The Great Global Warming Swindle (documentary)

[mr_self_destruct]

I just watched this documentary, really fascinating. I'm new to the whole idea of a global warming scam but will definitely do more research. Check it out, torrent link here:
http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/17727634/global+warming+swindle?tab=summary

Anyone seen it? Can anyone recommend further reading/watching?

[hagbard_celine]

I just watched this documentary, really fascinating. I'm new to the whole idea of a global warming scam but will definitely do more research. Check it out, torrent link here:
http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/17727634/global+warming+swindle?tab=summary

Anyone seen it? Can anyone recommend further reading/watching?

Yes, it's very good indeed.:)

[cheeney1]

Its Alot More Informative than That Bollocks By Al Gore......:p

[shadowworks]

Yes, it's very good indeed.:)

Yes its good, as good as the Global Warming theory but this film maker was a promoter of smoking and claimed it never caused cancer, not a reputable person if you research his film making history.

I believe Global Warming is happening and its part of the master plan. The prediction of climate change due to human activities began with a prediction made by the Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, in 1896. Arrhenius took note of the industrial revolution then getting underway and realized that the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere was increasing. Moreover, he believed carbon dioxide concentrations would continue to increase as the world's consumption of fossil fuels, particularly coal, increased ever more rapidly. His understanding of the role of carbon dioxide in heating Earth, even at that early date, led him to predict that if atmospheric carbon dioxide doubled, Earth would become several degrees warmer. However, little attention was paid to what must have been seen to be a rather far-out prediction that had no apparent consequence for people living at that time.

Arrhenius was referring to a potential modification of what we now call the greenhouse effect. A simplified explanation of this is as follows (see the diagram). Shortwave solar radiation can pass through the clear atmosphere relatively unimpeded, but longwave infrared radiation emitted by the warm surface of the Earth is absorbed partially and then re-emitted by a number of trace gases--particularly water vapor and carbon dioxide--in the cooler atmosphere above. Because, on average, the outgoing infrared radiation balances the incoming solar radiation, both the atmosphere and the surface will be warmer than they would be without the greenhouse gases. One should distinguish between the "natural" and a possible "enhanced" greenhouse effect. The natural greenhouse effect causes the mean temperature of the Earth's surface to be about 33 degrees C warmer than it would be if natural greenhouse gases were not present. This is fortunate for the natural greenhouse effect creates a climate in which life can thrive and man can live under relatively benign conditions. Otherwise, the Earth would be a very frigid and inhospitable place. On the other hand, an enhanced greenhouse effect refers to the possible raising of the mean temperature of the Earth's surface above that occurring due to the natural greenhouse effect because of an increase in the concentrations of greenhouse gases due to human activities. Such a global warming would probably bring other, sometimes deleterious, changes in climate; for example, changes in precipitation, storm patterns, and the level of the oceans. The word "enhanced" is usually omitted, but it should not be forgotten in discussions of the greenhouse effect.

[tothestars]

but this film maker was a promoter of smoking and claimed it never caused cancer, not a reputable person if you research his film making history.


Then can you explain to me why there is less lungcancer in countries where a huge part of the population smoke
than in countries that have fewer smokers? (Greece, Russia vs USA, Japan).

Another thought that has occured to me many times:
Could it be that pure tobacco in itself is not creating conditions that give high risk of cancer but the additives in the different brands?
If that is not the case then why are the governement putting labels on additive free sigarettes packets that says it is not less dangerous to smoke additive free tobacco?
That is to me very strange when you know that many of the additives they put into different brands are highly toxicating. Lead and formaldehyd is one of the additives that is not in pure untreated tobacco but added by the manufacturer right?

Are there any statistics/research on cancer that is linked to different brands?.
I have a feeling Marlboro would come out very bad there..




Hmmm this is kinda off-topic. My apologies to threadstarter. Feel free to delete this if you find this appropiate.