Accepted theories about man causing global warming are “lies” claims a controversial new TV documentary.‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ – backed by eminent scientists – is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.
The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 (Great Britain) on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the “propaganda” that they claim is killing the world’s poor.
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.
Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.
Controversial director Martin Durkin said: “You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don’t believe you – it’s taken ten years to get this commissioned.“
One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“Al Gore might have won an Oscar for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, but the film is very misleading and he has got the relationship between CO2 and climate change the wrong way round,” says Durkin.
In ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.
Prof Clark believes increased levels of CO2 are because the Earth is heating up and not the cause. He says most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, which dissolve the gas.
When the temperature increases, more gas is released into the atmosphere and when global temperatures cool, more CO2 is taken in. Because of the immense size of the oceans, he said they take time to catch up with climate trends, and this ‘memory effect’ is responsible for the lag.
Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades.
The CO2 theory is further undermined by claims that billions of pounds is being provided by governments to fund greenhouse effect research, so thousands of scientists know their job depends on the theory continuing to be seen as fact.
In Britain the government’s chief scientific advisor Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change.
The few millions of dollars of research money from multinationals can’t compare to government funding, so you find the American scientific establishment is all for man-made global warming.
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London , who also features in the film warned the issue was too complex to be down to one single factor, whether CO2 or clouds.
Stott said: “The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start because you can’t say that just one factor can have this effect.
“The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be, or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.
“It’s ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2C or 3C.”
“At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous.”In the programme Nigel Calder says: “The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don’t agree, you are a heretic.
Source: Life Style Extra
Powered by A Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Copyright © 2012 Liberally Conservative™ and Liberally Conservative.com™ are Registered Trademarks - All Rights Reserved
March 9th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I am not a scientist but I find it strange that Patrick Moore said in an article in support of nuclear fuel on April 16, 2006 in the Washington Post stated:
“Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.”
and continues……..
“Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.”
For full article see http://tinyurl.com/ghmen
Maybe the fact that Moore was co-chair of an “industry-funded initiaitive” at the time of the article may have been a factor. I wonder who he is “funded” by now?