sorry guy, i don't have an hour and 14 minutes to sit there and watch that. i did skim it tho, and tried to watch as much as possible, which amounted to about 15 minutes of the show. i appreciate ya trying to share your point of view, but this is more of a filibuster than a discussion.

and they surely do preach to your choir from what i see. but debunking anything? i didn't see it. i just saw a few rogue scientists in remote places giving soundbytes and a pull on the heartstrings cause someone's solar panel is too small.

sorry, i'll take the 600+ scientists from 113 different countries and a report reviewed line by line than this viral video poo-pooing it. funny how the holdouts on this issue would ridicule anyone with a minority point of view on anything else while they were in power, calling them "10%ers" and laughing at their "independent sources" as just a bunch of "fringe nutjobs." but now that they are a "10%er, they sound just like hillary clinton pointing to "vast conspiracies."

ya know, if i tried to use something like this as a source, the entire right wing would be jumping down my throat. in fact last week, i used a chicago tribune source (their washington bureau, which has a web address with the word "blog" in it). before the ink was dry on the post, the right, who apparantly just looked at the web addreess and never looked at the actual source to see that it was an "official" tribune news outlet, were like flies on sh*t. as soon as it was pointed out that they "fell for it faster and harder than i expected" they immediately acted like they never said anything.

Those 600 are greatly reduced. At about minute 50 or so, they discuss the IPCC report. What was not included was very damning to the point the publishers tried to make, and the scientists (some of them), upon seeing the hack job they did on the report tried to get their names removed. The publisher refused. They also did not deny the unauthorized editing of the report.

But more importantly is the documentary's analysis that CO2 is not causing global warming, but is a result of it. In other words, the increase in temperatures is leading to more CO2. Since man is only responsible for about 10% of the total CO2, that is not as far fetched as it may seem.

But the very damning evidence is that the rise in solar activity, and thus the reduction of cosmic rays bombarding the earth is a 1 to 1 correlation with global temperatures.

Also, if indeed CO2 was causing global warming, then the years immediately following WWII should have seen a marked increase in temperatures as the amount of man produced CO2 went sky high (reconstruction of europe and asia), yet for the next 30 years, the Global temperature saw a marked decline.

It is not a filibuster, but when you get some time, watch the whole thing. It is not about debunking global warming, as it is more about exposing the fear mongers trying to stiffle the debate on the cause of it.

Finally, I am not using it as THE source, but A source as it is a documentary (not like the crap we get from Mikey Moron) and does have some of those 600 scientists on the record basically saying the report was hi-jacked and not what was originally written.

fill me in, how many scientists objected?

Sorry, I got distracted when they stated that. I do not remember how many. But as I said, it was at about minute 50 (a little after, but I cannot remember how far after).

An interesting thing is going on at Coast to Coast AM. The host (George Noory) wants to do a round table discussion about Global Warming. He says he has plenty of scientists on the "Natural causes" side willing to participate. He's having trouble finding people on the "Caused by Man" side though. The problem isn't that there aren't pleny of the latter willing to come on as guests, it's just that none of them want to be in on a round tabe discussion. Like Gore they only seem interested in telling their side of the issue. Why is Al Gore and those on his side so afraid of open discussion on the issue?

i reviewed 1:40 thru 3:20. just vague claims and accusations by 2 guys. nothing is backed up, nothing is debunked. and quite frankly, i didn't see what they said to be at all as claiming what you said they did. but i'm sure we are seeing it differently.

i'm not saying it is, but it looks like one of those things the larouchies put out to me.

When you build your house on sand, you fear the tide. The evidence (from that video) that Global Warming is not caused by CO2 is very compelling. I would like to see a debate on the scientists that hold it is with those who point to other factors.

One person on the video did address the "600", and poo pooed it. He (and this was the MIT scientist I think) basically said "600 out of 2500 is not that big a number".

I would not say that the BBC (more liberal in a lot of respects than even the NY Times) was a LaRouche mouthpiece.

But if you dont want to watch it (it is long), I was pointed to it by another poster on Brad's Thread. Reuelkb. He states:

no, i wasn't saying they were, and i didn't claim it was..it just had that "feel."

but it turns out, this source is not as iron clad as advertised.

***George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian that the forthcoming programme's thesis was "the same old conspiracy theory that we’ve been hearing from the denial industry for the past ten years". He discussed the arguments for and against the "hockey-stick graph" used in An Inconvenient Truth, claiming that the criticism of it has been "debunked". He also highlighted Durkin's previous documentary Against Nature, where the Independent Television Commission found that four complainants had been "misled" and their views were "distorted by selective editing

***ON March 9, 2007, Zoe Williams in The Guardian described the program as following an "age-old Fox News formula". She briefly summarised the programme's claims, and ridiculed the idea that environmental journalists would "bully editors into printing stories that aren't true", comparing it to a cancer journalist ripping up the cure for cancer.

***On March 14, 2007, The Independent reported that the programme makers had selectively used data which was sometimes decades old, and introduced other serious errors of their own:


The original, and corrected versions of Temperature data from TGGWS, along with NASA GISS data"Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. 'There was a fluff there,' he said. If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the NASA website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940—although that would have undermined his argument. 'The original NASA data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find,' Mr Durkin said."


***On March 15, 2007, The Times reported that Durkin had seriously fallen out with a scientist who had been considering working with him. Armand Leroi was concerned that Durkin had used data about a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures which had subsequently been found to be flawed. Leroi sent Durkin an e-mail expressing concern about the programme and saying, "To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways". He copied the e-mail to scientific author Simon Singh. Durkin responded to Leroi saying "You’re a big daft cock". Singh sent an email to Durkin urging him to engage in serious debate. Durkin responded stating, "Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing", and concluded with, "Go and fuck yourself".

***The Times science editor Mark Henderson listed a number of points where, he said, "Channel 4 got it wrong over climate change".

***Professor Carl Wunsch (professor of physical oceanography at MIT), stated that he was "completely misrepresented" by Durkin in his documentary. Currently considering making a formal complaint, Wunsch claims he was "totally misled" as to the content of the program.

he said this..."In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening."

***Durkin's documentary on genetic modification which was broadcast on Channel 4 on March 20th 2000, also met with complaints.[5] A joint letter signed by a number of scientists from the Third World was issued in protest of Durkin's claims in this documentary. [6] Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a scientist featured on the program, later said of her participation in the program: "I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position."

***The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary film by British television producer Martin Durkin which argues against prominent scientific views on global warming. Its accuracy has been disputed on several points, and it has been criticised for being one-sided.

***Except when making a counter-argument the film does not address the scientific reasons that these scientists say that modern global warming is caused mostly by human activity

***For more on troposphere temperature measurements, see the 2006 U.S. Climate Change Science Program report "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere:Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences". The Executive Summary says, "Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected." [5] For more on volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, see: [6], where the U.S. Geological Service estimates "Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes".

That is funny, because that is what they showed. So I fail to see how that is a revelation.

And the rest appears to be just a way of discrediting the man, instead of the data. You cant discredit data by stating the same thing it says. As for the MIT scientist, They did not misrepresent it. They presented what he said as just that. His opinion of where CO2 was coming from.

If you had spent as much time watching the film, instead of digging up the latest critique on it, you would be better armed to refute the nay sayers, instead of shooting the messenger.

actually, the research was a simple google of his name, and took 5 minutes. i have also watched just about all of it now, and see nothing that changes my mind when tempered with actual counter arguments. apparantly there is going to be a 1 on 1 debate next month in britain on the subject that is going to be broadcast. should be interesting.

{Whistling}

http://terpfan1980.joeuser.com/articleComments.asp?AID=148039

What?  me worry?  When the scarecrow does not?

that article is a crock of crap. inhofe was made to look like an ass in that hearing and got slammed by barbara boxer. inhofe was trying to filibuster gore and she stopped him. inhofe tried to just get out his infammatory statements and told al he could "only respond in writing" later, so the oly thing anyone ever heard was his rants and al's written reponses would be buried in some obscure record in some vault. but unfortunately for him, he doesn't hold the gavel anymore, lol. so the only response is to wait until the portable punditry comes up with some spin that every neocon can parrot and ignore everything else.

We seem to have seen 2 different videos. Nevertheless, being slammed by Boxer is akin to being called ugly by the Wicked Witch of the West. The only time she had an IQ of 2 was when she was pregnant - before she aborted the 2.

i guess this comes from someone who only knows the wizard of oz from 1939 and not familiar with the more indepth "wicked" currently on broadway.

smear boxer all ya want, i could care less. but she made an ass out of inhofe.