Global Warming: The Very Inconvenient Truth
Monday, March 12, 2007
Former Vice President Al Gore and Davis Guggenheim the Academy Award winning director for Best Documentary Feature at the 79th Annual Academy Awards may have you convinced that the global warming apocalypse is imminent.
AMPAS 2007
However the real inconvenient truth is the big fat lie that is being rammed down your throat by the MSM and bogus pseudo-science.
You must watch this terrific documentary from Channel 4 of Great Britain, called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” to fully understand the hype and hysteria.
Note: Over the last year I have been re-linking the video — this is my 9th attempt!
Posted: 0102AM PT 03/12/07
5 Comments
leave one →
An Angeleno's View of the World 
Thanks for the link. It reinforces what I already believed. I never have been convinced that humans are the cause of global warming. It has happened before (in the 30’s, for certain) and will happen again. Cyclic climate changes have been taking place on this planet for eons, long before the industrialized world ever existed. I once watched a program on the discovery channel some time ago that demonstrated how much elephants impacted their environment. They are capable of pushing mature trees over to eat the leaves, and will gradually change forested areas into savannahs. Perhaps we should get rid of all elephants if they are so detrimental to the environment! Wonder what Greenpeace would think of that?! *Hopefully you see my tongue in cheek here* If we could magically remove all human life from the planet at this very moment, I still believe the earth would continue to go through these dramatic climate changes.
With my curiosity aroused a while back, I decided to do some searching to see what I could find out and it led me to some pretty interesting conclusions. Take a look at James Spann’s weather blog here –> http://www.jamesspann.com/wordpress/?p=650 These comments are coming from a meteorologist that happens to not agree with all the global warming hype so prevalant today. And he is not alone in this stance! I invite you to also listen to the WeatherBrains episodes found linked there. Maybe even do some further digging on your own.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced the formation of a Global Warming committee. Just how many committee members will be jumping on this ‘bandwagon’ and how many tax dollars will be allocated is not known (to me) yet. What a win-win situation! It’s a popular cause (everyone wants to ’save the planet’ and all the media hype has the public primed for it) and an ideal way to place cronies into a cushy paying position! And what about Al Gore? How many dollars have been transferred to his personal account during his ‘battle’ against global warming, a natural event that will occur in spite of any human intervention?
Well, like the old adage says… just follow the money trail for the truth.
Right on! The Marxists, furious that the Soviet Empire ran itself into ruin, have grabbed the Human-Made Climate-Variation delusion as an incomparable vehicle for finger-wagging, doom-saying, persecution, inquisition, heretic-hunting, witch-hunting, power-grabbing, treachery, subversion, revolution and destruction of the West and all its progressive institutions & prosperity. Every variety of dysfunctional loser and loony from anarchist to conspiracy-theorist has hopped onto the bandwagon to pose as noble Earth-lover. We have a War on Terror. We also have a War on Error. Cy Quick at mydigest.wordpress.com
Dick,
It’s sad to see how far you’ve drifted away from the early days of Autone. Don would be sad, I think.
Just a question: why do you regard a series of videos as better evidence than reviewed scientific literature?
Have you, in fact, checked the references of the people involved in these videos? Have you read the Journal of Climatology, or any of the other 150+ ecological journals that are currently published? A chunk about the documentary, via the article on Wikipedia:
“Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film’s contributors. The film’s critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting a few errors in subsequent releases. However according to Bob Ward (former spokesman for the Royal Society), this still left five out of seven of the errors and misleading arguments which had been previously attacked by him and 36 other scientists in an open letter.
The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-authored by a group of scientists. Ofcom used this complaint in its deliberation, and delivered its ruling on 21 July 2008. It ruled that the programme had unfairly treated Sir David King, the IPCC and Professor Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the ‘political’ part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality. Regarding the programme’s accuracy, Ofcom noted that in its role as regulator it: “had to ascertain – not whether the programme was accurate – but whether it materially misled the audience.” On this basis Ofcom ruled that: “On balance it did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence.” On 4 and 5 August 2008, Channel 4 and More 4 broadcast a summary of Ofcom’s findings, though it will not face sanctions.”
If you’re going to use the documentary as supporting evidence for your position on global warming, you should examine its weaknesses. Choosing to believe something and then finding evidence that supports your belief is backwards; you should examine the evidence first, and then come to a conclusion.
@ freevolition
> It reinforces what I already believed. I never have been convinced that
> humans are the cause of global warming.
A scientist must begin as a skeptic, sir. Having a preconceived notion of belief (either for or against an issue) does not provide you with much credibility with regards to your ability to weigh evidence.