i find it a very interesting phenomenon that the "sceptics" start by saying it is uncertain, whether GW is manmade, but end up with being certain it is not. i am aware that they do not say that loud, but it boils down to it. though i must admit i find it confusing that this french prof converted ... (in any case this discussion as well as several others prove that the reference of nonScientists to the world of science as an example for rationale, clear cut discussion, is obsolete).
sorry, but there's no consensus on man made GW. most media publications have manipulated scientists views by including many skeptics false statements supporting GW without their knowledge. some have even sued.
I simply trust that those whose jobs it is to do this work are not conspiring and lying about it to the rest of us. This one sentence would have done it for me. So you have a FAITH. I don't. Specially when pro politicians like Gore get on the act. Second, those you trust don't even agree.
Faith is probably the wrong word. Trust is more accurate. But if faith works for you, I have no exception to it's use in this case. I agree that if politicians were the only ones touting the importance of GW, I would be highly skeptical. FWIW Gore has been fighting to make people aware of GW for thirty years. This is his life's work. It is not a political thing for him. He was doing it before being a professional politician, and he is doing it after his political career is over. This is completely innacurate. I have friends in the field for whom I have the utmost respect, and I have been convinced by the science. Even Einstein dissented on the validity of Quantum Mechanics, stating that "God does not play dice." He was wrong. Scientists are human beings too, and often disagree on theory. nitro
Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax Climate change is natural and has been happening since the Earth began Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Friday, March 9, 2007 An astounding documentary that was broadcast in the UK last night completely trounced the man-made explanation for global warming, not with emotionally-laden propaganda or by attacking the messenger as its adherants resort to, but by presenting carefully considered and rational science. The Great Global Warming Swindle brought together a plethora of scientists, professors, climatologists and weather experts to expose the myths about climate change that have been promulgated in order to hoodwink the world into accepting the man-made theory of global warming. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6Aetu6MQJuI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6Aetu6MQJuI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> - Earth's 4.5 billion year history is one long story of climate change. There were several periods in history, notably the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene Maximum, which were much warmer than today. In the 17th century, Europe experienced the Little Ice Age, where temperatures were so consistently chilly that ice skaters revelled on the completely frozen London Thames. - From the 1940's until the 1980's, the Earth experienced a significant cooling period, despite the fact that industrial production and release of CO2 vastly accelerated during this time. This led to political and media scaremongering about global cooling, the threat that the earth was in the midst of a new ice age. The documentary featured telling clips from alarmist documentaries at the time that implored us to try and reverse the trend of worldwide temparature decrease or face meterological apocalypse. - Antarctic ice core samples show that the rise in carbon dioxide levels lags behind temperature rise by 800 years, therefore cannot be the cause of it. The documentary exposes how Al Gore, in his film Inconvenient Truth, deliberately reverses these figures to claim CO2 causes temperature change, when in fact the opposite is the case. - If the Earth was laboring under an accelerated greenhouse effect caused by human produced CO2, the troposphere (the layer of the earth's atmosphere roughly 10-15km above us) should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't support this fundamental presumption. - The human contribution to carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is minimal in comparison to other natural means, including volcanic emmission and CO2 produced by animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean. The human "carbon footprint" is vastly outweighed by all of these factors. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V-LPN9PkLK4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V-LPN9PkLK4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> - Sun spot and solar radiation activity almost exactly parralel temperature change on the Earth. "Solar activity very precisely matches the plot of temperature change over the last 100 years. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising." The increase of cosmic rays produced by the Sun prevents the formation of clouds, which have a cooling effect on the planet, therefore the temperature rises. - The UN's much vaunted IPCC report was heralded as closing the case on the argument of man-made global warming. But as the show explains, the IPCC's conclusion was politically driven and they deliberately censored any dissenting scientists while still listing them as participants, leading many to threaten legal action against the IPCC to have their names removed from the report. Scientists who were invited to participate in the IPCC report expose the fundamental flaws contained throughout the document. - In the 1980's a strange alliance between Margaret Thatcher's right wing government and the environmental left was formed to promote the idea of man-made global warming. Thatcher's agenda was to force the country to adopt nuclear power because she trusted neither the oil-rich Middle Eastern powers nor her own country's rebellious coal mining unions, therefore a propaganda war against fossil fuels was initiated. - The documentary also highlights how elements of the scientific community exploit global warming hysteria in order to receive fast-track funding by simply tagging on a global warming aspect to their area of study. Scientists who attempt to obtain grants for research that could contradict the man-made explanation are shunned by the political establishment and further villified as akin to Holocaust deniers by the radical environmental left and elements of the media. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ri4ZsyF2dDI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ri4ZsyF2dDI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> The hypocrisy of the environmental left in framing the global warming issue as big business against the people and their romanticisation of poverty was supremely exposed in making the case that the man-made global warming bandwagon has devastated Africa's development and is directly contributing to third world famine, illness and disease. "There is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop. We are being told don't touch your resources, don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal; that is suicide," says a Kenyan development expert who is featured in the program. Another segment shows an African hospital struggling to cope with such stringent restrictions, being forced to choose between running one refrigerator or turning the lights on because their only power source comes from solar panels that are unable to provide anywhere near the required energy. The establishment left has already attempted to savage the documentary, but the Guardian's Zoe Williams cannot address the evidence, instead attacking the messenger by discrediting one participant from Winnipeg University, and selectively ignroing the roster of other experts which included MIT and Princeton professors. We expect the full documentary to be posted to Google Video in the next day or so and will make it widely available to our readers so that they can enjoy the opportunity to view this powerful presentation which provides a breath of fresh air in a world driven mad by belliose and flawed global warming hysteria.
u have to understand that politics is propaganda driven; GW is a huge campaign platform for politicians and a manipulative tool to subjugate the population, increase taxes and crush liberties. sorry....jury is out, and the verdict is: GW is a carefully crafted hoax.
The opponents of science are full of idiots and liars. The fact that the earth was hot as hell or cold as hell (?) in the past is irrelevant here. The surface termperature of the early earth was over 200C due to the predominance of CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere. If we were to return to these temperatures (and humidity!) we would all become pressure-cooked meat. On second thought, maybe that's exactly what the fundamentalists want to do - a return to hell.
wtf are u talking about, it was a study throughout time to seek evidence of a pattern or the existence of an inverse relationship between temperatures and sun activity. these climate-scientists are amongst the best in the world and you have the balls to say they are idiots and liars? what they stated is backed by research. leading climate-paleontologists after analyzing millions of years of data from ice cores discovered that CO2 is not leading temperatures but the other way around. infact there's a whopping 10 to 100 years lag; CO2 increases never begin with a lead. this has been confirmed beyond doubt after several ice cores surveys and these cycles coincide exactly to increasing sun activity and gore knows about it. infact he states that the relation between CO2 and temperatures is very complicated, but not only he doesn't mention this particular chart, he fabricates a complete opposite conclusion to back up his agenda. what exactly are u trying to criticize here...be clear because the shallow and empty post u made just doesn't cut it....infact it is u that seem to be talking exactly like a fundamentalist.