Meet the Climate Sceptics

Meet the Climate ScepticsFilmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate skepticism to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming and to try to understand the people who are making them.

Do they have the evidence that we are heating up the atmosphere or are they taking a grave risk with our future by dabbling in highly complicated science they don't fully understand?

Where does the truth lie and how are we, the people, supposed to decide? The film features Britain's pre-eminent skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton as he tours the world broadcasting his message to the public and politicians alike. Can he convince them and Murray that there is nothing to worry about?

This is just a preview. the full documentary is not available at this moment.

190
7.75
12345678910
Ratings: 7.75/10 from 4 users.
  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HCCWKGUOVIU7SOI7OL2VZLQT3E Alexander

    sure thing, we should continue to destroy everything we touch, no worries... now, destruction (of forest, fossil fuels, animals...) must be good, why? because someone on the telly said so... omg

  • http://www.facebook.com/yi.w.qian Yi Wen Qian

    This is one of these /facepalm moments... That's like saying I cut down all these trees and killed all these animals faster than they could replenish themselves.... and I have made no impact what so ever. Even if it is not an impact you are willing to believe in, you can't deny it is not an impact.

  • kris sto

    Lord of bullsh*t

  • magarac

    Of cause many old people believe in that.
    Because if they are wrong they will be dead long before the temperature actually changes.

    And what exactly did that australian acid trick proof?
    Dolomite always reacts to acid and that has nothing to do with climate change.

  • Earthwinger

    Monckton and his "scientific paper" has been thoroughly debunked. There was a great article written by George Monbiot, for The Guardian, which showed how Monckton had skewed and doctored the numbers, to get the results that he wanted.

    The guy's a nightmare.

  • slpsa

    Tell that to the disappearing ice all over the arctic regions and tell that to the ozone hole that is beyond what they ever thought it could be. Lord Numnuts....wtf

  • leonardobdas

    Despite always leaning heavily towards an utilitarian mindset, this issue personally hugely bothersome because it is obvious that climate is so complex that scientists seem to be left only with hunches, guessing and suggestions (all of which results in taxing the world), things that should be reserved for boys working at more fancy projects like the neutrino nascar series at the LHC (which curiously share similar sponsors, not by car battery brands)

    Now of course, if one considers how hard advertisers are pushing climate change via soft solutions such as owning an ugly Toyota Prius, I automatically have to laugh it off because it exemplifies how nobody is asking the real efficiency questions (how silly of me to buy this fight) yet human of all classes wants to climb up ladders as quickly as possible specially if somebody sells them a certificate with the Association of Ladder Owners of America.

    So, it is obvious that climate change is occurring, but it is more obvious that a real solution is not being presented and that there are 2 thugs of war dragging each other carving out the vox populi grave.

    On one side, every time I watch a climate scientist talk, he or she seems to be the embodiment of psychiatry (not to demean the profession), which also deals with a system naturally too complex with current technology to be resolved with a silver bullet pill. In other words, despite the existence (and production of) evidence, it is still much too early and much too silly to ask the whole world to control carbon emissions that will likely be poorly managed (and enforced) creating famine and violence either way one looks at it. On the other side, the skeptics just sound plain dumb most of the time, with the backing of some shady email evidence and being friends with companies whom lobbyists outnumber politicians on capitol hill 10 to 1.

    In conclusion, I think there is a whole lot of money with either scenarios and we are sourcing it. Those pushing for new green legislation are bound to win the battle for compromise which is largely great for companies. That sounds too risky to me, causing labor clashes, middle class shifts and more poverty and corruption in poor nations. Giving up yet another layer of control to unseen entities ( No thanks to colaterizing the air I breathe) is wrong, and allowing bug eyed bozos to pollute on a catastrophic scale is also wrong.

    Some real solutions apply I think, such as retrofitting cities so to increase density and therefore reduce usage of cars, subsidized public transportation in the form of cheap cabs, trams, local food production and large research investment (moonlanding style) on alternative energy.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WEKMWF4VS7U76UWVAIAAH46RRQ J.G.

    The climate has always been changing. We did not cause the last ice age, we did not cause it to retreat. There have always been floods, drought, and violent storms. Climate change has created a financial tool, a derivative market, a means to manipulate civilizations, a diversion and a soapbox - out of nothing.

  • MomOnEarth

    Read Naomi Oreske's book "Merchants of Doubt"; the research and writing are impeccable and you won't have to waste anymore time listening to a "debate" that doesn't really exist (and, yes, smoking does cause cancer).

  • MomOnEarth

    Read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes; you will be glad you did.

  • MomOnEarth

    You must be old and invested in oil companies.

  • Mantid

    Correct the climate is always changing, but we can speed up the process(which is what we are doing).

    ''we are in the test tube running the test''

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FPY4PJGW25ER6FH77ZUTJR5KNU Fake

    "Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power" - George Monbiot - 3/21/11 The Guardian

    THAT guy's a nightmare

  • James_Carroll

    Unmitigated ad hominem, unsourced as ever, amounts to dismissable propaganda for the shills of "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming." Not one single argument is fairly addressed; even Richard Lindzen is made to look like a "kook"-- and that's hard to do; nevermind his credentials or that he is among the world's leading experts in Atmospheric Tidal Physics, Ozone photochemistry, Meteorology; is the lead author of Ch.7 of the IPCC's own Third Assessment Report; and who has published well over 200 scientific papers, related manuscripts, and books.

    "No no, let's all dwell on Lord Monckton's diseases and lack of published Science articles"... well, goons like George Monbiot have been there and done that much more succinctly and convincingly before, and with one exception might just as well have written that Al Gore himself was a "denialist"-=- anything to shock, rather than enlighten, The Guardian's readership and the Public at large.

    File under "Noisey 'Denialist' Hitpiece, concocted by Misanthropic Believers"

  • Omniman

    That "argument" makes no sense whatsoever.

    All things change. With or without us. But what has that got to do with our ability to effect the world around us? Absolutely nothing!

    That is akin to saying something like "the ocean has waves in it naturally, so you cannot make waves in it". It makes no sense.

  • Omniman

    Worldwide, around 20 million+ scientists believe that humans are changing the climate.

    Lord Monckton is not qualified to give lectures on the subject. In fact he has no scientific training whatsoever, as far as I know.

  • StevenLJones

    In 1950 world population around 2 billion now 7 billion.
    Is Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas? End of debate.

  • James_Carroll

    Yet more noise from misled persons. Al Gore had no training as a scientist either, and has never authored a single scientific paper; in other words, Gore has exactly the same credibility as Monckton on issues which neither have a working understanding of.

    "End of debate" -? You, Dear Sir, run no risk of being taken seriously; Human population has had nothing to do with previous global climate eras which were, evidentially, much much hotter; nor on planets and satellites in this very solar system on which "We" do not abide and which also, similarly, warm and cool, quite naturally and cyclically. It is well known that *most* of the warming which has occurred in the past 100 years on this planet (according to the most complete actual datasets) was between 1920 and 1940, and THAT amounts to between 0.04 and 0.06 of ONE degree Celsius (0.419 F, less than HALF of one degree Fahrenheit).

    Even when one greatly exaggerates the weight and quantity and tidal leverage of ALL past, present, and FUTURE carbon molecules in Earth's atmosphere it does not out-force water vapor in any believable climate model. We're really talking about 0.06% of the atmosphere forcing all the rest of it and attributing to that "magic powers" and total lag-free control of global climate, and that is fundamentally preposterous.

    Readers here, kindly introduce yourselves to any lecture or manuscript from Richard Lindzen or Sallie Baliunas on this subject; then better evaluate those by Pat Michaels, Jon Cristy, and other REAL Lettered, Vetted, and Published Climate Scientists.

    Cheers

  • branrx

    Havnt watched yet but Im in the same camp not believing in man made climate change..However....

    If you live where I used to live in the San Juaquin Valley of California, or take a trip to Las Angeles, you can see the man made cr*p in the air. Its thick as soup. Especially in the dry season. And its unhealthy for asmtha sufferers, allergy sufferers, etc. So despite the fact that we probably arent dealing catastophic blows to the climate, mother earth will have the last laugh when we end up suffocating ourselves with the cr*p we put in the air. Green energy has its place, and its place is for our health.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LDDNQATFBOY6BVTFX3ZT4YW554 Regan

    If George Monbiot is in this spewing forth his vitriol I have absolutely no desire to waste even one minute of my time viewing any part of this BBC doco for it's conclusions are already going to be blatantly obvious!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LDDNQATFBOY6BVTFX3ZT4YW554 Regan

    And your point is? ice has come and gone for eons and the ozone hole has nothing to do with CO2. However, as I don't know the answer regarding the for and against of AGW, then I'm prepared to concede you may be right, but please do tell me how this agenda of carbon taxes currently being pushed on soveriegn nations by unelected global officials, how is this going to solve the problem? I'm telling you now it wont', introducing carbon taxes isn't going to fix the problem it will merely line the pockets of these gravy train beaurocrats as the money disappears into a globalist banking black hole! The hijacking of AGW truly is THE Crime of The Century! They want to make Super Tramps out of us all!

  • http://www.facebook.com/yi.w.qian Yi Wen Qian

    @Regan
    Well... ice caps have wax and waned but it's due to the position of the earth relative to the sun, and in a way affected by how much CO2 is in the air due to volcanic eruptions. The weather is suppose to be getting cooler if we are just looking at the position of the earth. As for volcanic eruptions I haven't seen any supervolcanos going off recently.

    The tax is a different because although it is based on the fact that global warming is happening, there is the question of whether it is the best thing to do. There are people that believe in global warming and don't support the tax. I think you need address the real problems of the tax, is it going to work, will it really decrease CO2, what else can we do, will it cause another global financial crisis, are people going to lose their jobs and don't get any compensation... not trying to prove global warming isn't happening.

    Edit, mm, tried to do a reply and it didn't work? :S

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/alronvitis norlavine

    The air isn't good anymore. Pollution reigns supreme. Trouble is, no one wants to return to the old days of candle light, horse and buggy. Yes, we are choking on the skins of the fruits of modern comforts, but we can't turn back, we can only move forward. Perhaps 'natural selection' shall mutate us to breathe and thrive on industrial smog.
    Naaa, the earth's complex magnetic axial forces are weakening anyway, so, climate change or not - we are in for it. Enjoy the show, the lies from all courts, the gross displays of world powers and profound and endless injustices amongst mankind of all social standing.
    There will be no 'rapture', no 'paradise' for eager martyrs, no enlightenment for the meditative, and no final evidence of 'nothing but greedy genes' for the cynical atheist.
    Whatever will happen will eclipse any global warming. The earth has survived much more than whatever industrial man can dish out. The earth is it's own great leveller, we cannot control that.
    If we end up growing fins because the ice caps melt - so be it, because the ionosphere is now being tampered with through the HAARP project, and no one seems to give it a second thought.
    Enjoy the gritty air while it lasts,the money, the struggle, and 'the show' because once that hole is in the ionosphere, it's all over red rover xx

  • His Forever

    Hasn't the planet gotten hotter and colder all on its own in the past? What makes this climate change any different?

  • POZZIMYSTIC

    google earth go to the north pole and see "no ice

  • Guest

    Norlavine! Girl, what a depressing collection of thoughts to ponder over my morning coffee! Maybe Robert Smith should set them to music so our impending demise can at least be defined in sweet strains of beauty, lol.

    Chin up! Let's hope it's not quite as bad as all that...

  • Guest

    @C and N
    Tons of solid science. Almost all of the scientists studying the subject are convinced we're having a definite impact for the worse, the major point of contention between them being only a matter of: To what significant degree, precisely?

    It's many of the laymen who don't study such things for a living who are yet to be convinced.

    ( How's the clean-up going? Everyone ok? )

  • ZarathustraSpeaks

    Finally, someone who has all the answers!! But at least now we know and dont have to discuss it anymore.

  • His Forever

    Pozzimystic: The Arctic used to be tropical (or so they say). Hope we don't loose the polar bears, however.

  • ZarathustraSpeaks

    Kind of a "voyeuristic debate" on something we are not going to fix even if we had indisputable evidence. The desire for more "stuff" always seems to overpower the need for change on a global scale. Population control is a far more important issue that will exasperate all the other threats such as global warming. The UN is powerless.The only workable solution would be a "one world government" that could make and enforce compliance as needed with draconian laws and enforcement techniques. The cure would be worse than the problem. I dont know how it will all "play out" but I do believe the goal of extending the survival of humanity does not justify the subversion of man to tyranny. The world will end someday no matter what we do. We should keep this in mind when justifying "any means necessary" to "extend the party" for all forms of life on this planet.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VEQSGXV4PGCDVDL2QY4QMP2M6A Anthony Pirtle

    The solution to global warming is hardly tyranny, and saying the world's gonna end somehow anyway is just silly.

  • Lary9

    James Carroll~ You're very glib but you haven't refuted the science either.

    This is an OK documentary but there's a better one here at Top Docs that actually is much better at dealing with the science. It's in three parts and has lots of color visual aids and graphics. I remember it, but not the exact name, because it has a worthwhile bit explaining the "inverted hockey sticks" theory of climate change.
    PS: I found it. It's titled "Earth: The Climate Wars" with a Dr. Iain Stewart. Tip-top three part thorough film presentation of the science...very wide ranging. Deals in facts and analysis only...the evidence is pretty convincing and the series is quite engaging but it takes about 3 hours plus you must put-up-with a sharp Scottish accent for this entire time.

  • Lary9

    I can heat my french fries in the microwave or the standard convection oven---they don't come out the same. They aren't quite as edible out of the microwave. Curiously, although they're both heating the fries, because the source methodologies are different, the outcomes are shifted too.

  • ZarathustraSpeaks

    The history of tyrannies in the world have always been "solutions" to the latest perceived (or created)threat. The fact that life on earth will cease to exist someday only serves as a "lens" to view our place in the cosmos and give perspective to dealing with complex issues. People tend to lose that perspective when they are presented the need for a "final solution" to a issue hijacked by ambitious leaders.

  • Guest

    I find the tyranny argument at best disingenuous. Are you saying that a government's response to a problem should automatically be viewed as tyrannical? Is not the purpose of government to solve problems?

  • http://www.facebook.com/richie.cahill Richie Cahill

    I love how right wingers argue that Global warming is false because Politicians and industrialists are taking advantage of it.. using that as a yard stick would mean you don't believe in pretty much everything.

  • http://www.facebook.com/yi.w.qian Yi Wen Qian

    @C_and_N

    Ah, just to clarify, Antarctica was once tropical, but it was no where near the south or the north pole. Sorry for nick picking. Of cause there is ice there still, I would be alarmed if there isn't cause that would mean the city I am currently living in will be under water. That is not to say the ice cover isn't getting thinner and to be honest, I don't want to be living under water in 50 years and would like a shift to green energy. I can see the debates going on about carbon tax etc, but what is wrong with green energy?

  • Guest

    No, polar bears are exclusively Arctic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/yi.w.qian Yi Wen Qian

    Oops, I got confused too D:

  • Guest

    I see it to be a Southern Hemisphere conspiracy to lay claim to our polar bears. (tongue-in-cheek)

  • James_Carroll

    "James Carroll~ You're very glib but you haven't refuted the science either."

    @Lary9:

    I don't have to because "the science" [sic] is clearly in my favor, and plainly reinforces the position that there is no cause for alarmism or catastrophic claims, much less, any basis to institute more global governance or increased utilities costs and taxes and inevitable, guaranteed international inflation.

    1-2 more degrees C rise over present temperatures over the next one hundred years is clearly not panic-worthy, and, since petroleum usage is already set to- or in decline (naturally) and newer technologies are emerging which are resilient and renewable; the sum of this pervasive and very noisey misanthropic "Neo-Malthusian" camp can truly go take an extended walk off an abbreviated plank.

    Kindly read any of the references and sources that I provided before providing further references to one-sided polemic pieces such as the well funded BBC Series which has actually earned fairness complaints via Ofcom...

    Or any unprovoked personal contempt for the audience here.

    Regards

  • http://www.facebook.com/yi.w.qian Yi Wen Qian

    To be honest, I would support such conspiracy, lol.

  • Achems_Razor

    @Pysmthe:

    Right on, don't need no negative first thing in the completely beautiful sunny morning where I am at, live for the now. Not even any Chem. trails in the sky. (Ha)

    The human race shall prevail as it always has through our collective force and we shall someday shoot for the stars as is our destiny!

  • Guest

    Not to be argumentative but petroleum usage is increasing. The supply of petroleum is what is declining.

  • Yavanna

    dead link - you tube uploader has been banned.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Yavanna

    Yeah... that sucks. They killed the video. I couldn't find it again.

  • Lary9

    "I don't have to because "the science" [sic] is clearly in my favor, and plainly reinforces the position that there is no cause for alarmism or catastrophic claims..."

    Jumpin' Jeebus Palomino, man! Are you kidding? What planet did you say you're from?

  • knowledgeizpower

    Aww I didn't get to watch this one :(

  • Guest

    me neither...darn you snooze you loose!
    az

  • Quantumshell

    This Doc can be found as a torrent titled - BBC Storyville 2011-01-31 - Meet the Climate Sceptics - It can be found on ISOHUNT

  • StevenLJones

    James Carroll
    You didn't answer the question.
    Is Carbon dioxide a Greenhouse gas?
    Everything is based on this one point.
    If it is we are regardless of what the past history of the earth has been, pumping it into the atmosphere like no other time in history.
    If you answer in the affirmative. Then 7 billion people do make a difference and you don't have the guts to consider simple math.

    And consider this. When the oceans become acidic enough phytoplankton won't be able to maintain their shells. That's 50% of the earth's oxygen.

    Your fond of the past. Well, where did all this fossil fuel with it's store of Carbon Dioxide come from in the first place? That fossil fuel is probably the result of several past mass extinctions. I think there has been 5 major ones. All those animals die sink to the bottom of ocean and turn into fossil fuel. We are taking all the carbon that has been locked out of the global system and re introducing it. Five mas extinctions worth. All of it if the oil companies get their way.

  • StevenLJones

    C_and_N
    Is Carbon Dioxide a Greenhouse gas?
    if it is, the worlds population has risen from 2 billion in 1950 to 7 billion today. All fossil fuels emit Carbon Dioxide. It is really very simple math. The details are the only thing up for debate. How much is being reabsorbed for example? What would the climate be without us, would we be heading for ice age for example?

  • branrx

    cr*p is a bad word?

  • His Forever

    Steve: I'm quite sure climate change is happening. I'm not a skeptic, actually in Climate change. I don't think, however, that mankind is responsible for the majority of it. If the polar ice cap melts then the CO2 trapped there will totally change the climate drastically, from what I've read. I don't think it can be stopped now.

    I guess what is really in the back of my mind is religious eschatology--the end of the age kind of thing. Yes, the earth is falling to pieces, but I don't think we can stop it if it's God's timing for "judgment" etc. But, as a true conservationist, I work hard to save every animal specie I can,and plant as many trees as I can and be as responsible as much as I can ecologically. I just think it's "time" and time is short.

  • His Forever

    Yi Wen Quan: I was wondering about that? Was it a "crust shift" or something? How could the actic be tropical but not near the pole?

    Yeah, I live on an island. I fearfully pondered the fate of the U.S. Embassy in Manila as it's BELOW sea level and only has one small wall holding the sea back. Disaster in the making for Manila--hundreds of thousands will die if there's ever a tsunami that breaches that wall. But, fortunately the bay is oddly shaped and a tsunami is unlikely there I think.

  • His Forever

    Lary, I think you're trying to say that "climate change that is man-made leads to soggy limp fries, rather than crispy yummy tatters?" Hum. Bad news for all. But, you could be right.

  • Guest

    @C and N
    You may not believe it, but the earth's crust is constantly changing and always has done so. The entire crust itself rides on a bed of magma. But the thing is, to see radical differences in the positions of continents, for example, takes extremely long periods of time. Minor shifts in the earth's axis from the true polar have also taken place in the past, but by only 1 degree or less every million years, is the consensus now.

    Google "Pangaea," Charles, if you dare!

  • Earthwinger

    While I don't personally look at it from a religious perspective, my views aren't that far removed from yours, it seems.

    I suspect that Prof. James Lovelock is right. He pointed out that the planet quite naturally swings between hot and cold states, and humanity has flourished in the in-between period. No one intended to pull the trigger on global warming, but there seems little doubt that our activities have played a part in bringing on what would have naturally happened anyway. We just accelerated the process. Unfortunately, it's a bit like pushing a big boulder off the top of a hill. Once you've set it in motion, there's really not much you can do to stop it. The planet is going to swing to a default state, no matter what we do.

    That's not to say that we shouldn't try to behave responsibly. Even if you accept that the world is going to change regardless of what we do, that's no reason to speed it up even more, and make things even more difficult for future generations.

    It just seems to me that all the carbon trading and whatnot is just politicking, nothing more. They found something new to juggle trade figures with. Truth be told, they don't really give a damn and they never really did.

    So it's down to us as individuals to strive to make things better, even if it's only in little ways, and we shouldn't do it with a heavy heart. After all, if we can't even be bothered to try and brighten up, and improve the world even a tiny bit, and enjoy the ride while we're doing it, what's the point? ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1315779289 Robert Stan

    This is a proaganda movie to convince us to give up our God given right as a human being,to become slaves of another system worse than we have right now.Climate change has never been debated,if we did we would not have all this confusion.There are Earth Changes,we all know that,but it is not from mans burning of carbon,earth goes through cyclic changes,this carbon tax is a frued.South Africans are being shot and houses and land taken,to plant trees for carbon off sets.The Amazon rain forest have been bought up by exon,and other huge corporations,buying the carbon traped in the trees,each tree is worth $1,so they can then go and use their industries to pollute up to the value of ''THEIR''trees.People of the Amazon are not allowed to go into ''THEIR ''land now,and they are starving.This film seems to make fun of Alex Jones because he exposes the truth.That we are being conned,and no,we can't trust our govenments that are corrupted and have become slaves of the corporations and thge Eliet,they are the ones that gain from us excepting a tax,that will do nothing for the planet but everything for the ones that control govenments.Our Govenment is a corporation,and not of the people any more,when it asks us for less freedom at every move,do you think they care at all about us.l will be cancelling my subscription to this sight as of now,your films are not coming from the ''knowing'' of what is actually happening in the world,they are contrived to fit in a certain thought frame,a very narrow one,your views lack any truth,only shaddows that give nothing of itself.

  • James_Carroll

    @StevenJones

    I've made no remarks on Algae at all, and you don't show any expertise with the contextual nature and value of percentages.

    At least "50% of Us (you and I)" understand what that means...

    ...

    "7 billion people make a difference" isn't Math at all, Good Sir, simple or otherwise, and Humankind's sum contributions to climate change here are, statistically, outside three standard deviations under the normal curve; that means that they are so small as to be indistinct from the remainder of the sets of Natural variations.

    In simpler terms, Human changes to the environment are STILL indistinguishable from ALL other Natural changes.

    Whatever other points you believed you had to make- appear to be beyond your ability to articulate, and woefully are not my concern.

    Sorry.

    ...

    I stand by my review of this documentary; it is one-sided polemic and satisfies the aims and agendas of misanthropic environmental groups; it is unmitigated ad hominem; and attracts praise from the worst kind of sympathizers and those who cannot distinguish propaganda from plankton.

    ...

    @lakhotason

    Thank You, both points are moot, you know, but they are well received and most readers will likely agree with you.

    Market demand is not the same as personal usage, ofcourse, and it is taken for granted that we are likely past "peak" now. My family uses notably fewer petroleum-derived items and packaging and less gasoline powered machines than a decade ago, and we aren't alone in our neighborhood here, recycling and re-using what we have; even our shopping bags and boxes.

    Cheers

    ...

    @Anyone Else

    Any Poster here is certainly free to disagree with my rather harsh criticism of this "documentary" but that is all; you are not going to draw me into debate here over any idiotic beliefs of catastrophism, end times, god, religion, or a living planet. If you have a personal axe to grind with me, save it for someone who won't bury you with it.

    Thanks.

  • Guest

    Sounds to me like you want your cake and eat it, as a member of the human race you might like to remember that the cake is not all yours. Stamp your feet all you like about the 'elite' and carbon tax and how it's all so unfair, it doesn't change the fact that your adding to the pollution of your own home world. Your right about carbon offsetting though, huge scam !

  • Guest

    A moot point? You'll have to explain that one to me. As for the consumption of petroleum it is increasing regardless of people changing personal habits. We as the planet's population are increasing our use of petroleum. It is immaterial whether readers agree with it or not.

  • StevenLJones

    James.

    You seem unwilling to answer a simple question. Is Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas?
    That is the starting point of all arguments about this topic.
    7 billion people with all their industry have never existed before. As by product of our industry we produce a lot of Carbon Dioxide. So please answer this basic question. It's what climate change is all about. It can't be more simple to understand.
    But then your obviously more brilliant than the majority of scientists on this planet.
    Something else for you to consider.
    Glacier National Park had around 160 glaciers on it's inception. Now it has 25. The Ice man in the alps was found on the surface of glacier after 5 thousand years. The arctic is now navigable by ship.
    The comment about Algae is another by product of Climate Change. Don't be lazy look it up. Phytoplankton contribute 50% of earths oxygen. Think about it. Its your future.
    As for math and statistics. It has nothing to do with my argument. This isn't rocket science. Is Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas?

  • Guest

    One more thing. About your math. There is one true thing you seem to be overlooking. Although you say human activity is indistinguishable from natural activity, you fall to realize that it also is in ADDITION to natural activity. And if human activity is equal to natural activity (which would still make it indistinguishable) it would DOUBLE the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

  • James_Carroll

    @lakhotason

    Thanks again for your post, however, the term "usage" is what I said and meant, and even when one takes this to mean global petrol consumption alone, one has only to understand that we cannot consume what we do not have.

    Also, that it is industry, as well as individuals, who are strategically "using" fewer petroleum products; many businesses are incorporating alternative sustainable materials in their products and packaging; it is not simply energy usage. In many markets, such as China, demand for petrol is indeed soaring, and countries like that are the least restrained by international treaties related to Human Rights or Environmental concerns, while locally my fellow statesmen are consuming less already, and even Unleaded Gasoline has fallen below $3 per Gallon here recently.

    Also please note that Humans are in fact a part of Nature, not separate from it. So, so much for your arithmetic and criticisms of anyone else's.

    Lastly, if you intend to further take this to a personal level, you can kindly join the late Mr. Jones there, with unanswered questions, just beneath contempt.

    ...

    Where (and When) one goes looking for discrete Human environmental impacts seems to have more to do with political and economic agendas, and personal and religious bias- than actual scientific observations, experiments, data, and facts. As if independence and skepticism are no longer of any value to Science, which is baffling, since they are the very fundamentals that the Scientific Method requires. Skepticism is not simply "opposition to orthodoxy" it is the very "questioning of knowledge" and necessary impartiality.

    Who is NOT appalled and alarmed that the US EPA has classified CO2 as a dangerous pollutant?! It is anti-Science; it is Misanthropism and it is Insanity.

    Future visitors to this thread should view references given previously (Lindzen, Baliunas and Soon, et al), which reveal much more about atmospheric measurements and satellite data sets, and the theories, experiments, and peer reviewed scientific papers about climate modelling and proxy data.

    There are a number of vital lectures and gravitational debates to watch, free of charge and of "spin" around the net, which are not influenced by corporate dollars or NGO money.

    Greetz~

  • http://www.facebook.com/yi.w.qian Yi Wen Qian

    @C_and_N
    Yeah you could say something like that. A long long time ago Antarctica was near the equator, so it was quite warm, then it kinda floated to where it is now. The south pole will always be cold and it's rather a name for a location on earth, but Antarctica is just the name for the land mass. You can google 'plate tectonics' to get an idea.

    Rather than a tsunami, there is so much ice locked up at the poles that if it all melts, it will raise the sea level... so it's like a slow creep lol. The fact that only a wall stands between you and the sea worries me...

    Also, technically speaking the globe should be cooling, although that's debatable, it mean the current heating is caused by us. This means for the first time in history we can tune our own weather. :P

  • http://www.facebook.com/yi.w.qian Yi Wen Qian

    Ack I also just want to say Lord Christopher Monckton is a con-man, the institute he works for received over $47 million from oil companies and foundations that oppose global warming.

  • Guest

    @Zattara,your comments often remind me of jalapeno chocolat.
    az

  • SaintNarcissus

    anyone know if the full version is available anywhere online?

  • Guest

    Why would I wish to take it to a personal level? I'm merely pointing out that human activity is in addition to natural activity, something you neglected to mention. That I separate human activity from natural activity is only because it is the way you presented your argument.

    Now to take it a little more down the road, so to speak, if you have a closed system such as our planet, anytime you increase a component of that system there will be consequences. There is no way there will not be consequences, be it CO2, water, or bird poop. It doesn't matter. A change is gonna come.

    Also, I really do not understand why an increase in petroleum usage should be that hard to understand. We are increasing our use of petroleum. An increase is an increase.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thang-Tran/100000684251561 Thang Tran

    When I type this leeters I look out my window and see a flat earth therefore everyone is wrong. The earth is flat.
    Listen I am a critical thinker therefore if you disagree with me you must wrong and I must be right.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZMK6YNWJACHQ5CRCJW5TNYFURI KsDevil

    I guess until the full documentary is availalbe, there's not much one can say about the preview other than it suggests its going to be a bit of media drama that enjoys it's own company. Still waitng for methane to join the CO2 discussion on greenhouse gasses. Also wondering if maybe we should just ignore global climate change, sit on our hands, and think happy thoughts.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/alronvitis norlavine

    Why thank you! As long as the mix includes the 'IAmX' semi- dirge 'This will Make you Love Again' sampled subtly into his 'Rock the Casbah' - Mr Smith is most welcome to have a shot at capturing the essence of my words (or is it 'collection of thoughts') with music.
    Enjoy your coffee x

  • Guest

    I'd probably enjoy it a lot more if I didn't have to have a clothes-pin clamped over my nose to keep out the bad air, lol.
    (Relax, I was just picking at you, ok?)

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/alronvitis norlavine

    Attempted to post an equally witty response but messed it up oops..
    Anyway, if you could do a mix of IAMX 'This will make you love again' with anything the Cure has ever done, then the essence of my words ( or is it 'collection of thoughts' ) would be revealed!
    Enjoy your coffee x

  • Guest

    I'm actually not familiar with that song...I'll have to give it a listen in a little while. And make the connection.
    xx

  • Guest

    Gee thanks. Now I'm off on this 80's trip. The Smiths, Cocteau Twins, Siouxsie and the Banshees, and of course The Cure. "Just Like Heaven" will invariably lead to Katie Melua's cover of it and then I will again be in true lust.

  • StevenLJones

    If you watch Earth Story part 6 and part 8 on the next page of recently added documentaries you will appreciate the carbon dioxide cycle. It's amazing how life keeps the earth's temperature stable even though the sun is apparently been heating up since the formation of the planet.
    Is Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas?
    Human industrialization is releasing what has been locked into fossil fuels since life began back into the atmosphere. In 1850 their were a billion people. Now we have 7 billion. If you don't think that's large try counting for a while. Counting non-stop, at one number a second, it would take you 31 years, 251 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes, and 39 seconds to count to 1 billion. Glacier national park when it was founded had over 150 glaciers now it has 25. The ice man found on the top of a melting glacier in the alps had been frozen for 5,000 years. The Northwest passage is for the first time navigable by ship. if you want to argue with that and say it isn't man made then your a fool. Acidification of the oceans threatens phytoplankton ability to make their shells. That is 50% of the Earths oxygen.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/alronvitis norlavine

    The connection is this: Even tho I expounded a very hard line on the outcome of the earth planet versus it's hapless inhabitants, doesn't mean I am depressed about it. Getting a bad cup of coffee makes me depressed xx

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/alronvitis norlavine

    Don't forget The Pet Shop Boys, Culture Club and the Clash. Best of British 80's pop! Amazing, gone from global warming crisis to 80's music..that's the spirit xx

  • Guest

    @norlavine
    I see! But...you were depressing ME a little bit, lol., because it's difficult to disagree with some of the points you were making, really. No question we're heading in some very bad directions right now, but I like to try to keep my optimism, maybe not least of all because I have a history of clinical depression that tries to creep back in and wreak its little havoc every 18 months or so.
    But for now, anyway, the critical thing is: I'm out of French Vanilla this morning!! xx

  • Guest

    And the big hair, and padded shoulders, and of course the cheesy videos.

  • Jack1952

    @ lakhotason

    It makes perfect sense to me. A government should pass laws to solve the problems of its people. It should never be given the power to enforce those laws since in doing so, we would be allowing them tyrannical powers. The logic is almost as mathematical as it is sublime.

  • Guest

    The inverse is to think of no government. I don't think we want to go to that place.

  • http://www.facebook.com/yi.w.qian Yi Wen Qian

    @zatarra,

    Not really my place to intervene but, Thang was being sarcastic.

  • tomregit

    @MomOnEarth: "You must be old..." Oh my, what a foolish statement, and Omniman actually "likes" your retort.
    My mom on earth warned me about ignorance like this.

  • http://twitter.com/the84 the84

    so did Al Gore... ironically.

  • http://twitter.com/Scarsmosis Mike Klingensmith

    7 Billion and growing number of human beings on the planet Trillions+ and growing other life forms on the planet. And we can't decide if that is making an impact on the planet? Of course it is but it isn't the first time nor will this be the last time some species or number of species inhabit this beautiful ball human beings call a planet. Peace to all life forms big and small

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Jacquard/1210162491 John Jacquard

    the idea that we are not destroying our planet in the current monetary system is the ultimate way of not taking responsibility for humanities actions.

  • Matthew Luque

    Yes the world is heating up...but we can't do anything about it. We are currently in one of the rare cool periods of Earth. The average temperature of Earth since it formed is much higher than it is today. The climate has naturally fluctuated throughout history and it is not going to stop now. It doesn't matter how much CO2 we stop sending into the atmosphere, it is still going to heat up.

  • Max Nafa

    lol thats sort of ignorant attitude conservative think tanks promote. ITS NOT FREAKING NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS! i work with data, and if your ignorant mind could spend 10 min on research you would see that the warming directly increase with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that in turn is increased directly from human activities. Humans - industrialization - warming. follow the money. who benefits from ignorance? energy businesses. simple. who are the anthropogenic global worming deniers? so called experts sponsored by think tanks that in turn are founded by companies like Shell and exxon mobile. Check for your self.

  • HumbuckerDave

    Hey Max Nafa, why don't YOU do 10 minutes of research and learn simple cause and effect. CO2 increases AFTER temperature increases...not the other way around. Wrap your mind around that. The reason for this is that when the temperature rises, there is more CO2 being released from the oceans. Al Gores own charts show this.

  • TruthHurts2013

    Scientists and researchers are biased because they don't want to lose funding or lose face. Despite what anyone says the overwhelming evidence suggests that global warming happens sometimes ..... other times Earth has an ice age ...... up and down and up and down and up and down ...... IPCC is a government mouth-piece to put poison in people's minds and to make shareholders very rich (coincidentally the same people in government who ask the IPCC to print lies). I hope one day all will be revealed ...... oh wait of course it will ....... the weather will do it's thing despite the IPCC lies. Open your eyes people and don't be sheep .... baaaaaaaa

  • Uncle Arty

    you can't stop oceans from evaporating, or volcanoes from erupting. this is true, But if you are suggesting that the 7billion people nearly 1 billion vehicles on the roads are not having a drastic and dramatic effect on the planet you are sorely mistaken. And while not all climate change is man made, every single oil spill and environmental disaster is 100% MAN MADE

  • Uncle Arty

    where did you get that information, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh? Dude C02 is the catalyst, without it, the average planetary temps would be -20f at the equator. And yes the Oceans and natural sources account for the majority of Co2 Emissions, but 7billion people and nearly a billion vehicles on the roads is throwing the natural cycle completely out of whack