Friday, January 15, 2010

John Coleman’s brilliant new documentary: Global Warming: The Other Side


Hour-long documentary debunks global warming advocates and reveals startling information about manipulated data and hypocritical behavior of Al Gore

by Larry Simons
January 15, 2010

Watch Weather Channel founder John Coleman’s documentary on the Global Warming hoax. One hour long [total] broke up into 5 parts [indicated below].

Segment 1: Carbon dioxide, CO2, does not cause significant warming of the Earth
Segment 2: The amazing story of how Al Gore and the U.N. became involved in global warming
Segment 3: The global warming frenzy is full of dire predictions. This segment debunks them
Segment 4: Breaking news! Climategate comes to the United States
Segment 5: John Coleman's summation of the global warming debate

The best segments are segments 3 and 4. In segment 3, Coleman interviews Lord Christopher Monckton, who shows a clip from Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth where it shows Gore showing a simulated mock graphic of the coastlines of San Francisco Bay, Florida and Manhattan being wiped out by rising sea levels in the event of “global warming” [Gore predicts sea levels will rise by 20 feet].

Monckton then reveals that in the very same year that Gore released the film, he bought a 4 million dollar condo in San Francisco, just feet from the ocean at Fisherman’s Wharf. Lord Monckton then says, “He [Gore] didn't believe his own prediction.” Quite great!

Read here about Gore’s San Francisco Bay condo that would be underwater if his own prediction came true. Here is a map showing the location of Gore’s condo and where the water would reach in Gore’s scenario [I mean, LIE] . I hope ole Al bought a lot of scuba gear!



The most disturbing part of the film is in segment 4 where Coleman talks to computer programmer E. Michael Smith, who reveals that the US temperature data set [the one that the government uses to proclaim that so and so month or so and so year is the 5th warmest/4th warmest, etc.. on record]. Smith reveals that those proclamations are based on bad data because he says cold thermometers have been removed from the temperature data series.

Smith says that there used to be about 6,000 thermometers [around 1970] in the temperature data series [meaning: 6,000 points around the globe where temps are measured], but around 1989 or 1990, the number of thermometers had plummeted to about 1,500. Smith says that temps were still being recorded in some areas where thermometers had been deleted, but when the temperature measurements went to the National Climate Data Center, they dropped it from the data set.

Smith says that in most places where the thermometers had been deleted were in cold areas like the Sierra Nevadas. So, when world temps are currently being calculated and government agencies say “2009 is the 5th warmest on record”, they are not lying per se, they may just be getting these calculations from the available thermometers that have not been deleted from the data set. In other words, they are not including the temperatures in cold places like the Sierra Nevadas, that way, they can claim they are not lying, but they are only giving us readings for 1,500 thermometers, not 6,000. In reality, global temps are much cooler because of the deleted thermometers, which would naturally distribute inaccurate data.

The question is, who is deleting these thermometers from the data set? I have a feeling if you followed the money, you’d find the answer.

Watch segment 4, it’s quite alarming.

Click here to watch the movie

14 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

Smith says that .... when the temperature measurements went to the National Climate Data Center, they dropped it from the data set.

1) Is that true?

if so

2) What are the reasons for dropping those readings from the data set? Is that reasonable - ie is it intended to increase accuracy, or reduce it? Does it distort the results, or improve their quality?

You tell me........?

Larry said...

What reason what he have to LIE? The global warming goons have EVERY reason to lie, they will make bilions, TRILLIONS from the taxes they will impose. What do global warming deniers have to gain by this? Theres no money in denying it!

I love how you could not debunk that Al Gore bought a beachside condo just FEET away from the water in an area that he said IN HIS OWN FILM would be underwater because of global warming-----care to debunk that??? Ahhh, but you cant.

the_last_name_left said...

Don't pretend that the arguments stand or fall on what Al Gore says or does.

And I didn't ask if anyone had lied. I asked if something you printed was true, and what the implications were if it was true.

I love how this particular documentary is "brilliant".....because it supports your own political view.......whilst all the science from leading specialists in their fields is considered "junk".......because it doesn't support your own political view.

On what basis are you judging the science that suggests human-caused climate change is real?

How do you personally assess it?

Oh - it snowed where you live, quite a bit, once.

Wow. Now that's real science....

The only absolute proof you'd accept is if it was already well underway, and definite effects were highly visible and obvious.

There's a few obvious potential problems there. Surely even Larry can see that?

Larry the conservative rejecting the precautionary principle?

And we can just as easily ask what reasons all the scientists and their referees and technicians have to lie. You think there's an obvious reason:

L: The global warming goons have EVERY reason to lie, they will make bilions TRILLIONS from the taxes they will impose.

Eh? How will the scientists "make billions"? Likely it will cost them as much as others in taxes....

And why must this stuff about taxes be relevant to the actual science?

Also, taxes are spent and collected under (at least nominal) democratic control and accountability. Quite how these supposed massive tax revenues are going to end up in the hands of corrupt scientists is never made clear.

It's not clear either how these supposed tax revenues will end up in the hands of your "international bankers".....your "NWO"...."Illuminaughty" etc....

All of this plays more of a role in your "reasoning" than the actual quality of any science under debate.

the_last_name_left said...

Anti-global warming "movement" seems born of right-wing conspiracy paranoia - it displays an instinctive rightwing suspicion of taxation and the state. And of science itself.

How are people with no scientific qualification, let alone any of relevance, to decide the quality of some particular science?

How can you decide this particular documentary is brilliant!"?

You're not deciding on the merits of the science.....that's for sure.

So where does your dogmatism about it come from?

How is dogmatism, such as your own, justified?

It's the same as with 911 and your conspiracy framework for it.

You reject the opinions, views, calculations, logic and evidence of the entire scientific and engineering community - prefering instead to believe a contrarian view held by a very small number of obscure pseudo-experts........

Both times you "choose" your science based on how it relates to your worldview.

You decide whether it's true or not by determining the degree to which it supports your conspiratorial worldview.

And lo! - the entire scientific community is corrupt! That explains "global warming" is a fraud"!

And lo! - the entire engineering community is corrupt! That explains 911 is a fraud!

And that's how you decide which obscure non-experts to believe - rather than the expert views of the science community more generally.

And all done without going near any actual science.

Why do non-experts feel so confident when rejecting the scientific consensus? On anything.....?

It *cannot* be because of the science......else they'd be experts too.

So where does the confidence come from?

IT's driven by the paranoia of the wider conspiratorial framework?

Wherever this unwarranted confidence comes from, it isn't based on the quality of the science itself......

So, it's anti-science -- because it rejects the scientific consensus based on other non-scientific, ideological grounds.

Lysenkoism?

Larry said...

“Anti-global warming "movement" seems born of right-wing conspiracy paranoia - it displays an instinctive rightwing suspicion of taxation and the state. And of science itself.”

Ahhhhh, you cant win your argument with scientific FACT, so your only option is to resort to the old tiresome false right/left paradigm. You have no FACTS, so you claim its RIGHT wing. This is not a political issue at ALL, but you CLAIM its one because you have no FACTS.

“How are people with no scientific qualification, let alone any of relevance, to decide the quality of some particular science?”

You mean like “scientist” Al Gore?

“You're not deciding on the merits of the science.....that's for sure.”

I guess if you just SAY so, that makes it true, eh?? Just like you saying OVER and OVER that Jones is connected with Carto but give ZERO evidence of it. Oh, that’s right, you sent me a Ron Paul picture as “proof” of a Jones/Carto connection-----------LOL.

“So where does your dogmatism about it come from?

How is dogmatism, such as your own, justified?”

Like the 9/11 issue, Ive studied BOTH sides of it---that’s where.

“You reject the opinions, views, calculations, logic and evidence of the entire scientific and engineering community - prefering instead to believe a contrarian view held by a very small number of obscure pseudo-experts........”

“Scientific community”…….like Al Gore? Maurice Strong? You mean, THOSE “scientists”?

“You decide whether it's true or not by determining the degree to which it supports your conspiratorial worldview.”

No, I decide its true because in BOTH cases when the ones claiming the hoax to be true can be EASILY debunked and then I ask myself “Why would people claiming to have the TRUTH outwardly and blatantly LIE” [i.e. Al Gore, Popular Mechanics, YOU…..], then I decide the liars have an agenda—and usually the liars are the ones where the money leads to and the truthtellers have NOTHING to gain other than to get the truth out.

You don’t HAVE to be an expert to debunk a “so-called” expert in any particular field. All you have to do is investigate it. For example: Im not an physics expert and even I know what a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE of a building is and when I asked YOU to give me ONE example of a “universal” collapse that has happened OUTSIDE of the events of 9/11, you gave me the the McCORMICK CENTER in Chicago in 1968-----showcasing that you did NO investigation whatsoever and that all you did was go to a 9/11 debunking site and copy and paste what you thought was “debunking”---when in FACT the McCormick Center was NOT a universal collapse---because the outer frame of the building still remained standing. After I told you this MULTIPLE times-----you completely IGNORED it OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again. Why would someone who “claims” to have the TRUTH first of all 1) Do NO investigation, 2) Post a bullshit lie [that is NOT an example of what I was asking for] and 3) CONTINUALLY IGNORE the subject after I debunked their BULLSHIT claim? Got an answer? Of course not! I will be ignored on the subject of the McCormick Center for, what---the 50th straight time now?

Larry said...

“Don't pretend that the arguments stand or fall on what Al Gore says or does.”

Ahhh, I love it. When one of the LEADING proponents of global warming is caught red-handed in a blatant act of hypocrisy, then all of a sudden, you claim that the global warming debate doesn’t “stand or fall” on his views!!!!!!! How precious is that!

“And I didn't ask if anyone had lied. I asked if something you printed was true, and what the implications were if it was true.”

Because a MAJOR global warming advocate lied then you “didn’t ask if anyone lied”, but if a global warming DENIER is caught in a MAJOR act of hypocrisy, then you’d point that out lickity split, wouldn’t you???

“I love how this particular documentary is "brilliant".....because it supports your own political view.......whilst all the science from leading specialists in their fields is considered "junk".......because it doesn't support your own political view.”

Obviously you didn’t watch the film. No, its BRILLIANT because the very film claims and BACKS UP the fact that “all the science from leading specialists in their fields” are basing their “facts” on manipulated data!!!! Are you retarded???

“On what basis are you judging the science that suggests human-caused climate change is real?”

Ahhhh, back to your tiresome old tactic of IGNORING evidence that I post, and then asking me in the comment thread to post it AGAIN, because youre too fucking LAZY to simply LOOK AT what I posted in the story!!!

“How do you personally assess it?

Oh - it snowed where you live, quite a bit, once.”

Would it snow AT ALL……ANYWHERE if global warming was happening??????? Id like an answer to that!

“The only absolute proof you'd accept is if it was already well underway, and definite effects were highly visible and obvious.”

Ohhhhh but the global warming “experts” claim it ALREADY IS underway! They claim the polar bears are dying out when in FACT they have increased in number FIVE TIMES their population since 1940! If it isn’t “supposedly” already underway, then how are the polar bears SUPPOSEDLY dying?????? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?????????????????????????????????

“How will the scientists "make billions"? Likely it will cost them as much as others in taxes....”

Who said that I included SCIENTISTS in the list of potential money-makers?

The FACT that Al Gore bought a condo in a DIRECT area where he said in his film would be underwater should be of utmost importance to you, since he is one of the LEADING global warming mouthpieces. But, instead, you waste time attempting to debunk ME when your main concern should be to ask since he is an OBVIOUS FRAUD, what his REAL agenda is!

the_last_name_left said...

L: all of a sudden, you claim that the global warming debate doesn’t “stand or fall” on his views!!!!!!! How precious is that!

It never did stand or fall on Al Gore's views or actions.

Mr Strawman.

L: Would it snow AT ALL……ANYWHERE if global warming was happening??????? Id like an answer to that!

You know it already snows some places even whilst the Sahara exists atm, right?

The equator is 'hot', the poles are 'cold'. Does the hot sahara stop it snowing elsewhere? no. Does snow some place mean nowhere is hot? No.

L: I decide the liars have an agenda—and usually the liars are the ones where the money leads to and the truthtellers have NOTHING to gain other than to get the truth out.

Apart from DVDs, T-Shirts, websites, videos, lecture tours, books, youtube channels, radio shows, 911 mugs, copies of old nazi manuscripts, etc.......

Go and ask David Icke, or Alex Jones how little they have to gain out of it? Errr - everything they have?

L: You don’t HAVE to be an expert to debunk a “so-called” expert in any particular field.

Ah - everyone's a genius now?

You don't know how arrogant you sound?

I mean, fairplay for not feeling incapable of something.......but you really think you can understand anything? And everything? Suffice to criticise expert-opinion? In leading edge science......based largely around supercomputers.....and massive amounts of data processing?

lol, ok, einstein.

L: For example: Im not an physics expert and even I know what a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE of a building is

hmmm. Not quite the same, is it? Without being an expert, how do you know what information you would need to decide?

You're not an expert, and you're saying one needn't be an expert.......

well......granted you are entitled to your view.....but......as compared to an expert opinion - hundreds of times over? lol

I still don't see why your confidence is remotely justified. It's certainly not driven by science, at least we established that!

L: Who said that I included SCIENTISTS in the list of potential money-makers?

Well, if they don't stand to gain anything from it -- why are they all "in" on the scam then?

You said billions and trillions of $$$$ was the reason behind the "scam"......now you are saying scientists won't benefit?

So why would they lie and deceive then?

Anonymous said...

hes a queenie larry.

Larry said...

"It never did stand or fall on Al Gore's views or actions."

But you always DEFENDED his conclusions, DIDNT YOU? I guess since you agree with Al Gore----that means youre LINKED with him! And since he's an obvious FRAUD for buying a condo where he said water would rise, that makes YOU a fraud too!!! You claim me and Robertson are linked---right? But when you and Gore agree, youre NOT linked, right???? Ahhhh, I love it.

"The equator is 'hot', the poles are 'cold'. Does the hot sahara stop it snowing elsewhere? no. Does snow some place mean nowhere is hot? No."

Tell me how places would be COLD if there is suppose to be global warming SO intense, it would make sea levels rise and kill off polar bears---Einstein!

The sea levels would RISE because of melted ice but it would still be cold enough to snow????? Amazing!

"Apart from DVDs, T-Shirts, websites, videos, lecture tours, books, youtube channels, radio shows, 911 mugs, copies of old nazi manuscripts, etc.......

Go and ask David Icke, or Alex Jones how little they have to gain out of it? Errr - everything they have?"

BIG difference between free enterprise and FORCED taxes---asshole!

People have a CHOICE to buy Alex Jones' merchadise but FORCED carbon taxes---NO choice. To you, theres no diffrence between the two?? MORON. PLUS, Jones has alot of movies online for FREE. You can watch many of them on google.

"hmmm. Not quite the same, is it? Without being an expert, how do you know what information you would need to decide?"

Good question to ask YOURSELF, dickbreath. What information led YOU to decide to send me a link to the McCormick Center---which was NOT a UNIVERSAL collapse. Were you just parroting others on "debunking" websites? The link you sent was BLANK, but I still found a pic of it---NOT a universal collapse. What information led YOU to decide to send me a BLANK link to what was SUPPOSEDLY meant to debunk me, but you either did not investigate it yourself FIRST or you just believed OTHERS who simply just SAID it---I say BOTH. Of course, youre an EXPERT at claiming you know facts when you simply just SAY things without proving them [ie: Jones, Carto connection].

"Well, if they don't stand to gain anything from it -- why are they all "in" on the scam then?"

I already told you, retard---they are parroting falsified and manipulated data. Did you read one word of my post about Colemans documentary and his interview with E. Michael Smith?

the_last_name_left said...

Your own article elsewhere mentions a NASA press release:

A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years –1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 — for the second warmest on record.

“There’s always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year’s ranking, but the ranking often misses the point,” said James Hansen, GISS director. “There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated.”

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.


And, as you likely subscribe to the view that any global warming is down to sunspot activity.......how do you square the lack of sunspot activity over this decade with NASA's claims that temperature over the decade HAS increased?

What will happen when sunspot picks up - if it does - and which it seems to be atm? Even more warming?

Enjoy your complacency.

Larry said...

More copy and paste----yawn. Can you EVER post a response with your OWN thoughts and words? Oh thats right, if you would, then youd say something contradictory. LOL

the_last_name_left said...

On 31st July 2009, Larry wrote (at my blog)

L: Your blog sucks. You have ZERO links, ZERO sources, ZERO researched facts----NOTHING---just all OPINION.

Larry complains when I give opinion AND when I give sources, links, copy.

Easier to move back and fore with rhetorical feints rather than deal with the content, right Larry?

NASA say 09 = one of warmest years.

Totally contradicting your own claims.

But never mind - just vacillate between varieities of complaints about the messenger.....it's easier.

the_last_name_left said...

NASA say 09 = one of warmest years.NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years. NASA say 09 = one of warmest years.

Larry said...

Im impressed. DICKBOY can type the same thing over and over---kinda disturbing actually. Kinda akin to Jack Nicholson's character typing "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again on hundreds of sheets of paper in the Shining. Obviously, you have mental issues. AGAIN, repetition does NOT make it fact. NASA got their figures from manipulated data---but reading the article would have told you that. DICK.