In Part 7/9 of this video @ 1:50 & 2:49 Global Warming Scientist ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES & the ICEAGE & WARM PERIOD CYCLE is CAUSED BY THE EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN. Then the sun's warmth releases additional planetary CO2 which exponentially adds atmospheric warmth. SO FIRST CAUSE of WARMING is SUN! GW Scientist also admitted HIGHER CO2 levels DURING THE JURRASIC PERIOD 55 million yrs ago @8:12 & 8:35! So much for "MANMADE" global warming.
WATCH PART 7/9 starting@ 1:50 lead GlobalWarming scientist FINALLY ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES, then@ 2:49 he confesses ICEAGES & WARM PERIOD CYCLE is CAUSED by EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN! "But its certainly true that in those iceage interglacial periods that carbon dioxide DID NOT LEAD the temperatures. It was actually the temperatures starting first." Then sun's warmth releases more CO2 from earth which exponentially adds global warmth. FIRST CAUSE is the SUN!
So the guy with glasses concedes that the amount of anthropogenically caused CO2 is insignificant compared with the non-anthropogenic CO2, but that the planet only knows how to 'breath' non-anthropogenic CO2 'in and out', to maintain its 'natural balance'. I see- so when plants breath in the molecules of CO2 that are caused by man, they can't breath out Oxygen, because *those* CO2 molecules aren't part of the 'natural balance'. Is that what he's implying, or is he just generally talking shit?
First time viewer of this JONES nails his colours to the mast. ABC is cultivating a political class and that is of the left leaning. dissapointed that my tax goes to the promotion of a leftist leaning paradigm. ABC needs to be privatised.
9:20 there hasnt been a balance in CO2 levels ever since Earth formed its atmosphere CO2 levels have on average fallen there used to be 4000+ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and life thrived and what have we now 350ppm?? please its not even 10% of previous figures lol
8:20 ok correct me if im wrong here but didnt a climatologist compare a gas to a virus 2 completely unrelated terms in which one needs a host to reproduce and another is a gas that can just sit there minding its own business. and a solar physicist comparing Radiation to a gas where CO2 is actually beneficial to life INCREASING plant growth ¬_¬
few years down the line, will i be charged more carbon tax because i have bigger set of lungs than the standard set by environmentalists or government agencies?
is it man made global warming?
is it a planned recession?
I am not a environmentalist or a scientist, but i have studied economics and business for 6years and i know what it is.......
Skeptics are being labeled as demons in this documentary. Skepticism is the back bone of science, without it, we would still be believing that the earth is flat.
@bubbah how can this be a denialist documentary? They aren't denying anything are they? they're just not believing that the human race and its advancements in technology is to be blamed for global warming.
@jubileeboy17 They are denying basic, simple, clear scientific facts. That's what denialists do.
Yes, you are right. The documentary is made by believers. These blind believers are on a crusade to defeat the facts. These are religious zealots who fight science with their lies and propaganda.
@bubbah See, now you are not open minded in this. They are not denying any facts. Denial would be blind as skepticism would be based on research and fact based rebuttals. They have not denied anything that the "believers" have presented, they have merely presented counter researches and experiments based on scientific data. That is skepticism.
@jubileeboy17 Oh, I am very open-minded indeed, because I am open to changing my mind if the facts point in a different direction.
But the facts are clear. As a former skeptic, I educated myself, and now I see through your denialist bullshit with ease.
There is no valid research to the contrary. Look up the article "Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature?" on skepticalscienceDOTcom.
@jubileeboy17 Skeptics are not being labeled as demons. However, science denialists are being called out as the ignorant, dishonest, lying scumbags that they are.
Actual skepticism is great. Global warming deniers, however, are not skeptics.
9:20 - PROF. Andrew Pitman, Explaining "natural Co2" (not man made) and we have "upset" this balance with our man made unnatural Co2... Suggesting that humans are unnatural, emitting a different kind of carbon dioxide that our earth cannot handle.
This also suggests Andrew Pitman is a completely brainwashed moron.
Water vapour makes-up 96% of greenhouse gases, and humans contribute a fraction to the carbon cycle. Thereby only a fraction to the "greenhouse effect".
Would anyone suggest that we tax water vapour, do people understand that we would not inhabit this planet if there was no green-house effect.
Sun-light does prevent many cancers!, including skin cancer!; the term "redneck" comes from the fact that southerners would burn more easily due to a vitamin deficiency from their diet. Otherwise sunlight+
The movie spends the first 4 minutes attacking the author, and "channel 4" - NOT actually providing evidence that the movie is wrong. George Monbio's opening statement is basically "hes lying" - not pointing out anything that's actually false. It then proceeds to discredit scientists. WHERE IS YOUR DATA? Why the character attacks? BP, Exxon, and all the energy companies are up to their eyeballs in Global warming and BP WILL profit when you go solar.
The 'debate' that ABC hosted is a farce. They're obviously not open to the opinions that Durkin proposed, and they did this special not to have a debate, but rather to discredit him. Shameful, shameful, shameful. This looks like something MSNBC or CNN would do over here in the states.
"while it does not change my stand that CO2 is good for the biosphere"
To what degree is CO2 is good for the current biosphere? Would the current biosphere be as good at 90% CO2 as it is now? If not, then according to your "stand" what would you say is the optimum percentile range of CO2 in the current biosphere?
Please back up your "stand" with something called "evidence" - if you can
I do not know exactly where optimum is but it is a hell of a lot higher than current. CO2 is not toxic to any life forms and it feeds the foundation of the food chain.
however you are not showing that you are as mature as "the ex future president" by saying "something called" before "evidence" so I know no evidence I show you (even right out of the climate change journal) will have any influence.
Funny how these guys didn't do a response to Al Gore Inconvienient Truth.
It amazes me that so many people are sheep and just go with the flow of the powers that be and the "scientific community" I went to a debate in which a professor came from Australia to London to show that mmgw is pure foolishnesh & could not find a single "expert" to debate him on this subject.
I like how the skeptics just refuse to listen and process what is being said... except when a short-sighted director with no comprehension of science, distorts facts and testimonies in order to communicate their same viewpoint. Only then do they listen and rejoice.
if in injected a small amount of of ebola virus ..is this guy a scientist !? What a load of toss. adding co2 is like saying "if I inject a small amount of water into your body It will kill you ! weird!
@klnine Kinine, water injections WILL severely hurt your body, and may actually kill you, depending on the accumulated amount. I agree that the ebola metaphor was pretty dumb. Yours, on the other hand, pretty much sums it all up. Impressive.
Also, please listen and be open-minded to the arguments presented before you, before disregarding them.
The point of mentioning the proportions of co2 was not to suggest that 'because the proportion is so small it therefore has little effect on the environment' but to prove wrong the large number of ignorant people who think that co2 Is taking up a large percentage in the atmosphere.
@masterofdisguise1 not at all. the proportion of human produced co2 is minimal. The reason that life on earth exists is the sun. It heats us ! the reason the earth temperature is moderated is water in its many phases ! Co2 is irrelevant when it comes to temperature moderation, do the math !
LOL this stupid asshole at 8:27 says "This idea that the amount of something is proportional to how important it is, is clearly silly" - THATS exactly what skeptics are saying, that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere IS not proportional to how important it is or "how big an impact it has and Co2 is the same"
Margaret Thatcher's people started this insane "snowballed" theory based on the fear of Capitalism would takeover the monarchies - hence - its all political and has nothing to do with ecology or proven scientific data!
Did anybody actually hear what this Prof Pitman (8:26) argues?!? He says the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant as to the damage it can do. The example he uses to back up this claim is the Ebola virus! He basically says a little CO2 can behave like a virus in that it can produce replicas of itself, multiply and completely infest a host body! CO2?!? Dividing and duplicating itself?!?!?! THis guy is a nutcase!!!
@evanom2 it was an intuitive analogy (used by most 'system' thinker) to represent a 'sensitive-system' in comparison to a 'non-sensitive-system'. It is used to show that certain system is vulnerable to small change, (such as the 'butterfly effect', chaos theory)), while certain system is insensitive to even a big change. -This idea is important for SYSTEM SCIENCE, and is primarily involved with supercomputer climate simulation.
When a TV station don't agree with the team of reporting what they want you to hear. You sling mud at them till you can make them look like fools. Don't tell the truth on the news, but only what they want you to hear. I can see right off here this is going to be a mud slinging contest because a tv station did not tell what the news wanted to say to the public. Sling the mud till you can beat them down.
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
Didntsaythat, Prof. John Christy is a well known AGW Denier. Oil & coal companies help fund UAH.
However, in February last year Dr. Christy, said global temperatures are rising 0.14C per decade. That's 0.42C in 30 years.
JEEZ, that's almost EXACTLY the same as NASA figures.
BTW, if we're not warming, you'd better send a memo right away to the melting arctic ice, melting glaciers, and plants, animals and insects all moving north.
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"
February 5, 2010
"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
In November 2009, nearly 3000 e-mails between British and American climate scientists were hacked from a computer at East Anglia University, showing the suppression of data that may dispute global warming, and also showing the deliberate manipulation of actual scientific data to make it fit the fraudulent model that says humans and Co2 are responsible for climate change. Also if I'm not mistaken, 2009 was one of the coolest years in the past century.
2009 was, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the coldest year in a decade, and they expect 2010 to be worse, perhaps the coldest since 1996..... In fact, the Earth has been on a cooling trend for the past 5 years. I guess Global Warming is taking a vacation? lol
Because their budgets depend on scaring people with the global warming myth, various government organizations and bureaucrats have desperately been spinning this cooling trend, even as they avoid directly mentioning it. Around 2006, there started a growing trend to refer to it as climate change, not global WARMING, because they wanted to re-brand it before the cooling became well-known.
Now were all familiar with witch-hunt logic: We throw the unpopular woman in the lake: If she drowns, she was innocent. If she floats and survives, shes a witch and we burn her at the stake. This kind of evil trick has been used by people seeking power through fear, for as long as recorded history. It is one thing that Principles of Justice, and the Scientific Method, are supposed to counteract.
Sadly, this appears to be the same logic that the global warming profiteers use.If the weather is warm, its proof of global warming, if its cold, its proof the weather has been disrupted by global warming. The scientific method does not stop them, even though they are climate scientists, because they do not use it. They have long-ago abandoned the rules of hard science.
When its really hot somewhere locally, they say its evidence of global warming. When its really cold, it not only means nothing, thats weather, not climate, but maybe its because global warming is disrupting the weather, so it proves global warming. The north polar ice cap had a significant melt: Warming. The Antarctic ice sheet grew larger than in recorded history: Silence.
Again with the belief that GW was determined by a single data point at one given time by a few evil scientists. We all know science doesn't work that way and we're getting tired of educating you ppl. greenman3610 has vids answering all those standard denier claims. But you're not interested in hearing how science actually works are you?
Never forget the goal of the warming cults fudged data is to control your Food , Energy , Travel , your familys entire life .
There the new priesthood and you will obey
The new priests / scientists will keep the demons at bay if we give them our freedom oh and cash too . Its a scam used thruout the ages , well understood by the elites .
According to Deborah Cory Barnes, author of The Money and Connections Behind Al Gores Carbon Crusade, Al Gore started Generation Investment Management (GIM) with co founder Hank Paulson. Remember him? Yes, he was the Treasury Secretary. Guess what? Yes, he is also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. (Didnt Goldman Sachs just get billions in Federal Reserve pledges, bailouts, and or Tarp?)
Another scam to fleece working & middleclass people out of more of their money
Wow. This "debate" is an absolute joke. They are out to just corner the poor bloke, make him look small, scared and uncertain and use a journalist as the most outraged person about the entire documentry, without backing up his own statements or any science behind what he believes.
9 of last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record. 2009 = 2nd HOTTEST on record & solar irradiance is at 35 year low Search: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs See: Ranking (Top 10 Warmest Years) The latest on YouTube: It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming /watch?v=sAvqabAPIr4&feature=sub 50% of arctic sea ice & mountain glaciers have disappeared in just 30 years. Plants, animals & insects are all migrating north. Search: Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
I can't believe how the message was manipulated to attack the documentary. This video itself is full of loaded questions with directed at obtaining preconcieved results. THis just goes to show the type and kind of support the GW scam really has. This video is very tacky.
Amazing how instead of arguing with the main points of the documentary such as the effect of the sun, they choose to attack the makers of the documentary by quoting JOURNALISTS!
@fudge987654321 What do you expect from a biased scumbag like Tony Jones who goes crying to his boyfriend David every time someone questions his religion...
I'm pretty sure "a little bit of Ebola" isn't the same thing as a little bit of CO2. One's a life giving gas that doesn't use the Earth's systems to create more of itself, the other is a deadly virus that hijack's the cell's replication systems. What a load of strawman bullshit. Don't they teach these fucking morons what a false analogy is?
@ninjanerd8 We need to make a stand now!!!.....Stop all CO2 production before!!....what was that?...the Ocean creates 100 - 115Giga tons a year of the stuff??!! and we create around 3Giga Tons?......Henrys law you say.....Ahhh let me get back to you, maybe the sky isn't falling after all. :)
@Cougar139tweak There are over 300 million people living in the U.S.A..That's 7 200 000 000 tons of Co2 per year for most households and transportation and only accounting for the USA. that's 7.2 Gigatons divided by 4 people per household 1.8Gigatons for USA only, and only household and transportation. So you are WAY WAY WAY off.
@luc59457 This is a good point, you (I assume you are an American) are most of the problem anyway, I take the bus to and from work, I assume you probably drive to work in an SUV most likely. You guys being the problem should fix it and leave the rest of us alone. I think fossil fuels are a problem because the poison the enviroment..however ..CO2 is the least of our problems and I've been hearing this crap for a long time and it JUST ISN'T HAPPENING to any real degree.
@Cougar139tweak I think fossil fuels are a problem because the poison the enviroment..however ..CO2 is the least of our problems... That is a contradiction.. Co2 is often the result of Fossil fuels.. It doesn't poison the environment, neither does methane, if you go read on wikipedia it says... What they leave out is.. In high enough amounts it is considered toxic to life, and at varying amounts depending on the tollerance of that life.. Everything has limits.
@luc59457 This is not a contridiction, I'm saying yes it is bad, but for a different reason. I'm simply saying that CO2 is a smaller problem then our poisoning of our atmosphere. Wikipedia for your sources hey??? Ha Ha!! You're killing me! CO2 is a gas that the oceans make in enormous amounts, Plants breath the stuff, as well as give it off at night. Can you give me a percentage of total gas in our atmosphere and the percentage we are responsible for.... :) I think the answer will suprise you.
@moosesteak7 No I'm not a Climate Scientist, if I was I certainly wouldn't be tring to debunk this stuff, for fear of my wallet becoming quite empty!! Kind of like being a specialist in the treatment of Polio, don't see a lot of those guys getting funding. This Golden Goose will be around as long as their are suckers to believe it, and scientists that want funding. Notice how fuels aren't the issue (creation of alternatives) but the main issue is now taxes on current Carbon creating fuels??
There is essentially no debate, within the greater scientific community at present, as to whether the current, very rapid rate of warming is caused mainly by mankind. That is a fact, and those that do not understand or that deny that fact are either ignorant, or willfully ignorant.
Personally I believe a carbon tax is a good idea, but that's another issue.
@moosesteak7 You're right oh no......... I'M MELTING ahhhhhh......very rapid, is that a scientific statement? where is this very rapid warming?? If you live in the Midwest of the US you might want to glance out the window. Here in the Southern Hemisphere we're a bit skeptic, not seeing any change here mate. "greater scientific community" you mean the guys getting all the funding and passing around emails to "prop up" their hypothesis. This ain't evolution buddy, jury is still out.
@Cougar139tweak If you look at the data on a global scale, we are continuously setting records for high temperature. And looking the the historical data, the rate of temperature rise is unprecedented. More important, the overwhelming concensus of the experts in the scientific community is that anthropogenic warming is occuring, and it is a very serious threat. Within the sicentific community at large, the jury is not out. You are simply misinformed if you believe that.
@moosesteak7 Am I mistaken or did we not just witness one of the coldest winters on record in the midwest and southern United States? We are currently having on of the coldest summers we've ever had in Australia (southern half) in decades. Once again I'm not saying I don't want to get rid of Fossil Fuels because I certainly do. However I just think that we sould be careful that we don't cry wolf and then the Big Business sector will have a blank check. That's my fear.
@Cougar139tweak However, you could certainly be forgiven for your misunderstanding, as there has been a very vigorous effort among the oil lobby and right wing conservatives to seed doubt re the issue. Furthermore, in the interest of being "fair and ballanced" equal weight is often given to the deniers, while a very very small proportion of experts question AGM--and if you dig a little you will undoubtedly find they are on the payroll of big oil.
@Cougar139tweak I too am not a climate scientist. So I can only read and learn and try to make an objective conclusion. I'm aware that temperature cycles are natural and earth will warm and cool over eons. I have to rely on experts, and they are telling us overwhelmingly that there only greenhouse gasses--and mostly CO2--can account for the recent increase in temp.
@Cougar139tweak I have a lot of faith in science, particularly as my father is a PHD in zoology/ecology and has studdied issues related to this one for forty years. I am confident that he knows what he is talking about, and to him there is not the slightest question about it at this. Like you have to rely on others. I've taken course related to it recently in Uni--the professors say the same things. Those on youtube and websites supported by the oil industry of course differr.
@Cougar139tweak As for cooler weather in SOME areas, you have to look at long term global trends, and not individual weather events. A lot of the snow, for example, was predicted, due to more humid conditions over the oceans. In this respect too, climate CHANGE is a better description than global warming--though the trend it overall warming.
@Cougar139tweak We now release around 7.5 gigatons carbon equivalent (~28 Gt CO2). The natural carbon cycle both emits AND absorbs CO2, roughly in equilibrium. There's some excess capacity in the system (so nature is also absorbing part of our emissions pressure, at least for now), but not nearly enough for even today's output. What we're doing, by burning huge amounts of fossil carbon (and for decades), is causing a rapid (by even pre-holocene standards) buildup, and risk.
@Cougar139tweak It is estimated that more than 50 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities (U.S. EPA). Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires.
@luc59457 I would concider Methane a "Poison" so I'm right with you on that one. It's also a much more aggresive greenhouse gas as well. That being said why no mention of cows and sheep? Aren't they natural or is the fact we raise them make them "unnatural"? I'm not saying that I'm on board with the "drill baby drill" idiots but this whole climate thing is becoming like a hippy culture cult thing. Almost as bad as the far right. Speaking of which WTF how did BP get off so easy??
@luc59457 I like hippys, I just think getting too "tunnel visioned" on the approach is a bad idea. Also these hypocrites that zoom around in private jets to make appearances on global warming is a joke.
@Cougar139tweak Some people want to and know how to make a difference, A lot of others may think they are promoting/supporting something/someone (Al Gore) which they perceive as beneficial or worthy. The problem is, while 1 tries and/or wants to make the best differences, their are 10 others to mess it up. Intentionally or not, this can be related to a lot of situations
ref Svensmark'... our solar system's position in our galaxy's 'spiral arms' throughout earth's history, explains it's cosmic radiation effect on earth's atmosphere (the Ice Ages). It is regulated by our Sun's fluctuating magnetosphere. How relevant is the more recent ERBE data in correlation? No wonder the IPCC blocked Svensmark's scientific team's 'paper'. It is revolutionary. It is Threatening to the UN's world control...educational, watch all 6 parts (52 min)...on YT.
@Graham6762 - We (man) are chopping down all the plants that get rid of CO2, that's part of the problem. Also, the only one coming across like a Zealot here, is you.
ridiculous.. it is called a falacy to compare to different things and make it equal and then make a point.. the atmosphere is not a being to be killed, and we're talking about a physical process not chemical ones
Global warming is the readily demonstrated cause and effect of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere
Regardless of what was happening with the natural Ice Age cycle of the last few millenia, or orbital cycles, subduction, ocean and atmospheric chemistry, changes in the geometry of the continents etc..
...the gases our industrial waste processes have dumped into the atmosphere are having an extra effect which is causing things to warm up faster than they would have otherwise...
The thing I can't get past is the fact that CO2 rises after temperatures rise. CO2 lags behind temperature by about 500 years. If thats the case and from all the data present it seems to be the case (ever the data in Al Gore's movie) then how does CO2 cause climate change.
The reason for the lag is well understood. In the case of natural warming, it is the sun that typically initiates the trend. Warming then releases CO2 from the oceans, which contributes to a positive feedback loop. So heat begets CO2 which begets more heat. What we're doing now is releasing the CO2 ourselves, and so today, it is the CO2 itself that is the primary cause of warming, and CO2 begets heat begets more CO2.
Oh, and I might add that when we do see injections of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere in the paleoclimate record (such as those caused by supervolcano eruptions), they are indeed followed by a period of warming.
They always forget to mention that the so called temperature rise is bogus. all the measurements are taken on land. 70% of the earth surface is water. Most of the temperature measurement systems are close to manmade heat sources, stand on asphalt, have been moved several times, are too close to the ground and countless other faults. Hence: no proof that temperature rose when solar activity dropped. this is FACT.
'An inconvenient truth'...produced by an 'also ran' politician (set to make personal billions from 'carbon trading' at tax payers expense) now banded about our schools, positively encouraged by authority and thus rendering the next generation a bunch of feckless, regressive fools.
"The most recent period when CO2 levels were as high as today was around 15 million years ago, during the Middle Miocene. CO2 levels were at about 400 ppm.
"What was the climate like at the time? Global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today.
"Sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher. There was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland. "
the doc doesn't challenge the global warming, it challenges the MAN-made global warming. ABC continue to use the power of suggestion. ABC continue to misinformed the public. stop watching ABC, you'll do good to yourself.Ask yourself this question, why would dunkins give an interview?. and watch the tone used by Tony Jones. sounds like in a movie when the good guy is in a secret trial and doesn't have the right to speak.What's important in this debate is to watch how it is guided by Tony Jones.
Interesting so-called refutation. They attack the few of those that they can with little more than the fact that they have also rejected other scams like the ozone hoax. But their "refutation" never addresses the claims they are claiming to refute, only attacking the character of the heathen unbelievers.
issues: Defaming the author. Defaming the station. Tell me why is reducing breast cancer bad. Cutting quite a bit in the interview when you warned us about it.
you left something clear, there is something to both stories.
Billions of years to set the natural balance? im assuming hes talking about plants taking in CO2, i assure it does not take billions of years to change a small variable in plants. does he even know what evolution is.
So far mostly ad hominem attacks. Just because the producer has taken controversial positions in the past doesn't mean he's wrong about this one, or even those ones. The rebutters should focus on challenging him on his specific points of evidence.
First view is that, so far, nothing new has been introduced into the discusstion regarding Global Warming. It's starting out as a "personal attack".
This "I disagree" video, has shown no scientific evidence, or data, that causes me to discount the original video, or the scienctific data that was presented in the questioned video to be false.
This looks like a hack job. But, I'll watch the entire series anyway.
OBAMA= FAIL= HILARY = FAIL GEORGE BUSH! WINNER! liberals will always fail, they get a short victory and think they are god, they forget most people are smart, if they take the time to think, and with this econemy and taxes, trust me, obama is a one term, get the fuck out of hear one term FAILER!
Why would I want to know about the characteristics of the arguers when anyone could just repeat the argument? Are we saying that the data changes when the people presenting them changes?
The sun warms the earth and the solar system. Science has no place for sophistry. Al Gore is a fraud. This video is as bad as Gore's Inconvenient truth. Extremely poor documentary. We still don't know what causes cancer. All we have are assumptions and we treat them as facts. Go to hell Sophists.
most ridiculous pro 'we're responsible' propaganda i have seen....
ridicule the man, get the 'top' pro global warming scientists to laugh about it...
face it the earth as well as Mars, Saturn, Venus, Jupiter etc...they are ALL warming....at quite a similar speed. Now isn't that just a co-incidence wouldn't you say...
The rain forests actually use CO2 in photosynthesis and thrive from it. If carbon is causing our polar ice caps to melt, why are they melting on other planets in our solar system as well? I supposed it couldn't have anything to do with that giant ball of radiation called the sun. The northern hemisphere had one of the coldest winters on record with record snow fall the last 10 years. I could use some global warming!!
CO2 used for photosynthesis is an invalid argument. Not only is there a limit to the amount they take in, but CO2 is also released via respiration when photosynthesis is not occurring
Agreed! But many other valid arguments stand. And if you question the "scientists" and politicians when they say we need to act immediately because more research is needed, they will just argue about semantics. Do we all want a cleaner planet? YES! We can actively do our parts if educated, not by forcing middle Americans to pay 50% more taxes to live. And what they plan is nothing short of a 50% tax increaseon our incomes.
Sure, but I have yet to hear any climate skeptic not to use the term bias about those who they disagree with.
It is my personal opinion/experience that those who questions other peoples integrity, always have a lot in their own closets. So I really think such a tactic is perfectly alright.
Showing a polemic film like GGWS on television would get the station a lot of views and attention.
But dissecting that film and showing its inaccuracies would get the station even more views and attention.
Great job ABC. Maybe now people will start to realize that the folks at NASA, AAAS, and every other scientific organization on the planet do know what they're doing.
Durkin is full of shit and so is his "documentary". An example: They claimed in the documentary that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes.This is completely false, infact current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. It's a bullshit flick which, to quote criticism, "misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments" etc.
It doesn't matter if climate change occurs or not. All this movement and show behind it causes that people in poor parts of world are suffering and dying because of that popularity. We must aplly that real problem is pollution, waste, foor modyfications, global toxyfication and so on caused by companies and corporation who are going to seel their products anyway. Doesn't matter if eco climate friendly or traditional ones.
Several of the argument against this documentary is vague, and non-scientific; does none of these know the scientific method or the functions of the economical system?
Look up the economy of the believers of the theory, and their history. I.e. Al Gores previous statements, and his druguse in his youth. Then you have equal arguments which null these counter-arguments, even though they're just plain dumb.
CASE CLOSED!!
In Part 7/9 of this video @ 1:50 & 2:49 Global Warming Scientist ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES & the ICEAGE & WARM PERIOD CYCLE is CAUSED BY THE EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN. Then the sun's warmth releases additional planetary CO2 which exponentially adds atmospheric warmth. SO FIRST CAUSE of WARMING is SUN! GW Scientist also admitted HIGHER CO2 levels DURING THE JURRASIC PERIOD 55 million yrs ago @8:12 & 8:35! So much for "MANMADE" global warming.
shawso7 2 weeks ago
As you'd expect, a totally one-sided BS program from well-known lefty Tony Jones.
Besetho 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WATCH PART 7/9 starting@ 1:50 lead GlobalWarming scientist FINALLY ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES, then@ 2:49 he confesses ICEAGES & WARM PERIOD CYCLE is CAUSED by EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN! "But its certainly true that in those iceage interglacial periods that carbon dioxide DID NOT LEAD the temperatures. It was actually the temperatures starting first." Then sun's warmth releases more CO2 from earth which exponentially adds global warmth. FIRST CAUSE is the SUN!
shawso7 1 month ago
This program is in itself another swindle! lol
riethc 2 months ago
Once again.. monkeys fighting over a banana!
Themezzner 3 months ago
So the guy with glasses concedes that the amount of anthropogenically caused CO2 is insignificant compared with the non-anthropogenic CO2, but that the planet only knows how to 'breath' non-anthropogenic CO2 'in and out', to maintain its 'natural balance'. I see- so when plants breath in the molecules of CO2 that are caused by man, they can't breath out Oxygen, because *those* CO2 molecules aren't part of the 'natural balance'. Is that what he's implying, or is he just generally talking shit?
gerontodon 3 months ago
why did they have to show a dumb bimbos boobs. the zionists never stop.
sssssjjjj1 4 months ago
This is an excellent resource for how disingenuous and disgusting global warming skeptics are. Thanks for posting!
MomSaysImCool 4 months ago
I think rather than trying to discredit the film maker, they should of been asking the scientists if what they said was correct.
This is the great global warming swindle debate swindle.
wmvaux 5 months ago
Huh? Gases and Viruses are completely different...
Boredpersons55 6 months ago
@Boredpersons55 Ugh it's an analogy.
87Nathanial 6 months ago
@87Nathanial
A bad analogy.
Boredpersons55 6 months ago
Tony Jones ... starts with an AD Hominem on Martin Durkin and chnl 4. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black .. Least we know your bias Tony ...
CSaidou 6 months ago
First time viewer of this JONES nails his colours to the mast. ABC is cultivating a political class and that is of the left leaning. dissapointed that my tax goes to the promotion of a leftist leaning paradigm. ABC needs to be privatised.
zoltanapril42 6 months ago
9:20 there hasnt been a balance in CO2 levels ever since Earth formed its atmosphere CO2 levels have on average fallen there used to be 4000+ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and life thrived and what have we now 350ppm?? please its not even 10% of previous figures lol
CaptainCrumple 6 months ago
8:20 ok correct me if im wrong here but didnt a climatologist compare a gas to a virus 2 completely unrelated terms in which one needs a host to reproduce and another is a gas that can just sit there minding its own business. and a solar physicist comparing Radiation to a gas where CO2 is actually beneficial to life INCREASING plant growth ¬_¬
CaptainCrumple 6 months ago
few years down the line, will i be charged more carbon tax because i have bigger set of lungs than the standard set by environmentalists or government agencies?
is it man made global warming?
is it a planned recession?
I am not a environmentalist or a scientist, but i have studied economics and business for 6years and i know what it is.......
anubhavbhrigu 7 months ago
This thing's a hit piece on behalf of the global warming hysteria.
FantasticBob7000 8 months ago
oo boobs 3:00
465160 9 months ago
Skeptics are being labeled as demons in this documentary. Skepticism is the back bone of science, without it, we would still be believing that the earth is flat.
jubileeboy17 11 months ago 5
@jubileeboy17 Um, the movie is NOT a skeptical movie. It's a DENIALIST movie.
Skepticism is good. Denialism is bad.
bubbah 1 month ago
@bubbah how can this be a denialist documentary? They aren't denying anything are they? they're just not believing that the human race and its advancements in technology is to be blamed for global warming.
jubileeboy17 1 month ago
@jubileeboy17 They are denying basic, simple, clear scientific facts. That's what denialists do.
Yes, you are right. The documentary is made by believers. These blind believers are on a crusade to defeat the facts. These are religious zealots who fight science with their lies and propaganda.
bubbah 1 month ago
@bubbah See, now you are not open minded in this. They are not denying any facts. Denial would be blind as skepticism would be based on research and fact based rebuttals. They have not denied anything that the "believers" have presented, they have merely presented counter researches and experiments based on scientific data. That is skepticism.
jubileeboy17 1 month ago
@jubileeboy17 Oh, I am very open-minded indeed, because I am open to changing my mind if the facts point in a different direction.
But the facts are clear. As a former skeptic, I educated myself, and now I see through your denialist bullshit with ease.
There is no valid research to the contrary. Look up the article "Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature?" on skepticalscienceDOTcom.
You are no skeptic, but a dishonest denier.
bubbah 1 month ago
@jubileeboy17 Skeptics are not being labeled as demons. However, science denialists are being called out as the ignorant, dishonest, lying scumbags that they are.
Actual skepticism is great. Global warming deniers, however, are not skeptics.
bubbah 3 weeks ago in playlist The ABC Great Global Warming Swindle Debate
Thank god humans were there for the first ice age cuz we woulda been screwed!!
tylittle12345 11 months ago
9:20 - PROF. Andrew Pitman, Explaining "natural Co2" (not man made) and we have "upset" this balance with our man made unnatural Co2... Suggesting that humans are unnatural, emitting a different kind of carbon dioxide that our earth cannot handle.
This also suggests Andrew Pitman is a completely brainwashed moron.
DRSelkirk 11 months ago
@DRSelkirk What's your point?
moosesteak7 11 months ago
@moosesteak7 I am suggesting that Andrew Pitman is a completely brainwashed moron.
DRSelkirk 11 months ago
So CO2 to the atmosphere is like the Ebola virus to humans?
98nafets 1 year ago
New low from ABC. If you cannot prove the message (of the film maker) wrong, attack the messenger...
goofy932 1 year ago
Water vapour makes-up 96% of greenhouse gases, and humans contribute a fraction to the carbon cycle. Thereby only a fraction to the "greenhouse effect".
Would anyone suggest that we tax water vapour, do people understand that we would not inhabit this planet if there was no green-house effect.
Sun-light does prevent many cancers!, including skin cancer!; the term "redneck" comes from the fact that southerners would burn more easily due to a vitamin deficiency from their diet. Otherwise sunlight+
8n4n08 1 year ago
The movie spends the first 4 minutes attacking the author, and "channel 4" - NOT actually providing evidence that the movie is wrong. George Monbio's opening statement is basically "hes lying" - not pointing out anything that's actually false. It then proceeds to discredit scientists. WHERE IS YOUR DATA? Why the character attacks? BP, Exxon, and all the energy companies are up to their eyeballs in Global warming and BP WILL profit when you go solar.
xmorg 1 year ago
The 'debate' that ABC hosted is a farce. They're obviously not open to the opinions that Durkin proposed, and they did this special not to have a debate, but rather to discredit him. Shameful, shameful, shameful. This looks like something MSNBC or CNN would do over here in the states.
bstnrdsxfrk 1 year ago
ROFL.... there is naturaly CO2 in the atmosphere. there is NOT ebola naturaly in my body.
TAPriceCTR 1 year ago
@TAPriceCTR
There is Iodine naturally in your body - now increase this natural amount by 40%
GOOD LUCK!!
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
finally, a green who makes a sound argument. while it does not change my stand that CO2 is good for the biosphere atleast it is a sound analogy
TAPriceCTR 1 year ago
@TAPriceCTR
"while it does not change my stand that CO2 is good for the biosphere"
To what degree is CO2 is good for the current biosphere? Would the current biosphere be as good at 90% CO2 as it is now? If not, then according to your "stand" what would you say is the optimum percentile range of CO2 in the current biosphere?
Please back up your "stand" with something called "evidence" - if you can
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
I do not know exactly where optimum is but it is a hell of a lot higher than current. CO2 is not toxic to any life forms and it feeds the foundation of the food chain.
however you are not showing that you are as mature as "the ex future president" by saying "something called" before "evidence" so I know no evidence I show you (even right out of the climate change journal) will have any influence.
TAPriceCTR 1 year ago
@TAPriceCTR
"I do not know exactly where optimum is but it is a hell of a lot higher than current. "
How do you know that?
"so I know no evidence I show you (even right out of the climate change journal) will have any influence."
So because I said "something called" before "evidence you can predict the future - WOW !!!!!!!
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Um, and where is the debate with IPCC and putting them against the scientific wall? :) Or Gore.
friendofyou 1 year ago
Funny how these guys didn't do a response to Al Gore Inconvienient Truth.
It amazes me that so many people are sheep and just go with the flow of the powers that be and the "scientific community" I went to a debate in which a professor came from Australia to London to show that mmgw is pure foolishnesh & could not find a single "expert" to debate him on this subject.
Ivor7777777 1 year ago
@Ivor7777777
that is because the debate was over before it began.... because if they were to allow the debate the gore camp would lose
TAPriceCTR 1 year ago
I like how the skeptics just refuse to listen and process what is being said... except when a short-sighted director with no comprehension of science, distorts facts and testimonies in order to communicate their same viewpoint. Only then do they listen and rejoice.
darkmusentertainment 1 year ago
if in injected a small amount of of ebola virus ..is this guy a scientist !? What a load of toss. adding co2 is like saying "if I inject a small amount of water into your body It will kill you ! weird!
klnine 1 year ago
@klnine Kinine, water injections WILL severely hurt your body, and may actually kill you, depending on the accumulated amount. I agree that the ebola metaphor was pretty dumb. Yours, on the other hand, pretty much sums it all up. Impressive.
Also, please listen and be open-minded to the arguments presented before you, before disregarding them.
darkmusentertainment 1 year ago
i hate that biased guy
Grivahri 1 year ago
The point of mentioning the proportions of co2 was not to suggest that 'because the proportion is so small it therefore has little effect on the environment' but to prove wrong the large number of ignorant people who think that co2 Is taking up a large percentage in the atmosphere.
TheMangarita 1 year ago
Ok, so the proportion doesn't matter, in that case the naturally produced CO2 would be enough to screw the planet wouldn't it?
masterofdisguise1 1 year ago
@masterofdisguise1 not at all. the proportion of human produced co2 is minimal. The reason that life on earth exists is the sun. It heats us ! the reason the earth temperature is moderated is water in its many phases ! Co2 is irrelevant when it comes to temperature moderation, do the math !
klnine 1 year ago
so both sides are just as bad then.
fabes0011 1 year ago
LOL this stupid asshole at 8:27 says "This idea that the amount of something is proportional to how important it is, is clearly silly" - THATS exactly what skeptics are saying, that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere IS not proportional to how important it is or "how big an impact it has and Co2 is the same"
David4683 1 year ago
Margaret Thatcher's people started this insane "snowballed" theory based on the fear of Capitalism would takeover the monarchies - hence - its all political and has nothing to do with ecology or proven scientific data!
ouluvme2 1 year ago
the ebola virus example is fucking stupid
mikesomething 1 year ago
Did anybody actually hear what this Prof Pitman (8:26) argues?!? He says the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant as to the damage it can do. The example he uses to back up this claim is the Ebola virus! He basically says a little CO2 can behave like a virus in that it can produce replicas of itself, multiply and completely infest a host body! CO2?!? Dividing and duplicating itself?!?!?! THis guy is a nutcase!!!
evanom2 1 year ago
@evanom2 it was an intuitive analogy (used by most 'system' thinker) to represent a 'sensitive-system' in comparison to a 'non-sensitive-system'. It is used to show that certain system is vulnerable to small change, (such as the 'butterfly effect', chaos theory)), while certain system is insensitive to even a big change. -This idea is important for SYSTEM SCIENCE, and is primarily involved with supercomputer climate simulation.
xponen 1 year ago
When a TV station don't agree with the team of reporting what they want you to hear. You sling mud at them till you can make them look like fools. Don't tell the truth on the news, but only what they want you to hear. I can see right off here this is going to be a mud slinging contest because a tv station did not tell what the news wanted to say to the public. Sling the mud till you can beat them down.
turtle4aire 1 year ago
this mediator is so arrogant, IPCC is known for manipulating information and reports and should not be trusted
10 years from now some people on this debate will be very embarassed for their intolerance and ingenuity
StraussBR 1 year ago
Surely you could have gotten a respected scientist to say the film was scientific fraud and NOT an UNKNOWN journalist
ThereIsCake 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
goog2k 1 year ago
whats the song at 2:52?
thanhrohit 1 year ago
@thanhrohit
Wayne Fontana & the Mindbenders-The Game of Love
socialismispoison 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEWS:
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
goog2k 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Terrific new NASA YouTube:
Our Earth has a FEVER! - the Climate Change puzzle
/watch?v=XzfRs74b-qw
For excellent data & scientific info. on Climate Change search:
1) Climate Change: Key indicators
2) Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth (These are the BEST sites)
3) NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System
4) Climate change odds much worse than thought MIT
-- and for some other great scientific YouTubes see the greenman3610
& potholer54 channels.
goog2k 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Didntsaythat, Prof. John Christy is a well known AGW Denier. Oil & coal companies help fund UAH.
However, in February last year Dr. Christy, said global temperatures are rising 0.14C per decade. That's 0.42C in 30 years.
JEEZ, that's almost EXACTLY the same as NASA figures.
BTW, if we're not warming, you'd better send a memo right away to the melting arctic ice, melting glaciers, and plants, animals and insects all moving north.
Duhh???
You deniers are PATHETIC!
goog2k 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JUST FOUND THIS:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"
February 5, 2010
"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
Search:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
goog2k 1 year ago
In November 2009, nearly 3000 e-mails between British and American climate scientists were hacked from a computer at East Anglia University, showing the suppression of data that may dispute global warming, and also showing the deliberate manipulation of actual scientific data to make it fit the fraudulent model that says humans and Co2 are responsible for climate change. Also if I'm not mistaken, 2009 was one of the coolest years in the past century.
iankovach509 2 years ago
Yes you are very mistaken. About every single thing you said actually.
sajfen 1 year ago
2009 was, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the coldest year in a decade, and they expect 2010 to be worse, perhaps the coldest since 1996..... In fact, the Earth has been on a cooling trend for the past 5 years. I guess Global Warming is taking a vacation? lol
iankovach509 1 year ago
Because their budgets depend on scaring people with the global warming myth, various government organizations and bureaucrats have desperately been spinning this cooling trend, even as they avoid directly mentioning it. Around 2006, there started a growing trend to refer to it as climate change, not global WARMING, because they wanted to re-brand it before the cooling became well-known.
iankovach509 1 year ago
You can take any 100-year trend and find a short section that seems to go the other way. That's how you fool people with statistics. Well done!
Thank zombiejesus that our scientists are smarter than that.
sajfen 1 year ago
Comment removed
iankovach509 1 year ago
Now were all familiar with witch-hunt logic: We throw the unpopular woman in the lake: If she drowns, she was innocent. If she floats and survives, shes a witch and we burn her at the stake. This kind of evil trick has been used by people seeking power through fear, for as long as recorded history. It is one thing that Principles of Justice, and the Scientific Method, are supposed to counteract.
iankovach509 1 year ago
Sadly, this appears to be the same logic that the global warming profiteers use.If the weather is warm, its proof of global warming, if its cold, its proof the weather has been disrupted by global warming. The scientific method does not stop them, even though they are climate scientists, because they do not use it. They have long-ago abandoned the rules of hard science.
iankovach509 1 year ago
When its really hot somewhere locally, they say its evidence of global warming. When its really cold, it not only means nothing, thats weather, not climate, but maybe its because global warming is disrupting the weather, so it proves global warming. The north polar ice cap had a significant melt: Warming. The Antarctic ice sheet grew larger than in recorded history: Silence.
iankovach509 1 year ago
Again with the belief that GW was determined by a single data point at one given time by a few evil scientists. We all know science doesn't work that way and we're getting tired of educating you ppl. greenman3610 has vids answering all those standard denier claims. But you're not interested in hearing how science actually works are you?
sajfen 1 year ago
Yeah - they did this in the 80s too when the rebranded GRIDS to AIDS. Can't trust any of them!
hamishmacks 1 year ago
Michael Durkins = previous scientific fraud = nuff said.
spacecowboy95 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Never forget the goal of the warming cults fudged data is to control your Food , Energy , Travel , your familys entire life .
There the new priesthood and you will obey
The new priests / scientists will keep the demons at bay if we give them our freedom oh and cash too . Its a scam used thruout the ages , well understood by the elites .
ozzycriss 2 years ago
Al Gore Carbon Credit Lord
According to Deborah Cory Barnes, author of The Money and Connections Behind Al Gores Carbon Crusade, Al Gore started Generation Investment Management (GIM) with co founder Hank Paulson. Remember him? Yes, he was the Treasury Secretary. Guess what? Yes, he is also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. (Didnt Goldman Sachs just get billions in Federal Reserve pledges, bailouts, and or Tarp?)
Another scam to fleece working & middleclass people out of more of their money
Thisawareness 2 years ago
Wow. This "debate" is an absolute joke. They are out to just corner the poor bloke, make him look small, scared and uncertain and use a journalist as the most outraged person about the entire documentry, without backing up his own statements or any science behind what he believes.
CotardDelusion 2 years ago
goog2k 2 years ago
I can't believe how the message was manipulated to attack the documentary. This video itself is full of loaded questions with directed at obtaining preconcieved results. THis just goes to show the type and kind of support the GW scam really has. This video is very tacky.
Crumper00 2 years ago
Do these fuckfaces actually have any evidence for their case or will they just attack the messenger
93msinclair 2 years ago
Amazing how instead of arguing with the main points of the documentary such as the effect of the sun, they choose to attack the makers of the documentary by quoting JOURNALISTS!
unbelievable
93msinclair 2 years ago
You wouls expect this of the Australian communist media
93msinclair 2 years ago
LOL I love the way they trash talk chanel 4.
As far as I am concerned chanel 4 is a repsected tv chanel in the uk.
fudge987654321 2 years ago 11
@fudge987654321
Channel 4 produce some of the finest documentaries that I've seen.
In fact when you take the BBC's massive tax funding into account Channel 4 come out way ahead in the quality of their factual programming.
ThereIsCake 1 year ago
@fudge987654321
This channel is ABC Australia, they have a strong left-wing bias, the host is a stooge!
slowerthanjordans 1 year ago
@fudge987654321 What do you expect from a biased scumbag like Tony Jones who goes crying to his boyfriend David every time someone questions his religion...
ninjanerd8 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure "a little bit of Ebola" isn't the same thing as a little bit of CO2. One's a life giving gas that doesn't use the Earth's systems to create more of itself, the other is a deadly virus that hijack's the cell's replication systems. What a load of strawman bullshit. Don't they teach these fucking morons what a false analogy is?
ninjanerd8 1 year ago
@ninjanerd8 We need to make a stand now!!!.....Stop all CO2 production before!!....what was that?...the Ocean creates 100 - 115Giga tons a year of the stuff??!! and we create around 3Giga Tons?......Henrys law you say.....Ahhh let me get back to you, maybe the sky isn't falling after all. :)
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago
Comment removed
luc59457 1 year ago
@Cougar139tweak There are over 300 million people living in the U.S.A..That's 7 200 000 000 tons of Co2 per year for most households and transportation and only accounting for the USA. that's 7.2 Gigatons divided by 4 people per household 1.8Gigatons for USA only, and only household and transportation. So you are WAY WAY WAY off.
luc59457 1 year ago
@luc59457 This is a good point, you (I assume you are an American) are most of the problem anyway, I take the bus to and from work, I assume you probably drive to work in an SUV most likely. You guys being the problem should fix it and leave the rest of us alone. I think fossil fuels are a problem because the poison the enviroment..however ..CO2 is the least of our problems and I've been hearing this crap for a long time and it JUST ISN'T HAPPENING to any real degree.
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago
@Cougar139tweak I use an electric bike, which is better than the bus, and I use the bus at times.
luc59457 1 year ago
@Cougar139tweak I think fossil fuels are a problem because the poison the enviroment..however ..CO2 is the least of our problems... That is a contradiction.. Co2 is often the result of Fossil fuels.. It doesn't poison the environment, neither does methane, if you go read on wikipedia it says... What they leave out is.. In high enough amounts it is considered toxic to life, and at varying amounts depending on the tollerance of that life.. Everything has limits.
luc59457 1 year ago
@luc59457 This is not a contridiction, I'm saying yes it is bad, but for a different reason. I'm simply saying that CO2 is a smaller problem then our poisoning of our atmosphere. Wikipedia for your sources hey??? Ha Ha!! You're killing me! CO2 is a gas that the oceans make in enormous amounts, Plants breath the stuff, as well as give it off at night. Can you give me a percentage of total gas in our atmosphere and the percentage we are responsible for.... :) I think the answer will suprise you.
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak "CO2 is the least of our problems and I've been hearing this crap for a long time and it JUST ISN'T HAPPENING to any real degree."
Are you a climate scientist? Where can I read your publications?
moosesteak7 11 months ago
@moosesteak7 No I'm not a Climate Scientist, if I was I certainly wouldn't be tring to debunk this stuff, for fear of my wallet becoming quite empty!! Kind of like being a specialist in the treatment of Polio, don't see a lot of those guys getting funding. This Golden Goose will be around as long as their are suckers to believe it, and scientists that want funding. Notice how fuels aren't the issue (creation of alternatives) but the main issue is now taxes on current Carbon creating fuels??
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak "No I'm not a Climate Scientist"
Thanks for the clarrification.
There is essentially no debate, within the greater scientific community at present, as to whether the current, very rapid rate of warming is caused mainly by mankind. That is a fact, and those that do not understand or that deny that fact are either ignorant, or willfully ignorant.
Personally I believe a carbon tax is a good idea, but that's another issue.
moosesteak7 11 months ago
@moosesteak7 You're right oh no......... I'M MELTING ahhhhhh......very rapid, is that a scientific statement? where is this very rapid warming?? If you live in the Midwest of the US you might want to glance out the window. Here in the Southern Hemisphere we're a bit skeptic, not seeing any change here mate. "greater scientific community" you mean the guys getting all the funding and passing around emails to "prop up" their hypothesis. This ain't evolution buddy, jury is still out.
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak If you look at the data on a global scale, we are continuously setting records for high temperature. And looking the the historical data, the rate of temperature rise is unprecedented. More important, the overwhelming concensus of the experts in the scientific community is that anthropogenic warming is occuring, and it is a very serious threat. Within the sicentific community at large, the jury is not out. You are simply misinformed if you believe that.
moosesteak7 11 months ago
@moosesteak7 Am I mistaken or did we not just witness one of the coldest winters on record in the midwest and southern United States? We are currently having on of the coldest summers we've ever had in Australia (southern half) in decades. Once again I'm not saying I don't want to get rid of Fossil Fuels because I certainly do. However I just think that we sould be careful that we don't cry wolf and then the Big Business sector will have a blank check. That's my fear.
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak Whether one believes human assisted warming is a reality or not, we have other good reasons to evolve our technologies
luc59457 11 months ago 5
@Cougar139tweak However, you could certainly be forgiven for your misunderstanding, as there has been a very vigorous effort among the oil lobby and right wing conservatives to seed doubt re the issue. Furthermore, in the interest of being "fair and ballanced" equal weight is often given to the deniers, while a very very small proportion of experts question AGM--and if you dig a little you will undoubtedly find they are on the payroll of big oil.
moosesteak7 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak I too am not a climate scientist. So I can only read and learn and try to make an objective conclusion. I'm aware that temperature cycles are natural and earth will warm and cool over eons. I have to rely on experts, and they are telling us overwhelmingly that there only greenhouse gasses--and mostly CO2--can account for the recent increase in temp.
moosesteak7 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak I have a lot of faith in science, particularly as my father is a PHD in zoology/ecology and has studdied issues related to this one for forty years. I am confident that he knows what he is talking about, and to him there is not the slightest question about it at this. Like you have to rely on others. I've taken course related to it recently in Uni--the professors say the same things. Those on youtube and websites supported by the oil industry of course differr.
moosesteak7 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak As for cooler weather in SOME areas, you have to look at long term global trends, and not individual weather events. A lot of the snow, for example, was predicted, due to more humid conditions over the oceans. In this respect too, climate CHANGE is a better description than global warming--though the trend it overall warming.
moosesteak7 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak We now release around 7.5 gigatons carbon equivalent (~28 Gt CO2). The natural carbon cycle both emits AND absorbs CO2, roughly in equilibrium. There's some excess capacity in the system (so nature is also absorbing part of our emissions pressure, at least for now), but not nearly enough for even today's output. What we're doing, by burning huge amounts of fossil carbon (and for decades), is causing a rapid (by even pre-holocene standards) buildup, and risk.
luc59457 1 year ago
@Cougar139tweak It is estimated that more than 50 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities (U.S. EPA). Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires.
luc59457 1 year ago
@luc59457 I would concider Methane a "Poison" so I'm right with you on that one. It's also a much more aggresive greenhouse gas as well. That being said why no mention of cows and sheep? Aren't they natural or is the fact we raise them make them "unnatural"? I'm not saying that I'm on board with the "drill baby drill" idiots but this whole climate thing is becoming like a hippy culture cult thing. Almost as bad as the far right. Speaking of which WTF how did BP get off so easy??
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak It's not hippy to evolve our technologies, it's hip.
luc59457 11 months ago
@luc59457 I like hippys, I just think getting too "tunnel visioned" on the approach is a bad idea. Also these hypocrites that zoom around in private jets to make appearances on global warming is a joke.
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak Some people want to and know how to make a difference, A lot of others may think they are promoting/supporting something/someone (Al Gore) which they perceive as beneficial or worthy. The problem is, while 1 tries and/or wants to make the best differences, their are 10 others to mess it up. Intentionally or not, this can be related to a lot of situations
luc59457 11 months ago
@fudge987654321 a repsected? Never heard of that one.
luc59457 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ref Svensmark'... our solar system's position in our galaxy's 'spiral arms' throughout earth's history, explains it's cosmic radiation effect on earth's atmosphere (the Ice Ages). It is regulated by our Sun's fluctuating magnetosphere. How relevant is the more recent ERBE data in correlation? No wonder the IPCC blocked Svensmark's scientific team's 'paper'. It is revolutionary. It is Threatening to the UN's world control...educational, watch all 6 parts (52 min)...on YT.
Blogengezer 2 years ago
So much for an unbiased report...
bubbadankness 2 years ago 7
Global warming is a fraud. Plants breath CO2 fuck you global warming zealots and go to hell. Go fuck some plants you bastards.
Graham6762 2 years ago 2
@Graham6762 - We (man) are chopping down all the plants that get rid of CO2, that's part of the problem. Also, the only one coming across like a Zealot here, is you.
mc200010 1 year ago
ridiculous.. it is called a falacy to compare to different things and make it equal and then make a point.. the atmosphere is not a being to be killed, and we're talking about a physical process not chemical ones
paske2001 2 years ago
Just google:
skepticalscience Skeptic Arguments and What the
Science Says
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
or "youtube climate change the scientific debate" by potholer54
schnacker77 2 years ago
If you don't have the science to back what your saying atack the messenger.
simontimon2 2 years ago
The NWO propagandist has wrote a book
Manifesto for a New World Order By George Monbiot
HumanSayNo 2 years ago
Global warming is the readily demonstrated cause and effect of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere
Regardless of what was happening with the natural Ice Age cycle of the last few millenia, or orbital cycles, subduction, ocean and atmospheric chemistry, changes in the geometry of the continents etc..
...the gases our industrial waste processes have dumped into the atmosphere are having an extra effect which is causing things to warm up faster than they would have otherwise...
Nightversionn 2 years ago
The thing I can't get past is the fact that CO2 rises after temperatures rise. CO2 lags behind temperature by about 500 years. If thats the case and from all the data present it seems to be the case (ever the data in Al Gore's movie) then how does CO2 cause climate change.
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
The reason for the lag is well understood. In the case of natural warming, it is the sun that typically initiates the trend. Warming then releases CO2 from the oceans, which contributes to a positive feedback loop. So heat begets CO2 which begets more heat. What we're doing now is releasing the CO2 ourselves, and so today, it is the CO2 itself that is the primary cause of warming, and CO2 begets heat begets more CO2.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Oh, and I might add that when we do see injections of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere in the paleoclimate record (such as those caused by supervolcano eruptions), they are indeed followed by a period of warming.
werecow2003 2 years ago
counter-counter intelligence
agaist your own psyop pfff
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
All MEDIA are FULL OF SHIT, THEY are ALL owned by the SAME PEOPLE!
tilbis1 2 years ago 2
They always forget to mention that the so called temperature rise is bogus. all the measurements are taken on land. 70% of the earth surface is water. Most of the temperature measurement systems are close to manmade heat sources, stand on asphalt, have been moved several times, are too close to the ground and countless other faults. Hence: no proof that temperature rose when solar activity dropped. this is FACT.
gunthaarz 2 years ago
'An inconvenient truth'...produced by an 'also ran' politician (set to make personal billions from 'carbon trading' at tax payers expense) now banded about our schools, positively encouraged by authority and thus rendering the next generation a bunch of feckless, regressive fools.
Jeez give us strength...we're going to need it.
scudlington 2 years ago
Comment removed
scudlington 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The most recent period when CO2 levels were as high as today was around 15 million years ago, during the Middle Miocene. CO2 levels were at about 400 ppm.
"What was the climate like at the time? Global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today.
"Sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher. There was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland. "
Science Magazine -2009
See: Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on Earth
goog2k 2 years ago
Comment removed
MrNoumasa 2 years ago
the doc doesn't challenge the global warming, it challenges the MAN-made global warming. ABC continue to use the power of suggestion. ABC continue to misinformed the public. stop watching ABC, you'll do good to yourself.Ask yourself this question, why would dunkins give an interview?. and watch the tone used by Tony Jones. sounds like in a movie when the good guy is in a secret trial and doesn't have the right to speak.What's important in this debate is to watch how it is guided by Tony Jones.
MrNoumasa 2 years ago
Interesting so-called refutation. They attack the few of those that they can with little more than the fact that they have also rejected other scams like the ozone hoax. But their "refutation" never addresses the claims they are claiming to refute, only attacking the character of the heathen unbelievers.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
issues: Defaming the author. Defaming the station. Tell me why is reducing breast cancer bad. Cutting quite a bit in the interview when you warned us about it.
you left something clear, there is something to both stories.
Billions of years to set the natural balance? im assuming hes talking about plants taking in CO2, i assure it does not take billions of years to change a small variable in plants. does he even know what evolution is.
oldarney 2 years ago
So far mostly ad hominem attacks. Just because the producer has taken controversial positions in the past doesn't mean he's wrong about this one, or even those ones. The rebutters should focus on challenging him on his specific points of evidence.
MrKevinskii 2 years ago 2
8:23, seriously? If I'm stung by a bee I'll be alright. If I get stung by a hundred bees, I might be screwed.
The only thing "silly," is saying, "the amount of something is not proportional to the impact it will have."
5auce 2 years ago
Yeah - comparing CO2 to the ebola virus is silly.
jdsthebest 2 years ago
This is the lamest rebuttal to anything I have ever seen in my life.
greatzable 2 years ago
First view is that, so far, nothing new has been introduced into the discusstion regarding Global Warming. It's starting out as a "personal attack".
This "I disagree" video, has shown no scientific evidence, or data, that causes me to discount the original video, or the scienctific data that was presented in the questioned video to be false.
This looks like a hack job. But, I'll watch the entire series anyway.
TSFL2 2 years ago
"Silicone breast implants benefited women's health..." Durkin is a deranged crackpot.
wots72 2 years ago
this video is weak
MegaMixking 2 years ago 2
OBAMA= FAIL= HILARY = FAIL GEORGE BUSH! WINNER! liberals will always fail, they get a short victory and think they are god, they forget most people are smart, if they take the time to think, and with this econemy and taxes, trust me, obama is a one term, get the fuck out of hear one term FAILER!
skirbyr 2 years ago
liberal tree huggers = FAIL TIMES OBAMAS HEALTHCARE PLAN!
skirbyr 2 years ago 2
why do they always try to destroy a person instead of the theory....they fail
darkmaster388 2 years ago
Also, instead of just saying "scientific fraud" just state the fraudulent material
PumpkinJoe999 2 years ago
Why would I want to know about the characteristics of the arguers when anyone could just repeat the argument? Are we saying that the data changes when the people presenting them changes?
PumpkinJoe999 2 years ago 3
nice, boobs,
do they show boobs on free tv
in uk and Australian tv
boobs would be cool to see in america
on free tv, but the channels would lose money
sexlessparents 2 years ago
abc unbiased? lol
tony adams is an fukin idiot who deserves to live in china
gensoholicar 2 years ago
The sun warms the earth and the solar system. Science has no place for sophistry. Al Gore is a fraud. This video is as bad as Gore's Inconvenient truth. Extremely poor documentary. We still don't know what causes cancer. All we have are assumptions and we treat them as facts. Go to hell Sophists.
yome122 2 years ago 3
Maybe the fact that an intergalactic alignment is happening on December 21 2012... (long ago predicted & since verified by ASTRONOMISTS...)
(simply ALL THE PLANENTS will align...)
There is TYPICALLY higher solar activity in this period due to a CONSTANT increase of magnetism.
All this hype is to impose carbon tax and CONTROL international business regulations..(amongst other things)..
Open your eyes...when MASS MEDIA bombards you with ANYTHING....think about the MOTIVES...
peace..
freddiedread 2 years ago
most ridiculous pro 'we're responsible' propaganda i have seen....
ridicule the man, get the 'top' pro global warming scientists to laugh about it...
face it the earth as well as Mars, Saturn, Venus, Jupiter etc...they are ALL warming....at quite a similar speed. Now isn't that just a co-incidence wouldn't you say...
freddiedread 2 years ago
no they are NOT all warming.
do check your facts before dissing scientists
ZeDollyDots 2 years ago
"Let's judge the facts in the film by looking at the filmmaker"
Yeah right. Real scientists don't get angry, they bring proof.
CorrosionX3 2 years ago 3
I hate those fucking accents so much that I can not watch this video.
The biggest lie ever told covered up by a bunch of mudslinging liberal socialists LYING THE FACES OFF.
Is it caused by man or partly caused by man? Oh "partly" SO WHATS CAUSING THE OTHER PART, AND HOW MUCH IS OUR PART YOU FUCKING THEIVES!!!???
KingDingaLing090 2 years ago
The rain forests actually use CO2 in photosynthesis and thrive from it. If carbon is causing our polar ice caps to melt, why are they melting on other planets in our solar system as well? I supposed it couldn't have anything to do with that giant ball of radiation called the sun. The northern hemisphere had one of the coldest winters on record with record snow fall the last 10 years. I could use some global warming!!
brown55061 2 years ago
CO2 used for photosynthesis is an invalid argument. Not only is there a limit to the amount they take in, but CO2 is also released via respiration when photosynthesis is not occurring
JuiceBoxheero 2 years ago
Agreed! But many other valid arguments stand. And if you question the "scientists" and politicians when they say we need to act immediately because more research is needed, they will just argue about semantics. Do we all want a cleaner planet? YES! We can actively do our parts if educated, not by forcing middle Americans to pay 50% more taxes to live. And what they plan is nothing short of a 50% tax increaseon our incomes.
brown55061 2 years ago
I'm getting into my SUV and going for a drive.
webbum 2 years ago 3
lol
blinddaterix 2 years ago
Got to love the ABC, they start off by attacking the man not the mantra, socialism at its best.
SouthParkFan2142 2 years ago
Sure, but I have yet to hear any climate skeptic not to use the term bias about those who they disagree with.
It is my personal opinion/experience that those who questions other peoples integrity, always have a lot in their own closets. So I really think such a tactic is perfectly alright.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
Showing a polemic film like GGWS on television would get the station a lot of views and attention.
But dissecting that film and showing its inaccuracies would get the station even more views and attention.
Great job ABC. Maybe now people will start to realize that the folks at NASA, AAAS, and every other scientific organization on the planet do know what they're doing.
rileannas 2 years ago 2
Durkin is full of shit and so is his "documentary". An example: They claimed in the documentary that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes.This is completely false, infact current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. It's a bullshit flick which, to quote criticism, "misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments" etc.
peterukk 2 years ago
it is very misleading to tell people that we are upseting a "natural balance" because as far as we know there is an equilibruim, but an arbitrary one.
The idea of Gaia, and a climate regulating system are misconception that result from lazy thinking.
Best not to encourage that kind of superstitious nonsense.
St37One 2 years ago
It doesn't matter if climate change occurs or not. All this movement and show behind it causes that people in poor parts of world are suffering and dying because of that popularity. We must aplly that real problem is pollution, waste, foor modyfications, global toxyfication and so on caused by companies and corporation who are going to seel their products anyway. Doesn't matter if eco climate friendly or traditional ones.
Shamek23 2 years ago
Several of the argument against this documentary is vague, and non-scientific; does none of these know the scientific method or the functions of the economical system?
Look up the economy of the believers of the theory, and their history. I.e. Al Gores previous statements, and his druguse in his youth. Then you have equal arguments which null these counter-arguments, even though they're just plain dumb.
odin2nd 2 years ago