I don't understand... every time I click in the link, I get it straight away... I'm confused...:smt017
OK, here you have The Great Global Swindel in 9 youtube parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rGpDMN8lw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFL6Ixe_bo&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNQy2rT_dvU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzIMXGI6k8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GjOgQN1Jco&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHI2GfbfrYw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N9benJh3Lw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_1ifP-ri58&feature=related And here a page on it: http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
@Paella I have watched the documentary and most of it is bunk. If you want to see what the response from the majority of the scientific community is read the Wikipedia page. Furthermore this Youtuber has a great series on climate change which you (and everyone else) should watch.
Most of the rebuttals I put here can be seen in potholer54's videos. The graph Martin Durkin used to make that assumption in the film was a gross misrepresentation of the temperature readings. Here's the actual graph: Water vapour absorbs a smaller range of the IR spectrum released by Earth compared to carbon dioxide. Furthermore water vapour has a short lifespan in the sky. Well first of all: So point on volcanoes is moot. On the minuscule amount, concentration does not equal potency. Would you care to have a tiny amount of snake venom into your blood? Only 1 ml will do. While decomposition releases carbon dioxide, it is part of the carbon cycle which later get reabsorbed with each new growth (although we are disrupting that cycle with deforestation). The carbon dioxide we are producing has been stored away for years and as such is not part of the carbon cycle. On the oceans, well I'll just quote Carl Wunsch: Except he forgot to mention that he cut that graph after 1980 when solar activity and temperature diverged. Past activity is not necessarily an indication of current activity. Yes there were warm periods back then due to natural cycles but there were also giant reptilian like animals in the past. That does not mean we expect them now.
I think that it is all a natural cycle too. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, there was fear about a new ice age. In the 1950s, there were global warming fears. In the 1940s, the fear was colder weather. The 1930s featured the Dust Bowl. Summer temperatures were extremely hot all across the US during that decade, and the fear of that time was global warming. It is likely that within a decade, scientists will start fearing the return of the ice age again.
It's hotter now than it's ever been because of the world population. 6 billion people is enough to warm the hell out of neptune.
lol - you must like Astrophysics. All these scientists are tossing data back and forth - like lawyers tossing papers in a courtroom. One thing that can't be argued with is Biology. That is - when the Polar Bears become extinct, there will be very little room to say, "oh, it's just part of a cycle..."
The real tragedy is that the Army Engineers could have designed a better system. Since there was a majority African-American population - they just didn't care.