The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle

2007, Environment  -   280 Comments
Ratings: 7.22/10 from 378 users.

The Great Global Warming SwindleThe Great Global Warming Swindle caused controversy in the UK when it premiered on Channel 4. According to Martin Durkin's documentary, the chief cause of climate change is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun.

Some have called The Great Global Warming Swindle the definitive retort to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Using a comprehensive range of evidence it's claimed that warming over the past 300 years represents a natural recovery from a 'little ice age'.

According to the program humans do have an effect on climate but it's infinitesimally small compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures this way and that. From melting glaciers and rising sea levels, The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the myths, and exposes what may well prove to be the darkest chapter in the history of mankind. According to a group of leading scientists brought together by documentary maker Martin Durkin everything you've ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. Just as we've begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, Durkin's documentary slays the whole premise of global warming.

"Global warming has become a story of huge political significance; environmental activists using scare tactics to further their cause; scientists adding credence to secure billions of dollars in research money; politicians after headlines and a media happy to play along. No-one dares speak against it for risk of being unpopular, losing funds and jeopardizing careers."

More great documentaries

280 Comments / User Reviews

  1. One of the things that should be a sign to all in regards to whether or not man made global warming is a serious thing are the statements that "The science is settled", followed by a refusal to debate the subject with legitimate scientists who hold an opposing view. Global climate science is such a complicated thing that there is no possible way that in reality "the science is settled". Especially when their proof is computer models. Computers in this current age are not powerful enough to accurately model future climate change, with all of the affecting factors taken into account.

  2. Global Warming raises 2 issues that are commonly conflated.
    1. Is earth warming?
    2. Is mankind responsible for that?
    Science is clear on item 1. Yes the Earth is warming. This documentary clearly shows that item 2 has not yet been definitively answered. Despite evidence to the contrary the UN and many governments carry on as though Mankind and his CO2 output is fully responsible. There can be no doubt that mankind is disgustingly dirty in regards to its care of the planet and therefore there needs to be a change in behaviour but what COP26 hopes to achieve in Glasgow may well result in our planet becoming more polluted in the future.

  3. I have watched this documentary many times.
    I find it to be a sane explanation to how and when CO2 became a demonized and monetized gas.
    And a cash cow for all the ones with a vested interest supporting this concept that we can't let the earth warm up.
    The sheer conceit is these eco-warriors think they can control Mother Nature.
    Makes as much sense as the concept the delusional ex- prez of the US had about altering the paths of hurricanes with atomic weapons.
    The planet has warmed and cooled many times without mans aid.
    The human race has survived numerous past climate changes. And will adapt again to whatever comes our way.

    1. But the ordinary cash cow of the fossil fuel industry, that is okay, eh? Drill baby drill, yeah, right. Deniers are great entertainment with their sheer conceit that comes out any time it is suggested that humans should maybe clean up their act. Forget that baby.

    2. Gregg is confusing pollution of fossil fuels with CO2. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It does not make our air dirty. We exhale CO2 with every breath. Nature generates much much more CO2 than man does annually. Cow farts generate more CO2 annually that is man made. Yet, those who promote man made global warming insist that CO2 is a pollutant. It is not.

    3. true, and the models are unable to reproduce actual climate history, which makes them unusable as future predictors.

    4. I would be a believer if the IPCC would examine ALL the sources and dispersal of CO2, but when they blindly limit their research to AGW only, I begin to smell a rat.

  4. so if C02 makes the wolrd hotter, why do we have longer winters every year?

  5. It's April and 39F outside. We are burning nearly double the fuel from last year, and the cold is lasting longer, and is lower... Our Heating Bills $$$$ prove the FRAUD of global warming .

    1. Yeah, your heating bill proves global warming is a hoax, You are really annoying to me, since all global warming can be refuted by your energy bill? Grow up, it's not about YOU and your stupid bill. That doesn't prove ANYTHING.

  6. Oh my goodness! an incredible article dude. Thanks However I'm experiencing situation with ur rss . Don’t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anyone getting an identical rss downside? Anybody who knows kindly respond. Thnkx

  7. I have 2 words...geoengineering...radiation

  8. 2020 coronavirus

  9. There is an equilibrium here. More CO2 means more "food" for vegetation and forests which in turn increase in growth and trap more CO2. We are clearly seeing the Sun driving climate change and possibly due to normal statistical variation. Man-made CO2 is insignificant compared to the scores of other much larger factors involved. Reducing our own output of CO2 will have no effect at all.

    1. It is not insignificant, Mankind really is ruining the earth. Open your eyes man, and see.

    2. Yes, man is polluting the earth, and slowly destroying it. However, CO2 is not a pollutant. Gregg, your concern for pollution of the earth is commendable. But, you should focus your energy on things that actually pollute the earth. Things that make our air unbreathable. Things that make our water undrinkable. CO2 does neither. It is not a pollutant.

  10. "Be cool", but at what environmental cost?
    Saw this prog in 2007 and wondered what has changed in 11 years. But 11 years is infinitesimally too short a period to measure in a meaningful way, climate change, as it's now known as. Interesting to note that "ad hominum" arguments are still acceptable if one disagrees with another.

    1. If the science is wrong in 2007, then the science didn’t all of a sudden get right in 2019. That is undeniable.

  11. whoever thought a good idea to run intrusive loud forced ad windows should be fired. Do u not get it when at 2am and doing private work on a computer and some frek has designed your site to break in with loud ads that we can't shut down or until we find it. Now the baby is to talk to the fired people who did this,You did fire them right??

  12. This is an amazing document about scientific perversion, and the "religion" of global warming. Industrial wind was spawned from these lies. Industrial wind is the largest scam of the modern age: produces net zero world wide, and yet is completely destructive to human health, animals, birds, bats....many species will or are becoming extinct.

    1. 99% of all the species that ever existed on the planet are extinct.
      Industrial wind farms and solar farms are a blight on the land.
      At least here in Ontario.
      When the subsidies run out, there goes the maintenance and upkeep to these structures.

  13. This is drivel. The CO2 is the highest in 1 million years. The CO2 enters the world's oceans to make Carbolic Acid; which dissolve the calcium carbonate based shells of crustacians or at least cause difficulty in generating the shells. This may lead to a catostrophic collapse of the Ocean food chain. Every glacier within 100 miles of my house in the BC Mountain ranges are melting to oblivion. It's Physics STUPID! Heat casues expansion & istabilty in most materials. Cold causes contaction & stability.

    1. You completely missed the point. First we are talking about whether CO2 Prodeced by man is driving climate change and the answer is clearly “No” but you don’t even follow basic logic before coming up with an off topic theory about what will happen in our oceans.

  14. This is a translation from 43:00 to 45:00 "Communism caused global warming"
    Im just laughing right now

    1. You missed the whole point. Capitalism causes more CO2 production. Socialists use global warming to criticize capitalism blaming capitalism for the problem

  15. CO2 is still bad for you, though

    1. You're exhaling it and plants die without it.

    2. It is only bad for you if that is all that there is in the air. The actual percentage of CO2 in our air is miniscule. Not enough to suffocate us, by far. That is the ONLY way CO2 is bad for us. We exhale CO2 in every breath. Cows fart more CO2 than man makes through industry every year. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

  16. Listen, I'm in China, a huge pollutant to the world, and we just hit 900 AQI! Do you think that that occurs naturally? Because if you do, talk to the people that have lost friends and family to pollution.

    1. You are combining CO2 with all of the actual pollutants, as if it was a dirty contaminant. It is not. The subject at hand is if man made CO2 is a pollutant. Cow farts generate more CO2 annually than the CO2 that is man made. CO2 is an environmental gas. It is not a pollutant.

  17. Hippies are the worst.

  18. A few too many people tend to believe into the first thing they hear. Often they hear the wrong thing first. Changing that is like trying to get rid of a govt program. That is the purpose of govt school and BanksterCorproGovt Media, to get to you first.

    If you have read enough technical reports, you will learn not to trust any report unless the raw data was included and that data readily shows the same claims as the report. Often it does not. More often the raw data isn't included. Why are they hiding?

    One of the NuWrldOrdr paths to Socialism-Communism is controlling you through Enviro Laws. It is their Green Agenda and purpose govt funds pseudo science "climate change". To justify what they desire to do. This has been known for many decades outlined in a book called [None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen] who was not funded by the oil companies nor was the co-author a stock investor type.

    When you have corporate sponsored entities like The Nature Conservancy using govt as arm twister to condemn your land for them for a supposedly endangered species, which isn't at all, after which they trade that and several other neighboring properties for something else they really wanted ...or sell it back to the govt for much more than they stole it from you for, then you will understand the corruption.

    I know people who put out more methane than cattle do; because those people eat GRAIN or processed grain products when they should not. Their stomach wasn't designed to eat much grain nor were cattle.

    When your doctor tells you there are 16 known stomach types (last I checked which was a long time ago), some differing greatly, and that not all people were designed to eat the same thing, or can handle the same quantities of certain things, then you will have found a doctor that knows at least that much and "may" be wise enough to tell you that if your ancestry is from the great white north and get bloat and gas when you have grains in your food, you likely need to concentrate more on vegetables and meat (if there are vegetables where you are at) and stay away from grains. Likely fewer stomach types until cross breeding of tribes from different regions of the world became more prevalent. I have never met or read of such a doctor. Most excepting naturopaths are taught from big pharma textbooks. Discovered the stomach types while looking for something else in an old thick dictionary or encyclopedia. I suspect that the intestines have differences as well. I can also imagine there are some unfortunate cross bred heritages that have more food sensitivities due to the fact that their stomach and intestines aren't a perfect match and/or live in a region unsuited for those particular types of organs ...or worse yet, both. And those that can consume most anything and be fine, for the same reason but with better luck. I've read and watch docu's on doc's who claim "everyone" should follow what helped them and those they helped. They seem to all forget the Eskimos and similar. Lots of grain growers in polar bear territory isn't there, cough cough. Yet these docs are deemed "wise men".

    What is the most detrimental thing to life on earth right now today?

    Make no mistake GeoEngineering (weather modification +) IS one of the worst problems we have today. If you don't believe there is such a thing then you have NOT done your homework. You can see good videos at You can see the govt documents (under their documents menu item) which provide for it. If you know or can locate the ACTUAL commercial routes, then all the planes laying down trails of toxic nano metals designed to absorb moisture and to kill life, are GeoEngineering planes. In rural areas like I have visited, that is most of the planes since the few commercial flights take a certain path. In some locations or more and more locations they have been avoiding the row and grid looking paths so as to fool the public. With the more efficient engines of today, condensate trails are not formed unless extremely cold. There is no such thing as a "persistent condensate trail" that spreads out into a haze in about 20 minutes or so. Condensate trails evaporate from the outside so they typically don't spread out like a chem trail. Watch the 2 minute video of a camera plane following a chem trail plane. Watch the video following that one for much more. A contrail would not turn off and on like that of the chem trails.

    Get up to speed. Al Gore is a bore and full of beans or many of us would be under water already. YOU are breathing in TOXIC metals regularly from all the chem trails. All life is being impacted by it. Trees, vegetation, crops, and all the critters large and small.

    Best I can tell GeoEngineering/Chem trails as well as GMO "foods" and vaccines are being used as chemotherapy to kill off the cancer called most of the human race. If you agree there are too many people, then go first, volunteer, be a good example to your beliefs, as the elites should do, who are causing all of the man made chem trail droughts here, floods there, die offs or stunted crops here and there.

    One can readily imagine that the bee die offs are related to chem trails. There were plenty of insecticides and herbicides for years but it seems the bee die offs didn't occur until sometime after the chem trail heavy metals were spewed out all over en mass.

    I would like to know how bad things happen, really?
    Is the money they pay you worth it to be spreading toxic metals all over the planet? Are you that chicken crap of finding another job? Who would load and fly all the planes if decent people refused? THE MILITARY! Just order them to do it... Yet the military code of conduct states that you are not to follow orders you know to be illegal. Regardless of what any general, colonel, etc. says, how can it be, knowing what it does and is doing? Stripping snow pack from the West. Causing flooding elsewhere. Toxifying the air everyone breathes, the soil, the once fresh water, the food, everything.

    HAARP is designed to heat things up. The nano metals. The upper atmosphere to cause weather changes, and much much worse.

    Get up to speed folks and contact your congressman to stop man made global warming which is GeoEngineering.

  19. I remember when scientists predicted global cooling, and I am using that as a basis for my opinion on man made global climate change. Scientists are stupid, unless they say something that proves how smart I am

  20. Having said that, I do believe we need to be cleaner. If not for the warming, for the quality of air and the cleanliness of the oceans.

    1. Absolutely agree. We need to be cleaner with the earth, the water, the land, and the air. CO2 is NOT making those things dirtier. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

  21. CaycePrice, very well said. I thought this doc would be all about blasting the climate change theory from a few select quacks. I was surprised at the alternative data, and number of people speaking. I remember growing up in the 80's and hearing that the Antarctic ice was expanding and getting thicker, how it might cause an ice age and maybe even wobble the earth due to the added mass down south. Funny thing was how one solution to this issue was a few guys who thought having ships sail the ocean making clouds would help cool the planet by blocking the sun. This was carried by the media as "something to look at" ....

  22. The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 225 months from February 1997 to Octber 2015 – more than half the 442 -month satellite record. There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since the Pause began in February 1997. The entire RSS dataset for the 442 months December 1978 to September 2015 shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.13 Cº per century. Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century. The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.75 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and has little to do with us. Note that since 1998, global GDP per capita has increased 60%, infant mortality has declined 48%, life expectancy has increased by 5.5 years, and the poverty headcount has dropped from 43% to 17% despite a population increase of 40%. Nostalgia for a 350 ppm world seems somewhat misplaced, if not downright perverse. See World Bank, World Development Indicators, Povcalnet, and "CARBON DIOXIDE: The good news".

  23. The real question is, who gives a damn?

    The facts are we are destroying our natural ecosystems at an unprecedented rate, and extracting our natural resources even faster... is that sustainable?

    Do those of you that don't 'believe' in climate change care AT ALL about the destruction I'm talking about? Or are you only interested in being right?

    1. But time and money are being wasted on the reduction of CO2, when that money would actually make a difference in reducing real pollutants that make our land, water, and air nasty. CO2 is not a pollutant, and does none of those things. Spending money on CO2 reduction hurts the economy, and does not clean the air, water, or land. CO2 is NOT dirty.

  24. Kind of pointless, we are going to have it one way or another. Dumb primates.

  25. this documentary as been debunk by the same scientific who are in this documentary and some have even complained that what they said was twisted even some of the graphic used have been twisted to fit the agenda of this doc

    1. Please provide references. Your statement is meaningless without supporting data.

  26. oh yes, we have no impact on the environment whatsoever, lets just burn more and more fossil fuels and lets just breed till there is at least 25 000 000 000 of us... jesus whatta load of horseshit

    1. Way to miss the whole point.

  27. If the atmospheric warming was due do changes in solar inputs then you would expect to find uniform warming. What we find is that in large thermal stores such as the oceans the temperature is increasing. Furthermore, in the lower layers of the atmosphere we find warming in contrast with a cooling in the upper layers. That would seem to suggest that heat is being increasingly stored and that the 'greenhouse' model is accurate. At the very least it is a significant problem for science to focus on and not simply dismiss as a 'hoax' or a 'swindle'. Also, i would just add that just because people will manipulate, and ultimately use this issue to make money, does not mean that the scientific arguments backing it are invalid. You can be frustrated with the way numerous individuals behave, and given our current economic structure could perhaps predict it, but that does not mean you should reject the validity of the scientific claims on that basis. To reject it, you need to stick to science.

    1. your comment is in line with the assumption that the sun is at a constant temperature at all times and never changes. NASA data has shown huge spikes of solar temperature fluctuations. This activity is consistent with the appearance of sunspots and solar flares. Not to mention our orbital path varies, both from the sun and other planets. The sun isn't in one place, it wobbles around an orbital barycenter because of the motion of all orbital bodies around it, planets, etc. We know this because the Kepler satellite uses this wobble effect to detect planets around distant stars. This wobble affects the rotation of the earth (and all other planets) around the sun and we end up closer or further away to the sun at different times of the year, the rotation and orbital path of the earth changes, which in turn the coriolis effect from Earth's changing rotational speed changes. The coriolis force has direct impact on the atmospheric pressure of the planet which wind is derived from. Not to mention the variations of the planets relative distance to the sun for each year we orbit around it. Calendar dates and season are artificially constructed and aren't consistent to planetary motion nor solar activity which are never uniform. We can predict planetary motion of all the planets. Yet we see variation of climate against the calendar dates then think "it's changing", fact is the climate changes all the time. The artifice comes from mans perception of how nature should behave when nature is behaving and reacting as it always has

    2. except we have detailed pollen count data that shows the climate has been changing at a constantly increasing rate that began with the industrial age.

  28. Swindled? How? Solar works, Wind Works, Tidal Works, Geothermal works and all reduce co2. so where is the swindle?

    1. We should not reduce CO2 - it is needed by green plants.

  29. I am sure man is making a small mark, but if we were not here, there would always be climate change going on, some quite drastic.

  30. Just goes to show what a 'Scam' so called Glow-Bull warming Is.

  31. Their are still many of whom want to believe that man is not commiting seppuku with co2 inspite of their weak presentation.And inspite of the overwhelming evidence that dose support it, yet how can one deny that industrial waste is not seriously poisoning Earths air and water.

    1. It is the same with all of you leftists, the ends justify the means. No matter what! If you are truly a scientist and you are taught to always challenge the conventional wisdom, then there can be NO real "consensus" on any "theory", as Scientists we bastardize our work for what? Grant Money? The fact that the IPCC ommitted dissent from their ranks to serve an agenda is pretty clear to me and I am no longer a believer. You Scientist worth your salt should look at the evidence and nothing more. Let's play this game for a moment and suggest Anthropomorphic Climate Change is a fact, what does the empirical data show? Remember that word we learned in school, EMPIRICAL? Let's consider this study by Stephen E. Schwartz in "Journal of Geophysical Research" June 07 title:

      This is a mathematical model that asserts the earth simply does not have the capacity to heat to the level that alarmist say is catastrophic.To the reasonable scientist this should at least plant a seed of doubt that there is a "consensus" to this "theory" again a scientific term that is not a "LAW" a Scientist questions all theories, but obey the laws! This should help dispel the "Global Coolin...oh wait, Global Warmi...oh hold on this works better, CLIMATE CHANGE" Can man affect the ecosystem? Absolutely without a doubt, but only locally and not on a global scale. The totality of the empirical data simply shows anthropomorphic warming is not happening. The most sensationalized data proposed by the Univ. of East Anglia's "Hockey Stick" graph has been exposed as contemptible. More recently with NOAA's manual manipulation of temperatures to fit what they perceived should be happening in a given are when a temp. center was offline, instead of going with the data you have and letting the non reports work themselves out statistically. BAD SCIENCE!

    2. oh dear...another scientifically illiterate right winger who doesn't know what Theory means in scientific terms.

      Gravity is also a theory...try denying that and see if you'll float away.

  32. Ok. the first half was good. there are obviously many other factors creating climate change other than CO2. but to be anti solar in the end is ridiculous, especially when you only show two tiny soar panels. Just because CO2 doesn't cause climate change doesn't mean coal and oil aren't significantly polluting and poisoning areas of the earth.
    Im not saying Africa should start off with solar, but its always good to be as efficient as possible, causing the least amount of pollution as possible, and supporting as few wars as possible. the only way humans should be generating electricity is through solar, everything else is based in greed and corruption. What could be safer than a massive nuclear power plant that's 93 million miles away from the earth, that all life already relies upon???

    1. The point being made about solar power panels in Africa is the exorbitant price of each unit.
      Rare earths and highly energy intensive practices are needed to produce these .
      Not exactly good the the environment , eh?
      The whole point in the section about the clinic and the 2 panels was they were not sufficient to power the fridge and lights.

  33. What a great documentary! Interesting and so well done, and very convincing. All of the scientists, and everyone interviewed, spoke in terms that a non-scientific person could easily understand. If you are looking for both sides of the issue, however, you won't get it from this.

  34. Whether global warming is man made or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. What is undeniable is that we are poisoning the biosphere and treating the planet like a toilet. Just, y'know.... pack it in. Why not use environmentally friendly energy sources? Why not try and make the planet a pleasant, clean environment for our kids (well, your kids. I'm having none, thank you very much)? Instead of just acting like spoilt brats "WHATEVER, I'LL DO WHAT I WANT!" Freedom is not an absolute and unfortunately, due to the fact that the planet is a shared space, we do, to some degree, bear some responsibility to the rest of the species.

  35. In the first place every opinion is political and there will all ways be someone making profit of either choice you make. Second, I would like to say to all people who think this is a swindle, go live in an industrial city near a road and keep your windows open as much as possible.

    1. I think you're talking about air pollution; not global climate change.

  36. Finally, a documentary that states the obvious regarding what is driving the weather patterns on our planet. In my opinion, this should not be confused as too whether we are poisioning the biosphere. ( not a promo for the corporations to run amuck) What I like most about this doc is that for all the bloggers out there who hang their entire belief system on science, tend to forget human nature, and many people's desire to brainwash the masses, all for a buck, fame, or fortune. (enviromental funding, business ventures, etc - ergo modern day snake oil salesmen)
    Ultimately, you can get the masses to believe anything, and every once in a while it is nice to get a breath of fresh air, even if a smoggy one!

    1. you know the average climate scinetist makes less than 20k a year right?

      Meanwhile Alex Jones makes 5 million dollars a year by pandering to right wing paranoia.

      If there's a swindle for cash i think it's quite obvious who the swindler really is...and it's not the scientist just doing his/her job.

      Funny how you can talk about brainwashed masses, but then write off the only side of the argument that actually has evidence to show you...presumably because you've been brainwashed by someone seeking money and fame.

    2. I don't recall stating that the 'scientist' (his/or herself) are the ones attempting to brainwash the masses. My point was the need for 'intellectual skepticism' regarding so called 'evidence' that ignores primary causation for limited secondary statistical analysis is prudent in the least. In reality, most scientific hypothesis (especially regarding weather) are inept since there are too many unknown variables to account for, much of which we don't yet understand. The motivation to protect the environment is of monumental concern, but is not served by shrill attitudes, (fear mongering) and is inconsequential compared to the driving force of corporate greed/materialism, and political manipulation of the masses as it's primary goal.
      Perhaps you believe that enviro-taxes are not economically motivated, and will save the planet, but only a paradigm shift in thinking itself, and how we conduct ourselves will have any meaningful impact. This will not occur if people refuse to question the obvious because present scientific, and economic opinion are accepted as gospel, without acknowledging their limitations, nor the human desire for tenure, recognition, and the promotion to make more than 20k a year.
      I thought my commented position was obvious regarding the difference between climate change, and poisoning of the biosphere. (it would appear I was not articulate enough) The last time I checked, questioning the validity, and motivations of a scientific hypothesis is an integral part of the scientific process, and should not be internalized as a threat to the scientific establishment. Since most of what we think we know today will be shown to be wrong scientifically in the future, I don't think it is unreasonable to question the present scientific dogma of today. (of course, that is just my opinion, and should be taken as such, an opinion)
      P.S: I am not overly concerned about Alex Jones, his political position, or how much he earns. Considering the revelations that have arisen since Edward Snowden exposed reality for the masses, (obvious to everyone else) at least Alex Jones is directing his energies at the culprits at home, (the real swindlers) instead of profiting by vilifying the victims of their persecution abroad. Take care a_no_n.

    3. There is absolutly no need for you to speak half as complexly as you have there...We have a saying here in blighty, Bulls*it baffles brains.

      In the Skeptical community that same effect is known as the Gish Gallop, named after a chap who was famous for spouting so much overly complicated rubbish in go that it's just too unwieldy and long winded to debunk piece by piece.

      That's exactly what your comment is...a lot of big and complicated words to describe sentiments that could be easily and better laid out in more simple language.

      But besides all of that i think there's one phrase you use that i think describes the inherent problem in your position.

      "So called evidence".

      How incredibly convenient for you to have an intellectual (if somewhat dishonest) get out of jail free card. If someone shows you evidence that runs counter to your opinion, you dismiss it as either junk or fraudulent, dispite there being absolutly no reason for you to do so.

      It's quite showing in your intellectual dishonesty, you aren't prepared to even accept the possible existence of evidence contrary to your beliefs, so you come up with mechanisms to dismiss it, rather than look at it and consider the possibility you might be wrong.

      Furthermore, the difference between Alex Jones and Snowden is that Alex Jones just makes up his accusations as he goes along, whilst Edward Snowden actually did something and got evidence to back up his claims, and made sure everyone got it!

      There are no paywalls on Mr Snowdens agenda...because his is actually based in reality and is important!

      It's utterly disgusting that you think those two people have anything in common whatsoever.

      When you ACTUALLY uncover government secrets you end up having to flee to Russia, you don't wind up negotiating yourself a multi million dollar media career.

      It also seems like a very strange double standard that you have this big conspiracy theory all about swindling money from people...but you just aren't interested in the bank balance of the one obvious swindler on the entire scene.

    4. Man, where to begin. You appear to have a tendency to group separate issues together due to personal bias.
      1) I never stated that Edward Snowden had anything in common with Alex Jones.(one is a hero, the other is not) I merely stated that Alex Jones is irrelevant in his 'swindling' compared to the those who make a killing (literally) off the misfortune of others. (exposed by Snowden) Your obvious hatred of one individual has distracted you from the people who are truly significant in the grand scheme. (Jones is not worthy of my concern - small fish)
      2) My acknowledging the limitations of the scientific process is not a dismissal of science, nor it's facts. It is merely a reminder for everyone to employ critical thinking, regardless of the source. If you truly believe that at this moment science knows everything with irrefutable certainty, then I definitely have some swamp land for you in Florida at a great price if you are interested. I have delved deeply into science, (general relativity, quantum mechanics for example) and accepted many of their axioms, yet my ability to question what I am being told follows the same 'intellectual skepticism' that Ernst Mach conveyed to Einstein.
      3) Your desire for a simple explanation in plain language would seem to have failed miserably since you apparently could not comprehend my original position. (Too many assumptions on your part based upon the limitation of my written word) My attempt at a detailed clarification for your benefit has been met with disdain, and contempt (your welcome) because you are unwilling to address the concerns that I initially raised, and focus instead on my ability to question the status quo, attempting to imply disparity where none exists.
      4) We also have a saying in Canada; 'If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull**it'. Those who can't keep pace in an intellectual discussion, are the same intellectually deficient people who resort to violence or ridicule because their position is so weak, it can't stand the test of debate. (nothing brilliant about that) I am proud to be a heretic, (choose to think for myself) since the alternative is to not question what I am being told, and we all know how that turns out. (Spanish inquisition - if you are not with us, you are against us) Something to consider!
      P.S: It is ironic that you accuse me of dismissing evidence when the point of the documentary is that the actual evidence itself is contrary to the scientific orthodoxy regarding climate change. You might consider listening to what they have to say, and then if you dismiss it, that will be your choice, like I have determined mine. Somehow, I think science will survive, and evolve from that process. (a good thing) Take care, and best wishes a_no_n.

    5. But you're not thinking for yourself.

      To come to your conclusion you have to ignore or dismiss so much evidence...Literally the vast bulk of it...That's not thinking for yourself, it's believing the side with the least amount of evidence.

      You think science will survive, but if everyone id as you did and embraced paranoia, we'd soon find ourselves back in a world where popes make all the important decisions.

    6. Facts and evidence:
      1) the sun is the primary influence on Earth's weather. (hello?)
      2) CO2 does not even compose 1/2 of 1 percent of the biosphere.
      3) Water Vapor is the largest greenhouse gas by far. (there must be too much water vapor in the atmosphere, what are we going to do?)
      4) Analysis has definitively proven the CO2 levels change relative to temperature changes, not the reverse, with a 800 year lag.
      There is no massive evidence for me to dismiss. It is merely logical to dismiss the effects of humanity on the earth because our actions are meaningless, and insignificant compared to the effects of solar influence. I have no doubt that humanity is capable of poisoning the biosphere, (different issue) which has nothing to do with climate change. (stated in my original comment)
      I absolutely support the idea of a symbiotic relationship between humanity, and the planet for the benefit of both, however the awful truth is when the sun dies, so will the planet, period. (we can't save it) What we are talking about is saving humanity, which is beyond my purview, regardless of how self important you believe we are.
      There is no difference between the subjugation of the masses whether it be by religious fervor, political ideology, or the wealthy elite. All of these structures are based on power, and greed, which makes them all the same crap, different pile.
      No one tells me what to believe, or not to believe; I choose for myself, and I am too old to be brainwashed into choosing sides in the bi-polar world that you have embraced. The first sign that someone is not thinking for themselves, is when they are driven by fear. (fear of religion for example)
      P.S: Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, but, great minds talk about ideas! (something you have yet to engage in this discussion) So, please don't respond unless you have something to offer, because you are not going to convert me with tired rhetoric about evidence, that doesn't apply, or exist to begin with.

    7. yeah...the problem with all of that is that you ignore all the the other data that clearly shows humanity has had considerable influence since the industrial age.

      Also, if you're getting tired of Rhetoric, might i advise you stop spewing it and calling it evidence?

    8. Considerable influence on what? climate change, or pollution? If you want clarity, start speaking it, or quit wasting my time!
      P.S: I think you find your position threatened by my original comment because of the number of likes it received. (a few people see it the way that I do) Why don't you watch the documentary, and post a comment debating the issues. All I see is someone who responds to comments he doesn't agree with, yet are unable to produce anything with substance, relying on the present day status quo to defend your position. (unenlightened, doesn't impress me)

    9. well you're just cranking out the logical fallacies aren't you.

      Firstly both.

      There's pollen count data and biological studies going back to the start of the industrial era that clearly show massive spikes in BOTH pollution and climate change that have only built up since.

      Secondly, Loads of people were really into lynching black guys too...that didn't make lynching right and it's why arguments from popularity are logical fallacies.

      Truth is it's far easier to convince idiots that your paranoid conspiracy theory is true, than it is to explain the complex science behind the chaotic nature of weather patterns and all life on earth.

    10. LOL. Pollen count and lynching people have nothing to do with climate change, nor pollution for that matter. (???) If that is all you have, then I rest my case!
      P.S: The sun is not a conspiracy theory.

    11. "Pollen count and lynching people have nothing to do with climate change"

      Neither does the number of likes you recieve...which you'll remember is what i was responding to...try and keep up dear!

      "The sun is not a conspiracy theory"

      No but the suggestion that all of science for the last two hundred years has been a highly organised lie is.

      It's almost as if you don't understand you're own argument...

    12. Never have I stated (or suggested) that 200 years of science was an organized lie, (???) only that many people put all their stock in present belief, without applying critical thinking. (how much we think we know now, will be overturned in the future) Your inability to comprehend what I have posted is due to bias, or you wouldn't imply conspiracy to things I have not stated. That is why you call it 'gish gallop', because you are not actually reading my content without your pre-conceived filter. (it is all in the details)
      You know, In the late 1960's, scientists were certain (and in agreement) that the earth was heading towards global cooling, thus to know where you are going, you must first know where you have been. ( age difference - I can't join all the dots for you)
      The number of people who agree with a statement does not guarantee accuracy, so it is contradictory to use it as a defense (scientific solidarity) to validate a position. (This is critical thinking, not to be confused with thinking critically/judgment without reflection)
      If you feel so strongly about your position, post your thoughts at the top of the page. (put your head on the chopping block, because anything else is really just trolling)
      P.S: I have done all I can to help you overcome this deficiency, so the rest is up to you. (you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink) Take care, and best wishes a_no_n.

    13. Well if you buy into this conspiracy theory about climate change i'm afraid that's exactly what you're suggesting...wether you mean to or not.

      *Sigh* Yes in the sixties scientists thought differently, now they do not think that because they know better...that's because our understanding has matured, technology has developed and we better understand what's actually going on...Scientists changing their mind is evidence of science working the way it should, not some GOTCHA moment.

      Your understanding of science seems to be infantile at best...Also incredibly arrogant that you think you're just waiting for science to catch up with you.

      Please don't spew the nonsence you spew and then call ME a troll for pointing out how wrong you's petty.

    14. Yes, and 50 years from now, scientists will know better again when the sun goes through another of its many unknown cycles. (our sun drives climate change, not pesky humans) At that point, you will again repeat what ever the status quo are telling you like it is the gospel of certainty, (regardless if it contradicts your present position) putting all your trust in others to think for you.
      (how is that working for you?)
      Obviously you are unwilling to post your own position and debate the issues. (because you don't have one) You prefer to start arguments with people who made posts years ago, which makes you a troll because your actions speak volumes more than your comments. (you are a follower) It is precisely because my scientific knowledge outweighs yours by a thousand fold, that I am capable of thinking for myself, as was Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and countless others who were ridiculed by the establishment for what they instinctively knew to be true. What you call arrogance, I call enlightened, and the only thing you have proven is your true nature. Good luck with your future education, you will need it!

    15. But you can't just PRESUME that...I can't even imagine the arrogance it takes to assume that you're something like fifty years ahead of your time.

      Tell you what buddy...try to stop believing in Gravity and see if you float off.

      "Putting all your trust in others"

      But you see i'm not the one putting my trust in others...I trust people who can show me EVIDENCE to back up their claims...YOU on the other hand will believe anything you're told so long as it follows along the lines of what you want to don't need evidence, just a good enough excuse to dismiss anything you don't like the sound of, which is exactly what you've done.

      your entire opinion is based around willful're too intellectually dishonest to even comtemplate the possibility that you might be seem to think that if you jam your fingers in your ears hard enough, and bury your head deep enough into the sand then somehow the evidence that completely destroys your theory will just evaporate and go's pathetic really, like arguing with a child.

    16. Gravity (like the sun) is real, not some hypothesis like 'pollen count' as an indicator that CO2 is causing climate change. You have assumed that my position is based upon other scientists refuting their colleague's belief. Is it your position that some secondary statistical analysis is irrefutable evidence equal to the reality of gravitation, or the sun? Unlike yourself, my hypocrisy is quite limited, especially regarding what is evidence. I also don't accept the hypothesis of dark matter/energy, because it can never be proven, (observed, measured) and is a weak attempt to secure a standard model that is flawed, much like Einstein trying to create a cosmological constant to make his universe stand still. ('the greatest blunder of my career' - Albert Einstein)
      I don't think I am 50 years ahead of science, but I am smart enough to know the difference between rock solid evidence, and 'an attempt' to explain something we haven't even slightest clue about, because our understanding of it is in it's infancy. It amazes me how some people (especially scientists) can't see the forest for the trees because they would rather focus on something that is absolutely insignificant, (1/10 of 1% CO2 in our atmosphere) as the sole cause of climate change (occurring all the time) while dismissing a fusion reaction almost 1 million miles in diameter. (the very life giving breath of everything in this solar system)
      I tell you what, you don't even have to worry about global warming from humans, because the next time our planet takes a direct hit from a decent CME, (coronal mass ejection) it will fry all our electronics, and put humanity technologically back a thousand years, making all your hysteria regarding carbon emissions meaningless.
      Any questions, child?

    17. But you're not smart enough to know the difference between rock solid evidence otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument...In fact you seem completly unable to distinguish between evidence and opinion...

      That einstein quote, clever as it sounds is completly irrelevant to this discussion.

      You say the scientists can't see the wood for the trees...Have you ever actually LOOKED at the evidence? Any of it (because there's entire libraries of it). I'm guessing not otherwise you'd know how utterly dumb it is to dismiss it all the way you do.

      This is kind of my problem, you think that inserting quips and witticisms will somehow make me forget that the only thing you have in support of your position is rhetoric...Meanwhile the scientists are showing me gathered data from across the scientific spectrum going back decades...Meanwhile all you have is whataboutery. and pathetic insults.

      That's why nobody takes you seriously.

    18. I hate to burst your bubble, but you don't speak for 'everyone', and I don't care if the 'nobody's take me seriously, or not. (LOL) While you focus on the little things, ( trees) I look to the larger picture.(forest/destruction - killing our greatest CO2 consumer, bad business model) This is why we have different opinions. You responded to something I wrote several years ago because you were looking for a fight, and you got one.
      No matter how much I want humanity to do the right thing, (symbiosis with earth) I am incapable of deluding myself regarding what is driving society. (power, and greed) While you worry how much carbon is being pumped into the atmosphere, fearing the worst for the planet, I am merely reminding everyone that we are only capable of destroying ourselves, not the planet. (nuclear/biological/ chemical warfare, pollution - poisoning the biosphere) So, be as green as you wish, ( a good thing) but never forget that we are hanging by a thread (security is an illusion) from things far beyond our control. In other words, don't worry about the planet, because it has seen far worse than us.(asteroids, comets, coronal mass ejections, magnetic pole reversals, volcanism, etc and a multitude of other extinction level events that makes our limited scientific knowledge moot)
      Note: Peel back the veil, and you will discover that everyone is really talking about saving humanity. I can guarantee you that nature itself will decide this, not us. Besides, our 200 thousand year existence is nothing compare to the reign of the dinosaurs. (200 million years)
      I leave you with a simple question.
      If the polar regions of Mars are receding as quickly as they are here on Earth, Is humanity to blame for this? (must be those darn Martian landers we dropped on it)
      When you have reconciled this, respond back, and we can pontificate to your heart's desire as to who is right, and who is wrong regarding scientific evidence! At that point, you may even laugh your way back into a civil discussion.
      Take care a_no_n.
      P.S: Facts seldom hold, good theories seldom so!

    19. That reads like some huge nonsense poem.

    20. Your refusal to answer questions opting for insults instead speaks volumes!

    21. What questions, i've just told you i couldn't make sense of any of that?

    22. I rest my case. Take care!

    23. Go awful_truth, you're awesome!

  37. I'm shocked! How could, in this enlightened age, half of all humanity have been hoodwinked into falling for this massive scam? Quite incoceivable. The for-profit media have let us down once again. I'll have to read up on this.

    1. I am not shocked at all. Half of all humanity can be hoodwinked into believing almost anything. Let's see, they believe that man walked on the moon, that millions of jewish people were killed in gas chambers, that Jesus Christ was an actual person and not a mythological one, that vaccines are not harmful, that Arabs flew planes into the twin towers, that children were murdered at a school in Sandy Hook by a psycho kid with a gun, that HIV causes Aids, etc., etc., etc.

    2. I'm shocked that so many people can be hoodwinked into believing it's a scam.

      I guess it's easier for people to be brainwashed of all logic and reason by paranoia than it is for them to accept that maybe their actions have consequences.

  38. ... Humans are made of Carbon, Carbon Dioxide is poisonous to humans. I

  39. I cannot find anywhere else that humans produce less co2 than volcanos, actually I only find that humans produce 135 times more co2 than volcanos
    Also the vapour vapor argument seems not valid, if you search little bit
    I'm really lazy to search any further, it seems biased though

  40. I can't believe that people are still supposing that this film is wrong - the fact is that a lot of people can make a lot of money from the fear mongering that the global warming swindle propagates. Think about it

    -manufacturers can now open new markets by selling electric or hybrid cars supported by legislation that mandates certain carbon emissions,

    -governments can bully through carbon taxes under the guise of being in our best interest

    -Al Gore gets rich from dinner speaking circuit

    -new sub-industries spring up around things like carbon neutral products and construction

    -production of EPCs and SBEM calculations by consultants with fees going to government agencies for something based on completely unproven ideas

    WHAT A SCAM. Face up to it, we are being played like fiddles by the people who run things.

  41. Earth's aerosol production and lapse rate inversions, combined with moist air increases cause clouds. Why do you think we are able to seed clouds during periods of high solar activity. There is a link between "cosmic rays" and clouds, but the extent and importance is still debated. This documentary is using it as a cold hard fact.

  42. Here's something curious...maybe there's no correlation but here it goes: the only scientists that find global warming a hoax are found on these radical documentaries while scientists that teach students in universities are all in agreement.

    1. Why don't you look at what teachers in universities are the ones teaching of the dangers of global warming. They're mainly English and Arts teachers. Look at the actual data and come to a conclusion from that, or you can just continue to be told that you need smarter people thinking for you.

    2. Care to cite some studies on that? I doubt it.

    3. Tony, It is far fetched that all scientists in universities are in agreement on the global warming issue. This means you've interviewed all of them or have seen all of them interviewed (which is quite a task and I'd be very impressed if you pulled that off).

    4. Some of these scientists in the documentary were university professors, silly.

  43. Until we eliminate all of monies tied to everything we see and hear there will never be any real truths. War is more profitable than peace, disease is more profitable than health, polution is more profitable than clean. Pro and Con docs are more profitable than eliminating the real problem " MONEY ". Money is a drug and the junkies will watch us all die before they get reformed. Money based society is the disease that we all have. We need to have a resource base free of MONEY AND POWER.

  44. I liked this doc. until it tries to make solar energy sound as a poor way to go. At that point this doc. came of as pro iol industry.

    1. Did you see the whole documentary? Did you see the specific example given in Africa regarding a doctor's solar panel and how inefficient it worked?

    2. I did financial modeling in my private equity company for one of the world's largest solar powered utility companies and I can say that even with the 33% bonus the gov was pitching in the US they are still highly unprofitable (aka inefficient) and cost more once you replace parts and account for the degragation rates of the panels (the less power they absorb over time so you can build a log curve) It doesn't make sense at today's prices.When you account for that it isn't "free energy forever" like most think once the overhead is paid for

  45. Meh, the politics aside, a pretty poor effort: barely one piece of data, 80% conspiracy theory. Oh, and no mention of methane at all...

    1. Kate, they gave specific data, specific people, and the exact companies the representatives work for. Methane is its own issue I agree, yet the purpose of this documentary is to refute that carbon dioxide causes global warming; as matter of fact it gives some pretty good evidence for what causes it: The Sun's sun spots; go figure that the sun is responsible for heat related issues.


  47. great doc the truth hurts

  48. This documentary is as bad as "No Intelligence Allowed." Please take time and research the individuals interviewed in this program. You will find that individuals were extremely misrepresented, words taken out of context, and peoples professions identity inflated. I mean, don't you find it alarming when a number of charts and explanations in this film aren't claimed? We have unpublished findings coming from unknown sources and they expect you to take it as fact. Not only that, they don't use any recent evidence to deconstruct the human impact theory. I would love to point out every mishap in this film but truly don't have the time or energy. Please fact check for yourself. And while your at it. Check out how real scientific findings are reviewed and published. You'll be astonished and bored at the same time. It's actually the most truth driven institution by far. Shame on you if you take this films word for it without question.

    1. Ya and an inconvenient truth is better? They misrepresented so much information in that video. C02 follows warming not the other way around. Let's face it there is Misinformation on both sides. My technique is seeing who is more full of bs and then choosing the other side. I believe this is how people vote too.

    2. Oh please, the scientific community is far, FAR from perfect. Statistics are twisted every day in all directions. In 2006 Oranges helped prevent cancer, in 2009 they are causing cancer, in the 1970's people are worried about a global freeze, today its global warming. The vast majority of scientific research that the general public hear about was carried out with an agenda in mind. I am not saying this is a good "documentary" but you seem to be angry that it exists? Al gores an inconvenient truth is full of misrepresentations and bad science too

    3. Does the fact that one documentary is full of s*it justify making another one full of s*it? Pardon my language.

    4. Paul, all the sources are clearly marked, and the companies the people interviewed at are also clearly stated.

  49. ... and if you want to know more about cheap forms of energy for Africa, then you should really look at documentaries and reports about oil and gas extraction in Nigeria. Not sure whether that can really be seen as cheap or in any way desirable.
    No one wants to kill the African Dream.
    There are some pretty neat alternatives to oil and gas ... and you can power an awful lot more than a transistor radio with solar power.

    1. I have a friend that attended a seminar promoting solar because he was considering selling solar panels. He declined because he learned that solar panels are terribly difficult to dispose of, and the amount of energy created from them doesn't level out to the cost involved in obtaining or using them.

    2. Yes, and that point was clearly made by the African economist in the film, as well.

    3. No one wants to kill the African Dream?? Not so sure about that...

    4. The downside to solar is the replacement factor and cost involved .
      There is a solar farm near here (15 miles away) where in the 1st 5 years of operation has had to replace 25% of all the many, many panels installed. Value for money? I don't think so.

      And when the subsidies run out you are left with industrial waste in the form of the metal frameworks used to support the panels.
      When these were installed they scraped all the top soil off so it is useless in the future for any agricultural endeavours.

  50. 1) The nitrogen, oxygen and trace gases are not greenhouse gases (GHG). They do not react to the infrared rays from the heated surface of the Earth. Without the GHGs water vapor, CO2, methane and N2O, nights would become extremely cold. The natural greenhouse effect warms our planet by appr. 30 centigrades, and keeps the climate relatively stable. The greenhouse gases, water included, is about 1% of the atmosphere, but that percentage is crucial for advanced life. The oxygen and the nitrogen would be of no help in this respect
    2) Really?
    3) Climate has always changed on the planets around our sun because of varying solar inputs. These variations are called Milankovic cycles. These cycles have in previous times caused climate change over thousands of years. As a rule, CO2 has not been the driving forcing factors, neither on Earth nor on Mars, but rather acted as a feedback mechanism enhancing the original Milankovich warming. Mars is currently a bit closer to the sun than earlier. The slight polar meltings on Mars has nothing to do with CO2. The current problem on Earth is that our burning of fossil fuels are moving carbon stored in the soil to the atmosphere, and thereby has warmed the Earth 1 centigrade in addition to the natural 30 centigrades. This slight warming might not be so problematic per se. It is the feedback mechanisms that eventually will decide the scope.
    4) of course. Nobody disagrees.
    5) meteorology actually knows quite a lot. And climatologists too. There is a significant difference between weather and climate.

  51. I have watched the documentary, and read the blogs, to discover the typical polarized view of agreement, or against. (no balance, just extremes) Here is a few quick thoughts for people to consider.
    1) Atmospheric composition of planet Earth- 78% nitrogen, 18% oxygen, and the remaining 4% composed of trace gases.(argon, kryton, etc) CO2 doesn't even make up 1/10 of 1%.
    2) Although there is no doubt that humanity is polluting the biosphere, this does not infer global warming.(separate issues)
    3) Satellites orbiting Mars for the last 20 years confirms receding polar caps on that planet. Highly improbable that humanity is to blame for this.
    4) The primary cause of weather patterns on the planet is the sun.
    5) While meteorology is in it's infancy( can't predict weather a week from now) atomic physics has a much clearer understanding regarding the sun.

    1) You can't save planet Earth, because 2 billion years from now, it will bake from an aging sun, that will expand in an attempt to maintain the fusion process. What we are really talking about is saving humanity.
    2) Governments will charge enviro tax credits to swindle more money from the taxpayers, to support the corporations that are controlling them now.
    3) Humanity is far to self important to understand what the planet has seen and dealt with it's 4 1/2 billion years of existance. As George Carlin so eloquently put it, " the Earth will shake us off like fleas, a surface nuisance".
    4) Pollute the thin biosphere bad enough, (can't breath 5 miles up) humanity and many other life forms will become extinct. 200 years from than, and you won't even be able to tell we were even here. Since the earth is a self correcting system, it will go back to normal, and live out it's life until the sun says otherwise.
    5) All the green ideas in the world won't amount to anything if we nuke ourselves. Since greed (inequity) is promoted by society, not enlightenment, theft drives the economics of war, the number 1 business worldwide. Since the vast majority of people are brainwashed from all sides, unable to use critical thinking, or stand with integrity for what is right, it is highly probable we will just destroy ourselves, saving planet Earth!

    Any questions???

    1. thank you awful_truth !

  52. More co2 means more food for 7 billion people so is that a bad thing?
    Media is pointing on the melting ice, the government controlls media the government=politicans who see financial gain in it this swindle or not. Some scientists points on the increase of ice which support the oil industry, both sides gain on it both sides got evidence, and we are the target between this war of propaganda no matter how we see it. We cannot predict the weather and we cannot predict what happens in 30 years, i do not think there is reason to panic whatever happens. Havent humans almost been extinct many times before? global warmings comes and goes in the past and ice age seems to happen in sycluses , we survived through the last ice age then we can survive a global warming, just bring it!, Co2 dosnt seem to lead on the temperature which Al Gore states, polar bears are not drowning cause they are already adapting to the enviromental change.

  53. Someone stole our global warming over here:D, cant remember last time we had a decent summer in Norway.

  54. The fossil fuel multibillionaires, the Middle East tyrants and extreme islam living high on the fossil fuel paradigm will do anything to postpone the inevitable paradigm shift from the fossil fuel paradigm to the paradigm of an ecologcally sustainabale future. Errand boys for Big oil CEOs and extreme islam have built this system the last forty years, ensuring a permanent tsunami of petro dollars to the tyrants¨, wahabist missionaries and closed big oil board rooms. Fortunately, there are now no serious technical barriers for replacing oil. It is just political and economical interests of the coal and oil billionaires and extreme religious interests holding the shift back.

  55. Funny thing about all the GW hype is that even if man is responsible for say 15% of any warming (which is a stretch) and we do everything to ease back our emmissions; we may be able to cut it by say 20%. 20% of 15% is 3%. So if we cut everything, tax everyone, bankrupt a few nations, destroy industry. etc etc, each 1 degree rise in temps will be cut to .97 degrees. Lots of bad for very little good. Its hilarious to read all the geniuses talk about GW but none of them realize that nothing short killing about 5 billion people and stepping back to the stone age will actually change anything. Everyone talks about big evil industry but NO ONE has any real plan that would actually help. Wind would fill maybe 2% of our needs, solar barely 5. So what do we do? More ethanol from corn that causes food to go to energy and kills people. (Proven starvation). Unless one of you find some alien technology that magically is cheap and burns clean all the talk in the world is pointless.
    Go live in the bush and turn off all your modern conveniences. Oh wait you dont want to do that do you? Of course not. You want everyone to do something but not you. PS hybrid and electric cars are a net zero help and everyone with half a brain knows that.
    As usual on this subject everyone gets all upset with scary oil companies (although they would profit huge from sanctions) and not one of you actually has an idea on what can PRACTICALLY be done. Not surprised.

    1. I only see two things wrong with your rant. The first is that every tiny bit of saved energy helps. The billions of people that you talk about can all save a bit of energy, and in the process cast a vote for efficiency and a cleaner planet for our children, grand children and beyond - instead of continuing to vote for oil companies, war and continued wrecking of our only planet and home. We can cast billion$ of votes for a cleaner future by sealing our homes and buying based on lifecycle cost instead of cheap junk. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT EVERY PURCHASE IS A VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS. When awareness and demand increase, creativity will be born. The second problem is that there is no alternative. If we do nothing as you seem to indicate, we (you) will be the generation that did nothing when they were at the controls and were entrusted to be the stewards of the planet for future generations.

  56. This film is outrageous, and very dangerous, corporate propaganda. An army of scientists around the world have spent more than two decades painstakingly researching and slowing and meticulously documenting sound verifiable evidence that human activity is indeed causing serious climate change. Corporations spend millions of dollars every year on anti-climate change propaganda. Corporate stockholders don't care about the future of the human race. They only care about keeping their bank accounts as fat as possible in their own lifetime, and to hell with the future. They think they won't be here to suffer the consequences of climate change, so they really just don't care. Don't believe these selfish corporate pricks and their hired gunslinger "researchers" who work for the corporate propaganda machine.

    1. you are wrong

    2. As much as I know with certainty that big business drives much of the nonsense that we see, I am far more certain that the sun drives the earth's weather conditions, not the pesky humans that occupy it. You know we are way to self important, (ungrounded)when we dismiss the obvious!

  57. My feeling regarding the global warming debate is simply that I would much rather err on the side of safety than gamble on the whole theory being a "scam". What if we ignore the warnings of the majority of the world's most respected scientists and it turns out they were right? Of course we have screwed around now in the interests of uninterrupted profits well past the time in which reversing the damage already inflicted can likely be achieved so perhaps we are all wasting our breath(literally) at this stage.

  58. Please note that this movie presents a minority opinion. It is possible that climate change is caused mainly by the sun but it isn't likely.

    1. Brain washed

    2. Yes, this documentary is very one-sided and that's what produced the shock effect - all these specialists representing only one side of the story and no one there to point out any possible fallacies or counter-arguments. I'm having second thoughts and beginning to doubt the veracity of this film.

      (by the way, something keeps changing my orthography, capitalising words, etc. Anybody else having this Problem?)

  59. Professor James Lovelock no longer believes in the global warming scam. Mainly because the facts do not stack-up but also he see it for what it is - a scam religious belief system.

    In 1989, the experts concluded that the US was not warming. Hansen's 1999 graph agreed...Phil Jones also agreed that the US was not warming.
    But then the pennies dropped as funding was the question. No warming means no funding and no massive ego trip, so Hansen fixed the temperature record in the year 2000 to produce a lot of US warming prior to 1989.

    Oh, and the skeptics are funded by who? I think that trying to pin the oil companies to them is a bit of a reach - google Al Gore Occidental Oil. Big money WANTS and NEEDS global warming because they will control you through quotas to their very expensive commodity. Is it in the interests of oil companies, and their shareholders, for them have oil cheap or expensive?

  60. You have over 30,000 scientists around the world researching and accumulating evidence that demonstrates human activity is causing climate change, and a dozen or so "scientists" employed, directly or indirectly, by the corporations, who say it's a hoax. Why in God's name would you choose to believe the gunslingers from the corporations over the army of concerned scientists around the world????? Please.

    1. lol @ "corporations" you do realize GW being real would not hurt oil companies, so why would they care. If you had any clue about how business works you wold realize GW and alternate energy reaches wold actually benefit Big Oil. I do enjoy how all the alarmists blame big oil for everything. It is rather amusing.

    2. Give me references on youre army of scientists please.

  61. This film is nothing but corporate propaganda -- and very dangerous propaganda at that. Corporations spend millions of dollars every year on misinformation and outright lies, trying to convince people that climate change is a hoax. No sane, decent, halfway intelligent person could examine the real evidence and still imagine it is a hoax. Greedy, spectacularly selfish stockholders are happy to destroy our climate stability for the sake of a few more dollars. The filthy stinking rich selling out the future of humanity itself, just so they can be even more filthy, more stinking, and more rich. Only the willfully ignorant and highly paid willful deceivers will try and claim that climate change is not real or largely due to human activity. Get real, get informed, and get on the ball -- before it's too late.

    1. The "real" evidence. You mean the fact that everything the scaremongers say is going to happen is NOT happenning. You mean that? I guess in the 1300's when Greenland was Green, that must have been too. Hell it could never be a cycle, or urbabization, or heat islands, or overpopulation or a million other factors. It MUST be carbon. Who cares that one good volcano burb spews as much "harmful" gasses as we do in a year. Ah who cares that means nothing. Nevermind looking at the proof of who will actually profit form GW legislation.

    2. Just like greedy, filthy stinking rich Politicans are!? They make billions on theyre lies like the insane all gore who received a Nobel Peace Prize for making the world aware of a crisis. Ironically, the real crisis is one he contributed much to create–one of mass hysteria promulgated through deceptively contrived alarmist propaganda. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain.

  62. YES,it's like needing OIL and RESOURCES so you attack the East and invade the people .The people in the east want to kill you so they blow up the towers or you do it yourself.The next thing you tell the people out of FEAR that we must fight for freedom.The only peiople that need freedom are the countries you invade for oil.

    Then you use fear to explain the warming and cooling cycles long before cars and carbon burning.Then you get money using fear because your fighting for the earth.Who wouldn't fight for the earth LOL.

  63. what a joke , i like to watch documentary's but this one disgusts me. no answers from a panel of stupid scientist who get paid to confuse and lie.
    if i was in the audience i would have got up and left after they refused to answer the first persons question about coal aging.
    whats that saying "if your not part of the solution your part of the problem"
    here's a saying for you scientists "we scientists question everything and answer nothing" ...perfect description

  64. The best thing I like about topdocs is that they put all documentaries on it, including the one(s) funded by oil corporations and right wing think tanks! Climate change as a hoax is total BS, just like depletion of the Ozone was a hoax, until "Scientific Data" proved it wasn't. Data also proves that Global Warming, aka Climate Change is also happening, and is "caused" by human "activity".

    The rise in ppm (parts per million) of CO2 in the atmosphere is a very bad thing for our Planet. Too much CO2 creates a "bathtub" effect whereas the water has no place to go, but when it does find that place, releases in torrents of extreme weather, which we have already seen in the last few years. Add to that extra CO2, Methane, (trapped under melting Siberian permafrost), to the equation, and you have a gas that is 20 times more potent than CO2. Sure over millennial, Earth's ecosystems have corrected themselves, but this may take thousands of years to do.

    Exponents are what the scientific community disregard at their/our peril. Once a system, such as the "water cycle" is disrupted, it in turn disrupts other importance cycles, such as annual rainfall, crop yields and areas where droughts are prevalent. You cant grow food with too much cloud cover, too much rainfall (or a lack thereof), or on land as dry as a "dust bowl".

    1. Oh please.

      You're so thoroughly indoctrinated in climate models this Documentary along with some of the worlds leading scientists clearly disprove it's a wander you didn't have a heart attack.

      YOU need them to be wrong. YOU need to discredit them. Or admit you're a douche in-front of all the people you have and have tried to sell this "Hypothesis"

      Gore deserves an Oscar. Not an award for promoting disproved scientific theory. That he stood to benefit from financially to a spectacular degree.

      We should be using cleaner fuels and renewable energy. That's a sustainable, maybe the only way.

      Oil is far from unlimited.

      However this is a con. No less than the Monetary Market system. No less than the delusion that any of us in the west live in a Democracy.

    2. ...Your a broken record, vomiting out what you have been indoctrinated with doesn't help your case. Just makes you seem like a big F**king tit.
      According to your statement " Data also proves that Global Warming, aka Climate Change is also happening, and is "caused" by human "activity" "

      I ask does our current population of 7 billion and growing; breathing in and out, ex-hailing C02. Make you wet your sheets?
      Or is the horrific amount of cow flatulence (that we apparently should tax) more of the cause?

  65. Should we be rebuilding Noah's Ark or not?

    This documentary revisits the global warming scare by identifying the Sun as the major culprit in higher surface temperatures. And, did they actually mention cosmic rays?

    Here's the schpiegl: Cosmic rays bombard evaporating water particles from the sea to create water vapour. The water vapour turns into clouds which shields the surface from solar rays thereby reducing the surface temperature. When the solar activity is high, the cosmic rays are blown off from a solar wind and, as result, causes surface temperatures to increase.

    If Al Gore's explanation was an inconvenient truth, then, I guess, this would be... science fiction?

    I'll say it again, the inconvenient truth is that we don't really know what's going on with the global climate system. But I am glad that a healthy debate continues.

  66. Well, listen to the questions the audience asks right at the end of the debate. I can't recall if they answered ONE. Mostly they said I'll take it as a statement and move on. Or laughed in their face and moved on. If you really want I can transcribe the questions and answers, but it's quite sad how they treat the audience.

  67. OMG the debate is so closed minded and almost NO answers to audience questions..."We'll take that as a statement and move on." etc. Curious, no?

    1. Which question are you thinking about in particular?

    2. Well, listen to the questions the audience asks right at the end of the debate. I can't recall if they answered ONE. Mostly they said I'll take it as a statement and move on. Or laughed in their face and moved on. If you really want I can transcribe the questions and answers, but it's quite sad how they treat the audience.

  68. Very good documentary.

    I loved Al Gore's documentary "The Inconvenient Truth" especially the huge graph that shows the correlation with CO2 and temperature. However I was not paying close enough attention with regards to what leads what.

    What I did notice was that the Earth had had seven previous ice ages occuring on average every 75,000 years and lasting on average for 25,000 - 50,000 years. The ice core record went back 650,000 years.

    So I immediately began to question the core assumption that man was causing global warming, because industrial civilization hadn't been around to warm the planet for the previous 6 glaciation periods going back 650,000 years.

    The graphs correlating sunspot activity and global temperatures were very well done.

    The graphs showing temperature leading the increase in CO2 were also well done.

    The next 4 years from 2011 to 2015 should show an increase in global temperature as we enter into the next solar maximum based on the evidence tying global temperatures to sunspot activity. With sunspot activity increasing to its maximum in 2013 to 2014 as part of the normal 11 year cycle of the sun. The current sunspot cycle 24 began in 2009. 2008 was the end of sunspot cycle 23 with no sunspot activity.

    From the early 1970's to 2011 I have personally witnessed a dramatic change in temperatures in the Ottawa, Canada area. The winter temperatures have warmed considerably. And this year in 2011 warmer temperatures are the norm. Not good for Ottawa Rideau Canal skating.

    So how long has the Earth been warming up overall?

    I estimate 20,000 years since the galciers began melting back.

    An asteroid strike in 10,000BC halted the retreat of the glaciers for 1,500 years but since 8,000BC the warming trend has more or less generally continued with the only cooling periods in the Maunder minimum 1400- 1450's and again from 1940 until 1980.

    Sunspot activity and solar output seems to be the principal cause of global warming and global cooling on the Earth.

    With cooling factors being super volcano eruptions and large asteroid strikes both of which that throw up enough dust to block out the sun's rays / reflecting the sun's rays back into space.

    1. hi my names Andy. after reading this post I've decided to recogmend another excellent vid regarding climate change and al gores smoking gun that infamous graph. The vid is called Global Warming Called Off and you can view it on the browse list section of this web page. If you haven't already.
      Arnie I'm not a particularly smart guy I left school aged 14 but I believe it's up to each one of us to make known the fact that the general concensus amoungst most scientist is that global warming isn't made made rather a natural occurance.

      Anyway just thought I'd mention this.
      bye pilgrim001

  69. the people who believe in man made global warming fall into the same category as the people who believe in god, people who play the lottery, and people who would rather make excuses to protect their ego than to hold them selves accountable for their mistakes and better them selves.

    1. a person can believe in God and still believe that global warming is a sham. spirituality and logic are two different things.

  70. As somebody (i couldnt remember his name) few threads before have used the jargon of science to explain the phenomena of warming of rooms with AC when the room is overcrowded with people exhaling CO2 and hence CO2 contributing in the increase of room temperature .....LOLZ ... actually when a room is overcrowded the rise in temperature is attributed to the heat radiated from the bodies of the people (the phenomena which keeps you warm in blankets) adding to the humidity of the room due to exhaled water vapors ... dude correct your basic sciences ... ;)

  71. Whatever you have said is in the context of geopolitical/economical scenario while completely lacking the scientific dimension . The foremost reason not to guzzle the fossil fuels unnecessarily should be the scarcity and limitations in availability of the fossil non-renewable energy resources for our future generations . Your argument that the science (or psuedo-science) to halt the research in developing any alternative energy sources by mis-information on the possible role of man-made global warming is completely irrelevant , the re-search and development for alternative renewable resources is under progress not because of possible environmental hazards due to fossil fuels BUT because the science (and the scientists) knows that these fossil fuels are gradually and inevitably been depleting everyday ... they know that we will definitely resort to other resources in future . Very similarly the reasons for our restricted consumption of fossil fuels should primarily be the limitations in there availability and never essentially the "man-made global warming" because the facet of environmental issue as our fear factor will contribute (and is contributing) enormously in "de-industrialization" of 3rd world nations which may adversely , perhaps catastrophically , effect the mere survival of these developing/underdeveloped regions of the world . Global warming as a pandemic "boogieman" will not only fuel up the concept of CARBON TAXES being drawn from the people and poorer nations but will also eventually facilitate the formation of "new world order" as fantasized by elites controlling the US of A .... Volcanoes and Oceans release the major percentage of all green house gases (including the minor ones like CO2) into our atmosphere ... the chronological evidences and analogy of earth's climatic history reveals that the periods of warming and cooling of our environment is unrelated to the CO2 %age in the atmosphere , its infact the CO2 level is related and dependent on earth's temperature and climate ... SUN is undoubtedly the protagonist in controlling and effecting the climate on Earth and thats something which is deliberately being veiled by the fear mongers of manmade global warming .

  72. Every hour year round humans use energy corresponding to 10 million barrels of oil. This in turn corresponds to burning roughly an olympic sized swimming pool filled with oil every second, every day, year round, year after year. Most of this energy comes from fossil fuels, controlled by a few persons. In fact, so few that they probably all know each other more or less personally.

    If you consider that the global economic turnover of coal-, oil- and gas products amounts to over hundred billion dollars per day it is understandable that the handful of people making their profits from this turnover are reluctant to see it go. They also have considerable power to keep the fossil fuel paradigm going some more years, even if this is not in the interest of the people of the world in general. This handful of superrich people finances lobby groups, spin-doctors, so-called skeptics and other "errand-boys", think-tanks, PR-enterprises and media empires to manipulate public opinions, politicians, financial institutions and research institutions to delay or stop development of alternative, environmentally friendly energy sources. They try to convey the impression that they represent status quo, while their opponents represent irresponsible economic experiments. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry are running the biggest experiments in human history. All living organisms are "guinea pigs"

    The real swindlers are these errand boys for the coal and oil industry, willing to do anything to please their multibillionaire masters in Texas, california and Saudi-Arabia

    1. Brilliant comment. One minor grammatical error (see "This handful..."), but otherwise, I could not have come close to putting it any better than that. Cheers. :)

    2. Show some proof buddy. The data says different sorry man, but if you honestly think about every single volcanic region on earth, that is spewing up the fumes from superheated burning raw oil. Are you really this ignorant? Think ABOUT what you are implying, and if you consider natural outputs of c02 you will quickly see that you are decieved.

  73. True or not, the whole global warming debate serves as nothing more than a distraction, so as to carry on business-as-usual.. because, until an issue is resolved, there can be no action.

    1. i asked my son, who is the smartest person in the world-imo, about global warming cuz i dont know a thing about science and he is a phd hi energy physicist, [harvard, princeton, stanford, cern, nasa]. he is familiar with the cloud chamber at cern where they r doing research on how much g warming is from sun activity and cloud whatever. he says the cern research is confirming that while the sun is affecting gw, it is marginal in comparison to the impact that man is having. bcuz there r so many interrelated factors that affect weather, scientists can never resolve EXACTLY how much each factor is contributing, but there is increasing evidence that man is playing a very significant role. to say that we should wait until the issue is RESOLVED is like saying we should have done nothing about smoking until we cd determine exactly what percentage various factors like smoking habits, genetics, environment, diet, exercise, lifestyle, etc contribute to lung cancer. the factors just cant be completely teased apart and isolated and would vary with the individual. u can never prove that smoking was the causal factor in a single case of lung cancer, but scientists have determined that it is a significant contributing factor in lung cancer. if we had waited til the issue could be resolved to an exact certainty, we would never have done anything. same with warning people about weight and heart disease.
      among the science community, the issue has been resolved. the consensus is that man is a big contributing factor. the problem is that the general public hasnt been persuaded. if u look in the financial news, all the reports are intended to convince people that there is no scientific consensus, which is not the case. but the financial media has a vested interest in supporting the energy industry and their reporting is twisting and slanting the sci research. you sd be very suspect of reporting where people have a financial interest at stake. g-w is a scientific issue that has major political and economic implications. ppl with political and economic agendas are not the people to trust in providing sci info, but they are the people who control the media.
      on the up side, my son said that people will adapt and survive. on the down side, he says the predictions are that by mid to late century, we will see massive migrations and starvation. scientists havent resolved exactly whether man's contribution is 35% or 85%, but they believe it is significant and will prove disastrous and deadly to millions of people-so, in spite of some uncertainty, for the sake of future generations, we sd not wait to try to mitigate a catastrophe.

    2. wow. another awesome comment. thank you!! :)

  74. O my god i have to stop driving car,heating house ,just about every thing I DO .even riding a bicycles,for you have too use oil to make, everything is made from oil

    1. The proposal is to return to more "environmentally conscious" ways of living. Personally, I think this is a rather pea-brained suggestion, as it is the technological economy which allows us to reproduce like rabbits, and have all of our children survive to adulthood. And now, in an effort to address all of the impending failures of the modern world, we propose to maintain all of those children in a live state, whilst eliminating all of the technologies which sustain them. It can't be done!

      I see fun times ahead!

  75. Many measures to reduce environmental pollution are highly worthwhile, even essential.

    Both air and water pollution must be addressed. We should consider alternative means of transportation, such as bicycles and other Human Powered Vehicles.

    I myself have not owned a car for the last 20 years, even though I am a performance car enthusiast who used to love American muscle cars such as the GTO and British and Italian two seat roadsters such as the MGA, TR3, and Alfa Romeo Spyder. Instead, I have ridden bicycles and used mass transit all that time.

    But to erroneously attribute global warming to CO2 alone, and human generated CO2 specifically, does not appear to be scientifically sound reasoning.

    1. You're right about that. My greatest worry is what future performance cars will be powered on, because crude oil resources are disappearing like an ice cube in the sun (which is another reason not to worry too much about "global warming" hypotheses, that's never taken into account by "popular" media).

  76. Excellent video!

    Mankind does indeed need to stop doing certain things.

    For example, I am appalled by the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. We cannot be cavalier about fouling our own nest. We should make use of environmentally friendly materials instead of plastics. Those plastics that we do use should be recycled.

    But global warming is not necessarily the result of human technology. We must remain rigorously scientific, and do the kind of research that these Politically Incorrect scientists have done.


  77. Im thankful for Global Warming!!!It is what got us out of the last ice age!!!

  78. Positive radiative forcing from solar irradiance only accounts for something like .12 watts/meter squared on an 11 year cycle. reactionary Fox News watching dim wits

    1. that sun your talling about.positive radiative,. what the hell do think keep this plant alive .So what do you think, that the ice they drill , came from some freezer in some one home. come on !!!!!!.

  79. @Sarah

    To begin to understand a little more about humanity's effect on climate I suggest that a place to start is the Keeling Curve. Another thing that you should seriously consider is something called The Precautionary Principle.

    The only hope for mankind, Sarah, is via erudition. Look into it ...........

  80. I d i o t s is a banned word?

    Thats a bit more then funny...........

  81. Solar forcing is not the cause and this isnt a 'documentary',ita a pile of propaganda written by shills for idiots.

    1. are you nuts ? your tell me that the SUN dosn,t matter

    2. Denial is the first stage.

    3. OMG, your nickname really suits you.

  82. Sarah,

    In the 1970's we had 3 billion people today we have 7 billion people that has a major impact on our planet. We have created major deforestation through out the world, we have been using pesticides which are killing many species of animals and harming humans with asthmas, cancer and etc. The Mayan empire collapsed because of deforestation. Easter Island collapsed because humans used all the resources on that island. Unfortunately we are a global world today and we are destroying the world daily buy our consuming the worlds resources. I haven't even gotten into global warming. We are pulling the strings of the spider web and when you pull the right string the web collapses. WE are almost there. I doubt if we have 30 years left before humans start becoming extinct.

    1. I lol'd at the last sentence. Please do (more) unbiased research on this whole issue... For YOUR sake.

    2. Please try not to laugh at people who are only trying to help you see what your beloved technology is doing to your world... For YOUR sake.

  83. It saddens me that people still confuse "is the planet's climate changing" with "has humankind caused a climate change." These are two different arguments. To be animate in swearing that the climate is changing is in no way the same as saying that Man, or humankind, is causing that change. This confusion is one way that people like Al Gore has been successful. They have managed to muddle and confuse the issue enough that most debates on climate change have become, well, confused.

    We do need to be environmentally responsible. We are not, at present. My opinion is that, if you think humans are causing any change in global climate, then you think humans are much, much more powerful than they actually are. We, even with our self destructive ways, are little more than a gnat's fart in our effect on overall global climate.

  84. Prof. Andrew Pitman is a buffoon. He first makes the erroneous assertion that the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant, because of his assertion that even the tiniest amount of CO2 is a detriment to the climate, which is a completely false statement. It takes giga-tons of the stuff to have any significant effect; the amounts individual humans put into the atmosphere has not been proved to be globally significant at all. The eruption of just one Volcano and the decaying forest floor put out more CO2 and other greenhouse gases than all human industry combined.

    Then the buffoon compares it to an Ebola virus; an utterly idiotic analogy, not just a bad analogy, utterly moronic. CO2 does NOT "infect" the atmosphere and then self proliferate, nor is every virus as virulent as Ebola. CO2 isn't even anywhere near as bad a greenhouse gas as methane, yet methane has an incredibly short half life comparably to CO2. I have a better analogy; saline. CO2 is like injecting normal saline into your blood, a little bit won't do much and your body will soon pass it out. It would take a massive dose, all at once, to make a significant impact on your body; it is the same with CO2. That nutty Ebola analogy has to be the worst I've ever heard. I wonder how that twit ever got a PhD.

  85. The best thing about this doc is it highlights a difference of opinion. A fact that was claimed to not be happening by Al gore.

    The ice core records are considered by some to not be accurate, as the C02 gets forced out at high pressure and show measurements lower than they actually are. Plant stomata are considered to be more accurate.

    Pollution is bad, no doubt about it. Our food production is messed up, we eat too much meat.
    Getting used to the idea that things change and there are some things about our world we can't change is something we'll just have to deal with though.

    The cost of energy production from wind farms is higher than regular fossil fuels, it's subsidised by the taxpayer to boot. It isn't even remotely capable of standing against hydrocarbons but it IS lucrative, if you think that the energy companies (in this case hydrocarbon based) are against that principle then you must be mad.

    1. "considered by some to not be accurate" ... Who, pray tell?

  86. Crow you are one hugely misinformed person. "The oceans are almost absorbed out". You must be one of the new scientists.

  87. This documentary is a total political propaganda. If you search this film on Wikipedia, you will see a lot of scientists had complained about this documentary and stated "misrepresentations of facts and views".

    The MIT professor, Carl Wunsch, who is featured in this documentary wrote a complain to the producer because he is misrepresented in the film. At the end, he was forced to hire a solicitor in the UK.

    This documentary is probably funded by oil companies and people like George W. Bush.

    At this moment, the facts are pointing towards we are the cause of global warming and weather changes. If we do not do something right now, we will not live to see the future.

    1. This is how misinformation works.. First, you interview a bunch of 'experts'.. Then you rearrange selected quotes, so that it sounds like they are confirming whatever 'truth' you want your story to convey.. And then you gamble on your presentation producing more revenue and swaying of public opinion than it absorbs in the form of lawsuits and bad press. And if it airs on one of the major networks then few are likely to contest it, as their case is already lost in the court of public opinion.

    2. And so nobody thinks I am being biased... Misinformation exists in equal measure on BOTH sides of ANY argument.

      Three sides to every story: Yours, Mine, and The Truth. I see debate as a good way of never having to come to grips with that reality.

  88. Wow. I am very shocked by this. I have personally felt a little iffy about some of the arguments for man-made global warming, but this really provides some compelling arguments. I still see the vast public appeal towards environmentalism as good. It can help industrialized countries seek new heights with less pollution. But the fact that these aspirations are being forced on less economically developed countries is terrifying. It literally strangles the opportunity to implement the most fundamental economic approaches to growth and development.

  89. @ Fred,

    Do you really think I need to be serious talking to someone so obviously mind-blind.

  90. owl 06/03/2010 at 21:29 Interesting enough 70% of our oxygen comes from plankton in the oceans. We have just created a major dead zone in the gulf of Mexico because of the oil spill. Would not be surprised if this is the string on the spider web that may cause the final collapse of life as we know it.
    Look up the facts total ecological damage done by gulf spill exponentially less than that of the Exon valdez wreck off of Alaska. A fine example of how they have upped the propagandized fear tactics in todays world.
    @ The poster who mentioned that AC works less in a packed room than in a room with one occupant. "CO2 causes this" you are the perfect patsey for these GW fearmongers. For one human body temp average is 98.6 the more people radiating 98.6 temperature into a controlled environmet the hotter it gets. Just think if you put 1 space heater in a room it is less hot than if you put 20 space heaters in a room. AMAZING HUH. Secondly, air flow, that AC unit in that room depends on being able to circulate the air in that room to "condition" it. the more obstructions there are in the room the harder it is to do that job. Try this test. Run a standard window unit AC in an empty room and check temp. now put 25 temperature neutral maniquins into the room and i garantee you will see temp changes. You focus on one explaination while you ignore all the rest that makes you a BAAAAAAAA d scientist.

  91. Road to hell is paved in good intentions bro. These charities hold these countries down they don't bring them up It doesn't work and they use deceit to guilt you into giving moneywhich goes into their own greedy pockets and that is a fact that's been documented well. Anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads up not get into an arguement. I felt it would be better to refer you to first hand knowledge rather than second.This is totally off topic from this thought provoking doc so in closing;


  92. @ Young

    That doesn't really relate to how they contort statistics!

    I have spoken to many people in developing countries who have good things to say about Oxfam and other INGOs. There are also some I have met who have negative things to say, but this has nearly always been in relation to their top-down organisational structure which perpetuates a Northern idea of development or their lack of consultation with local NGOs which diminishes the ability of such NGOs to function to their full potential (they often lose resources and good employees to international NGOs).

    Nothing is as black and white as you seem to be painting it. Yes, some charity organisations are unhelpful some of the time. They can sometimes even have negative impacts. However, it is important to remember that they also have highly positive impacts and that most of them have the best of intentions.

  93. @fred

    If you have any Africans in your community that have had OxFam come and "help" them while they lived in Africa ask them about it. Not just OxFam. You'll be suprised. I have not talked to a single one that had something good to say about any charity organization in their original communities.

  94. @ WTC7

    You need to add more straw to that strawman. Even a blind person could see through it.

  95. @ young

    The Oxfam link has nothing to do with statistics. In fact, in their campaign paper on world trade issues they use the World Bank's statistics.

    Most organistions contort statistics for their own benefit (the World Bank is very guilty of this. In fact, they have even used the same statistical findings to entirely different political ends depending on who has been in charge at the time. Furthermore, by using different methods to interpret the same data, different outcomes can be found. For an interesting academic study on the inaccuracies in statistics to do with global poverty see:

    Wade, R.H. (2004) 'Is Globalisation Reducing Poverty and Inequality?', World Development, 32(4): 567-589

    Finally, I would be interested to know any reliable sources you have to confirm what you say about Oxfam. I need proof before I can accept any such claim. Thanks

  96. @fred

    Just a heads up. OxFam is one of the most deceitful big aid organizations in exsistence and are well known for contorting statistics to meet their benefit.


  97. @Fred - Spot on mate!

  98. Ok, I have a proposal to all those who are so unequivocally certain about the anthropogenic global warming. And since it appears they are so many and are all so concerned about the future, should they all accept my proposal, I think we will be saved. I suggest you do the following:

    - Sell your cars, lawn-mowers, motorbikes, tractors, boats, etc. - they are pollutants.

    - If you travel somewhere, don't use public transport such as trains, busses, plains, etc. these are pollutants too and the less people are using them they may eventually become redundant (but you always have an option such as your feet, bicycles, horse-carts, canoes, etc.).

    - Pay all your electricity bills and call the electric company to cut you off from the system - the less people use electricity, the less oil is used to pollute the planet.

    - If you are working in an industrial plant, which is considered a pollutant, a gas-station, or you have a job that is somehow related to the industries that pollute, resign and don't ever, ever buy anything produced in such industries (don't worry, that still leaves you consumption of certain organic foods, which are a bit more expensive but it's worth it) and who knows, if there is no workforce, and no consumers, these industries may just close down.

    - Write to your political representatives, especially those who share your concern about anthropogenic global warming, and instruct them that use of all, absolutely all, military equipment and crafts is to be immediately stopped.

    - Find Al Gore (and perhaps the scientist from the discussion panel, who thought everything skeptics on the panel said was so funny) and then swim (or canoe) to Africa - it's a beautiful continent (I've spent a few months in Kenya)... and very poor.... but I'm sure you will be happy there as you will not be polluting the planet any more... well, not that much anyway, 'cause you will still be breathing....

    So that would leave a few to continue to pollute the planet for a short while longer until everything shuts down and we start a happy hunter-gatherer society anew.

    I am eager to hear alternatives.

  99. @Fred,
    I stand corrected, I must admit I was confused as to what neo-liberalism means, I looked it up. Guess I should have done that first. Its funny how the conservitaves end up using a term like neo-liberal to express the old idea of classical liberalism. I then agree with most of what you say. Thanks for the discussion.
    Now quit procrastinating and get back to fuelling our weakly regulated capitalistic globalized society. In other words get back to work. lol. (Your longer response appears to have been posted).

  100. @ snapgator

    I wrote out a long response yesterday, but for some reason it's not here. Anyway, basically what it said was: I'm not American and neoliberalism is nothing to do with being a liberal - it's to do with a revival of classical economics, free trade (liberalising markets), privatisation, the Washington Consensus etc

    @ gto

    I don't have an answer to which system, but certainly something much more mixed than today and involving much more deliberative democracy and equality. We cannot continue to prioritise increasing GDP above everything else and consumption needs to be balanced and ecologically sustainable.

  101. @fred

    "Globalisation can function perfectly well if it isn’t in a capitalist framework"? then what kind of system do you want?
    i hope its not comunism cause thats d#mn...

  102. @fred

    I think you're confused as to the difference between what a liberal and a concervative is and which way their views tend to swing. Accumulation of wealth, maximising consumtion, and if you were adding to what yamato_kev said, free trade, and military industrial complex (things you have mentioned). These tend to be driven by the right wing a little more than the left. But I can see where you may get confused because most politics in the United States (which is where I am assuming you are from) tends to be on the right. The Democats may be called left wing but they are just closer to center than the Republicans, they still hold fairly right wing views. We can thank the right wing for things like free trade in Canada and the U.S. (If your not American I apologize for the assumption).

    I think you may find that someone who is truly a Liberal would tend towards ideas that promote less consumption, more social and ecconomic equality, and less military. Of course if you go too far to the left you get communism and too far to the right you get fasism, and at that point your screwed either way.

  103. @Fred

    I'll drink to that mate. Cheers

  104. @Yamato

    Haven't seen it yet mate. Will surely do so at some point.

    Just one little addition to what you said: globalisation in itself (a very broad and necessary process) is not behind the over-exploitation of resources. It is the neoliberal economic agenda which has driven much of recent globalisation that is the problem. Globalisation can function perfectly well if it isn't in a capitalist framework which prioritises the accumulation of wealth, maximising consumption and reducing costs in a naive quest for economic 'efficiency'.

  105. @Fred - Cosign on consumjption patterns. I'm still researching using all types of media. There are are too many agendas and honestly when you follow the money and see who's really behind some of these 'scientists', and look at the way its being rammed down people's throats....I dunno. As they say time will tell.

    With regard to your thoughts on carbon I disagree. I am tired from shooting hoops the whole day so I wont get into that.

    Agree with you on the carbon fuels and unsustainability....but it the same light think about the military industrial complex, 'globalisation', 'free trade', etc....and you see the forces behind the over-exploitation of this valuable resource.
    Anyway...aluta continua. Have you watched 'Collapse' by the way? Peace

  106. Falcon ...... anthropogenic CO2 IS a pollutant in that it is the product of fossil fuel combustion. CO2 produced via cellular respiration in plants and animals is NOT a pollutant. And, the source of CO2 in combustion products can be traced by using by measuring isotope ratios.

    The problem here is that the Fox News watching American public is scientifically illiterate and accordingly will align themselves with "opinions" supporting their reactionary political agenda rather than actually taking the time to read and try to understand the science that has now accumulated over two decades worth of data and supporting evidence.

    AND, it is truly Id***** to subscribe to a belief that the Mayans or any other ancient civilization, had knowledge of Milankovitch cycles or solar variations.

  107. @ Yamato

    I agree that there is a need to change production/transport methods in the west and to protect vital ecosystems. Don't forget the equally vital needs of changing consumption patterns and the rules of the trading system.

    In making your conclusions about the causes of climate change I hope you have done much more research than watching documentaries.

    The reason that proponents of the movement say that a majority of scientists agree is because this is the truth. There is a near consensus among climate scientists that the causes of exaggerated climate change are anthropogenic; the increase in carbon emissions being a large part of the problem (and please note that there hardly exists a full consensus with anything in this world - there will always be people who disagree even with the most well-established findings).

    Carbon is only 'efficient' if you follow the traditional capitalist agenda which ignores social and environmental externalities, degrading ecosystems and accentuating inequalities between the rich and poor. The use of carbon-based fuels is (in the long run) unsustainable with current levels of consumption and production.

  108. @Fred - Thanks for putting that article....but don't forget to add - "It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers."
    If climate change/global warming is an area of 'legitimate dispute' why do proponents of this movement say that a majority of scientists agree?
    Is it funding?
    Why is it we never hear of the opponents of this idea on the Media, especially here in Kenya or Africa for that matter?

    There are a few thinks I am coming to believe myself -

    There are a group of people and institutions pushing global scams. They have been for quite a long time. If you listen to JFKs speech and watch Edward G. Griffins doc 'The Capitalist Conspiracy' then you decide. They control banking, debt, military, medicine and are now aggressively going after food now.

    Climate change - always happens
    Global warming - is happening
    Global warming is caused by CO2 - Uhh...No.

    Another thing you need to watch is 'COLLAPSE' by Michael Ruppert.

    Connecting the dots is what I've been doing for the last 2 years. I prefer to try and decide things myself than, and I quote Immortal Technique, let anyone, "decide my politics". Or what is true or false. We in LDCs are always being forced to take a lot of BS from these institutions.

    I mean...Solar and Wind power? cannot beat Carbon. you just can' is too efficient. Lest we forget, it is not a pollutant.

    I think we need to focus on:

    Changing production methods and transport paradigms in 'the west' - Especially in the US.

    Plant more trees, and increase protection of forests.

    Anyway, nuff ranting....

    No large scale farming.

  109. I can't believe some of the replies on this documentary!
    Did I watch a documentary on global warming caused by the SUN?
    To listen to some of these neanderthals above, you would think we were watching all the Worldly destruction caused by the OIL Companies.
    People this is real, the SUN IS getting more violent and this causes our tiny world to get hotter. FACT!

  110. 1st off, I admit that I used to agree (to a certain extent) that global warming was an important environmental issue caused by modern man and his strive for industrialization on a global scale. But people, step outside and feel the SUN shining on you. Is it not frighteningly warm?
    Did the Ancient Egyptians, the Mayans and all of the other ancient races of our world history predict anything to do with global warming caused by man? No! They did however through their extensive knowledge of the cosmos see this predicament coming. 2012 is not just a film made by a Hollywood film company. They knew the SUN would have a very chilling (no pun intended ha-ha) and dramatic effect on our climate.
    This Environmental Issue is a pursuit of Governmental Blindness and misdirection to make it seem that we are to blame.
    How can any Individual with any common sense and a brain as well as eyes let people DIE in their MILLIONS??? Because our so called Governments tell us that if these so called 3rd World countries were to get any sort of Industry it would be the beginning of the end for everyone? These are the same governments who constantly lie to us, steal from us and generally keep the masses exactly where the want us to be. And that my friends, is exactly why they let the common man vent their anger at what they he/she thinks is a critical issue.
    While we are looking at the Polar icecaps melting, we cannot see what is happening in Africa, India, Asia etc.
    Exactly what Politicians want us to focus on is what they say is bad for everyone.

  111. @snapgator


  112. Joe_nyc
    Posted that famous monologue from the Matrix about us all being viruses.

    I have always hated this analogy, it's great for the movie but it seems to have escaped into the real world (whatever that is).
    I'm glad it came up here because it gives me a chance to destoy this point of veiw and I hope others will agree with me.

    Humans are a species of animals on this planet of many species. We do some very harmfull things. Some people do those things with full knowledge and control of their actions but most don't cause a great deal of harm out of any kind of malice. Not many people murder, not many people rape, and not many people hurt other people or the enviroment on purpose. Many of the bad things people do like consume too much, or hurt their children (in many ways not just flat out abuse), drive Hummers, whatever you can think of can be attributed to many of the complexities of the human psyche and the human condition, such as addiction.

    Many humans cultures in this world evolved with their enviroments to live in a balance, many tribes of Africa lived without causeing mass extinctions. Nomadic forest tribes of some pacific islands who moved with the seasons lived in a balance with what was provided for them by the natural world around them. Native North Americans are beleved to have killed out many species of megafauna when they arived but came to what you could call a state of equalibrium with their enviroment before we came, also the Inuit of the north. So to go as far as saying that humans behave as a virus and that this is part of our nature (based on some events over the last 10000 years and more specifically over the last 100 years of mass consumtion) is going too far. Besides there are viruses that don't kill their hosts but live off of them for the hosts entire lifes. Herpies and warts are two I can think of.

    Other animals commit horrible atrocities in the name of self intrest aswell. Chimp groups will wage war on their neighbours to expand territory. In these wars they will catch and kill females and children, they canabalize those they catch and kill, children included. (I'm not making that up). Other mammals will eat another males offspring so they can mate with the female, so selfish actions are not spesific to us.

    And the last reason I disagree with this dramatic sentiment is because we have something that seperates us drastically from viruses. WE HAVE FREE WILL AND THE POWER TO USE OUR HUMAN CHARACTEISTIS SUCH AS REASON, IMAGINATION, MEMORY, INTUITION, AMONG OTHERS tO BE CONSCIENCE OF OR ACTIONS AND AFFECT THEM.
    The veiw of ourselves as a horrible virus that infects and destoys the world is an enabling attitude. It allows us to continue down a destructive path just like the spouse of an alcoholic. We alow ourselfs to do this by saying it's in our nature, it's just who we are, we have no control over ourselfs. But its not really like that, its something we are doing because we are sick, just like an alcoholic, we have lost control, we take more than we need, most of our actions do nothing to create progress in our human development, society, or even for our survival. %90 (this is not a scientifically derived number) of our energy is not spent of servival or anything even close to it. It's spent on entertainment, or amusment of some kind. We have become an extremely addicted society.

    This doesn't make us a virus, it makes us sick, and sick people can be helped or help themselfs, an alcoholic can quit drinking, and enableing spouse can quit enableing, a drug addict and get clean. We can become more aware of or habits and actions. We can do better, for all the bad we have done we have also done good. So choose to stop acting like a virus and start playing an active roll in a healthy society by making healthy choices. Eat healthier, eat food that comes from close to home, exersise, spend time with your kids, get involved with your communitie, use less stuff, promote green technologies not just because of polotics but because the more we can get from less the farther we can go (wast not want not). Remember that anthropogenic global warming is not even close the the only reason to diversify our energy sorces and reduce energy consumtion. Just look at the toxic soup of chemicals that come form oil production, look at the Gulf of Mexico right now.


  113. I pity I didnt read all the comments before posting my own which is now awaiting moderation :P, but imo Bryan is absolutely right.

  114. OH MY GOD! what a door have I just opened wathing this documentary!!! At the beggining of the doc I had no reason to think that the scientific facts the aclaimed scientists presented might not be true, but after a while and after watching the second half of it I awakened from my temporary naivety. My first thought was: Should I do all the research myself in order not to be deceived from any side???!!! Am sorry for using a vulgarism, but this is how I felt after watching this doc.

    Than I tried my best to find a way to find out which side could be telling the truth. It was surprisingly simle. MONEY! Thats the way to find out, but only the way. To which side there flows more money that one is likely to be deceiving us. And now I wanted to make my final statement about who would I bevieve, but I am too puzzled thinking of diffrent possible scenarios of this whole play to make my final decision , will have to give it a deep thought, I will let u know what have I figured out.

  115. I'm amazed at how gullible the sheep out there can be. GLOBULL WARMING. Hahaha.

    1. It is the 80-20 rule Larry. 80% of people are generally really stupid. Climate has literally a million variables. Slightly tweaking one will not cause any of this. But then again that idea doesn't sell and that idea doesn't get funding.

  116. If we come down to it, environmentalism and sustainability isn't about saving the planet. It is about saving us. It is about how we can stretch out resources to use for us in the best way possible. If environmentalist wanted to make this planet "perfect", humans probably shouldn't be on it. Then the systems could run their natural course without interuption and interference. The planet goes through cycles. History shows us this. When this all ends, you guys can eat your hats.

  117. Do you study environmental science? Because I do. I do research on this as well as a large variety of environmental and geographical issues of the planet and I study past research too. I do know facts. If you look at history, we are not the only civilization to be here. The ones that have come before us have gone extinct because they wasted resources. The planet didn't come to an end. The civilization did though. Know your ancient history rather than the past 30 years of "evidence" that is used to prove global warming.

  118. M,

    It appears you live you life in fear and are not willing to check out the facts.


  119. All you people accusing this video of being sponsored by the Oil Companies aren't thinking on the other side of things. Who do you think sponsors environmentalists? People who want more taxes for their big governments. Now, to me, big governments and significantly more taxes seems like a more catastrophic and outrageous group to be sponsoring an activism component. Perhaps instead of just believing your government isn't the best way to go. Perhaps we should listen to all sides. Everyone needs money. Both sides get it from places that have their own intentions in mind. The people thinking the oil is the devil are just trying to keep their ears and eyes closed to what is staggeringly obvious. That the governmental legislation and environmental activism is a way to control, and cost the world more money.

  120. im not against the global change energy movement. cause im for the demonopolicition of the energy sector and the oil will not last forever. i just hope they dont cheat us by saying theres a global doomsday coming.

    when i look at it... looks like politicians are making it the norm to scare us through deceiption by saying theirs atomic bomb in iraq(global warming)

    some CIA official dictated by the politician say its right theres a bomb there(scientist dictate by politician)

    extremely respected politician/military leader colin pawell making him their prime icon of their adgenda! but in truth he doesnt know what really happening he just trust the institution CIA(algore)..sad

    then many CIA and UN watchdog wissel blower comes in say its not true theres no iraq mass destruction and they have concrete evidence while the goverment is just doing scare tactics and doing a wordfare tactic(local and international scientist and the creator of this doc)

    im not saying its going to be like iraq cause theres no after effect of death in this issue and theres a good moral outcome if we push this through(destroying the monopoly). im just saying even though what their doing is extremely moral if they do it in an immoral way it will still become immoral. and what for the scare tactics? its going to happen no one can stop its maybe delay it but not stop this global change of power. since oil price is souring and solar energy becoming less and less costly cause of technology

  121. @murphy

    come on man tire burning? its not just CO2 it will produce also its deadly bro CO and thousands more deadly element.

    what were talking here is "if CO2 really currently the cause of the heat were experiencing now". personally all the evidence show its not..

    the main cause of heat/cold in are planet are tranfer of form of energy and atmospheric pressure not elements. maybe in the core and mantle(half life) but if some loons say thats the cause then i will say "i think heat is not going to be the problem anymore radiation will!"

    theres only one way CO2 can heat are world and that is the mirror effect(reflecting heat back to earth). but that easy to check elements have weights. thats how the oil company generally divide the crude oil(they turn them into gas then divide them in their weight) and the reason why O2 gather in the land surface and N2 gather in the pre outerspace. so if you get it theres also a gathering level of CO2! that why the scientist fly a baloon with tempreture measuring equipment attact on it. their measuring its heat the more the baloon aproach it the greater the heat. cause thats where heat ae bouncing back. easy to check no? well if you watch the doc you now the result of the experiment

  122. That's why all rich people live next to factories, because their waste is "Safe" lol

  123. The fact that something is natural does not mean it's safe. Snake poison is natural and it's obviously not good for you, so as oil and thousands of other natural chemicals like CO2. I guess the people in this documentary believe the BP oil-spill is nurturing the flora and fauna around the gulf and Chernobyl was invigorating to the environment as well. It's just sad how some people will sell their soul to the devil for some corporate sponsorship. Don't be a sucker. Stand for the truth even if it hurts, that's the people we need.

  124. @Michael
    Yes, plants need CO2, but too much of a "good" thing is a pollutant. Why don't you try an experiment? You could shut yourself up in a garage with your gas burning vehicle running and see how long you can live with that CO2 and CO.
    Or, you could examine the results of CO2 build up in lakes and how they "explode", killing every oxygen breather in the path. (Lake Nyos)
    I think also, that you need to revisit your high school science lessons. And I wish you would stop telling people that carbon dioxide is a good thing, unless you include a unit of measure of a safe level of this gas.

  125. oil monopoly attack dog huh!! then why in your room that being cooled by your aircondition the more people coming in to your room the lower the effect of the aircondition(it become hoter) why? its because people create CO2! scientist?

    even if you old(correct) scientist(?) are right and CO2 dont heat the world. the energy change movement is still justify since were destroying the monopoly of the oil industry(your master)! that always hold are world in hostage with its high oil price product

  126. Interesting enough 70% of our oxygen comes from plankton in the oceans. We have just created a major dead zone in the gulf of Mexico because of the oil spill. Would not be surprised if this is the string on the spider web that may cause the final collapse of life as we know it.

  127. You may also be interested to know, that in the U.S. we plant more trees than we cut down. Gosh, the truth hurts doesn't it. Gotta love it!

  128. BTW, "owl" since animals are so important, why don't you sacrifice yourself as the first offering to the wild so that there will be one less human polluting. ;) It hurts when your argument is turned on you, doesn't it.

  129. Oh, and by the way, great documentary. I have watched some of the "other" documentaries that "prove" global warming. The intentionally skip over facts and leave many questions unanswered. Besides, it is foolishness to just believe one source! If anyone knows anything about science, he/she knows that multiple sources are necessary. This is one good source.

  130. I never stop being astounded at the lack of thought, research, and insight the average person puts forth, or at least, what those who comment on things like this put forth. It stuns my how so many lose all sense when they come to their hobby topics. Anyone who looks at the data and who actually does research as well as remembers anything from their junior and senior high school geology and physical science classes will realize the arguments put forth in this video, even if not complete, are based on correct principles. For example, the various facts about CO2. Plants need CO2 to live! CO2 is NOT a bad thing. I could continue on but I can tell that sense and reason seem to abandoned many in this discussion. Of course there is global warming. I believe it. I believe global cooling as well. But I must not be normal because I actually use the grey matter God gave me and I use it correctly instead of just following the latest trends and throwing all logic to the wind just so that I can "be part of something" by giving way to illogical tugs on heart strings! I think all enviro-terrorists should be forced to live in Africa and all of those good people that live and suffering from day to day should replace them, enjoying their lavish lives. Immoral, people who hate their own kind, that is most dispicable and vile! I hope that you do not live in America, because that attitude is unAmerican and possesses the same prejudiced and noxious zietgiest that led to the murder of so many hundreds of millions innocent Jews and Russians and Chinese and others throughout history. I disown you as countrymen. I hope that the light will one day turn on for you before it is too late.

  131. "a real phenomenon,and human activity has been a major factor in its escalation"

    Real phenomonon yes, human activity fraid not. Even the physics dont come close to matching up, in fact global cooling would more match the scenario.

    The planet has been yoyo-ing since the beginning of time, only something on the magnitude of the sun has the power for this, hence warming on Mars, or is that due to the probes!

  132. Vlatko, please add a warning on this documentary. Because this is not a scientific one, it's a political one. When political ideas are presented as scientific, they become distorted.

  133. Global Warming HAS been exploited for political purposes,but it is nevertheless a real phenomenon,and human activity has been a major factor in its escalation.

  134. @perfectarc - Wow you really seem to have a problem with older white men huh? And your final sentence is amusing because Fox news seems to be the only 24 hour news station that does not have a problem with "older white men".

  135. Yeah, it's true that according to the ice core records that CO2 levels were preceded by warming. But that's not the case this time around in the current interglacial ...... and this is what concerns climate scientists along with other evidence.

    What is alarming to this science educator is that this form of pollution is not being responded to in a manner consistent with a culture that should be concerned about the planet inherited by their children and grandchildren. Yes, it's true that most of the species that have lived here before us have gone extinct, but not in the time frame of a few human generations, and this is the factor that should concern OLD WHITE men alive today that have grandchildren.

    IT really amuses me that OLD white tea party people living in the present, worried about their medicare benefits, cannot be concerned about future generations, only about their comfort and convenience.

    What's wrong about erring on the side of environmental caution and concern?? THis fossil fuel thing isn't going to go on for ever old guy ........ for another perspective google the abc documentary called CRUDE: the incredible journey of oil. If the global warming FACT doesn't concern you, the FACT that oil is a finite resource and that as the population of the world approaches 7 billion and 9 billion by mid-century, countries like China and India will consume what the whole world consumes at this point in the 21st century. All those emissions, all that mercury, all that sulphur, all that pollution. Considering the fact that we are removing the carbon sink while acidifying the ocean waters ............ there's a lot to be VERY, VERY concerned about old boys.

    Get with the program Fox news and reactionary talk radio lovers ....... start giving a shit about your grandchildren and not your own short term comfort and convenience.

  136. confuse and conquer , my bio macine can only function with about 2 gigs of data at at time and the open windonws of home mortagage , insurance , family , sex etc ,,,, takes up so much of that 2 gigs that when shit like this comes in ...there is over load .

    so back to the wisdom of the Toa , Zhaunagzi ... bail out or the system and concepts likepermaculture allow this then play in the mind f--ked HIVE of ecomony , with more personel ease , because for you who F'ing cares you are free of the SLAVERY of dependance on the system for core Maslow Hierchy issues , you can once more play .

    we are all competteing for funds ..... says it all , i guess i am anti sociopath , not anti capitalist for that is the evidence of the animal the male boar developing a good territory natural capital developed by action and SHIT of seeds

    Protect your PHOONY BOLENY job , keep your position in the social system to keep you sexual status ..that is what keep HUMAN owrld going round and round in insantiy . The world can recover from drastic asteriod inpacts and will survive the actions of human . We will disappear , someday .

    the FEAR of death ,,or the concept of fear was an important issue of Buddha re worded by an american pres. all we have to fear is fear itself . Tha core issue is the tool of the mind f--k this Doc. is another tool of INFORMATION OVER LOAD . Dependance on the human mind as being someting of importance .

    great Doc.

  137. Thanks Chris K.

    I really don't get this sense of entitlement most people feel. I think it's what stops us from truely enjoying what little time we have in life.

  138. Good point, Allan.

  139. @owl

    If every living being is special, then, no living being is special.

  140. Well then, maybe we all should go back to the Matrix, from whence we sprung!

  141. Touche', Joe. We sure are a virus on this planet. WE need to do something now about our destruction before it is too late, if it isn't already too late.

  142. Perhaps a translation from an ancient Mayan hieroglyphic that was recently discovered at Central America can shed some light into the value of homo sapiens on earth. It's my guess that "I" and "we" in the translation refer to illegal aliens(from USA) who helped jump start Mayan civilization.

    "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure."

  143. @ owl:

    well, with what you said, I agree, every living sentient, and even non sentient, like plant life, has a special place in existence.

  144. All species on this planet are special not only humans (homo sapiens). We are losing 150 species daily because of environmental problems, WE humans (homo sapiens) have increased out population from 3 billion in the 70's to almost 7 billion today. WE are not like gnats when they finish a a banana can go find another one. WE are destroying this planet daily by deforestation, plastics the Pacific Garbage Island which is twice the size of the the continental United States out in the middle of the Pacific which is full of millions of tons of plastics that are killing marine life, birds and most importantly our plankton which we get 70% of our oxygen from. When WE kill the plankton WE kill anything on this planet that needs air to breath. That includes us human who are so special and blessed my behind. All creatures are special and work in a natural eco system which we humans are destroying. Which the end result will be us as well as all other species who die.

  145. @Achemz Razor

    I really can't figure out why you would think that the same rules that apply to every living creature on earth throughout history wouldn't also apply to us.

    As far as a negative attitude goes, I'm the olny person I know that realizes that modern people in modern times are the heathliest, wealthiest, safest people who have ever lived, and I am forever gratiful for that.

  146. @ allan:

    Why are you preaching to me? Or to put it more succinctly telling me what to do?

    You figure it out, why I say we are special and deserve to be here.
    But for that you need a positive attitude! Your negative attitude will not due!

  147. @Achemz Razor

    Can you explain to me why we deserve it and what makes us special? The other forms of humans which have graced this earth have gone exstinct, so what is going to save us? Like I said more than 90% of the plant and animal life on this earth has come and gone, NATURALLY. We didn`t kill them all. The earth is fine, the people are not. Be happy with the time you have, enjoy it, live your life and show graditude for it.

  148. @ allan:

    Another doomsayer.
    We are all special, and we all DESERVE to continue!

    I will not go gracefully anywhere.
    If you want to bend over and kiss your ass goodbye, then do it, like a good little sheeple.

  149. The green movement is selfish and narrow. They focus on how we can change the world to maintain our way of life. I think that we should focus on how WE can change and adapt our way of life in a manner that's suitable to continue living on our planet. Global warming IS happening, it will not change. Say "bye-bye" to your internet and cell phones and supermarket's. Over 90% of the species of plant and animals that have ever exsisted on this planet have gone exstinct, get ready to join that vast majority. We are not special, we do not DESERVE to continue. Our time is comming to an end. Let's go gracefully please.

  150. great doc. There is so much excellent evidence, and if you check your facts, its all true. Well done!!!!

  151. Crow,
    MIIGWECH! Thank you... Oniishishin Beautiful(the most beautiful/best/most remarkable) gidozhibiige (writing)! Niminwendam (I'm glad) ningiimiikaw (I found it)!

    I am so glad to see/read there are more like me. Anishinaabekwe indaw (I'm an Ojibwe(Chippewa)woman) magweyak nindoonjiba (I come from the woods). Here in the land of lakes and frozen snow and ice and forests it is hard to get people to understand and confuses me about...when I see a hummer I'll tell who ever I am with that if we could "cash that in" as a society (the hummer) that no one would have to die today, never mind about our failure as a society to take care of our children (I'm not a full blood Ojibwe, so technically I am related to everyone else equally as a global citizen, also never mind we adopt in a full blood fashion anyways)...but they then will ask how, and when I tell them that roughly 30,000 children die everyday due to lack of water, medicine, transportation, food, housing, clothing, parents, LOVE!

    They kind of tune it out, or change the subject. I think it is a lack of a sense of community that causes us not to think about our cousins in Trenobal (sp?)or our sisters in Africa, the Sudan, Darfur, or all over!

    I must stop writing now. I rarely comment on anything but I wanted to just thank you for the wonderful post and I hope that many more people read it and I am excited to be here at this new Documentaries Site (to me).

    Miigwech Miinawa Ahndeg,
    ThanXs Again Crow.

  152. Falcon - I know who owns the World Bank, and of course the countries with the most shares seem to be the ones whose governments are the most corrupted by big money - and right now there's still a lot of money in oil. I don't think I need to remind you that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are all about controlling the largest reserves of oil in the world. Doesn't the World Bank profit from these wars, and from wars in general?

    There is an agenda behind the World Bank report and it's certainly not concern over the poor and starving. They're right in saying that there is not enough food and not enough energy (unless free energy becomes a reality) for all six billion of us; but to say that 75% of the overall increase in food costs is due to biofuel production? Even unrelated foods like rice, which tripled in cost? The scientists conducting the World Bank studies are funded by their governments and those who value their grant money will give the parties in power the results they want.

    Other studies have indicated that rising food costs are due in large part to rising oil costs. Why are the Cap & Trade promoters so quiet about this? Surely this would be an argument in their favor. But it's not enough - people are terrified of Cap & Trade and they know it. They need a really big crisis to get the public on board. Something like a dramatic rise in oil prices, perhaps?

    As long as they prolong our dependence on oil, both sides can cash in. Deals have been made behind the scenes to keep those with seemingly conflicting interests happy. The oil companies will go out with a bang while Al Gore & co. make us pay for it through Cap & Trade. That's why oil prices have to skyrocket before "going green" becomes too easy. They have to slow the sudden growth of biofuel production or else this scenario won't have a chance to play itself out. They're making money out of nothing, you're right about that.

  153. To Kathryn; good points, but the World Bank is not some private investmentbank that owns shares in oil companies, it's owned by its member countries. Some countries produce oil, some biofuel, and some both. Even if you (and me) dislikes the World Bank, their economic reports are usually accurate. Anyway, the banks are more interested in the Gore/Enron idea of Cap & Trade, because it's another way to make money out of nothing. If it's implemented worldwide, the world economy will suffer from it, tax payers will suffer from it, and the poor countries will suffer the worst.

  154. @Falcon - you can't blame food shortages and rising prices on the use of crops for biofuels. Most of the basis for that myth comes from a 2008 report by the World Bank, an organization long known for twisting the facts to suit its own ends. These are the same people that want to privatize the water supply of every country in the world so they'll still be able to provoke wars and rake in the cash after all the oil is gone; the last thing they want is for biofuels to decrease the demand for oil before they get a chance to really jack up the price.

    That being said, the amount of food crops used to produce biofuels is nothing compared to the amount of grain we feed to livestock, which accounts for 36% of the world's grain supply. Not to mention the volume of water it takes to sustain factory farmed livestock - 2500 gallons for one pound of steak. By contrast it only takes about 240 gallons of water to produce one pound of soybeans. If we weren't using so much grain and water and land for factory farms, food shortages the world over could be drastically reduced. And what Achems Razor said about methane is no joke - as a greenhouse gas it's 21 times more powerful than C02; animal agriculture produces 100 millions tons of it annually.

    So why don't we see Al Gore & co. pushing vegetarianism? The fact that the vast majority of pro-global warming advocates seldom mention the impact of factory farming should tell you something's amiss. Either the problem isn't real or the last thing they care about is saving the planet - take your pick, it doesn't really matter in the end. They'll say whatever it takes to get us all to panic so we'll accept more taxes and restrictions on our freedoms. The real global warming swindle is that we're falling for this distraction and arguing amongst ourselves while the men behind the curtain take us for everything we have.

    1. I just ate a steak the size of a small car and loved it. PS - I have never met an old vegetarian. They all die young.

    2. An ignorant man, never notices his ignorance, an arrogant man assumes everyone notices him... but the ignorant man that embraces his arrogance desires nothing more than to be the most noticed of all... and invariably is a point of humor for everyone that noticed.

  155. What's wrong with the oil companies funding this opposite view (if they really are). After all, they're not really the villans (well in many ways they are but not with regards to CO2 emisions causing climate change) and stand to lose a truck load of money if they're put out of business. Besides, any scientist is going to take the money, especially if they have similar ideals. How else is going to pay them.

    What we should be looking at is who is funding the other side and what they are hoping to gain. Global elite families and businesses, taking our hard earned cash in the form of taxes as hand outs to fund their own business ends in developing nations to make "eco-friendly" nuclear power plants. Raping these nations of their natural resources and using their work force as slave labor. All paid for by the UN with OUR hard taxes.

    Say no to carbon tax! And yes to sensible use of our precious world!

  156. The green movement is key to our evolution as a species and the preservation of our planet. However, to say that this debate is funded by cash is true in the sense that public opinion drives policy but, any real science breaks public opinion with truth. Either side throwing money at this debate will eventually come to the same conclusion. The more sides to this story the faster we find the truth.

  157. I would like to make a introspective and meaningful rebuttal but I think this will suffice. .i.. you if you can't see the facts.

  158. Grimcity, what miniscule levels? Plants and trees need C02, higher levels means more growth. The medieval period was warmer than today, so C02 is not the cause of temperature change. The majority of researchers, outside UN's political group, says it's natural forces like solar activity that makes temperature change. Temperature has fallen the last nine years by the way.

  159. Thanx Vlatko!

  160. Falcon... of course CO2 isn't a pollutant when we're talking about minuscule levels of it, but it becomes a pollutant when you dump tons of it into the atmosphere... the unnatural and exaggerated amounts are in fact pollutants.

    Hell, water isn't poison but if you drink enough of it, it becomes toxic and potentially fatal.

  161. That's what I was trying to say (in a short version), very correct Bryan.

  162. Good point Bryan!

  163. So many of you are missing the big picture. Ofcourse Big Oil is going to push a film like this and ofcourse Al Gore will push his opinions and his plans for a new world plan (tax). They are both out for your money and to improve their potential control over public policy. Both sides have facts and data to back up their arguments and both sides not 100% correct in all aspects of their arguments. But their both going to try and win the public opinion battle because they want your money. Some how we have to find a balance and recognize that polluting the earth is in no way beneficial for the planet or the living organisms on it (not to mention the political and economical issues associated with fossil fuels)but yet not believe all the scientific hype and turn into a fascist police state where we lose our individual rights. Balance and rational debate is key here. I am always surprised at how both sides can be so blind to the ultimate motive behind their arguments (MONEY).

    1. One of the few intelligent comments made here

  164. Methane could be far worse than CO2.

    Methane is a major contributor, and is 21 times stronger as a green- house gas.
    Livestock cattle because of there lumen are high in Methane, the average cow expels 600 liters a day. With 1.3 billion cows belching around the world, is one of the chief source of the gas, about 16%. All animals, humans, etc:-about 37%

    The rest are petroleum drilling, coal mining, solid-waste landfills, rice-paddies and wetlands.

    Why, even the worlds population of bugs contribute 5 to7% of methane gas when they fart. (LOL), well they do!

  165. Crow, take your own advice and check the facts; CO2 is not a pollutant, it's food for plants. Hurricanes are not caused by CO2 and it doesn't cause forest fires either. The latest food crisis and rising food prices have actually been caused by using crops for "green" biofuels instead of food. Your rant is full of confused arguments and errors.

    1. It is not food for plants, but air for plants! And it is at the same time a green house gas. In much the same way that we need oxygen to live, but too high concentration will kill us!

      Too many ignorant people think they can tell what's going on, but are merely let on by the big poluters, to whom it is all about squesing a wee more profit out of the globe before we go bust.

  166. This film was paid for by oil companies. It was already proven in other documentary, but I forgot the title. There are many articles on the internet disproving claimes made in this film. However there are people who want to make money by pretending they care for environement. I thing carbon trading and nuclear power plants are one of those schemes. Some companies get huge limits of CO2 they can produce - way too big for them, so they can conviniently sale the right to polute to others for huge profits. And nuclear energy isn't clean either - it produces CO2, too and radioactive thrash, but it's profitable.

    1. lol you sound like you are 12

  167. Even IF global warming is a lie, we can't continue like we are living now.

    Finite resources used for energy production, human waste filling the oceans, species dying because we are ignorant - in the end, either we change radically or humanity won't survive long. And green technology is one step in exactly that direction.

  168. How many of these scientist work for oil companies????????
    How many of the scientist in this film will lose money because of who they work for????
    And doctors aren't in with Big Pharma, right?????
    Bush and Cheney had the scientist change the result to they could get the money from the oil companies as well as got us in a war in Iraq for OIL.

    If you don't believe in the problem of CO2 with climate change, we have deforestation that is causing the extinction
    of 150 species a day, WE have the Pacific Garbage Island which is the size twice the size of the United States is which if full of plastics which are killing birds and fish and then we eat the fish an consumed the plastic, we are killin ourselves and other species with pesticides. WE
    have double our population from 3 billion in the 70's to 6.7 billion today and we are not like a gnat the when the banana runs out we can go to another planet. People are dying daily because of polution caused by CO2's. We have had the warmest 10 year globally in the last 14 years and yes we are in a normal cooling trend right now but it would be worse if there wasn't global warming. Areas of Africa are in dought conditions which is causing people to relocate. The Maya empire colapsed because of deforestation. Look at Easter Island and today we are global world and we do not have another island to go to. We are using GMO's to produce food and that is causing all of us to be malnutrient. WE botton line our destroying ourselves by collectively choose to keep on the track we are on today. Or WE could collectively choose to do what we can for this little planet we live and be good stewards. It is our choose. Unfortunately all we need to do is pull the right string on the spider web and everything collapse. Whether it be global warming, deforestation, increasing our population more, polluting more, increasing the extinction of our species which include us human beings. It is our choose. What choose are you going to make. Once again who do thes scientist work for and what are they getting out of doing this film. My guess is money. They played on their greed.

    Africa is fighting against this as well. Because people are starving due to lack of food because of drought not from smoke. Twisting fact!!!!!!!! They have found other ways to deal with electricity. My uncle ran his farm on one wind mill. This is crazy. I wonder what they paid this man
    to say this?????
    Plankton in the ocean give us 70% of our oxygen and with the plastics we are killing the plankton. Yes, the oceans do absorb much of the CO2, but the ocean is almost absorbed out.
    If you have ever taken statistics you know you can make the numbers whatever you want.
    We have already had Katrina here in the US and that is because the ocean temperature rise by 1 degree which creates extreme hurricanes. Forest fires have increased in the last few years because of the warming, the last ice age the temperatures decreased by only 3 degrees world wide and we have already increased by a degree. What is the future going be like. If you chosse to live in a bubble don't want
    to hear your whining when it get really bad and say why didn't someone do something. Many tried, but then you have films like this.

    Do have to admit they sound convincing, but how much science do you watching this really know??????????? They are taking things out of context.

    Check out the facts for yourself it is there on the net and available.

  169. yes possible that all this is true. but still humans are littering.

  170. TDF have delivered another hit.You have to watch this excellent rebuttal to Al Gore and the co2 lobby.