The Changing Climate of Global Warming

2011, Environment  -   105 Comments
Ratings: 5.07/10from 57 users.

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

105 Comments / User Reviews

  1. How childish.

  2. global warming concerns us all ,,unless you are one of the major,poluters,,so much is natural ,rest is man ,,yes the rich will always have clean air to breath ,food grown inside ,what happens to 7 billion people who do not have those resources to stay alive,who gets to keep the high ground ,when the rest is under water ,who is going to give shelter to the weak ,and misplaced ,the reapers,who toke way too much ,I think not ,, the worst is yet to come ,,lets see in 30 years ,,that's all most people have ,,then the rich take what is left ,and there not going to pay you for it ,,just my thoughts

  3. 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???

    1. "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.

    2. 1 degree is not global warming.

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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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!

    1. good answer!

  7. propaganda what about the nuclear sites ?????

  8. "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.

  9. This mockumentary is pretty hilarious.

  10. Real propaganda. not a documentary.

  11. 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?

  12. 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....

  13. 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.

  14. 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!

    1. @ 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. :-)

  15. 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.

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

  17. 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 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.

  18. 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.

    1. 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.

  19. 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!

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

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

    1. 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!

    2. 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

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

    4. 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

    5. 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?

  23. 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.

    1. yes, i totally agree with that one WTC!

  24. 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.

  25. 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"

  26. 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.

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

  27. 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

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

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

  31. 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..

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

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

    1. 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

    2. 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 :)

    3. 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.

    4. 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"

  36. 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!

    1. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

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

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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?

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

    4. 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"?

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

  43. whoops

    1. Sorry correction "imprecision"

  44. 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.

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

  45. 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.

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

  47. 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, 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 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.

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

    2. "Any rational person would see it as a hint that arguments against climate change are "NEVER" made by actual climate 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.