The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie

> The article uses the word "electricity" not "energy". Wrong. Flatly wrong. Exactly wrong. Literally wrong. The article does very much use the word energy . E.g., one of the statements in the article is, and I saw and responded to, was: > The country has recently made headlines by operating 100% on renewable energy for 285 days. So it's the "country", presumably the whole "country", including electricity, cars, trucks, home heating, airplanes, etc. And that statement said "energy" and not just "electricity". Sure, in the article, the pictures I saw were for solar panels and wind turbines. I saw mention of their hydroelectric facility but no picture. So, clearly enough, the article is propaganda for electric energy via wind and solar and, then, wants to jump to say "energy" for the whole "country". It's propaganda for the global warming and climate change alarmists, e.g., solar panel and wind turbine salesmen. I responded very calmly to the misleading propaganda. All I did was just read the article. Apparently there are lot of really sensitive Greenies here all desperately pulling, pushing, pleading for renewable energy and very much against evil fossil fuels because they will overheat the planet, melt all the ice caps, cause the sea levels to rise to flood NYC, cause massive, destructive climate change that will make forests into deserts, all due to evil, greedy, ignorant people stealing from everyone else from ignoring the costs of the commons . Sorry 'bout that. So, in cas

> The article uses the word "electricity" not "energy". Wrong. E.g., one of the statements in the article is, and I saw and responded to, was: > The country has recently made headlines by operating 100% on renewable energy for 285 days. So it's the "country", presumably the whole "country", including electricity, cars, trucks, home heating, airplanes, etc. And that statement said "energy" and not just "electricity". Sure, in the article, the pictures I saw were for solar panels and wind turbines. I saw mention of their hydroelectric facility but no picture. So, tough not to guess: The article is propaganda for electric energy via wind and solar and, then, wants to jump to say "energy" for the whole "country". I responded very calmly to the misleading propaganda. It it crystal clear that this article is solidly in the center of the community of global warming and climate change alarmists. Okay, let's look at that subject. Surprisingly, we now have some quite good ways to do that. We look in two parts, (1) the predictions of warming and (2) the real science. (1) THE PREDICTIONS So, the claims of human caused global warming claimed to be science and made some predictions. Good: The predictions were for a lot of global warming. At [LINK] is a comparison of actual temperatures and temperatures predicted from the global warming community. Immediately from the graph, the predictions are way too high. Then, net, according to science, we regard the candidate science as failed, as junk

What to do with the resulting electric energy? (1) Smelt iron or aluminum? (2) Split H2O into O2 and H2 and use the H2 for fuel. (3) Convert water and coal to gasoline. (4) Desalinate and/or purify water and use the water for humans food and drink, bathing, washing, swimming, lawns, greenhouse agriculture, or just to make the desert bloom ? (5) Heat salt to store the energy, and then run water through tubes in the hot salt to generate high pressure steam to drive steam turbines and, then, electric generators and, then, transmit the power across the Mediterranean to Europe and sell it? Uses (1)-(4) have the advantages that get just to use the power while the sun is shining and don't have to store the power for nighttime use or transmit the electric power long distances. Would have to transmit the hydrogen or gasoline for those options. In the words of the skeptical mayor's wife in the movie The Music Man , "I'm reticent. Yes, I'm reticent." Why? The idea is not nearly new. So, I do have to suspect that a good engineering-economic analysis would show that we would need progress in: (1) Keeping desert sand off the solar panels. (2) In case want to use the electric energy to make hydrocarbons, a good source of coal near the desert. (3) Energy storage. (4) Superconductivity for the transmission lines across the Mediterranean. Might be able to pay for it if the world can agree on some huge carbon taxes . Nukes might be be cheaper. Might keep in mind that the spot, wholesale cost of

If his concern is CO2, then he might want to watch a good movie, the BBC The Great Global Warming Swindle [VIDEO]

>c: burning a ton ton ton of fossil fuels. Then, fine, that's the solution that should please you. Go ahead. No worries. E.g., you and Bill Gates might be very happy to watch the BBC The Great Global Warming Swindle [VIDEO] Thumbnail version: Human sources of CO2 have nothing to do with climate. Instead for at least hundreds of thousands of years to the present and the foreseeable future, essentially the main cause of climate change is just the level of solar activity. As that varies so does the rate of sun spots, the strength of the solar wind, the rate at which the solar wind blocks cosmic rays, cosmic rays hit water molecules in the atmosphere, water droplets are formed, clouds are formed. More clouds have a cooling effect. So, a more active sun blocks more cosmic rays, causes fewer clouds, and warms the earth. A less active sun, ..., more clouds, and a cooler earth. CO2 levels don't fit the temperature data at all well, e.g., in the Vostok data Gore's movie used, the CO2 levels went up about 800 years after the temperature went up. E.g., the cooling from The Little Ice Age was not from less CO2 but from a very inactive sun. The increase in temperature coming out of The Little Ice Age was from a more active sun. The global cooling from about 1950 to 1980 was from an inactive sun while CO2 levels increased. Net, CO2 is irrelevant. The cause is the activity level of the sun. Burn all the fossil fuels you want. Solar? Maybe can find a use for it: E.g., maybe in desert areas,

>c: burning a ton ton ton of fossil fuels. Then, fine, that's the solution that should please you. Go ahead. No worries. E.g., you and Bill Gates might be very happy to watch the BBC The Great Global Warming Swindle [VIDEO] Thumbnail version: Human sources of CO2 have nothing to do with climate. Instead for at least hundreds of thousands of years to the present and the foreseeable future, essentially the main cause of climate change is just the level of solar activity. As that varies so does the rate of sun spots, the strength of the solar wind, the rate at which the solar wind blocks cosmic rays, cosmic rays hit water molecules in the atmosphere, water droplets are formed, clouds are formed. More clouds have a cooling effect. So, a more active sun blocks more cosmic rays, causes fewer clouds, and warms the earth. A less active sun, ..., more clouds, and a cooler earth. CO2 levels don't fit the temperature data at all well, e.g., in the Vostok data Gore's movie used, the CO2 levels went up about 800 years after the temperature went up. E.g., the cooling from The Little Ice Age was not from less CO2 but from a very inactive sun. The increase in temperature coming out of The Little Ice Age was from a more active sun. The global cooling from about 1950 to 1980 was from an inactive sun while CO2 levels increased. Net, CO2 is irrelevant. The cause is the activity level of the sun. Burn all the fossil fuels you want. Solar? Maybe can find a use for it: E.g., maybe in desert areas,

> You ask for us to lie? No. I was just responding literally to the question. Or, for a more socially acceptable response, the Vostok data has me have trouble with the idea that humans are causing climate change. > Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming, and are passing various kinds of sanity checks. The data I have on that indicates that essentially all the models ("uniformly") are wildly wrong. They predicted that by now the temperature would be much higher. Some of that data is reviewed in [LINK] The way too high predictions are plotted in [LINK] > Those models uniformly project human-caused global warming Not all the models. There is a model that fits the data much better -- at least since the last ice age: The model claims that the variation in rates of sun spots causes the temperature changes and that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with climate. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- it absorbs in three narrow bands out in the infrared and, thus, absorbs some of the infrared radiation from the Planck black body radiation of the surface of the earth warmed by the sun. But according to the model I am mentioning, this effect from CO2 is tiny. Instead, again from the model I am mentioning, overwhelmingly, the main driver of global temperature since the last ice age has been just clouds, and they have varied with the sun spots. Just why is a longer argument made clear, e.g., in [VIDEO] So, that is another model that needs to be tested. For now, that model se

There's a large amount of effort put into denying climate change. There's even a movie: [VIDEO] Kilimanjaro isn't losing snow because of global warming but because of deforestation, which I believe is true. [LINK] [LINK]

The reasoning in my post is nearly self contained. For more, mostly all you need are just two boxes of common data: First, you need the historical data, especially the ice core data. No doubt you can find that data via many sources on the Internet. See also the video clip I mention below. For the rest of the data, just look up the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the cooling from 1940 to 1970. That's enough for what I wrote from the data and its analysis. Second, you need the results of the models, and I gave a reference that showed the predictions and compared them with the actual measured temperatures. You are welcome to chase down the detailed predictions of the models, one model at a time for some dozens of models. I confess, I didn't do that chasing down. For the explanation in terms of sun spots, that the sun spot data fits the temperature data and the explanation in terms of cosmic rays, see the video The Great Global Warming Swindle [VIDEO] As I recall, that video also explains the 800 year lag in the ice core data and the Medieval Warm period. If you want to argue with the video, fine with me. My main objective is to debunk the claim that CO2 is a threat, and I did that without mentioning the video. The video argues the sun spot explanation, and so far it appears to be the best, e.g., at least it appears to the only at all reasonable explanation that even begins to fit the darned data, but otherwise is tough to check -- e.g., how cosmic rays create water

Bill, thanks to you for Microsoft and to you and Melinda on health. For Climate Change, your position is wildly destructive and based on just sewage instead of science. Net, CO2 has essentially nothing to do with the climate. The main driver of climate change for 1+ million years is just changes in the rates of sun spots. Period. Nice details from some real experts, e.g., Lindzen at MIT, are summarized in the quite good video at [VIDEO] "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Take an hour to watch that and save your efforts on Climate Change and stop your highly destructive efforts against CO2. Sorry 'bout that. Just consider the video and its information. But for more, on the science, there were some models and predictions of big increases in temperature. The big increases were supposed to have happened already. They never happened at all. Details of predictions versus real observed are summarized, with the dozens of individual predictions named (in small print!) in [LINK] In science, we have to make good predictions. When we make bad predictions, we junk the candidate science. So, we have to junk the candidate science of the climate models in that graph. Net, we are left with no meaningful science that CO2 from humans or anything else is causing significant or even measurable climate change or ever will. Some of Lindzen's remarks in the video explain more. Net, in total, we have to junk any threat from CO2. Fighting Climate Change is not worth even 10 cents -- that the alarmist

Likely a lot easier to make gasoline out of: (1) Crude oil. (2) Coal, water, and electric power. (3) Some biological reactions. To address the hidden agenda here, see [VIDEO]

There's a video documentary on YouTube, complete with starting with PM Thatcher and her concerns about the coal miners union and the Mideast oil kingdoms and through the present with sun spots, etc. There is a lot from MIT prof Lindzen. The 800 year lag in the graph Gore put up is made clear. The Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the cooling from 1940 to 1970 are also clear. The URL is [VIDEO] Now where does this documentary go wrong? I will mention one place: Their little cartoon has sun light hitting the surface of the earth, reflecting , and then heating the atmosphere. Well, it mostly isn't just reflection . Instead, the sunlight gets absorbed by the surface, the surface warms, and then the surface radiates, as in a Planck gray body in the infrared. CO2 absorbs, and warms, in three narrow bands out in the infrared, on band for each of bending, stretching, and twisting of the molecule. CO2 won't absorb visible light -- e.g., exhale and see if you can see the CO2 or its shadow from absorbing visible light! And, as in the cartoon, the visible light already traveled through the whole atmosphere to the ground without being absorbed so that any reflected light should just continue until it hits a cloud or just escapes into outer space. So, the main point is the Planck black body effect that in effect converts the visible light CO2 won't absorb to infrared light CO2 can absorb. But, as Lindzen explains, that all has to be a tiny effect, small potatoes . Just as a que

> Could Trigger the Next Global Financial Crisis So could a new eruption of Yellowstone, e.g., put a layer of ash 1000' thick 1000 miles downwind, another flu like in 1918, a nuclear war, a supernova explosion only a few light years away, same for a gamma ray burst (blow the atmosphere off the earth, since it comes at the speed of light, can't see it coming until it is already here), a marauding black hole (tough to see coming until too late), some bump in the asteroid belt that knocks a rock to the earth like 65 million years ago, etc. More generally for lots of cases of event A, as above and many more, we have the true statement Event A Could Trigger the Next Global Financial Crisis Yup. But there is a nice result in stochastic processes, the renewal theorem, in William Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, Second Edition, Volume II , ISBN 0-471-25709-5, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1971. that shows that the events that "Could Trigger the Next Global Financial Crisis" arrive as a Poisson arrival process (e.g., like Geiger counter clicks). Moreover, without looking up the details, we have an estimator for the arrival rate, and it is low except for the stock market doing again what it did in 1929 and 2008, and by now with those two examples we're supposed to know better. So, we can worry instead about Yellowstone, asteroids, black holes, etc. For a simpler explanation of the original post, poor Atlantic magazine needs "click bait". Or the consequ

It's beyond me why Bloomberg pushes this propaganda: It's totally clear that the power from a wind farm is intermittent, that is, not reliable , and, thus, can't counted on for either a base load plant or a peak load plant. "Cheap as coal"? Coal makes a great base load plant -- even when the sun is not shining and the wind not blowing, when it's raining, snowing, etc., a big pile of coal out back of the plant is still there and the plant is still a reliable source of base load power, and can't say this about wind power. So, why would an electric power grid want to buy wind power? For base load? Nope. For peak load? Nope. So just why? As the grid buys wind power, they idle their base or peak load plant and, thus, don't get the revenue to pay for the plant, that is, the capital expense. So, for that wind power, we have to pay for the capital expense twice, once for the base/peak load plants and once for the wind power. Similarly, when the wind is not blowing, the base/peak load plants are getting revenue but the wind power does not and is not paying for their capital expense. So, net, "cheap as coal" doesn't mean much. Actually that wind costs the same as coal means that to the electric grid wind is essentially worthless. Or, the wind power will sell at the grid spot price which commonly is just dirt cheap, maybe 0.5 US cents per KWH. The wind power can't pay their capital expense for that. So, we come to some insight into Bloomberg: The justification for wind will be to save o

For "1/ The looming climate crisis will be to this century what the two world wars were to the previous one. It will require countries and institutions to re-allocate capital from other endeavors to fight against a warming planet. This is the decade we will begin to see this re-allocation of capital. We will see carbon taxed like the vice that it is in most countries around the world this decade, including in the US. We will see real estate values collapse in some of the most affected regions and we will see real estate values increase in regions that benefit from the warming climate. We will see massive capital investments made in protecting critical regions and infrastructure. We will see nuclear power make a resurgence around the world, particularly smaller reactors that are easier to build and safer to operate. We will see installed solar power worldwide go from ~650GW currently to over 20,000GW by the end of this decade. All of these things and many more will cause the capital markets to focus on and fund the climate issue to the detriment of many other sectors." there is an accurate one word summary -- nonsense. With two or more words, even worse than nonsense. It's time to drive a stake through the heart of this climate change alarmism. We can do a good job just in this little post. In simple terms, there is no serious evidence that CO2 from human activities at anything like probable concentrations will have any significant effect on the temperature or climate of the e

At [LINK] from user voldacar is: > Could you repost your original post (now flagged) so I and others can see your argument? From [LINK] here is the original post: For "1/ The looming climate crisis will be to this century what the two world wars were to the previous one. It will require countries and institutions to re-allocate capital from other endeavors to fight against a warming planet. This is the decade we will begin to see this re-allocation of capital. We will see carbon taxed like the vice that it is in most countries around the world this decade, including in the US. We will see real estate values collapse in some of the most affected regions and we will see real estate values increase in regions that benefit from the warming climate. We will see massive capital investments made in protecting critical regions and infrastructure. We will see nuclear power make a resurgence around the world, particularly smaller reactors that are easier to build and safer to operate. We will see installed solar power worldwide go from ~650GW currently to over 20,000GW by the end of this decade. All of these things and many more will cause the capital markets to focus on and fund the climate issue to the detriment of many other sectors." there is an accurate one word summary -- nonsense. With two or more words, even worse than nonsense. It's time to drive a stake through the heart of this climate change alarmism. We can do a good job just in this little post. In simple terms, there is

PARTITION I OF II It's time to drive a stake through the heart of this climate change alarmism, to kill off this dangerous monster forever. We can do a good job just in this little post. Everything here is from just common sense or good references. Overview There is: >ALARMIST CLAIM: Extra CO2 from current human activities will soon cause significant extra warming and, thus, climate change, a climate crisis, etc. In one word, this claim is nonsense. In simple terms: (A) There is no serious evidence that CO2 from human activities at anything like probable concentrations will have any significant effect on the temperature or climate of the earth. (B) The warming of maybe 0.9 F since year 1900 cannot have been caused by CO2. (C) Human life was long burdened with nonsense from bad information, superstition, ignorance, and fear, but slowly science provided high quality information and means to reject the nonsense. The ALARMIST CLAIM is taking us back to the nonsense. (D) Proposed efforts to respond to the ALARMIST CLAIM by reducing CO2 are from massively wasteful, strongly destructive, a shot in the gut of standards of living, economic contraction, and maybe to disasterous world wide economic depression and global nuclear WWIII. There is some very good news: >To respond to the ALARMIST CLAIM, there is NOTHING to do. NOTHING. In music, the easiest note to play is just the rest -- make no sound. For responding to the ALARMIST CLAIM, the situation is similar: Do NOTHING and because t

MIT Professor R. Lindzen explains the consensus in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" [VIDEO] The explanation is in one word -- money, as in two words, too much money. In addition, look at the arguments. Since I hold a good STEM field Ph.D., I'm supposed to do that. For more, I gave my explanations in the two URLs to YC I mentioned above.