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! Then@8:12 & 8:35 GW Scientist also admitted HIGHER CO2 levels DURING THE JURRASIC PERIOD 55 million yrs ago! So much for "MANMADE" global warming.
How much you want to bet this clearly biased ABC piece will NEVER deal with the falsified data points put forward by the East Anglia liars. BTW, CO2 follows heat, heat doesn't follow CO2...F'n idiots
WATCH PART 7/9 FIRST CAUSE is the SUN! 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.
He didn't say that ALL temperature increases start before the CO2 increase. He said that in that specific time period, that happened. But he also pointed out that without the CO2 increase, the warming would not have been what it was.
He SPECIFICALLY says that CO2 causes warming, and the ice core data shows that.
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!
He didn't say that ALL temperature increases start before the CO2 increase. He said that in that specific time period, that happened. But he also pointed out that without the CO2 increase, the warming would not have been what it was.
He SPECIFICALLY says that CO2 causes warming, and the ice core data shows that.
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!
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!
It seems to me that the maker of the movie couldnt trust the "current" graphs of the last 17yrs because of the "man-made global warming" bias that he claims had by now already tainted the temperature gathering process. If a person has been in almost any scientific branch they learn how truly difficult it is to obtain "reliable data in almost any field of study. Sadly the better "funded" (more to lose) a project is the chance of skewing the numbers so as not to jeopardize the "research".
they were caught lying dozens of times. all is bs. look up Club of Rome, global warming........go look idiots. this has been planned since? look it up dummy.
these dumbass zionists blew up our ozone trying to knock a whole in the van allen belt so we could go to the moon.....it didn't work....the result was disastrous.
lol to those saying that accurate leaves room for error. They should consider that the development of microelectronics means that our satelites are hundreds of times more accurate, and by that i mean that the MAXIMUM amount or error possible is so small that even if the largest variance is added to the numbers they don't come close to supporting the claims made in this movie.
The interviewer here is shocking. I thought i was going to see some kind of debate on this matter instead, i have just watched another media slave try and force home the globalist agenda. Fuckin ridiculous and this Australian idiot should hang his head in shame and ABC should be fuckin disgusted in themselves
@DelBluenose80 You wanted a debate yet you seem to be disgusted at his contentiousness? He is simply stating facts that make Durkins arguments irrelevant and seemingly deceptive. Its insulting to the scientists to call him a media slave and frankly ridiculous.
All Agriculture/Compost Landfills need to be contained(for methane), and Co2 produced and reduced at the same time by fixing transportation and power sources to be of renewables, longer lasting, of less parts, with cost effectiveness vs the fuel combustion, and 0 emmissions while travelling. All parts of an electric vehicle can last many years, as long as a combustion engine, if they are durable and made right, from the start. Still Expensive but worth it. I'm liking these molten salt batteries!
people look at the short period in human history and scientifically using data that's only 20 years old is a common practice as that is barely a blink of an eye geologically speaking. The 'Hockey Stick' graph is a very short term graph rather than showing the larger picture of 150 years or even longer. The 'stick' shows a much shorter period year to year which can change much more dramatically and don't necessarily show trends (remember that people were worried about an ice age in the 70's).
@petitemasochist Wow are you serious? Believe the interviewer, the other guy who was involved with the film is an idiot and admitted to having to correct some mistakes.The interviewer had not been corrected for anything.Look at who is being corrected and look at whether it is for a reputable reason.. When I put the numbers together, starting from the very small vs natural. We are surely upsetting that balance and equillibrium.. Don't believe me? Proof? Trees can only convert so much. Limitations
if we were currently hotter than the midieval warm period then why can't greenland have the same agriculture they did? why haven't any vinyards returned to england? both those things are recorded in history.
Whoever this interviewer is, he obviously has a "side" and an "agenda" and he should have just interviewed himself in the mirror. This interviewer, the white-headed guy who looks 32 years of age and acts like an old Walter Cronkite, fits the perfect description for Juror of the Spanish Inquistion! Yes, he certainly is very religious.
This is what an open attack on rational thinking looks like, and possibly why jumping on bandwagons is a poor idea based on all kinds of flawed data as well.
It is absurd how the interviewer keeps sticking to the 17 missing years on that timescale. Not to mention that the global average temperature have been in decline since 1998 and that the medieval warm period still is slightly warmer than it has been recently.
Oh dear @infinitearsewipe. If you honestly believe that Phil Jones et al were trying to keep bad science out of journals rather than propagating it then can I have a reference for your proof for the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy because you must believe in them as well.
i love how he has no answer for how the sunspots do NOT correlate to the temperature of the earth. he knows what he did. and he keeps saying "moot point", when it isnt. we know the sun has nothing to do with it. what a moron.
The ABC presenter bangs on about the Hockey Stick which has been completely discredited. I wonder what he would have to say about Climate Gate which has shown the degree of lies and fraud associated with the so-called "Settled Science".
@socialismispoison i suggest you do a bit more research on what climate gate ACTUALLY WAS before you continue to preach that it shows "lies and fraud"...all that was about was scientists trying to keep BAD SCIENCE out of journals...and guess what, the papers WERE reviewed and WERE later discoverd to BE...drumroll please... BAD SCIENCE. oh no! what a FRAUD!...(thats sarcasm)
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.
There's been a +0.55C increase in global temps. the last 35 years & TSI, Total Solar Irradiance, is at 35 year low. For an excellent scientific breakdown on lies and disinformation put out by Climate Change Deniers watchYouTubes: The Big Swindle Movie /watch?v=boj9ccV9htk The Climate Change Denial Industry /watch?v=DIGrkVoa78o&feature=r elated Climate Change anatomy of a myth /watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms And UC San Diego: The American Denial of Global Warming /watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio&feature=e mail
@Gaidal So you are basing all your views on a journalist weatherman? This man, John Coleman is not a scientist and not even a meteorologist . Go ahead and believe him all you want, I will continue to listen to IPPC, NATURE, SCIENCE, PNAS and othe peer reviewed scientific journals for my info...HAVE FUN WITH YOUR JOURNALIST...
CO2 traps heat & temps go up. But soon enough the oceans will be warm enough to stop absorbing CO2 and will eventually release large quantities of dissolved CO2.
Then deniers will say, see warming causes increased CO2.
Duhh???
Another feedback: If temps. rise 3.5C-5.2C as MIT predicts we could be facing a massive uncontrolled methane release from arctic permafrost and lakes. That's game over.
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.
@goog2k You mean the record low temperatures all across the american midwest? The growing ice on the larger antarctic west coast? The fact that geologists have proven that co2 gas rises between 700 and 900 years AFTER a warming period? How about the fact that polar bears are thriving now that countries have started to crack down harder on poachers and hunters? Or lets go into the thirty THOUSAND scientists that say that global warming isn't happening? Or better yet that 1998 was the hottest
year on record and the average temperature has dropped since then? Explain it to me, seriously. I want to know how you can wrap your mind around these facts.
@Gaidal According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), last year was tied for the second warmest year on record after 2005, the warmest year on record. If just looking at the southern hemisphere, however, 2009 proved the warmest yet recorded since record-taking began in 1880. But, researchers say what is most important was that the past decade, from January 1st 2000 to December 31st 2009, proved the warmest on record.
@Gaidal OK, so you say that polar bears are thriving, then why On 14 May 2008, the United States Department of the Interior listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.???
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"
See they can talk alot of shit to their own flock, but when they are actually cornered and questioned, when their claims are debated and contested by actual scientists, they crumble like me maam's coffee cake.
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
The increase in temperature statistics in the last 20 years, menchioned at 1:20, could well be fabrication to back the global warming agenda since it all started around 20 years ago. As you can see the media are desperate to discredit this documentary
Could be, or climate change awareness could be a response to a global mean temperatue increase in the last twenty years. Unless you know for sure, you'll present the trend from your own agenda.
Could be, or climate change awareness could be a response to an actual global mean temperatue increase in the last twenty years. Unless you know for sure, you'll present the trend from your own agenda.
@93msinclair or it could be true.... using this logic we might as well disregard all scientific research as it may be because of some agenda. Science is the closest we get to reality and i'd argue your life depends on what it has enabled. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
@batmanhorse I don't treat all scientific research with the same suspicion. I'm a computer scientist and mathematician myself. I just find this data suspect since big corporations and governments have expressed an uncondtitional bias on this issue. There are literally millions of factors affecting the climate, most of which are ignored. For instance just a small change in the angle at which the sun shines accounts for the difference in temprerature between the equator and north pole.
@93msinclair The implications of this particular theory are so immense that dont you think it would be in our interest to seriously consider them? Also what possible reason can you propose as to why corporations and governments would support this issue, keeping in mind that the energy industry and automotive industry are some of the largest in the world?
@batmanhorse Well capping carbon emissions will cause millions in the third world to starve due to increased food transportation and production costs, given how many live on one dollar a day, so the precautionary principle is not valid. The main killer in the third world is poverty not natural disaster. The emissions trading legislation (invented by BP) allows oil companies and banks make a lot of money trading carbon credits. Al Gore and Maurice Strong have made 100s of millions of $ doing so.
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.
very few things have been proven in science...and you also say maybe 200 scientists are climatologists out of the 31,000 scientists, well it is the same with the IPCC. look up global warming debate real world observations vs. climate models. a global warming alarmists admits less than 20% of the "top" 2500 scientists are climatologists. also but you are right GW does involve other fields. this goes to both sides, and all of the 31,000 scientists are have proper credentials for those fields
The IPCC include many non-scientists, that's true. But the data were evaluated by scientists. Plus, you don't have to rely on the IPCC report, that's just a summary of the consensus. If you look at the literature, it's very clear that the overwhelming number of climatologists are now convinced that AGW is real. The debates are about the details.
And no, all of the 31,000 scientists do not have proper credentials in the relevant fields. That's precisely the problem. Explain to me how a marketing PhD, or an engineer, or a lawyer, has the proper background to evaluate climate science.
Nobody mentions that the sun is considered a "constant"... that's the problem... nobody but John Coleman brings this up, and he has done quite a bit of research in Revelle's work.
@tippman2k01 How come? It started of as fairly crap, but the actual debate was pretty good and couldn't see any bias apart from the "conspiracy nuts" crap. I still need to check out solar activity correlations. I can get started on tangents very easily.
um there is a correlation between the sun and temperature. google climate gate first off, and u will realize the data is manipulated. second, google the environmental effects of increased carbon dioxide. it debunks everything u are told (in numerous peer reviewed papers) also there are 30,000 scientists that want to sue al gore for fraud, and they are all legitimate. the alarmist claim that signatures are forged is debunked right on the petition project website.
If by "data was manipulated" you're referring to "hiding the decline", this is not data manipulation, but a correction for a well known discrepancy between tree ring data and actual temperatures. There is at this point no evidence whatsoever that any of the data are fraudulent, and it is confirmed by many other sources.
the alarmists claim solar activity has decreased these past 30 years, but in fact it has risen. there are articles from harvard scientists that confirm it has risen. but the very big red flag is there are 30,000 scientists that want a debate on AGW (because there is a lot of room for debate), yet they are told shut up the debate is over. the only explanation for this is alarmists are afraid, because when the debate is balanced, the skeptics win. google the intelligence squared forum GW debate
Well, no, they don't claim that. That would be an odd claim, seeing as the length of the sun spot cycle is about 11 years. What they do claim is that the sun spots do not track the temperature increase observed. As for the 30000, the criterium for what qualified people as scientists in this petition was having ANY undergraduate science degree. Not exactly asking the experts. By analogy, there are also plenty of BSc economists who question evolution theory, but almost no biologists.
yes they do claim solar activity has gone down. look at this video an alarmist scientist claims solar activity has gone down. and i have heard that argument about the 30,000 scientists all the time, and it is debunked right on the petition projects website. alarmists forged peoples names on the petition, but people heading the petition are constantly checking credentials to see if they belong on the petition. also the fact there has not been a solid debate on the issue yet is a huge red flag
There have been debates going on from the 1950s when this was first thought to be a potential threat. They were conducted in the scientific arena, where they belong. The part about whether AGW is a real phenomenon was pretty much settled year ago. Check the literature if you like. As for the solar activity, I think they mean the deviations from the mean over a certain time span. I'll check that again. Do you have a peer reviewed citation that suggests an increase in activity?
As for the petition, I urge you to take a random sample of name from the list and google them. Check their credentials if you find anything. It might surprise you.
google the environmental effects of increased carbon dioxide. many scientists testify solar activity has gone up. not to mention dr. peirs corbyn uses the sun to predict weather months in advance, and he is more accurate than the weather channel, and sometimes NASA. and dont give me that bull shit that hes been wrong numerous times, because i have searched that claim, and there is only 1 credible source that says he's been wrong once. also if AGW is a problem, how come we've cooled since 1998?
Climate is erratic. The cooling trend that is sometimes mentioned has not been consistent. It also has a well understood explanation in the El Niño and El Niña. Furthermore, climate change is measured in terms of decades, not years. Look, do yourself a favor and really google a few of the signees on that petition. There are 200 climatologists on there at the most. It's a total distortion, and you can check that real easy. They just count on you not to do that. It's an old trick.
i have, and why do u have to be a climatalogist to debate global warming? the skeptics main argument is the sun and cosmic radiation is the primary driver of temperature, so this brings another field in: astronomy. you can be an expert on the sun, and explain how it drives temperature, and what makes the earth cool. and we have been cooling since 1998 that is 1 decade, and you are right, it was due to el nino, and climate is always changing; its erratic. how can they say the warming is unnatural
Because climatologists are specifically trained in climate science. Science is tough stuff, and you can't expect people that have no formal training in climate science to understand it. Astronomers can calculate some of the variables where the sun is concerned, but they typically do not have experience with fields like atmospheric science, oceanography, geochemistry, or biochemistry, all of which come into play. It's not just about how much energy comes in, but how it's used.
Also, I haven't seen many astronomers or other physicists that are actually working as scientists, either. So far I've seen mostly engineers, people who do marketing, and lawyers.
because the population is increasing (which means more CO2) and the earth is cooling. google new peer reviewed study chills global warming fears. a peer reviewed paper comes up saying 5 times the amount of CO2 would have no effect on temperature. just remember when you have the science on your side, you argue the science, if you dont, you attack the messenger. that is exactly what the GW alarmists are doing now, they are shunning, and threatening anyone who challenges them
If you could give me the name of the article, that would help. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers that say exactly the opposite. You're also contradicting yourself; if skeptics are "being silenced", the papers would not be printed in peer reviewed journals. They would be rejected.
I already explained the "global cooling" idea, and why it's flawed.
And finally, let me ask you this: on the one hand, you claim that the earth has been cooling over the past 30 years. On the other, you claim that solar intensity has increased and that that explains the warming observed over that same period. So which one is it?
not to mention the scientists who challenge global warming just want a debate, because there is A LOT of room for debate, but instead of a debate they are shunned, threatened and denounced as heretics. this is a red flag that the "deniers" are right, bc theyre denied debate, threatened
tim ball moved to a concealed location because he is in fear for his life. they didnt touch on that in this biased POS "debate" most of the scientists that were interviewed in this video were on the alarmist side
When there is an unrefuted scientific basis for a debate, it is carried out in the scientific arena. That happens all the time. The public forum is not a suitable place for that debate because the public does not have the background to judge such a debate, and it would only confuse the issue for the laymen. You can still follow it in the science lit if you want to. It's when contrarians are pushing for public debates on a matter of science when a proper skeptic should get suspicious.
what are you talking about. in the intelligence squared forum debate, it was 3 scientists for AGW and 3 scientists against AGW, and the scientists' job is to support their theory with evidence, and the alarmists really have no strong evidence, hence that is why the skeptics won the debate. also there are legitimate scientists like tim ball who challenge the GW theory, and are threatened, when they just want to debate. there HAS NOT been any BALANCED debate on AGW. and the AGW is falling apart
Mr. Durkin does a good service for Europeans. They are more susceptible to this kind of theories. Americans are not concerned about it. But Europeans have a history of believing in strange things like dictatorship, communism, na-z-ism and now extreme environmental theories like this.
The interviewer is such an obnoxious twat, it's unbelievable, has he never heard of something called "objectivity"? He also attacked him at the end for correcting his mistakes, how about Al Gore? he has never corrected the many mistakes in his movies.
The data doesn't diverge after 1990! The fraudulently "corrected" so-called"data" does but the raw data matches the solar activity rather well, even explaining the cooling of the last decade.
I too am a scientist, a grad student in the Biosciences, and I completely agree. Anytime someone says "PROVEN" then there is definitely an outside agenda because there are very few things that have been proven in science. Physicist even still argue for and against special relativity and there is more data backing that theory than almost any other theory in existence.
One thing I've noticed is that there's a lot of splitting of hairs. The arguments are really insignificant. Next he'll be arguing that the animations used were too child-like. Well only half-way though this video right now so maybe it would get better.
@abc1000001 The interviewer doesn't have to be impartial to be fair and truthful. He, as well as the editors, made sure that the director would have his points of view clearly expressed and shown on the partial questions.
The swindle film however distorted many point of views and facts.
@darkmusentertainment If the interviewer doesn't have to be impartial, then it turns into a joke, ie: a waste of time. You're stating that your point of view is the truth and if the interviewer shows his agreement with your point of view, then he is being fair. Nice distortion.
@comanchio1976 I found the interviewer took sides before he asked any questions, therefore he would seem to do a good job to those who have the same view. However, I believe that an interviewer should be impartial as I've claimed all along.
I can't hepl but be amused / deeply disturbed by how the Al Gore/IPCC side is being held up to a very different standard of scrutiny and (lack of) criticism compared to the skeptical side of the debate. Witness the fairly irrelevant but long and agressive inquiry into why "now" has been used on the chart. Can't remember anyone publicly assaulting like this Al Gore about his fantastic claim of 20 ft see level rise.
this attack on the film maker, obviously shows how great the power of the Global warming society has in the media.
whatever it is, i still feel, if its a great threat, (C02) more funding should also be given to various R&D of reducing c02 not by restricting oil, but by enhancing the usage of oil. no matter what, oil is a natural resource meant for development, and the industry provide jobs for many many ppl, alternative energies makes sense only as alternative source, not as the main source
I have reviewed (in detail) the scientific data, the original documentary, and now, I'm 5 minutes into this "objection" and I feel completely comfortable in rejecting the oponents here as those who cannot deal with admitting they are incorrect (not a bad thing) because they feel it's a prick to their pride.
Everybody makes mistakes. Everybody is wrong occasionally. Everybody makes incorrect judgments.
So far, it appears the global warming "enthusiasts" are STILL incorrect.
Now that we are experiencing a stasis and cooling they are shifting they're emphasis away from near surface temperatures, which they heavily relied upon in the past, and looking at ocean temperatures. However they do not include data from the ARGO bouys which showed cooling in the ocean.
Tony is attacking biases evident in the film. When are we going to see him attacking the bias in the IPCC?
The IPCC is a political organisation with an obvious agenda. 1 degree of warming per century is wholey within natural limits. The standard deviation of the last 10,000 or so years in temperature about 2.5 degrees per century. The globe has experienced this kind of warming at many points in the past.
We must guard ourself against anybody who would use anything as a means to make money, even if it is born out of a lie or an outright fraud. That is the problem of our generation today. Its a paradox. We are in a generation wherein information is very much accessible yet we as a generation is the most ignorant. The reason for that is because we never use our critical thinking into the process and just accept everything as gospel truth. No wonder why we are often times duped by powerful people.
There is also a good lesson from all of these debates. (1) We put too much faith on science a an institution but now it is revealed that even they as experts cannot agree on simple matters. (2) By putting too much faith on an institurion, whether on the media, politics, science, religion, etc, we are actually giving them too much power that they would eventually abuse it to their own purposes. This whole GW is actually a good example.
I personally believe that this whole global warming is a hoax. But it doesn't mean that we have to junk some of the things that we do like protecting the forest or clean up or water systems or reduce toxic gases. What I would suggest is that we continue to advocate such practices but not because of global warming but simply because these practices would benefit us in the long run and would ensure our future generation a world that is clean and healthy.
I guess Humans also can't cause entire species to go extinct, or destroy nearly all of the Tropical Rain Forest, or increase the acidity of rainfall, or contaminate the ocean with oil, or create oceanic dead zones from fertilizer run-off. Yeah, I guess we just don't have any affect on the environment...
Please look up the video "Gore Vs Durkin" where Al Gore is shown to have exagerated and used irrelevant information and durkin is shown to be and absolute, out and out liar
this film cleverly defeats the guys claims and brands the man a liar...which is quite a clever psychological weapon...
It's CLEAR this fool, sorry..TOOL has been told to make a film opposing the generally presented 'idea' that we're responsible for the planet warming..see my comment on previous vid.)..
So he makes some true statements mixed with faulty info (i.e.outdated graphs) and thus has it picked apart by ANOTHER fool, i mean tool.
I am serious. If you keep watching the progam it gets worse. Whenever he's interviewing someone with differing opinions to him, he simply doesn't let them finish their sentences. Its abominable reporting, and almost as bad as the misrepresentation of some scientists within the documentary. I'm not saying what the doco maker did was right, but the way he was interviewed was worse. The guy was trying to trip him up, and that's just poor form.
This reporter is an arrogant prick. And just for people who don't know, the hockey stick graph they are talking about has since been found to be completely inaccurate.
all he had to do was put the year 2000 on that chart to make it accurate and consistent instead of "now"
problem solved and no fuss.
that really is a silly detail to quible about, we do not have any reliable knowledge about what the real climate change has been since the turn of the century, we just have meaningless noise.
of course he had to use that chart, because he wont find anything current that presents an unbiased and unselective picture of climate change.
Yes, he could easily have found much more newer data....not unaccurate or biased"...sigh...most global warming skeptics are infact nothing but conspiracy theorists
actually that is precisely what the big alarmist picture of climate change is, a conspiracy theory. Not literally of course, but it has the same elements of paranoia, selective bias, connecting random dots into constelations, and the systematic exploitation of doubt and missing knowledge.
"they could easily have found much more newer data" (nice grammar)
that is easy to say isnt it?
put up or shut up.
The IPCC has effectively airbrushed the little ice age and the warm period from history.
"Please people, don't believe this yellow journalism."
I was always told that if someone pleads with you to agree with their viewpoint, something sinister is going on. And the same for if they are insulting or say things like "that's preposterous" or "totally ridiculous" without explaining why whatever it is is preposterous or ridiculous. It's an appeal of emotional bribery rather than a calm encouragement to look at the facts.
The same goes for "natural balance....yea yea, sure sure....
whatever that might be". It's such a childish argument which basically amounts to "I don't understand it so it can't be true. Anyone who knows what they are talking about will tell you that climate does have a natural equilibrium, as unbelievable as that might sound.
If Durkins really thinks that climate having a natural balance is ridiculous, he should explain why that is such a ridiculous idea and iterate the actual state of affairs.
The point of this program is clearly to point out the
flaws, distortions and ommisions from Durkins' film, surely if people don't agree with it, they should point out why Durkins is right, rather than just saying things like "I don't like the interviewer!".
this tv show makes me more to believe in the power of media and make things right effectively for the government side and shape the opinion of the population(humans).
I would like to see them doing the same thing with the Corporation documentary and try to be the opponent of Noam Chomsky, or with the film makers!
This has been flagged as spam show
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! Then@8:12 & 8:35 GW Scientist also admitted HIGHER CO2 levels DURING THE JURRASIC PERIOD 55 million yrs ago! So much for "MANMADE" global warming.
shawso7 3 weeks ago
How much you want to bet this clearly biased ABC piece will NEVER deal with the falsified data points put forward by the East Anglia liars. BTW, CO2 follows heat, heat doesn't follow CO2...F'n idiots
mulhollanddose 3 weeks ago
WATCH PART 7/9 FIRST CAUSE is the SUN! 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.
shawso7 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shawso7 Stop being an ignorant little cunt.
He didn't say that ALL temperature increases start before the CO2 increase. He said that in that specific time period, that happened. But he also pointed out that without the CO2 increase, the warming would not have been what it was.
He SPECIFICALLY says that CO2 causes warming, and the ice core data shows that.
You are nothing but an ignorant little cunt.
bubbah 3 weeks ago in playlist The ABC Great Global Warming Swindle Debate
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 has been flagged as spam show
@shawso7 Stop being an ignorant little cunt.
He didn't say that ALL temperature increases start before the CO2 increase. He said that in that specific time period, that happened. But he also pointed out that without the CO2 increase, the warming would not have been what it was.
He SPECIFICALLY says that CO2 causes warming, and the ice core data shows that.
You are nothing but an ignorant little cunt.
bubbah 3 weeks ago in playlist The ABC Great Global Warming Swindle Debate
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 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
It seems to me that the maker of the movie couldnt trust the "current" graphs of the last 17yrs because of the "man-made global warming" bias that he claims had by now already tainted the temperature gathering process. If a person has been in almost any scientific branch they learn how truly difficult it is to obtain "reliable data in almost any field of study. Sadly the better "funded" (more to lose) a project is the chance of skewing the numbers so as not to jeopardize the "research".
shawso7 1 month ago
@shawso7 Except the data has been independently verified hundreds of times over. Idiot.
bubbah 3 weeks ago in playlist The ABC Great Global Warming Swindle Debate
What a DISGUSTING FUCKING ASSHOLE Martin Durkin is. LYING SACK OF SHIT. "Now" is 20 years ago... RIGHT!
bubbah 1 month ago
definitely look up CLUB OF ROME
JFKEQUALS911 3 months ago
I would like to thank the glorious nation of Australia for thoroughly debunking this piece of shit.
- People of Britain, haters of the anti science cabal at channel 4.
justnotcricket 3 months ago 2
they were caught lying dozens of times. all is bs. look up Club of Rome, global warming........go look idiots. this has been planned since? look it up dummy.
sssssjjjj1 4 months ago
these dumbass zionists blew up our ozone trying to knock a whole in the van allen belt so we could go to the moon.....it didn't work....the result was disastrous.
sssssjjjj1 4 months ago
lol to those saying that accurate leaves room for error. They should consider that the development of microelectronics means that our satelites are hundreds of times more accurate, and by that i mean that the MAXIMUM amount or error possible is so small that even if the largest variance is added to the numbers they don't come close to supporting the claims made in this movie.
TheyCallMeGawd 4 months ago
And accurate just implies that the error is small.
87Nathanial 6 months ago
2:40 someone tell this ABC reporter why we have degrees of error in measuring equipment ¬_¬
CaptainCrumple 6 months ago
The interviewer here is shocking. I thought i was going to see some kind of debate on this matter instead, i have just watched another media slave try and force home the globalist agenda. Fuckin ridiculous and this Australian idiot should hang his head in shame and ABC should be fuckin disgusted in themselves
DelBluenose80 10 months ago
@DelBluenose80 You wanted a debate yet you seem to be disgusted at his contentiousness? He is simply stating facts that make Durkins arguments irrelevant and seemingly deceptive. Its insulting to the scientists to call him a media slave and frankly ridiculous.
batmanhorse 7 months ago
@batmanhorse If thats what your view is fine, it doesnt make anything i said any less true
DelBluenose80 7 months ago
that interviewer is aweful! rude, interruptive and looks foolish and pushy, i think the technical term is total asshole
steveelson 10 months ago
8:00 "Solar activity and Co2 correlation" Does he have any idea what he just said?
8:55 "A very small gap, either Solar activity or temperature one or the other" , this small gap was a century!
9:55 "we HOPE that is right" sorry science uses accurate data and disclosure, not hope!
1BustedMyth 1 year ago
All Agriculture/Compost Landfills need to be contained(for methane), and Co2 produced and reduced at the same time by fixing transportation and power sources to be of renewables, longer lasting, of less parts, with cost effectiveness vs the fuel combustion, and 0 emmissions while travelling. All parts of an electric vehicle can last many years, as long as a combustion engine, if they are durable and made right, from the start. Still Expensive but worth it. I'm liking these molten salt batteries!
luc59457 1 year ago
@ 6:00 ironic stuff after the IPCC email scandal isn't it...... " just align the data in your favor"....... :)
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago
people look at the short period in human history and scientifically using data that's only 20 years old is a common practice as that is barely a blink of an eye geologically speaking. The 'Hockey Stick' graph is a very short term graph rather than showing the larger picture of 150 years or even longer. The 'stick' shows a much shorter period year to year which can change much more dramatically and don't necessarily show trends (remember that people were worried about an ice age in the 70's).
Bzerker01 1 year ago
he wouldnt use the "hockey stick" which has been dies credited by the ipcc own last report
DeRocco21 1 year ago
@DeRocco21
"the "hockey stick" which has been dies credited by the ipcc own last report"
No it hasn't
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale it wasnt used in the ipcc report of 2007 after alot of more research.
DeRocco21 1 year ago
@DeRocco21
"t wasnt used in the ipcc report of 2007 after alot of more research."
"wasn't used" and "discredited" are very different things
BeondaPale 1 year ago
I watched "Swindle" and now I'm watching this...I'm completely confused. I don't know what to believe anymore. Lol
petitemasochist 1 year ago
@petitemasochist Wow are you serious? Believe the interviewer, the other guy who was involved with the film is an idiot and admitted to having to correct some mistakes.The interviewer had not been corrected for anything.Look at who is being corrected and look at whether it is for a reputable reason.. When I put the numbers together, starting from the very small vs natural. We are surely upsetting that balance and equillibrium.. Don't believe me? Proof? Trees can only convert so much. Limitations
luc59457 1 year ago
if we were currently hotter than the midieval warm period then why can't greenland have the same agriculture they did? why haven't any vinyards returned to england? both those things are recorded in history.
TAPriceCTR 1 year ago
@TAPriceCTR
"why can't greenland have the same agriculture they did?"
Greenland can and since the late 90's DOES
BeondaPale 1 year ago
must suck being this guy with those pesky facts fucking with his lies
Nibielari 1 year ago
Whoever this interviewer is, he obviously has a "side" and an "agenda" and he should have just interviewed himself in the mirror. This interviewer, the white-headed guy who looks 32 years of age and acts like an old Walter Cronkite, fits the perfect description for Juror of the Spanish Inquistion! Yes, he certainly is very religious.
MikkkkyB 1 year ago
This is what an open attack on rational thinking looks like, and possibly why jumping on bandwagons is a poor idea based on all kinds of flawed data as well.
sprclfrglstc 1 year ago
the interviewer is the least impartial or objective person ever, and I agree he ies arrogant, he biasing the interview
masterofdisguise1 1 year ago
Pitman sounds like he is in a belief about "the balance", hardly scientific. Loser.
captaincrash12 1 year ago
lying bastard
kuvceebxab1 1 year ago
It is absurd how the interviewer keeps sticking to the 17 missing years on that timescale. Not to mention that the global average temperature have been in decline since 1998 and that the medieval warm period still is slightly warmer than it has been recently.
Tronic358 1 year ago
Does Durkins really think we believe his "explanations" for his bald-faced omissions.
DudeThinking 1 year ago
That argue about the chart is ridiculous
1.000 |___________|___________|1900
in that chart 17 years is nothing
StraussBR 1 year ago
It is so embarrassing the arguments of the author of the movie. Its almost a comedy.
gerdaujorge 1 year ago
Oh dear @infinitearsewipe. If you honestly believe that Phil Jones et al were trying to keep bad science out of journals rather than propagating it then can I have a reference for your proof for the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy because you must believe in them as well.
socialismispoison 1 year ago
i love how he has no answer for how the sunspots do NOT correlate to the temperature of the earth. he knows what he did. and he keeps saying "moot point", when it isnt. we know the sun has nothing to do with it. what a moron.
infinitearchetype 1 year ago
this reporter has no idea what he is talking about, and he's pretty arrogant
StraussBR 1 year ago
The ABC presenter bangs on about the Hockey Stick which has been completely discredited. I wonder what he would have to say about Climate Gate which has shown the degree of lies and fraud associated with the so-called "Settled Science".
socialismispoison 1 year ago
@socialismispoison i suggest you do a bit more research on what climate gate ACTUALLY WAS before you continue to preach that it shows "lies and fraud"...all that was about was scientists trying to keep BAD SCIENCE out of journals...and guess what, the papers WERE reviewed and WERE later discoverd to BE...drumroll please... BAD SCIENCE. oh no! what a FRAUD!...(thats sarcasm)
infinitearchetype 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
For basic scientific information search:
1) Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
(This is the BEST site)
2) NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System
3) Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
4) Climate change odds much worse than thought MIT
For great scientific YouTubes see the greenman3610 & potholer54 channels.
And UC San Diego:
The American Denial of Global Warming
/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio&feature=e mail
goog2k 1 year ago
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k /watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
False is it?
Gaidal 1 year ago
Gaidal, quit watching propaganda. It's B.S.
Those 30,000 so-called scientists were names on a web petition with people like "Mickey Mouse" on it.
For great YouTubes on the SCIENCE of Climate Change see the greenman3610 & potholer54 channels.
goog2k 1 year ago
@Gaidal So you are basing all your views on a journalist weatherman? This man, John Coleman is not a scientist and not even a meteorologist . Go ahead and believe him all you want, I will continue to listen to IPPC, NATURE, SCIENCE, PNAS and othe peer reviewed scientific journals for my info...HAVE FUN WITH YOUR JOURNALIST...
crass770 1 year ago
I'm sorry you're so ignorant you don't understand the difference between "weather" and "climate"
If you'd like to learn, please watch the WeatherChannel YouTube:
Global Warming - Cool Summer WHY??
/watch?v=sX6jEsnGcrA
BTW, the arctic winter this year is as warm as 2006-2007.
Duhh??
Gaidal, do you know what happened in the arctic in 2007??
goog2k 1 year ago
It's a feedback mechanism.
CO2 traps heat & temps go up. But soon enough the oceans will be warm enough to stop absorbing CO2 and will eventually release large quantities of dissolved CO2.
Then deniers will say, see warming causes increased CO2.
Duhh???
Another feedback: If temps. rise 3.5C-5.2C as MIT predicts we could be facing a massive uncontrolled methane release from arctic permafrost and lakes. That's game over.
YouTube:
The "Temp leads Carbon" Crock
/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8&NR=1
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
@goog2k You mean the record low temperatures all across the american midwest? The growing ice on the larger antarctic west coast? The fact that geologists have proven that co2 gas rises between 700 and 900 years AFTER a warming period? How about the fact that polar bears are thriving now that countries have started to crack down harder on poachers and hunters? Or lets go into the thirty THOUSAND scientists that say that global warming isn't happening? Or better yet that 1998 was the hottest
Gaidal 1 year ago
year on record and the average temperature has dropped since then? Explain it to me, seriously. I want to know how you can wrap your mind around these facts.
Gaidal 1 year ago
Gaidal your facts are either outright false or distorted. You need to quit listening to Oil Company propaganda and do some research.
30,000 scientists is COMPLETELY BOGUS.
CO2 is a feedback mechanism.
Weather is not climate.
goog2k 1 year ago
@Gaidal According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), last year was tied for the second warmest year on record after 2005, the warmest year on record. If just looking at the southern hemisphere, however, 2009 proved the warmest yet recorded since record-taking began in 1880. But, researchers say what is most important was that the past decade, from January 1st 2000 to December 31st 2009, proved the warmest on record.
crass770 1 year ago
@Gaidal OK, so you say that polar bears are thriving, then why On 14 May 2008, the United States Department of the Interior listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.???
I thought you said they were thriving?
oh wait, the media told you that, didnt they?
crass770 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 2 years ago
Global Warming sceptic, owned.
See they can talk alot of shit to their own flock, but when they are actually cornered and questioned, when their claims are debated and contested by actual scientists, they crumble like me maam's coffee cake.
spacecowboy95 2 years ago
I want to shoot that interviewer in the head... constantly talking over Martin Durkins. Hes an absolute swine.
CotardDelusion 2 years ago
haha. i think you're an absolute swine.
vicols 2 years ago
that interviewer is a scummy douchebag
dickmoe99 2 years ago
goog2k 2 years ago
Are they preferring to the same climate data what was admitted to be fake in the leaked emails ?
Finn001abd 2 years ago
those were two emails out of thousands and thousands of leaked emails.
Jaoh3 2 years ago
The increase in temperature statistics in the last 20 years, menchioned at 1:20, could well be fabrication to back the global warming agenda since it all started around 20 years ago. As you can see the media are desperate to discredit this documentary
93msinclair 2 years ago 2
Could be, or climate change awareness could be a response to a global mean temperatue increase in the last twenty years. Unless you know for sure, you'll present the trend from your own agenda.
mowrercd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Could be, or climate change awareness could be a response to an actual global mean temperatue increase in the last twenty years. Unless you know for sure, you'll present the trend from your own agenda.
mowrercd 1 year ago
@93msinclair or it could be true.... using this logic we might as well disregard all scientific research as it may be because of some agenda. Science is the closest we get to reality and i'd argue your life depends on what it has enabled. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
batmanhorse 7 months ago
@batmanhorse I don't treat all scientific research with the same suspicion. I'm a computer scientist and mathematician myself. I just find this data suspect since big corporations and governments have expressed an uncondtitional bias on this issue. There are literally millions of factors affecting the climate, most of which are ignored. For instance just a small change in the angle at which the sun shines accounts for the difference in temprerature between the equator and north pole.
93msinclair 7 months ago
@93msinclair The implications of this particular theory are so immense that dont you think it would be in our interest to seriously consider them? Also what possible reason can you propose as to why corporations and governments would support this issue, keeping in mind that the energy industry and automotive industry are some of the largest in the world?
batmanhorse 7 months ago
@batmanhorse Well capping carbon emissions will cause millions in the third world to starve due to increased food transportation and production costs, given how many live on one dollar a day, so the precautionary principle is not valid. The main killer in the third world is poverty not natural disaster. The emissions trading legislation (invented by BP) allows oil companies and banks make a lot of money trading carbon credits. Al Gore and Maurice Strong have made 100s of millions of $ doing so.
93msinclair 7 months 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
very few things have been proven in science...and you also say maybe 200 scientists are climatologists out of the 31,000 scientists, well it is the same with the IPCC. look up global warming debate real world observations vs. climate models. a global warming alarmists admits less than 20% of the "top" 2500 scientists are climatologists. also but you are right GW does involve other fields. this goes to both sides, and all of the 31,000 scientists are have proper credentials for those fields
tippman2k01 2 years ago
The IPCC include many non-scientists, that's true. But the data were evaluated by scientists. Plus, you don't have to rely on the IPCC report, that's just a summary of the consensus. If you look at the literature, it's very clear that the overwhelming number of climatologists are now convinced that AGW is real. The debates are about the details.
werecow2003 2 years ago
And no, all of the 31,000 scientists do not have proper credentials in the relevant fields. That's precisely the problem. Explain to me how a marketing PhD, or an engineer, or a lawyer, has the proper background to evaluate climate science.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Nobody mentions that the sun is considered a "constant"... that's the problem... nobody but John Coleman brings this up, and he has done quite a bit of research in Revelle's work.
/watch?v=AR7PIB_5rNg
bubbadankness 2 years ago
Martin Durkin = Intellectual Criminal
brock138 2 years ago
Ok so there seems to be no correlation with solar activity during the last 20 years. This is something worth looking into.
Chriscom28 2 years ago
now that u watched it, i bet ur disappointed. lol
tippman2k01 2 years ago
@tippman2k01 How come? It started of as fairly crap, but the actual debate was pretty good and couldn't see any bias apart from the "conspiracy nuts" crap. I still need to check out solar activity correlations. I can get started on tangents very easily.
Chriscom28 2 years ago
um there is a correlation between the sun and temperature. google climate gate first off, and u will realize the data is manipulated. second, google the environmental effects of increased carbon dioxide. it debunks everything u are told (in numerous peer reviewed papers) also there are 30,000 scientists that want to sue al gore for fraud, and they are all legitimate. the alarmist claim that signatures are forged is debunked right on the petition project website.
tippman2k01 2 years ago
If by "data was manipulated" you're referring to "hiding the decline", this is not data manipulation, but a correction for a well known discrepancy between tree ring data and actual temperatures. There is at this point no evidence whatsoever that any of the data are fraudulent, and it is confirmed by many other sources.
werecow2003 2 years ago
the alarmists claim solar activity has decreased these past 30 years, but in fact it has risen. there are articles from harvard scientists that confirm it has risen. but the very big red flag is there are 30,000 scientists that want a debate on AGW (because there is a lot of room for debate), yet they are told shut up the debate is over. the only explanation for this is alarmists are afraid, because when the debate is balanced, the skeptics win. google the intelligence squared forum GW debate
tippman2k01 2 years ago
Well, no, they don't claim that. That would be an odd claim, seeing as the length of the sun spot cycle is about 11 years. What they do claim is that the sun spots do not track the temperature increase observed. As for the 30000, the criterium for what qualified people as scientists in this petition was having ANY undergraduate science degree. Not exactly asking the experts. By analogy, there are also plenty of BSc economists who question evolution theory, but almost no biologists.
werecow2003 2 years ago
yes they do claim solar activity has gone down. look at this video an alarmist scientist claims solar activity has gone down. and i have heard that argument about the 30,000 scientists all the time, and it is debunked right on the petition projects website. alarmists forged peoples names on the petition, but people heading the petition are constantly checking credentials to see if they belong on the petition. also the fact there has not been a solid debate on the issue yet is a huge red flag
tippman2k01 2 years ago
There have been debates going on from the 1950s when this was first thought to be a potential threat. They were conducted in the scientific arena, where they belong. The part about whether AGW is a real phenomenon was pretty much settled year ago. Check the literature if you like. As for the solar activity, I think they mean the deviations from the mean over a certain time span. I'll check that again. Do you have a peer reviewed citation that suggests an increase in activity?
werecow2003 2 years ago
As for the petition, I urge you to take a random sample of name from the list and google them. Check their credentials if you find anything. It might surprise you.
werecow2003 2 years ago
google the environmental effects of increased carbon dioxide. many scientists testify solar activity has gone up. not to mention dr. peirs corbyn uses the sun to predict weather months in advance, and he is more accurate than the weather channel, and sometimes NASA. and dont give me that bull shit that hes been wrong numerous times, because i have searched that claim, and there is only 1 credible source that says he's been wrong once. also if AGW is a problem, how come we've cooled since 1998?
tippman2k01 2 years ago
Climate is erratic. The cooling trend that is sometimes mentioned has not been consistent. It also has a well understood explanation in the El Niño and El Niña. Furthermore, climate change is measured in terms of decades, not years. Look, do yourself a favor and really google a few of the signees on that petition. There are 200 climatologists on there at the most. It's a total distortion, and you can check that real easy. They just count on you not to do that. It's an old trick.
werecow2003 2 years ago
i have, and why do u have to be a climatalogist to debate global warming? the skeptics main argument is the sun and cosmic radiation is the primary driver of temperature, so this brings another field in: astronomy. you can be an expert on the sun, and explain how it drives temperature, and what makes the earth cool. and we have been cooling since 1998 that is 1 decade, and you are right, it was due to el nino, and climate is always changing; its erratic. how can they say the warming is unnatural
tippman2k01 2 years ago
Because climatologists are specifically trained in climate science. Science is tough stuff, and you can't expect people that have no formal training in climate science to understand it. Astronomers can calculate some of the variables where the sun is concerned, but they typically do not have experience with fields like atmospheric science, oceanography, geochemistry, or biochemistry, all of which come into play. It's not just about how much energy comes in, but how it's used.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Also, I haven't seen many astronomers or other physicists that are actually working as scientists, either. So far I've seen mostly engineers, people who do marketing, and lawyers.
werecow2003 2 years ago
(cont)
because the population is increasing (which means more CO2) and the earth is cooling. google new peer reviewed study chills global warming fears. a peer reviewed paper comes up saying 5 times the amount of CO2 would have no effect on temperature. just remember when you have the science on your side, you argue the science, if you dont, you attack the messenger. that is exactly what the GW alarmists are doing now, they are shunning, and threatening anyone who challenges them
tippman2k01 2 years ago
If you could give me the name of the article, that would help. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers that say exactly the opposite. You're also contradicting yourself; if skeptics are "being silenced", the papers would not be printed in peer reviewed journals. They would be rejected.
I already explained the "global cooling" idea, and why it's flawed.
werecow2003 2 years ago
And finally, let me ask you this: on the one hand, you claim that the earth has been cooling over the past 30 years. On the other, you claim that solar intensity has increased and that that explains the warming observed over that same period. So which one is it?
werecow2003 2 years ago
not to mention the scientists who challenge global warming just want a debate, because there is A LOT of room for debate, but instead of a debate they are shunned, threatened and denounced as heretics. this is a red flag that the "deniers" are right, bc theyre denied debate, threatened
tim ball moved to a concealed location because he is in fear for his life. they didnt touch on that in this biased POS "debate" most of the scientists that were interviewed in this video were on the alarmist side
tippman2k01 2 years ago
When there is an unrefuted scientific basis for a debate, it is carried out in the scientific arena. That happens all the time. The public forum is not a suitable place for that debate because the public does not have the background to judge such a debate, and it would only confuse the issue for the laymen. You can still follow it in the science lit if you want to. It's when contrarians are pushing for public debates on a matter of science when a proper skeptic should get suspicious.
werecow2003 2 years ago
what are you talking about. in the intelligence squared forum debate, it was 3 scientists for AGW and 3 scientists against AGW, and the scientists' job is to support their theory with evidence, and the alarmists really have no strong evidence, hence that is why the skeptics won the debate. also there are legitimate scientists like tim ball who challenge the GW theory, and are threatened, when they just want to debate. there HAS NOT been any BALANCED debate on AGW. and the AGW is falling apart
tippman2k01 2 years ago
He didn't use the "hockey stick" graph because that graph is a completely fabricated lie LOL.
This interviewer is a idiot.
MrCluster101 2 years ago
and tonionionionionionionionionio :P
human20freedom 2 years ago
LOL 17 year old graph.
FreemanGordon2009 2 years ago
Now we know that the IPCC data is wrong. Actual temps havent gone up at all in the last 17 years.
jakewill751 2 years ago
Mr. Durkin does a good service for Europeans. They are more susceptible to this kind of theories. Americans are not concerned about it. But Europeans have a history of believing in strange things like dictatorship, communism, na-z-ism and now extreme environmental theories like this.
Jspeterson 2 years ago
Americans believe in gun ownership and thus 28,000 gun deaths per year, more than the whole of europe. However global warming is indeed a hoax.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
The interviewer is such an obnoxious twat, it's unbelievable, has he never heard of something called "objectivity"? He also attacked him at the end for correcting his mistakes, how about Al Gore? he has never corrected the many mistakes in his movies.
MbojjeM 2 years ago
The data doesn't diverge after 1990! The fraudulently "corrected" so-called"data" does but the raw data matches the solar activity rather well, even explaining the cooling of the last decade.
wrjamescom 2 years ago
in science we dont say PROVE!!! but suggest !!! i am a marine biologist by the way.
human20freedom 2 years ago
I too am a scientist, a grad student in the Biosciences, and I completely agree. Anytime someone says "PROVEN" then there is definitely an outside agenda because there are very few things that have been proven in science. Physicist even still argue for and against special relativity and there is more data backing that theory than almost any other theory in existence.
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
If the interviewer is trying to be impartial, he's doing a very poor job.
abc1000001 2 years ago 8
your right. the interviewer and this whole "debunking" is completely biased. when there is a debate that is balanced, the deniers always win.
tippman2k01 2 years ago
One thing I've noticed is that there's a lot of splitting of hairs. The arguments are really insignificant. Next he'll be arguing that the animations used were too child-like. Well only half-way though this video right now so maybe it would get better.
Chriscom28 2 years ago
@abc1000001 The interviewer doesn't have to be impartial to be fair and truthful. He, as well as the editors, made sure that the director would have his points of view clearly expressed and shown on the partial questions.
The swindle film however distorted many point of views and facts.
darkmusentertainment 1 year ago
@darkmusentertainment If the interviewer doesn't have to be impartial, then it turns into a joke, ie: a waste of time. You're stating that your point of view is the truth and if the interviewer shows his agreement with your point of view, then he is being fair. Nice distortion.
abc1000001 1 year ago
@abc1000001 He's pressing him on inconsistencies, he's doing a very good job.
comanchio1976 1 year ago
@comanchio1976 I found the interviewer took sides before he asked any questions, therefore he would seem to do a good job to those who have the same view. However, I believe that an interviewer should be impartial as I've claimed all along.
abc1000001 1 year ago
I can't hepl but be amused / deeply disturbed by how the Al Gore/IPCC side is being held up to a very different standard of scrutiny and (lack of) criticism compared to the skeptical side of the debate. Witness the fairly irrelevant but long and agressive inquiry into why "now" has been used on the chart. Can't remember anyone publicly assaulting like this Al Gore about his fantastic claim of 20 ft see level rise.
Zetarulettaa 2 years ago
this attack on the film maker, obviously shows how great the power of the Global warming society has in the media.
whatever it is, i still feel, if its a great threat, (C02) more funding should also be given to various R&D of reducing c02 not by restricting oil, but by enhancing the usage of oil. no matter what, oil is a natural resource meant for development, and the industry provide jobs for many many ppl, alternative energies makes sense only as alternative source, not as the main source
flamenin 2 years ago
I have reviewed (in detail) the scientific data, the original documentary, and now, I'm 5 minutes into this "objection" and I feel completely comfortable in rejecting the oponents here as those who cannot deal with admitting they are incorrect (not a bad thing) because they feel it's a prick to their pride.
Everybody makes mistakes. Everybody is wrong occasionally. Everybody makes incorrect judgments.
So far, it appears the global warming "enthusiasts" are STILL incorrect.
On to part 4.
TSFL2 2 years ago
Now that we are experiencing a stasis and cooling they are shifting they're emphasis away from near surface temperatures, which they heavily relied upon in the past, and looking at ocean temperatures. However they do not include data from the ARGO bouys which showed cooling in the ocean.
And the money train just keeps on rolling
bookenz101 2 years ago
Tony is attacking biases evident in the film. When are we going to see him attacking the bias in the IPCC?
The IPCC is a political organisation with an obvious agenda. 1 degree of warming per century is wholey within natural limits. The standard deviation of the last 10,000 or so years in temperature about 2.5 degrees per century. The globe has experienced this kind of warming at many points in the past.
bookenz101 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
sega23date 2 years ago
We must guard ourself against anybody who would use anything as a means to make money, even if it is born out of a lie or an outright fraud. That is the problem of our generation today. Its a paradox. We are in a generation wherein information is very much accessible yet we as a generation is the most ignorant. The reason for that is because we never use our critical thinking into the process and just accept everything as gospel truth. No wonder why we are often times duped by powerful people.
archgin742000 2 years ago
There is also a good lesson from all of these debates. (1) We put too much faith on science a an institution but now it is revealed that even they as experts cannot agree on simple matters. (2) By putting too much faith on an institurion, whether on the media, politics, science, religion, etc, we are actually giving them too much power that they would eventually abuse it to their own purposes. This whole GW is actually a good example.
archgin742000 2 years ago
I personally believe that this whole global warming is a hoax. But it doesn't mean that we have to junk some of the things that we do like protecting the forest or clean up or water systems or reduce toxic gases. What I would suggest is that we continue to advocate such practices but not because of global warming but simply because these practices would benefit us in the long run and would ensure our future generation a world that is clean and healthy.
archgin742000 2 years ago
If you think man can change the temperature and control the weather you are a fucking moron!!!!!!!!!
buckwheat40 2 years ago
I guess Humans also can't cause entire species to go extinct, or destroy nearly all of the Tropical Rain Forest, or increase the acidity of rainfall, or contaminate the ocean with oil, or create oceanic dead zones from fertilizer run-off. Yeah, I guess we just don't have any affect on the environment...
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago
this a really fact based comment
How someone here will go against this one?
Could you find even just one scientist who is against it?
Thanks!
PierreGauthier100 2 years ago
Global warming is a hoax. Every time you see Schneider on the screen, remember his advocacy of exageration and outright lies to advance their agenda.
Sigifrith 2 years ago
Sigifrith, GW isn't a hoax. You are.
enigma067 2 years ago
Durkin is full of shit, quite honestly.
jackdav34 2 years ago
Please look up the video "Gore Vs Durkin" where Al Gore is shown to have exagerated and used irrelevant information and durkin is shown to be and absolute, out and out liar
BeondaPale 2 years ago
Look at it people..
this film cleverly defeats the guys claims and brands the man a liar...which is quite a clever psychological weapon...
It's CLEAR this fool, sorry..TOOL has been told to make a film opposing the generally presented 'idea' that we're responsible for the planet warming..see my comment on previous vid.)..
So he makes some true statements mixed with faulty info (i.e.outdated graphs) and thus has it picked apart by ANOTHER fool, i mean tool.
STUDY THE FACTS...
freddiedread 2 years ago
Lol that doco maker got killed. I almost felt embarssed for him.
AtomSmash3r 2 years ago
That's because the guy who hosts lateline is an ass - he never lets anyone finish sentences.
allatheaussie 2 years ago
You can't be serious. The ass was the guy being interviewed. He looked a complete fool caught out trying to hoodwink the public.
AtomSmash3r 2 years ago
I am serious. If you keep watching the progam it gets worse. Whenever he's interviewing someone with differing opinions to him, he simply doesn't let them finish their sentences. Its abominable reporting, and almost as bad as the misrepresentation of some scientists within the documentary. I'm not saying what the doco maker did was right, but the way he was interviewed was worse. The guy was trying to trip him up, and that's just poor form.
allatheaussie 2 years ago
This reporter is an arrogant prick. And just for people who don't know, the hockey stick graph they are talking about has since been found to be completely inaccurate.
wjhopper 2 years ago
"the hockey stick graph they are talking about has since been found to be completely inaccurate."
Not according to the National Academies of Science.
Where are you getting your info?
BeondaPale 2 years ago 5
Comment removed
wjhopper 2 years ago
Comment removed
wjhopper 2 years ago
CO2 is not a polluntant!! It is essential for life. Man made global warming is a hoax;enough said.
spernoadversa 2 years ago
I absolutely agree
arigosethrin 2 years ago
What if you were wrong?
rileannas 2 years ago
What if you are?
spernoadversa 2 years ago
I would love to be wrong. There would be nothing that would make me happier than for anthropogenic climate change to not be real after all.
rileannas 2 years ago
It isnt real. Go be happy.
This guy from abc is getting destroyed right now.
He IS LYING. Nasa data shows no increase in temperature since 1998.
There has NOT been a significant rise in teperature in the last 19 years. He is MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS.
KingDingaLing090 2 years ago
Check out the video "Party like it's 1998" by greenman3610 to see why your claim is not valid.
Also check out the Manpollo videos by wonderingmind42 to get a sense of risk management and the idea of acting on an uncertain threat.
rileannas 2 years ago 2
all he had to do was put the year 2000 on that chart to make it accurate and consistent instead of "now"
problem solved and no fuss.
that really is a silly detail to quible about, we do not have any reliable knowledge about what the real climate change has been since the turn of the century, we just have meaningless noise.
of course he had to use that chart, because he wont find anything current that presents an unbiased and unselective picture of climate change.
St37One 2 years ago
the irony is that the little red arrow that they added for this program is just a dramatization, not an accurate representation.
St37One 2 years ago
Yes, he could easily have found much more newer data....not unaccurate or biased"...sigh...most global warming skeptics are infact nothing but conspiracy theorists
peterukk 2 years ago
actually that is precisely what the big alarmist picture of climate change is, a conspiracy theory. Not literally of course, but it has the same elements of paranoia, selective bias, connecting random dots into constelations, and the systematic exploitation of doubt and missing knowledge.
"they could easily have found much more newer data" (nice grammar)
that is easy to say isnt it?
put up or shut up.
The IPCC has effectively airbrushed the little ice age and the warm period from history.
St37One 2 years ago
LOL what an idiot!!! Why did you use a graph 17 years old huh?
aceofspades25 2 years ago 2
so you think it's warmer now than in the medieval warm period? why isn't greenland green then? and why can't they grow grapes in scotland?
hassenichjesehn 2 years ago
Comment removed
odin2nd 2 years ago
"Please people, don't believe this yellow journalism."
I was always told that if someone pleads with you to agree with their viewpoint, something sinister is going on. And the same for if they are insulting or say things like "that's preposterous" or "totally ridiculous" without explaining why whatever it is is preposterous or ridiculous. It's an appeal of emotional bribery rather than a calm encouragement to look at the facts.
The same goes for "natural balance....yea yea, sure sure....
lamplighteyes 2 years ago
whatever that might be". It's such a childish argument which basically amounts to "I don't understand it so it can't be true. Anyone who knows what they are talking about will tell you that climate does have a natural equilibrium, as unbelievable as that might sound.
If Durkins really thinks that climate having a natural balance is ridiculous, he should explain why that is such a ridiculous idea and iterate the actual state of affairs.
The point of this program is clearly to point out the
lamplighteyes 2 years ago
flaws, distortions and ommisions from Durkins' film, surely if people don't agree with it, they should point out why Durkins is right, rather than just saying things like "I don't like the interviewer!".
lamplighteyes 2 years ago
This interviewer clearly has no understanding of error margins and long term data.
PuppetXeno 2 years ago 7
ô_Ô
What a b!tch of a interviewer!
He just doesn't want the interviewed to speak!
Awful.
Musphaq 2 years ago 7
what a biased piece of shit. this director has balls, mad props to him. Please people, don't believe this yellow journalism.
Mihseidd 2 years ago 6
Yellow Journalism and Greenwashing = Taxes for all the sheeplez... m'a'a'a'a''a
zyzfr1 2 years ago
this tv show makes me more to believe in the power of media and make things right effectively for the government side and shape the opinion of the population(humans).
I would like to see them doing the same thing with the Corporation documentary and try to be the opponent of Noam Chomsky, or with the film makers!
mihajlodelic 3 years ago 3
"natural balance"...yea yea, sure sure....whatever that happens to be.
Lipo 3 years ago
damn this guy is a tough interviewer, remind me never to get interviewed in Australia.
lyethian 3 years ago