Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off

Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off

Ratings: 6.10/10 from 134 users.

Doomsday Called OffIn this eye-opening documentary viewers will discover how the most respected researchers from all over the world explode the doom and gloom of global warming. Humans stand accused of having set off a global climate catastrophe by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Once all of these satellites were strung together, we could then look at the temperature change overtime, and the strange thing we found is that there is very little change in the global temperature. And this was a surprise because the surface temperature showed an increase, but this bulk of the atmosphere, the real climate system was not. And that then caused us to realize that the human effects of climate are likely not happening the way we think they are.

The prophecy of doom is clear and media pass on the message uncritically. Now serious criticism has arisen from a number of heavyweight independent scientists. They argue that most of the climatic change we have seen is due to natural variations. They also state that if CO2 is to play a role at all -it will be minuscule and not catastrophic! This story presents a series of unbiased scientists as our witnesses. We will hear their eloquent criticism of the IPCC conclusions illustrated by coverage of their research work.

More great documentaries

167 Comments / User Reviews

Leave a Reply to patrick Cancel reply

  1. why does it get *cool* at night, but *hot* in the daytime?

  2. If our concern is that global warming will hurt our children then reduce CO2 production but the real reason to reduce our CO2 production is to circumvent the adverse effects of cheap energy, the resulting economic growth which in turn caused the disparity between the rich and poor and pollution. Just quit your desire for the things that enhance life (Gold Oil and Drugs) and refocus on the things that sustain life, Shelter, Air, Food, Environment if you want to keep our children SAFE.

  3. What year was this made?

  4. Fact= Co2 does cause the greenhouse effect, You can prove this in many ways. Ill give you some examples. The earths temperatures over time have remained stable throughout time even when the sun was a lot lot dimmer millions of years ago and there is only one way for this to happen. Another way to prove co2 is a greenhouse gas is our planetary neighbor Venus. Venus is way hotter than mercury even though its farther away from the sun than mercury. How is it hotter? The atmosphere of Venus mainly consist of the greenhouse gas co2. Third way to prove it is with a physics test, Place one aquarium filled with co2 next to an aquarium filled with regular atmosphere and place a thermometer inside each, you will notice the aquarium with co2 becoming slightly hotter than the control. We did this at school a few years back.

    Now here comes my opinion= Will the slight increase of co2 in our atmosphere cause a dramatic effect on our climate and temps? Maybe, Is there any thing we can do about it? Probably not so why bother. Will this increase in temp destroy man kind..most likely not.

  5. The trouble is, methinks, that the central characters associated with the initial setting up of the IPCC and running with the global warming tale since then have, one way or another, admitted that the whole thing is pretty much irrelevant. What's important to them is the disruption of Western capitalism, and transfer of wealth to the developing world. That and the aims of some to achieve similarly political control via the UN of how the nations' economies run and in whose favour. It goes back to Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome. I instinctively don't like conspiracy theories, and I'm unsure just how many involved (or sucked in) are aware of the overriding aims of the underlying political intent. I am sure, however, that there is now a huge body of politicians, bureaucrats and (sadly) scientists whose jobs depend upon the world supporting the "save the planet" programmes which have been put into effect, and in whose interest it is to maintain and expand them - don't even try counting the numbers of posts in international and national committees, offshoot bodies and institutional departments depending for jobs on this! It has become as powerful an industry as any we've seen on earth, supported in turn by the lobbyists of all the purely commercial firms supplying everything from carbon credits to wind and solar farms.
    So let's forget the pure science; currently the believers have the majority and means, and the unbelievers would be unable to change this without a very dramatic event, regardless of the original or any new science. The effects are what we should focus upon - are the developing nations really benefiting, or is all that money being withheld within the bureaucracies handling it? If so, that would be a sad thing, and a failure of the entire structure, from whichever end you look at it.

  6. This video failed to analyze the very first place where global warming would show itself. It is true most of the world has not shown any substantial warming. However the mythical Northwest Passage is opening up in the arctic. The US, Russia, Canada and the Scandinavian countries are all trying to lay there claim to the resources of the arctic. The polar ice cap is melting revealing the best place on earth to look for energy. This is all because water freezes at 32 degrees F. The polar regions will be the first place where any warming will be noticed. Where I live on any given day the temperature could swing 50 degrees F. In fact during the winter I have seen the temperature go from the the 20's F to 70 F in just a few hours,due to the chinook winds. So a 2 degree increase will not be noticed and even a 5-7 degree change might not be all that unusual. It seems to be a waste of time arguing bout whether global warming is real. Making climate change a political issue and having people say they don't believe or they do believe in it causes both sides to lose sight of the fact global warming and climate change are scientific issues and not a political beliefs. Even if man isn't responsible for climate change and even if global warming is not happening, moving toward using less fossil fuels will be better for the area quality, water quality and quality of life. I am even commanded by my religion to be a good steward to the earth. Countries that put their head in the sand and live with the status quo could lose out on being leaders in a new industry. It is also inevitable that fossil fuels will run out someday which will cause even more global turmoil and wars. I personally don't the fact that a substantial amount of money is going straight to the wahhabists in Saudi Arabia. Even the Suadis' are preparing for the day their wells run dry. For those of you that choose to bicker about global warming are missing what is defiantly scientifically proven, oil will not last for ever.

  7. The Global Warming Lie has been proven with scientific evidence. An argument has two sides ALWAYS. If we want to be truthful we give due consideration to ideas that "just feel wrong" and our ears don't like it, because we are all climate scientists right? Oh wait.... no we're not! Look at both sides!! If you are like me, then when you first heard about global warming, even though you were a kid, but knew that it is something of utmost importance! I think this is the right reaction, only one that was calculated and expected by some.
    One of all our worst mistakes that we think we got it all. We just heard one side of the story and believed it, and just wen we hear the opposite side we don't even listen. Of course it's hard for us coz we're no experts, but here you are there are the experts who -by the way not much scientific evidence apart from so called models that try to predict something, as of yet, totally unpredictable, based on the limited info those experts do have- say that there is evidence that we are causing a climate disaster, and there are the experts on the other side -the unheard, repressed, hidden side, who do have a lot of different kind of evidence based on hard, recorded data- who say that there is evidence that we are barely if anyway affecting our climate with the CO2 production.

    Don't misunderstand this, I think our current impact on our planet is huge because of our wastefulness and carelessness embedded in our social life. But it is important to be afraid of the right thing and looking a bit on things like, what do people -on each side of the argument- gain from "pushing their agenda"? You will see that there are enormous interest vested in you exactly believing that CO2 is what's causing disaster. Al Gore made gazilions on spreading the idea of man made global warming, and you understand, a question such important as this is unavoidable to talk about to the leader of any country! This is the point, this is how "some" can create regulations with which they can dictate into your life overriding the power of your country's government.

    Do Want to Find Out The Truth!!! If you want to see evidence for yourself and get real, look for Lord Christopher Moncton's talk in St' Paul's or any other. You only need to want to know the truth even if it means you were wrong all this time!!!!

  8. SGHTF this fall.

  9. The most powerful 'green-house gas' (which also exists in the most copious quantities) is water vapour (clouds) and the most powerful influence on the earth's temperature is (surprise, surprise) - THE SUN.
    OMG who'd have ever thought that!!!!
    The fact that we are magnetically coupled to the sun is unconsidered by most & ignored by the rest except for a small handful of OPEN-MINDED, UNEMOTIONALLY INVESTED group of people in this bunch of IDIOTS we call the human race...
    If that theory were true though, would not the other planets also be increasing in temperature in the right places as well?
    No, the media won't blast it over the airwaves, their masters keep them on a tight leash & they don't get paid enough to tell the truth, so LOOK IT UP coz this RIDICULOUS discussion on global warming is making me groan unbearably at the VAST UNINFORMED IGNORANCE.
    Question things people, don't just swallow what you're fed...

  10. Just like usual the argument in the western world boils down to pointing fingers. We need not decide who if anyone is at fault, do we? If the climate is changing due to natural events, then shouldn't we still act to save what we can of our current climate. The icecaps are melting and the sea levels are rising, these are facts not speculation. There is a huge body of evidence from ice cores correlating the levels of Co2 with the earths temperature swings and ice ages, these are clearly cyclic with an increasing rate of change. Instead of wasting time arguing over who is to blame or worse saying it is a natural occurrence and therefore it must be O.K. , .....lets act. Acting is in the best interest of all peoples on this planet, stakeholders and shareholders alike. Last time I checked we don't have anywhere else to go. If it can be proven that lowering Co2 levels in the atmosphere will reverse this trend and not doing so will not, the answer should be obvious to all of us who have a stake in our home's health.

    1. Action is the whole point of the global warming agenda. "We must welcome a 'green tax' and put a stop to CO2".

      CO2 is a trace element. To say that elevated CO2 is causing global warming.. I mean global cooling... no, I mean 'climate change' is preposterous. There is a definite correlation between CO2 and the warming of the planet, however, assuming that CO2 is the cause is a huge leap of faith.

      Carbon dioxide being the villain is a huge distraction to the much more eminent threat -toxic pollutants that are known health risks. Meanwhile every child in a state run education system is told that CO2 and each of us are to blame. It's sick and sad that so many of us buy into the propaganda of the state.

    2. What you wrote about C02 being a trace element is not true C02 is a chemical compound. What you said about C02 being labeled a villain and causing a distraction is true, but that doesn't mean that C02 isn't the problem . The most important thing anyone can do is to find out whether or not C02 is actually causing global warming. We do not need to point fingers and blame anyone. Lets simply figure out whether C02 is or isn't a major contributor to global warming, and if it is, we should act on that information. Don't you see, everyone is arguing about who is or what is at fault. We are wasting time. The earth is heating up, that is a fact. WHY IS THAT ? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ? So, truthseekah, what are you going to say when we are experiencing temperatures 6-10 degrees above normal? "OPPS", or "darn it, I was sure it wasn't C02", or are you going to deny that you ever said C02 isn't heating up the earth (without an iota of evidence mind you). Toxins in our environment are definitely a critical concern and need more attention, however the world can walk and chew gum at the same time we don't have to focus on one thing at a time. That would be like saying "We have thirsty starving people here." we can only give them water.

    3. Thank you for finding my mistake. CO2 is not a trace element. It is a trace gas, however, equaling about 380 parts per million or 0.0038%. Carbon dioxide is a fairly poor absorber of infrared radiation.

      According to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

      As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.

      The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. So which NASA do we believe? Can they be relied upon to relay truth or are they grasping at straws?

      In regard to attention of CO2 over toxins, I fully agree that we should research more than one thing and my point is that CO2 is all that is being talked about. It is the enemy and we are the enemy for producing it. We are distracted from actual threats to our well being. Supporting the global warming hoax is contributing to this distraction.

    4. Where did the report claim " all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other
      global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying
      our planet are actually cooling it,"? It did claim " “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these
      molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”" But the thermosphere is only part of earths atmosphere this study makes no claim that these gasses do not have an effect on climate change. Furthermore i could care less what Gore thinks. i tend to rely on the trained experts in the field.

      Where does the report claim "The result was an overall cooling effect"? You seem to be attributing claims to the study that it never made

    5. truthseekah, this is exactly what I am talking about. Here you are calling CO2 a trace gas as if that actually means something other than the fact that it is less than 1% of the earths atmosphere. That's it, nothing more. All gasses except nitrogen and oxygen are trace gasses. The fact that CO2 is considered a trace gas describes in no way what it can do or will do. CO2 is a chemical compound because it is composed of more than one element, end of story. Talk about "distractions" ... you're talking about something as if it matters when it is actually irrelevant. It wreaks of redirection and deception. Both sides are spending all of their time arguing over meaningless stuff just like this. There is empirical evidence to examine, and data to use and gather, to come to an undisputable and correct conclusion outside of the political and corporate arenas. I don't know whether your math skills need some tuning up or if you are spreading disinformation but you are incorrect by a factor of 10-- 380 parts per million is 0.038% NOT 0.0038%. Now-- in your own words "Carbon dioxide is a poor absorber of infrared radiation." I'd agree, most gasses are, but by your own admission CO2 does conduct heat, be it small (poor conductor). It does not matter that it can only hold a small amount of heat because there is a cumulative effect. Each and every molecule of CO2 can hold and radiate the same amount of heat as every other molecule of CO2. Besides, it is not just the heat that CO2 holds inside itself, it is the heat that it traps underneath itself as if the CO2 were a blanket (The greenhouse effect). This effect is actually helped by the low conductivity of the CO2. It acts like argon in a double pane window, Argon simply slows down the transfer of heat through it, this can lead to more heat gain inside a closed space (earth is a closed space). This CO2 blanket follows the laws of thermal dynamics. This is where things get very complicated. Thermal dynamics is required to under stand the movement of heat. The scope and breadth of this platform does not permit a thorough explanation of thermal dynamics. But, one can think of heat like a wind moving from high pressure to low pressure but instead heat is moving from higher temperature to lower temperature and the speed is determined by the material and temperature differential. The CO2 levels have doubled since 1960 (empirical data). That means that if each molecule of CO2 can hold up to x BTU's then consequently every time CO2 doubles there is roughly a doubling of the BTU capacity. Now, if your math is weak this next part might be difficult to grasp. The effects of doubling are enormous whether or not you start off small. This is especially true if the 'doubling time' is decreasing. Lets take a chess board for a second. It has 64 squares, yes. If one were to put a grain of wheat on the first square then put two grains on the second square then four on the next etc. doubling each time until all 64 squares are used up, how many grains would you have in total? Well, the answer is simply 2^63+1= 9,223,372,036,860,000,000 grains of wheat. This is more wheat grains than the entire world will produce in over 845 years at current yields which are at their highest levels in history. So you see, it is the effect of doubling that is so potentially damning. Now, just for fun, lets assume for the sake of argument that the 'doubling time' stays constant. That would mean that about every 54 years the CO2 in the atmosphere would double. After only 5 doublings the CO2 would jump to a whopping 12160 parts per million or 1.216% of the earths atmosphere making it the number three most common gas in our atmosphere. This is a far cry from your incorrect data of the current concentration of 0.0038% isn't it? Not only that, guess what happens next-- you won't be calling it a trace gas anymore because it is now more than 1% of the earths atmosphere. This equates to 32 times more CO2 in only 270 years. By the way, don't forget that the 'doubling time' is going to keep shrinking which means that this gigantic change in the atmospheric composition will take less than 270 years, probably a lot less. Lets determine once and for all whether or not CO2 is causing heat gain here on earth. No politics, no corporations, no governments, no private think tanks, just ALL of the top scientists, just real, arguable and provable science.

    6. Yes, I was off by a factor of 10 and it was a mis-stroke of the key, not
      because I cannot use a calculator or because I intended to deceive you
      with witchcraft. Thank you for correcting me.

      To say "it is less than 1%" doesn't do it justice. You would have to multiply the amount of CO2 by a factor of 26 to get near 1%.

      There have been ebbs and flows in CO2 levels throughout history and the Earth corrects itself to sustain life. CO2 levels rise, vegetation thrives, CO2 levels fall. It's not rocket science. You see, vegetation (i.e., trees, plants) "eat" (through photosynthesis) CO2 and "shit" oxygen.

      All this being said, there is no correlation with the rise in CO2 and temperature.

      AP in 2004 "Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases." - Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century, before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century).

      AP should have been aware that the IPCC report itself (the part written by scientists) reached no consensus on climate change. What did reach a conclusion was an IPCC "summary for policymakers" prepared by political appointees. Most reporters quote only the summary, being either too lazy or too undereducated to understand the actual report. This does not explain, however, why reporters don't more frequently interview scientists who helped prepare it -- scientists such as IPCC participant Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who says the IPCC report is typically "presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists... and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." Lindzen also draws a sharp distinction between the scientists' document and its politicized summary: "the document itself is informative; the summary is not."

      Model after model are redefined by global warming alarmists because they are unable to remotely predict the future. With each new model, the threat of global warming is lessened, which you would think would lessen the alarming headlines about our faith. The rise in CO2 should have increased the temperatures for the past 70 years, if the alarmists models were accurate. Meanwhile, alarmists pretend that there is a near consensus among scientist as to backing their agenda, which isn't remotely true.

    7. Come on man! you're doing what everyone else is doing, taking sides politically. The future of our planet's climate is not some s*upid a** political game. You didn't even address what I was saying about the doubling function! As long as people take sides like it's a damn football game we all lose. Even if the use of fossil fuels are not the cause of global warming and it is a natural occurrence we will be just as screwed as if it were caused by humans. Will we not? So truthseekah, how hot does the earth need get or how high do the oceans need to rise before you change tact to one of finding the actual truth/actual cause/actual solutions and not just someone else's politically based and agenda driven views? The reason I ask this question is because I'm certain that the day will come like it always does that it will no longer be a debate and both sides will go from "no, your wrong... no, your wrong", to, "it is your fault, no, it is your fault." While the earth and its inhabitants will suffer and die off like flies. Maybe that is the best answer anyway. If mankind were to rid himself from this planet maybe the earth could return to doing what is beneficial for the planet which is sequestering CO2 for many millennia (not so some future species can dig it up and use it but rather to hide it away for safe keeping.) and the earth will be safe for millions of years until the next "intelligent" species comes along.

    8. "While the earth and its inhabitants will suffer and die off like flies. Maybe that is the best answer anyway. If mankind were to rid himself from this planet maybe the earth could return to doing what is beneficial for the planet which is sequestering CO2 for many millennia (not so some future species can dig it up and use it but rather to hide it away for safe keeping.) and the earth will be safe for millions of years until the next "intelligent" species comes along."

      LOL, another anti-humanist. Your ilk permeates all these debates, man is a cancer that the earth will only be healthy without. Well make the first step, there's a white jug under the sink if you're thirsty.

    9. ad homonym does not move the discussion

    10. Why not? Prove us wrong batvette - don't you think that humanity should have to EARN his right to be on this planet since he's shown only a proclivity to crap in his back yard?
      I think that the Earth has earned the right to shake us off like a bad cold at this point - all of creation groans together because of US...

    11. That's silly... You mean the earth with its constant volcanic activity, earthquakes, asteroids smashing into it, the violent nature of virtually all its animal life?
      We may alter it even to the point where it wouldn't sustain human life. We may not and see a supervolcano kill us all next week.
      What good will all your self loathing do then?
      I didn't cause global warming and I am not going to fix it and its highly naive to trust in ideologues who purport that they can.
      You people don't seem to grasp that the mission of the parent agency of the IPCC- the UN- has been since inception, global socialism. The raising of living standards of billions of third world people. INDUSTRIALIZING them with running water, paved roads, hospitals, factories, electricity. Lowering their infant mortality rates... all of which works against curtailing a problem allegedly caused by humans and their industrialization. The fact none of this has dawned on any of you would be disturbing if you weren't politically marginalized already.

    12. So what about all the other creatures that crap in their back yards
      .. And in their oceans... Literally?

    13. the fact you think CO2 could increase by 32 times suggests you are not dealing with a full deck of cards.
      on the topic consider CO2 is not merely a result of human industrial activity it is also a result of natural warming- solar variation and the rise in methane that resulted from melting polar ice in the period from the 50's through the 90's which has been described by experts as an unprecedented peak in solar activity.
      CO2 is not only a driver of warming it is a result as well.

    14. batvette, the fact that you can't tell the difference between 2^5 and 2+2+2+2+2 says that you need some more math. Try insulting some one who doesn't have excellent math skills.

    15. Since neither of those equations were ever posted by me please stop putting words in my mouth to find an ad hominem. You claimed a probability of c02 levels increasing exponentially at their current rate to reach 32 times their normal level. That is an absurd notion meant to hype and scare people and is not the consensus of the scientific community. Which you obviously promote as beyond fallibility while you readily marginalize corporate and political entities. Scientists are equally liable to have their views corrupted by personal ideologies and gain.

    16. are you confusing methane and C02? I believe it is methane that is being released by the melting tundra. So, rising atmospheric C02 levels contribute to a "greenhouse effect" that resulted in a rising average temperature that is melting tundra thereby releasing methane which dramatically increases the greenhouse effect.
      I think the tipping point may well be in the past. The cycle has become self-reinforcing. "Carbon tax" would only be a band-aide on a shot-gun wound. Moving out of a fossil fuel based technology and economy is essential - but, unfortunately, almost impossible.
      "It's a Hard Rain a-Gonna Fall"

    17. I think you are forgetting that CO2 not only drives temp.. but temp also drives CO2. So if methane drove temp and resulted in raised CO2.....

    18. I'm sorry, I do not follow you. What do you mean by "temp also drives C02" ? It certainly drives atmospheric H20 (water vapor in the air) but how does it drive C02?
      Remember methane is NOT C02.

    19. If methane drove a temperature rise the temperature rise itself will raise c02 levels. Temp and c02 drive each other and c02 is not the only gas which raises temperature. It should be assumed as fact increased solar activity (consensually accepted fact) would cause methane releases from polar melt. This temperature rise and increase in a greenhouse gas has residual effects and the solar activity increase is unprecedented in recorded and natural history. It cannot be ruled out that the sun is responsible for virtually all the observed warming.

    20. Why would you assume c02 rise is solely responsible for methane release and polar melt when its well documented there was a sharp increase in solar activity in that same period vs. the 400 year recorded average?

    21. Well, our country actually had a 'green tax' & I'm still not convinced that we're the entire cause of any global warming, but I had no objection to the tax - as long as it wasn't just added to the slush bucket of careless government spending.
      I felt that it should've been put towards:
      RESEARCH into sustainable renewable energy industries
      RETRAINING employees to move from the fossil fuel employment industry to the renewable energy employment industry and
      REBATES to help people to afford the new renewable energy industry products so a customer base would begin to form & help the industry gain ground
      & favour with the public.
      But I never heard even ONE plan in the right direction for this money, and if they did have them or announce them, they certainly didn't try very hard. It just seemed to be another grab for more money without a plan past the next election.
      Eventually, it was scrapped by the next government & the opportunity was gone again for who knows how long.
      If you people are SO convinced that we're the cause of global warming, you need to deal with the real questions that you still run from. Settle it once & for all - don't dodge questions about whether the sun is a real cause here, they still won't even discuss this and if they won't do this then they haven't convinced people like me.
      If you're SO convinced that we're the real cause, get your testicles out & deal with it properly, like REAL scientists, not emotional mafia. If you will only do this, you'll have the support of EVERYONE & NO-ONE will argue with you.
      Only then, will you be able to truly get the leverage you need over the sloppy, greedy people in rich powerful places who still just see $$$$$$, not the dying Earth you're still squealing about.
      But... you know... who am I?
      (This comment wasn't necessarily directed at you truthseekah, you have some good points).

    22. What politicians say and what they do are usually, if not always, two very different things as most of us already know. There is a reason there are so many politicians with skeletons in their closet who are exposed at various times. It is because having baggage, whether already existing or manufactured, is essential to control that person. If they stray from the narrative, magically, scandal appears. We can see this happening time and time again but are so indoctrinated by the notion of leaders wanting to help us that we cannot make the connections so easily. The blame usually stops at the dichotomy of our two party system, rather than looking for the bigger pictures.

      Global cooling begat global warming begat climate change. In the 70's "global cooling" was the main threat to the world as you can see with UN inquiries at that time. An eminent ice age was upon us if you belief the hype. Then, in the 90's, I believe, a push toward "global warming" was made and the population was made to feel guilty for their contribution to this eminent disaster which will melt all the polar icecaps and flood the world. The mere act of exhaling became a sin. This narrative was carried over into the early '00s but has gradually shifted to the politically correct term "climate change". What a genius solution much like the "war on terror/drugs/guns... It covers everything and we will never escape climate change because the Earth has been in a constant state of fluctuations for eternity. Don't get me wrong, there is a poisoning of the planet by the hands of elites and their controlled corporations/nations. However, the poison isn't carbon, it is a plethora of real toxins which are so numerous to put in this thread. Instead, we are lead to believe having an extra child or letting our car warm up is the cause for an eminent disaster. It is fear mongering wrapped in a nice and cozy blanket of helping other human beings. Our emotions are used against us and have been since the beginning of civilization. We need to wake up to this tyranny. Otherwise, we are destined for a one world totalitarian government.

    23. Sing it brutha!!!
      Oh man, I've only just managed to make my husband realize that EXACT point - I told him that they're even trying to tell us in our faces in our favourite shows like Dr Who, Adventure Time etc - WE'RE the ones with the power but it's not like the kind of power that everyone's used to thinking about. The power they seek to harness is our conscious intent which is very real & very powerful (if you're sensitive to that kind of thing & if you can see it for yourself).
      It's the ONLY kind of power that's worth a damn - why else would they work so hard for it & why else would it be worth working so hard for?
      And it doesn't take much to see where they're steering it coz if we stop for one minute, wake up & glimpse the s/laughter factory they're taking us to, (Simpsons reference) we'd squeal like pigs wouldn't we?
      And I do get sick of hearing bout ISIS etc - I find myself waking up to news reports most mornings saying 'Oh shutup & go away with your crap'.

    24. If the stuff is going up and not coming down, it's having an effect. We put up tons and tons of the stuff. The idea that industrial scale pollution can't alter climate is is itself preposterous.

    25. Well, it does come down - as H2C03 "acid rain" and that is changing the pH of the oceans. I think it takes about 40 years to cycle out. Of course we pump more in than comes out in any given span of time.

  11. oh well i'm no scientist, but i can read a graph that is readily available about co2 levels in the atmosphere and can conclude that it's not good thing. I can also go to nasa's website and read how they say climate change is affected by human activity. global warming era during the middle ages? what global warming? i don't recall being taught about that while studying the middle ages, but i do hear about it as an excuse recently, quite often. There probably was recorded some warmer than usual summers back then, but how do we know it was solar flares? were they watching at that time? if thats the case i'm sure there's records of it from then till now. Unless the human population stopped all observations and recording until recently. I suppose someone knows about human activity and one of our great lakes starting on fire? well look at the population from that time and compare it to the population of today, then take note and think, "is there enough people to effect the entire global climate?"....... short answer FUK YES THERE IS.

    1. One thing you got right, you're no scientist. Your conclusions come from a very unscientific analysis without even the most precursory research. Had you done so you would have found that while the Chinese were able to observe sunspots long before, sunspot activity had not been accurately recorded until Galileo began to do so at the beginning of the 17th century.

  12. "Still too early to tell" is another way of them saying "Wait till our generation is done raping the earth for our own financial gain"

  13. What about the Middle Ages global warming era? This tiny speck of dust we live on is affected by Sun flares, not our paltry efforts to rubbish it. Selling fear is the name of the game.

  14. This is just more shameful corporate propaganda. The film is full of deceptions and lies. It pretends that "many" scientists dispute climate change, which is simply not true. Only a handful if scientists deny climate change and they all work, directly or indirectly, for these very same corporations. A spectacularly huge majority of scientists, a global army, say that there is massive evidence that human influenced climate change is a fact. The corporations want you to believe that climate change is something you can just choose to "believe" or "not believe". But to say that you don't "believe" in climate change is every bit as backwards and foolish as saying you don't "believe" the world is a sphere, or that the earth orbits the sun (and not vice versa). Corporations go to great lengths to condition people to distrust and hate their government. Why? Because it's their way of making sure you don't hate and distrust corporations. The government is not perfect, and it is sometimes just wrong, but it is not an evil demon that is out to control every aspect of your life and take as much of your money as possible, all while wreaking havoc on the environment -- that's the job of the corporations.

    1. The real issue here is that humans really think they are so powerful that they can change the climate of the Earth. Get of your high horses. Plants take in CO2 and release Oxygen. Plant some trees, and quit think you are god.

    2. We wouldnt have to worry about planting trees if humans didnt tear em down in the first place.

    3. "This is just more shameful corporate propaganda"

      I couldn't agree more. Look at who stands to gain from a green tax and you will get a better picture of what is really going on. On the other hand, do not look behind the curtain. The great and powerful oz can better direct you to the truth.

      You are told that the vast majority of climatologists support the global warming agenda, oops, I mean global model and the few that don't are in the pockets of the energy companies. This is a logical fallacy and not supported by reality. Look beyond the propaganda headlines and you will find a lot of descent in the scientific community who don't stand to gain anything. Or maybe that couldn't possibly be true because it doesn't fit your paradigm. Keep drinking you kool-aid.

      By supporting this fantastical story of CO2 being the enemy, you are following the carrot away from the real alarming pollutants that are killing us right now. Mercury, fluoride, lead, aluminum and all the countless toxins known to cause illness and or death are being dumped all around us. These toxins, not CO2, are the leading cause of human destruction.

    4. Something that is never mentioned is "climate change research" is a unique kind of science where nobody gets into that line of work unless they already were convinced it was happening. It's just common sense- why would someone make their life's work studying something that didn't need studying?
      And that is its biggest flaw- if the consensus of these researchers shifted to concluding AGW was not happening, then the funding for their work would quickly vanish.
      We've been told these people are scientists and their objectivity is above question- that's absurd.

    5. That's because people with the intelligence to understand it are motivated to stop it.

    6. Ah, yes, everyone else is stupid. Got a better argument?

    7. That's a brilliant point about having interest to get into the field of "global cooling", "global warming" and not "climate change". There were scientists who doubted all these narratives, but few within each established bubble that would bite the hand that fed them. It would be on par with an electrical engineer who denied resistance or a physicist that denied motion or a banker who denied fractured reserve banking. Their futures in their fields would be exterminated regardless of the validity of their assertions.

    8. Yup. Perhaps an even better analogy would be to enter a church and expect a negative response on the question of the existence of God. How many atheists would consider entering the seminary let alone complete the process to become a priest? Its their life's work, why expect objectivity over questioning its validity?
      That merely covers the ideology aspect. When you consider the grants and funding to furnish their livelihood comes only by maintaining that status quo let alone they often have the attention of the media intoxicating them with public exposure often enjoyed only by rock stars...can anyone rationalize why they should say climate change isn't happening?
      There is nothing scientific about research done with blinders on to reach preconceived conclusions.

  15. I actually thought the arguments were over, anthropomorphic climate change or whatever its called is real. The science is there freely available to anyone who can be bothered to look it up. The only avenue left for the deniers is conspiracy theories. The fact that companies with vested interests and people like the Koch brothers have been criminally warping the results and the media (Rupert Murdoch) seems to have slipped their attention. Which is strange as what has been done to them is exactly what they are so upset about. Scientists, educated men and women who are not in it for the money have worked hard in the face of multinational corporations, resisted lawsuits to the point of bankruptcy and fought to get the message across. The deniers have nothing, they have no science they have no unified message, for the most part they have their guns, their god and the republican party.

    1. Cherry picking statistics is not science. There are many well respected scientists who see the errors of the global warming agenda, which all roads lead to a green tax. Follow who stands to gain from such a taxing structure and you can see the bigger picture. Then again, kool-aid tastes much better when you don't read the ingredients.

      To deny agendas and marginalized anyone who may logically see them being implemented as "conspiracy theorists" is naive at best.

    2. It's plain that you care nothing for the welfare of the planet. You just care about avoiding taxes. If you really cared about the environment, you'd be investing in green power and would be trying to help other people obtain it. But as a high-functioning sociopath, you don't care.

    3. So, because I don't fall for the headlines and appeals to popularity, I must be a sociopath and don't care about others or the planet? It's much easier to make ad hominem attacks than to actually offer something to the conversation. You can fall for the bs all you want, but it is bs. Human induced global warming is a farce and CO2 is the enemy. If you really cared about our Earth or humanity, you would take a stand against real pollution, which is being ignored over the much overblown trace element propagandized to distract others. Again, it's much easier to marginalize me as being pro oil industry than actually look into the so-called research supporting human induced global warming. Or is it climate change? Look into the history of the UN sensationalizing changes in climate to invoke reaction and blame on the people like in the 70's when scientists were reporting an ice age was eminent because there was a cooling trend. It's all a farce and it's held up by ignorance.

  16. I don't see any evidence tbh of us causing Global Warming and I don't see any evidence of Global Warming, I'm told it is warming and yet these past few years in the UK have sucked, it's been way colder than it was.

    I think global Warming is just bulls*it and the government only loves it because they can TAX you to crap and sell a lot of new energy efficient machines. What I find funny is to produce them they create more pollution than if you just stuck with what you got.

    What we should be focusing on is sticking with what we have, they cannot do that because it's all about capitalism. Where does all the s*it go now? Most of it gets wasted, very few of it actually gets recycled. What is funny is Madagascar has been ruined creating recyclable material.

    We should be focusing on new forms of energy, not because of bulls*it man caused global warming but because fossil fuels wont last forever. We should be focusing on becoming more energy efficient so we don't have to keep creating power plants as our population rises. We should focus on not wasting so much food or water. We should focus on not cutting down rain forests or over fishing the Oceans.

    These are the things we should focus on and for a good cause, lets not wrap it all up under something that isn't even proven in Man Caused global warming. They tell us it's Carbon Dioxide and yet it's a very small amount of all the green house gases and we contribute an even smaller amount to it.

    All they do is cry about the Polar Bears on every advert, they've gotten through hotter times than this. I blame over fishing of the seas and Humans living ever further north. Maybe their prey has reduced in numbers because they have less to eat because we're eating all their fish.

    1. It's colder in the UK because of a decrease in arctic sea ice. This causes the wind changes, IE the wind from the cold north east, that is the reason our winter is colder. The cold UK winters are proof of Global Warming, not as you have decided, proof of it's non existence. Do you read The Daily Mail by any chance?

    2. It's horrible here (Edit: Norway) too. It's May and feels like February outside. There's hardly been any rain/water at all, and we have 275 days of rain each year. I told a old lady yesterday that it's been the longest winter I can remember (I'm 33) and she said the same, being over 80 years old. And I read the same in the papers here, that it is because of the arctic ice melting away. And it is, if it continues this way, ships can not only sail through the north-east passage, but also north of Russia to Asia.

    3. Yeah all the glaciers of the world aren't melting at visible record rates. Who you gonna believe, oil companies or your lying eyes?

    4. Solar activity in the last half of the 20th century was unprecedented in the last 8000 years. The oil companies had nothing to do with that.

  17. This film is pure propaganda. A sun centered solar system, spherical earth and evolution all have overwhelming evidence, and yet all were (or are) opposed by forces with a vested in interest in the status quo. Global warming is in exactly the same position. Let's hope our species can mature fast enough to work together to solve the problem instead of just digging a deeper hole in which to bury our heads.

  18. Until we have reached a completely undebatable verdict that global warming, whether it is occurring or not, is independent of human action, we should continue preventative measures to ensure our safety. If you disagree with this idea, which is an unbiased one, then you surely are not advocating the betterment of the human race.

    1. What idiotic reasoning! of the same kind as "until we have reached a completely undebatable verdict that no comet or large asteroid is going to hit the Earth in the next hundred years we should continue preventative measures to ensure safety such as building our houses underground and growing mushrooms in disused mines. If you disagree with this idea, which is an unbiased one, then you're scum."

  19. This video provides a respectable intent of discussing climate change but how valid can it be if it only shows individual opinions???
    Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner's opinion on sand deposits (see 31:52) ignores the action of unusual sand movements due to storms and hurricanes... Or does he say it ironically???

  20. Whoooa the Indian Ocean is LOWER than the rest of the oceans due to extremely high water evaporation??? Unti here is all I can hear guys!!!

  21. What happen if there are more and bigger explosions in the sun than it was before and therefore the solar system wind is warmer. As a consequence the earth is warming up. I believe that for sure humans are smart enough to realize that we are not living in balance with nature and that we should be more conscious of our acts. However I do not think it is the reason of global warming although affects it. On the other hand for politicians, global warning could be will a great reason to create fear, laws, control and even wars.

  22. People who doubt global warming: Sarah Palin
    People who believe in global warming: David Sazuke, Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
    my mind is made up

    1. thats pathetic logic

  23. Right off the bat, here's what bothers me about this, and other documentaries like it: the blatant appeal to emotion as a method of distracting the viewer from real information. Tricky editing and the like is also a concern to look out for here. Here are two examples of what I mean (and if you watch the entire video and pay attention I am certain you'll be able to spot more examples like these at least once every 2 minutes or so). The opening scene is shows a busy and thriving city full of people going about their business. We are two men chatting, a smiling woman with her cute baby girl, a pair of elderly women enjoying the sunshine on a beautiful summer's day, and we are asked "are these men guilty? is it fair to accuse this girl? have these women done anything wrong?" It is then explained that according to a group of climate scientists, the answer is yes. These lovely looking people, friends, mothers, daughters, lovers, and bridge companions are to be blamed for "jeopardizing the future". It's not only these people the scientists despise either... it's all of human kind they are putting on trial. That includes YOU. And now that you know which side of the argument you are on (obviously not those who seek to persecute you), let's look at why you have the opinion you've just been assigned...
    It's pretty ridiculous.
    Again, this is just ONE example of the way they appeal to emotion rather than intellect.
    Let's look at some tricky editing at 14:07:
    The pair of researchers are looking at what we are meant to assume is the work of climate scientists from the IPCC. We are given what seems to be a chance to see them in a candid moment, discovering a "trick" that was used by the sneaky climatologist to pull a fast one on all of us. It is described as "unbelievable" and that nobody was able to "catch this"... until now! BUSTED! The climate scientist got caught lying in his research! That's a pretty amazing charge that will certainly destroy his credibility. Too bad we never get to see what it was, and the whole thing is immediately forgotten, never to be spoken of again in the remainder of the program. It must have been a pretty damning piece of evidence though!, either than or the man was showing his colleague an easier way to make ramen noodles at the office. I guess it's hard to tell what they were talking about. I wonder why this piece of footage was included, and then never explained. I WONDER WHAT PURPOSE THIS SCENE SERVED.

    1. I completely agree - the very first thing that made me uneasy occurs at 2:21, and is the beginning of a list of things which the IPCC says will happen if we don't reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases: "the glaciers and polar ice caps will begin to melt, rivers will burst their banks and sea levels will rise." I have seen time lapse photography of our glaciers melting. I have family who was evacuated from their homes because of flooding due to the Missouri river "bursting her banks". What do they mean "begin"?? These things are already happening! It is difficult to believe anything which follows this misleading opener.

      I also picked up on the tricky editing at 14:07, and felt insulted when it was just left hanging, an obvious propaganda maneuver. I was really hoping for some solid evidence against global warming and watched this program with an open mind. Unfortunately, if there is any truth to it, anyone who is aware of these tactics is going to have a hard time finding it.

  24. First expert in the doc is DR. David Legates. He works for the NCPA. The largest contributor to the NCPA is EXXON MOBIL. The Director of NCPA is James Thompson, Chairman of Thompson Petroleum. The NCPA enviro team leader is Sandy Bourne(director at Heartland institute). Before becoming a climate expert for EXXON MOBILE she was a nurse. Fred Singer adjunct Scholar of the NCPA. Received the bulk of his funding from EXXON MOBIL. Before working for the NCPA, He was best known for his work that claimed second hand smoke is not harmful to human health. I stopped watching the doc when I saw DR. Legates.

  25. nice arguments well presented. Could the phenomenon referred to as Global Dimming be responsible for the Tropospheric Temperature differences as they measure I wonder. All things considered I still cannot get past the fact that pumping all of the CO2 into the atmosphere that we have during the Industrial Revolution simply has to have an effect on the climate system. Its just basic systems theory - impulse response.

    1. are you aware that co2 given off by factories and humans is less than volcanos give off each year?

    2. Simon Jacobs
      "are you aware that co2 given off by factories and humans is less than volcanos give off each year" can you provide actual scientifically collected data that i can see for myself concerning this statement?

  26. this documentary has solid science that doesnt argue weather climate change is real or not, argues over the degree at which it will happen. anyway i think its very inconsiderate not to take the worst case scenario in consideration, and thats why the UN keeps stressing it. all in all the doc is informative, nothing new, but i find the title very misleading and the narrator is cherry picking sentences from the people interviewed, trying to imply an alternative view not stated by any of the scientists.

    its criminal the way people are not given a straight answer when they ask a simple question: "is climate change real?". there should be no skepticism. scientists are not deciding whether climate change is real or not. they have proven it is. there are a very few "scientists" who keep arguing, interestingly enough they end up making news anyway (im not referring to this documentary).

    the true problem in climate change is not how we measure average temperatures or co2 concentration, is the amount of money in the business. nevertheless is time to end this and start thinking seriously about SUSTAINABILITY.

    archie6622, i dont quite understand ur point, but by all means, if u have any data disproving climate change please link it, me and quite a few people in my faculty would love to check it out.

    1. This is one of the more intelligent remarks on this page. I would have liked more interplay between scientists who have critiqued the work of those featured here just to hear what they have to say. I think there is more to our current relationship to climate change than what we typically get. I'm particularly interested in ice ages and how those have affected human populations in the past.

    2. Sustainability is a front for Agenda 21, which will bring about TOTAL control, population extermination of up to 90%, and zero property rights. Do your research before you jump on the sustainability train.

  27. This is total crap!!! I work with scientists everyday and these scientists are being drug up from cracks to help protect big corporations but people need to wake up and look around. It is happening all over the world with no signs of slowing down.

    1. Perhaps your statement would have greater persuasive power if you were to tell us more about why the arguments and claims made in the film are false. That you work with "scientists" doesn't mean much. You sound reactionary.

  28. this is absolute bull****. The overwhelming majority of scientists believe climate change is real and caused by human activity. You do not need to be scientists to see the coming consequences in all forms. areas with a lot of snow in their mountains have now shorter winters. see levels are increasing everywhere and the acidity of the oceans is killing barrier reefs. changes in the patters of diseases and threatened species by their changing habitat, the more frequent hurricanes with stronger effects, floods and droughts all the signs of the changing climate. Climate change is not just simply a global warming. some places may experience decline. Climate change is in fact a climate chaos. These so called independent scientists in this documentary are usually paid by tobacco and mining companies.

    1. There is no way that most of the scientists out there believe that most of the climate change has been caused by humans. The simple reason is that most of the climate has been happening prior to the existence of the human species. The question has to do with how we think about the 20th century in light of all previous data on climate change. I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to changes in the patter of disease and as for lost species the history of the earth is one of species extinction. Your arguments pretty much trail off at this point.

    2. "The overwhelming majority of scientists believe climate change is real and caused by human activity" what is this statement based on, and its not about not seeing the consequences, its about questioning the cause

  29. tax pollution, not to be confused with carbon,,,oo, based life forms, what, never heard of it,,, tax pollution and taxes outta existience,,,asap!

  30. And even if the climate change wasn't real people still need to stop polluting!!!!!!

    1. That's true. Although there quite clearly worse forms of pollution that c02 emissions if you accept the idea that the Earth is going through phases of climate alteration that correlated to c02 emissions but not necessarily causally related to them.

  31. It would have been a more objective documentary had they also interviewed a few climate scientists with other viewpoints.

  32. to Tris Thompson and all.
    Well, I am a scientists and I have done an extensive research of the literature and us policy on this topic and I can go on and on with peer reviewed evidence to support ( fyi nothing is ever proven... just supported or not supported) the ideas in this documentary and more. ( The earth’s climate has been very variable and seemingly bound by minimum and max. paraphrased I believe from the Volstok ice core data) I gave a small presentation in a climate change seminar very similar to this topic.
    If you would like I will put a rough literature cited with a bunch of papers you can read. I would encourage you to read up on paleoclimatological (sp?) studies in green land and Iceland as well as Antarctica you find same trends (reciprocal in nature)of normal variation in the last 400,000 (Volstok ice core) years of ice core, and other lesser periods with 100,000 + years of deep sea sediment cores in the Artic and the Atlantic oceans. Also I would encourage to look up the annual report for the 1990 Global Climate Change Research Act, for 2011 and also look at the ones in the past, 1991…... there are many other issue as well I will not get into. Do the research on the policy as well. You may be surprised what you find.
    Ps co2 is bad?BUT! With a recent act pass will allow cloud seeding which is spraying silver nitrate (or rite do not remember of the top of my head)in to the lower atmosphere with planes. This gas will collects water vapors in the atmosphere and produces clouds to increase precipitation for farmers in drought areas. Good for people we do it, planet was always secondary, but used as a ploy to get policy in gear (follow the money… ). If we are supposed to be concerned about gasses in the atmosphere, are we? There is no telling what the affects of tampering with weather in this manor can have in the short term or in the years to come.

    1. Then you should be convincing your fellow scientists that this is all BS. Something tells me that would be a more difficult exercise than trying to convince a bunch of people who do not understand science.

  33. Yes it has. No, it's not.

  34. next up, earth is 3000 years old. idiots.

  35. Ironic that also, in the 70's, a book was written by the Club Of Rome, entitled "The First Global Revolution" in which a plan for "global warming", which was to depict humans an irresponsible, despicable, destructive plague of nature, and thereby needing firm global governance, was laid out. Who is the Club of Rome? Good question. If you don't believe me, go read the book and maybe check out "Limits to Growth" too. It is amazing that people never question their conditioning. Even when the truth is shown to them they will cling to ignorance.

  36. None of this has been ''has been disproved already'' Jody Merry.

    This is good, solid science.

  37. Most of this film has been disproved already. This piece of propaganda should probably be removed from this site. Unless of course those who run the site despise credibility

    1. Or feel nostalgic.

  38. Perhaps the biggest problem with this documentary is that it neglects the exoplanetary evidence provided to us by Mars and Venus, two planets whose environments show the irreversible effects of ozone depletion and greenhouse gas emissions respectively, though they differ only in having come about as a result of natural processes which simulate the effects of large scale pollution. The surface temperature is the real problem in the first place, seeing as we don't live in the upper-atmosphere, and the effects of increased radiation reaching the surface are the only consequences we're supposed to be worried about, as they are the only ones which affect us. :

  39. Good documentary, didn't give me the feeling I was being manipulated like with so many other docu's on this subject.

  40. In the 1970s, climate scientists predicted that the North Pole would melt in the summer. Solar scientists laughed.
    Now the North Pole melts every summer. And solar scientists are saying it's due to the Sun?
    In science, whoever makes the correct prediction "wins".

    1. That prediction -- did"climate scientists" make it before or after they predicted we were about to enter another ice age?

    2. what??? You mean that there wasnt a "concensus", even back in the 70's?

  41. A good documentary. After reading some of the recent blogs, I found myself somewhat perplexed at some of the conclusions reached. 99% of scientists believe something different??? (Tris Thompson)And your point is? With this in mind, let me give readers something else to think about.
    Presently, we have 6 orbital devices around the planet Mars, which have shown it's polar caps constantly receding(melting) since they have been there. Is humanity to blame for this? I have no doubt that we are polluting the biosphere of planet earth, but this has nothing to do with global warming.(1 does not preclude the other) Since the sun is by far the primary impacter on the 8 planets in our solar system, if there is any significant changes in our climate, look to the sun as the source. As far as saving the planet, give me a break. A billion years from now when the sun expands and truly heats up, anyone still around by then will be hoping for warp drive, because they will be helpless to prevent it's inevitable death along with the planets. My advice for people is get over yourself, get educated, and actually start thinking, instead of repeating what you seen on the ticker tape at the bottom of your t.v.(brainwashing)
    The awful truth is we can't even save ourselves, so forget about saving the planet. Money rules the day, and all we are apparently good for is killing each other, so we build weapons of mass destruction because it is good for the economy. We allow a small number of evil and corrupt people to carve up the planet and run our lives because they understand the masses are too stupid, apathetic, fearful and lazy to actually make a difference. In Canada right now, we have king Harper privatizing prisons, so he can house them with all his future mandatory jail sentences for drug possession charges.(job creation) Harper is also raising the age for retirement pension, to buy fighter jets to protect the lifestyles of the rich and shameless whose greed is not sustainable. We got tens of millions of right wing fundamentalists south of the border who believe they are christians like somehow Jesus was some gun toting capitalist, and they actually want the world to end so they can be with him after the rapture. (and I am supposed to fear Iran getting nuclear weapons)
    If the readers think I am wrong, then I have a perfect solution for you. Quit having kids, and the real problem will go away! As George Carlin so eloquently put it, the planet is fine, the people are fu#%ed! The alternative is for a large majority of humanity to get smart, and I am not holding my breath. On the contrary, I will smoke tobacco like there is no tomorrow, and pay an 84% sin tax to federal and provincial governments who are more addicted to tax revenues then I am to nicotine. Hey, don't thank me, I am just doing my part to save the planet.
    Best wishes, and live long and prosper! (really)

    1. I was in "rapture" reading your post until I hit the "Quit having kids" part. Population reduction is the cornerstone agenda of the "small number of evil...(who)... carve up the planet". They have spent trillions (of our money (ironically)) to achieve this and convincing the "intellectuals" that overpopulation is the real issue is part of that campaign. It also conveniently shifts the focus away from them.

    2. Hi a_spammer. For the record, my comment suggesting people should quit having kids was not to suggest I agree with population reduction for the benefit of the greedy few, ( I agree with you completely regarding their intentions) but was a sarcastic attempt to express that the greatest threat to humanity is itself, and if people truly believe we are such a threat to the planet, then remove all of us from the equation, and the planet will do just fine. This is of course only applies if people really believe we are as omnipotent as they would have us believe, and that people are selfless enough to put the planet before themselves. (the limitations of the written word) Best wishes, take care, and live long and prosper!

    3. 1) Your use of the word "intellectuals", like it is a bad thing, is frightening. What does that even mean? People who went to college? People who read books on biology or science? Teachers? Professors?

      2) As a woman I have done my part in life to not have children until I can responsibly take care of them. This includes thinking about what kind of life those children would lead if I brought them into the world today. Sometimes I truly feel that the immense cultural powers of some kinds of religion and the conservative politicians in America that are the tools of this particular kind of religion want me and other women to be baby- making- machines at the expense of our own development and the development of the world. I can not understand this. Many of my friends and students had many children very early in life. I try every day to love and respect them.

      3) When women have many children at an early age they are hurting themselves. They can become trapped in abusive relationships, stuck in jobs that are psychologically detrimental to them, or locked into poverty that is not their fault. I work with such women every day in an organization that helps immigrants and I am a teacher. It breaks my heart. I work hard to help them and their children have a better life and more education. As these mothers educate themselves I see the power they gain. It is a beautiful thing to see women with intellectual power. Whether they have no children or five, I will continue to educate them, teach them English, teach them science and technology, and hope that they move on to college. I move about 15 women a year into a free college program from my classes and I know very well that women who have a college education have less children. I want the children that they already have to have a beautiful future with as many opportunities as they can.

      4) I know that family planning is likely so intrinsic to humanity that it is a part of evolution. This is one reason why many women prolong breastfeeding- it reduces their chance of having more children. In hunter gather-er societies (where we all come from and our anatomy was formed) women spaced their children about 4 years apart so that they didn't have to carry or nurse more than one child at a time. In ancient Egypt they had a plant that women used as a contraceptive. It was used to extinction.

      5) I know that there very well might be enough food and resources to comfortably feed everyone in the world right now, but it is the distribution of these resources in an unfair and greedy way that causes such suffering. Large corporations and the politicians they control are a large part of this suffering. So is a consumerist society filled with greed. HOWEVER. I believe that if women everywhere in the world were given knowledge and access to contraceptives and the choice OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL to use these tools then the lives of women would vastly improve. Look at Brazil as an example. NO government mandate or anything - the women of that country themselves chose to have less children. They have made their country into a powerhouse. They saw how their mothers and grandmothers suffered in the favelas with eight, ten children, and for themselves they chose to have two.

      6) Children are beautiful, magical, and should be cherished. Mothers love their children, whether they can take care of them or not. I have seen this countless times. But the world is a callous place and seemingly bent on its own destruction. I worry about the future once we reach 9 billion. or 10. or 12. NO, it is NOT as simple as Malthus because we are not the average animal population but if we do not think of the future then we condemn ourselves to it.

      7) I always become afraid to post now on this site because of someones cruel and disrespectful answer to me. I have been respectful to you. Please show me the same respect if you choose to respond. Love and Peace, S.K.N.B.

    4. he did not say ''intellectuals'' in a bad way i think he ment it like they are smart and all but they are not ''in the know''. and then you go on about your a woman for no reason althought i think what you say is also right but out of point.

    5. Fantastic post. Just fantastic.

      When 99% of all life on Earth is now extinct, that gives us perspective.

  42. In the 70's it was a new ice age, now it Global Warming.... Give me a freaking break chicken little.... THEY want to downgrade my life for the sake of the third world? I LOL at them.. Good luck with that, lefties...

    1. Ya, we wouldn't want our life downgraded in any way to make life in the impoverished 3rd world better. Maybe we should just send more trans-national companies down south to further exploit them for our greedy well-being.

    2. IS it going to make the third world better? No it will just make third world governments richer. Look at the oil rich countries. The governments are rich, but the people remain poor.

  43. It is also interesting that this documentary manages to touch on the 1% of scientists that agree with the motives of its making, yet leaves out the vast majority (99% of scientists) that are very sure of the evidence. Obviously the means by which this 'critical evaluation' has taken place, are altogether unscientific in themselves, the basis for a flawed evaluation.

  44. It's truly astounding that people are still putting a case against this. Its seriousness is accepted by 99% of all professional scientists!. Read the peer-reviewed papers! not some propoganda by self-proclaimed experts, people that stand to face short term gain. If people can delay this long about such clear cut evidence then I hold little hope for the future. Its such a shame, I've read many of the comments on here, those that are not full of conspiracy or have a skewed, limited grasp of the issues and science involved seem to have had little effect on those that have. There are numerous other problems in the world yes, this does not make this one less serious, the problem is outside! its tangiable. Is several people murdering one person less 'wrong' than one murdering another?. Perspective is important though, as individuals we are very small, how can one person expect to observe incremental changes on a global scale. I expect none of you sceptics has sat long enough to see a plant grow, niether have I, it is in our biological nature not to percieve time this way, locally to ourselves. So we transcend the abilities of other creatures in our ability to cooperate using scientific, unbiased methods that have brought the world the incredible things that make our lives easy today. Suddenly, when science doesn't produce a new technology, but instead finds a problem that we ourselves need to do something about, its rejected by many that don't want to give up a few of these comforts.

    1. Unfortunately their BS is working as fewer people "believe" in climate change then they did a few years ago. According to the latest news we better get our act together now. We are close to the tipping point already-like by 2015 or something.....thanks to not following through on Kyoto. Sorry to say the Canadian Government has been taken over by oil company shills and bought themselves a federal as well as provincial government. They intend to increase production 4 fold by 20 20 climate change be damned in fact they tout it as good for Canada nicer temperatures longer growing season. Can you believe it?
      We need to transform our institutions pronto/

    2. OK...Please! Do NOT cite percentages when you clearly are pulling them out of your head.

      99%? show me that! Keep on believing that, while you pay the new tax on breathing.

      Pollution? BAD!

      Human caused global warming? SCAM!

      We as humans need oxygen and CO2 to just wait....soon Oxygen will be taxed, no?

      Smarten up!

    3. i have, and anyone who has, knows that there is doubt in there. the question is have you?

  45. I agree, totally with many statements but find some arguements to be as limited in scope.

    First of all, fossil fuels were sequestered by organisms that thrived in their contemporary environments. Unless the perceived origins of fossil fuels are wrong, this hardly makes the case of armageddon or a poor situation for organic life. That being said; the circumstances that led favour to the organisms who gave rise to the fossils may not represent an optimum situation for life as we know it.

    One of the great arguements of the other side, that was quietly touched on was the increased evaporation due to a warmer climate and it's result in glacial growth. (This, no doubt was the inspiration for the lousy movie. You know: The day after tomorrow!) This movie was focussed on the Atlantic conveyor belt. Al Gore is focussed on CO2. Others are focussed on coral bits washing up on beaches on the Maldives. They are all just small pieces of the puzzle!

    Does anyone ask how glacial growth or retreat affects geology? While everyone is measuring the atmosphere, do they measure salinity? As glaciers melt, pressure removed from the Earth's crust below would cause it to rise and increased pressure on Ocean beds would cause them to sink.

    Over the ages, the rise and decline of mountains that result from shifts in the Earth's crust can surely be more powerful then Man's contributions. I used to have a small convectional oven. All it did was fanned the heat that rose back down. It was OK for chicken but not quite BBQ.

    The planet does not have a big fan in space that recycles the heat. It is a huge conventional oven that loses everything it receives unless it is stored as another form of energy.

    We're not big enough to understand or try to controll the planet yet!

  46. Anyone who still believes that global warming is some hoax to win a few votes has their head up their ass. 97% of climatologists agree that it is indeed happening and that there is a direct correlation between rising temperatures and human industrial practices. If you are going to make blatant statements that are founded in personal opinion with little to go on beyond a single, one sided documentary, get with it. Go take a couple climate classes and at least attempt to get something of a grasp on how the incredibly complex ecosystems of the earth function. No, humans may not be the only factor involved, but when you have increasing temperature trends that correlate directly with the expansion of human industrial practices - matching both the time frame and exponential growth rates of industrialization - you have to be plain ignorant to think otherwise.
    While I by no means would suggest we stop the use of fossil fuels outright, it remains imperative that we, as leaders (in ideological, technological and economic terms), take meaningful strides towards becoming societies that limit our use of climate damaging forms of power. Industrialization and the use of many forms of power have led us to a great many human achievements, however, they will be achievements for naught if we let the circumstances that have arisen in tandem get out of control.

    I think if any skeptic actually took any amount of time to look into any of this, they would soon find that for every point argued against herein there have been confirmed to be true by multiple scientific studies (meaning subject to falsification through review, requirement of reproduction, and maintaining stringent control variables).

    1. finaly a thought of a homo sapiens, the rest of the other comments are products of inferior minds

  47. lilla pappa, if you are serious, you are a monster

  48. The way I see it, we're fine - I see hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanoes, et al as "thinking' events - part of a Gaia concept where we are only cells in the organism that is "earth". Earth will wipe out the cancer in her own way. And she can kill millions of us at a time at her leisure. I'm pretty sure she knows who's got to go and who doesn't.

  49. one more thing,ppl need to get over themselves,their is nothing are little ant like selfs can do to change the most pwerfull thing we have ever known besides are sun,the core of are planet,,so really its for money or control or both the money to buy the control,leads to power and in turn makes us back to slave imo..ppl are funny as we can change something so powerfull we cant even imagine wtf how it works just assume.

  50. i bet they just want ppl not able to be free type humans,imo i bet they want that roman system back in full..were if your not rich then your subject to real step at a time and thats just me,is to why they lie.I never could think with my pee brain we can harm this huge planet that makes Co2 more then we do,but again i thought i was alone,other then no one i ever met thought global warming was a problem caused by us,but in the history of are planet we see all kinda changes that to me are a little scarry in nature that imo will end us anyway.

  51. I know there are alot of people, especially Europeans, have bought this scam and its hard for them to admit they're wrong. I mean that in a sympathetic way. Your hearts are in the right place, but it was European governments, schools and media, that beat that drum everyday. It must really be hard to admit that we Americans were right being skeptical. Alot of insults and hate were thrown our way, which turned out to be the birth of the global anti-american mass hysteria. We were called "stupid", and "oil companies", had us brainwashed.

    Ill admit most of us Americans, cant find the Faroe Islands on a map or think Serbia is in the Russian wilderness. You have us beat there. However, there is one trait we have, that most of the world lacks. Call it "street smarts", or "common sense", we just know when we are being suckered.

    You can pull out all the fancy science numbers you want, but its meaningless. Why? 1. Those of us who have lived near the coast, have not seen the ocean rise a 1/2 an inch in the last 30 years. 2. Trees love CO2. Cant get around that fact. 3. Increased heat, causes sea water to turn into water vapor, which makes more clouds. Thus, reflecting sunlight back into space. Didnt have to get a PHd from the University of East Anglia to figure that out. As a matter of fact, we learned that in 3rd grade. Finally, as someone who lives near Atlanta. I can say that 40 inches of snow has fallen in the past 2 years, when only 4 inches fell total for the previous 20 years.

    1. so you are saying there must be some kind of climate change right? How else could you recieve so much snow lately?

    2. The reason ppl don’t like Americans is that they r full of themselves. E.g this post......... hahaha "street smart" "common sense", my arse.

      Ppl living near the coast would not know how high the sea level is.
      Increasing CO2 levels within a greenhouse works although it does not in the biosphere. The increase of carbon in the plant matter makes it more difficult for microbes to break down the matter, therefore creating a build-up effect. This effect slows the recycling of nutrients.... this is a bad thing.
      Clouds don’t matter. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 absorb infrared radiation. Once the green house molecules have been excited by the absorption of the radiation they can collide with other molecules in the atmosphere exciting the molecule that they collided with. This process is continually repeating increasing the net kinetic energy of the atmosphere.
      Finally you cannot measure global warming by the amount of snow that has fallen in your area. There are many factors that affect snow fall in different parts of the world.
      The effects of warming the planet will be slow and gradual and they will influence the entire planet.
      Btw can ppl please try to learn a bit about something before they decide to comment about it, instead of just believing in their "common sense".

    3. @Tecumseh75. When I was in school in Sweden until some 10 years ago, I was hammered with education on the environment and the dangers to it. So I indeed know what you are talking about when you say the european drum hammering.

      However, we hardly talked about global warming, we indeed were taught about temperatures being much higher in the distant past. There are so many more dangers to the environment than global warming alone.

      In Sweden:

      1) Low pH values in the soil because of sour rain from german coal use.

      2) Over-use of fertilizers, suffocating the baltic sea.

      3) Deforestation

      4) Pollution

      5) Over fishing

      6) Unethical business polluting seriously in India, China, Africa, everywhere.

      I have always paid attention to the global warming issue with the all this in mind. Being taught in school that indeed the predictions are not certain.

      But this does not change a thing. If indeed fossil fuels are harmless to the global temperature, very good, one problem less. However we have so much more to worry about using fossil fuels, and wasting energy and resources in every which way.

    4. It's called climate CHANGE caused by global warming; 40 inches of snow in 2 years compared to just 4 inches in 20 years sounds like a CHANGE in your climate.
      Trees love CO2, true, but have you noticed that humans are chopping up the rain forests? Less trees, more CO2. Who knows what will happen?

      So you just admitted that most Americans don't know anything about the world but yet you say Americans have "common sense". This "common sense" then tells Americans that evolution is a scam, dinosaurs didn't exist but Adam and Eve did (that would mean a lot of incest, btw), freedom and independence are the most important things but a woman can't choose an abortion ie. she's not free to choose nor is she independent, and my favorite: anyone can sue anyone for anything, eg. burglars can sue the person they were robbing if during that robbery they got somehow hurt or injured, AND they'll win that case! So what I'm saying is if that's "common sense" then I'm very glad I don't have it.

  52. Ha! I can barely make ends meet each month and I'm supposed to be worry what's going to happen way after I'm dead and gone?? Who cares? Apres moi le deluge.

  53. HAHAHA this is hilarious!

    I dont care if you believe in global warming or not just read the following and apply some common sense... well try to at least.

    at 6min: one of the main people opposing global warming said and i quote:

    "when we remove and drill the ice core we leave a hole and we insert a thermometer in the hole, we are able to map out the temperature through the 3km ice sheet. Now that temperature if we do it precisely enough a thousandths of a degree accuracy, then the ice has not forgotten how cold or warm it was on the surface at the time the snow fell."

    FIRSTLY! you drilled a hold in the ice in order to remove the ice core..... for simpletons let me explain. Drilling requires friction, friction causes heat.... for those who still havent caught on yet you cant just stick a thermometer down there and measure it BECAUSE U CONTAMINATED THE EXPERIMENT!

    SECONDLY regardless of who or what caused global warming is it happening now ? in relation to recent years yes... will it cause abnormal weather and no doubt kill millions of people due to hurricanes, floods, droughts... everyone agrees yes even the sceptics. Many cities are built in areas which may one day become flooded.

    Hopefully youve been able to follow thus far, however i just wish to clarify the ice sheets are definatly melting. I dont care whos doing it, the fact is they are melting for some reason and its not something modern society has had to deal with before. I dont care if it happened in the jurassic period or 300 years ago MANY MODERN CITIES ARE NOT BUILT TO DEAL WITH IT.

    Now thats clarified, is there something we can do about it ? yes. We constantly manipulate our envirnments to suit our needs. If a field of crops is in drought we irrigate it, if its full of pests we insecticide it, if its empty we sow seeds in it. The same can apply to the effects of our envirnment warming.

    I dont care whats causing it, or how often its happened before. Speaking THEORETICALLY i shall give a simple example even a child can understand. Although an impractical solution and just an example if you were to put mirrors all over Africa to reflect the light back out into space it would reduce the temperature of the Earth. If you dont think it would go get a reflective screen and stick it in your front car windshield on a hot day. Its common sense stuff as i said a childlike example.

    So lets just clarify:

    Who caused it ? DONT CARE
    Has it ever happened before ? DONT CARE
    Have there been recent changes ? YES
    Is society built to cope with the changes? NO(watch the weather channel)
    Can we change it ? YES
    How much will it cost ? DONT CARE

    The fact is weather has changed recently, and yes we can influence it. Oh and if you dont understand the African mirror example go learn about evaporation then think about a sunny day and a cloudy day.

    1. He said he used a thermometer but honestly, the way they do it is that they check the amount of ice made of heavy water in the ice core. That heavy water is made of deuterium. The percentage of normal hydrogen vs deuterium help them estimate the temperature because the amount of deuterium in the air changes with the temperature.

      I'm pretty sure he was just trying to simplify it for everyone (not that it is too hard to understand to being with...).

    2. The causes of climate change are just as important as the fact that it exists. One day fossile fule is not going to be affordable, by which I mean it will be necessary for people to switch. But the argumentent that C02 is responsible for warming the planet is another issue.

  54. Global warming from C02 is a scam

  55. It's no longer called "global warming" anymore --now it's "climate change." By doing so, they can broaden their base to cover any abnormality or change in our climate.

  56. The messages from this film are:

    1. Some scientists, at the time of filming, were not convinced that the rise in temperature over the past 40 years was caused by human activities NECESSARILY.

    2. Computer climate models are not accurate.

    3. The rise in temperature we see today is not unprecedented.

    4. So far, the Maldives is still above sea level and a tree there which sits by the shores is still alive.

    5. Destroying the forest and putting concrete in its place will increase the temperature of that area.

    What this film does NOT say:

    1. Global warming is a HOAX.

    This film is more of a critique of scientific methodology rather than an attempt at debunking a conspiracy.

    The ice is melting on the poles. Glaciers on mountains are melting. Ice that's been around for thousands of years are melting. They are melting because temperatures are increasing to unprecedented levels. They are melting faster than anyone ever expected. These statements are not theories, they are facts that are being observed from year to year. This film does not address this phenomena. Why didn't this kind of melting occur during the warm period of the middle ages?

    Regardless of what you believe, the citizen of any democracy has a responsibility to inform themselves of facts, and base their decisions and opinions on those facts, rather than basing them on political ideology or denial. Personally, I would really like for there to be a public debate between the scientists (not politicians) on both sides of this matter and have it broadcasted live on TV. Now that's entertainment...

    1. I really like your comment. You're just about right on anything.

      I personally have three major issues about the whole global warming "hysteria" (as it mostly is in my opinion):

      1. Is our planet actually abnormally warm? This is not an easy answered question, although a lot of media would like the general public to believe it is, apparently. When addressed in the media, most of the time they talk about the last two hundred years or so, because that's the period where temperatures have been directly measured. Through science we can estimate what temperatures before would have been. Some respected media take this into account, tracing temperatures back to around the last Ice Age. Still, there is no conclusive scientific answer to the question whether or not our planet's temperature is really that abnormal today, based on a long term evaluation.

      2. Suppose our planet is abnormally warm today (compared to whatever time period this hypothesis is based upon). There is no consensus on a possible human influence on that (despite what most people have heard and believe nowadays). We all know the CO2 story of course, but first of all greenhouse gases (like CO2) are naturally present in our atmosphere. There are other greenhouse gases (C02 is the least powerful one), which are strangely enough never mentioned by mainstream media, and (consequently?) by our politicians. Anyway, the greenhouse effect is considered scientific fact, but does human activity have played an important part, if any, in a) the changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases, and b) the possible changes on global temperatures? There is absolutely no scientific consensus about that. Furthermore, there are scientists who have performed studies which concluded that the current temperature levels are well correlated with changes in our sun's energy output, and that changing C02 levels in our atmosphere are of little or no statistical importance to them.

      3. Suppose our planet is abnormally warm today, and humans have played a part in this. Than the next question would be if there are any effects (in science that means: evidence of us causing them) of the (in any case) slight temperature rise. Than the only right answer would be no. As of today there has been no "apocalypse" witnessed, and it is also very unlikely to happen by means of human influences on nature. More moderate suggested consequences havent't really been witnessed either (that is: on an objective, scientific basis). As it is beautifully said here: the Maldives are still above sea level. All the possible consequences suggested up until now are basically just not happening, which frankly isn't that much of a surprise to me. I know Al Gore likes to imply that we have something to do with destructive hurricanes hitting our world (like hurricane Katrina in New Orleans). That however, is completely outrageous, and most importantly very disrespectful to the victims of this tragedy. It is merely a way to get people's attention. I just had to mention this here briefly, because it's a disgrace.

      I could ad a fourth issue to that: the fact that global environmentalism has become big business is a disgrace too. It has little or nothing to do with caring about the environment. But politicians worldwide are going along with this hysteria, which I think it has been up until now. I live in Belgium, and over here the political debates about it are extremely annoying because say 80% of the politicians always start from the idea that we are definitely screwing up our world, while they clearly don't know the first thing about the science, or don't want to know.

      The main reason that some issues are not addressed, as you rightfully noticed, is that there simply is no easy answer to what the cause of them is, certainly there is no consensus. Remember that "climate" is largely based on a relatively short period of time, and defined by area. For instance: there are thousands of glaciers around the world. To claim that the cause of the melting of some glaciers (= LOCAL) around the world is due to the rise in GLOBAL average temperature (which as of today is still limited to about 1°C, based on very recent measurements only), is naive, and definitely too easy an answer, if an answer at all. Where is the actual scientific media covering of things like that? Because that sure doesn't look like science to me. A self-respecting scientist wouldn' look at a shrinking glacier and think hey, the global temperature is rising right, that must be the cause of this? If you let people make these claims on air, then other (more scientific) opinions should be given as well.

      Basically, the only scientific consensus is that C02 concentrations in the earth's atmosphere have gone up, which isn't really much of a case.

      I would like to end by clarifying that neither I am saying global warming is a "hoax". I just think that up until now there has been a hysteria going on about it, which really isn't necessary. I think the possible human influences on current temperature levels (as depicted in media, not necessarily among the scientific community) have been way overestimated. I believe that mankind simply hasn't, and will not have in the near future, that possibility of influence: to "destroy our planet Earth". It just doesn't make much sense. No more hysteria please.

  57. Watch this FILM! Also, a must watch is The Great Global Warming Swindle.

    I saw “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore’s film about global warming, a 2006 documentary directed by Davis Guggenheim, replete with graphs, flow charts, and visuals. I was solemn and silent when I left the auditorium. My mind was as cool and still as a northern lake.

    Weeks or months passed before my brain reasserted itself. Maybe it was the talk of carbon taxes that alerted me. Was this a scam, this global warming fear mongering extremism being pushed by the UN & IPCC? So many climate scientists are saying global warming is a scam, a fraud, when they look into the reports coming out of the UN/IPCC.

    Two of the architects of the Carbon Tax Scheme, it turns out, were Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron infamy. Dick Cheney had earmarked Ken Lay to become the future United States Environmental Czar, but that was before the Enron fraud was exposed, and before Ken Lay became a political liability to the Bush Administration. Skilling got nine years for his crimes, and Ken Lay (“Kenny Boy” to George Bush who denied knowing him, and bush's largest political campaign contributor) was thinking about cutting a deal before his court appearance and name names, when he died unexpectedly of a heart attack.

    As the new scientific data on Climate Change roll's in, and the criminal Climate Gate scandal involving the UN/IPCC getting caught faking the data has been exposed on the worlds stage. Al Gore’s reputation was being shredded, tatters trailing behind him, a bit here, a bit there, but he had already cashed in a carbon fortune to the tune of 256 million dollars. Maybe Al “it’s not about the money” Gore should sell one of his G5 private jets for the sake of the planet. He has 3 private jets.

    When asked by a Congressional Oversight Committee if he, Al Gore, was present in the room when Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron were hatching the Global Carbon Tax scheme, he “could not recall.” His memory was in a lockbox.

    The government-generated, quasi-commercial scheme of carbon as a commodity was in freefall. Like WTC Building 7, the Carbon Tax Scheme could not have dropped faster or smoother.

    1. I think "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is maybe pushing things a little bit, but at least the makers are aware of the exaggerated and non scientific claims that are unleashed upon the public about "global warming", and made an effort to address this. That was a relief upon watching it.

  58. it totally sucks how the earth can warm and destroy it self from the same thing it created. it's not like we humans made oil, the earth did. if we had not used it, it would have leaked into volcano hot magma and wild fires burning for ever and creating infinite 'co2 emitions'. mixed with the ocean water on a massive scale killing marine life, destroying beaches, all animals, plants and humans. then spread all over the valleys, mountains, desserts, and lands destorying plants, wildlife, and all animals and creating more fire, burning more and more...........

  59. Heisenberg is right, it is a distraction(old magicians trick)to keep us from dealing with the real issues affecting us like the myriad of toxic chemicals that spew out of our tail pipes co2 is the least of the problems,the ozone hole just happen's to come along as the patent was running out on the refrigerant, there used to be crocs and gators swimming in the Arctic so i would assume it has been much warmer on earth.
    Lets worry about toxins waste genetic engineering ocean pollution overfishing viral outbreaks from mega farms ect too many other important problems are being overlooked while they distract us with something nobody can really prove while the other problems have been proved to be very harmful already.And buy an electric car consumers have the votes in there pockets.

  60. Most of this film has been disproved already. This piece of propaganda should probably be removed from this site. Unless of course those who run the site despise credibility.

    1. Totally agreed. It's old climate denier nonsense.

    2. Another "Anonymous" empty claim. Your comment is "propaganda", not this film.

  61. "As stated many times in these documentaries, the science is still incomplete."

    Yes but that's just a deliberate attempt to mislead. The science of most disciplines is incomplete because scientists keep asking questions. That's how science works. It's never complete. We don't yet understand gravity but that doesn't mean we can't make spaceships that overcome gravity or even use gravity to accelerate into the outer solar system.

    Likewise we may not know about every factor that affects the climate but we know that the greenhouse effect is real on not just this planet but all planets with an atmophere. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And we have known about the greenhouse effect for nearly 200 years!

  62. After following the post on this site regarding the global warming issue. It appears that many of you have the same narrow minded perspective on the subject as politicians/media and activists do. As stated many times in these documentaries, the science is still incomplete. Whether global warming is man made or not, the temperature will effect our living conditions non the less. Instead of contemplating on this doomsday scenario, we should be doing what we can to turn the more obvious effects of the damage we do by oil spills, GMO farming, unnatural waste and dumping, and of course the other pollutants we pump into the atmosphere, that cause illness to us at a more rapid immediate rate. Sustainability is just a start. We should be able to flourish and live in balance with nature. We have the knowledge and technology. Waste is a man made concept. Let's try to rid us of our on going nonsense.

  63. Great Doc.
    Hard Evidence against man made global warming and real scientific work that shows the obvious flaws of the ipcc data, including that hockeystick graph.

    Must see!

  64. Okay, go back to school, folks, and take a basic science class. CO2 and Methane (CH4) significantly warm air. Not hard to prove.

    Don't be afraid to be afraid.

    1. Wrong... and proven to be wrong

      CO2 does nothing to increase global warming.

      Prove me wrong.

      show me the numbers.

    2. Better yet, you prove yourself right.

  65. Anyone who is on the fence regarding the veracity of "man made global warming" need only read the writings on this very page of those who support the global warming theorists. Bordering, no, crossing well into, religious dogma and fanaticism.

    Firstly, though, consider that the faulty models have caused the proponents to change names to "Climate Change"...CYA.

    "Believe the politicians! Believe the U.N.! Believe the Carbon Exchange!" say the sheep, but ask who started the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCE) and listed it on the stock exchange. This is a major scam that makes the fear based hustles look tiny. Why express such skepticism in the previous U.S. administration regarding "weapons of mass destruction" and blindly go along with this present regime in theirs?

    Models, theories, emotional appeals, speeches from movies stars. Sell, sell, sell. Will you buy? OR, will you make a considered judgment, and bear in mind, the law of unintended consequences: this hustle is only meant to get a few people rich, but it may well cost many their liberty, their homes, and their very lives.

    1. Obviously what you mean by "religious dogma and fanaticism" is not what the dictionary means.
      I can see you reaching for straws to bolster your transparently emotional denials. I really think you ought to re-examine your position.

  66. @Brian Cohen..isn't it you are speaking logically, and as i well know, empirically,(watched the doc global dimming for the 4th time the other day before i finally decided to really look into it..) i say thanks for your effort to inform your fellow man. and to those who consider you to be a climate change alarmist, i ask: do you really think all these years of fossil fuel addiction have had no net effect on the planet?

    what about the holes in the ozone? did you really think that either side of the climate change debate was telling the truth?? where there are sides, there are far as i can see they are all full of crap. Find the quiet scientist, the information that goes under the radar, and quit looking to be victimized from some grand conspiracy and face the real conspirator: yourself! We have all contributed to the mess on our planet, and we all need to work toward solutions before it truly is too late. Consider that what Brian is referring to is global dimming: the pollution we created actually protected us for quite some time, from climate to chemtrails/aerosol geoengineering-that has been an off and on program since the 50s.

    Have any of you noticed how things are done in an odd order in our world? Action first, justification and research to back it up later, and then comes public policy/legislation? That seems to be, (and i say seems because i truly do not know)the case with the aerosols. Numerous studies, theses(as in plural thesis since that looks like a mistyped word:), presentations, books, government sponsored publications et al., have been created on using sulfate based aerosols to mitigate global warming by recreating some of the effects of global dimming until they figure out what the hell to really long-winded response is primarily a "i feel ya Brian, your words are valued, and don't give up on sharing the information" Also, this is my favorite website on the entire internet..even when i disagree with those who post regarding a documentary, just the fact that it exists for us to do so is like..well, amazing..So Vlatko, thanks for all the fish:)

    1. Not a problem @mrr. It is my pleasure.

  67. The evidence is out there to disprove most of what the Chicken Little's have said and they get mighty mad when they're shown to be as big of charlatans as their mentor, Al Gore.

  68. This documentary is funny to watch how much people care to spread false info to the public. You need to be really closed minded to think that there is no effect on earth when we have over 2 billion cars in the world pumping all this gas into the atmosphere. Plus, the data from satellites have been proved to be doubtful since they miscalculated the friction caused by earths gravity.

    Great doc to laugh at :D

  69. Very good document. Conclusions by scientists are based on hard evidence contrary to the alarmists that are base solely on computer models and hiding "inconvinient truth" for previous , recent warming.
    Now, there is nothing wrong about trying to limit CO2 emissions, however spining it politically and imposing Carbon Tax that has no result whatsoever byt making some evil people even more reach should be an eye openner to everybody. "Tree huggers" should understand, you are played by a few , use your common sense not your emotions.

  70. @Brian

    A logically explanation for this "phenomenom” seems to be that you would not notice as many planes on a cloudy day because the clouds obstruct your vision.

  71. Brian, you need to stop sniffing those chemtrails, they make you stupid. There has been no significant warming for over 15 years, and it has nothing to do with chemtrails.

  72. There is a huge propaganda effort taking place to attempt to convince people that the CO2 we are pumping into the air has NO effect on the greenhouse effect,and this documentary is part of that propaganda.

    But,no matter how many people tell you that CO2 doesnt cause global warming,Think about it;

    Follow the $--WHO would be most interested in "debunking" this type of theory?

    Well,the fossil fuel companies would!!!

    Its not in the interests of the energy companies that make $ off fossil fuels to "reduce the burning of fossil fuels"!!
    Its in THEIR interest to MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.
    And so they HAVE to "debunk global warming",and to show that CO2 has no effect.

    And of course,it isnt just them! Remember this as well all you "global warming deniers":

    Our Military is dependent on Fossil fuels!!

    No oil=No tankers,no planes,no tanks,no trucks,no fuel for our rockets and missiles etc.

    Our entire empire runs on oil. The military that protects that empire does as well.
    And I understand how dependent we as a society are on oil!

    I am just as muchas anyone else!But,facts are facts!And adding CO2 to the atmosphere DOES increase the "Greenhouse effect"---PERIOD.

    I also know that the governments of the WORLD KNOW this is true,and yet are engaged in a huge campaign to convince people that its NOT happening,thru disinformation like this.

    HOW do I know this?

    I know this because everywhere I go,I have observed a very strange thing happening in the skies;

    WHENEVER there is a clear blue sky,the amount of planes flying over head will begin to increase---these planes will fly in "criss crossing" flights ALL day leaving HUGE trails,MANY of which do NOT go away.These trails spread out and form clouds---They literally turn a clear blue sky into a cloudy one. They BLOCK SUNLIGHT.

    I have observed this "Chemtrail phenomenom" for several years now,and the effect/the result is ALWAYS the same.

    And thats proof to me that ONE of the main purposes of these operations is to keep the planet cool by reducing the amount of sunlight hitting the ground,and thus reducing the greenhouse effect.

    Also,in the last year,these operations have INCREASED in frequency,which leads me to believe that this is a far greater problem than anyone thought it would be.

    But dont take my word for it--LOOK UP in the sky,espicially on a clear day,and you will see it for yourself. Above all,notice the effect these operations have on the temperature,and the fact that te mainstream media almost refuses to deal with this at all.
    Google Edward Teller,and you'll see that he was a proponent of putting "areosols" in the air to reduce the effects of global warming.

    Also,remember that scientsts can be paid to say anything!Just use your own eyes,and you'll see that there IS a massive spraying operation going on right over your head!

    You'll wonder how you didnt notice it before.

  73. This film is not a magical silver bullet to shoot down the climate change/global warming debate, but it does bring up a few noteworthy points.

    Essentially, I believe that rigorous scientific investigation and debate should continue within the academic arena among trained experts. That said, I am extremely skeptical of the political policy agenda that is being proposed to "save" us from a scenario that is at best pure speculation and at worst blatant fear-mongering that rivals Bush's "War on Terror" nonsense.

    As laymen, non-professionals like myself (and the vast majority of environmentalists) will simply find the videos that best agree with our preconceptions and then proceed to yell at one another. We certainly are not qualified to settle any legitimate scientific debate, but the proposed policy decisions are radical enough that I feel I must oppose them on a political basis until stronger science emerges.

  74. Great documentary, a must see. Quote from Ergonimium; "bizarre masculinized intellectualism"...yes facts can be annoying...The Medieval period was warmer than today, so how can temperature change be man-made? Some of the fear mongerers today talked about global freezing thirty years ago.

  75. Apart from the rather shoddy use of the "appeal to authority" fallacy, this... uh, documentary has an essential flaw in its premise, and that is that the authors were too self-absorbed to see beyond a very narrow non-biological view. That is to say, small numbers are in no way insignificant.

    Your body is an example of this. With a minor fluctuation of even one to two degrees in either direction, your body can be propelled into hypothermia or hyperthermia. This is a "small" change, but a living environment is inherently more delicate than an artificial one. The Earth is not your house; the consequences of your willful ignorance goes far beyond being slightly more prone to sweating.

    Additionally, energy must be measured differently in its effect than a finite material. Cyanide's threat decreases as it becomes spread over a large area. Heat (a form of energy, if you'll harken back to 8th grade science), by contrast, is not a finite resource; the more heat is present, the more impressive and dramatic it is. Material objects do not need to be constantly fueled to maintain their form; heat/cold absolutely do.

    Also include latency in the advance of the rising of the global temperature, since the Earth's primary buffer against any temperature change has always been the ice caps and floes in the south and north. They are somewhat like your body's bones; when confronted with a specific type of threat, your body will destroy the calcium deposits and use them to correct itself and maintain homeostasis.

    A small increase in the Earth's temperature over even a matter of decades is dangerous, because of its rate of growth. The time is better measured in a span of animal generations, not years; evolution, not revolutions around the sun (which do not necessarily mean growth or change). The Earth is a living body, as well, and no amount of bizarre masculinized intellectualism and capitalist ideology is going to change that - though it may wind up destroying it.

    In short, retrieve your head from the dark places of your nether regions and understand that scientists know very little about life - they have preferred to isolate it rather than study it so far.

    1. 11 years later and the facts prove it’s only risen 2 degrees in the last 150 years nature is on a cycle and the thing that sells best is fear.

  76. Be aware Watch carefully:
    this is a great lie, confusion spreading and mind poisoning doc!
    How much they like it!!!..
    Who "they"?
    Why they like this kind of chit?
    Ask yourself..Open your eyes