Go here and follow the links to the BBC's program about the false alarmism of the global warming crowd. Here's an accompanying column.
The analogy I use," says Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, "is my car's not running very well, so I'm going to ignore the engine, which is the sun, and I'm going to ignore the transmission, which is the water vapour and I'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2. The science is that bad."Every global warming industry shill, like Al Gore, who says the science is settled is blatantly lying.The film starts off covering indisputable facts. There was a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today -- that led to incredible wealth in Europe when the bulk of the continent's great cathedrals were built and when Britain had thriving vineyards. Then came the Little Ice Age that started in the 17th century and was so cold London's Thames River would freeze so solidly festivals were held on it.
About 10,000 years ago, during a time known as the Holocene Maximum, it was much warmer even than the Medieval times.
Dr. Ian Clark, Prof. of Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology at the U of Ottawa, notes polar bears (which have become the poster-animal of the global warming industry) survived that sustained warm cycle and that volcanoes produce more CO2 every year than all human activity.
What's more, prior to 1940 temperatures on Earth were rising long before industrialization took place.
Then, when carbon dioxide emissions rose markedly in the post-war economic boom period, temperatures fell for the next three decades, again, in direct contravention of the theory being espoused and believed by so many.
Ironically, in the 1970s, just as scientists started predicting another climate catastrophe -- an impending ice age -- the planet started warming again.
The documentary ends with a quote from Dr. Fred Singer of the U of Virginia.
"There will still be people who believe this is the end of the world, particularly when you have, for example, the chief scientist of the U.K. telling people that by the end of the century the only habitable place on the Earth with be the Antarctic and humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who move to the Antarctic. I mean, this is hilarious," he says with a chuckle.
For those who care more about fact then ideology....
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
Posted by: neologizer ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.gopbloggers.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 15, 2007 09:15 AM
The title of the article is wholly incorrect!
The BBC DID NOT make this programme, nor has it screened it! It was actally commisioned by Channel 4 an independent network commercial channel in the UK.
Still unsure do a google search! The programme will be attributed to Channel 4 NOT the BBC.
Still not convinced? Then click or go to the link address :
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
I trust you will want to rectify this error as soon as is possible!
Posted by: Klam at March 17, 2007 03:20 PM
Pay a tax, change the weather. I don’t think so. Humans account for only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the biosphere annually (Google: carbon cycle). Congresswoman Pelosi's and Senator Reid's plans for regressive new carbon offset and green tax legislation are designed in concert with UN and Kyoto Accord mandates. The goal is to reduce human CO2 production by 1/3. How high would new carbon offset taxes on transportation and heating fuels need to be to motivate you and everyone else to cut back by 1/3? At best that level of taxation will reduce annual CO2 production by a mere 1 percent globally. Not much mitigation or hope there. Certainly 1% is not enough to make a difference in the perceived problem of anthropogenic (human) global warming gases. The impact of such draconian tax measures can only be imagined. However, it does beg the question, "If humans can't really be expected to make much of an impact on global warming gases, how can they possibly be blamed for warming in the first place?" Why are people compelled by politicians and the media to feel responsible and guilty for causing global warming? For the answers, Google "blame, shame and guilt used as political controls", read "Unstoppable Global Warming" and “The Chilling Stars" for the scientific facts and "State of Fear" for the political dynamics behind this renewed eco-tax controversy. Those party faithful that think this debate is over are sorely mistaken. It’s a little late, but welcome to George Orwell’s “1984”. Watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
Posted by: John Jauregui at March 17, 2007 04:27 PM
Hi,
If you are open-minded enough, watch my critique of the Global Warming Swindle film, which shows how it managed to be convincing despite being very very wrong.
Cheers, Chris
And yes, it was Channel4, and not the BBC, which wouldn't stoop quite so low for ratings.
Posted by: Chris Merchant at March 25, 2007 03:41 PM
