Replies

I really wish there was a website or thread to critically examine it. I saw it and thought it was great. then i read that at least some of its claims are wrong. Like saying volcanoes produce more co2 than humans. I read that isnt true.

I'd really like to see a hyper critical analysis of the documentary so we can sort thru fact and hype.

Its the best anti GW BS thing i have seen.

Unfortunately there are many Internet sources out there that have attempted to discredit this film in one way or another.

It's a statistical problem, it may be that at this moment with minimal volcanic activity, our CO2 is more than the volcano's. I bet that would change as soon as one blows its top!

Whatever the case is, I think it is sad that the rhetoric is so very shrill. To often I am reading nothing less than hate speech directed at assailing the personal character and motives of those involved in the film. The most common accusation is the are "deniers".

Hopefully the fire storm this film is causing will help to bring the debate back into the subject. To the best of my memory, the political nature of GW is far more extreme that that of the ozone hole days.

They produce huge amounts of sufuric and other gases which the ecomarxists and econazis say are the worst that Mankind has produced though industrialization and which contribute to global warming.

Here's an article that gives some good info about the "pollution" that Mt. St. Helens was putting out when it was merely burping, it's entitled "Mt. St. Helens Top Polluter."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6635776/

then i read that at least some of its claims are wrong. Like saying volcanoes produce more co2 than humans. I read that isnt true.

There have been a couple of quibbles with it, but nothing that seems to make a difference regarding the basic claims of the program. The bit about volcanoes might or might not be exactly right, depending on how the question is framed.

For example, I think it is believed to be true that over the expanse of time volcanoes have spewed more CO2 than man ever has, but in any particular year or decade it may not be true, depending on volcanic activity.

Even so, it's a minor quibble, since there are so many sources of CO2 that are far more significant than mankind.

One of the key observations from the show is the part about the Vostok ice cores. The data from the cores shows that there is about a 300 to 800 year lag between a change in temperature and ~then~ a change in atmospheric CO2. If ~that~ observation stands up to scrutiny then the entire anthropogenic global warming issue blows up as a hoax.

Worse than a hoax-- since they (the IPCC) had the data and interpreted it wrong. On purpose?