re "The Great Climate Swindle" documentary

[Karl]

Buy British if you want to save the environment.
more food miles = more carbon.
Holiday at Butlins. Stop global warming.

[luke]

interesting read from media lens regarding the documentary, i usually have a lot of respect for these guys

pure propaganda - the great global warming swindle

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

[Mandy]

Thanks Luke.

Especially interesting is
--------------------------------------------
In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere. These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”. By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2. By the 1980s, however, stronger warming had exceeded this masking effect and global temperature has since continued to rise. As Real Climate notes, by failing to explain the science behind this phenomenon the programme makers were guilty of “lying to us by omission.”
--------------------------------------------

Shouldn't we now have a campaign to bring back "industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols" ? i.e. are they saying WE are at fault for the global warming because we followed the government by STOP using "sulphate aerosols" and other such gases as used in refrigerators etc ?

[though I believe at the time the issue with these aeresols was the destruction of the ozone layer which allowed more sun rays to reach the surface .. but above paragraph seems to contradict that issue. The logical conclusion is that
"sulphate aerosols" are good because they now prevent some of the sun's rays reaching the earth .. which also reduces skin cancer ...


I just found this from Greenpeace :

http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0244.html
---------------------------------------
DO SULPHATE AEROSOLS REDUCE THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT?

Recent research suggests that industrial emissions of sulfur dioxide may have a significant impact on the greenhouse effect. It is already known that sulfate aerosols react with water to produce acid rain, and if they reach the stratosphere, may, under certain circumstances, contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer. But now there is also evidence that they may contribute some of the greenhouse effect directly, by reflecting sunlight, or indirectly, by seeding more clouds, which reflect sunlight.

While natural aerosols such as dust, sea salt or volcanic particles have always been present in the atmosphere, aerosols caused by human activities have increased dramatically, particularly since 1950, as a consequence of fossil fuel combustions. The action of aerosols may explain the lower than expected warming over such heavily industrialised areas as parts of North America. (R.J. Charlson and T.M.L. Wigley, "Sulfate aerosol and climatic change", Scientific American, v. 270(2), p.28-33, February 1994). As the IPCC has noted, however, the lifetime of aerosols is quite short - months - and that of CO2 over a century. Sulfur emission reductions, which are now being introduced for other environmental reasons, will lead to a rapid reduction in the offset-effect, leaving the full strength of greenhouse effect of the Co2 for many centuries.

GREENPEACE Climate Impacts Database
---------------------------------------

Sounds like Greenpeace lament the reduction in "Sulfur emission reductions" .. though acid rain is nasty ...

I wonder if Chemtrails over the USA is the US trying to reduce their temperature without telling the world about it :
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2RNFA_en___GB203&q=Chemtrails

[Mandy]

p.s. If clouds reflect the sun and thus reduce global warming, shouldn't the resources of the world be better spent on the technology (e.g. possibly chemtrails) to enduce cloud formation ? Indeed, weather manipulation is a military research topic .. wonder why we haven't heard much from that side ..

[Mandy]

Just came across this new report :

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/03/13/1173722471286.html

"Scientists have inconvenient news for Gore"
---------------
There is a rising chorus of concern, extending even to "moderate" scientists with no political axe to grind, over the former US vice-president's tactics and advocacy.
...

An emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, Don Easterbrook, told the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America that he did not want to "pick on Al Gore".

"But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."
---------------

[prpower]

Hi Folks,

Have a look at this blog if you are having trouble debunking this documentary:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

TGGWS was really just a slick presentation of objections which have been around for a while. None of them have any substance. Many of them are ridiculously out of date. Channel 4 should be feeling ashamed of themselves. Hopefully BBC's Horizon will air a special which addresses this 'documentary' directly...

Paul.

[Mandy]

Hopefully the BBC's Horizon report you wish for would be better than the recent BBC report attempting to debunk 911 conspiracy theories, or explaining who told the BBC news presenter WTC7 HAD collapsed whilst in plain view .. or why the feed from BBC mysteriously then died.

If this is news to you, do see :
http://www.spiderednews.com/911.htm

That's the problem when governments and state broadcasters lose credibility (c.f. the lies about the Iraq war, and now about the planned Iran war, or the way the Trident vote just got pushed through parliament, and how Trident has been recently updated even when the government had denied it, or their cash for honours scandal, SLEAZE SLEAZE EVERYWHERE).

Why should we trust this government to look after the environment when they are destroying the world with their DEPLETED URANIUM wars ..
http://www.spiderednews.com/GulfWarSyndromedepleteduranium.htm

This government (and Bush, who has now moved into the global warming camp) are "drowning in derision".

[Brown Sauce]

global dimming was significantly decreased just after 9/11 over the US, as all flights were cancelled. One of the interesting after effects.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html

I think the UK is heading down a nuclear energy path. I don't think that tony would have signed up to the 2020 deal had the French not made sure that nuclear energy was considered "sustainable".

[Mandy]

Thanks "Brown Sauce". Especially interesting is extract :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NARRATOR: Manmade clouds from aircraft are a minor contributor to global dimming. If removing them had such a dramatic effect, what would happen if air pollution were to be reduced all over the world?

DAVID TRAVIS: The 9/11 study showed that if you remove a contributor to global dimming, jet contrails, just for a three-day period, we see an immediate response of the surface temperature. Do the same thing globally, we might see a large-scale increase in global warming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the article highlights that trying to control the weather (e.g. using cloud seeding, e.g. using chemtrails etc.), may have extreme effects elsewhere on other parts of the world.

Seems to me that all the research on cloud formation should be looked at as a serious way to reduce the damage from temperature swings (whether man made or natural), and try to bring rainfall to drought ridden continents such as Africa.

Governments of superpowers are bound to have research on this issue which is classified.

If researchers were cloud seeding, e.g. using chemtrails, maybe they don't talk about it for fear of being blamed if side-effects happen. Or maybe the governments look at it as a secret way to give their country an advantage, e.g. why live in hot country elsewhere when you can live in our cool country.

Why haven't we seen this sort of discussion about cloud seeding/environment control in the media ? After all, if the US government can ground planes which then cause a drop in temperature, they can reverse this to double the number of planes (or more efficiently seed the clouds directly) and cause even more stable temperature ranges between night and day AND reduce the average temperature as well.

[Brown Sauce]

I think that the weather system is so finely balanced, so difficult to predict, that any tampering might and probably would lead to very unpredictable and therefore as undesirable as desirable effects. Learn to live with it, fighting is a mugs game.

if you have the time, a great book I finished recently is "The Swarm" by Frank Schätzing. He is a science reporter for Die Zeit, and if he's right, we don't really have to worry about oil pollution for much longer, as it's getting too uneconomical to extract.

Marry that up with exponential growth, and we should be starting to worry about the inevitable pollution to our streams and rivers brought about by extensive use of pesticides on rape seed plants or whatever that will be thought upon as the saviour. It's all pissin' in the wind, we'd better get on with riding a bike to the shops and to work, 'cause in my opinion we'll have to be doing that soon anyway.

In the meantime, double the price of petrol, diesel for the private person, and make it almost free for public transport. I know that there are problems, but unless and until a quality and functioning public transport service arrives, people will be driving their 4x4 monsters to work, give 'em what they need, a good system. watch the investors roll in. Carrot and stick. Go back to the days of dyed diesel, let the farmers, the taxi drivers and the truck drivers have cheaper fuel, else we all will be paying through the nose for everything, but make driving the car around a very expensive game, 'cause that is what it is.

And yes, buy local, I do as much as I can anyway, support your local market trader, we all used to. I much prefer to support a local family with a few euros, than to support the obscenity that is tesco or wall mart or the like.

I wonder who exactly was behind the channel 4 "documentary", BMW, volkswagon, mercedes benz ??? I didn't see it, and can't find it on any of my normal sites, but I get the gist.

[Mandy]

I agree with Brown Sauce about being wary about trying to change things when we don't understand fully the v. complex possible unintentional side-effects

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,2038987,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=29

Shock of the new
Scientists hope to release GM mosquitoes into the wild in an attempt to wipe out malaria. They should be extremely wary, says James Randerson - introducing new species has often proved disastrous

Note the commentary in :
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html

[Mandy]

I remembered this thread after listening to James Max's Talksport show .. he was sitting in for a James Whale who I think unexpectedly couldn't make it.

Around 30 minutes of the debate could be heard on (though it is missing the first few minutes) :

http://www.spiderednews.com/Videos/86870.htm
"Global Warming debate on Radio : highlighting scepticism of increased taxation amid claims that man is causing global warming"


Here's another report from Alex Jones warning about governments taking propaganda advantage of global warming :

"http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/140307hysteria.htm"
"Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government"
"If world government is to be achieved by consent, the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity"

[Mandy]

New Documentary by CBC.

It is uploaded in five parts, with first part below. The other four can be found on You Tube by clicking the YouTube image on the video.

[faceless]

So they've been let off the hook even though it's clear that Channel 4 allowed biased and falsified information...

[luke]