Why are so many Americans convinced that global warming is a media idea?
Recievingendofsirens why do you completely ignore scientific work and then post links to sites with no scientific background?

There is no need to bring nationalities into this, Matt....I've been in environmental cleanup for many years and I know the damage that we've done, especially in the last 120 years. I believe global warming is happening and that we have contributed to it, but I think it's been blown way out of proportion. When I was a kid they were scaremongering about an ice age in the near future. If it's not one thing it's another and I wonder what governments are distracting us from.

I notice that Australia and others that didn't sign the Kyoto are never mentioned, yet people single out the US. Most of the countries that did sign aren't meeting the requirements. Maybe you're focused more on the US. Why does everybody ignore the fact that governments were howling about an upcoming ice age thirty years ago?

Opinions are like arseholes everybody's got one...it doesn't matter where your from.

Recievingendofsirens why do you completely ignore scientific work and then post links to sites with no scientific background

i dont ignore scientific work intentionally but why people read mine at all either? i have posted many graphs outside of ipcc and all the political source or anyone associated with al gore, ipss, etc.

thats who i believe. politics detroy everything. when governments see a way to cause hysteria and get people to think and burn money they exploit it. im not saying that buying hybrid cars and using less fossil fuels wont help, it will for sure, but what ive seen and the many articles and graphs ive read and looked over there just isnt enough evidence to throw me to this "global warming" debacle that human primarily caused it when history says otherwise. history has shown us a many great things and helped us progress in technology and the way things work, especially earth. there are more factors than just Co2 from humans. to be honest, there is no way to possibly track how much exact Co2 we, as a human race, actually put out. its only estimates. so how can they say that we are without a doubt certain that we cause it?

i look at everything. ive read and looked at many charts, graphs, articles and i just dont buy it at all. a lot of it is media and governmentally fueled.

this is a natural cycle of the planet. right now its being sped up by our Co2 emissions, plus volcanism, animals etc. there are far more Co2 exhaling animals then there are humans on this planet, so why are we held responsible forsoemthing that really and truelly cant be linked to us in any way possible?

there are millions of factors that even scientists forget to add in their computer models. how can they predict whats going to happen when they cant even get the damn weather for the next day right?

you all have seen it, they call for rain and it doesnt, they say its going to be warm and its not. so we just assume that they know whats going to happen because they have a degree? or a phd? that they can predict whats going to happen 10 -20 years from now or next year or next week? all of this is hypothesis only and thats a stratch in itself.

look at history. the climate has changed more drastically in history than it has now. so we should panic? its happened before, people. even beofre we even knew how to friggin communicate its been happening.

why all this hysteria. billions upon billions of animals have lived and died to extinction and we are worrying about it now? its happened for billions of years!

but why i dont read your science papers because they are linked to political ipcc and they are fueled by just as much skepticism as whether or not nessie is real or not

I notice that Australia and others that didn't sign the Kyoto are never mentioned, yet people single out the US.

but why i dont read your science papers because they are linked to political ipcc and they are fueled by just as much skepticism as whether or not nessie is real or not

like someone else stated, other planets in our solar system are heating up aswell.
Mars's polar caps are melting, Must be because of us?..hah

the earth goes through heat induced periods, its natural - Do you expect the planet to stay the same forever?

Its just another fear tactic, Terrorism, Global Warming, Diseases = 'We need the governments help'

we have had little influence on it, maybe just bought it a few years earlier, but still it was unavoidable.

EDIT:

After reading a few more replies i saw the comment about mars heating up. Does anyone have any idea on why this is happening? I'd be rather intrested in knowing

Maybe Australia are not part of the Kyoto, because they do not like the politics/ agenda etc....., so they are doing there own work to save the environment. Check this link -

February 20, 2007
Australia Bans Traditional Light Bulbs to Combat Global Warming

http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/200...alia_bans_.html

I also note an American reaction to the idea in California there too...

name='receivingendofsirens' date='Mar 7 2007, 11:21 PM' post='1572305'

Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary to be aired March 8 in the United Kingdom.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

Tonight...9pm....on channel 4...

Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change

Our science editor condemns television's latest foray into the debate on global warming

Robin McKie
Sunday March 4, 2007
The Observer


We live in an era of conspiracies. Princess Diana was killed by Nazis; 9/11 was the work of the US government, while the manned lunar landings were hoaxes filmed in TV studios. To this list of internet-fuelled daftness, we can now add a new plot: that the world's scientific community is not just wrong about global warming, but is collectively lying when it says industrial carbon dioxide emissions are heating up the planet.

Michael Crichton started the ball rolling with his novel State of Fear and the idea has bubbled along nicely in online chatrooms ever since. But now the idea is to get the full terrestrial TV treatment when Channel 4 screens Thursday's The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary which says claims that carbon emissions are causing global warming are 'lies' and that attempts to debate the subject are being suppressed.

Given that the world's climatologists have just published a careful, sober report showing global warming is real and worrying, the programme is an astonishing foray into the debate. Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem. Yet a couple of important points do emerge from this nonsense and we should not make the mistake of ignoring them. To back his case, director Martin Durkin interviews climate-change deniers including Phillip Stott, Piers Corbyn, Nigel Calder and Nigel Lawson who reveal their antipathy to the idea we are altering Earth's weather systems.

These names are scarcely unknown. Listeners to Today and viewers of Newsnight have been hearing Stott and the rest promote their views for years. Indeed, they have dominated and distorted the whole global warming debate, a point stressed by Alan Thorpe, head of the Natural Environment Research Council. 'These people are never off the radio or TV, yet now they claim debate is being suppressed? It is preposterous.' So what, we might ask, is the deniers' problem? Examine their movement and you see a common thread: most proponents are elderly, only a few are scientists and several have pronounced pro-market views. And hereby hangs a tale.

'It is widely assumed that to control climate change, we will need a raft of government measures and increased bureaucracy - anathema to these people,' says political philosopher John Gray. 'So they deal with the issue by denying the problem in the first place. They say there is no such thing as global warming and therefore no need for more controls. They have closed their minds.'

The problem is that denial - in all its ludicrous glory - makes it easy for us to gloss over genuine concerns about society's right reaction to global warming and carbon emissions. And that is what is wrong with Durkin's programme. It opts for dishonest rhetoric when a little effort could have produced an important contribution to a critical social problem.

Consider emission controls. This is now assumed to be as much an issue of individual responsibility as of international negotiation. Petrol-guzzling 4x4s must be taxed, foreign holidays discouraged, TVs unplugged and lavatories left unflushed. After decades of waiting, the green movement has found the cause of its dreams: a crisis that gives them carte blanche, they believe, to rule our lives.

Hairshirts are being knitted and the self-righteous are gathering. The Observer's travel desk already gets hate mail merely for highlighting interesting destinations that might seem to encourage carbon-producing air travel. No wonder those poor old deniers cringe.

But it simply does not have to be that way. For a start, air travel accounts for only 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. So I refuse to feel guilty because I have a family holiday in Spain and then write about the threatened glories of the Great Barrier Reef.

Indeed, if one looks at the world's last great ecological scare, the dwindling of our protective ozone layer, it is intriguing to see how we dealt with a threat that seemed as apocalyptic then as climate change does today. Ozone depletion, caused by CFC chemicals used in fridges and deodorants, was not contained through individual sacrifice. We were not asked to sell our Hotpoint freezers or go smelly to the office. Governments and industries agreed to replace CFCs with safe substitutes. So there was no need for an army of self-appointed greenies to sniff our armpits to check if they were suspiciously non-malodorous. The crisis was contained at an industrial, not a consumer, level, as it should be with greenhouse gases.

Climate change is a bigger, more pernicious problem and will require broader, more intense efforts to cut back on carbon emissions, which, in turn, offers more opportunities for campaigners and politicians to hijack a sound cause to gain control of people's lives. 'That is the striking thing about global warming,' says Myles Allen, of Oxford's climate dynamics group. 'It is a Christmas tree on which each of us can hang virtually everything we want.'

Thus, everyone from EU commissioners and Ken Livingstone to parish councils and writers of green-ink letters now uses global warming as an excuse to tell us how to live. Some of this advice, and attempts at lifestyle control, is sound. Some is not. Either way, it is misplaced. The lead must come from government and industry. So far it hasn't. That is incompetence. Not conspiracy.

Don't be fooled by Bush's defection: his cures are another form of denial


The president's avowed conversion on climate change is illusory. He is just drumming up new business for his chums

George Monbiot
Tuesday January 30, 2007
The Guardian


George Bush proposes to deal with climate change by means of smoke and mirrors. So what's new? Only that it is no longer just a metaphor. After six years of obfuscation and denial, the US now insists that we find ways to block some of the sunlight reaching the earth. This means launching either mirrors or clouds of small particles into the atmosphere.

The demand appears in a recent US memo to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It describes "modifying solar radiance" as "important insurance" against the threat of climate change. A more accurate description might be important insurance against the need to cut emissions.

Every scheme that could give us a chance of preventing runaway climate change should be considered on its merits. But the proposals for building a global parasol don't have very many. A group of nuclear weapons scientists at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory in California, apparently bored of experimenting with only one kind of mass death, have proposed launching into the atmosphere a million tonnes of tiny aluminium balloons, filled with hydrogen, every year. One unfortunate side-effect would be to eliminate the ozone layer.

Another proposal, from a scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado, suggests spraying billions of tonnes of sea-water into the air. Regrettably, the production of small salt particles, while generating obscuring mists, could cause droughts in the countries downwind. Another scheme would inject sulphate particles into the stratosphere. It is perhaps less dangerous than the others, but still carries a risk of causing changes in rainfall patterns. As for flipping a giant mirror into orbit, the necessary technologies are probably a century away. All these fixes appear more expensive than cutting the amount of energy we consume. None reduces the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threatens to acidify the oceans, with grave consequences for the food chain.

The demand that money and research be diverted into these quixotic solutions is another indication that Bush's avowed conversion to the cause of cutting emissions is illusory. He is simply drumming up new business for his chums. In his state of the union address last week, he spoke of "the serious challenge of global climate change" and announced that he was raising the government's mandatory target for alternative transport fuels fivefold. This is wonderful news for the grain barons of the red states, who will grow the maize and rapeseed that will be turned into biofuel. It's a catastrophe for everyone else.

An analysis published last year by the Sarasin Bank found that until a new generation of vegetable fuels, made from straw or wood, is developed, "the present limit for the environmentally and socially responsible use of biofuels [is] roughly 5% of current petrol and diesel consumption in the EU and US". Bush now proposes to raise the proportion to 24% by 2017. Already, though the rich world has replaced just a fraction of 1% of its transport fuels, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation reports that using crops to feed cars has raised world food prices, with serious consequences for the poor. Biofuels fall into the same category as atmospheric smoke and mirrors - a means of avoiding difficult decisions.

But at least, or so we are told, the argument over whether or not manmade climate change is happening is now over. On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publishes the first installment of its vast report, which collates the findings of the world's climate scientists. Though conservative in its assumptions, it shows that if you persist in believing that there is no cause for concern, you must have buried your head till only your toes are showing. If even Bush now grudgingly acknowledges that there's a problem, surely we've seen the last of the cranks and charlatans who had managed to grab so much attention with their claims that global warming wasn't happening?

Some chance. A company called Wag TV is currently completing a 90-minute documentary for Channel 4 called The Great Global Warming Swindle. Manmade climate change, the channel tells us, is "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times. The truth is that global warming is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media ... The fact is that CO2 has no proven link to global temperatures ... solar activity is far more likely to be the culprit."

So it's the same old conspiracy theory we've been hearing from the denial industry for 10 years, and it carries as much scientific weight as the contention that the twin towers were brought down by missiles. The programme's thesis revolves around the deniers' favourite canard: that the "hockey-stick graph" showing rising global temperatures is based on a statistical mistake made in a paper by the scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. What it will not be showing is that their results have been repeated several times by other scientists using different statistical methods; that the paper claiming to have exposed the mistake has been comprehensively debunked; and that the lines of evidence used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes are just a few among hundreds demonstrating that 20th-century temperatures were anomalous.

The decision to commission this programme seems even odder when you discover who is making it. In 1997 the director, Martin Durkin, produced a similar series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamed up by environmentalists. It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and edit their answers to change their meaning. After complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that "the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing" and that they had been "misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part". Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has made. Are institutional memories really so short?

So the whole weary business of pointing out that the evidence against man-made climate change is sparse and unable to withstand critical scrutiny, while the evidence in favour is overwhelming and repeatedly confirmed, must begin all over again. How often must scientists remind the media that a handful of cherry-picked studies does not amount to the refutation of an entire discipline?

But with Bush's defection, the band of quacks making these claims is diminishing fast. Now the oil and coal companies that support such people have changed their target. Instead of trying to persuade us that man-made global warming is a myth, they are seeking to divert us into doing everything except the one thing that has to happen: reducing our consumption of fuel. It is another species of denial.

George Bush's purpose - to insulate these companies from the need to cut production - is unchanged. He has simply found a new way of framing the argument.

British scientists have embarked on a mission to study a gigantic hole in the Atlantic seabed - an enigma that defies traditional geophysical theory and will give researchers an unprecedented look into the center of the Earth.

The hole is about 5,000m under the surface of the Atlantic and located half way between Tenerife and Barbados. It has a diameter of 3,000 to 4,000m. Its depth is unknown.

The mysterious hole is in an undersea mountain range, the kind of structure believed to form when Atlantic tectonic plates separate and volcanic lava surges upward to fill the gap. But that did not happen this time. Instead, the hole exposes the mantle, the material that makes up Earth's interior, said British geophysicist Roger Searle of Durham University, one of the researchers.

"We do not know why that is," Searle said before setting sail on the RRS James Cook for the six-week mission. "Because of this gap we can see directly into the Earth's mantle."

ahem, now you are familiar with it, i will continue. now this vast hole is a hole in the earth. now lets do some basic science. if this hole is as big as they say it is, and since we know that the earth is much hotter on the sea floor because of magna and lava flows etc., dont you think that would massively warm the oceans, plus there was an undersea quake that measured 6.5 on the scale just a few days ago. hmmm, massive amounts of friction=massive amounts of heat. there has been a number of eruptions at yellowstone recently, minor yet still very active. i believe just recently a few volcanoes have blown, not on a severely catastrophic scale but still is spewing out tons and tons of harmful emissions into our atmoshphere warming the globe. oh and dont let me forget to remind you of the lava plateau in the phillipines that stretches for around 10 miles that spews out 2,150 degree lava at a constant rate, but no that has no effect at all at warming the oceans and in turn warming the earth. nah we'll just ignore it

but mine dont have as many question marks as what man made global warming does, plain and simple

The heat's in the sun

We live in extraordinarily hot times, says Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany. In 2004, he led a team of scientists that, for the first time, quantitatively reconstructed the sun's activity since the last Ice Age, some 11,400 years ago. Earth hasn't been this hot in 8,000 years and, he predicts, the hot spell will carry on for a few more
decades before the sun turns down the heat.

The 19th and 20th centuries are especially noteworthy. "The sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently -- in the last 100 to 150 years," he says. "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Dr. Solanki gives cold comfort to those who claim that global warming took off with the Industrial Revolution, and that the warming we've seen over the last century is mostly man-made. To demonstrate how unlikely this is, Dr. Solanki shows an almost perfect correlation between solar cycles and air temperatures over the land masses in the Northern hemisphere, going back to the mid 19th century.

For example, when the length of solar cycle increased dramatically, as it did in from 1910 to 1940, so did the temperature on Earth; when it decreased, as it did from the 1940s to the 1960s, so too did Earth temperatures. Dr. Solanki's startling correlation marked a pivotal point in the climate change debate: Its publication, more than any other single event, caused researchers around the world to examine the role that the sun plays in heating and cooling our planet.

Not that Dr. Solanki discredits the role of man-made greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. These have probably played a large role in Earth's climate, he believes, but only since 1980 or so, when the sun's almost perfect correlation with Earth temperatures ended. He also believes that evidence that greenhouse gases have played a larger role in climate change may some day turn up, because his near-perfect correlation does not constitute proof. To date, however, he hasn't seen anything compelling that undermines his own findings.

The answer to most of the global warming we have seen over the past century, Dr. Solanki believes, will likely be somehow associated with the sun, and involve one or more of its parameters. It could be the sun's total irradiance, he states, citing work by others that he respects, or it could be the solar spectral irradiance, in particular with regard to ultraviolet radiation in the stratosphere. Or it could be the sun's open magnetic flux, which modulates the galactic cosmic-ray flux. Or it could be other factors -- many potential solar drivers of our climate exist.

Dr. Solanki is especially taken with the work of the Danish National Space Agency, which demonstrated the dramatic effect that cosmic rays can have on cloud formation, and thus temperatures -- "the mechanism is just too beautiful to ignore," he offers.

Among the factors that he believes hold great promise, and that cry out for investigation, are the sun's irradiance and its magnetic field, which underlie all solar activity. "Unfortunately, regular and detailed measurements of the sun's surface magnetic field are only available for a few decades, not long enough for comparison with climate," he says on his Web site. "Records of the solar irradiance are available for an even shorter length of time" -- accurate measurements began in 1978 using instrumentation aboard spacecraft. With knowledge of these fundamental determinants of Earth's climate still in their infancy, we cannot act with confidence on climate change.
Dr. Solanki's recommendation: more research, and lots of it. To uncover a possible connection between solar irradiance and magnetic-field variations and climate, he thinks it necessary to extend the irradiance record to earlier times with the help of models. To understand the mechanisms responsible for variations in solar brightness, it is necessary to study solar variability on time scales of days to centuries.

Until the research is in, he believes, the story of what drives climate change remains unknown.

Source

As the prog said...so many people have a vested interest now in the man-made global warming theory that they are not going to let go of it.

Maybe people sense something BIG coming up...like animals sense an earthquake before it takes hold....but people don't like feeling helpless and at the mercy of nature...and desperately want to believe they can do something to stop it.

Very astute observation!

Certainly accounts for a large percentage imo.

Source

here you go watch it yourself

the global warming swindle

Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change

The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy

George Monbiot
Tuesday March 13, 2007
The Guardian


Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the dark ages. All the great heroes of the discipline - Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein - took tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today's crank has often proved to be tomorrow's visionary.

But the syllogism does not apply. Being a crank does not automatically make you a visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, the South African health minister who has claimed Aids can be treated with garlic, lemon and beetroot, will be hailed as a genius. But the point is often confused. Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind farms do not have "any measurable effect" on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has compared himself to Galileo.

The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands have been misled into believing there is no problem to address.

The film's main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on Earth are in "strikingly good agreement" with the length of the cycle of sunspots.

Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the "agreement" was the result of "incorrect handling of the physical data". The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results. But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes - in this case in their arithmetic.

So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that, when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.

So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared there was a correlation - not with total cloud cover but with "low cloud cover". This, too, turned out to be incorrect. Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying the paper was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays.

As Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa has shown on www.realclimate.org, five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. "We've often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work," Schmidt says, "but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation beyond reasonableness that we have seen." None of this seems to have troubled the programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.

The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the Earth's surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine.

Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. 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."

Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the denial industry, some of them, like the film-makers, shriek "censorship!". This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have come across. If you demonstrate someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him.

But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Wunsch says he was "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" by the people who made it.

This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director Martin Durkin. In 1998, the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes". Their views had been "distorted through selective editing". Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.

Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.

But for the film's commissioners, all that counts is the sensation. Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited - such as Durkin. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the controversy.

im sure that he wasnt threatened or anything to do so....

sorry what that documentary showed was a lot of what im seeing occuring all over the net.... sorry your global warming is slowly losing its weight in the scientific community

keep babbling about your ipcc and everything else.... your article does the same thing as the film does... that proves nothing in slightest bit, as ive stated before.

show me someone who doesnt work for a government funded agency whose filled with mad cow global warming disease and ill listen simple... but you know what.......... you cant find one. there isnt any. money makes people believe anything they want. just as the film presented, and thats true for anything. i know that just because the globe is warming they all became mother teresa... lol

sorry.... i am one of many of a growing number of people who dont care..... when the government isnt involved like it is and funding billions of dollars then ill be all for it and listen

I'll leave you too you illusion, I'm sure your kids will be gratefull for leaving them a rotten planet.

Any of this you wish to dispute?

most definatly

most definatly

i would like to dispute all of them, matt

CO2 is known to be a green house gas?

first off ill start with the first
Yes it is known to be a greenhouse gas. doesnt make it harmfull to the atmosphere. Without Co2 a lot of things wouldnt be on this planet today. So why do we alarm when there is, yes an abundance of it, but have seen much much higher levels of Co2 than today?

Plant life flourishes in this time. So all those trees and plants we destory are going to slowly grow back even if the atmosphere were to stay at the current rate. But see, thats not the case. History can show us a lot of things of whats happened with the globl climate since the dawn of time. Everytime we get warmer, Co2 rises to the breaking point what happens? The earth cools itself down correct? This is found through ice core samples that we have dug up. Thats fact. Like i stated before, Co2 levels have been 3 times what they are today. Look what happened. Cooling.

Its plain as day. The abundace of that was caused by volcanic activity. which we still have going on today. The activity was much higher back in history but recent discoveries have shown that the earth is creating more and more hotspots all over the world than previously known before. So if all the natural Co2 that was in the atmoshpere then caused that high of ppm, then why are we so concerned with us and Co2? we still havnt gotten to the point where its been worse than it has in history so why all of a sudden just burst with fear now? The little amount of Co2 we dump into the atmospehere doesnt even compare to the amount of Co2 which volcanic activity pumps out on a global scale. its almost 100 times what we put out.

Then all lifeforms on the planet exhale Co2 into the air as well. well there are just as many animals on the planet as humans if not more.

it just doesnt make sense at all what they say about the global warming theory. history says otherwise over and over again. when there are high amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere we have went into an ice age. its clear in all the graphs that are shown all over the world.

so why should we ignore all of this now?

there is conclusive evidence of global warming with out any politics, just good ol science. You say that there is a lot of snow being poured down from massive winter storms. In fact in new york there has been over 100 inches in certain parts. Did you know that extreme weather stems from the global warming.

The potential for floods and droughts is increasing."....... the heating from increased greenhouse gases enhances the hydrological cycle and increases the risk for stronger, longer-lasting or more intense droughts, and heavier rainfall events and flooding, even if these phenomena occur for natural reasons. Evidence, although circumstantial, is widespread across the United States. Examples include the intense drought in the central southern U.S in 1996, Midwest flooding in spring of 1995 and extensive flooding throughout the Mississippi Basin in 1993 even as drought occurred in the Carolinas, extreme flood events in winters of 1992-93 and 1994-95 in California but droughts in other years (e.g, 1986-87 and 1987-88 winters)," says Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Even if data from 100 years ago is inconclusive, bc of unrealiable technology, the fact remains the earth is getting warmer, period. up up up it goes, which isnt good. Its a slow but steady increase, which is why its still snowing, duh! You keep making a point of how you realize the polar ice caps are melting, you understand that there is temperature increase, dude that IS WHAT GLOBAL WARMING IS!!!!!!!! your just contradicting yourself, check out these websites and inform yourself so you don't sound liek an idiot

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocean...eforwarming.htm
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5394326
hell im republican and i know and acknowlege that there is a very serious global warming problem

Going to put it all into a nut shell for you guys….

Global warming has nothing to do with humanity, we neither contribute nor can we negate the problem.

Life is built on the foundations of cycles. All life is cyclic, the golden spiral etc….

Our sun is the source and focus of all prime energy in our system….

The balance of matter and antimatter is the main focus of the scientific community working on the dynamics of life….

It has been recognised that throughout the universe antimatter flows like meandering streams of energy….

We go round the sun, the sun moves in a circular motion within the galaxy and the galaxy revolves in relation to neighbouring galaxies and on and on it goes…..

Our sun is about to dip its toes in one of these rivers of energy ( antimatter ) and thus become charged ready for its next cycle……

Once charged it will balance out and in this, discharge huge amounts of energy to all the planets within our solar system……

In the year 2000 all the planets fell into alignment, natures way of giving a heads up for the oncoming events…..

When the sun discharges energy it does it through creating a hole and energy is released, CME’S…..

This is all history which the Christian church decided should not be for the common man as it would only cause panic…..

The eye of horus is the sun with a huge sun spot, the myan snake/serpent is the river of antimatter and on and on it goes……

Try it for yourselves, connect the dots and see what you get,

Ciao…..

Ok I'll ignore the actaull research then now you've said so, all those scientific papers clearly where meaningless and the unprecident CO2 levels and rapid change in temperature are irrelevant

13 Mar 07 –– Part of Al Gore's scientific audience is uneasy. These scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

"There are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration.

Mr. Gore clearly has supporters among some scientists. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.

James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, concedes that Mr. Gore’s work may hold "imperfections" and "technical flaws." He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.

Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of "shrill alarmism."

Some of Gore’s detractors point to a report last month by the IPCC, which estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.

A report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

The June report shows "that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years," said Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge- Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus.

"Hardly a week goes by," Dr. Peiser said, "without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory," including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

"Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet," Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. "Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change."

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."

He mocked Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. "I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company," Dr. Easterbrook told the group. "And I’m not a Republican."

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

"For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims," Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. "We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts."

Source For the full atricle

This crap has been going on for years, back in the 1970’s the data from a satellite that had surveyed the topography of the planet and also carried ground penetrating radar gave a certain oil company information on all the oil reserves dotted around the globe. From this they were able to calculate the life span of these deposits and the date thrown out when all the accessible deposits would start to cause problems would fall around the year 2010.

This information was leaked ( as usual ) to the press and the oil companies response was to recruit the specialist services of the number one oil prospector in the world, you guessed it, Uri bloody Gellor…

Those predictions measured against the current tide and you have a solution to a problem, oil starting to dry up, blame the need to conserve on the current changing climate and while we are at it tax the bloody fools as we are going to have to replace all the taxes we are about to lose with the pumps going on rations….?

who said they couldn’t charge us for the air that we breath, c’mon kids, wake up and smell something at least…. For gods sake, talk about sense and sensibility, your future, your hands…..

Co2 is not the single biggest contributing factor to climate change, please-think about it. The weather is so hard to predict because there are sooooo many variants, they can’t even build a decent model of the weather even with computing levels at what they are, they just can’t do it. With that in mind you can’t go round saying that a single molecule can be the significant reason to it, pleeeease c’mon…..

We know the biggest factor in global weather is the sun, all the other variants are simply out weighed by this one dynamic. The next in line of the factors is the moon, go fig…..

So Co2, my arse….. If they can’t tax it going in they will tax it going out…… how long before the fart-tax….?

Any one remember the farce of the 1999 - 2050 report…..?

Anyhoo, big business, governments, they all work hand in hand and we are just expected to suck it up, more over, pick up the tab for their failings……

Oh poo, done it again…..

Ciao….