The Great Global Warming Swindle, part 3 of 9
May 11th, 2010 | Author: nyt
This film by the documentary-maker Martin Durkin presents the arguments of scientists and commentators who don’t believe that CO2 produced by human activity is the main cause of climate change. It’s all to scare the shit out of us folks! The Illuminati set this up to make us, the people of the world, the problem. Don’t believe it! Resist the New World Order!!!!
you guys should watch the great global warming debates by the ABC if you havnt already watched it. puts both sides onto the argument and the director is interviewed. then yous can probably kiss and make up. cant we all just get along!
@gevork85
just download “realplayer downloader”. It copies everything you load directly onto your HD and then you can do what you want.
@pascal2407 You definitely should see “the great global warming swindle DEBATE” where it is shown that most of what was used in the movie is corrupted.
@chitnisrohit And yet look at the countries that are gathering these “scientists”. The government officials are extremely corrupt and controlling. That proves nothing. And maybe you should watch the video? How do you know these scientists have been taken out of context?
Global Warming is the new Y2k.
Anyone who takes it seriously will end up looking like a complete fool in 50 years from now. Nothing will happen. New methods of energy production will will have emerged by that time. Your concerns will be over nothing.
If you are going to attack this film, then attack the nine inherent flaws found in Gores film…
Climate Gate is a legitimate point as well…data was manipulated. Therefore, how can conclusions be drawn from manipulated data???
are the 30,000 people that signed the oregon petition counted in that 98%…
Funny how in “the great global warming swindle debate” they decided to put the majority of scientists who were FOR global warming on there. The only DEBATES global warming supporters ever have are in a forum that is run by fellow global warming supporters. Questions, concerns, and statements made by global warming “deniers” were either not answered or ignored the majority of the time…go figure…
@chitnisrohit Do you accept “The inconvienent Truth” then? That is a even more biased documentary.
And it’s more than 98% now! (??).
And what was that about watching it?
I’ve uploaded this video myself, so you can count on it that I’ve watched it!
Yes it is >98% and that is y i have mentioned “the great global warming swindle debate”. Watch it before u cross question me, and then U will not loose ground with ur own argument. The science of global warming just like most science works on probability so there is a chance that it will not happen but there is also a chance it will happen and it is a not a chance worth taking!!
‘Just to be precise’ ??
How do you get up with a ‘precise’ number of 98%? Yesterday it was 95%.
Are you loosing ground with your arguments?
Here’s a percentage for you:
The earth’s temperature has dropped 0,9% in the last decade. How do you explain that?
By the way, did you hear about Climate Gate?
Scientist of The University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) changed the data to fit into their man made global warming theory.
I suppose these are scientists from your group of 98%.
Watch “the great global warming swindle debate” if in doubt. Most of the scientists who have spoken in the doc have been quoted out of context. And by the way the director of this doc has also made docs abt silicone boobs being healthy for women and they prevent cancer, would u beliece that?
And just to be precise, actually more that 98% of the scientific community believe in global warming.
PS – However i do hope this doc is true and everyone else liers!!
chitnisrohit :
Maybe you’ve already made up your mind and are not willing or able to listen to a completely different view on the matter.
I think this documentary reflects a lot on the common believe system of global warming, and then it just shows a lot of facts that invalidate this common believe system!
Besides, how many documentaries about this particular subject have been made that only scare the shit out of us by showing just the ‘man made global warming’ way of thinking?
And another thing: it’s simply not true that 95% think global warming is a fact!
Every argument has two sides and this documenty only talks abot one side, thus it makes it a one sided debate and this documentry is NOT TRUSTWORTHY. There are 95% scientists who believe in global warming and only 5% don’t, however this documenty only seems to interview the 5%!!
Every argument has two sides and this documenty only talks abot one side, thus it makes it a one sided debate and this documentry is NOT TRUSTWORTHY. There are 95% scientists who believe in global warming and only 5% don’t, however this documenty only seems to interview the 5%!!
We should get rid of the volcanos then. Maybe all the pro-green sheep will be happy with that.
I mean, what has a volcano ever done for anyone except burnt their village…poor villages.
medieval warming period 1200A.D-1500A.D
800 year lag 2000A.D-2300A.D which means
lag behind perfectly fits
Remember who made ” An Incon…Truth”
that would be “Dreamworks”
I love irony.
Great series.
It is a fact that CO2 is released and absorbed in cycles, but I think there is a larger piece of the puzzle that is missing: We humans have actually altered the composition of the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuel which releases carbon dioxide. The changes we are seeing now are being exacerbated by human fault!! It is our fault that climate change is happening so fast, and we need to sign Kyoto and get it together!
they are reliable based on logic. unlike wat the ipcc says which is REALLY REALLY based on political advocation. if we used logic we notice that co2 is released and absorbed in cycles. the climate works in cycles too. Logic and knowledge will bring world peace man.
@grantsdaman01 “reliable scientists” from which side of the fence, my friend? The scientists who directly profit from the global warming scare, or the scientists who resigned from high positions on moral grounds? Perhaps you mean the uneducated journalists running the ICCP, or the scientists discredited after climategate?
many of these so called “reliable scientists” are reliable based on what? income? political endorsement?
download it