The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007 documentary)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/D2It6oMNsG6s/
Wisdom Land
The Great Global Warming Swindle caused controversy in the UK when it premiered March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4. A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be “the biggest scam of modern times.” According to Martin Durkin the chief cause of climate change is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun. Some have called The Great Global Warming Swindle the definitive retort to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Using a comprehensive range of evidence it’s claimed that warming over the past 300 years represents a natural recovery from a ‘little ice age’.
According to the program humans do have an effect on climate but it’s infinitesimally small compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures this way and that. From melting glaciers and rising sea levels, The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the myths, and exposes what may well prove to be the darkest chapter in the history of mankind. According to a group of leading scientists brought together by documentary maker Martin Durkin everything you’ve ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. Just as we’ve begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, Durkin’s documentary slays the whole premise of global warming.
“Global warming has become a story of huge political significance; environmental activists using scare tactics to further their cause; scientists adding credence to secure billions of dollars in research money; politicians after headlines and a media happy to play along. No-one dares speak against it for risk of being unpopular, losing funds and jeopardizing careers.”
Main contributors to the video:
1. Professor Tim Ball – Dept. of Climatology – University of Winnepeg, Canada
2. Professor Nir Shaviv – Institute of Physics – University of Jerusalem, Israel
3. Professor Ian Clark – Dept. of Earth Sciences – University of Ottawa, Canada
4. Dr. Piers Corbyn, Solar Physicist, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action, UK
5. Professor John Christy – Dept. of Atmospheric Science – University of Alabama, Huntsville – Lead Author, IPCC (NASA Medal – Exceptional Scientific Achievement)
6. Professor Philip Stott – Dept of Biogeography – University of London, UK
7. Al Gore – Former Presidental Candidate
8. Margaret Thatcher – Global-Warming Promoter
9. Professor Paul Reiter – IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris, France
10. Professor Richard Lindzen – IPCC & M.I.T.
11. Patrick Moore – Co-Founder – Greenpeace
12. Dr. Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader – NASA
13. Professor Patrick Michaels – Department of Environmental Sciences – University of Virginia, US
14. Nigel Calder – Former Editor – New Scientist
15. James Shikwati – Economist & Author
16. Lord Lawson of Blaby – Secretary of Energy – UK Parliament Investigator, UK
17. Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Director, International Arctic Research Centre
18. Professor Fredrick Singer – Former Director, US National Weather Service
19. Professor Carl Wunsch – Dept. of Oceanography – M.I.T., Harvard, University College, London, University of Cambridge, UK
20. Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Centre
21. Dr. Roy Spencer – NASA Weather Satellite Team Leader
22. Paul Driessen – Author: Green Power, Black Death
7,573 Comments
Medical Interest
3 years ago
QUESTION: When it was discovered that CFC’s were damaging the ozone layer, how long did it take industry to find an alternative refrigerant and propellant? Has the ozone layer been repaired? Isn’t this proof of how mankind’s activities can change the earth’s atmosphere? If it is the sun’s activity that is determining the temperature of the earth and consequent release of CO2 and methane it is still wise for humanity to not contribute even more CO2 and methane. Then there is the question of fracking causing more problems.
4
luxintenebris
luxintenebris
11 months ago
A brilliant documentary exploring the gravy train racket that is climate change. Should be shown in every school.
14
Greg Kral
Greg Kral
3 years ago
You folks nailed it on the head. Well done presentation, thank you. I would like to share this with my town and others if possible. This is an important lie to expose. Subscribed.
3
Kul jim
Kul jim
3 years ago
At 1:10:45 Environmentalism is a form of weaponized anthropology always wielded against some other country and definitely has more of a profound effect on poor undeveloped regions. Patrick Moore has a balanced ideology on protecting the environment, but not at the expense of providing technology to those who still need it most to become a developing country, region, etc.
6
Simon Ruszczak
Simon Ruszczak
3 years ago
I remember watching this over eleven years ago in March 2007, in the UK.
I’m surprised the global warming scam hasn’t ended long ago.
7
Dank Mematodes
Dank Mematodes
4 months ago
The fact this doesent show up after you look it up on YouTube really says a lot about this documentary
11
Dave
Dave
1 year ago
Those who proclaim their belief in science call those who have questions science deniers.
It’s called skepticism. Without skepticism there is no science, only religion.
60
Jeff Barrett
Jeff Barrett
3 years ago (edited)
Thanks to those who put this documentary together. More people need to watch this video.
2
sonny0888
sonny0888
3 years ago
None of the climate models have taken that big yellow ball in the sky into account. Imagine that. Imagine trying to produce a “scientific” model of our future climate without studying the only thing that effects our climate. Nothing in this world happens without the sun.
25
Peter Dunphy
Peter Dunphy
11 months ago
As a geographer I agree with these guys totally,
25
Tyler Duffy
Tyler Duffy
3 years ago
This was insanely amazing movie. Everyone should see this.
5
Dan Cook
Dan Cook
3 years ago
Very interesting program, you do have to wonder about the vested interests of various groups and organisations in pushing their own agendas with legitimate concerns of climate change used as a smokescreen.
I’m an ardent enviromentalist and very much for conservation and the natural world, but we must deal with ALL the FACTS and never with assumptions.
6
paulesp06
paulesp06
3 years ago
I’ve just watched the entire documentary. Omg it’s just so heartbreaking; especially the part about Africans being forced not to develop in the name of climate change. Man I hate this world
49
The Hound
The Hound
3 years ago
Thank you. We need the real people of science to continue to put forth their thoughts and data on the subject. i don’t fund people or pressure them with their livelihoods on the line, however i do stand strong with those that move past fear and speak the truth.
1
Will Fox
Will Fox
2 years ago
Martin Durkin deserves a knighthood for services to truth
18
Global Systems Inc
Global Systems Inc
3 years ago
“The sun is responsible for global warming” wow, now THAT is SHOCKING!
140
Otto Beumelburg
Otto Beumelburg
2 years ago
If I hadn’t seen this on TV over a decade back, I probably wouldn’t have found it again. Thanks for releasing publicly, I wanted to re-establish some of the claims here. It is in the very least intriguing.
3
Andrew Brown
Andrew Brown
2 years ago
Good factual documentary
5
Lindz S
Lindz S
2 years ago
Now we have to make documentaries to prove what used to be common sense.
52
andyrowlands50029
andyrowlands50029
3 years ago
This is perhaps the most telling documentary that shows the whole basis of ‘man-made global warming’ is pure nonsense. I remember seeing this programme when it first aired, and recorded it as an important reference work. Thanks for sharing it to the world.
1
Logan Ashton
Logan Ashton
1 year ago
Incredible! Amazing video finally shines a light on both sides of the story.
9
Len Kowalik
Len Kowalik
3 years ago
The debate has shifted from “Is climate change happening?”, to “Is warming caused by human activity?” Since the first question was current, a few years have passed, and there is ample evidence that we are in a warming period. As to the second question, I say that it doesn’t matter. There is no doubt that we are contributing to global warming. The science of the greenhouse effect is not rocket science. It is relatively simple and sound. It is the predictions that are not solid science. By continuing to use fossil fuels, that are not renewable and are getting more costly to produce, in both dollars and risk, we are trying to delay the inevitable. The previous comment said “It’s all about MONEY” I agree…oil money!
1
Cindy Burton
Cindy Burton
2 years ago
very well presented. wish I’d found this years ago. much thanks. sharing as best I can.
20
Geoffrey Lotz
Geoffrey Lotz
3 years ago
Wow! This makes sense to me. I’m ok with renewables and EV’s etc because, why not? But this seems to make more sense than anything I’ve seen that claims otherwise.
2
Red Flyer Media
Red Flyer Media
2 months ago
I hope you have this loaded on an alternative platform. This info needs to be shared daily & never deplatformed.
1
VIDEOFABRIKKEN
VIDEOFABRIKKEN
2 years ago
Thank you very much for this excellent documentary. We are fed up with lies in Denmark too.
6
SuperErickelrojo
SuperErickelrojo
8 months ago
14 years later, and more valid than ever!!
13
NC
NC
3 years ago
Thank you so much for this upload. It would be brilliant to see an updated documentary with as many of the same interviewees too. To compare and see just how far down the Marxist route the climate fascists have taken us would be very very good.
3
SomeDude
SomeDude
3 years ago
Brave scientist, that will get a hard time to get their researched funded after this.
Heroes to the public though, whether the public realizes it or not.
9
OneLastHitB4IGo
OneLastHitB4IGo
3 years ago
“Climate is what we expect. Weather is what we get.” Mark Twain
1
Sophia Leonarda
Sophia Leonarda
2 years ago
i come back here to watch this every few months just to come up for air… i’m drowning in this carbon frenzy… how did this world get so crazy?!?
267
daveshockwave
daveshockwave
10 months ago
the earth’s climate is always changing, there is nothing humans can do about it
4
The Barnyard
The Barnyard
2 years ago
31:37 “The climate is controlled by the clouds”
Kinda scary considering we know how to control the clouds.
8
EricLehner
EricLehner
3 years ago
Tremendous voice of reason and good production values. Thank you.
big moe Cosmo
big moe Cosmo
3 years ago
…..One more thing….just thought I’d mention it. The Sun is responsible for Earth’s temperature fluctuations and I will add that the fact is that Co2 rises always follows rises in temperature is exactly correct. Great documentary.
1
teacup3133
teacup3133
3 years ago
Weather manipulation has been going on for years and I don’t see anyone discussing how this effects our atmosphere and if it is wise to do in the first place.
1
Sean Karl
Sean Karl
3 years ago
I used to play this video in my university class just before my series of lectures on radiative forcing (‘global warming, if you like). I played it for two reasons (i) to see how gullable my university-educated science students were and to see how many errors they can spot. The film is quite simple a joke all the way through. Come back here next week and I’ll have a fully explanation.
Neill Barrell
Neill Barrell
3 years ago
“Experts” with an agenda can be dangerous. Great documentary.
Tony Packe
Tony Packe
3 years ago
It’s just amazing that this was made in 2007 and the band wagon is still rolling with even more passengers on it. I wonder what excuses they will come up with when the climate suddenly takes a turn into the Grand Solar Minimum in the next few years?
72
Sylvain Brosseau
Sylvain Brosseau
3 years ago
Very good documentary! Thank you.
1
J M
J M
2 years ago (edited)
Climate-Hysteria is a HUGE business. A multi-billion dollar business. Universities and governments WANT this.
4
zardox78
zardox78
3 years ago
You know what would be an absolutely awesome experiment? Find a hundred volunteers or so, bring them all into a big room and show them An Inconvenient Truth. Then have question and/or survey time, where they’re encouraged to express their thoughts and feelings on the matter. Then have them all sit back down and show them this… and see how they react. Possibly do this in separate rooms, so virtue signalling isn’t a factor.
My guess is that a large portion of them would still scoff at any criticism of their orthodox beliefs. But hopefully a healtier portion of them would realize a couple of things that have nothing to do with climate change. Like the fact that we are all constantly being manipulated by pure bullshit. By propagandists, who probably think it’s pretty fucking funny how easily duped we are, and that’s been going on for a very long time. So much so that ya kinda have to wonder, at least a little bit, about all those other things you thought you knew.
Bob Corso
Bob Corso
3 years ago
Excellent documentary! Great info! Best I’ve seen!
1
Joe Ellerbrock
Joe Ellerbrock
3 years ago (edited)
Al Gore is the greatest scientist who ever graduated from Harvard with a Bachelor of Arts degree.
1
Paul Coleman
Paul Coleman
3 years ago
When ever a Government tells you they are doing something for the greater good, for your security, etc….I always think what in it for them?! 🤔 What’s the scam they are trying to pull off over the people?
1
Paul T
Paul T
3 years ago (edited)
A huge positive public relations move would be, if the large groups that are trying to push solar and wind power only options, should get with the solar panel/ wind turbine manufacturers, and offer at a very low rate or even donate solar panels and wind turbines to bring the 2nd and 3rd World countries into the industrial age. It could be a global initiative that would generate tons of great press. There needs to be large grids that are feeding a whole village, not just a couple panels per building. There is also the issue of storing power for the night hours, or battery arrays.
Sherm Peever
Sherm Peever
2 years ago
The biggest scam the world has ever known. It has now reached a worrisome cult-like status.
7
Greg PCHandyman
Greg PCHandyman
3 years ago
2 things: 1) Where I live, it used to snow in April and then right through Winter, on and off until the warmer months near the end of the year, back prior to about 1985. Snow was light but it was there. Nowadays, if you get snow it is amazing. Something is happening. 2) I have watched the skies since I was a boy in the 60s. I used to identify stars that I actually did know back then and then look for planets. Stars twinkle, planets dont. I continued that to this day. What is different in the skies is that the stars look the same but the planets look larger or actually send more light to us. I have been told there is no proof about it and dont talk about it again in those words when I asked. So, work it out for yourself. Why, if I am right even though there isnt anything to support what I say other than me observing (which isnt proof), would the planets appear larger and the stars the same? If you think about it, it is a reason why the planet could be hotter. It doesnt mean death necessarily but it does give an answer that the preachers of climate change would hate.
jbllora
jbllora
3 years ago
Excellent video – even if it’s a little older. The most important take away is that we know very little about it and cautious balanced research must continue and we should act slowly and with the utmost care.
1
eileenfb1948
eileenfb1948
3 years ago
Very informative, thank you.
1
Fabiola Alba
Fabiola Alba
3 years ago
I’m for one have always been unsure Climate Change and as a conservative person, I’m always getting lectured by liberals before I open my mind at all !!
1
Santona Smith
Santona Smith
3 years ago (edited)
It feels refreshing to see and hear the truth in this video compared to the sea of misinformation and propaganda we get confronted with everyday
1
Magnus Redenfors
Magnus Redenfors
1 year ago
This is such a wonderful program. Love it!!!
5
Desert Mav
Desert Mav
3 years ago
Great vid! Science IS about questioning theories in an objective fashion, and I enjoyed this program’s ambiguity.
Kim D
Kim D
3 years ago
My main question is how any scientist can come to a consensus when there is only a correlation” proven”, which as we all know correlation doesn’t imply causation from our first science class.
jimmy fortrue
jimmy fortrue
3 years ago (edited)
Could have used a bit of global or even local warming last December – January (2017 – 2018) where I live.
The weather was so insanely cold with record breaking frigidity we used up half my winter’s average heating fuel in twenty five days.
Mac McG
Mac McG
3 years ago
BY FAR – AN OUTSTANDING DOCUMENTARY!
1
Michael Muirhead
Michael Muirhead
3 years ago
“Tens of thousands of jobs depend on global warming right now.”
If the meaning is “trying to stop global warming is the wellspring of tens of thousands of jobs”, I sure can’t say that statement’s wrong
Thing is… far more than 2 BILLION jobs depend on maintaining the status quo of the carbon economy, no matter how many of them die in thirst, hunger or war by doing so.
The Drive
The Drive
3 years ago
This is well done. It amazes me just how effective the left is at controlling our speach.. even the president parses his words on this subject. …
4
chris SA
chris SA
3 years ago
This is a fantastic documentary! I loved it. Does anyone know of any websites that consolidates scientific data related to the points made here?
1
Just Smashing
Just Smashing
3 years ago
I always smile when I hear of humans “fixing” the Earth, we are a blink to nature.
229
MultiCyclist
MultiCyclist
3 years ago
A very credible documentary not afraid to tell the truth supported by scientific evidence and expose what is not true and not based on scientific evidence.
1
The Centaur
The Centaur
3 years ago
This documentary heavily implied that climate science was based upon financial consideration of those involved, the fact is that in 2009, just two years later, the oil industry alone made $761 billion, compared to the $2 billion credited to the USA in 2007 to climatology. That figure is oil alone and doesn’t include coal and gas. The modernisation of Africa at the end shows non permanent settlements. You can transport a solar panel, you can’t transport a powerline. Rural Europe and North America are completely different in the effectiveness of power generation delivery to rural areas. In 2018, even India sees solar as the most effective way to modernise remote communities that are too far removed from the urban coal fired power grid. I viewed this with some skepticism but I will allow that sun activity might be the driving factor, although since the film was made we have had 8/10 of the recorded hottest years on record, and their anecdotal stories about fear mongering about the icecaps melting has proven false (Iceland has lost 100 feet of ice in depth).
1
Constitution_89
Constitution_89
3 years ago
By around 1975, the science I was taught in Parochial School in 5th and 6th grade was that the Earth was Cooling, again as it has done many times before even recorded history, and that a New Mini-Ice Age loomed on the horizon.
As the graph in this video shows, the surface temperatures of the Earth had begun dropping down from 1945 to 1975, the year the Fear of a New Ice Age was the science of the times. This certainly does Not correspond to the so-called Climate Models based on Carbon Dioxide emissions that now are claimed to be “Proven Science” and Door Closed on Anyone and Everybody who disagrees with this PROPAGANDA.
If anything at all could be expected of the Massive Industrialization underway from 1933 forward into and beyond 1975 by the US, Britain, Russia, France etc, for the WW 2 War effort and the Massive Air Forces deployed (Thousands of fighter and bomber aircraft with their “Contrails” ALWAYS seen trailing behind their squadrons), the ships AND especially oil tankers blown to bits and sunk with the massive plumes of smoke from the burning vessels, their fuel and oil ignited before they went under that could be seen in Every Newsreel of the time and still seen to this day, the incalculable oil fields, refineries and weapons depots set afire from the aerial bombardments, battle damage and sabotage they were subjected to for all sides …. How could the “expected effects,” according to the UN Climate Models currently being “Proven Science” of ALL these Catastrophic “Greenhouse gases” ascending skyward (and heavily polluting ALL the Earths Oceans at the same time) have produced the Exact “Opposite effect” on the surface mean temperature of the planet? The CAN”T!!
My, and Every person(s) and Actual Scientist’s (Not bribed or coerced) into this NWO/One World Government Extortion Plot Propaganda) Not Indoctrinated by the Fraudulent teachers/Professors who have Hijacked the schools, colleges and Universities, know that it “IS” the Weather Modification Operations (Chemtrails) that are intentionally trapping the so-called “Greenhouse Gases” recorded temperatures below the Troposphere which are being done INTENTIONALLY by those of the UN/Globalist/NWO/One World Government Luciferians for the purpose of PROGRAMMING/INDOCTRINATING the World Populace into “Their” EXTORTION PLOT and Population Reduction Agenda” known as Agenda 21-30.
And as this video made Very Clear, there is SO Much money, jobs and a Fraudulent and DESTRUCTIVE INDUSTRY tied into this Evil Agenda that So Many have Sold their SOULs to Protect and All Cost.
So what do “We The People” with the Best Interest (and survival) of Our Families, Loved Ones, Relatives, Friends and acquaintances and Our fellow brothers and sisters in Every Country of the World who Believe in, Honor and Pray to the One True God do? Just what We were commanded to do —- DEFEAT Evil at Every Opportunity by Defeating the Devil and his Minions ….. We MUST KILL Them. If an offer to Repent and change from “Their” Evil and servitude to Satan/Lucifer/the Devil is NOT accepted, then it is Our Duty to “Remove Them” as We would under the same circumstance as Defending and KILLING a Intruder in Our own home intent on Raping, Assaulting and Killing our Families or those We Love for Their Faith in He who We believe in, Trust and Serve to the Best of our human ability.
“Them” sworn to Lucifer or We, the Children to/of the Lamb of God —- Jesus Christ who died for Us and the smallest/Biggest sacrifice We could do is to Give Our Lives so that Others may Live.
As Christians, We were NEVER commanded to let Evil have it’s way with Us, We were Commanded to Destroy “Them” that Come Against Us or Our fellow Brothers and Sisters in their Hour/minute/second of need. God Bless ALL my Family in Jesus Name.
MinnesconsinPrepping
MinnesconsinPrepping
3 years ago (edited)
If you’re going to argue that sun cycles, or solar minimums, and maximums are the main reason for warming, and cooling, how do you explain the fact that we’ve been through two or three solar minimums (more like 4) and the temperature has continued to rise the whole time?
We’ve gone through at least two minimums since the late 80’s/early 90’s, and 20 of the hottest years on record have happened since 1995.
We’ve gone through one ( at least, some NASA and NOAA researchers are thinking we were in one up till 2018) minimum since the early 2000’s, and 14 out of 15 of those years were almost consecutively the hottest years on record. I think the minimum was between 2008, and 2014. Although, like I just said, some researchers think it was still going on in 2018. But, if that’s the case, shouldn’t the temperature have been going DOWN since 2008? It is also very important to note that this solar minimum had the 3rd highest number of spotless days. Wow. You would HAVE to assume that the temperature would have drastically fallen during this time, if you’re operating on the theory of solar minimums causing temperature decreases.
If you’re going to discredit one theory when the observations don’t match the theory, you have to do the same for another…….right?
If you’re willing to throw out the notion of CO2 causing global warming because you can point to a few years, and instances, where the correlation between CO2 rise, and temperature rise don’t exactly match, then you must do the same for when solar minimums don’t correlate to cooler temperatures.
1
Jim Lambrick
Jim Lambrick
3 years ago
This seems so dated now that the effects of global warming can no longer be denied. I remember even back when this was new, the graphs on solar activity and cosmic rays were pure, handwaving explanations that didn’t gel.
Gary Shemba
Gary Shemba
2 years ago
I`d like to reinterpret that final sentiment ” it would be hilarious if it werent so sad” TO “it would be hilarious if these people werent so fkn dangerous” ..
64
tomkat books
tomkat books
3 years ago
The great meteorologist Tex Antoine once quipped, “If global warming is inevitable, just lie back and enjoy it.”
maddog mcfly
maddog mcfly
3 years ago (edited)
i would be really interested in whether there is a net heating or cooling effect of the entire earth mass, thinking about whether the heat from the earths core is slowly bleeding out in to space via the earths surface, or whether the suns input is greater.
henri miceli
henri miceli
3 years ago
well done bbc. i was climate change advocate because i trusted the UN IPCC . i ve been let down again
Stormy Sampson
Stormy Sampson
3 years ago
People, no matter what ‘side’ one is on, remember: It is easier to critique than it is to create. Think about this before you slam someone for having an opinion that threatens YOUR opinions.
1
Micael García
Micael García
2 years ago
Interestingly enough, this article states the exact opposite as stated here (about CO2 and it’s effect on temperature change).
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
1
Raff Galway
Raff Galway
2 years ago
This must never be taken down or censored
22
Ian Ritchie Stewart
Ian Ritchie Stewart
3 years ago
Something seemed asque as I listened to this “report”! Then, as I usually do, I started to research the foundations of the production to see if it’s funding might lead to an unveiling of it’s worth as a valid posture to consider. That led me to the profile of (Britain’s CHANNEL 4) and it’s top-heavy management favoring the upper class! That discovered I considered the potential influence of deep investments in petro industry, which led me to the history of this program’s producer Mr. Martin Durkin and his proclivity for producing works that draw on controversial elements and his past association to the now defunct Revolutionist Communist Party, which led me to a most interesting study on Liberalism and other Fox Holes I refuse to wander into! Bottom line, way too much fruit in this cake for me! Thankz!
James Dowdy
James Dowdy
3 years ago
A very good and real perspective on climate change. Glad the USA is no longer funding this nonsense.
Fredrik Larsson
Fredrik Larsson
3 years ago
A few days ago, a Swedish newspaper had this headline: ‘What to do to meet your child’s climate anxiety’.
Well, well… I think it is time to take a close look at the unhealthy interaction between ‘science’, media and politicians. The institutions of Academia needs founding, preferably long-term state or federal ditto. Media needs smashing headlines to make people buy their product. Politicians need to appear to be good, engaged and active do-gooders.
One boosts the second which boosts the third. No wonder we get a general image of these massively complex questions which is alarmistic, to say the least.
Once upon a time we had the Sixties. Back then, conservatism was about the same as Mcmillan, Mc Arthur, The Vietnam War, Double standards and establishment being out of touch with ‘reality’. And the youth of the Sixties became the establishment of the Nineties. The hippie activism became accepted as ‘probably being right’ and politics became even more of tickling the feelings of people than before.
And the seductive side of politics became a household item when politics became equally important in science as in every other field of society. The politicians have made their outmost to ‘support important science and research’ which of course can do nothing but to compromize science. Once your work become dependant on government money, you have to get results they like.
And when you don’t get them, you have to speak up AS IF YOU HAD. However, this doesn’t mean that people are dishonest, but in the culture of activism you speak from convinction, and not from results. The media way of telling us CATASTROPHY or REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE every time a tendency has been seen doesn’t make anything better…
It is a matter of money, but votes and clics are also mighty currencies. The sad truth is that science may depend on its foundings, but even more on its independent thinking and the personal integrity of the scientists.
This is a matter of every side having at least two agendas, and that is not something you easily can combine with integrity. The interest in making opinions appear to be based in science or ordinary activists appear as scientists is apparently impossible to resist.
We seem to be damaged by peace and prosperity, because we act like it was a matter of life and death. ‘Well, isn’t it’? many will ask.
No, and there’s the breakdown of any moral behind this neverending circus act. This is really a part of a political and religious/secularistic agenda with the main goal to keep conservatives out of office, and that’s the same om both sides of the Atlantic. Religious? Well, have a look at the discussion concerning Darwinism. It is rather striking that we have a theory which is in deep need of proofs to be able to defend its position, but that’s the only defence you will not find. Critique is dismissed as some kind of religious propaganda.
Truth is, that we indeed can see religious propaganda, but from the ‘scientific’ world. Exactly the dogmatic attitude which Christianity once was accused of is now used with unequaled righteousness from ‘humanists’ or ‘liberals’ who all seems to share one thing of immence importance: that any majority against them is WRONG simply because they are RIGHT and that gives them the right to bend the truth any way it takes.
Harsh? Well… look at the reality and think. What does it take to commit political suicide? What does it take to end your carreer as a scientist? What is the one thing you just can’t have if you work in mainstream media?
There is an area you can’t go to. Strange enough, if you go there and look around, you will find that facts add up much better and that even common sense is appliable to reasons.
Follow the money, or follow the gain. And don’t ever believe that scientists know what they are talking about. To understand systems in nature, you need the opposite of the knowledge of a scientist. He knows very much about very little and this within his special field. Understanding systems in nature takes both a personality and special interests that leads you to a personal view, and it will still be a view which can be disputed but not disproven.
The thing uniting the undertakers of this world and us in it, are their deep feelings and existential fears. It is possible and profitable to tickle these fears and to offer a hope, if they buy the right stuff, vote for the right (left) people and raise their voice for change… which of course makes anyone questioning the whole thing appear to be a sadist or an idiot.
And the strange thing is that this craze makes us blind to the sound parts in this. Of course it is good to be self reliant if possible, and of course it is good to make use of clean and renewable resources. And this because it makes you more free and reduce the power of state and government. We have deserts which should be converted back to green land and everybody would gain from it. But if every dollar is to be spent on a wild goose chase for something we can’t change and don’t need to change…
… I believe it is time to take back government from politicians and parties, because it is too serious a matter to be handled by them. The Americans had to elect a completely mad president who acts like he is drunk to get politics to sober up. It says quite a lot…
It is time to reclaim the public voice and get some decency back into it. The People and its political representatives have become two different species with very differing interests. We have to demand truth to be told by science and that no tax money will be spent on it unless there are conditions met of receivers keeping out of debates in the field. Preferably, there should be an end to funding via special programs for ‘urgent’ research. They make incitaments that lead to science pleasing politicians by making the statements they want and that is not in the interest neither of us, nor of science.
8
LOVEprotects MUSICconnects
LOVEprotects MUSICconnects
3 years ago
Great documentary … sooo true!
1
Tanya Matveeva
Tanya Matveeva
3 years ago
Thank you! I needed that documentary. It’s tiring being a sole warrior of the “please don’t think we are so important to climate change” cause
2
Diche Bach
Diche Bach
3 years ago
Now maybe we can focus on the real environmental problems: habitat destruction, invasive species and plastic pollution.
192
Vallo Tubli
Vallo Tubli
3 years ago
Weird that the key statement was only mentioned once in the documentary:
“There are no people who don’t believe in global warming, there are people who don’t believe global warming is caused by humans”.
1
JimTheHammerXCIII
JimTheHammerXCIII
1 year ago
Seems to me that deforestation throughout the world would be a much greater contributor of rising co2 levels than human emissions as forests act as a carbon sink. Makes more sense but if acknowledged would be harder to scoop up carbon tax loot at the gas pumps…
3
OSO POLAR MOVIES
OSO POLAR MOVIES
3 years ago
When I watch TV shows about nature and other countries, I await the part that is about how the climate will spoil everything. This part is always included, otherwise the program would never be sent.
maddog mcfly
maddog mcfly
3 years ago
love that guy from the new scientist, pointing out the dreadful state of journalism, its more widespread than environmental science tho.
Jim Hood
Jim Hood
2 years ago
Just got to the end of the programme. Interesting but I note that watching it in 2020 some things have changed. The most obvious is the cost of solar electricity. The last segment of the documentary claimed that Africa was being asked to invest in the most expensive energy production solution, solar panels. Now in 2020 its competing head to head with coal and the econmies of scale will continue and make it more economic still. I myself am an example since I have just watched the programme and am writing this on my computer powered exclusivly by solar panels. I use them for the same reason the health clinic in the documentary did. I have no power lines to bring me electricity. The system in the clinic was obviously underpowered but will doubtless now be lit, if its still in operation, by led bulbs another energy and finacially efficient development in the years since this programme aired. We are making significant improvements to peoples lives with these technologys, whats next?
M. S.
M. S.
1 year ago
This and Planet of the Humans absolutely brilliant. Thank you.
3
Art Johnson
Art Johnson
3 years ago
It always come down to the money. I have been doubting all this climate change talk, but as the man said if you mention this it’s like being a holocaust denier.
Land Lord
Land Lord
3 years ago
I dont know about warming, but pollution is real problem tough.
425
Danilo Onorino
Danilo Onorino
3 years ago
Amazing video. Thank you for sharing it
2
D Hern
D Hern
3 years ago
Fantastic doco thank you for sharing
Sandra UnoCuatroOcho9999
Sandra UnoCuatroOcho9999
4 months ago
Thank you so much for this! ❤❤❤
1
Martin
Martin
3 years ago
CO2 is a requirement for all plant life, all our food comes directly or indirectly from photosynthesis.
I’d actually argue that we need more CO2 so plant life will flourish so we have more food.
2
Ludwig van El
Ludwig van El
3 years ago (edited)
change is part of the definition of climate. The WMO defines climate as “the average weather over 30 years”, so expecting an unchanging climate is nonsesnse, because everyone knows that the weather can change from day to day.
Teddy Saginaw
Teddy Saginaw
2 years ago
We’re on our way to massive austerity and neo feudalism. This is the perfect cover.
47
Peter Kerr
Peter Kerr
3 years ago
I don’t know about Malaria but I did spend nine years working in the Arctic on the Beaufort Sea and I can tell you that the Mosquitoes are thick enough to blind Caribou and drive them into the Sea where some actually drown.
I was really surprised by this but when you fly up there you see thousands of frozen lakes and when the Spring thaw happens that’s when the Mosquitoes appear.
We had to wear goggles to see and then we were given Deet by the army people who are up there. I had never heard of deet before but we were soaking rags with it and wrapping the rags around our faces to cover our noses and mouths so we could breathe without inhaling them.
The shorebound ice breaks up and the pack ice between the shore and the ice cap eventually does too.
Thats when they take the photo’s of the open water and make out the whole Arctic has melted.
Some years there’s a lot less ice as far as I could tell and other years it’s easy to think that the ice isn’t going to break up at all.
Pieces of ice hundreds of square miles in area break off in one piece and drift around until they break up.
It’s wave action that breaks up the large pieces like that, not the heat.
When it’s solid there are no waves but once the spring break up happens which is caused by rising temperature then the wave action does the rest….every year.
Greg ######
Greg ######
3 years ago
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun’s magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
Ruby Dube
Ruby Dube
3 years ago
Although there have been numerous climate variances over many, many, centuries, why now, are the polar caps melting at an alarming rate? This seems like a paradox.
Rowen Hawkins
Rowen Hawkins
3 years ago
The comments here are incredible! I wonder if you still feel the same after the UN climate warning the other day. As much money as possible needs to be thrown at this. Species extinction rate is evidence enough of human impact on planetary systems. Great to see evidence supporting a shadow point of view, but the numbers are in. Thankfully due to the research money it has received so far.
Three Rivers Forge
Three Rivers Forge
2 years ago
Great show, and not at all easy to find when you use Google’s search engine. It was top of the list, in the #1 slot, when I searched with Bing, but only because this upload was so recent.
Youtube and Google are definitely suppressing this video, and the BBC just about denies that it ever existed. You can ask their people about it today and they act like it’s pure insanity to suggest this stuff even though they reported on it just a few short years ago!
1
Skyfacer
Skyfacer
3 years ago (edited)
Cloud forming cosmic rays ? I’ve never heard of such a thing till I watched this video.
Is this really correct ?
3
Randy Bentwick
Randy Bentwick
2 years ago
Excellent balance to an imbalanced and highly politicised subject we all need to be interested in. After all – it’s our tax money and our time and (potentially) the planet this impacts. As ever with good science or any consensus – if it’s true it does not need to fear inspection. Period. So why does it so cleary and fervently fear inspection? Why do AGW proponents always argue by ad hominem and by appeals to consensus authority? It’s because their argument for CO2 warming is the same as that the Intelligent Design proponents use to justify ID. We can’t understand why climate changes so we can’t accept that it’s not CO2. (Even though solar variation gives 1000x better correlation to the climate history). Junk science? You decide.
1
Thatcher Beyond the Grave
Thatcher Beyond the Grave
2 years ago
Ask yourself this question. The last Ice age ended forty thousand years ago when half the worlds ice melted. Was that due to bonfires, cars, air travel and central heating. Well was it.?
6
TheDixiechick12
TheDixiechick12
2 years ago
Always follow the money,thanks to all who participated in the movie and showing the real truth
1
John Roll
John Roll
3 years ago
very informative documentary I like it
Paul Noel
Paul Noel
3 years ago
The post war economic boom temperature drop is related to Sulphur Dioxide and the stops with scrubbers. This gas is known to be very significant in enviroment.
Pvk Jhilk
Pvk Jhilk
3 years ago (edited)
more talk about gen 4 reactors would be beneficial. this doc also missed the wobble of the earth effecting climate & the 2,000k+ nuclear bomb tests conducted
1
s c
s c
3 years ago (edited)
Each side will understandably try to debunk the other. Regardless, basic questions remain. Why is going green bad? Why is continuing with air pollution good? Would a sensible person not say green is good and air pollution is bad? Or would the sensible person say air pollution does no or little harm and we should ignore it? Assuming the debate is evenly balanced, what should a sensible approach be? Do no harm? It is easy to ignore the climate issue because the prospect of a global nuclear war is perceived to be more threatening and imminent than climatic catastrophe. But even then, the No 1 military superpower is not only unbothered by it but is committed to an aggressive and provocative strategy that is virtually certain to make it a reality. And again, the world seems incapable or unwilling to do something about it. There is not much hope for mankind given the cavalier and adventurist military attitude of the self-proclaimed leader of the so-called free world (whatever that means) and the inability or unwillingness of the rest of the world to rein it in! Perhaps mankind may see some future in Mars because Earth is getting too dangerous to live? Even then, would not the same cycle repeat itself?
Kevin Day
Kevin Day
3 years ago
So many people demanding to be taxed, without any knowledge, worries, or concerns about where the tax money would notionally go. How it would be spent. Or how any of that would fix the climate. I call that crazy.
121
Chris Birch
Chris Birch
3 years ago
think it is funny how the arguments against climate change are so plentiful and varied.
On one hand, the climate scientists and physical theorists linked CO2 to warming (pre 1900) , modeled it’s effect on the climate over the next 50 years, made observations accordingly, came to the conclusions the models were quite accurate (albeit not perfect) and finally we are now noticing with our basic human senses things are going on with the climate; strong storms, warmer weather , droughts, wild fires etc. It has been quite a linear and logical progression.
On the other hand, the skeptics vacillate between climate always changing, solar effects, no real solutions, scientists fudging data for funding, arctic ice increasing, cooling for last two decades, warming is good and it has been warm in the past, renewables are not efficient, clouds will be seeded to stabilise the climate , wobbling of the earth’s orbit ….and countless others. Which one is it exactly? You can’t make one argument , find another one, then another one, try the original one again, scrape the blogs for another theory, put all the theories in one blog or video for added impact, start again and repeat.
It is like a lawyer claiming a client accused of murder is innocent because they were acting in self defence, while also claiming the gun went off accidentally and finally claiming that they had an alibi and were not present at all. In the end common sense says that the argument as a whole is bogus.
gianna ho
gianna ho
1 year ago
even though i do not agree with this documentary, their points were beautifully explained and made me rethink my position.
giovanni smet
giovanni smet
3 years ago
There are Dutch subtitles available for this documentary on the link below.
Er zijn Nederlandse ondertitels beschikbaar voor deze documentaire op onderstaande link.
https://www.opensubtitles.org/nl/subtitles/7605484/the-great-global-warming-swindle-nl
John Rowell
John Rowell
3 years ago
The information provided in this documentary is compelling. I’d like to see the counter argument but all I read are platitudes and ad hominems directed towards the scientists in this documentary. One thing is for sure, speaking out against climate change results in one being attacked from all angles, just like those people who make arguments against radical left wing social justice activism. Attack the argument, not the messenger.
1
Kelfaso
Kelfaso
3 years ago
Can you please give any information to back up the claims that the movie makes? I would love to read the reports.
Joop Hagen
Joop Hagen
3 years ago
He who thinks that man can influence the climate suffers from megalomania. Or one is not bothered by any relevant knowledge, or a political game is played.
The concepts of climate and the environment are also often deliberately confused.
4
aidan levy
aidan levy
3 years ago (edited)
I like to watch things that challenge my views on a regular basis . While the points about perverse incentives in science funding were well made I had a few problems.
If you are going to make the argument that CO2 doesn’t matter then outright lying about its sources seems counter productive. By definition plants are incapable of creating CO2. Decaying plants only release the CO2 equivalent to what they absorbed during life minus what doesn’t decay. The primary net contributors of CO2 are us and volcanoes, and we outrank the volcanoes by a significant margin.
Many of the graphs were simplified so much as to be useless as anything other than rhetorical tools. When you look at the sources they claim you see a much less cut and dry picture, especially if you look at wider dates than they list. You also find out that they outright fabricated portions of them.
I cant help but feel that this was a decade old piece of click-bate rather than a serious challenge to the science of the day or an honest attempt to educate. Considering that over the last few decades the sun has cooled but global temperature has gone up pretty strongly indicates that there is something other than solar cycles at play.
2
Jason Larnach
Jason Larnach
3 years ago
Amazing doco,thanx for posting
1
tdanenbe
tdanenbe
3 years ago
the beginning is ok but starting in the middle it’s very very interesting/informative , about global warming / change
2
Gurukay
Gurukay
2 years ago (edited)
“If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true”
9
Steven P
Steven P
3 years ago
In 1970 the global population was 3.7 billion. It has now doubled. You’d think a documentary wanting to provide accurate information would have mentioned that.
Galo Chan
Galo Chan
2 years ago
49:56 – The theory of man made global warming has spawned an entirely new branch of journalism. Environmental journalists.
50:48 – It is now common in the media to lay the blame for every storm or hurricane on global warming. But is there any scientific basis for this?
51:29 – Frequent reports say that even a mild increase in global temperature could lead to a catastrophic melting of the polar ice caps. But what does earth’s climate history tell us?
Temperature records of Greenland going back thousands of years. Repeated historical weather patterns.
52:18 – Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center, Alaska.
Insists that over time, the ice caps have always been naturally expanding and contracting. But now that we have satellites that can detect them, they become news. People forget that ice is always moving. As ordinary an event in the arctic as falling leaves on an autumn day.
53:57 – What causes sea levels to change, and how fast does it happen? Governed fundamentally by two factors. Local factors. Relationship of sea to the land. Eustatic (world wide, global) changes in the thermal expansion of the oceans. Nothing to do with melting ice. An enormously slow and long process.
55:04 – Prof. Paul Reiter, Dept. of Medical Entymology, Pasteur Institute, Paris.
Suggested threats of tropical diseases from mild rise in temperature. Is this true?
Mosquitos thrive in very cold temperatures and temperate regions. Mosquitos extremely abundant in the arctic.
56:38 – According to Prof. Reiter, hysterical alarms have been encouraged by reports from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Quote from IPCC report saying mosquitos do not thrive in sub-zero temps. Reiter is horrified. No mention of the scientific literature by specialists in those fields.
57:23 – IPCC censors comments of scientists. Key sections of report deleted. IPCC does not deny making the deletions. Stated changes were made in response to comments from governments, individual scientists, and NGOs.
58:32 – Prof. Reiter resigned from IPCC, yet his name was still there. He threatens legal action and his name is removed. Specialists who don’t agree with the polemic and resign still put on the author list and become part of the report.
59:14 – Research relating to man global warming one of the best funded areas of science. US gov spends more that 4 billion per year (2007). Scientists who speak out against global warming have a lot to lose.
59:43 – It is a common prejudice that scientists who do not agree with the theory of man made global warming must be being paid by private industry to tell lies.
1:00:16 – There is almost no private sector investment in climatology, and yet to be involved in any research project which involves an industry grant, no matter how small, can spell ruin to a scientist’s reputation. Patrick Michaels, Dept of Environmental Sciences, U. of Virginia, US.
1:01:26 – But reasoned debate is not the only causality in the global warming alarm. As international public policy bears down on industrial emissions of CO2, the developing world is coming under intense pressure not to develop.
1:02:01 – Nairobi Conference. 10 days, 6000 delegates.
Prof. John Christy, Dept of Atmospheric Science, U. of Alabama: “The billions of dollars invested in climate science means there is a huge constituency of people dependent upon those dollars, and they will want to see that carried forward. Happens in any bureaucracy.”
Lord Lawson of Blaby: “Anybody who then stands up and says, ‘Hey, wait a minute. Let’s look at this cooly, rationally, and carefully and see how much merit or how much this stands up’… they will be ostracized.”
1:03:23 – Scientists accustomed to the relative civility and obscurity of academic life suddenly find themselves publicly attacked if they dare to challenge the theory of man made global warming. Vilified by campaign groups, and even within their own universities.
1:03:57 – “These days, if you are sceptical about the litany around climate change, you’re suddenly like as if you’re a holocaust denier.”
“The environmental movement really it is a political activist movement and they have become hugely influential at a global level, and every politician is aware of that today. Whether you’re on the left or the right, you have to pay homage to the environment.”
1:04:41 – Western governments have now embraced the need for international agreements to restrain industrial production in the developed and developing world. But at what cost?
Paul Driessen: “My big concern with global warming is that the policies being pushed to supposedly prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the world’s poorest people.”
1:05:10 – The Precautionary Principle.
Used to promote a particular agenda and ideology. It’s always used in one direction only. It talks about the risks of using a particular technology, but never about the risks of not using it. It never talks about the benefits of having that technology.
1:07:35 – Africa has coal, oil, but environmental groups are campaigning against these cheap sources of energy. Instead, they say Africa and the rest of the developing world should use solar and wind power. Village clinic using solar panel.
1:09:08 – James Shikwati, Economist & Author:
“The question would be, how many people in Europe, how many people in the United States are already using that kind of energy? And how cheap is it? If it’s expensive for the Europeans, if it’s expensive for the Americans, and we’re talking about poor Africans, you know… it doesn’t make sense.” “The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy, but for us we are still at the stage of survival.”
1:09:38 – Paul Driessen:
“Let me make one thing perfectly clear: If we’re telling the Third World that they can only have wind and solar power, what we are really telling them is ‘You cannot have electricity’.”
1:10:10 – James Shikwati:
“The challenge we have when we meet western environmentalists who say we must engage in use of solar panels and wind energy, is how we can have Africa industrialized. Because I don’t see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway train network. It might work maybe to power a small transistor radio.”
1:10:47 – Patrick Moore:
“I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is this romanticization of peasant life, and the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world.”
1:11:00 – James Shikwati:
“One clear thing that emerges from the whole environmental debate is the point that there is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop.”
1:11:13 – Patrick Moore:
“The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries.”
James Shikwati: “We are being told: Don’t touch your resources. Don’t touch your oil. Don’t touch your coal. That is suicide.”
Moore: “I think it’s legitimate for me to call them anti-human. Like, Ok, you don’t have to think humans are better than whales (or whatever) if you don’t want to. But surely it is not a good idea to think of humans as sort of being scum. That it’s Ok to have hundreds of millions of them go blind or die. I just can’t relate to that.”
1:11:58 – The theory of man made global warming is now so firmly entrenched, the voices of opposition so effectively silenced, it seems invincible. Untroubled by contrary evidence, no matter how strong. The global warming alarm is now beyond reason.
1:12:11 – “There will still be people who will believe this is the end of the world…
1:12:53 – CREDITS
39
daronius subdeviant
daronius subdeviant
2 years ago
In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening. Carl Wunsch
Paulo Antunes
Paulo Antunes
1 year ago
“How dare you!!!” …………Greta,after watching this.
74
KarlosH
KarlosH
1 year ago
Back in the 1960s and 70s city pollution was the major driving force behind early electric vehicle development, then catalytic converters on petrol engines. City pollution from vehicles or coal fired heating is very real, and also very deadly to the inhabitants. We don’t need pseudo science to prove that. So I still support cleaning up pollution in city centres. This is not CO2 pollution. It is a bunch of other compounds that heavily correlated with lung and heart disease.
Even electric vehicles still generate brake and tyre dust pollutants. So they’ll still be in the air causing breathing issues for city inhabitants.
Burning coal also is very dirty. Lots of sulphur and other bad pollutants. So moving away from coal fired power stations still seems like a good idea, but that’s nothing to do with the “anthropogenic theory of global warming from CO2″
Burning methane only really produces water and CO2 . It’s really clean. Just like the other short chain hydro carbon gases. Propane, Butane etc.
CO2 doesn’t seem to be the major risk to me.
turbojoe2
turbojoe2
3 years ago
Id like to see a new up to date version of this.
Annie Applez
Annie Applez
3 years ago
thank you for sharing this 🙂
Graham Southern
Graham Southern
3 years ago
Glad to see nearly everyone now sees this scam for what it is. The days when the ‘experts’ were taken to be trustworthy is long past – they’ve been caught out too often.
Anthony Andrea
Anthony Andrea
3 years ago
I saw this on the TV back in the day. Very few people are interested in truth. Most are just interested in what other people tell them to be interested in – they care not if ”the consensus” is bogus. They just don’t have the courage to look for truth. Self interest rules them; and next to it, – truth is meaningless to them.
Paula Pacente
Paula Pacente
3 years ago
Unfortunately algore and many others laughed all the way to the bank by making this into a bogus crisis. May he be damned!
21
5000Kone
5000Kone
3 years ago
Instrumental temperature record (1880–2016) shows that 17 of the 18 warmest years have occurred since 2000. Year 2016 was hottest and 2015 second warmest and 2017 third warmest.
1
ig2d
ig2d
3 years ago
thanks for uploading.. there was another excellent c4 documentary called “the myth of too many” if someone could get a copy of this and upload it that would be great
2
Ludwig van El
Ludwig van El
3 years ago
Recently it has come out that in spite of rising CO2, the temp remained flat.
RISING CO2! Even after all those self congratulatory summits where they were going to reduce CO2, The Dutch politicians that squeal the loudest about CO22, are the ones putting most effort into preventing the solving of traffic jams (which needs more roads.; the infrastructure is decades old) But teehey insist on forcing the people to use public transport. If that were an acceptable alternative, don’t you think people would have started using it? But they keep on blindly blundering on with having their way. And if the people refuse to listen to their bosses, they will jest get punished with catastrophic climate change (CCC). Likewise, the people on tropical islands will also get punished with CCC if the Dutch people refuse to listen to their owners.
1
Little Kitty
Little Kitty
3 years ago
Here in the UK I have noticed a severe change in the climate since about 2006 – it is a lot colder, we don’t have proper summers any more, we have very severe winters that we never used to have and that last a very long time, it gets colder earlier in the year and severe frost lasts until March/April.
Until 2006 we had proper summers, now that is a distant memory. Even the heat wave we had in June/July lasted only a few weeks and was nowhere near like the heat waves we used to have.
I also notice that the only pollution is coming from the elite who poison us with chemicals such as asbestos and formaldehyde and other carcinogens in our food, clothes, cosmetics, even baby products and medicines. Our water is full of fluoride which makes us infertile and stupid, and if we need medical care all we get is medication to knock us out, not to treat the problem.
That is were the real pollution is coming from.
Jim Hood
Jim Hood
2 years ago
There are quite a few different threads in this documentary which despite its bias sound interesting. I naturally heard a concensus among the contributers refuting carbon dioxide as a driver of climate change but I didn’t hear a consensus on the “actual” cause. “The sun” is a bit vague. Some of the graphs looked convincing but since this programme is 12 years old now does anyone know if any of these alternative explanations have continued to be examined and what they show happening in the intervening period.
Jesper Berggren
Jesper Berggren
3 years ago
An extremely important documentary film
41
Roger Froud
Roger Froud
3 years ago
Regardless of whether there are natural phenomena also driving global warming, it’s insane to just shrug our shoulders, take none of the blame and then cook! We can’t afford to be right about global warming and do nothing, that’s suicide.
Predictions and modelling of these phenomena are difficult, we know that from predicting Earth Quakes or the Weather. We don’t throw in the towel with those though, we try to improve our models and gradually reduce the unknowns. That’s what’s been happening with global warming, and the science shows it’s definitely happening. You can argue all you like about how much we contribute, but Carbon Dioxide IS as greenhouse gas, and Methane from farm animals IS too.
Addressing any environmental issues costs money, but it’s necessary. London doesn’t want to return to ‘Pea Soupers’ ie dense smoke fog, and smog is still an issue in many major cities. Complaining about the cost of Catalytic Converters is no different to complaining about the cost of climate change measures. It HAS to be done else we all fry.
blackeyedturtle
blackeyedturtle
1 year ago
The lengths the Global-Warming Lobby have gone to in order to discredit the contributors to this documentary, really know no bounds. Tracing a few dollars of contributions to the Unification Church and its leader Sun Myung Moon, to label one guy as a “Moonie” rather than disputing his science or his scientific credentials, is very very desperate. All of these contributors had credentials that were solid gold, and were at one time considered near the top in their fields, until they began to take issue with the multi-billion taxpayer funded Global Warming Crusaders and alternate energy companies, who receive multi-billion dollar grants from governments (which translates into more taxpayer’s monies). While it may be true some of the research projects these men may have been involved in, came from the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry also provides research money for alt-energy research. What is also true is none of these men were aware where the various sources of their research funding came from, and there is absolutely ZERO proof that they were under any pressure from those various entities who funded them to reach conclusions the science did not support. When those who oppose certain scientific position resort to labeling, name calling, and specious unproven claims of collusion with fossil-fuel industries, and even go so far as to troll their names on YouTube videos, they must have a lot of skin in the game.
2
Spencerianism
Spencerianism
3 years ago
When death becomes big business. Life becomes unprofitable.
12
John Cheresna
John Cheresna
3 years ago
I have always said that their are natural cycles. Having said that I still believe we have an effect to the weather. How much, I cannot say.
Trina Edwards
Trina Edwards
3 years ago
thank you so much for this i too was believing it . now i dont believe anything the news says
mike howard
mike howard
2 years ago
The main issue with alleged global warming , is it is now a business model vs the truth – money always wins over the truth !!!
8
Ruben Wagenaar
Ruben Wagenaar
3 years ago (edited)
Sun activity / Sun spots have had a incredibly weak cycli since 2000, with absolute lows going from 2013-2018. Very weak support warming is only due to sun activity rising.
J v K
J v K
3 years ago
2007…. That is 11 years ago.
I really like to see how it is today: new insights on new data, politics, methods to get data and analysis
19
Nick G
Nick G
3 years ago
More scientific data presented than any other movie that I could find in why C02 is causing global warming. If you have a movie with decent scientific data on why C02 is causing global warming, please post it. I will watch it.
Clamber Mountain
Clamber Mountain
3 years ago
Whenever there is a big volcanic eruption, such as in Iceland, this releases into the atmosphere thousands-fold the carbon dioxide ever generated by mankind for thousands of years. So we should put a carbon tax on volcanoes.
Online Geography Tutor
Online Geography Tutor
3 years ago
Always doubted that climate change was really taking place, 10 crap Augusts in a row in the UK, yeah, global warming that is! It is all about energy security!
Christian D
Christian D
3 years ago
Valcano’s perpetual heat index reaching the atmosphere continually could be the Earth’s way of maintaining a certain temperature on the Earth and in high and low atmosphere, they are strategically located on the planet, like an exhaust system of a very large, very hot engine that is located deep underground… Would that cause atmospheric changes as the valcanos become hotter and more active? They regulate themselves depending on where the lava flows underground… Their path may interersect with deep water canals that exist deep below not only the earts surface, but our oceans surface as well….
John Gibson
John Gibson
3 years ago
Wow! A documentary of outlying scientists that can’t get their work peer reviewed the way they want it, so this is their public pleading movie.
Robert Rinaldi
Robert Rinaldi
3 years ago
Information I have gathered from skeptical sources on global warming is always highly detailed. On the other hand, the sources of information for global warming are vague. I am very skeptical that humans are causing this.
57
Beth Heinecamp
Beth Heinecamp
3 years ago
I’m so frustrated by trying to engage with climate changers in a conversation about the possibility that climate change is not what they think it is. I know I know, both sides think they’re ‘right’. It’s just that when you research the economic and political side of things, when you see connections that most don’t see, you become suspicious. I think that’s what puts me and many here in the 1 or 2% who doubt the changers. Immediately we’re labeled conspiracy theorists, and that again is another battle.
Krav Haganah Texas Combat Defense
Krav Haganah Texas Combat Defense
3 years ago
So basically we should be focusing on what to do if the climate drastically changes, rather than how to prevent it.
Kru. Jaem
Kru. Jaem
3 years ago (edited)
The reason for the global warming was well-summed up @4:55
Dale Ruff
Dale Ruff
2 years ago
Why would anyone believe a man with a degree in classics over the world’s climate scientists?
1
Jack 369
Jack 369
3 years ago
Great documentary, HOWEVER please RETITLE it in order to get desired views we want to see it get. CURRENTLY IT DOES NOT ATTRACT DISBELIEVERS
Claus-Winther.
Claus-Winther.
3 years ago
Is there a newer version of a similar documentary anywhere (2007 being a long time ago already)?
13
SuperMarway
SuperMarway
2 years ago
Just look how co2 and temperature has correlated during the last million year. The temperature will not change after a decade of lowered co2, it could take up to 50 years, like we see today.
Stephen Lane
Stephen Lane
3 years ago
I remember when this show came out in 2007. Perhaps the most remarkable things for me is that
1) ELEVEN YEARS LATER – things haven’t changed one iota. The same scaremongering & alarm-ism, the same myths, the same denunciation of skeptics, the same deadlines .. “We have Seven years to save the World!!” (etc).
2) ELEVEN YEARS LATER – this documentary is still 100% relevant to the modern day.
3) ELEVEN YEARS LATER – all the comments about the “industry” of global warming and the amount of people who’s jobs rely on the perpetuation of the Myth must be several multiples greater now than it was then.
4) ELEVEN YEARS LATER – the climate hasnt warmed – if anything its cooled.
ernest johnson
ernest johnson
3 years ago
Thank you so much for this video !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
tony King
tony King
3 years ago
One hour and thirteen minutes and not one hard scientific fact or examination of the physics that lie behind the global warming we are experiencing . Just opinions stated with a grave voice to make them seem credible . Great swindle indeed . One of the most active companies in the anti ” climate change ” lobby has as its motto ” Doubt is our product ” and before they were in the bussiness of climate change denial were active in the debunking of the connection between cigarettes and cancer . ” The jury is still out ” . It worked for years for cigarettes and it’ll work for a few more years in Climate change until the succession of ” 500 year ” hurricanes and historical droughts leading to massive wildfires and other climatic catastrophes make people realise they have been hoodwinked . By then these guys will have lined their pockets sufficiently to bunker down in some safe place , preferably over a hundred feet above sea level while the poor of the world pay the price .
Yoshi OK
Yoshi OK
2 years ago
I thoght my idea for global warming was neutral and projective, however, after seeing this video, I was aware my idea was truelly biased.
Rick TD
Rick TD
3 years ago
Wisdom Land, “virtually unchallenged consensus” ? That isn’t even close to the truth and science isn’t settled by consensus anyway.
4
Gaston Naboulet
Gaston Naboulet
3 years ago
If they studied global warming from the point of view of physics, they would not talk about temperatures but about the balance of caloric energy in the earth’s crust and troposphere.
The temperature is not a genuine magnitude, the amount of heat is. Due to the enormous latent heat of change of state, the ice and the humidity are the main stabilizers of the temperatures. But variations in the amount of heat are clearly manifested in variations in the amount of ice and moisture, even without changes in temperature or with very small changes.
It seems really inexplicable to me that so many countries and so many scientists have ignored this approach. Apparently the study of the climate has become a social or political science.