erm, it wasnt a BBC documentary,in the UK it was channel 4 who aired it, not the BBC. :)

BTW: it was a really good documentary, it sort of makes you think how much 'green' in made to influence your purchases, and your votes. i recommend watching it.

with the sun warm us up and cools us everyday,
how can it not possible that when the sun is more active that we got more heat up?
tell Al Gore to go turn off his electricity he wasted in his huge house.

There are those who say that there are cycles of global warming and global cooling long before they say man even existed on earth. There scientist in the USA who believe this but one does not hear about them since it contradicts Gore and his theories.

80% natural, 20% man made. That is the correct ratio at the moment. We are going through a natural cycle that will see the Earth temp rise considerable over the next 1000 years, it's just that man is helping it along a bit faster than it otherwise would. If we stop ALL pollution today, the temp will keep rising, just more slowely. The Governments are 1) Panicing, 2) listening to one side to much, 3) using the situation for their own needs.

while I do believe the sun is responsible I still think it's a good idea to reduce our carbon foot print when possible. Not to the extent tree huggers are but when it makes sense we should.

I (and other people) have been pointing this out for years to anyone who tries to say that global warming is caused by human activity. Unfortunately, the endogenous global warming crowd inspire a panic reaction in others, which makes for good entertainment disguised as news, therefore the news networks carry the wrong message to the masses. The scientists studying global warming are often - though not always - funded in part by environmental activist groups who expect results supporting their extremist positions. Unfortunately, too many scientists are willing to compromise the principles of their profession and release questionable results they sell as cold, hard fact.

I find it hard to believe that our rampant consumerism is not having some effect on the planet and, frankly, by the time we know for certain it's likely to be too late.

There is also the not inconsiderable matter that we are using resources faster than the planet can supply them. Eventually something's gotta give.

Given that the sponsors of this "documentary" are energy companies, I am hardly surprised at its conclusions. There is a lot to be said for non-commercial television, such as BBC.

There may not be any need to panic about Global Warming and man being the cause - even if we are the problem it would take ages to be as catatrophic as the media makes it out to be...

But, there is no problem with pushing everybody to be green and less wasteful, especially here in America. And we need to get a push on those Hydrogen cars. Our streets are filthy, parking lots disgusting and traffic fumes suck. Imagine how clean our parking garages and streets would be if we had water falling on them instead of sludge and black exhaust from our cars. And I could sit in rush our with my windows down!

So, despite the fact I never got wrapped up in the whole global warming epidemic thing I suppose I will put up with all the lies if that's what it takes to get other people motivated to be more conscious of our environment and create less wasteful and polluting machines.

I saw the documentary a few months back and must say it is refreshing to see something of substance about this issue. An inconvenient truth is full of garbage and is more of a promotional video for Mr. Gore.

As far as I'm concerned this whole global warming stuff is nonsense...The earth is billions of years old, so you mean to tell me that a slight rise in temperature over a few years is caused by humanity? The earth operates on a time line much longer than our 70-80 year lifespan.

This is not a science-based documentary. It is well established that it is a right wing agenda-driven documentary that cherry picks data, uses fringe scientists with suspect agendas and ignores the body of evidence. The fact that you missed that says a lot about you, your agenda and your ability to use logic. Do you really think the vast majority of scientists who agree with global warming are so blinded that they don't consider the role of the sun? Do you guys really think there is more skepticism on global warming outside the US? Do you live in a cave? Go listen to Rush, keep believing the crap they try to sell you in church, go vote for John McCain, but do not think for one second that you have even the slightest capacity for reason.

No of course the insane increases in greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere will have no effect whatsoever on global temperatures. The real scientists know bugger-all. It is the fringe oil sponsored scientist who knows what's really up. Of course... I was so blind. Only oil money can buy true knowledge. Only... It has been shown over and over that some of the most revered oil lobbyists know nothing at all about science.

And cough-cough... Before you say that you think the sun is the main cause of our temperature issues and you are not a lobbyist for big-oil. Consider this... You might simply not qualify to make an educated guess.

Their watching the sun closely BTW. If something drastic changed with the output of the sun then we would have known about it by now.

Also. It would have to be pretty drastic for the sun to be the culprit. You cannot make energy. If the sun only warms or cools only a little from the usual then we would only experience minor changes here on earth. You can't make energy. You can store it though. Wappow! Now there's an idea. The earth might be slowly taking in more energy from the sun than it's radiating out again. My... but... isn't that called a greenhouse effect? What a coincidence.

Finally seeing a true assessment of the situation. I have been reading these studies for many years but they never seem to get broadcast to the general public. Sad this can be seen in England, but our overly biased media in the US will not push it.

I think we should not pollute. Don't pee where you sleep is my thought. Just lets clean up for the right reasons, not made up crap. Lets clean up and conserve because it leaves a better environment for our kids. That is all the reason I need.

You realize this is channel 4, they do have some outlandish stuff they throw out there (competing with channel 5 I suppose). Global warming is hardly difficult to understand and either way polluting less, reusing more and being less wasteful can't be bad, after all materials and energy are not infinite resources so make the best use of what you have aye?.

You mean channels aren't the same everywhere. Just like time.

I can't believe how little research has gone into this. How f*$&ing hard can it be to check out a simple wikipedia article about this "controversy" instead of ending up with this kind of biased article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

[meandmyself: The producers were not reprimanded for the bulk of the scientific information contained in this video. They violated British law by not including a range of political angles regarding its content - as they were required to do. Two contributors in the film filed complaints about the way they were presented, or that the producers misled them up front about the type of documentary, and those were upheld. Still, Ofcom investigated over 130 complaints and of those only found Channel 4 at fault in these three.

Ofcom ruled there were no other significant errors in content and subsequently rebroadcast versions of the film addressed minor inaccuracies relating to source attribution, time scales, etc.

The bulk of the video contains verified science that has not been disputed. It does, however, present an alternate view of global warming and cooling, and one which has independent scientific data for its backing. -ed]

Who cares who's fault it is? The real question is: Is global warming is a desirable thing?
If no then is there some things we can do so it won't happen!
We know that greenhouse gases and the sun are both players when it comes to global warming.
We are spending allot of money not fixing the problem rather then doing what must be done… So let's stop debating and do something about it or shut the …

After reading some of the comments on this board that go to both extremes. I felt the need to point out some facts.

Facts:
1) Earth has gone threw many temperature changes per and post man. Scientists still are not sure what causes this. Most believe it is do to the activity of the sun.

2) As our sun grows older it gets A) brighter and B) hotter. What the affect is on the planets is still not known, but presumably the planets will heat up.

3) Carbon emissions do trap gases causes temperature change, which way is still debated but presumably the temperature increases.

4) For the past few years the earth has been cooling.

5) During the time of the dinosaurs the earth was on avg 8 deg F warmer.

Unknowns:

1) Does the earth's temperature change with activity in the sun.

2) What's the direct impact of green house gases. Simulations mean nothing because people have to input the unknown variables which can change the model to go one way or the other. AKA anyone can make a Simulation or Model that predicts anything that want for given data with out all the unknowns filled in.

3) Why has the earth warmed a cooled so many times. We have no idea what caused the ice ages in the past. But obviously it wasn't always human intervention.

4) During the time of the dinosaurs the earth was on avg 8 deg F warmer, but why?

Anyway the point of all this is to show that while there are a lot of theories that could be explained by any number of facts, which ones are right is not yet known. For anyone to come on this board and call people names for believing in on or the other is down right ignorant. You're beliefs are no more right or wrong than anyone elses on this board. Get over yourself, your not all knowing.

The film claims Volcanos produce more Co2 than man, which was proven false and removed from current versions of the film. A graph displaying Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940 in the film had a mislabled time axis, and was subsiquently corrected. Carl Wunsch, a professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT was supported in a ruling by Ofcom in that his general views were misrepresented in the film.
The list goes on and on... To describe this film as a "scientific documentary" would be a bit of a stretch...

Comments like these can often be read on these forums, and it needs to be addressed. It's the biggest load of crap you can think of. A stinking mixture of unwarranted arrogance, silly conspiracy thinking, and deep ignorance and blindness for what science achieves and HOW it achieves it. A "Don Quixote" complex that has gone wild.

Let's cut through the crap:

Fundamental question: IS it possible/conceivable that human activities would cause a significant and rapid change of the earth's climate, and that this would have a big impact on ecology and our lives? AND: does this ultimate answer depend on whether we like it or not, whether it fits in our personal ideology or not?

Intermediate answer: I personally have no f$cking clue and have no problem admitting that. But no matter WHETHER the ultimate answer (The Truth) is YES or NO, we can be pretty sure that, at the very least, this answer and how to arrive at it is a COMPLEX matter. In fact, EXTREMELY complex matter, requiring very extensive research over long periods using advanced instruments within diverse fields, collecting evidence from different sources and putting all this together. And NO, how we personally feel about this has 0.0 impact on the ultimate answer. Nature doesn't really care much whether we like something or not, it goes its own way.

We know a certain system that has worked itself up through history as the most reliable approach to resolve such complex questions, which go beyond personal experience and investigation, and it is called SCIENCE. The scientific PROCESS, going through the mills of the scientific COMMUNITY to achieve a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS of a certain degree. Over the recent years that consensus has increasingly sided with the idea that anthropogenic GW phenomenon is likely to be very real.

Now: IS it possible for someone today to state that anthropogenic GW is bunk, and ultimately be RIGHT about it? Yes it is! It can not be denied that this possibility still exists. But: from a purely objective point of view, such claim can ONLY be rooted in ignorance, ideology, self-interest or just plain simply good luck. Or a combination of all of those. It's worth no more than a gamble against all odds. In order to maintain it, you HAVE to go against the best available evidence, for some reason.

And WHY would you go against it?

- because you personally know better than all those dumbos who came up with that silly "scientific consensus" => HUBRIS, not to be taken seriously
- because you believe that the small number of dissidents know it better than the clear majority who came up with that silly "scientific consensus" => ILLOGICAL , as with all else being equal (and how would you know it's not???) the chances are higher that a small number of competent people is wrong than that a significantly bigger number of competent people is wrong. Scientific history has examples of the opposite, but has countless more examples of the NON-opposite!!!
- because you believe in a conspiracy of the worldwide scientific community => ILLOGICAL, as a conspiracy on the other side is far more likely since they are smaller in number and/or we all know the big money (energy corporations) is on the other side as well
- because science doesn't work, every truth is equal and your intuition is right! => postmodern nonsense that doesn't need to be addressed by sane people

So: people who still debate the reality of anthropogenic GW should first and foremost think hard and honestly about WHY they take that position, and honestly analyse that. And another advice: before you come with a scientific sounding counter-argument, it's always a good idea to read the literature or even more general reports for decisionmakers to find out whether your issue hasn't been addressed already. It makes you look really bad if you mess that up, believe me. LOL

Martin Durkin has produced a number of "documentaries" that have run on Channel 4. They are less documentaries than tabloid journalism, the mainstay of Channel 4. The film was produced with the backing of the ultraconservative think tanks supported by tens of millions of dollars from Exxon Mobile. The same people who believed the bogus science of "The Chariots of the Gods" will swear by "The Global Warming Swindle." Anybody who is allowed to pick and choose facts while ignoring others can prove anything. P.T. Barnum was right; there's a sucker born every minute.

the fact that you had to edit your source only proves you've done no research. these stories don't belong on TG daily. they're not tech stories and only prove your insane bias about green house gases. fine. global warming doesn't exists. who cares. do you honestly believe we're still not harming the other? have you ever taken a science class? whatever website you use as your source is not the same as going to a 4 year university and majoring in Earth System Science and learning the effects that CO2 has on the oceans and the ozone layer.

global warming doesn't exists? fine. why not recycle anyway? why not stop using the limited amount of oil we have left? Have you been to Los Angeles? DO you know how much smoh we have here? Is it so bad to plant more trees to allow more oxygen in the air to shifts the effects that CO2 has had in our oceans? I don't like AL Gore. I've never watch his movie. He's not a scienitist. but neither are all of you here. and from all these comments, with ridiculous sources from 30 websites that only have one agenda, it proves that you're only seeing one side. you have to at least understand what the greenhouse effect is. so please stop with these articles. it just gets the TG Daily readers all worked up over nothing.

People forget that 90% of science is theory. Hell, the theory of electricity, which surrounds us every day, is just that...a theory. Flight is a theory. nuclear energy is a theory. Global warming is a theory. These are all good theories, but currently there is not enough information to consider them factual. While some of these ideas work, we could be completely wrong as to why they work. We could just be getting lucky. Reducing pollution is a good idea, and finding alternative clean energy sources is a good idea, but we need to remember that we're just making educated guesses here.

I guess what I'm getting at is...we have to always consider the realistic possibility that we can be wrong about the causes and/or effects of global warming. Let's just keep an open mind and do what we think is the right thing for our planet.

Is natural that when the sun activity rises, earth rises his temperature. But with contamination, it can rise more than without it.

OF COURSE, temperature NEED to correlate with sun activity, which is the heat source. That does not deny that human activity may increase the heating.

and arcane mages

This is to you guys out there who still believe in Global Warming (being caused by humans).

If you're going to attack this documentary (term used loosely!) attack it based on the facts in it's current form. Don't use cheap shots trying to attack the background of the people who made it, or unfounded claims of where the funding came from.

If you're so certain you're right about this global warming hooey, attack it based on the facts alone. Come up with arguments based on proof that can be verified as these folks have done.

Yes, in the first generation of this documentary they had some errors, which have been corrected thanks to you skeptics complaining.

Now let's see you attack what's left based on facts.

Can't do it, can you?

Sure, I like to be 'green' and have as little impact on the planet as reasonably possible. But I don't see a need to give up my SLK55 due to 'global warming'. The air comes out of the tailpipe cleaner than it went it. It produces massive horsepower but still gets 20 MPG when not being thrashed.

Once Tesla or some other car maker builds a reasonably priced alternative, I'll start seriously considering it.

But in the end, this all comes down to money. The government likes to extract money from it's people in every way possible, and they'll use 'global warming' to do so.

Want proof? Well, here in California they charge us $.05 for every can we buy, and more for larger bottles. I recycle every single one of them like a good 'green' person, but do they give me the money back? No, they keep it. Sure, I could drive 5 miles with a car full of cans once a month, but with gas prices that costs me as much as I'd get back.

The same thing with these bogus carpool lanes. Let's see, how can we solve traffic problems. I know! Let's reduce the bandwidth on the freeway by 25% whenever there's too much traffic, and then give people $300 tickets for trying to use that lane if they don't carpool!

Brilliant. Didn't change a bloody thing. People don't carpool a bit more than they used to, now they're just stuck in traffic emitting far more emissions than if they were cruising along at the speeds the vehicles were designed to cruise at most efficiently.

But the government still gets their money.

'That's just the way things are! There's no way you can change it! Vote for (insert political fool here) and things will get better!'

Uh, no. They won't.

If we want change some very simple steps can be taken. First is to push an amendment through where the government discloses *ALL* taxes and you pay for them out of your pocket every month.

Instead of just 'lifting' X amount for Fed/State taxes, give this money to the people every month and make them write a check to the government. But disclose all taxes. All fed, state, medicare, SSI (both the part your company pays and your part!), add in sales tax, gas tax, CRV tax, parking taxes, DMV taxes, everything.

Once they see that they're losing more than 50% of their income to the government, people will get pissed very, VERY quickly, and they will force changes.

and ret. paladins.

That's the point Dozer42, the "science" of this "documentary" has repeatedly been debunked.
If you can't be bothered to do a thorough reference check, then as earlier mentioned take a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...ng_Swindle
Read through the properly sourced science and quotes from the scientific community about just how misleading and fabricated this tabloit propoganda film is.

Is it not, I daresay, the pot calling the kettle black? Come on now, who cares who pays for the studies. If the studies are solid, then others should be able to reproduce the results. I think what we should be looking at is who is paying for the studies that lay claim to man-made global warming. No one is saying that global warming is not man-made, let the waste begin or continue. It's just saying, we don't need to change our system of doing things in such a drastic and quick way that it will harm us economically. I think a lot of our economic turmoil is largely caused by government intervention. We don't live in a free market world. When government intervenes, free markets are longer there. And, we really haven't had a free market in over 50 years. So the only ones to blame are those perpetuating government interventions from both sides of the aisles.

BBC - Earth: Climate Wars

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/feature_earth.shtml

Read this about the OFCOM decision:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/lonely-voice-of-dissent-declared-valid/2008/07/25/1216492729369.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Someone seems to have tried to intimidate the Article's editor

With french subtitles. The 6 parts can be accessed from this page:

http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/global+warming+swindle/video/x1xn84_part01-la-grde-arnaque-du-rechauffc_politics

Yes, I've read through the user created Wiki.

There's absolute no proof in there whatsoever proving the updated version of the documentary to be wrong.

Yes, they admitted they got the time axis wrong on the one graph and the volcanic input was incorrect.

Ok, they fixed those two things. The rest of the Wiki just quotes responses from people without any data to back themselves up.

Where's the proof?

Are we supposed to just believe in Global Warming on faith like a religion? Sorry, I don't buy it.

I'll stick with the facts, thanks.

The OFCOM Decision needs to be read, not the 3rd party spinss of it -
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2008/07/nr_20080721

True science is not about consensus. It is about proposing a theory and then testing that theory in every possible way. A true scientist welcomes skeptical comments because they provide input on how to better test the theory. If a scientist tries to discredit the skeptic rather than trying to prove the theory answers his questions, he is not very convinced about his theory.

By the way, there are not just a few skeptics. There are thousands who have signed public statements indicating they do not believe that human production of CO2 is a primary cause of global warming. They mostly want the many highly respected skeptics to have a chance to present their case in the popular media sometimes in the way the proponents are allowed to do on an almost daily basis.

I am definitely in favor of promoting renewable energy sources and methods of transportation which produce less pollution. We need to do this through incentives and supporting research on alternatives so that the best technologies win out and we do not destroy our crumbling economy in the process.

I have lived the conservationist lifestyle for many years - driving high mileage vehicles (currently a Prius), buying efficient appliances, keeping the thermostat above 80 in the summer and below 65 in the winter, walking instead of driving when possible, etc. I do believe in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. We just need to do it for the right reasons.

The theory of anthropogenic global warming is finally dying. The scientific method is killing it. With no warming in 10 years, significant global cooling in the past few years, a switch to the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, growing glaciers and a quiet sun, it's becoming obvious that natural cycles drive climate and CO2, an essential trace gas, poses no threats. Al Gore will be revealed to be a liar, fraud and traitor, as will people like James Hansen who for many years has intentionally spread fear and lies and turned science into a joke.

Firstly, most of what Al Gore claims seems to have been proven to be halfway fraudulent at best. He is a bad leader and a bad choice as poster child. I am sure he is making a huge amount from all the publicity leading to his lucrative lecture tours, and his lucrative carbon trading business. As his followers like to say "Follow the money" guys.

As for CO2, there is still no certainty that we are having any important impact on the climate through our CO2 production. There have been much higher amounts in the past with no serious consequences, geologists tell us. There has also not been the fantastic heat rise the famous 'Hockey Stick' graph predicted. Temperature is rising at about 0.1C per decade, just as it has since about 1850, so we are probably not to blame, sorry.

Above all, if anyone wants to do something, then DO IT. Stop whining about it, stop expecting your nanny governments to stop evil corporations from making a profit (for you, BTW). Here is a simple two step plan. If you do not already do it, YOU are the problem, not the SUV drivers.

2 Step plan:

1. BUY RENEWABLE ENERGY. That's right, vote with your feet. Buy it instead of that evil CO2 producing energy. It costs more, sure it will hurt, but that's the point, isn't it? Does Al buy RE? I'll bet he does not. These days anyone can, so just do it. Talk to your energy provider and go 100% renewable today.

2. BUY ETHICAL INVESTMENTS. Investing in high gain investments directly instructs corporations to MAKE MORE PROFIT FOR YOU. That's right, those billions are made for the shareholders, who in the main are pension holders like you and me. YOU CAN CHOOSE WHERE TO INVEST. Pick ethical investments. Again, it will hurt, but again, that is the point. YOU are fuelling Big Oil with your investments, not some shady group of conspirators.

If all Al Goreans just did these two simple things instead of whining about the issue, the issue will no longer be an issue.

Until you do, stop whining in public, because YOU are causing the problem.

I enjoyed the video's explanition of an alternative theory to global warming. Plus they get the point across that there is really good correlation with many diffrent aspects of solar activity.

Is also reminds me of the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate. There is a small minority of scientists that say evolution has certian limits to how far it can go as a theory. Of course that goes against the grain of the entire scientific community. If you want to find out more see Ben Stein's movie "Expelled".

It was when the cybermen were created and occupied London and their discharges accelerated the global warming. Dr. Who used his sonic screwdriver to save the world. Problem solved, QED

right on

Ofcom upheld that the fifth portion of the linked video, which relates to the politics of climate change as reported, violated British law because the producers did not present all sides of those involved. Ofcom stated "[they were] required to include an appropriate wide range of the significant views ... but failed to do this."

Any wagers that if this documentary supported the BIASED opinion that only man is responsible for global warming that any challenges would have been brushed aside?

How long, after a number of years of colder than average winters will the "global warming nuts" come out and blame the cold temperatures on "global warming"? There have been instances where scientist and meteorologists have heard of calls for their certification being revoked for their refusal to support the global warming hoax.

Anyone who knows anything about this program knows that the scientists involved have taken the program makers to court & OFCOM
(over their being outrageously & selectively misquoted to back-up the programs initial premise).

Only the dimmest of the dim are now left, quite alone, claiming
1) global warming isn't happening and
2) if it is happening it has nothing to do with human activity.

Even the original petro-chemical industry and their shills who were once paid to fight the rear-guard action against global warming, have stopped pretending.

Wake up.

Even if you can't bring yourself to agree with that warming is happening (and you are now in a tiny monority if you can't) then you might at least listen to the part of the debate that would see us reduce pointless wastage, cut pollution & leave a clean world to our kids.

Wise up & get with the program.

I thought that 10 years of global cooling while C02 rises would have been enough for all you tree huggers to see the truth, that C02 does not increase temperatures. All the scientists have said that C02 does not increase temperatures. If the 800 year lag is correct, the present C02 levels are a result of the Medieval warm period when it was warmer than it is now. I had seen enough in 2005 when it was cooling despite rising Co2 levels and there was no global warming hot spot found in the atmosphere. I guess it takes others a lot longer or did you really want to pay the rest of your hard earned dollars to you government to stop this dreaded global warming? Or dreaded global cooling?
However anyone who thinks they are causing this with their use of fossil fuels is welcome to stop using them.

The basic premises of the documentary were not called into question, the campaign against it was orchestrated by the very scientists and modellers who have the vested interest in global warming, namely those at Real Climate. If you check out those who say they were "duped" you will find references that show quite clearly they have grave doubts about the whole modelling framework. It was certainly more factual than the Al Gore version, which is being forced on schoolchildren as fact. I hope "Swindle" does keep doing the rounds, its title is totally accurate.

This is a good documentary for any one interested in the subject, Chanel 4 usually do good documentary and this is one of them.

I am still leaning toward the idea climate change is natural but I am yet to be totally convinced. So many scientists clam we are to blame so I think there may be some truth in there statements.
I think i have come to except the idea that climate change is natural but we are making it worse.

Just my 2 cents :)

Someone pointed out the similarities to the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design "debate".

Definitely a very intelligent observation, although this person didn't seem to understand the deeper significance... All right, for all the wrong reasons, lol.

If antropogenic GW is a "theory in crisis" similarly to Evolution, then it has a really bright future considering Evolution has been a "theory in crisis" for more than 150 years now in certain circles, while going from strength to strength in that much despised Reality.

(Try a U. S. Google search using “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. I’m the author of “‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ is itself a Fraud and a Swindle” which usually comes up on page 1 of the results.)

(As quoted from other sources:)

So you want to challenge global warming? Wonderful! The oil companies will love you for it! (Don’t expect to get paid though)

Don’t know where to start? Well here are some pointers when arguing against global warming;

Step One: Deny that global warming exists.

Well this is the most obvious step. All you have to do is just say. “Nope, the climate is not changing at all!” And reiterate that point, over and over if necessary. When rational people point out incidents such as the shrinkage of arctic and antarctic ice, you just say that they’re “isolated incidents” and that they have nothing to do with climate change whatsoever. They’ll be eating out of the palm of your hand!

Step Two: Deny that global warming is man made.

Tough crowd? Not to worry! All you have to do is concede that yes ok the climate is changing but we don’t know that it’s man made! Nevermind that our activities directly affect the planet’s chemistry and that there are more than 6 billion of us! There’s no way that we can affect something as big as Earth! When people point out scientific studies, simply move on to step three which is…

Step Three: Attack the academic integrity of the scientific community.

This one is really easy and there’s no comeback! Just say that scientists have to make money and that naturally biases their opinions! Scientific method be damned! Peer reviewed journals? Pshaw! The sheer number of scientific journals supporting the cause? It’s just some conspiracy to make money, further the paranoia of global warming, make money for green energy, make the oil companies look bad, or just to be contrary. Take your pick. Or make up your own! Creativity is highly recommended.

Step Four: Challenge the idea of a scientific consensus and parade a dissenting opinion to prove your point.

If step three didn’t work just trot out some hack scientist such as Bjorn Lomborg to introduce the point that there is dissent in the ranks. No one will notice the hypocrisy of using both step three and step four together! They’re just stupid lefties after all! And when people point out stuff such as the history of international scientific consensus, just go back to step three!

Step Five: Suggest alternate causes for global warming.

If all else fails, simply suggest that the sun is getting warmer and that’s why we’re experiencing global warming, or that it’s because stupid lefties won’t shut their mouths, or that we’re coming out of an ice age! Creativity is recommended here too! Who cares that you’re just some random person on the internet and that scientists have discredited those ideas (if they’re even plausible)! Just use step 3 and 4 on them if they bring that up! If everything to this point hasn’t worked and you’re on your last legs, use step six in case of emergencies.

Step Six: Nitpick every fact that scientists have established and make progressives prove them over and over again.

Well this doesn’t actually help further our case, but it’s a great diversionary tactic if you want to buy time to redo any or all of the steps above. Nothing infuriates liberals like doubting that there’s a link between carbon dioxide emissions and global temperature change. Uppity liberals have you pinned on that one too? Not to worry! Pick any other random fact and ask them to prove it. It also helps if you lie and tell them that you’ll be convinced if they do prove it. When they’re done, just start at step one again!

This documentary aired here in the UK months ago, and has since been discredited (they purposefully didn't show data from the last decade that disproves their little theory). This is the second time this website has published a biased view on climate change in a week. Not everyone who visits here is an imbecile; most of us don't want to be patronised by this disturbing new political agenda of yours.

As for the disclaimer you've attached: It's a bit late pointing out how it has been rubbished when many would already have read the article, and leaving in to the end smacks of foul play. Grow up.

Globle warming? Some say it's true and some say it is bullshit and it's the sun's falt.
Let's go with "Globle warming..True". Why you ask? Because if you are wrong about it not being man's falt and you do not try to fix it.....There is no going back.!! It would be too late!
And if we go with globle warming, we get rid of polution as a side affect. My Mom always told me it was "Better to be safe then sorry".

Remember we in the United States used to have a fund that all poluting company's put money in? The money was used to clean up the polution. I think that ass hole Bush stoped it. Because it is as far as I heard, gone! Why can't we start that again?

OVERPOPULATION OF THE WORLD.
YES THERE IS GLOBLE WARMING.
THE BIG POLUTERS DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK SO.

THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK IT'S THERE FALT FOR OVERPOPULATING THE WORLD AND HELPING GREATLY TO CAUSE THIS PROBLEM.

THE BIBLE DIDN'T SAY TO OVERPOPULATE THE WORLD!
IT DIDN'T SAY TO KILL ALL THE CREATURES!
IT DIDN'T SAY TO POLUTE ALL THE WATERS OF THE WORLD!
BUT THAT IS WHAT THE HUMANS ARE DOING.
EARTH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ARE HEAVEN....BUT MANKIND IS MAKING IT INTO OUR HELL!...AND MANKIND WILL DIE FOR IT.

Just think. If you have it clear that increase in CO2 means more heat is trapped in the lower atmosphere and that the amounts of man-made CO2 are significant, then there may be a global warming and this may be good or bad. It's certainly been warmer in the past as well as colder, when human intervention was insignificant. So you choose, but ask for proof, because if you believe the politians or the scientist, as opposed to the science, you may be taken for a trip.

Follow the money...taxes from GW go to federal reserve aka bankers...Bankers lobby group CFR HAS been beating the cfr drum for a while...& so are all its pawns oh i mean members..Folks should have voted for RP ..& we would have not soo called "bailouts". Its a transfer of wealth from the poor to the richest people in the world. Watch for NAU next...we are screwed since people do not think. :-(

I'm not sure you have noticed but this is kinda a worldwide issue. Ever seen a globe? You know, those 95% outside the borders of "God's Country" (or was that Israel?)

I was wondering what you guys would fall back to discussing now that Obama is going to be your president and we start indicting the entire previous administration - starting with the EPA for failing to do its job.

As a Meteorologist whose fortunate to have worked on 6 continents, including Antarctica, I'd spoken with renowned (albeit in the Atmospheric studies community!) scientists at both McMurdo and South Pole Stations, respectively regarding this dilemma.

As mentioned by other posters, these scientists were all in agreement as to the 'man-made global warming' phenom... Funding. i.e. employment

The scientists who find holes or debunk the man-made global warming concept are not paid to do so. It's in their findings! While the 'scientists' (oddly enough, many of these colleagues are U N related employees) who say otherwise, base their careers/paychecks on these 'findings'.

If you are serious in wanting to research the matter (not to mention sounding knowledgable on the subject at gatherings.. instead of a 'Gorebot'), read 'Unstoppable Global Warming Every 5,000 Years.' It's akin to what the BBC program had spoken of. The book is broken down for those not savvy in atmospherics lingo and it too, like this documentary, is approved and signed by some of the best in their field, respectively (10,000 to be precise). I was forunate to work with 2 of these individuals in India and most recently in Mali. It's an '04 book and should be available at your library if you're not inclined to pay (saving a 'tree' while you're at it).

Again, I've read books from both camps, and like politics, emotion and fear mongering is the biggest seller for the Al Gore crowd. Happy Thanksgiving all and thanks for allowing the rant.

Excellent, though mind numbing as well, article Mr. Kincaid. Thank you.

I remember reading Citi had donated $1 million dollars to La Raza recently. Odd, giving money to a racist, hate agenda'd organization and turn around to ask the Fed for money. Or to be more precise, our money.

American Spectator's, Matthew Vadum had an excellent article today as well regarding this injustice.. http://www.spectator.org/archi...ver-sleeps

Again, thank you for such a well written piece. Have a pleasant Thanksgiving.