So I wasn't shocked that the film was attacked on the same night it was broadcast on ABC television   although I was impressed at the vehemence of the attack. I was more surprised, and delighted, by the response of the Australian public.
The ABC studio assault, led by Tony Jones, was so vitriolic it appears to have backfired. We have been inundated with messages of support, and the ABC, I am told, has been flooded with complaints. I have been trying to understand why.
First, the ferocity of the attack, I think, revealed the intolerance and defensiveness of the global warming camp. Why were Jones and co expending such energy and resources attacking one documentary? We are told the global warming theory is robust. They say you'd have to be off your chump to disagree. We have been assured for years, in countless news broadcasts and column inches, that it's definitely true. So why bother to stamp so aggressively on the one foolish documentary-maker - who clearly must be as mad as a snake - who steps out of line?
I think viewers may also have wondered (reasonably) why the theory of global warming has not been subjected to this barrage of critical scrutiny by the media. After all, it's the theory of global warming, not my foolish little film, that is turning public and corporate policy on its head.
The apparent unwillingness of Jones and others at the ABC to give airtime to a counterargument, the tactics used to minimise the ostensible damage done by the film, the evident animosity towards those who questioned global warming: all of this served to give viewers a glimpse of what it was like for scientists who dared to disagree with the hallowed doctrine.
Why are the global warmers so zealous? After a year of arguing with people about this, I am convinced that it's because global warming is first and foremost a political theory. It is an expression of a whole middle-class political world view. This view is summed up in the oft-repeated phrase "we consume too much". I have also come to the conclusion that this is code for "they consume too much". People who believe it tend also to think that exotic foreign places are being ruined because vulgar oiks can afford to go there in significant numbers, they hate plastic toys from factories and prefer wooden ones from craftsmen, and so on.
All this backward-looking bigotry has found perfect expression in the idea of man-made climate disaster. It has cohered a bunch of disparate reactionary prejudices (anti-car, anti-supermarkets, anti-globalisation) into a single unquestionable truth and cause. So when you have a dig at global warming, you commit a grievous breach of social etiquette. Among the chattering classes you're a leper.
But why are the supporters of global warming so defensive? After all, the middle classes are usually confident, bordering on smug.
As I found when I examined the basic data, they have plenty to be defensive about. Billions of dollars of public money have been thrown at global warming, yet the hypothesis is crumbling around their ears.
To the utter dismay of the global warming lobby, the world does not appear to be getting warmer. According to their own figures (from the UN-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data confirms this. This is clearly awkward. The least one should expect of global warming is that the Earth should be getting warmer.
Then there's the ice-core data, the jewel in the crown of global warming theory. It shows there's a connection between carbon dioxide and temperature: see Al Gore's movie. But what Gore forgets to mention is that the connection is the wrong way around; temperature leads, CO2 follows.
Then there's the precious "hockey stick". This was the famous graph that purported to show global temperature flat-lining for 1000 years, then rising during the 19th and 20th centuries. It magicked away the Medieval warm period and made the recent warming look alarming, instead of just part of the general toing and froing of the Earth's climate.
But then researchers took the computer program that produced the hockey stick graph and fed it random data. Bingo, out popped hockey stick shapes every time. (See the report by Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Virginia and others.)
In a humiliating climb down, the IPCC has had to drop the hockey stick from its reports, though it can still be seen in Gore's movie.
And finally, there are those pesky satellites. If greenhouse gases were the cause of warming, then the rate of warming should have been greater, higher up in the Earth's atmosphere (the bit known as the troposphere). But all the satellite and balloon data says the exact opposite. In other words, the best observational data we have flatly contradicts the whole bally idea of man-made climate change.
They concede that CO2 cannot have caused the warming at the beginning of the 20th century, which was greater and steeper than the recent warming. They can't explain the cooling from 1940 to the mid-'70s. What are they left with? Some mild warming in the '80s and '90s that does not appear to have been caused by greenhouse gases.
The whole damned theory is in tatters. No wonder they're defensive.
The man-made global warming parade, on one level, has been a phenomenal success. There isn't a political party or important public body or large corporation that doesn't feel compelled to pay lip service. There are scientists and journalists (a surprising number) who have built careers championing the cause. There's more money going into global warming research than there is chasing a cure for cancer. Many important people and institutions have staked their reputations on it. There's a lot riding on this theory. And it has bugger-all to do with sea levels. That is why the warmers greeted my film with red glowing eyes.
Last week on the ABC they closed ranks. They were not interested in a genuine debate. They wanted to shut it down. And thousands of wonderful, sane, bolshie Australian viewers saw right through it.
God bless Australia. The DVD will be out soon.

• CO2 certainly affects global warming -to a small degree! Water vapour affects it significantly more. The Sun dominates the scene, however. IPCC doctrine overlooks the fact that Earth's surface temperature changes over past half million years or so, from Vostok Ice-Core analyses, are strongly asymmetrical, and that the dominant underlying mechanism cannot therefore be repetitive changes in the Earth's orbit, which would be predominantly symmetrical, akin to simple harmonic motion (the Milankovitch theory)in order to return the orbit close to its present form without making it unstable. The only other simple explanation of the cyclic solar energy changes sufficient to yo-yo the Earth's surface temperature through the 13 degree C observed range is that the Sun is a variable star with a total range of about 20% in its output. A plausable explanation for this is that the Sun, with its enormous gravitational field, sweeps up interstellar hydrogen and deuterium to feed its thermonuclear core during Earth's glacial periods when its output is low, then spurts into increased activity once it has thus gorged itself, every 100,000 years or so. This period varies according to the density of interstllar matter it encounters on its way around our Milky Way Galaxy. During its more active phase, radiation pressure increases dramatically to overcome gravity, so that hydrogen accretion is inhibited, until the 'digestion process' is completed and the energy output declines. The process then starts all over again. This is a characteristic of thermo-nuclear reactions, which are stage-wise and highly sensitive to isotopic cocentration and temperature, being easiest with the tritium-helium stage, more difficult with the deuterium-helium stage, and most difficult (i.e., needing the highest temperatures) with the extreme hydrogen-helium stage. Such a mechanism would be consistent with the observed asymmetry of the ice-core analyses. Why does the IPCC persistently ignore this aspect? Could it be that, like the UK's Royal Commission on Environmental Polution in its 22nd report, 'Energy - the Changing Climate', it has no-one aboard to voice simple astronomical questions? No sane person would ever question the existence of climate change: we have evidence all around us for that! But to try to pin all of it onto carbon dioxide increases due to mankind's actions is ludicrous, belying established thermodynnamic logic which underpins 'greenhosue gas' theory! One can show that a reduction in level from the present 380 ppmv or so to the pre-industrial age 280 ppmv interglacial maximum could reduce global mean surface temperature by only about 1/4 degree C. Similarly, allowing CO2 levels to rise to about 600 ppmv at most - since logistical and cost factors wouldn't let our extravagance reach beyond this - would only push this temperature another 1/4 degree C above its present level (of around 15 degree C.), assuming constant solar energy input throughout. Let's have some common-sense unbiased debate before we all go overboard on carbon footprinting!
  
  Rod.Taylor

  on May 16, 2008

  at 12:16 PM

  Report this comment
• There's no such thing as peak oil either. Robert Hirsch was paid off, and the ipcc is clever coup masterminded between the most developed countries of the world.
  
  Aaron

  on May 09, 2008

  at 08:34 PM

  .tips4you.in
• The flora of Earth can absorb a thousand times the carbon that humanity releases to the air. If global warming occurs, it should be shown the sun and volcanic activity is the problem. The sun has been radiating more the last 100 years, and volcanic activity has increased. Politics have steered the blame toward each other so we blame our neighbors, and of course the money that can be made on all this.
  
  Larry

  on May 05, 2008

  at 02:09 AM

  Report this comment
• One large volcanic eruption can spew more garbage into the atmosphere than an entire year's worth of auto emissions and factory smokestacks. Sorry, but I don't think we should give up cars or factories and return to the stone age. The earth has been warming and cooling for four billion years, and mankind shouldn't be so cocky as to think it can predict the next 100 years of weather, let alone control it. Has anyone noticed that the alarming period of "global warming" represents the years after the fall of the Soviet Union, after which many of their weather-reporting stations were shut down due to budget concerns? Hmmm, remove Siberia's temperatures from the global averages and what do you thnk you'll get? Those computer "models" relied on by the Gore-istas don't take into affect cloud cover, sun-spots, El Nino currents, and on and on. You may as well buy a game called "Sim Earth" from the local software store. Sorry, but I don't think anyone really knows what the temperature was when Columbus landed in the Americas, and no one knows what it will be in 2015 either. Even if it is 3 degrees warmer, global food production will skyrocket as a result. But, in the end, Gore's gimmick may be brilliant. He cons the media into believing him (which isn't too difficult, considering they are mostly left-wing lunkheads anyway). And, of course, he already has liberal academia behind him. Then, REGARDLESS of what happens with the weather - global warming is conveniently blamed. An earthquake in Chile? Must be global warming. A typhoon off India? Must be global warming. A cold spell in Florida? Oh, that also must be global warming! A midwestern farmer shoots his family and kills himself? Aw, chalk that up to global warming as well. It can only help the cause. And there's only one solution, of course: world-wide socialism, with Al Gore and his leftists controlling EVERYTHING in their altruistic desire to save us all from ourselves! Those of you who believe the media global warming scares may do well to recall how they said we were all going to die from AIDS and bird flu. There are a TON of books refuting Gore's hypotheses. I've read a few clunkers, but most convinced me that my original global-warming theory skepticism was well-founded. Read and learn. Question the MOTIVES of the doomsayers. And follow the MONEY TRAIL.
  

• Before anyone can prove humans are causing climate change, they must deal with the basic and proven figures. The figures below are in accordance with the U.S. Department of Energy, but also accord with the figures of other accredited institutions (regardless of what side of the debate they are on) - In fact, I have been unable to find any variation of these figures sufficient to have any effect on the conclusion (you can confirm the figures I have used at: link - the website includes accredited references for the figures which you can follow up (as I did)). The figures show UNEQUIVOCALLY: Of the 100.00% of Greenhouse Gases affecting the earth's climate; 99.72% are naturally occuring and beyond the influence of humans; and, 0.28% are the result of ALL human activity. That means humans are responsible for less than one third of one percent of greenhouse warming! Now, imagine if we all reach the Kyoto target for "Annex 1" countries of 5.2% reduction. That would alter the greenhouse effect by one seven-thousandth! Some very naughty people are telling “porkies”… and some very stupid people are believing them.
  
  Matt Bannan

  on September 18, 2008

  at 01:50 AM

  
  
• Of Course we have Climate Change!! this world has always changed over the past zillion years but are we, the human race, causing it now?,I find that difficult to believe. Its a very good method for all the incompetent politician's to try to deflect the attention from their c--k-ups and raise more and more taxes to fund their second/third home purchase and furnishing.
  
  John Symon

  on August 09, 2008

  at 11:40 AM

  
  
• Hi all well i reckon our climate has changed since i was a child however so have i , my judgement and interpretation of things. I remember how Big things were now they are little. The climate is and has always on this planet constantly changed i reckon the ice age has just finished YOU F******g MPS you like our money from so called Green Taxes I have a one Question do you believe in the bible and God ,really like you pretend in your speaches. Im not mocking religion please dont misunderstand me how ever the book of revelation tells us all how the earth ends so practice what you preach
  

---

Blogging Tips - 4 Tips To Increase Dramatically Traffic To Your Blog

 Every internet marketer knows that blog can be great for getting high listing in search engines. Search engine spiders love blogs because of fresh content they provide. In this article I would like to share with you top blogging tips to increase traffic to your site from today!

1. Social bookmark sites - anytime you add new post to your blog, bookmark this page to social bookmark sites. You can use sites like onlywire or socialmarker to add faster to all top social bookmark sites. Your posts will gain more backlinks, also additional traffic and better and faster listing in search engines. Always remember to add to top sites: Digg, Redit, Delicious, StumbleUpon and Propeller. If you will participate in these sites, add many bookmarks, comment on other people’s bookmarks, your own bookmarks will be more valuable. In this ways you will be able to gain more traffic.
2. Social network - another blogging tips that can bring you good traffic is to create profile in Myspace, Facebook, Direct Matches, Yuwie. There is special section called bulletins. When you will write new post you can send link to it. Depends on how many friends do you have in your profile, you will get more additional traffic. In some social network sites like Yuwie you can also add rss feed to your profile, so when someone will visit your profile, will see links to your last posts.
3. Optimize you blog posts - make a full use of search engine optimization to your blog. This blogging tip is very important. You will benefit from your optimized blog after time. That’s why it’s a key to start to optimize your blog as soon as possible. Find few keywords and 1 main one and repeat it in your blog titles, posts. Also gain backlinks from other sites using in anchor your keyword.
4. Next blogging tip I want to stress to you is to spread your rss feeds to different blog directories. Remember to ping your bog every single update. Add to pingomatic. Make Squidoo and Hubpages pages and include your rss feeds. It will automatically update rss feeds when you will update your blog. It’s really powerful, the more backlinks the better results.

Mars global warming on mars Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist SaysKate Raviliousfor National Geographic News
February 28, 2007Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Enlarge Photo

Printer Friendly
Email to a Friend
What's This? SHARE Digg StumbleUpon Reddit RELATED Climate Change Predictions Not Exaggerated, Analysis Says (February 1, 2007) New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery "Aquifers" (February 16, 2007) Photo Gallery: Global Warming Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.