lie! Optometrist, tried to find something on him. The main character is a lie!

  19. Pangaea

    Thats a fantastic attitude you have there dude..
    So like the bush administration's hysterical reaction to 9.11... "your either with us or against us"..
    there is no middle ground, and never any reason to question... if you do, you are an "enemy"

    Well im sorry... I shall not let you goad me in to one of two categories.

    Category One: I believe EVERYTHING I hear from governments & other institutions, without questions wholly.

    Category Two: I dont believe ANYTHING I hear from the government & other institutions, but I do believe in reptilian hybrids, and space faring planet sized dooms day machines.

    Umm.. if you dont mind, ide like to disassociate myself from both.

    Funny you mention Australia too, have you forgotten they recently passed a bill that denying certain aspects of global warming in a public forum or public place of business is fine-able up to 1.1million aussie dollars?

    It seems to be so hard for you to believe that are people out there, me included.. that dont fall into any of the categories people like you love to create. You must really struggle with that concept.
    Its like any cautious middle ground simply doesn't exist for you.

    Well let me tell you something, although it might not exist for you, it most certainly exists for many other people, whether you like or not.

  20. John Gros

    People are stupid. Yes its not about climate, it is about peak oil. We need to switch because its almost gone.

  21. fnertz

    Discussing discussing discussing discussing. Whilst the tires are leaving the cliff.. Should we get out?
    Ever heard of the precautionary principle?
    It's been established over and over and over that the reactionaries have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Up until having been MASSIVELY proven wrong they will just keep lying, cheating and hurting everything around them (and even after that) in their gluttenous search for another buck.
    At some point it comes to a decision. No. No more discussing. Action.
    I completely agree with Ash NA.

    Have you ever tried herding sheep through an opening that they do NOT want to go through? They just keep running back and forth along the fence baahing. It is EXACTLY the same talking to a climate sceptic.

  22. sean c

    Burning less oil or no oil at all would definitely be better for the environment but as for "Peak Oil" it depends on whether you believe in the biogenic origins of oil or the Abiogenic origin. Biogenic or Peak oil guarantee's that the oil companies will be able to carry on screwing us indefinitely. Abiogenic oil means they can't. Get Googling

  23. Corey7777

    I wonder how many of the speakers in this film would also like to see "Intelligent Design" taught next to Evolution in class rooms across the country.

  24. tariqxl

    It doesn't really matter anymore we have 1 guy who has created a hydrogen based substitute with the bi-product being water and another who has developed a way of speeding the process by which the natural stuffs made. A whistle blower was in the papers 2-3 days ago saying that all the big oil companies have been price fixing for years... I hope they enjoy it while they can :)

  25. tariqxl

    Wheres the lie? I'm assuming you know Bob is short for Robert, no lie there he is an optometrist so no lie there and I found a few articles that he's sent in to sites like meetup . com.

  26. tariqxl

    Don't forget the problem, reaction, solution process the U.S government operates on and the solution part seems like its carbon tax but there's also chemtrails and Monsanto's monopoly of toxin resistant seeds.

  27. WTC7

    Sorry you couldn't open it. But if you google "UN climate scientists speak out on global warming" it will take you there directly.

    By the way, thanks for your link, I will certainly read it :).

  28. WTC7

    I just realized that your link is actually an update of the link I provided :). Goooood.

  29. Sieben Stern

    when the guy went on his tour with his projector that's the same vibe I got - like a revival.

  30. WTC7

    Here are just a few scientists in the relevant field, whose quotes I copied from mine and the link of sean c, of a large number of scientists that oppose the notion of the global warming being caused by human activities and the consensus about the AGW. The list is toooo long to be copied in its entirety here. Click on the links and follow the reports there if you want to read the names and credentials of those who deny the AGW, you will be amazed how many scientists are disagreeing with what you believe is a fact beyond discussion.

    Dr. Christopher W. Landsea, UN IPCC author and reviewer, atmospheric scientist, and expert with NOAA's National Hurricane Center. Dr. Landsea resigned from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science.
    "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.”
    “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
    "The 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years, and 1900-1905 was almost as bad.”

    Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Contributing Author to the UN IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, climate scientist with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado
    "Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
    "Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain."

    Rosa Compagnucci, Author of two UN IPCC reports, professor in the Department of Atmosphere Sciences in the University of Buenos Aires, and El Niño expert
    "There was a global warming in medieval times, during the years between 800 and 1300. And that made Greenland, now covered with ice, christened with a name that refers to land green: 'Greenland.’”

    Yury Izrael, past UN IPCC Vice President, director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
    "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming.”
    "Global temperatures increased throughout the 1940s, declined in the 1970s and subsequently began to rise again.... Present day global warming resembles the 1940s, when ships could easily navigate Arctic passages. However, man's impact was much smaller at that time. A Russian expedition that recently returned from the central Antarctic says that temperatures are now starting to decrease.... In ancient times the Earth had periods when maximum CO2 concentrations were 6,000 PPM (Carboniferous period). But life still goes on."

    Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Alabama
    "The one atmospheric process that has the greatest control on the Earth's climate is the one we understand the least - precipitation.”
    "In fact, for the amount of solar energy available to it, our climate seems to have a ‘preferred' average temperature, damping out swings beyond one degree or so. I believe that, through various negative feedback mechanisms, the atmosphere ‘decides' how much of the available sunlight will be allowed in, how much greenhouse effect it will generate in response, and what the average temperature will be."

  31. ulickmcgee

    Im doing it for my son and america,quote dr wagner,he doesnt seem to mind driving his projector around in his car or his pushbike on the back of his massive pick up truck global warming my arse im with him.

  32. Simon Gramstrup

    This was a poor documentary.

    1. It was biased. Big bad guy vs good little guy.
    2. It was emotional itself. despite highlighting the problem with emotional campaigns/documentaries.
    3. It presented several arguments from both sides, but did not try to resolve or compare any of them, or end up with an overview of the arguments.

    All in all: After this doc, we're not closer to finding out the truth, and will only trigger a few heated discussions. To bad..

  33. RickRayFSM

    Let's ask the plants, insects, birds and mammals who are migrating northward if it's getting too hot for them in the south!

  34. Richie Cahill

    Anything that presents the global warming issue as any kind of legitimate debate is bullshit. The science is in, GW is happening. If anything, the pro side is painting a merrier picture than the reality.

  35. John C. Tripp

    OK, so if all the ice melts in the next couple of hundred years it's alright. It wasn't our fault.

  36. John C. Tripp

    7 billion people can do quite a bit of damage. Just look at the amount of **** we produce every day. If we didn't haul it away and had to live in it, there'd be a big mess. So, why is it doubted that all of the CO2 **** we put out there isn't going to have an impact? Would you put a turd in your drinking water?

  37. brianrose87

    The fundamentals of the science are quite easy to comprehend, and thus when explained are impossible to deny.

    CO2 doesn't absorb frequencies of solar radiation entering the atmosphere. When that EM radiation hits the ground it is converted to IR radiation, and bounced back toward space. However, CO2, methane, and other "greenhouse" gases DO absorb IR radiation, and bounce a % back into the atmosphere. Over time IR radiation (we commonly refer to infrared radiation as heat... thus the warming part) is kept in the atmosphere (and oceans) more than previously.

    The balance between solar radiation in and infrared radiation out is dictated by greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane. Its incredibly simple to do these experiments and measure the results with single molecules, we know exactly what electromagnetic frequencies are absorbed by various atoms and molecules. In fact, there are really neat chromatographic glasses you can use to see the light signature of atoms (if you've ever taken a college physics class you've done this).

    The debate should be about how quickly the actual climate changes, not on whether it changes. For instance, the scientific community was confused why the atmosphere wasn't warming as quickly as expected. Turns out that the oceans are a far greater temperature buffer than previously thought.

    Climate scientists aren't concerned with the prospect of gradual warming because the ocean is absorbing (and can continue to absorb) a massive quantity of thermal energy. Climate scientists are incredibly concerned about possible tipping points like the shut-off of the Transatlantic Current, weather effects on Europe due to loss of Arctic Ice, changes imposed about La Nina and El Nino (and thus droughts and hurricanes).

    Honestly, even a climate change denier should be scared sh*#less by trends in sea level rise. The vast majority of sea level rise to date has been through thermal expansion of water (remember PV=nRT). If T (temperature goes up) all else being equal, Volume must go up. Sea levels in Tavuli (the lowest lying country on Earth) are rising by 5 mm a year. Whether or not you accept climate science, this country will not exist in 50 years. Physics doesn't care for human beliefs, it simply follows unimpeachable laws. More greenhouse gases= more retained infrared energy= expanding oceans= sea level rise.

  38. brianrose87

    In terms of oil production, when analyzing the production profile of literally thousands of fields around the world, as well as entire formations, regions, countries, etc. one particular trait stands out universally. Oil production increases to a point, peaks, and begins to decline not rapidly but on a percentage basis year by year.

    This reality points to one of two conclusions: either oil was produced in the carboniferous era by the death of trillions of tons of phytoplankton, OR oil is indeed abiogenic, but replenishes at such a slow rate that it may as well be finite. Remember we burn 89 MILLION barrels per day 61,000 barrels PER MINUTE (seriously try to imagine 61,000 barrels of oil stacked in front of you... it'd be a truly immense pile of barrels. We burn that EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY including when you sleep. Because when you sleep China is awake). The point is, abiogenic or not we use oil so voraciously that its essentially finite, as is backed up by thousands upon thousands of individual wells production profiles.

    I do wish that oil were an infinite resource though since it powers 40% of our global civilization, and is the only reason that anything gets anywhere. When you buy a TV it is mostly MADE of oil, but the parts that aren't oil were mined using oil fed machines, shipped for processing...using oil fed machines, ship to be manufactured, assembled, to distribution sites, and to your local store, all by planes, boats, and vehicles RUNNING ON OIL. Then, you drive in your oil run car to pick up the TV. Without oil there is no industrial civilization.

  39. Achems_Razor

    Had to remove 3 wiki links that were irrelevant and the same link.

    You were already told only put on 2 links max at a time that have to be relevant to the doc.

    Any more posts like that will simply be deleted.

  40. pjle

    Without watching this facts are facts the oil that is burned everyday creates smoke does it not? Then the smoke in the atmosphere slowly dissipates into the vapors such as water then the oxygen and finally mixes in with all that breathe it in,Now the sun produces radiation and the Ozone layer is just one element of the earths protective layer that decreases the radiation.But the sudden findings of the Holes in the ozone layer which were not their before but is suddenly their now and as a result the gases are becoming trapped more and more producing more heat.Fact is science and the melting of the glaciers is a clear evidence factor about global heat rise.Ice age ten thousand years ago is recorded from ice cores collected in the Arctic.So tell me smartass.What other manmade issues are causing these melting and rising temperatures.The B.S. that the so called bafoons who know nothing about what true experts have studied over time spent in the polar regions.Especially this bafoon who is using the dow jones industrial for his bases on trying to disprove these facts.Why is it he has no experience about the glacier melting because he has never done the actual science,only basing it on the last 150 years,Sorry but this planet and the fact it is melting is a clear and definitive sign that should not be ignored

  41. Matt Kukowski

    If you think that billions of cars/trucks and the 1000's of coal fire plants and jet planes in the air will not have an effect on the planet... well then you only have to wait and see what happens.

    We no longer have to wait. Droughts and Ice cap melting is obvious.

    The PROBLEM is that we are RULED by money. Money money money... almost everyone has their price... so GREAT! Global warming is real and scary. So, people will try to make money.

    Then the confusion comes when people say Global warming is a HOAX just because Al Gore is trying and IS getting rich. But, the facts remain... Global Warming is occurring.

    Most people can not process more than a few variables. Amazingly many people can only handle ONE variable at a time! So, the more variables the more confusing you can make the situation.

    So, the bottom line is that... Global warming is happening and is man made (also it can be helped by natural systems) AND people are trying to get rich in the process.

    Here is the GOOD news. Solar panels and other equipment has comes down in price A LOT. You can NOW power a large 5 bed room home using Solar for around $6,000. Only 5 years ago this price was $20,000. In another 5 years the cost could come down to $3-2,000 dollars ! (Panels+Controllers+Inverters+Golf cart Batteries+cables) 100% off grid system. No tie grid to the power company B.S.

    You then buy an all electric car, charge it with your solar panels and there you go. Look it up. You will find the electric car choice and price are still WAY too high... (oil companies I am sure are attending to that... )

    And finally... if you want to know how lame government and money is... just watch 'Who killed the Electric Car' and youtube search STAN MEYERS.

    Who killed the water car? People do not know the facts, and even if they try they do not have the ability to handle more than a few variables at once.

  42. Ðaniel Çurtis

    you never heard of sun spots? or ever looked it up?Or ever noticed in history the earth has been hotter?...am sure it does some things but i will never understand the point to not show or tell all the facts.

  43. xxconspiracyxx

    Matt Kukowski, what makes you say that there IS global warming?
    what facts do you have? my understanding is that you get your facts from scientists.
    If you have a team of Al gore scientists saying yes there is a problem and a team of scientists saying there isn't how do you come to your conclusion that there is global warming?

    Do you get your information from propaganda videos? a little lesson on watching conspiracy videos, don't belive everything you watch, debunk what you can and do a lot of research before firing up your "end of the world theory"

  44. xxconspiracyxx

    Also,
    A lot of what goes in the air is vegetation and vapours from the sea, the sea contains minerals, this can have a massive effect to our atmosphere,

    so they have recordings going back to the medievil days and so on of the hottest days or coldest, what about the ice age?

    I don't remember cars and factories being mentioned in school in the good old days.

  45. WTC7

    To me, it seems that there is really no consensus among scientists about the man-made global warming (before you attack this statement, please check the links below I and sean c provided, they are pretty much self explanatory). The climate has been changing for eons regardless of human activity.

    But we can certainly talk about the problem of excess pollution caused by humans. Our rivers are dirty, our forests are being destroyed, our soils are being intoxicated with all sorts of cr*p - that we should absolutely be concerned about and try to stop it.

  46. Rocky Racoon

    How can you give equal time to sides when 97% think one way and 3% think another. Why do denier's get equal time? If I want to argue that the earth is flat do I get equal time with those who say no it is round? If I want to say the sun revolves around the earth do I get equal time with those who say no your wrong the earth revolves around the sun so this is starting off from a false premise to begin with.
    RR

  47. xxconspiracyxx

    yes, i totally agree with that one WTC!

  48. KsDevil

    It would seem this documentary is an education in how the mind of climate change deniers work. Every argument presented seems to be alligorical and emotional. Partial truths and open ended arguments.
    However, not one of them deneid the biochemstry that causes climate change.
    On the other hand, I wish people wouold stop using 'global warming'. It's not correct terminology for this effect and makes people look like they don't know what they are talking about...on both sides.

  49. Vikram Tejpal

    how much time you get depends on how much scientific facts you have backing you ...if all you have is flying polar bears ..then you ARE the guy who's arguing the earth is flat! ..remember they jailed the guy who said the earth revolved around the sun ..they thought he was a conspiracy theorist!

  50. WTC7

    Exactly the point! I wish people would read and explore stuff posted here that opposes the politicized mainstream and get a deeper insight into this subject. It would be easy if it was that black and white. But it's not. It's about politics and money. At the same time, nobody sane would oppose the fact that we are polluting the Earth, but there needs to be made a distinction between these two issues.

    P.S. I mean the global warming and pollution.

  51. david o leary

    well the people who said the world was round weereless than 1 percent once so your arguement is flawwed concensuss does not make fact as history has proven over and over again

  52. WTC7

    Why would you even respond to someone who gives percentages of that sort without research?

  53. xxconspiracyxx

    I do my part, I have a bag for life and a energy saving light bulb :D

  54. sean c

    Oil wells will fill up again but as you rightly point out rather slowly and not fast enough to keep in line with consumption however the idea that dead organic matter formed, over millions of years, convenient underground reservoirs of oil is patently absurd. Mandeleev, who gave us the periodic table, was the first to point out the abiogenic origins of oil. I'm sure his knowledge in such matters was not "chopped liver"

  55. paulterryburgess

    Yes you're right. The consensus was among the average uneducated person, not amongst scientists. The scientific process and peer review wasn't even existing at the time of Galileo. Science was in its infancy. You are also contradicting yourself. The majority of people in the U.S. don't believe in global warming it's just the scientific community. So yes you are correct David. Consensus doesn't reflect reality. Thank goodness

  56. Effn Wasted

    The money which all governments spend on 'Geoengineering' Could be spent on perfecting the need for and the burning of fossil fuels. If you were running out of drinking water. You wouldn't wait until its completely gone before finding more. A country who 'sent men to the moon' cant create a new source of clean energy? Why is that? Who profits from 'Global Warming'? 'Climate Change'? Or whatever they are calling it today.

    Please fell free to call me an id**t, jack***. Or which ever derogatory word best suits your fancy. But please don't strain yourself. We wouldn't want that!

  57. david o leary

    im glad you agree with me that concensus does not reflect reality. so your last comment doesnt make any sense.if we are only ever allowed to hear one side of the arguement how can we make up our own minds.i dont believe global warming just because the ipcc says so.why are you so afraid of the "deniers" giving there side?

  58. Willie Wonka

    Non-issue that is irrelevant. I do not care if you "believe" in global warming or not. All this climate change crap will take a long time for any change to be noticeable. In the mean time the human population continues to explode and energy sources are diminishing and water resources are already strained. Think about it, in 2050 we will have at least another billion people. No one will care about the environment when they are starving and dying of thirst.

  59. il_trota

    let me get this straight. you complain that by 2050 we wont have enough energy sources to sustain our ever rising population and argue that for this reason we wont care about the climate change issue. you do understand that our current energy sources are the main problem? maybe if people would start freaking aknowledging the need to change our energy policies we wont have neither starvation nor very bad climate change. but then again who cares, right? certainly not you.

  60. il_trota

    well could u at least go look up ur sources before posting? tell me where they have said they dont agree anthropogenic climate change is taking place.

    LANDSEA: says he thinks ACC is not having a large effect on hurricanes, "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity."

    FRAUENFELD: says that from his studies, which by the way are countered by some more recent ones, he doesnt see a risk of a runaway climate change scenario releasing the gigatons of methane gas frozen in siberian permafrost. that does not mean he doesnt recognize climate change is happening. do ur own reading if interested but basically theres no risk that planet earth will become venus bigger brother.

    COMPAGNUCCI: seems to have been entitled of saying something she would never say. to argue greenland had no ice sheet in the middle age would get her in ridicule by not only scientists. from wikipedia: "The ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 110,000 years.[4] The presence of ice-rafted sediments in deep-sea cores recovered off of northeast Greenland, in the Fram Strait, and south of Greenland indicated the more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland for the last 18 million years. From just before 11 million years ago to a little after 10 million years ago, the Greenland Ice Sheet appears to have been greatly reduced in size. The Greenland Ice Sheet formed in the middle Miocene by coalescence of ice caps and glaciers. There was an intensification of glaciation during the Late Pliocene."
    ive found the post u talking about which is clearly BS. she seems a knowledgeable climatologist, interested mainly in el nino and southern hemisphere. on a UN article she says climate change effect could be visible in 50 years. so again please CHECK before believing first crap u read.

    YURI IZRAEL: ah, yuri izrael! did you even freaking google this guy up? from wikipedia "Izrael was chairman of the State Committee on Hydrometeorology (Goskomgidromet) at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Following the accident he was widely criticized for slow and inaccurate monitoring. He was also criticized for allowing air pollution throughout the USSR to reach unprecedented levels.[11] In a 2004 article published in Nature, Quirin Schiermeier and Bryon MacWilliams referred to him as a "fossil communist fighting for fossil fuel." u trust this guy? take a tour in chernobyl.

    ROY SPENCER: the only person that actually has some ground to offer you. nevertheless he states mankind are helping the natural processes he thinks are driving climate change. i guess there is uncertainity about it afterall...

    seriously, u guys are getting ridicule. THERE IS NO WORLD-WIDE CONSPIRACY, u just cant tell facts from fiction.
    i very much hope u take this the right way, im not attacking ur personal beliefs, but rather trying to stop people like u spreading false info. believe in whatever pleases u but dont post ur crap trying to cast shadows on the work and life of professionals who deserve way more respect then the amount u show.

  61. WTC7

    "well could u at least go look up ur sources before posting? tell me where they have said they dont agree anthropogenic climate change is taking place."

    The source of quotations you commented upon is the "US Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus"".

  62. il_trota

    care to read the post? they debate over the degree of the human involvment, not over we're involved or not.

    i dont want to convince you or anything, u are free to believe whatever pleases u, just dont spead wrong facts claiming theyre right.

  63. WTC7

    Oh, I read the post alright. On my side, I suggest you re-read the title of the US Senate minority report I cited. Should you disagree with it, either entirely or in parts, please address the authors of the report with your comment about spreading false information.

  64. il_trota

    i hope for our own sake that people can get an idea of their own, without following blindly whatever others say or write. i went to look on all of your claims because i happen to study the subject and i was very surprised by the post you wrote. i found out you were saying half truths and i took a long bit of my time to correct your MISINFORMATION.

    regarding the american senate minority report, i doubt it was written the way u interpreted it. if it was, since I'm not american, i can only feel sorry for you guys, and hope for the swift return of a genuine democracy, where choice are made in the interest of everyone, not only big corporations.

    on a side note, the only reason why i still answer you is to try and convince people who are skeptic about climate change to change their mind. i have to admit people like you make me lose hope on the future, not only because of the environmental problem our time is facing, but mostly for the way they believe anything they come across, making themselves perfect ignorants, carriers of false ideologies and victims of mass medias control.

  65. WTC7

    You can find the US senate minority report on the internet (just google its title) and see for yourself whether I misinterpreted it.

    I am not an American.

    The only reason I am replying to you is that, although we stand on the opposite sides on the issue of anthropogenic global warming, my gut feeling is that you are a decent bloke.

  66. chernencoffa

    Couldn't agree more. In time the truth will show itself. Hopefully I'm still alive when this happens.

  67. Rocky Racoon

    Growing and using Industrial Hemp globally would suck alot of that carbon out of the air...and could be used in alot of other modalities, food, energy, products. I really do think everything we need must be provided for naturally as that is how we evolved....not to use this gift from the earth....how blind do we have to be. Never mind anything spiritual or mystical about it our new god of science says the same thing about it as the mystics do....We need more reverence for nature in this world that is for sure.
    RR

  68. Rocky Racoon

    This doc will probably piss me off....some things need a silver bullet. Denial is one of them.
    RR

  69. Freshmyn M Nowlin

    You know, it doesn't matter what either of you say. This is a forseen reaction they just want more people pinned against eachother on a topic that they are controlling. There is more to global warming than anyone, I believe, can even fathom as real or socially acceptable. We as people are lazy, and that alone is apart of global warming. If we can utilize our knowledge and stop doing without thinking we can thrive and global warming wouldn't be an issue. Everything we have done for us, we can do for ourselves. Plain and simple, so yeah global warming IS our fault but only because we depended on someone else to do something for us that we can easily do for ourselves. If we can pick up a profession and go to school and get a degree for said profession, then why can't we figure out how to power our homes? Or why can't we come up with our own water filters? Why can't we make our own clothes; that we would want to wear? I just don't understand a society that complains so much, but suppose to be "Free". If you're free, act like it, if you have true freedom of choice, why are there so many limitations? If it is about living your life to suit your needs, why does it matter what other people think? When you give your opinion, regardless, it's biased cause it's YOUR opinion. So my "Opinion" on global warming is this, unless your living off the land and have a source of energy that isn't hooked up to the side of your house, or walking around or even riding a bike. If you smoke, or work with people that cut down trees. If you just over look your surroundings and not take in what's going on OUTSIDE your world. Global warming is just as much as your fault as the industrial revolution. You're not doing anything other than blowing smoke and hot air when you complain without seeking solutions.

  70. AJ Stavely

    I have not seen this doc so I will not comment directly about it. However, the idea that we are still trying to suck up to the Denialist by "showing both sides" is utterly RIDICULOUS!! Funny how many of the Denialist are also Preppers or other paranoid right wing Christians...The one common thread amongst Denialist is they all have a background in believing utter BS without any evidence to back their claims or beliefs. Once you start believing stuff simply because you want to then you are creating a gullibility that will drive you down the road to believing anything! SAD!

  71. DigiWongaDude

    @ AJ, actually I'll think you'll find even you, under the right conditions, believe what you want to. That's the way it works for 99% of people, most of the time. That's how we cope with difficult decisions, and justify certain behaviours; how things we don't really need are sold to us, and how the world justifies so many injustices and wrongs. What you call sad, may be so, but what makes you so different? You believe that denialists are what you say, because you choose to, want to and because it opposes your view otherwise.

    You can choose to apply rationale all you like (and good for you), but in your failure to do so completely, you could show some more tolerance towards others (if that doesn't appear to you to be too irrational).

    [edit: because if you don't (show more tolerance) then it comes across as though you use exclamations and capitals to enforce your view, or in other words, get people to believe what you want them to.]

    But, no harm done, sometimes it's good to just rant, and here's a good place for it. :-)

  72. kaore

    This documentary claims to present both sides of the climate popular debate and gives voice overwhelmingly to skeptics, regardless of academic background. Some are arguments are put forward here and there, yet never really looked into.

  73. Mercarina

    Why does absolutely no one mention the dangers of water air and environmental pollution it is chemicals that are slowly killing all of us. I am especailly concerned that documentary is just male v male egos and not talking about real issue like animal species dying and the effect of commericialisation and all our human waste and our waste disposal issues affecting every part of our eco systems. This documentary has a very a male approach not enough female particiapation. all these issues need to be looked at not just via science but via our thinking our behaviours and our willingness to change.
    Research books like BLUE GOLD and SEEDS OF FREEDOM END OF THE LINE H2OIL etc....its about saving our elements purifying our life giving waters foods and our eco systems its common sense not just science not fear mongering or politics of sheer economic money making markets....

  74. Dale Liston

    I found it hysterical that some of the comments below are by people who claim to be on the side of science and reason but are against debate, hearing all of the facts and a doc that lets you hear both sides. Are you people simply incapable of self-reflection and realize how nutty you sound?

  75. Nikocola Boombadaboom

    Real propaganda. not a documentary.

  76. Jer

    This mockumentary is pretty hilarious.

  77. Jako

    "A balanced panel of world renown scientists..."
    Well, at the start of the docu there was some sort of a balance. Through the second half it was almost exclusively one sided.
    I wanted to hear both sides, but unfortunately couldn't.

  78. Jako

    The oil industry could be considered a "special interest group" as easily.
    I'll bet they stand behind many of the voices opposing clean energy.

  79. jd1242

    propaganda what about the nuclear sites ?????

  80. RamingtonStall

    The Evidence proving the point that Global Warming is a HOAX is much more Substantial and credible than the original IPCC (InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Twisted and edited "Data" that was used to "Hide the Decline" and perpetrate the Global Warming Hoax in the first place. The Warming and Cooling of the Earth as well as other planets in our Solar (hint, hint, hint!) System is caused by that large ball at its center, i.e. THE SUN!

  81. terrasodium

    Is it conceivable that economic science will be tied to environmental science with the eminent antrpological climate crisis, and would that make a barrel of oil more or less valuable as a powersource?

  82. awful_truth

    I am interested to know who was charting accurate solar activity 400 years ago. (Yes, I know about ice core drillings that give us atmospheric indicators regarding the past)
    While I do agree with you that there is climate change, (there is always climate change) scientific data does show us 2 things.
    1) That changes in CO2 levels do not correspond to greenhouse effects for 700 years. We have only been industrialized for 250 years. (CO2 gas also does not contribute 1/10 of 1 percent of the atmosphere)
    2) The poles on Mars have been declining for the last 20 years. (I am sure we are not to blame for this)
    Of course, corporate profits will direct how they respond regarding their environmental impact, but it seems to me everyone is confusing the issues.
    We can't look after one another, so forget about saving the planet. Besides, it is doomed for destruction about 5 billion years from now when our sun goes supernova. Until that time, "it will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, a surface nuisance." (George Carlin)
    George is right. Although we may be capable of poisoning the biosphere, we are only capable of destroying ourselves, not the planet. Give the planet a 1000 years after we are gone, and it will go back to the way it was, because it is a self correcting system.
    We are way to self important, and way to self absorbed to realize that we can't predict the weather 48 hours from now, but somehow we have all the answers regarding the climate via science. Like all science, 1000 years from now, (if were are still around) we will have rewrote what we thought we know. Since science is also a work in progress, don't place all your 'faith' in what is being said today, for tomorrow you will find what you thought was 'gospel' will be obsolete.
    None of what I have said is a defense for not being environmentally friendly. It is only a reminder to remember we are not as smart, or as powerful as we think. Take care, and best wishes DaZe.

  83. wakeda4up

    Ever hear of the "Carbon Tax" smarty pants

  84. DaZe

    Yes I have. And your point being is?

  85. DaZe

    Sorry but I'm confused what you wanted to ask/say?

  86. over the edge

    in the future please limit links to two per post. thanks

  87. awful_truth

    @DaZe: Sorry for the delay DaZe, I have been away for a while. In regards to Mars polar caps, just google 'Mars polar caps melting', and you will find links from Nasa, national geographic, etc.
    In regards to climate change due to CO2 emissions, check out a documentary called' the great global warming swindle' that can be viewed on this site. I am pretty sure it is the one that shows that actual data plots of CO2 relative to time. Check it out, and let me know what you think. Take care, and best wishes DaZe!

  88. DaZe

    I will check that out.
    Also if I have time I'll watch that documentary. BUT I will never except it as a reference. Thus you need to provide me real graphs and peer-reviewed articles, thanks.
    This is only due to the fact that anyone anywhere can do these documentaries and person thinking critically would thus never fully trust the information these provide :)

  89. awful_truth

    @DaZe: I completely agree with you. In fact, I will take it one step further by taking nothing as 'gospel', and first run it through what I refer to as the 'sniff test' before arriving at any conclusions. Since money influences everything, (including science) I prefer to take an intentional stance (motivating factors) towards everything equally, or what Ernst Mach referred to as intellectual skepticism. (Socrates - critical thinking) eg: religion, science, politics, and economics.
    Since everything is a work in progress, very few items are actually written in stone! (unquestionable/certainty)
    Have a great day DaZe!

  90. OMGO

    And all your degree in Environmental Science means is that you have been propagandized by the same people who failed to heed Eisenhower's warning against being taken in by science and scientists that politicians have bought and paid for to deliver the answers those politicians want. I look forward to the day when your degree and $25 (based on the inflation rates this administration is engendering) might buy you a cup of coffee but won't get you a job because even those who once worshiped at your altar will have finally realized that you and your colleagues' smug, self-satisfied ideas are more than worthless, they are destructive.

  91. DaZe

    Thanks! You made my day :)

  92. Mike Robbins

    Um, I hate to break it to you, but you've been brainwashed! Good luck in your deprogramming. I know it will be hard but you can do it. Close the books they tell you to read and read the ones they'd rather you didn't. Open your mind and read both sides unbiased by what people have been telling you. Now come to your own conclusions.

  93. Mike Robbins

    Hmm, I just finally ran across this. There is an awful lot of truth in what you said, fellow "truth bearer". ;)

  94. Benfagre

    The point of course, is that having a debate presented under the guise of neutrality is taking the side of climate deniers.

    For instance, consider having a "debate" on Obamas citizenship, presenting both sides as equally valid. It is the same as siding for the berthers lunacy.

    OBJECTIVITY as opposed to NEUTRALITY dictates only the science side should be presented as independent experts.

  95. happyMephisto

    Thinking that electric transportation will give us an other millennium of care free living,when it will probably use more energy to produce and run then it will save during its life time is like telling us that if the Titanic had an electric engine it might have been able to out run the iceberg that sank it.

  96. NewCovenant

    There is NO Global Warming. Good scientists actually agree that the Earth is cooling down, but 1 degree is NOT GLOBAL WARMING! Why do people believe everything that they read or hear? Where is critical thinking anymore???

  97. NewCovenant

    good answer!

  98. Domingo Soria

    "Good" scientists? ... In other words.. fanatical people posing as scientists and ignoring that more than 90% of the world's REAL climate scientists agree that the AVERAGE global temperature is rising.

  99. Russ Tul

    The important thing to bear in mind here is that, especially in questions of science and thechnology, it's not the poll, not the majority, but only the exceptionally gifted professional individual that will some day provide the answer. For instance. was it the poll or was it Albert Einstein (a Jew - to the distress of all Nazis - paleo and neo alike) that proved Euclidian Geometry to be at best a crude approximation?

  100. a_no_n

    1 degree is not global warming.

    This sentence shows that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about!

  101. a_no_n

    taken in by science and scientists that politicians have bought and paid for to deliver the answers those politicians want.

    You mean like the 99% of scientists who support Climate change dispite politicians not wanting to have to deal with the vast changes in infastructure and industry that are needed in responce to those findings?

    Are you serious? It's like your living on your own little bubble completely removed from reality.

  102. OMGO

    What methodology did you use to establish that 99 percent of scientists support climate change? And, are these the same scientist who formerly supported global warming? Does that 99 percent include the 2003 NOAA Wood's Hole report, "Are we on the brink of a new little ice age?" that flatly says 1. IPCC models are flawed because they only consider data from the past 150 to 200 years when study of several hundred thousand years, that is included in the NOAA report, is the minimum required? and 2. that there was (and would not be for the foreseeable future) any scientific equipment or other means available to take all of the complex variables involved in weather into account that would allow the IPCC, or any other group of climate scientists to arrive at the conclusions the IPCC has on climate. In other words, according to NOAA scientists, the IPCC does not know what it is talking about and, by extension, neither you nor the scientists you refer to, whether 99 percent or 199 percent (since you seem to appoint yourself and anyone else (including Al Gore) who agrees with them as a bona fide scientist), know what they (you) are talking about.

  103. a_no_n

    *Sigh*

    We don't call it global warming anymore because our technology has evolved since the nineties and we have developed a better understanding of what is going on...at least some of us have.

    Nothing you've said is new to me...it's the same whataboutery and garbled criticisms that deniers have been regurgitating since the eighties and has been already thoroughly debunked.

    Also, by clinging onto one thing to try and deny all of the other data available, you are cherrypicking.

    Thats a logical fallacy.

    Finally, No i don't think Al Gore is a scientist. I'm British so I only really know who Al Gore is because of Futurama episodes. I get my information from actual scientific publications like Plos1 and Nature...you should give them a try sometime before trying to tell me that there's no evidence.

Leave a comment / review: