The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Atilla]

If anybody is interested...

Superstorm Sunday 15 April
9:00pm - 10:00pm
BBC1
Set in the near future where global warming has led to ferocious hurricanes, a factually-based drama series which follows a team of scientists as they embark on a project to investigate ways of diverting and weakening storms. They are given clearance to fly into a small hurricane and seed it with silver iodide - a technique first developed in the USA in the 1960s in a government-funded project called Stormfury. However, just after the seeding takes place the plane crashes, killing all on board.
VIDEO Plus+: 7370
Subtitled, Widescreen, High definition, Audio-described

 

[fibonelli]

Technically JTrader, it's Earth that is heating up!

I know the tax man's arm is one of the longest arms of the law but I doubt it will reach Mr Sunshine :cheesy:

29c in 1949 is the record temp for april

 

[Atilla]

29c in 1949 is the record temp for april

Wow - that's warm for early spring. What was the average for the month in April 1949? Just wondering if it was a freak day or the whole month was warm...

That program on BBC1 Super Storm is more of a series than a documentary. 😱

However, on BBC2 the factual documentary followed about experiments in controlling or rather reducing hurricanes strengths. This was the one to watch really. 😱

It's on again next week. Too much dramatisation but follow up on BBC2 is worth watching.

 

[JTrader]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/270407sickandtired.htm

 

[Atilla]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/270407sickandtired.htm

This is got to be one of the funniest articles I read.

Definition of Hypocriticalism = Hollywood superstars.

Following on from fibonelli's comment

29c in 1949 is the record temp for april

How does that rest with this April average temperatures...

Apparetnly somethint line 3.5 Centrigrade above average... 😕

 

[blackcab]

I have thought for a long time that global warming has nothing to do with C02 levels. Good to see some real experts explaining how stupid the current environmental propaganda is.

This PDF is a response by scientists to that programme specifically.
Good to see some real experts explaining how... etc.

 

[JTrader]

This PDF is a response by scientists to that programme specifically.
Good to see some real experts explaining how... etc.

If paying a global stealth tax to the New World Order Central Bankers makes you feel better, go right ahead!:cheesy:

 

[JTrader]

......No but the man-made GW propaganda & brainwashing is reaching fever pitch on the (mind control) box.
Every day they're talking about your "carbon footprint" - even on gameshows!!😱 😆

What are trees made of?
What are we made of?

CARBON!

 

[dcraig1]

This PDF is a response by scientists to that programme specifically.
Good to see some real experts explaining how... etc.

Thank you. Clear and concise.

For anybody interested in informed articles on climate this is a very good site:

http://www.realclimate.org

Unlike a lot of the whacko blogs whose sole purpose is to peddle some half cocked theories of global conspiracies, this one concentrates on the science.

 

[JTrader]

California Hotels Replace Bible With Gore's Global Warming Book

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/020507Bible.htm

Earth's Climate Is Seesawing, According To Climate Researchers

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/010507climate.htm

 

[Atilla]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/020507Bible.htm


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/010507climate.htm

Those Spaniards are blessed with sunshine they are...:cheesy:

 

[JTrader]

Warning over rise in UK's most dangerous spider due to warmer winters
02.05.07

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showthread.php?t=24043&page=22

 

[JTrader]

http://falseflagnews.com/economicnews/bp_struggles_to_balance_eco-image_with_thumping_7.3bn_profit

 

[JTrader]

A Canadian documentary -
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/130507Doomsday.htm

 

[dcraig1]

New Scientist has published a concise summary of the issues

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

I'll take New Scientist's summary any day over so called TV "documentaries", the producers of which have their own agenda - publicity and notoriety for the producer not being the least.

 

[JTrader]

New Scientist has published a concise summary of the issues

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

I'll take New Scientist's summary any day over so called TV "documentaries", the producers of which have their own agenda - publicity and notoriety for the producer not being the least.

Every body who is commenting on such issues, have their own agenda. Whether they are government funded/sponsored, govt. bought & paid for, truly independent, owned by the CIA, mafia, royal family, President etc etc. Therefore its difficult to know what can be trusted. Its definately an infowar!

 

[dcraig1]

Every body who is commenting on such issues, have their own agenda. Whether they are government funded/sponsored, govt. bought & paid for, truly independent, owned by the CIA, mafia, royal family, President etc etc. Therefore its difficult to know what can be trusted. Its definately an infowar!

Not really - the scientists are trying to do science and the right wing bloggers and polemics masquerading as "documentaries" are trying to do propaganda.

 

[JTrader]

Not really - the scientists are trying to do science and the right wing bloggers and polemics masquerading as "documentaries" are trying to do propaganda.

Fair enough, you may be right.
I would suggest that that is a naive view. Propaganda is done by both sides.
How do you define right wing-left wing?
Be open minded, critically evaluate everything you hear, by asking who's actually saying this, whose interests does it serve?
Can i verify these claims for myself? If not, can I trust them?
Which side has the most to gain?
Which side wants to gain the least?
Is there a conflict of interests?
why is there no public debate between both sides on the issue/s? How come one side would relish a public debate, and the other side with the monopoly of power refuses to engage in such a debate?

 

[blackcab]

New Scientist has published a concise summary of the issues

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

I'll take New Scientist's summary any day over so called TV "documentaries", the producers of which have their own agenda - publicity and notoriety for the producer not being the least.

Me too. That's a good link.

The Vatican's having a go too - http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-environment-vps-inconvenient-truth.html - "Every Catholic can do something about climate change by adopting a life of voluntary simplicity, the Vatican's U.N. nuncio believes. It comes down to "working less, wanting less, spending less," thus reducing the impact each person has on the environment, Archbishop Celestino Migliore told participants gathered in Columbus for the second in a series of regional Catholic conversations on climate change April 14."

 

[blackcab]

why is there no public debate between both sides on the issue/s? How come one side would relish a public debate, and the other side with the monopoly of power refuses to engage in such a debate?

Who do you see as representing the opposite "side" to the sceptics? Presidents/PMs, backbenchers, policy makers, full-on environmentalists, the church, meteorologists, scientists generically, independent film makers, VPs of corporate/social responsibility in big corporations? There are enough to choose from - it seems most societies & institutions with a view accept the validity of AGW based on the large amounts of evidence discovered by large numbers of disparate bodies, funded in all sorts of ways.

Who would you put on the sceptics side of the debate? Vested oil interests, car manufacturers, independent film makers or who? There are precious few scientists to call on.