The Great Global Warming Swindle

Watching this documentary, makes me think two things:

a) These scientists are about to loose their jobs, their reputations, and possibly their entire lives over their appearances in this piece, and

b) The counter-arguments to this documentary are so weak, feeble, and either misleading or confused in themselves I have to wonder just who they think they're kidding.

My doubts about human induced global warming have always come from two facts no one has been able to explain away to my satisfaction: world temperatures lowered in the past century when carbon emissions increased, and existing climate graphs are doctored to discount a period of climate history called the "little ice age" which has plenty of historical evidence proving it's existence.

Until those two facts are reasonably explained away by the enlightened few out there my stance will remain the same: CO2 caused global warming is either exaggerated or non-existent.


  1. Really, you need to think this one through.Most of you are not old enough to remember the hysteria in the 1970's over the 'impending ice age'&'global cooling'.One of the proposed solutions was to build many nuclear generating stations so that inexpensive electrical power would be available.The same folks who screamed about freezing protested nuclear energy as unsafe. When global cooling, complete oil depletion and over-population to the point of starvation did not occur, these people scurried into their dark corners to await the next "crisis of captialism' that they could champion.Today warming is the danger and CO2 the enemy.Same hystrionics.Same slogans.Now let's say CO2 is the enemy and MUST be reduced, dramatically as Kyoto says.Logic demands that we switch to nuclear power generation saving oodles of CO2. Yet no one offers that solution.Next is 'carbon credits'.Without accurate measurements/controls,firms buy this 'paper' from traders CCX)who buy credits from corrupt 3rd world (transfer of wealth to poor nations) then invest in green stocks w/trading profits (free money is fun to invest). Firms then justify the same or greater production levels of CO2.Net result, no change in emmissions,warming continues. Traders get rich. That is why Barclay's is lobbying to be the world source of 'carbon credit' trading. Big players from Goldman-Sachs started CCX & ECX (both funded in part by Generation Investment LLP Al Gore et al). Duke Energy supports carbon credit trading...why? Because in the areas they operate, they are a monopoly. If they bare forced to implement better technology they can pass the cost onto their captured customer base. A lot of money stands to be made from this without any verifiable value. Imagine, trading pieces of paper that have zero value and represent no increase in the GDP and that cannot be measured, monitored or controlled. It is a license to steal.... a 1920's banker's dream come true. It's like permissioning them to print their own money. No wonder the financiers are all over this like cops at a donut shop. And I have not yet even begun to address the science..the enormity and scale of mathematical calculations, assumptions, error factors, forced vs non-force radiative corallaries along with non-constant patterns of absorbtion & dissipation. It is overwhelming. And computer models....not super models, perhaps super computer models! As a scientist and especially one involved in climatology, you must know that climatology computer modelling can be used for diagnostics but never, ever, for prognostics. As far as climate change, I would find, given the laws of thermodynamics, that it will actually be far more likely that we enter a dramatic cooling period at some time in the next 100 years. That is historic and a pattern most certain to repeat. If it does not happen, perhaps we will have CO2 emmissions to thank for it. This is not scientific, it is socio-political and should be labeled as such.

  2. I'm not only not convinced that global warming is anthropogenic, I'm not convinced that if it exists, is anthropogenic, and is avoidable, that there is any evidence that it will be harmful.

    We've had periods of higher sea levels before and the sky didn't collapse on us. Land use has also changed drastically since the second world war. Why should we be worrying that in two centuries, the coasts are going to be 40m further inland? Save the estimated $500B PA required to completely mitigate warming, and next century use what will be a rounding error in the future value of that fortune to move oceanfront property 40m inland.