Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 5/9

[fusedchromosome]

It's interesting how Carter tries to downplay Durkin's utterly dishonest (or just plain stupid) mistake about volcanoes emitting more CO2 than humans. This is a very basic scientific fact that any half-competent researcher should have picked up on prior to putting it into a "documentary" that tries to accuse scientists of being dishonest and/or incompetent.

[fusedchromosome]

at 0:30 Carter says "...I use diagrams which are 50 years old. Science is not torn up and thrown away. It's built upon."

Yes it is. That's why you don't go running to 50 year old diagrams when current ones provide new information. Carter is full of shit.

[fusedchromosome]

As for Evans "you have to put your faith in the satellite data"

No, you have to ensure that all available lines of evidence are considered before you put your "faith" in anything. If a line of evidence ( in this case the satellite data) doesn't jive with the bulk of the evidence, you don't just jump on the outlier. You scrutinize it even more, which is exactly what Christy and Spencer did not do. Evans shouldn't be giving an opinion on anything scientific. He's a dyed-in-the-wool denier.

[fusedchromosome]

Then at 7:13 Evans says "You've either got to argue that the satellite data is just wrong"

Followed by "There's been so much criticism of the surface temperature record, particularly with respect to urban heat island effects that you have to put your faith in the satellite data"

The satellite data was wrong and the BEST project shot down that nonsense that scientists didn't properly account for the urban heat island effect, so Evans was full of shit twice in less than two minutes.

[fusedchromosome]

at 6:35 Evans says "How do you explain the fact the satellite data...gives you essentially no global warming...since 1980."

He's using Christy and Spencer from UAH. Problem is that their data analysis was ultimately shown to be flawed. Christy and Spencer now admit that the satellite data shows warming. Evans is defending bad data, while conveniently ignoring every other line of evidence.

[shawso7]

WATCH PART 7/9 starting@ 1:50 the lead GW scientist ADMITS the ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES, then @ 2:49 he confesses the ICEAGES & WARM PERIOD CYCLE IS CAUSED BY THE 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!

[sssssjjjj1]

listen to the al gore liars....they've been caught dozens of times....it's rothschilds pressure in action. watch the dude jump for rothschilds, his master not mine. You people are so damn dumb....when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's..they had us up for new taxes for the coming ICE AGE. then the club of rome met and planned this global warming....since it hasn't warmed since 95. remember the trick, and it was a travesty the numbers didn't go our way, sooooooooooo "HIDE THE DECLINE!!!!"

[bubbah]

@sssssjjjj1 Are you fucking retarded?

Do you even understand what "the decline" is referring to?

[bubbah]

@sssssjjjj1 Also, they did NOT predict an ice age during the 70s, you ignorant little cunt.

[CaptainCrumple]

I like how they keep going back to david like he knows everything :/

[CaptainCrumple]

Bob Carter: Geologist that works on the data used to show that current climate change is normal

4:03 Bob Carters look when David said 20 degrees warming globally said it all there has been no recorded increase of that magnitude ever! someone should take David degree away hes lost all perspective

[johnnytheprick]

0:44 " you cant find in the ipcc a decent tempreture graph after 1995....." for every good reason, it'll reveal the "swindle".

[jubileeboy17]

Its funny how bulk of the discussion is carried out by Davif Karoly, a non skeptic.

[toulouse666]

David Karoly really comes-off as a whiny impetuous child. The way he rudely interrupts saying "that's not true!/I can explain that!" & immediately looks at the camera with a big self-righteous grin to attract attention to himself & manipulate/bully gullible morons is laughable at best, his attitude is not becoming of anyone with any rational debate based on evidence, he is merely the "go to guy/Yes men" for the IPCC and the show's presenter because he agrees with their pre-conceived notions.

[luc59457]

Prof. David Karoly is right. Old fart on the far right ranting about the satellite data.

[tulio84z]

There is no Global warming nor Climate change. It's a scam. Research the term "Climategate"

[thejacalofskaro74]

4.06, classic expression from the Ricky Gervais school.

[VarykGerai]

lol 8:30 like "shit, im fucked"

[aznness]

if there is this so called "equilibrium" of CO2 thats we have disrupted, then how come we see a medieval warm period and we see a little ice age, without the help of our man made CO2 emissions? wouldnt we just see it flatlining until we came along with our man made emissions?

[goog2k]

Ocean pH has already dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 & acid H+ ions are up +30%.

Sigourney Weaver narrates "ACID TEST: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification."

This NRDC documentary explores CO2 ocean acidification, which may soon challenge marine life on a scale not seen for tens of millions of years. The film originally aired on Discovery Planet Green.

On YouTube:

ACID TEST:

/watch?v=5cqCvcX7buo

&

'Avatar' Sigourney Weaver: Saving our Oceans - Earth Day 2010

/watch?v=PGrCprVcHpQ

[goog2k]

In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 the thickness of arctic ice has 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.

[roargathor]

We're all gonna die. Nothing we can do to stop it. The lag will continue to warm long after we Stop farting.

[goog2k]

Sorry roargathor, you've probably only got about 50 years left.

But that will be exciting. You'll get to see atmospheric CO2 of 500ppm and acidification of the oceans to the point of killing many corals and plankton. Many major rivers in Asia and South America that give water to 1.5 billion people will be running low in dry months because mountain glaciers will be gone.

Arctic sea ice will be gone and much of the permafrost will be melted, spewing methane doubling GHG's.

Otherwise, no problem.

[CotardDelusion]

Oh man. This just gets more and more rediculous and confusing by the minute. Nothing is true, nothing is false... global warming is clearly still a debate, not a fact. But is still being used for propaganda.

[goog2k]

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

[superdog797]

yo - come on. Stop propagating this crap. We've only been recording temperature in this fashion since the late 19th century. 150 years of temperature change is bs data set

[weallknowitstrue]

There is no sense arguing about Global Warming any more - the NEW science reports are out:

/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1

/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1

/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1

/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1

/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1

[MrGreasybone]

It is quite clear that there is still great debate regarding the theory behind global warming. Once again the ABC is unable to remain impartial. It is clear that this particular reporter is unable to remain impartial.........

[waltermh111]

So having 3 skeptics able to give uninterrupted answers was not impartial?

To be honest, it was a more balanced panel then the balance of the debate in reality.

This was about 6:40 while the climate community is much more in favor of GW.

How is it unfair when skeptics were given ample time to talk.

[Bzerker01]

@waltermh111 It seemed that the host was biased for the concept of man made Global Warming. If its that obvious to me then it should be obvious to you. This slants the questions against the film which gets much more scrutiny then its counterparts in the pro man made Global Warming camp. The fact of the matter is there is still data in the film which wasn't proven to be misleading or wrong which don't back up man made global warming theories based on CO2, these are never addressed.

[johnnytheprick]

@waltermh111 good lord! its not like global warmists havent had their fair share of media coverage now is it? sheeeeeeeeeesh. like you wrote, "balance", is important.

[tippman2k01]

sure when the skeptic brings up a good point cut him off...this reporter sucks

[waltermh111]

Point out where?

I saw the skeptic make full points and then the other scientist got to rebutt him.

I saw no cutting off before he could finish any point.

[goog2k]

Net Solar Radiation has NOT INCREASED since 1975. There is excellent satellite data to prove it.

An 11 year solar cycle causes a 0.2C average oscillation every 5.5 years. However, with NO NET increase in solar radiation since 1975, arctic ice and mountain glaciers have lost 50% of their total mass.

Duhh!!!

Not one single Climate Change denier can explain it.

Search:

NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System

Also:

Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth

[koyima]

The NET doesn't mean it hasn't risen, it means that the total activity has not increased. If we are closer to the sun we will have warmer temperatures (orbit is not fixed, rather changes slightly every year and moves between 2 extremes), once we start rotating at a slightly different orbit we go back to normal temperatures. Here in Greece things are normal again, temps were high for a few years, but last year and this year everything is normal again.

[waltermh111]

Do you have data and a paper from a scientist to explain your theory?

I am sure the idea is correct, but what brings you to believe that thats why things are as they are?

Also, anecdotal evidence means nothing, australia and africa arent back to "normal" again

[superdog797]

YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT EITHER

so why do you try

[IvanDrago187]

By the way notice how that guy always gets the last word.

[IvanDrago187]

What is this "night/day, winter/summer" argument? Is this guy a complete idiot or what? On the top half of the globe its summer, bottom winter. On one half of the planet its day time, the other night time. Jesus f'n christ almighty.

[TSFL2]

This exchange was excellant, but the video editing to put the "heritic" on the defensive is obvious. That isn't "science", but falls into the catagory of "propaganda".

Better is to let each scientist explain their position without the "politically correct" editing.

Moving on... (I'm still convinced human caused globing warming is BS)...

And... just because they need to edit the exchange to prop their position causes me to doubt their scientific support.

Onto part 6.

[waltermh111]

We of course were watching different films since the exchange was live as far as the audience and the edits went straight from one person to the other.

I dont get what the PC part was.

The deniers were asked the questions and given amble time to answer.

Do you deny that?

They seemed to have 3 skeptics/deniers on board, against maybe 4 pro-GW, but the deniers were given equal time and they often ignored the questions.

They were refuted and at times given another chance to counter the refutations

[leanintolife]

Great debate:)

[bluegsp]

I dont know about anyone else, but this "rebutal" of the Great Global Warming Swindle convinced me that man made global warming is a hoax

[Timosaby]

My thoughts 100%

This senseless nitpicking proves they're desperate to disprove a film with a sound thesis.

[waltermh111]

The thesis is based on all those little nitpicks.

what does the thesis get its conclusion from if not all the eronious data and conjecture in the film?

[bluegsp]

just look at the temp data for the last 11 years with no reduction in CO2 output. Temp has remained constant and even decreased. Thats why there is such urgency to pass Cap and trade and other climate legislation, so the libs cans they fixed it.

[pheynixll]

hehe, its funny, when I read my comment it can be read as that I am for global warming. I meant to say that the debate just convinced me global warming was a fraud because the poor job they did at disputing it. And I believe your absolutely right, EPA had to write a report that the planet is cooling. It will be for 10 years so we got some solid time to disprove global warming as long as that ridiculous piece of legislation doesn't go through!

[bluegsp]

The actual temperature readings are disproving global warming by themselves, We just need to make the public aware of it. The congress just threw another billion at the Cash For Clunkers fiasco. Thousands of perfectly good used cars are going to be crushed that could have been bought by low income people who cant afford a Prius. These Democrats who claim that they are for the little guy, stick it to him every chance they get.

[koyima]

If they really were worried they would build electric cars, solar fields and exchange old cars with electric ones for free. They are just guilt tricking people into this.

[bluegsp]

exactly, reasonable people have known all along this was a scam. now with the scandal at Hadley, it is obvious what is going on. I think some people should go to jail.

[lambros6]

@bluegsp

I agree with you.

I also think that some people should go to jail for the swine flu propaganda !

[putzke1]

Could we at least begin by getting an UNBIASED Moderator! Tony is so in the bag for human induced climate change,...it makes me sick!

[Meowbay]

Exactly, it's disgustingly obvious. he comes across as very annoying too, as a human being. I don't see why this man is even on TV in this role.

[Ivansrbija1989]

the host is soo rude... why doesn't he let people talk out (he's corrupted)... people are freakin' ignorant

[waltermh111]

point out where he didnt let somebody talk out, whatever that means.

I assume you mean he interrupted them

[rileannas]

David Karoly from UMelbourne is great. He really knows what he's talking about.

I feel that they give too much artificial "balance" though. The division of climatologists on the existence of AGW is not 50-50 like they set it up here. It's more like 97-3. (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009)

[johnnytheprick]

@rileannas lololololololo............writ­ten like a true 2nd year student, correct me if im wrong.

[johnnytheprick]

8:34 spoken like a true lecturer professor karoly......no wonder students fall asleep in lectures. the data this, the data that, lets be honest people of my vintage (im 39): have any of you noticed "climate change" in aus? if anything, i reckon its getting cooler. (i have lived in melbourne all my known life.)

lets not forget the hubble was created by likes of prof karoly, so called "experts in their respective fields"......and fucked up. my point is this: calibration.

[johnnytheprick]

8:20 "the data youre looking at shows..............." much like measuring a 25.345mm high speed steel rod using a dial gauge and a vernier caliper no?

ok, ok prof karoly, youre penis is bigger than mine.....................sheee­eeeesh, if 2 microns means that much too you, i concede.

[St37One]

But this guy is disagreeing with the CCCP.

doesnt he know that there are serious consequences for threatening the solidarity of the Climate Change Consensus Panel?

If the CCCP says something, then I know its true. They have an entire ministry devoted to truth.

United Nations Scientists are the most trusted and prestigious scientists in the world!!!

it would be crazy to undermine thier political goals.

[scomberscombrus]

yeah the interviewer is definately biased toward discrediting the film...why concentrate so much on small points regarding the presentation of data instead of disproving the concept?? because he cant hes hoping the very act of his scrutiny will disuade people from believing the concept as well..and why not engage the pro co2 people with as much rigour??because he knows that will lead to people doubting that concept for the same reason..hes a (well paid) puppet following the establishment line

[frenzytyrant]

whats astonishing is that the interviewer is blatantly dumbing down the concept that man made global warming is propaganda when the programme claims to be a debate!there is absolutely every evidence that global warming is false yet the interviewer is keen on neglecting this fact by not questioning the global warming theorists.

[waltermh111]

You must not have been watching the video. Check it out.

Its called the Great GW Swindle debate.

It has 3 skeptics on it which get ample time to discuss their side.

Its fascinating.

They have interesting things to say, though are debunked easily.

But that cant be helped, they were given as much time as the other panelists

[PerfektBlue]

HAHAHAHA THE

Greater warming is at night then during the day HAHAHA *The IPCC we are completely detached from reality* :D. Sure and thats why during midnight we are sweating then during the day do I need to comment this ? This is priceless just how the GW crowd is deluded get a thermometer and show me where its warmer during the night then during the day.

[Flowerpunkt]

You obviously didnt get what that guy really said. You actually really think that he was talking about higher temperatures on night than on day? LOL you must be kidding...

[odin2nd]

Carbon dioxides warming effect is null during the day due to different feedbacks due to chemical reactions in the vast chaos theoretical system known as climate; which we still don't know the outcome due to different reactions in different i.e. temperatures. But the main theory definition of global warming has failed, and so has the models - but the facts we lack needs financation to figure out. Yet my bet is that the believers, in the future, will be called thieves and liars.

[Ghettofarmerboy]

Interestingly enough when he says that solar radiation is most prominent during the winter that actually argues for Durkin. Because earth is closest to the sun during the winter. Seasons are due to the tilt of the earth on its axis.

[BerettaStormPX4]

Now let's hear him grill Al Gore about all the mistakes and discrepancies in his movie. Don't hold your breath.

[waltermh111]

People grill Gores film all of the time.

Why would he be redundant?

Are you saying he cant critique any film if he doesnt critique every film?

Or maybe just the ones you want him to?

[dave576m]

I love how the guy from the IPCC in his explanation of the solar irradiance not causing the planet to get warmer. Forgets to mention that at night the earth is still acting as a black body radiator. Not to mention that its only night on half the planet numb nuts. Its always night somewhere, not just in the backyard of the IPCC where the have their thermometer.

[nakawick]

Who is the idiot host? What happened to unbiased journalism? Clearly the host is biased.

[r1e2d3b4e5a6r7]

It's Tony Jones, he's a rather prominent and celebrated journalist. His job here is to analyse and pick apart this documentary. So, yeah he is biased.

I love Ray Evans, someone who's worked with mining companies, I wonder what his stance on climate change would be?

Money hungry pigs.

[quuaa1]

I'm just going to stop watching, there's too many errors in this "review".

[quuaa1]

(1:58) "Reviews all scientific literature and then comes to a fair, robust, conclusion". Fair and robust my aching ass, the "scientific method" the IPCC uses is they have the lead authors in one room, writing the summary before the report is finished, then the copies of the summary are ran down the hall to the rest of the authors where they come up with their "evidence" and "conclusions".

[doford]

I love the brain washing. Notice how when he says 'absolutly certain' the camera switchs to the presenters.

There are so many things like this that are created to control your minds. Please understand nlp.

[BeondaPale]

But Martin Dirkin DID NOT use camera switches? Did we watch the same film?

[doford]

I was talking about the abc program, not martin dirkins docu.

[BeondaPale]

sorry then

[WaffenKartoffel]

Oh that scientist frustrates me. His arrogance is astounding.

[teengag]

WaffenKartoffel, yea it annoys me too when someone (who is a professor in the subject) excersizes his knolwedge to push his point across.

I mean they arn't allowed to use the data they actually gathered!

[WaffenKartoffel]

I don't have a problem with scientists utilising their own data. But in the field of debate, rude interjections when someone else is demonstrating their reasoning is nothing short of arrogent and childish. If he wanted to garner respect then surely he should have politely listened to the other side.

[waltermh111]

Theres nothing childish about wanting to call out a lie, and he feared he might not get chance

You can throw names around easily, but it has no meaning when you didnt even consider your thoughts well

I dont even get how its arrogant. Get a dictionary.

He simply knew his field better then the guy speaking, and saw a bold faced lie, which he then was luckily given the chance to point out

But even then, he only madea tiny noise before being quite when he realised he would be unfair to interrupt

[slayerman89]

Just the fact that scientists are debating this means the original film has made it's point. Scientists are trained to be skeptics... regular people are trained to be sheep.

[sakuranohana1523]

HAHAH ... nice one XD

[mutedcolours]

and that is why so many believe this movie.

they believe this alternative explanation as it is not them to blame.

[waltermh111]

Old discussion:

scientists have always been debating, you just havent been paying attention outside of when the media gets involved.

This film is like a creationist film. So full of holes its not really productive at all, but its good tv

[markiz2002]

the satellite data shows 1 thing. there are 2 interpretations of that data. one shows lots of warming, the other shows no warming. wtf?

[rajis85]

You cant rely on satelite data.

[waltermh111]

old, but one showed lots of warming, one showed slight warming, not no warming, and also, the scientist explained why satellite data is hard to work with, though he used big words that may have been hard to follow (not an insult, its just how science is for laymen)

If your able to follow climate science, I would advise watching again. Though this is old, so maybe your past that now

[Strange0ne]

The main interviewer is biast towards the global warming argument and was not objective enough at all

[Probesoul]

they show some lady in the audience nodding her head in approval.....what a slant

[moomar1]

Global warming is natural, David Carolly (spelling?) admitted it himself... co2 levels were thousands of parts per million in the long distant past... so we're not in unknown territory as far as co2 goes now in the present ... his statements are contradictory

temperatures increased 20 degrees Celsius plus? wonder how hot/cold it was before that lol

[GuitarSpeller]

Pleaase show some rescpect for one of the world's top scientists. CO2 levels were thousands of parts per million in the Paleocene period when it was 18 to 27 degrees hotter than today. Please check your facts first.

[moomar1]

Whats does this have to do with my post?

Re-read what I wrote.

[GuitarSpeller]

moomar1 said

"Global warming is natural, David Carolly (spelling?) admitted it himself... co2 levels were thousands of parts per million in the long distant past... so we're not in unknown territory as far as co2 goes now in the present ... his statements are contradictory

temperatures increased 20 degrees Celsius plus? wonder how hot/cold it was before that"

[moomar1]

Why would you wonder? you just said 20 degrees plus...duh The debate isnt about whether or not the planet cools or wamrs its about what effect manking is having on it, why do you guys always try and fuzz the debate? global warming and man made global warming are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

[GuitarSpeller]

First, no one disputes the fact that warming in past epochs was natural. I repeat that when the CO2 levels were as high as you described the earth was at a temperature that today would be described as unbearable (up to 27 degrees hotter). Since that is indeed unknown territory for the human race, his statements are in no way contradictory.

[moomar1]

Its not unkown territory though, which is what matters, NOT whether its unkown territory for mankind, modern man has only lived for a very very brief period of time afteall, you would do well to bear this in mind..

And quit trolling mate

[114crs]

Aha!! listen to what Prof.Bob Carder said, in reference to Prof. David Karoly he says "he and I are brothers", Freemasons unite. Any disagreements that follow are merely playing for the profane.

David Karoly seems a little too creepy.

[nomoss]

My Mind's Made Up—Don't Confuse Me With The FACTS!