Samuel’s Footy Tips Samuel’s Blog Weekly Poll: Two Party Preferred

The Great Global Warming Swindle

May 26th, 2007 at 03:03am

Unless you’ve been avoiding the media in the last week, you would probably be aware that in July, ABC Television will screen an excellent documentary from British film maker Martin Durkin called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which quite brilliantly proves, with the aide of many prominent scientists, including some from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that global warming is not caused by carbon emissions, but rather by variations in solar activity. In fact, the history of global warming and cooling drives the changes in carbon levels in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

It also shows that, far from being an apocalyptic disaster, we have been through many much warmer and much colder periods, and somehow all the polar bears and humans managed to survive.

Unfortunately the version which will be screened on ABC Television in July will be a shortened version of the 75 minute documentary screened by Britain’s Channel 4 in March, and unfortunately I really can’t see how they will achieve that without leaving out important parts of the documentary. They will still prove everything, but leaving bits out may leave a few holes in the story, which would be most unfortunate as this documentary is very comprehensive, even going so far as to explain where Al Gore’s peculiar “documentary” “An Inconvenient Truth” went wrong by skipping important facts and figures.

Thankfully, the full version of The Great Global Warming Swindle is doing the rounds on Google Video and bittorrent, and a DVD with the full documentary and even more information will be on sale soon.

For your information, here is the full version as provided on Google Video. It is quite long for a web video at 75 minutes, but it is well worth the investment in time, and I would urge you to watch it when you have some spare time.

It’s about time that there was a documentary showing the logical side of the global warming debate, and it has arrived.

I would like to thank 2CC’s Mike Jeffreys for bringing this fantastic documentary to my attention, it’s good to have something like this to confirm my long held belief that global warming being caused by human activity is a complete and utter nonsense.

Samuel

Entry Filed under: General News,Global Warming,Samuel's Editorials,TV/Radio/Media

Print This Post Print This Post

19 Comments

  • 1. John20747  |  May 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm

    Thanks for posting that Samuel.
    The Earth’s weather is an extremely complicated topic, and
    there’s no doubt that there is a direct link to solar activity.

  • 2. Samuel  |  May 26th, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    You’re welcome John, it was my pleasure.

    I should probably clarify that I wouldn’t be surprised if humans have had some very negligible impact on the earth’s temperature, but carbon is such a tiny part of the earth’s atmosphere, and our contribution to that so much smaller, that we would have barely touched the temperature…especially when you consider how much carbon is produced naturally and how much more of other greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, especially water vapour.

    I hope that posting that video helps enlighten a few people.

  • 3. Clayton Northcutt  |  May 26th, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    Samuel, that doco has been torn to shreds. It would be easier to find peanut M&Ms in that show than a touch of creditability.

  • 4. Samuel  |  May 26th, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    Torn to shreds because of a a couple typographical errors?

    Sorry Clayton, but this documentary is an awful lot more credible than Al Gore’s documentary.

  • 5. Samuel  |  May 27th, 2007 at 11:57 am

    That being said, I’m not going to berate you for disagreeing.

    The main point is, there are two sides to the “what causes global warming?” argument, and I think it is important that we recognise that.

    Unfortunately far too many people are willing to dismiss the “carbon is not the cause” side as crazy dangerous people who will kill us all and need to be stopped at all costs.

    If you’re willing to accept that there is some chance you are wrong, then I will do the same.

  • 6. John20747  |  May 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    I’d take the conspiracy theory stuff with a grain of salt,
    but I’d give plenty of credence to the theory that increased solar activity is causing global warming, which in turn is causing the oceans to release more carbon dioxide.

  • 7. tuggers  |  May 27th, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    Samuel

    Did you actually watch Al Gores documentary, and have you actually listened to an alternate argument to that of Mike Jeffrey. Anyone from Arnold Schwarzengger to Rupert Murdoch can give a reasonable explanation of what is happening.

    Do you agree with the argument that the world oil reserves have reached critically low levels, or that salinisation is poisoning the Australian Inland. If you agree with these arguments you cannot deny the tear in the ozone layer was caused by pollution and is growing rapidly.

  • 8. Samuel  |  May 28th, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    Why am I not surprised…it was inevitable that simply because I mentioned Mike Jeffreys’ name (he spells it with an s on the end), somebody would come along and more or less accuse me of just copying his opinion.

    It happens every time…I will say this once and once only because I’d like to get back on topic…I held this view long before I ever heard Mike Jeffreys agree with it, and if you read my post carefully, I didn’t even mention Mike’s opinion, I merely thanked him for bringing this documentary to my attention.

    To answer your questions Tuggers, yes I have watched Al Gore’s documentary, it was an amusing waste of time.

    Question for you Tuggers, have you watched The Great Global Warming Swindle? It quite clearly disproves an awful lot of what Mr. Gore said.

    Anyone from Arnold Schwarzengger to Rupert Murdoch can give a reasonable explanation of what is happening.

    And they have scientific credentials? Last time I checked one of them was a movie star who recently moved in to politics, and the other one was a media magnate. It’s very nice of them to give their opinions freely on the matter, and I thank them for it, but I certainly wouldn’t run to them for proof.

    Do you agree with the argument that the world oil reserves have reached critically low levels, or that salinisation is poisoning the Australian Inland. If you agree with these arguments you cannot deny the tear in the ozone layer was caused by pollution and is growing rapidly.

    Amazing, three completely seperate issues bundled together as one. Sorry Tuggers but that’s like saying “Do you agree that round wheels are best and trees should have leaves? If so then you must believe that computers use electricity”.

    I will answer your points, regardless of how irrelevant they may be:

    No I do not believe that world oil reserves have reached critically low levels, there is plenty of oil down there, we just have to find it. The levels in the oil reserves we know of are lower than they used to be, and I would support efforts to move to a different fuel source, not because of some supposed effect cars have on the climate of the planet, but because there has got to be something better to breathe than petrol fumes…and it would be nice to break our dependance on other countries for fuel.

    Yes, of course salination is causing many problems.

    The Ozone Layer is an interesting issue, it has been depreciating at a steady rate for over two decades, except in the polar regions where there is virtually no pollution…in those areas the depreciation of ozone has occurred much faster during Spring, just after the area has been through months of little or no Ultra Violet light…these holes heal themselves by Summer, which to me indicates that there is a very good reason for this depletion and recreation of Ozone, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with pollution, and everything to do with solar radiation such as UV light.

  • 9. Samuel  |  May 29th, 2007 at 3:58 am

    I forgot to mention, rather than trying to attack people, try attacking evidence. If you believe that you have some evidence which will prove that I am wrong, then share it with me.

  • 10. Maritz  |  May 29th, 2007 at 5:40 am

    Dear Samuel,

    I think you are right about the global warmings, they are natural very and the evidence does support for that. The planet is doing the warming now, and eventually will go back to the global cooling as it is from to do with the cycles of the earth and the sun.

    I will be having the viewing of the documenting show of the global warming swindle on the television when the it next shows on ABC.

    From Maritz

    Ms. Maritzkrozlavsky Throrglasnishozly

  • 11. Hans Fruck  |  May 29th, 2007 at 10:02 am

    Samuel, this is utterly asinine. The scientific opinion, as you well know, is overwhelmingly behind the notion that carbon emissions do cause global warming. Yes, in a community the size of the scientific community there will always be a few kooks and iconoclasts or simply some who can be bought, but they are minuscule in number compared to the other side of the debate. FFS, even the government, which thus far has distinguished itself for its retrograde views on this issue, has acknowledged the reality of global warming.

    You are naive and disingenuous on this issue. You are so ideologically blinkered that you will not honestly evaluate the worth of the two sides of this debate. That’s called intellectual dishonesty.

    It’s galling to see someone espousing this rubbish patting themselves on the bag and smugly chirping about the “logical side of the debate”. You, obviously, wouldn’t know logic if it reversed over you in a semitrailer.

  • 12. Samuel  |  June 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    The scientific opinion, as you well know, is overwhelmingly behind the notion that carbon emissions do cause global warming.

    Quick question for you Hans…why are other planets in the solar system also getting warmer? Surely humans aren’t causing that as well, and surely, seeing as the other planets are getting warmer, there is something more to this whole issue than just humans.

    I’m certainly not going to deny that cleaner air would be a bad thing, and less pollution would be nice, and I would support efforts to make the air cleaner and reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources mainly because pollution in the air in excessive amounts isn’t good for your health, and we would all benefit from cleaner air…but I would not support it under the crazy notion that if the Earth gets a degree or two hotter then we will all be killed by massive storms and tsunamis and rising sea levels, and because that threat is a large heap of scaremongering nonsense, I will most certainly not support cutting emissions in such a way that would have a detrimental effect on the economy.

    For what it’s worth, my entire house uses compact fluorescent bulbs, not because it will supposedly prevent the Earth from boiling, but because it’s cheaper, and the light is nicer…and they don’t get hot which is fantastic when they are at body level.

  • 13. The Beige Baron  |  June 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 am

    As Samuel perches on top of Black Mountain, sea lapping at his feet: ‘It was the solar rays! It was the solar rays!’

  • 14. Samuel  |  June 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 am

    Black Mountain…hmmm, and I thought sea levels rising by 100 metres was far fetched!

    You have a vivid imagination Baron

  • 15. Hans Fruck  |  June 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    Samuel, I assume you’re referring to the fact that there have been variations to the temperature on Mars? If so, that claim, and more particularly its relevance to global warming on our planet, are thoroughly debunked here, as they are debunked in about a million other places on the net.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

  • 16. Samuel  |  June 2nd, 2007 at 3:17 pm

    I don’t have time to read the linked article right now Hans, but just for the moment I will assume that it is correct.

    That then brings me to my next point, historically warmer temperatures have not been associated with disaster, but with prosperity, and the fact of the matter is that hundreds, possibly thousands, of lives would be saved every year in Eurpoe alone if the temperature was just a bit warmer.

    The article I am basing that assertion on is unfortunately in a pay-per-view archive now, however Slashdot summarises it here.

  • 17. Clayton Northcutt  |  June 4th, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    Samuel, you attacked someone for referencing people that had no scientific credentials. What are yours exactly? The fact that you watched a doco on ABC? You even say that you base your claims on some article? Who says that that article is right? You espouse you opinion as if it were the truth, while making out that everyone else should heed caution on their part because there isn’t any clear truth on either side. It sounds like argumentative hypocrisy to me.

  • 18. Samuel  |  June 5th, 2007 at 6:04 am

    Samuel, you attacked someone for referencing people that had no scientific credentials.

    I suppose you mean this:

    Last time I checked one of them was a movie star who recently moved in to politics, and the other one was a media magnate. It’s very nice of them to give their opinions freely on the matter, and I thank them for it, but I certainly wouldn’t run to them for proof.

    It’s hardly an attack on the person who referred to them as being able to “give a reasonable explanation of what is happening”. It was a matter of pointing out that the two people in question not only are not scientists, they don’t even study the issues.

    I am also not a scientist. I, like the two aforementioned people, have an opinion based on the evidence provided by scientists and others who study issues of climate, atmosphere, and other related things.

    You even say that you base your claims on some article? Who says that that article is right?

    I based one claim partially on an article. I referenced the article because if I didn’t you would be accusing me of making up things and calling them evidence.

    It is entirely possible that the article is wrong, the same can be said for the hysteria about man made global warming.

    You espouse you opinion as if it were the truth…

    No, I espouse my opinion as my opinion. Naturally I believe my opinion and I back it up with whatever evidence I have to support it…isn’t that what we are all doing?

    Apart from that, it is important that both sides of the argument are discussed, it allows people to properly weigh up the evidence and make up their own mind.

    …while making out that everyone else should heed caution on their part because there isn’t any clear truth on either side.

    Which side of this debate about the causes of global warming is suggesting that we need to take actions that would cripple industry and the economy, and therefore adversely affect the lives of everyone? It’s certainly not my side.

    Reducing pollution and having cleaner air would be nice for the simple fact that it would be good for our health, and I am happy to support sensible, rational, economically sustainable efforts to do that, but I can not, and will not, support crippling sanctions until I am convinced that humans are responsible for global warming. So far, I am yet to be convinced, but I appreciate the efforts by people to try and convince me.

    The good news for you though is that I am only one person, and in our democracy all you need is a majority to get what you want.

  • 19. Max Stark  |  June 28th, 2007 at 2:37 pm

    Max Stark, 280607
    Samuel, you are obviously an intelligent human being, your expression tells me that, and that is why I find it so surprising that you are a wearer of rose coloured glasses, with blinkers. I am not going to join the throng of people quoting this or that, I read extensively on the web. I see signs all around me, and my opinion is well shaped by what I see and read and by the expert opinion of thousands of well qualified scientists and other professionals all around the planet. Global Warming is happening and we, humanity, are major players in its progress with the gross generation of CO2e. Let’s stick with CO2e, this is an aggregration of greenhouse gases, not exclusively CO2. It is what’s more, a very considerable part of Earth’s atmosphere and growing at an alarming rate.

    One only has to look at the J curves of increased CO2e emissions as provided by the Met Bureau. They are going off scale ever since the Industrial Revolution, James Watt et al , caused the tiniest increase at the start of the curves. Whist all this gradual buildup of emissions has been taking place, we have been sitting on our hands while those around us have embarked on another exponential process, that of deforestation. The biomass of the planet is what should be happily coping with greenhouse gas emissions, but it has been reduced, plundered in fact to a scant fraction of what it should be.
    Now up jumps Johnnie with the idea that he will throw $200 millions of taxpayers dollars at the Indonesians to replant forests while they are still hard at it cutting them down, and we have done nothing about it. If this is an early example of carbon trading to get us some tax credits there is not much hope for emissions trading schemes.

    The point here is, global warming is a combination of a lot of effects, greenhouse gases, water vapour and maybe even natural causes to some extent. We know the Earth wobbles on its axis, we know that our elliptical orbit sometimes puts us closer to old Sol than usual, we know there are sunspots causing variations in ambient radiation, we know that sometimes all these variations can line up and give us a bit of a sauna, but never before in recorded history to my belief has any combination of natural causes been accompanied by so much help from mankind. Global Warming (GW) is a fact of life, there is indisputable evidence to support the fact that humanities’ CO2e is a major factor in our average temperature increases.

    The time for a fellow called Durkin to float ill founded controversy against GW being largely man made was a decade or two ago before science got to where it is now. He appears to be but a pimple on the path of progress. He obviously stirs controversy for the cause of income for Wag TV and himself as MD. And he has a DVD to sell. And he has done it all before. I begrudge the taxpayers dollars that ABC has wasted on this and the fact that taxpayers dollars are really just advertising for Martin Durkin and his DVD.

    And I begrudge the fact that you and your ilk are supporting such pap. One can but guess that to be on the stage this late in the piece, squawking opposition to what the rest of the world has belatedly accepted as fact, perhaps you have some fiscal gain out of supporting controversy.


Calendar

May 2007
S M T W T F S
« Apr   Jun »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Recent Posts

Search Blog or Web

Login/Logout

Ads By Google


Blix Theme by Sebastian Schmieg and modified for Samuel's Blog by Samuel Gordon-Stewart.
Printing CSS with the help of Martin Pot's guide to Web Page Printability With CSS.
Icons by Kevin Potts.
Powered by WordPress.
Log in