This is really unbelievable. Does anyone know what the timeline in the video might be?

But I thought ice melt and global warming were all conspiracies perpetuated by the liberal media!

From NASA's site (where they also have a high-res MPEG-4):

This animation progresses at a rate of six frames per day from January 1, 2007 through the minimum extent which occurred on September 14, 2007. The false color of the sea ice, derived from the AMSR-E 6.25 km 89 GHz brightness temperature, highlights the fissures or divergence areas in the sea ice cover by warm brightness temperatures (in blue) while cold brightness temperatures, shown in brighter white, represent consolidated sea ice. The sea ice edge is defined by the 15% ice concentration contour in the three-day moving average of the AMSR-E 12.5 km sea ice concentration data while ice extent is the sum of all pixels with at least 15% ice.

Snipe, and all, it is relatively simple. The ice is melting, temps are increasing, and the sea levels will rise. It is NOT, because of our burning of fossil fuels, it is a natural, cyclical, process....albeit, catastrophic for mankind, in this modern, interdependent, and large population/concentration paradigm.

What would happen, ask yourself, if they told the world the truth?
Chaos. From idiots running scared, in their mortality, and symbol-addicted state; as well as the power-holder's, policy-maker's, and resource-monger's, little empires, crumbling at break-neck speed.

So the tons and literal millions of metric tons of waste and greenhouse gas that has been spewed into the atmosphere since the industrial age has no effect on the way in which our climate is changing?

You're saying there is no way at all that this can be a contributing a factor to the warming of the earth OTHER than the cyclical climate change of the earth?

Unfortunately, I believe that is what he's saying.

I'll never understand the opponents of global warming. These people must have the same notion that you couldn't possibly get sick by standing in front of a campfire for 8 hours, and inhaling the smoke.

While I agree that only one time lapse video does not provide a definitive conclusion, it appalls me to think that there are people in this world stupid enough to not concede to the idea that mankind is causing irreparable harm to the environment through pollution, etc. Not equipped with logic, apparently.

Reminds me of a song by the Red Hot Chili Peppers-

Holy mother Earth, crying into space,
tears on her pretty face, for she has been raped.
Killing her future blood, fill her with disease,
global abortion please, that is what she needs...
-"The Righteous and the Wicked"

no, vsbannedme, and snipe, not bereft of logic-the planet's natural belch, has always been bigger, than our own, and the thing has warmed and cooled, and warmed, and cooled, before, many times.....You'll find no "opponent", of anything but spin, with disregard for meaning, here. The global is warming, and the disinformation surrounding the cause, is a goddamn swirl.

"it appalls me to think that there are people in this world stupid enough"...blah blah blah blah, happy to appalls you today.

We'll all find out, soon enough.

By the by, if it were up to me, this would be a "green" planet, and would be surprised, if there were as many folk, who could do, "without", all the by-products of civilization, as well as m'self. And the planet? She would be in the same state as she is now, should we have never tapped the ground, for petroleum, though the air we breathe, would no-doubt, be fresher, in concentrated population areas, if there were, in fact, any concentrated areas like we have today, as the result of our "progress".

I'm glad commas don't emit greenhouse gases...

We're just speeding along a natural process. No way to avoid it, we could only ever slow it down.

There are cyclical changes in temperature in the Earth, certainly. One thing to keep in mind is that the ice core data that is arguably the most accurate and respected data showing these cyclical changes never shows changes as dramatic as those being recorded now (dramatic in terms of the number of years it takes for temperature changes to become the norm).

In other words, the most reasonable piece of evidence that the last 100 years of human achievement (deforestation, industrial ages of different countries, airplane traffic, etc.) is simply the fact that the climate change currently being recorded is unprecedented in its speed.

Its not really worthwhile debating whether climatologists, chemists, and atmospheric researchers are right on internet forums unless you broadly examine the published research... which isn't my job. Of course the scientific community can be wrong about something, but realize atleast that people have devoted their lifes-work to studying previous climate changes, the impact of different chemicals on atmospheric conditions, the chemical makeup of our atmospher, etc., and ... personally I'm often more inclined to believe an international group of scientists than an oilman-president.

I'm really sorry to have to say this, but anybody who says that global warming doesn't exist, or that carbon emissions caused by mankind have nothing to do with it, simply hasn't bothered to educate themselves.

Yes, Earth has had cyclical cycles of warming and cooling in the past, for various reasons.

But the speed with which it is now warming, and the correlation between the start-point of that warming trend and the birth of mankind's industrial revolution is very hard to write off as coincidence.

Conservatives declaim global warming because, in short, conservatives don't give a shit about the environment.

Remember people, this video is only showing the seasonal ice melt each year.

Conservatives declaim global warming because, in short, conservatives don't give a shit about the environment.

What's funny about the above statement is that it's conservatives who fight for private property rights, as provided for in the Constitution. Private ownership of property makes better stewards of the environment than the government. It's capitalism that creates more efficient "green" tech.

The Soviet Union was grossly polluted because government deemed the environment a "low priority" and there was no market competition and therefore no consumer pressure for cleanup.

Anyhoo, the earth was hotter during the Middle Ages, when there were fewer SUVs.

Be in no hurry to throw the rest of your freedoms to the dogs over a few scary graphs. Remember, the weatherpeople can't accurately predict what the weather will be like for the next 5 days...could they be only guessing about weather one century from now?

freedoms, baby...throw em!

Oh no! How am I going to cool down my drinks now?

but it all doesn't matter, since jesus is coming back soon, so make a quick buck now while you can.

right?

Rapture is coming, don't worry.

Global warming happens because the earth is being targetted by a massive, highly focussed, alien plasma beam which government scientists have just discovered buried under a pyramid on Pluto.

This is why America must now build an orbiting weapons platform loaded with Big Fucking Nukes.

On President Bush's command, the entire weapons platform will be blasted out of earth orbit, and heroically piloted by Jesus into the centre of Pluto, vaporising the alien terrorist bastards, and severely disrupting their political wing, 'Aliens for Islam'.

Live coverage on Fox, DVD out on Monday.

Gores a nutjob.

I'm all for videos to make people aware of global warming, but... what is this? I might as well make a video of a black screen with a big white circle decreasing in size. "Zomg! Look at all the white disappearing! Global warming yous guys!"

Seriously, at least give use some information about the period this video was taken. This is like drawing a graph at a physics exam with no text or numbers along the axes: nice try, but no points.

Now let's all instead of staring at white pixels disappearing try and come up with some real solutions...

For heavens sake. It starts in the winter and ends in the summer. AND IT SHOWS ICE MELTING. THIS IS PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING. Anyone that disputes this video is proof of global warming is an idiot.

"Unfortunately, I believe that is what he's saying.

I'll never understand the opponents of global warming. These people must have the same notion that you couldn't possibly get sick by standing in front of a campfire for 8 hours, and inhaling the smoke.

While I agree that only one time lapse video does not provide a definitive conclusion, it appalls me to think that there are people in this world stupid enough to not concede to the idea that mankind is causing irreparable harm to the environment through pollution, etc. Not equipped with logic, apparently."

It astounds me that people believe things without doing an ounce of research. Do you know the correlation between CO2 emissions and global average temperature? It happens to be 0.000%. Did you know the correlation between the Sun's surface temperature and global average temperature? I forget the exact number, but it's around 60-70%. So decreasing CO2 emissions does nothing -- this is a natural cycle that has happened in far more extreme fashions tens of thousands of times throughout history. We just like to think that we have more power than we really do.

By the way, this is a time lapse from mid-winter to late summer. Of COURSE it's going to be shrinking throughout. Good god man, grow some dendrites.

I'm amazed at how many people debate whether or not global warming is occurring. We are in the midst of an overall trend of increasing average temperatures. The important questions are:

Is it because of pollution or is it the natural cycle? Or perhaps a bit of both?

How bad will it get and can we survive it?

Nobody knows the answers to those questions right now.

This video is sort of like a quote taken out of context. The ice cap melts dramatically every year and, while this year was a record, I bet most of us wouldn't be able to see the difference between this video and the same from a recent prior year.

You should not need global warming to make you clean things up. A few months ago one of my coworkers asked me what he could do with his old PC (I'm in IT). I believe it was an early Pentium. I told him it really didn't have any value and at the time I didn't know of anywhere it could be donated. I told him to just take it to the dump and have it disposed of. He said "Nah, I'll just throw it in the garbage."

I told him that computer parts are considered HAZMAT because of toxic components and couldn't be thrown in the garbage.

He replied that he'd just throw it out part-by-part so they wouldn't find it. Then he added, "I'm not one of those treehuggers."

I asked, "How about your grandchildren? Do you hug them? Do you care if they have a clean water supply?"

He shrugged and walked off. I don't think I even made a dent.

1) where is the clouds for pete sake, i cant belive that over years they got clear skys.

2) the world does warm up and cool down. come on how you think we got ice ages??? did all the cave men put their air-cons on at the same time.

3) man kind will survive this.

"It astounds me that people believe things without doing an ounce of research. Do you know the correlation between CO2 emissions and global average temperature? It happens to be 0.000%."

Im curious, Nibiyabi, what level of education you have ? You dont sound like you have much.

"Im [sic] curious, Nibiyabi, what level of education you have ? You dont [sic] sound like you have much."

A compelling argument, to be sure. Well played, sir. By the by, out of curiosity, what "education" taught you that CO2 causes global warming? It certainly wouldn't be taught by any scientifically-minded university professor, so I'm assuming it was a most compelling documentary created by our most recent Nobel Peace Prize winner. I'll take a college education instead, thanks. I hope your education at St. Mary's Vocational Cement Mixing School of Eastern Pawtucket will allow you to follow your dreams. Anyway, to get it through your thick skull, here's a graph that compares global average temperature (red line) to CO2 emissions (blue line):

http://biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg

Watch as CO2 emissions dramatically soar (hooray, progress!) while global average temperature is left completely unaffected. By the way, the spike in temperature around 1998 (still not as high as the highest point during the Medieval Warming Period) was caused largely by the mass shutdown of thousands upon thousands of old Soviet weather stations when the new government decided (probably correctly) that, given Russia's dire social and economic circumstances, were better left unfunded. Close thousands upon thousands of weather stations in ice-cold Russia and you will get a rise in global average temperature.

Now here's a graph that compares the Sun's surface temperature (white line) to global average temperature (red line):

http://jjprzy.envy.nu/images/SunspotsAndTemp2.jpg

Hmm, bit of a correlation there?

I have a sneaking suspicion that DrPawn won't be making another appearance.

nibiyabi, the IPCC seems to disagree (PDF) with you on the importance of CO₂. Personally, I've got no expertise in the field (but I did really well in 8th grade earth science , but I think you'd agree it's logical for me to take their word over yours since I don't know your qualifications. Additionally, the only citation on that second graph is "Cap'n Bob". I'm not familiar with Cap'n Bob's qualifications either.

You and Bob might be correct, but it seems more likely that an international panel of environmental scientists is.

There are only eighty climatologists in the USA, and seventy-nine of them agree that the current warming trend is part of a completely natural cycle, i.e., it is out of our hands. What you linked to is a "scientific" report compiled by a bunch of politicians, not scientists. What I posted is backed by the climatologist community. I have the proof in a book I've read (endorsed by climatologists), but I've recently moved twice and it would be a real bitch to actually dig it up from the piles of crap. If you're interested, pick up the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. In it, the very graphs I linked to are shown in their original form, where they originated from: scientific sources (rather than the political source you linked to). The recent warming trend is being used as a rather convenient political tool by left-leaning politicians to conjure up fear and force us to comply with wallet-restraining policies we never would under normal circumstances.

How did they determine the temperature of the sun's surface in 1600? Is it based on counting sun spots? and for that matter, what data set did they use to determine global average temperatures in 1600?

In the biocab link, what is the data set they're using for the y-axis? And does the y-axis (change in T in Celsius) mean the deviation from average, change across a bin of time, or what? Why would they graph this instead of temperature in Celsius? ... also, why does it appear to go out to 2025?

And finally, do these two graphs agree in their temperature data? Its hard for me to say.

There was a great issue of Science last year about ice and climate; http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/ice/

The opening editorial 'Ice and History' is short and sweet, and includes a pictures of ice coring to measure previous centuries' air contents.

Awesome posts, nibiyabi. It is apparent that you speak from fact and education. I also love the way you used "[sic]" against someone that called you uneducated. Well played, sir(ma'am?), my hat off to you.

"It astounds me that people believe things without doing an ounce of research. Do you know the correlation between CO2 emissions and global average temperature? It happens to be 0.000%"

What "research" is it that led you to believe this? Your extremely simplistic conclusions drawn from your graphs betray the fact that you have no idea how the planet's temperature regulation works. You really need not be a climatologist to see where you go wrong; you just need to understand the very basic physical properties of carbon dioxide.

Here is a simple abstract of how the wonders of the carbon cycle work to keep our planet habitable...

CO2 gets dissolved in the oceans, forming carbonic acid (H2CO3), which reacts with wollastonite (CaSiO3) contained in the sediments, forming carbonates and oxides (CaCO3 and SiO2). This binding of CO2 is what keeps nitrogen the primary gas in our atmosphere and stops a runaway greenhouse effect from happening on Earth:

2CO2 + H2O + CaSiO3 -> Ca + 2HCO3 + SiO2
CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 -> Ca + 2HCO3
2HCO3 + Ca -> CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O
CO2 + CaSiO3 -> CaCO3 + SiO2

Without this we would prompty end up like Venus.

(of course, what makes it a cycle is that vulcanic activity returns the CO2 into the atmosphere)

Now, if the correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere and Earth's temperature "happened to be 0.000%" I regret to inforn you that there would be no life on Earth, because the place would be frozen over. The very ability of CO2 to heat up the atmosphere is what saved us from the major ice ages in the planet's history (you can present me with an alternative theory if you like). When the ground and the oceans freeze over, the albedo (ie the reflective power) of the planet increases, and up to 90% of sun's radiation gets reflected right back so it doesn't heat the Earth. The -only- way to get out of a situation like that is via the CO2 pumped out by volcanic activity. No CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans in this situation, them having a layer of ice of half a mile or so, but vulcanic activity does not stop, which unbalances the CO2 cycle. The atmosphere starts warming up slowly, the first band of thawed ground appears on the equator, this adds vater vapor into the atmosphere which speeds up the heating, and also lowers the albedo, which increases it even more. This goes on until the CO2 cycle kicks in again and the atmosphere stabilizes.

The greenhouse effect is crucial to our existence, but it's a fine balance, and while no one really knows what happens when you disturb the balance like we have, I'm afraid at this point we're just going to have to find out. I doubt our kids will thank us for it.

I invite you to show me a graph disproving that, nibiyabi.

I visit Sift here all the time, and I always see really stupid comments and people. I just registered to say, and sorry if this offends, If you actually think this is a real satellite video and not a computer generated video you are a moron. Since pretty much all of you posting actually believe this is a real NASA satellite video, you all have no clue what you are talking about.

And yes, I was just trolling. Bored tonight.

Ohplease, he never said that CO2 has nothing to do with out global climate. He said CO2 from emissions haven't affected it.
And enahs, you're right, that was trolling, and personal attacks like that, even if generalized, are unacceptable here.

nib, lucky for me they've got a fair amount of that PIG book available for free on Google books so I just took a quick look at it before I head to bed.

One of the things that stood out was a group of pie charts which shows carbon dioxide among a few other greenhouse gases. It's not a greenhouse gas if it has zero effect on global temperature.

The book was apparently written by a lawyer, Christopher Horner, who is a recognized expert on "global warming legislation and regulation". That's something, but he's no climatologist. Chapter 1 is dedicated to calling environmentalists "anti-American communists". The first paragraph was really all I needed to read to understand that this book has no value to me.

It's endorsed by Richard Lindzen, who is a climatologist and has worked in related fields as well. His position seems to be similar to what I said in my initial post; that the temperature is rising but we're not entirely sure why yet. He's been criticized for taking payment of $2500/day from oil/coal companies for consulting services. He's been funded and/or supported by Western Fuels and OPEC.

The book is also endorsed by a few senators, and nobody believes anything they say so I think we can just ignore that.

The following organizations have taken the stance that global warming is at least partially due to human activity:

The aforementioned IPCC
The National Science Academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US
The US National Research Council
The American Meteorological Society
The American Geophysical Union
The American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
The Federal Climate Change Science Program
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
The Geological Society of London
The Geological Society of America
The American Chemical Society
The Institution of Engineers Australia
The American Association of State Climatologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

The American Association of State Climatologists, by the way, is made up of state climatologists, assistant climatologists under the state climatologist and retired climatologists. They state a membership count of "approximately 150". That's 70 more than you claim exist in the country.

^ha

uh oh, alien ships like the one from The Thing will ALL be melted free soon!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/trailers-screenplay-E11602-310

can we at least all agree that the amount of CO2 released into our air and waters are a bad thing ? I would think any reduction in pollution would be good for us.

this can't possibly be actual, unenhanced satellite footage. I accept this as a simulation, I "believe" global warming I am a "tree-hugger" but I don't being lied to esp when it's unnecessary.

""It astounds me that people believe things without doing an ounce of research. Do you know the correlation between CO2 emissions and global average temperature? It happens to be 0.000%"

What "research" is it that led you to believe this? Your extremely simplistic conclusions drawn from your graphs betray the fact that you have no idea how the planet's temperature regulation works. You really need not be a climatologist to see where you go wrong; you just need to understand the very basic physical properties of carbon dioxide.

Here is a simple abstract of how the wonders of the carbon cycle work to keep our planet habitable...

CO2 gets dissolved in the oceans, forming carbonic acid (H2CO3), which reacts with wollastonite (CaSiO3) contained in the sediments, forming carbonates and oxides (CaCO3 and SiO2). This binding of CO2 is what keeps nitrogen the primary gas in our atmosphere and stops a runaway greenhouse effect from happening on Earth:

2CO2 + H2O + CaSiO3 -> Ca + 2HCO3 + SiO2
CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 -> Ca + 2HCO3
2HCO3 + Ca -> CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O
CO2 + CaSiO3 -> CaCO3 + SiO2

Without this we would prompty end up like Venus.

(of course, what makes it a cycle is that vulcanic activity returns the CO2 into the atmosphere)

Now, if the correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere and Earth's temperature "happened to be 0.000%" I regret to inforn you that there would be no life on Earth, because the place would be frozen over. The very ability of CO2 to heat up the atmosphere is what saved us from the major ice ages in the planet's history (you can present me with an alternative theory if you like). When the ground and the oceans freeze over, the albedo (ie the reflective power) of the planet increases, and up to 90% of sun's radiation gets reflected right back so it doesn't heat the Earth. The -only- way to get out of a situation like that is via the CO2 pumped out by volcanic activity. No CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans in this situation, them having a layer of ice of half a mile or so, but vulcanic activity does not stop, which unbalances the CO2 cycle. The atmosphere starts warming up slowly, the first band of thawed ground appears on the equator, this adds vater vapor into the atmosphere which speeds up the heating, and also lowers the albedo, which increases it even more. This goes on until the CO2 cycle kicks in again and the atmosphere stabilizes.

The greenhouse effect is crucial to our existence, but it's a fine balance, and while no one really knows what happens when you disturb the balance like we have, I'm afraid at this point we're just going to have to find out. I doubt our kids will thank us for it.

I invite you to show me a graph disproving that, nibiyabi."

I am talking about emissions created by people, which accounts for roughly, what, 2-5% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere? Negligible. And as we (hopefully) make the slow transition to nuclear power, this will go down anyway.

@ previous comments about how this video was produced:

Its not pictures taken with a digital camera launched through the air with a catapult. Its fucking NASA.

Look at the third comment from the top, by T-Man. Admittedly the details seem a bit complicated if glossed over, but basically this is composited data from a satellite that every earth-day recorded very small wavelength ('microwaves' at 89gigaHertz) electromagnetic energy that is bounced up into space as the satellite scans whats below it on its orbit. Specifically they're showing data about water temp. and ice presence from the north pole. This microwave energy is hardly effected by atmosphere and clouds, thus producing a data set without clouds, and producing a clear set for each day. The data is then used to make the illustration of the data above. I certainly think the illustration is more powerful than them just telling me the gist of the situation.

Here's a picture of the project team; http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/AMSR/

Just a regular bunch of old nerds!

Info about the satellite from my previous post's link; http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/AMSR/

"In support of the Earth Science Enterprise's goals, NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) Aqua Satellite was launched from Vandenberg AFB, California on May 4, 2002 at 02:54:58 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time. The primary goal of Aqua, as the name implies, is to gather information about water in the Earth's system. Equipped with six state-of-the-art instruments, Aqua will collect data on global precipitation, evaporation, and the cycling of water. This information will help scientists all over the world to better understand the Earth's water cycle and determine if the water cycle is accelerating as a result of climate change.

The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer - EOS (AMSR-E) is a one of the six sensors aboard Aqua. AMSR-E is passive microwave radiometer, modified from the Advanced Earth Observing Satellite-II (ADEOS-II) AMSR, designed and provided by JAXA (contractor: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation). It observes atmospheric, land, oceanic, and cryospheric parameters, including precipitation, sea surface temperatures, ice concentrations, snow water equivalent, surface wetness, wind speed, atmospheric cloud water, and water vapor."

also... everyone loves wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_radiometer

Hey Bamdrew, that's awesome. However, my POINT was that the title of the video is "...satellite VIDEO of "

"Video" is defined as thus: Video (Latin for "I see", first person singular present, indicative of videre, "to see") is the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion. Video technology was first developed for television systems, but has been further developed in many formats to allow for consumer video recording. Video can also be viewed through the Internet as video clips or streaming media clips on computer monitors.

Now, I'm sure saying "video" by NASA geeks is perfectly cool for THEM, but using the term "video" when what you are really talkin about is computer simulation based on accurate data gathered is not the same thing. Video motion capture is not the same thing as a video of a person moving because in order to use the motion capture data, they create or simulate a human (or whatever) to illustrate the motion capture. Actual video of something is not the same as a sim of it's data. I don't MIND that it's sim and I am perfectly fine with it, it still has the same impact, but the veracity is a problem if you mislead by calling it somethig it clearly is not. It is NOT actual video footage taken from space- it's a sim of DATA collected. More accurate yes, but not accurate title of the video here.

Capiche?

it is especially hurtful in respect to the whole global warming argument: show doubters footage like this while telling them it's "satellite video" will immediately lose points because it's clearly NOT a video. By being misleading you hurt the base supposition. Fence-sitters and the unconvinced will feel insulted and even MORE unconvinced. I too am astounded that people still want to deny global warming's dangers and it's things like this that make it harder to get people to open their eyes.

This footage is very much a video composed of satellite images.

A still image is data. It is photons of a certain wavelength being recorded at a certain time from a certain location/direction. What they recorded with their satellite were images shot by a camera that records a specific spectrum of light, just not the spectrum we see. Each day of these pictures was pasted onto a model of a globe (with land masses, etc), and each of those globe-days were then played in sequence to show, in a meaningful way, what that camera had taken pictures of.

Its not simulated in the sense that there is added data based on calculations, the image is simulated in the sense that data from the images is pasted onto a model of a globe to illustrate the changes with respect to landmasses and everything (the satellite wasn't suspended out there and snapping only the video's angle). Its all 'data' exactly like the data recorded with a consumer digital camera (which is usually filtered and responsive to the electromagnetic spectrum between 380 and 800nm, whereas their camera captured microwaves with wavelengths somewhere around 1mm to 1cm). Nothing sinister going on here!

This video is long but fantastic ! ! ! It's all politically motivated, an anti-capitalist movement. There is censorship and intimidation, "which is not the scientific way." This video gives the scientific and common sense reasons why global warming does not add up. It proves that global warming is caused by solar activity! Sunspots. Explosive data they don't want you to know. The sun is driving climatic change! "CO2 is irrelevant!" Those scientists who go along with this lie will receive government funding, therefore they go along with the big lie!!

http://freedomvideo.org/blog/?p=856


THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE


The film, made by British television producer Martin Durkin, showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are skeptical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

[link to freedomvideo.org]

The consensus is that some amount of global warming is human-caused, so for now at least, it's safer for us to try and do something about it than it is to do nothing. I mostly disagree with the methods being employed atm, but whatever, they're not going to collapse our economy. Anyway, having said that I currently side with the warmingists, here are some articles counter to that opinion, since finding articles "for" is too easy; you just throw a dart at a newspaper stand and voila. Anyway, since a good number of IPCC members have since backed off of their conclusions, we still ought to consider that we might be bums-up wrong. Doing something too self-destructive to "fix" it might be unwise.
I will say though, Al Gore grossly misrepresented the IPCC report and the data in general. His bits about polar bears and Katrina were blatantly unsupported by reality, and the graphs he used were deceptive. I wish he wouldn't have spun it so badly, the truth would have been enough for us.

Read this one at least. It is informative and shows some serious mistakes that have been made in prediction:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml


http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming_or_cooling/2008/02/19/73798.html?s=al&promo_code=457E-1

Was that in real time?

*eco *science

Adding video to channels (Eco, Science) - requested by fissionchips.