Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Move to block emissions 'swindle' DVD [Global Warming]
Guardian ^

Posted on 04/25/2007 12:41:58 AM PDT by Omega Man II

Move to block emissions 'swindle' DVD

· Climate scientists say film misleads public · Wag TV producers reject 'contemptible gag attempt'

David Adam, environment correspondent

Wednesday April 25, 2007

The Guardian

Dozens of climate scientists are trying to block the DVD release of a controversial Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming is nothing to do with human greenhouse gas emissions.

Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office, and Bob May, former president of the Royal Society, are among 37 experts who have called for the DVD to be heavily edited or removed from sale. The film, the Great Global Warming Swindle, was first shown on March 8, and was criticised by scientists as distorted and misleading.

(Excerpt) Read more at environment.guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-147 next last

1 posted on 04/25/2007 12:42:02 AM PDT by Omega Man II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II

2 posted on 04/25/2007 12:45:24 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II
"Too many scientists have staked their reputations and built their careers on global warming. (Lots and lots of public tax dollars for "grants", "studies", and "commissions", too. - LH) There's a lot riding on this ridiculous theory. (= m-o-n-e-y) The DVD will be on sale shortly at a shop near you."

I am looking forward to it.

3 posted on 04/25/2007 12:51:28 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Great Global Warming Swindle

The "must see" video.

4 posted on 04/25/2007 12:56:40 AM PDT by RichRepublican (Good fences make good neighbors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RichRepublican

It’s a shame that those who feel our climate change isn’t anthropogenic feel they must resort to Michael Moore-style lies to make their case. :-( But I guess this is the state of “documentary” in the 21st Century. :-(


5 posted on 04/25/2007 1:03:02 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RichRepublican

Thanks for the link!


6 posted on 04/25/2007 1:03:38 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

It’s a great video, I learned a lot from it including the fact that this hoax is harming so many people all over the world. Even shortening lives.


7 posted on 04/25/2007 1:09:26 AM PDT by RichRepublican (Good fences make good neighbors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II
Anthropogenic global warming parasites and their dupes would tell you not to believe your lying eyes.

Don't trust main stream media. Their scare tactics have flip-flopped four times over the last eighty-some years.

 

 

The following graphs show that Earth is in a brief period of global warming called an interglacial. The longer time spans, the deep troughs are glacial periods. The line that runs across the graphs is the temperature in 1950 and listed as "0" on the left axis.

As can be seen in Figure 1-5, Earth appears ready to move toward another ice age in the cycle.

I'm more concerned with sustaining global warming to offset global cooling and the next ice age. 

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle

This first graph looks bad, doesn't it -- steeper upward temperature trend. Horizontal red line is temperature at 1950.

Figure 1-1 Global warming

The second graph shows today's temperature isn't out of the norm. Horizontal blue line is temperature at 1950.

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years

The next graph shows a downtrend in temperatures from 8,000 years ago to today. The down trend is steeper in the recent 2,000 years. From left to right the upper spikes have lower highs while the lower spikes have lower lows. (The same effect can be seen in Figure 1-2, above.) 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years

This graph shows that agriculture and  stationary societies emerged 8,000 years ago during a time frame when global temperature was much higher than normal, or average.

Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years

The next graph shows that the recent 8,000 years was one of five brief hot spikes when glaciers were at minimums. With much longer troughs when glacials (ice ages) were the norm most of the time.

Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice

The graph below is reversed. That is, the left side is present day and the right side is 3 million years ago. It shows a 3 million year down trend toward widening extremes in the temperature cycle.

Figure 1-6 Climate for the last 3 million years

The final graph shows CO2 lagging temperature change -- not leading it.

Figure 1-7 CO2 and temperature for the last 450 kyr

When man can cause meaningful global warming yesterday would be a good time to begin thwarting the next ice age.

Great documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle at Google.
  The Great Global Warming Swindle at You Tube.

If the above links don't work use the respective search function at each Website. Type: The Great Global Warming Swindle.Anthropogenic global warming parasites and their dupes would tell you not to believe your lying eyes.

8 posted on 04/25/2007 1:14:58 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Yet what isn't shown is the massive CO2 forcing that has occurred recently. It is way out of proportion to the past.


9 posted on 04/25/2007 1:43:01 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zon
And we have driven the CO2 concentration so high that it doesn't even fit on this graph of yours--it's off the scale!

And why is 1960-1990 chosen as the "baseline" in your graph when that is the period so heavily influenced by sulfur-based aerosols?

Why can't we have an unbiased examination of the data, rather than each side spinning things?!?

10 posted on 04/25/2007 1:46:19 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Only place I can find that sells it on DVD:

http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/store.asp


11 posted on 04/25/2007 1:48:52 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

"We believe that the misrepresentation of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest ... In fact, so serious and fundamental are the misrepresentations..."
But I'm guessin' they're cool with Algore's "Inconvenient Truth".
12 posted on 04/25/2007 1:50:54 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II
Ah, the tolerance of the left. So refreshing.
13 posted on 04/25/2007 1:53:52 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
I don't think the case for CO2 "forcing" has been conclusively made yet.

Setting a "baseline" doesn't seem to be much of an issue as long as a suitably long set of data are displayed to show the cycles. There is nothing that is "normal" in weather or climate.

14 posted on 04/25/2007 1:55:16 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Islam is the religion of violins, NOT peas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Zon

Please, tell me those NY Slimes and Slime Ragazine quotes are REAL. :) I want to fine ‘em, their article and pages at my local library, LOOK ‘em up and PRINT THEM for my lib friends. :)


15 posted on 04/25/2007 1:56:23 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Temperature controls CO2 not the other way around. Besides those numbers are wrong there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the 18th century.


16 posted on 04/25/2007 2:08:29 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* ?I love you guys?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
380 ppmv

Why don't you go back to about 65 million years ago? CO2 was much higher then and not one human to cause it, but I guess you don't want to talk about that right? Temperatures have been warmer in the past also, and we only have to go back about 1000 years for that. Don't let the truth hit you in the butt on the way out the door. Oh, yes, lets talk about water vapor which is a bigger cause of warming than CO2 ever could be, how about that? I know, you have another "chart" that shows BS and you think it proves something.

The fact is, climate change is not caused by man and Mars proves that. Climate change is natural and occurs constantly through out history and will keep on doing so.

In another 20 years when climate change hasn't occured to the point the screamers are predicting, the scare will swing back to global cooling because this is all about control and passing laws that will bring us under the yolk of globalization and allow higher taxes to be wrung from the citizens of the world, and allow oppressive laws that will shackle us like slaves.

More scientists, real ones not the fakes that are portrayed in this article, the ones trying to suppress free speech, but real scientists say that global warming is not man made and may not even exist at this point. The best that can be introduced is that temps have risen .5 of a degree F over the last 100 years.

If all the BS these so called scientists are saying about global warming is true, why are they afraid of a DVD showing the other side, why suppress free speech, they should welcome the debate, but like all liberals they don't and they reason they don't is becaue they are afraid of the truth, they can't stand a free debate and alternate view points, so they scream and cry and try to suppress other evidence that might be contrary to theirs. Happens all the time with liberals, either believe the way they do or be shouted down.

17 posted on 04/25/2007 2:09:39 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
And why is 1960-1990 chosen as the "baseline" in your graph when that is the period so heavily influenced by sulfur-based aerosols?

The baseline on1y sets the horizonta1 1ine on the chart (ie, where the zero is for tempreture), it has no other effect. It does not bias the chart.

18 posted on 04/25/2007 2:24:08 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Ah, the tolerance of the left. So refreshing.

Well, it should be! After all they're taking time out of their busy, busy schedules to do this for our sakes--you know, the little people, the lumpenproletarat.

19 posted on 04/25/2007 2:31:47 AM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Zon
The final graph shows CO2 lagging temperature change -- not leading it.

This link is not working.

Why would increasing temp cause increasing CO2 ?


BUMP

20 posted on 04/25/2007 2:39:30 AM PDT by capitalist229 (Get Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Setting a "baseline" doesn't seem to be much of an issue as long as a suitably long set of data are displayed to show the cycles. There is nothing that is "normal" in weather or climate.

Exactly. To focus on the base line is an obfuscation. It is trivial compared to the climate cycles. That's why AGW parasites and their dupes don't even bother to trivialize the temperature and CO2 cycle over long time periods. Instead, they turn a blind eye and attempt to raise what is trivial to be most important.

It's like when a republican staff member found a memo on the republican/democrat shared house computer system. The memo was circulated among some democrats planning to manipulate the selection of judges to the court. The main stream media trivialized the contents of the memo and instead made, how the memo was obtained, the most important aspect of the story. The problem is, the memo was on a computer system shared by both sides of the aisle -- legal and trivial. Using deception to stack the court is important news information.

21 posted on 04/25/2007 2:40:06 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

Thanks for posting the graph. I followed it to its source Web site and will look deeper into it. From what I briefly saw it looks to be a good source.


22 posted on 04/25/2007 2:57:29 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: capitalist229

This link is not working.

The four links in post 8 work for me. Try them again.

23 posted on 04/25/2007 3:01:21 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II
and made elementary mistakes such as claiming that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human activities, when in fact they produce less than 2% of that caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Can anybody confirm this ratio one way or the other?

24 posted on 04/25/2007 3:07:38 AM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

If they have such a problem with the DVD they should offer up evidence to refute the information contained in the DVD and make their own. This would make sense, but when you’re in “chicken little” mode for profit and credibility, you attempt to censor and edit the opposing view. Since the Martian ice caps are melting and they haven’t yet found a way to incorporate Martian suv’s into their little theory, obfuscation, intimidation and excision will have to do.


25 posted on 04/25/2007 3:13:41 AM PDT by WildcatClan (Just wait till the Pretendicans have to debate, Hunter in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: capitalist229
Why would increasing temp cause increasing CO2 ?

One possible factor is the reduced capacity of the water in the oceans to hold CO2 as its temperature increases. A warm soda goes flat (from losing CO2) a lot quicker than a cold one does.

26 posted on 04/25/2007 3:16:18 AM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

I hope this helps.........http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html


27 posted on 04/25/2007 3:18:48 AM PDT by WildcatClan (Just wait till the Pretendicans have to debate, Hunter in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Suppose the ice core data is not calibrated in amplitude to direct measurement. We are talking parts per million.

I understand there have been trouble calibrating it. The late 19th century and early 20th century direct measurements tend to disagree drastically varying from 280 to 550.

So we are left with no direct verification that the amplitudes of such measurements will match.

28 posted on 04/25/2007 3:19:00 AM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bob

Correct, and the case was made for that in the program. Good explanation with the soda btw.


29 posted on 04/25/2007 3:21:31 AM PDT by WildcatClan (Just wait till the Pretendicans have to debate, Hunter in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: capitalist229

Why would increasing temp cause increasing CO2 ?

Increase in atmospheric temperature doesn't increase the amount of CO2. Increased ocean temperature causes an increase in the amount of CO2 released from oceans. Ocean temperature increases slower than atmosphere temperature. Thus the reason for the time lag.

30 posted on 04/25/2007 3:33:19 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: WildcatClan

If they have such a problem with the DVD they should offer up evidence to refute the information contained in the DVD and make their own. This would make sense, but when you’re in “chicken little” mode for profit and credibility, you attempt to censor and edit the opposing view.

Exactly. They supposedly have a consensus and this shows how consensus isn't predicated on facts or laws of nature. There a trial lawyer analogy that fits here...

When the facts aren't on your side argue the law. When the law isn't on your side argue the facts. When neither is on your side, pound on the table. 

The most egregious thing is the political parasites and environmental parasites at the top of the AGW swindle is their intent to undermine science by politicizing it.

If they can convince enough people that they can nail Jell-O to the wall it opens the flood gates to evermore politicizing of science. It's almost as though they took a page right out of the Dark Ages.

31 posted on 04/25/2007 3:45:37 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II

Dozens eh?


32 posted on 04/25/2007 3:50:50 AM PDT by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WildcatClan
The Global Warming Swindle claims volcanoes emit more CO2 each year then factories and automobiles and such combined.

The volcano site in the link you provided said that man created more then 150 times what volcanoes did each year. As did another volcano site, that gave a figure of about 33 billion tons per year for the volcanoes.

However a "green" site I found was sounding an alarm about automobile emisions increasing dramatically to about 6.8 billion tons per year.

Another "green" site claimed that mankind had produced a total of 500 billion tons per the industrial revolution. Which it 25 billion a year if divide it by the last 20 years--but they were including "deforestation" in their calculations.

At this point, my guess is the "150 times" is an urban legend being passed around, and that the Great Warming Swindle was right about this.

33 posted on 04/25/2007 3:55:20 AM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: capitalist229

Prolly because all living things and dying things emit CO2 and warm climates allow life to thrive (witness summer/vs winter)

The fact that Co2 is a function of temp is damning to the entire premise of gores theory


34 posted on 04/25/2007 3:56:12 AM PDT by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: capitalist229

Prolly because all living things and dying things emit CO2 and warm climates allow life to thrive (witness summer/vs winter)

The fact that Co2 is a function of temp is damning to the entire premise of gores theory


35 posted on 04/25/2007 3:56:17 AM PDT by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: capitalist229
The oceans are the greatest dynamic CO2 sink on the planet. As they warm, the soluability of the CO2 decreases and precipitates into the atmosphere. Much like pouring a warm carbonated beverage vs a cold one--more foam, more CO2 coming out of solution from the warm beverage than the cold one.

It takes several hundred years for the water to warm up.

36 posted on 04/25/2007 4:07:02 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: WildcatClan
Since the Martian ice caps are melting and they haven’t yet found a way to incorporate Martian suv’s into their little theory, obfuscation, intimidation and excision will have to do.

But...But there's TWO SUV's up there! See, JUST SEE ALL THE DAMAGE THEY HAVE DONE!!!/sarc LOL!

37 posted on 04/25/2007 4:10:51 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

And you are right, but it’s not urban legend it is scientists posing it as fact. When you said, “you guess”, you became a scientist, because that is what they were doing on the site I linked. They call it estimation, you guess, you have as good a chance at being correct as any. The estimations aren’t always forthcoming as to how the estimation is determined. Were underwater volcanic co2 emissions accounted for, I bet not, but how do we know. See we have partially bought into AGW, because we are researching the straw man they set up in the article. We get bogged down in the minutia of volcanic vs anthropogenic when co2 emmisions from our oceans dwarf both.


38 posted on 04/25/2007 4:11:58 AM PDT by WildcatClan (Just wait till the Pretendicans have to debate, Hunter in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

WOW, I am going to walk everywhere now, use one square of toilet paper, and buy every carbon credit from the Goracle I can get my hands on! lol


39 posted on 04/25/2007 4:14:31 AM PDT by WildcatClan (Just wait till the Pretendicans have to debate, Hunter in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
The volcano emissions part of the video was really the only weak part of the presentation. They should have cut that short spot out on the edit table. Other then that, the video is incredibly solid. The volcano argument was not really important for the video anyway. Obviously however we do know that Volcanoes have emitted more CO2 then humans simply due to the fact that they have been around for a lot longer.
40 posted on 04/25/2007 4:19:28 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: WildcatClan

Not me! I’m from North Dakota, and I’m all FOR global warming!


41 posted on 04/25/2007 4:23:42 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

But I’m guessin’ they’re cool with Algore’s “Inconvenient Truth”.

@@@@@

It’s a safe bet that every school child in the known universe whose school has access to a DVD machine will be seeing Algore’s “Inconvenient Truth”.


42 posted on 04/25/2007 4:24:04 AM PDT by maica (America will be a hyperpower that's all hype and no power -- if we do not prevail in Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
It’s a shame that those who feel our climate change isn’t anthropogenic feel they must resort to Michael Moore-style lies to make their case. :-(

"feel" it "isn't anthropogenic"? We know it isn't anthropogenic. The reasons why it isn't anthropogenic are more solidly scientific than the sophistry that purports that it is.

Here, let me give it to you in a very, very short space so you won't lose the thread of the argument:
In the absence of human activity, the earth has regularly been going through cycles of heating and cooling.

The heating and cooling cycles are correlated with cycles in solar activity.

CO2 increases follow temperature increases; CO2 decreases follow temperature decreases.

Changes in solar activity drive changes in global warming and cooling; global warming/cooling drives changes in levels of atmospheric CO2.

Changes in atmospheric CO2 are the result, not the cause of, changes in global temperature.

Furthermore: solar-driven changes in global temperature change levels of human activity and population.

Increased human activity has caused an increase in atmospheric CO2.

Therefore, solar-driven changes in global temperature have also been responsible for the changes in the anthropogenic component of atmospheric CO2.

Both the "natural" changes in levels of atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic changes are effects of a cause that lies entirely outside the realm of human control.

In either case, since the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result, not the cause, of global warming, trying to decrease the level of the result can do nothing to decrease the degree of the cause. That is, since A causes B and B results in C, fiddling with degrees of C will do nothing to change A and attempting to do so is a waste of time and resources.

43 posted on 04/25/2007 4:58:44 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II

The Stalinists have goosestepped on stage, led by the Marxist propagandists at the Guardian.


44 posted on 04/25/2007 5:01:09 AM PDT by sergeantdave (Give Hillary a 50 coupon for Betty Crocker's devils food mix & tell her to go home and bake a cake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II
I hoped Mr. Durkin and Wag TV have the resources to defend the inevitable onslaught of lawsuits.
45 posted on 04/25/2007 5:01:27 AM PDT by shove_it (old Old Guardsman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; Zon
Yet what isn't shown is the massive CO2 forcing that has occurred recently. It is way out of proportion to the past.

Incorrect. Current levels of CO2 are within expected variations of CO2 levels typical of the last 5 interglacial periods. Besides, since levels of atmospheric CO2 are dependent on global warming and since this interglacial period is the longest (though not the warmest) of the past five interglacials (inclusive), it's not suprising that as the Earth has been warmed longer than average, the levels of warming-dependent CO2 would also increase.
46 posted on 04/25/2007 5:03:11 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: capitalist229
Why would increasing temp cause increasing CO2 ?

Warmer ocean waters can't hold as much CO2 so it comes out into the atmosphere. Also, biological activity causing the production of CO2 is greater when things are warm than when they're cold.
47 posted on 04/25/2007 5:05:54 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bob

Note that ocean and lake temperatures around the globe are not a single value. There is apparently a huge CO2 flux into and out of the water each year that dwarfs the anthropogenic CO2 output (though it’s likely true that the atmospheric CO@ concentration increase is mostly man made). The oceans could be moving massive amounts of CO2 around the globe in the ocean currents.


48 posted on 04/25/2007 5:07:08 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Islam is the religion of violins, NOT peas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

mark


49 posted on 04/25/2007 5:11:28 AM PDT by Jack of all Trades (Liberalism: replacing backbones with wishbones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; Zon
Why can't we have an unbiased examination of the data, rather than each side spinning things?!?

Spinning? Suppression of the fact that solar activity drives temperature change that drives change in atmospheric CO2 can hardly be called "spinning." It's outright deception.
50 posted on 04/25/2007 5:12:21 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-147 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson