Shift: Beyond the Numbers of the Climate Crisis

2013, Environment  -   86 Comments
Ratings: 6.02/10 from 44 users.

What is climate change? For many, it sparks images of polar bears on melting ice caps, rising oceans, and polluting smokestacks. We easily ignored the changing climate when it just led to these distant problems, but now we're experiencing the effects of climate change firsthand. The dots are being connected. These super-storms, droughts, wildfires, they're getting worse and more frequent because of climate change. This isn't going to be a film about the daunting facts behind climate change, the ones we feel like we don't have any control over.

However, it is important to note that the US ranks second among global emissions producers. They produce 19% of all global carbon emissions. The deep dependence on fossil fuel is at the root of the problem. Coal, oil, and natural gas take the blame. It's not difficult to understand that burning these fuels is bad for the climate, but there's been a piece missing from the conversation. We know that we humans are causing the problem, but what's the human cost? Who are the people affected by these fuels, the extractions, the drilling, the mining? What's it look like from their world?

Sam and his sister Kate are environmentally aware. They turn off their lights. They use their own Virtue bags, ride their bikes when possible, and take shorter showers... all of the usual things. As they started learning more and more about climate change, they began to see that riding their bikes and taking shorter showers wasn't really going to solve the problem, and, like many people, they didn't really know where to go from there. They were spending a lot of time talking about the issue, and for such a daunting problem, they wondered why it wasn't a little more mainstream.

In the midst of the hottest year on record in U.S. history, presidential candidates left climate out of the debates, and it was with this that they realized that sitting around and talking about it was no longer an option. They needed to dive in headfirst and figure out what was really driving climate change and the movement surrounding it. So they loaded up for a 17-day long road trip around the country, a whirlwind tour to see those affected by the fossil-fuel extraction, ending at the Forward on Climate rally, the biggest climate rally in U.S. history.

From the coal-rich mountains of Appalachia to the North Dakota oil fields, down to the Texas tar-sands pipelines, they began to uncover the David versus Goliath story of people that had already taken up action to stop climate change. In some cases, they chose to fight, while others, the fight chose them. Either way, they were all people striving for a better planet. The public realized that climate change is real and that it's man-caused, but where do we go from here?

More great documentaries

86 Comments / User Reviews

  1. styles

    Makes the problem look like it only affects Whitey Whiterson.

  2. Anton

    really should have hired a professional to narrate this. I cant listen to that slurry nasal voice.

  3. Bubba Bong

    Legalize hemp and your problem is solved. Why do you think hemp is banned all over the world? Because it would put big oil out of business in the first year of production. Oh yeah and paper and wood products, and big pharma and just about every other big industry you can think of, not to mention it would make the world a more peaceful place. Oh well you stupid sheeple stick your heads back in the sand.

  4. Guest

    Bunk!…propaganda film, designed with all the tricks to distract from the real matter/danger, which is geo-engineering aka climate-engineering (aka chemtrails)! wake up-look up-stand up!

  5. zazen

    Of the many documentaries i've watched here at tdf, this is the first one that didn't quite cut it - maybe a 6+.. just seemed amaturish, maudlin, and too slow.. then again, maybe i've seen too many videos on this subject already and have become hard-hearted.. nothing seems to change.. it's big bad coal vs. innocent, well meaning residents.. unfortunately, the cards are stacked against them at all levels - fed, state, local, and corporate.. they need to shake it up somehow.

  6. John C. Tripp

    this film is about a road trip, are you kidding?

  7. John C. Tripp

    I'd you'd biked it I'd be impressed but driving, c'mon!

  8. Wayne Siemund

    Sometimes it seems there are too many of these hand-wringing inform-the=public documentaries and too few documentaries that strike the interests of the every day person.
    Maybe that is because the issue has been compartmentalized..placed into these neat packaged boxes and sent out separately from everything else.
    Maybe the message should be unboxed and elements allowed to pop up in small blurbs of every day events and conversations.
    That's how marketers build social support for their products.

  9. rahul01

    Solution to human driven climate change, 17 day road trip in a beat up Toyota.

  10. Roy

    Too many errors and misconceptions. Great propaganda film. That's if you are into that kind of stuff.

    1. Tobias MacRobie

      Thanks for the warning. The description had me skeptical that this is another "save the planet by reducing your footprint" films, which I pretty much tally up as BS.

      Population is the problem that these people seem to be after, but they seem to think that if they reduce their consumption that we can keep on breeding. As if that won't just result in more reductions of individual resources until even the vegetarian, yurt-living, no electricity, bicycle riding person wearing leaves is considered to be consuming too much. So yea, propaganda? I kinda thought so. I do appreciate the heads up! Thanks, Roy!

  11. anniem

    I bet you a twinkie ( we actually use energy to make this stuff) but to the point-that if we stopped all Nascar until someone came up with a vehicle that used only solar or wind, there would be a truly viable solar or wind vehicle in one year.

    1. Jane Doe


      Big oil (etc) have purchased many patents regarding renewable energy - they want to keep their monopoly.

    2. Tobias MacRobie

      There is a cost-balance too. Biofuels can be manufactured and sold at about $4.00/gallon US, with comparable rates of pollution to petrol. The difference is resource production versus resource extraction. We could have local jobs and local production, but the oil companies won't let the gas prices exceed the rates for biofuels.

      This ensures that it is not worth investing the principal to build manufacturing facitilies and develop the lands necessary to compete. If they just keep those prices barely below that competitive line.. we can use the oil up before we have to switch to sustainable fuels. I could go on and on.

      Add in the depth of policy review as emissions standards would have to be totally revamped, gsoline taxes would need to be re-evaluated in order to re-evaluate road maintenance and transportation funding, cars would need to be redesigned.. Dangit.. I just realized that I am going on and on. haha. Sorry.

  12. Matt Kukowski

    Yes yes we all want to end fossil fuel. But what do you replace it with? This is the problem ... Wind and Solar are not the solution. only 3% of energy is wind and solar ...

    JOHN SEARL STORY - Inventor of the S.E.G (this is NOT a joke)

    STAN MEYERS - Inventor of the Water Fuel Cell.

    Ok? It is now in your court to research this. There are literally 1000's of other new technologies, but I think John and Stan's are the two most effective and realistic.

    Second, protesting DOES NOT WORK. Why? The mainstream media will NOT tell of your rallies, we all know they are owned by the same people who own Oil, Phrama and banks.

    Third, the problem is spiritual. We have a problem of Satanic Rituals over taking our spirits. Pedefilia and mind control.

    Fourth, is MONEY. Do you think the Rockefellers and all the others are going to give up their grip? NO ... Do you think the Federal reserve is? NO ! We must get rid of money.

    So, how are we going to fix all these problems? Sad to say, we WON'T ... cancer will fix you. The money power people, once all the sheeple are dead, will turn on each other..

    Power people will kill each other to gain more power.

    We are in a lot of trouble.

    1. englishjakes

      in germany the percentage of renewable energy used (at midday) is is above 50%, 30% at night, western civs are just slacking.

    2. Matt Kukowski

      I know Germany is the leader in Solar... and I agree with you. But how are the cars going to get power? There is not enough Lithium... Hydrogen can be used .. Stan Meyers inventer a spark plug that creates the Hydrogen, injects it, and sparks it all in one unit. No need to replace the combustion engine (at first)..

      Also Stan Meyers invented retrofits to the Natural Gas that heats your water and home .. again no need to place the pipes or your furnace as hydrogen is a gas and can flow through the pipes ...

      But hey, no one cares, they are all apathetic and just keep wondering why they can not afford gas and food.

    3. englishjakes

      right now i think something like 5-10% of cars in germany use bio fuel and i know that its not that much and i know bio fuel isnt the greatest thing but at least its carbon neutral, at least their trying. i agree that hydrogen is the answer to cars (batteries do more dmage to then environment because the companies who make them dont have to cover the cost to recycle them properly so they dont get recycled). the problem with hydrogen is that its very energy intensive to make/collect but there are studies being done to use solar energy to collect hydrogen, they want to set up solar islands and the energy created by the solar panels will use the water to make hydrogen. personally i gave up my car i take the bus if i need to go anywhere or walk if its within an hour from my house by foot (lost a bunch of weight to). and i also gave up eating beef because cows cause more greenhouse gasses than all transportation combined (i think this is why carbon emissions are focused on not all greenhouse gases). but i know most people will flat out refuse to take similar steps. yea i agree with you we are in alot of trouble.

    4. Tobias MacRobie

      Problem with biofuel is two-part. Biodiesel cannot exceed 20% mixtures, because it works likea solvent. a compression ignition engine just won't blow with too much biodiesel in the system. As for ethanol, you can't get it richer than 85% (by chemical manufactuing) as far as I know, for those spark ignition engines. We could synthesize ethanol under controlled environments, but then at some point, it would have to be removed from that environment in order to be put into a fuel tank and engine, changing the chemistry.

      Don't forget that fuels are synthesized using a variety of hydrocarbons, tuned to regional environments. The fuel you buy in the central plains of the USA is not the same fuel that you buy in the mountains, is not the same fuel that you buy on the temperate coastline, is not the same as.. you get the idea. Some have more methane, some have more octane, some have more or less of other bits. It's all about temperature, compression, etc as it relates to volatility and translated power by compression / combustion.

    5. Bertuswonkel

      Bio-fuels are not necessarily carbon neutral. You need a bunch of stuff to make it work fertilizers, treatment facilities, transportation ect.

      Tropical regions can cultivate Sugarcane which can achieve good environmental savings. However, large investments in bio-fuels in Northern regions does not make much sense. it is largely a political project.

      The billions invested in these projects would better be spend on R en D for energy storage technologies. Automated Electric cars are the way to go since most of the best renewables create direct electric power. Furthermore, the efficiency of electric engine can be made much higher compared to the combustion engine.

    6. John Smith

      you still have to find it or create it contain it methane hydrate is the way to go it is plentiful in the ocean depths and methane can be easily created

    7. Bungaroosh

      The only way is not to engage with it.

    8. Bubba Bong

      legalize hemp and the problem is solved. look that up. fossil fuels are simply a soft kill method, one of thousands employed by our owners.

  13. Samuel Morrissey

    Refreshing documentary that focuses on the human cost of intensive and all too loosely regulated fossil fuel industry in the US. I dare say it is no better in many other places, probably worse.

    Thanks TDF.

  14. Nicklas Raynbeau

    Firstly, anthropogenic climate change is far from being decided as true or not. The political powers and the environmentalist discourse wield enormous influence over the public opinion on the matter. And public opinion elects politicians, politicians control most major funding for university research (where most of this research is being done). No researcher will EVER get any credible funding (i.e. not connected to interests groups like petro-chem industry) if they say that they would like to see if man made climate change is real. The academic playing field is completely eschewed in favor of it being so. Money = Science, money comes from somewhere. This is simply not the way science should be conducted. A theory should constantly be falsified to withstand it's claims to superiority, not politicized and funded. Today scientist who speak out against such malpractice are being ostracised and even reprimanded, being stripped of their degrees because they do not consent to the majority rule. Just because a million people believe something is true doesn't mean it's so, it can just as well mean that there are a million idiots out there.

    Secondly, that is not an excuse for unproductive and detrimental behaviour. Current human consumption is not only s*upid it is directly limiting our possibilities to enjoy a clean planet, not being able to drink the water or look at it's wild-life.

    Yet it is so so extremely important to understand that environmentalism is perhaps the most powerful tool of governing ever invented. Who would argue with someone trying "to save the planet"? As it is such a powerful concept, we have to be critical and engage it not as an axiomatic truth of our time, but as something entangled in power, money and prestige. Why certain views dominate and others are forsaken. Science should be the investigation into the nature of phenomenon, not the voice backed by the fattest wallet.

    1. robertallen1

      "Today scientist [SIC] who speak out against such malpractice are being ostracised and even reprimanded, being stripped of their degrees because they do not consent to the majority rule." Who are these scientists and how do you strip them of their degrees?

    2. Nicklas Raynbeau

      They become stripped of their degrees by court process. Most notoriously Björn Lomborg, who after writing a the sceptical environmentalist was both ostracised and reprimanded. He was charge with manipulating data and misleading science (both cases which were independently scrutinised and dismissed outsied the court). in Denmark (where this happened) the debate has become politicised to such an degree that speaking out or even presenting contrary evidence or paradigmatic views is a dangerous academic move for many.

      There are a number of scientist who publicly asked to be removed from the ICCP "top 1000" list. Like malaria expert Paul Reiter.

    3. robertallen1

      1. Lomborg's Ph.D. is in political science, hardly a scientific discipline. I also don't find anything about Lomborg's being stripped of his degree--and at least in the United States, a court cannot do this.
      2. Paul Reiter asked to be taken off the third ICCP Working Group and his name removed from its report. Where did he ask that his name be removed from the ICCP top 1000 list?
      In short, you have distorted the facts which renders you dishonest.

    4. Nicklas Raynbeau

      How is Political Science not a science? According to what epistemology is social science not a science? This is exactly the problem at hand, the prevalent logical positivist mentality among the environmentalists, it's a 1920s scientific paradigm that has played it's part. If you argue that experimentation and replication is the bread and butter of science, I would implore you to take that to its philosophical limit and see that it is a impossible stance in our universe, NOTHING can ever be identically replicated, ever, in the physical world. That only works for abstract theoretical assumptions. And theoretical assumptions are only as good as the data put into them. Missing data by constricting your methodological or ontological perspectives thus renders a inferior theory.

      Then I would recommend you watch the documentary he co-produced called "Cool it" where a substantial section of it is dedicated to the judicial process and it's politicised nature. Yes he co-producing it is ambigious, but the data is all there for public scrutiny.

      In short, no facts have been distorted, nor presented. What I tried to bring forth is the uncritical nature and almost religious conviction the environmentalist demand. The elitist point of view that only "hard science" are at liberty to express valid "facts" about global warming is despicable. Especially as I pointed out that all science is connected to money, while the results of such scientific politico processes permeates all social stratas.

      Is my statement wrong? Is there a complete (to such degree as this exists in science) agreement of anthropogenic global warming? I believe this is simply not true and the reason for it has very little to do with facts rather than a money bandwagon and self interest of the new sprung academic, journalist, activists, politicians having this phenomenon as their raison d'être.

    5. robertallen1

      Science deals with the natural world only and employs the scientific method consisting of systematic observation, measurement, experiment and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. That leaves out political science AND PHILOSOPHY.

      Having a degree in political science does not qualify someone to make judgments on scientific matters such as the man-made effects on the climate or even to analyze the data. For that you need "hard science" which does not deal with "theoretical assumptions."

      To reiterate:

      1. You failed to indicate that Lomborg's Ph.D. is in political science, not in any "hard" science, and to provide any evidence that he was stripped of his degree, much less in a court of law.

      2. Paul Reiter asked to be taken off the third ICCP Working Group and his name removed from its report, not that his name be removed from the ICCP top 1000 list.
      These two examples of at best wilful dishonesty infuse the remainder of your post. What you believe is only so much garbage; it's what you can prove--and so far, you've proved nothing.

    6. Nicklas Raynbeau

      Ohh I see you think "natural" science = science. Rookie mistake, often accompanied by a older technocentric education. No god sir, science is not exclusive to white lab coats. I recommend you perhaps read a little theory of science. A introductory book might serve your faculties, A.F. Chalmers - What is science. And perhaps while your at it, a history of science and it's sociology, B. Latour - We have never been modern.

      Philosophy is very much at the centre of the scientific edifice and as probably thousands of social scientist and the name divulges, political SCIENCE, is in fact a science. The school book process you describe is being just as rigoursly followed by both political scientist and philosophers.

      Björn Lomborg is quite apt statistician and thus very capable of dealing with "objective data" as you propose natural science produces. He is in fact so to the degree that he headed the copenhagen consensus (joint venture of "real" scientist and government). The evidence you seek is available and he was charge with breaching scientific conduct (if you want to go through Danish court records).

      Again, you reiterating the two same things is not the core of this debate. It is however interesting from a psychological and rhetorical perspective, but since you probably don't consider that "science" we'll leave it at that. I don't know if you understand the point of the debate really. I am not presenting "evidence" I am saying that there is a much bigger context in which global warming is being produced. And that the consensus on it's anthropogenic origin is far from reached. If you think global warming research being done by "real" scientist, is somehow an isolate process and scientific endeavour, you are at best naive.

      What I believe is founded in research, if you were at the slightest up to date with current scientific theory you would understand that "proof" is very subjective. Since you and I have incommensurable paradigmatic beliefs I don't see the point of continuing this debate. No instead, I'll let you and "the hard scientist" look at data and evidence, and let you believe that those are completely objective neutral entities. While me and my fellow scientist will consider how those pieces of data are constructed and under what influences.

      Good day,

    7. robertallen1

      Salk didn’t need philosophy to discover the polio vaccine. Jenner didn’t need it to cure small pox. Darwin didn’t need it to verify natural selection. Miller-Urey didn’t need it to conduct their groundbreaking experiment. The scientists at NASA didn’t need it to send
      men to the moon. Niels Bohr and Max
      Planck didn’t need it in their seminal work on quantum mechanics. The scientists working on the Higgs Boson particle don’t need it. Philosophers, especially philosophers of science, are merely codifiers, i.e., the tin can on the tail of the dog. It’s the doers who

      The issue of global warming is solely within the purview of the natural (“hard”) sciences, NOT PHILOSOPHY, NOT POLITICAL SCIENCE and as Lomborg is clearly not trained in the natural sciences, he is incapable of analyzing and incompetent to analyze the data. Furthermore, as to Lomborg’s competence, the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty ruled that although Lomborg’s book was scientifically dishonest, Lomborg himself was not guilty DUE TO LACK OF EXPERTISE IN THE FIELDS IN QUESTION,

      “Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall
      within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization.
      Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good
      scientific practice.”. The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, 2003 Annual Report.

      If you’re claiming a conspiracy to suppress evidence against man-made global warming, you’re going to have to do better than resorting to political science and philosophy. Try peer-reviewed studies—or are all these
      being suppressed by the monied interests?.

    8. Nicklas Raynbeau

      Okay I am going to make this short because I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, but since you to the time to look up the data I appreciate that in a topdocs forum.

      There is no conspiracy, I have never claim such a thing. There is a structural confine of the environmental discourse which is actually hampering the progression of science on the matter. Me and all my fellow academics in the human ecology field (which is cross disciplinary, I research both "hard" and "soft" science) research come from peer-reviewed studies and journals. You really don't seem to understand what I am saying, instead you are focusing on Lomborg, he was just a anecdote. There is a built in self-bias in the debate, those who pay for the scientific debate are not scientist, they are politicians, they have professional interests in the out come. Like wise the journalist who cover the spectacle have branched into "environmentalist", news papers need head line to sell, dramatic head line sell more issues, dramatic head lines create a popular belief, a popular belief influences politicians, politicians afford funding to universities and institutions. It not that complicated to understand really. To reiterate, there is no conspiracy! There is an uneven "playing field" if you like. Where certain scientist get canonized for being true to the faith and others demonized for questioning it.
      Yes the data collection and analysis of global warming related topics is much in the domain of natural sciences. But, again, and again, there are no "objective" facts, the scientific process of global warming and how to act on it is not a neutral phenomenon. It needs to be critically examined and evaluated in broader social context, which natural scientist cannot do.

      As far as your arguing on scientific discoveries, you really should read more on the matter. Your ramblings sounds like a disgruntled community collage professor from the 1960s, update and revise your knowledge on these subjects, you come of a intolerably ignorant. I could recommend reading about the greatest idea ever had by a swiss patent clerk and then disregard philosophy behind it and the future implication for science that would have had.

    9. robertallen1

      Einstein's discoveries were based on mathematics, not philosophy--and incidentally he was not a Swiss patent clerk. He was a German working in the Swiss Patent Office.

      The existence and effects of global warming and how much of it is man-made its are strictly within the discipline of the "hard" sciences. What to do about them is something else, but still primarily within the realm of the "hard" sciences, not political science, not philosophy.

      "There is an uneven "playing field" if you like. Where certain scientist get canonized for being true to the faith and others demonized for questioning it." I've heard the same complaints regarding "creation science"--and they won't wash. And, by the way, science is the opposite of faith--perhaps you mean the mainstream.
      Now, let's see the peer-reviewed backing up your claims.

      P.S. You are the one who brought up Lomborg which gives me the right to focus on him.

    10. pwndecaf

      Aren't some mathematics a philosophical construct? Why is there such a thing as mathematical Platonism? Isn't math a form of logic?

    11. robertallen1

      There might be mathematical philosophy (for what it's worth), but it's of no use in doing mathematics just as there's literary philosophy and musical philosophy which are of no use in writing novels or composing symphonies. Hence, all are mere navel contemplation. Math's use of logical proofs as opposed to empirical ones does not place it in the realm of philosophy.

    12. pwndecaf

      It is not a subject I can argue, but it seems to me there are many that disagree with you. I'll leave it to Wikipedia to argue in my stead.

    13. Marie

      You know that's somebodies jobs to argue and make doubts about obvious and known facts on the internet, right ? They get paid for, when you talk to a "brick wall", think twice, and spare your comments, caus you're not talking with an objectiv person....Just an advice....

    14. Shawn Green

      So what you are saying is the 20000+ peer reviewed studies and 97% of climatologists all falsified data in order to prove their theories and get a paycheck? All of them are corrupt, just not your guy.

      Thats just so ridiculous. It borders on insanity.

      Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Prob not.

      You keep saying there are no facts and throw forth political science majors to prove it. Why?

      Why would you take the word of 1 political science guy vs thousands of climatologists?

      It's amazing that you are a even a pseudo scientist with that outlook. You dismiss their findings as biased immediately and without facts yet assume this guy was railroaded when the very case you quoted CLEARLY says that he was not discredited as a political scientist but was told his findings were not factual because HE DID NOT understand the data correctly.

      What a shocker Mr Political Science doesn't know jack about climatology.

      Maybe he should cure cancer next and show all those scientists they don't know jack too.

      I think you are mistaken as to who is the brick wall.

    15. Nicklas Raynbeau

      1st. No. I am not saying that they are all corrupt. Where did you derive such understanding from? I'm saying it uneven scientific playing field. Please prove me wrong.

      Yup, I've heard of occams razor.

      3rd. I have never dismissed any findings based upon my assumptions that the scientific endeavor lacks crucial components for healthy progression. I don't know where you keep getting these ideas.

      I think "an outside" point of view on a paradigm is the most healthy of all perspectives to take. It's always hard and painful for those inside it to hear. If not we should just take all North Koreans word for it being the best country in the world to live in.

      To my knowledge Mr. Lomborg has never said he knew anything about climatology that climatologist didn't know. His contribution was a new perspective on the data accumulated. (He is not as many would believe a climate change denier). Have you read any of his books?

      Again, to really reiterate the key point of my original post. Climate change as a paradigm is an enormously powerful concept that may or may not be used for the betterment of everyone. I have no doubt that the scientist who work in the field are great people and smart academics. It the proxy-relations of politics and money that needs a very very careful critical overview. The way "good" science should be conducted is skewed. The methodology is great, the epistemology and ontology is dubious. Do you understand this? I'm talking about a bigger macro-perspective. Not the workings of climatology.

    16. Jon

      Who said that peer review is the key to science? The best minds are peerless and quite ahead of their time. Peer pressure and academic authoritarianism have imposed limits that retard progress and frustrate changes for the better. The social menace has been overcome by the more objective scientific method.

      Third parties are removed from the scientific method, reason why there is progress. The scientific method is a way to verify a fact without the need of approval by a tribunal of false witness who only think they know. The facts will speak for themselves, and the method is the best basis for defense.

      During the Dark Ages, the authorities who do not spend time in observation called the shots. The public who were ill informed persecuted non-conformists, or anyone who get to break the prevailing myths and convenient paradigms. Those who called themselves experts are simply people who learned to accumulate or memorize the most crude and unreliable knowledge available at the time, The career of these experts are at a loss every time their learned ideas are challenged with the discovery of better Truth or know how. In due time they would have become obsolete, parroting away disproven myths and superstitious beliefs that they have absorbed from school.

    17. benwiley

      political science is a science but it has nothing to do with expertise in the climate or natural processes.

  15. Guest

    hmm, here in Indiana we just had one of the coolest Julys with only have 7 days in the 90's and the rest in the 80's or lower... 30 years ago they were saying that we are heading towards an ice age, now we are going to burn ourselves up. Climate change is real, man made climate change - probably not.

    1. robertallen1

      You cannot judge the whole world by the one little niche in which you reside.

    2. bulldogg18

      What Im saying is, there's inconclusive proof that man is causing global warming. It's not just in Indiana, check out the whole midwest.

    3. robertallen1

      The whole midwest is just a small part of the world. You are obviously not getting the point.

    4. Shawn Green

      ummmmm its pretty conclusive if you actually cared to look.

    5. bulldogg18

      There have been ice ages and "warmer" periods, Greenland use to grow grapes, there was a mini ice age when Washington crossed the Delaware. There are cycles that the planet goes under. There is more correlation with water temperature than CO2 production when talking about climate change.

    6. robertallen1

      " . . . there was a mini ice age when Washington crossed the Delaware." Source?

    7. Albert Potato

      Google it, many reputable sources and sites for this. History channel did a good documentary on this a few years ago, it may be on this site.

    8. robertallen1

      I don't have to. Bulldogg18 made the claim. The burden of proof rests with him. Promoting the shifting of this burden renders you dishonest.

    9. DigiWongaDude

      How very true...I hope, one day, you heed your own words, and even more sincerely hope your comment doesn't get deleted (since I will be referring to it).

    10. robertallen1

      I do. What's your problem?

  16. Maddox 1414

    The thing that kills me about this documentary is people bitching about how energy consumption has harmed their lives. And to know how damn well they all consume the energy they strive to stop. I'm not saying that having philosophies about energy consumption is bad. I'm saying that those affected will scream the greatest, and yet waller on down to Walmart and not think twice about the fact that their demand creates the same thing they strive to eradicate. Even if you shop locally, those light bulbs don't light up from "local magic". No matter how hippy you attempt to be, oil and gas had something to do with your consumption. Energy companies would not be in business if the market didn't exist in such great quantities. Our only hope now is depletion. Market destruction by force. You can't convince everybody to live in a wood fired, starvation, shanty town. But the physical limitations of supply versus consumption can. Times have been great, but it's only been 100 years. We can't even imagine that our plan is flawed. We can't even fathom that we're at the whim of the Earth, and what it will and won't allow.

  17. systems1000

    @shekel-gruber; reluctant to use the word?enjoy your flood.

  18. britoven322

    Unless people are willing to confront /come to grips with the vast worldwide weather modification aerosol program going on right over their heads everyday,they don't have the full picture of what's really going on. Watch the documentary "Why in the World are they spraying" and get informed.

  19. Nickolas

    what does corporation over riding property owners rights have to do with celestial neighbors?

  20. Nickolas

    what does poisoning of people, water, soils, and ecosystems with heavy metals, sludge, bitumen, and other toxic chemicals have to do with our celestial neighbors?

  21. dmxi

    what are the odds that our celestial neighbors are simultaneously
    heating up too ?how is this explainable or is it a coincidence being
    tooled as a myth?

    1. DigiWongaDude

      With a comment like that, how can I possibly not watch this :)

    2. dmxi

      hi digi,haven't watched it yet,but swerving through related topics, the perturbance of our solar neighbors is often mentioned ,which sources i haven't thoroughly researched for myself yet.don't want to come to debunkable conclusions, do we???... as nothing is more dangerous than spouting half-knowledge & ludicrous claims!!!...but they sure do spark a lively discussion ,if you leave away the insults & the questioning of intelligence which is the darker side of entertainment.which we sometimes come across,if you know what i mean?

    3. AllanA

      Taking care of our environment should be number one plan of attack. I could care less if our celestial neighbors got it together or not.

    4. systems1000

      i agree,our celestial neighbors Only exist in star trek world (if at all) its us who are being the slow cooked frogs in the pot.Lets jump out now while we still" may"? can.

    5. ogger151

      Our celestial neighbors are surrounding planets not little green men from outer space. So if Our celestial neighbors Mars for example is also heating up then we could not blame that on global warming. I am not saying it is just trying to clear up what I think dmxi 's point is. I have read many articles claiming polar caps on mars are shrinking.

    6. systems1000

      exactly and precisely what and where is the source of origin of these acticles? I,m sure that we would all like to have access to this alleged information. I hope its more then just H.G.Wells now working for BP and living in wang Fow province for tax reasons.

    7. ogger151

      "our celestial neighbors Only exist in star trek world (if at all)" No mars and other planets are really there. You want to see articles about mars and its polar ice caps melting there are some that go back before the 90's. Try google. The issue is not if the planet is heating up its why? Is it us or is the sun just getting hotter?

    8. Shawn Green

      You should try googling before you spout off...

      Colaprete et al. conducted simulations with the Mars General Circulation Model which show that the local climate around the Martian south pole may currently be in an unstable period. The simulated instability is rooted in the geography of the region, leading the authors to speculate that the sublimation of the polar ice is a local phenomenon rather than a global one. The researchers showed that even with a constant solar luminosity the poles were capable of jumping between states of depositing or losing ice. The trigger for a change of states could be either increased dust loading in the atmosphere or an albedo change due to deposition of water ice on the polar cap. This theory is somewhat problematic due to the lack of ice depositation after the 2001 global dust storm. Another issue is that the accuracy of the Mars General Circulation Model decreases as the scale of the phenomenon becomes more local.

      It has been argued that "observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing." Writing in a Naturenews story, Chief News and Features Editor Oliver Morton said "The warming of other solar bodies has been seized upon by climate sceptics. On Mars, the warming seems to be down to dust blowing around and uncovering big patches of black basaltic rock that heat up in the day."

      It's all over google that the melting and refreezing of the polar ice caps on Mars is pretty standard.

      You just have to want to look for it, not just google what you want to see.

    9. ogger151

      Maybe you should read a comment a little more carefully before you sprout off of and write a book about it. And question still remains is the earth heating up because of us or because of natural occurrences. I do not live on Mars so don't really care what happens there.

    10. dmxi

      thanks ogger,for understanding what i was trying to convey. it's a delicate issue where sides are clearly taken & posts like mine heat up the discussion...which i have to confess was my intention....but i wear those 'down' votes with pride>smirk<...cheers again!

    11. dmxi

      so!pointing out that half knowledge is dangerous ,attracts negative votes...mmh,makes one ponder!?

    12. DigiWongaDude

      The 'best' comment on "The Great Global Warming Swindle" includes...

      "Satellites orbiting Mars for the last 20 years confirms receding polar caps on that planet. Highly improbable that humanity is to blame for this." - awful_truth

      which, if true, is interesting...

      Yes I know what you mean. Instead of counting to 10, I like to say 'I never did mind the little things', which if said slowly achieves more of the same. (a tip [from the 1993 film 'The Assassin'] that I've always liked)

    13. englishjakes

      After actively looking for the peer reviewed paper that this claim of other planets heating up as well i could not find one (i paid over $10 000 joining university libraries). one of my friends said it was a Chinese study, lol this is funny to me because china is the only country to exceed america in carbon emissions (they build a new coal power plant every week) therefor this has no reliability. 99.9% of scientist agree that our planet is going to be screwed in the next 200 years. we have calculated how much carbon we can put into the air without causing an ecological disaster, guess what we have 5 times that in storage already considering these companies would go bankrupt if they were to discard 80% of the product they already have, i think were screwed. i try to think optimistically but in the end change is happening to slow.

    14. Nicklas Raynbeau

      Here is one, it's not chinese...

      National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2008, May 12). Solar Variability: Striking A Balance With Climate Change

    15. englishjakes

      um this is not a peer reviewed paper man, its a report from nasa that doesnt say anything about the other planets heating up. besides that it states that the sun contributes to less than 25% of the heating affect (while green house gases contribute to 40%) which then after the solar maximum goes back to normal over an 11 year process. i dunno maybe im reading the wrong thing if you want me to look at something please link the weblink not the title.

    16. Shawn Green

      He doesnt actually read the links he posts. He just posts things.