Doomsday Called Off – A GlobalWarming Documentary Video

Doomsday Called Off is yet another Global Warming documentary video that further strengthens the research by many top scientist proving that:

  • Global warming is a natural phenomena.
  • Global warming will not be drastic and probably not even catastrophic.
  • Global warming is not due to the greenhouse effect, although the greenhouse effect does exist.
  • There are studies in the Maldives that sea level is going down and not going up.
  • Various records from tree ring growth, coral growth, ice core data, bug data, show and confirm that the Medieval Warm Period did exist in the past with temperature way higher than temperatures today. Before the coming of the little ice age.
  • The IPCC data on global temperature history is based only on one source, tree ring growth and mainly by a few number of scientist mainly authored by Michael Mann which gives you the hockey stick graph is very inconsistent with other studies on history of global temperature.
  • Global warming cannot be attributed to be caused by man.

Here are just a few points I have gathered from the video. Watch the video yourself here…

8 thoughts on “Doomsday Called Off – A GlobalWarming Documentary Video”

  1. I don’t think it really matters whether global warming is an imminent threat or not. The fact remains that we humans behave like a pesty parasite on this earth and if the “scare tactics” of “An Inconvenient Truth” do the trick of getting us to behave in a less distructive way, so be it. It is time for all countries and all humans to keep the planet clean and inhabitable. Maybe the emissions from chemical plants and factories don’t contribute to global warming or whatever, but what about cancer rates, asthma etc. in children or whole communities in general? Maybe the doomsday scenario of Al Gore’s film is over the top, but these scientists are not doing the planet any favors. Instead they just give the powerful elite (chairmen of the big powerful companies)arguments to continue their disregard for the suffering of the planet and its poor inhabitants that can’t afford to live in the green suburbs or can’t afford top-notch healthcare.

  2. Yeah, don’t let the facts get in the way of Algore’s celebrity and socialist agenda. He is a liar, an alarmist and anyone who can’t see that is hopeless.

  3. Important facts to consider about the speakers.

    Dr. David Legates
    Associate Professor in Climatology, George Marshall Institute

    Dr. Sallie Baliunas
    serves as Senior Scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute

    Dr. John Christy
    a series of subsequent reports identified flaws in Christy and Spencer’s calculations, as Media Matters noted. One such study, published in 2003, reanalyzed the data using the corrected methodology and found more pronounced warming in the troposphere.

    Dr. Nils-Axel Morner
    Is at least a regular speaker at the George C. Marshall Institute

    George C. Marshall Institute
    has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

    In addition, the data presented in this program has since been contradicted.

    The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.

    “Our view hasn’t changed,” Dr. Christy said. “We still have this modest warming.”

    Other climate experts, however, said that the new studies were very significant, effectively resolving a puzzle that had been used by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

    “These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

    The findings will be featured in a report on temperature trends in the lower atmosphere that is the first product to emerge from the Bush administration’s 10-year program intended to resolve uncertainties in climate science.

  4. John,

    Nice try, but your arguments are either irrelevant or fabricated.

    Attempting to discredit the research of scientists who question Global Warming by claiming that they are being paid by the oil companies might satisfy your shallow method of thinking, but it fails to address the real, valid points they bring up.

    It is so typical of unthinking, uninformed, so-called liberals to attempt to argue in this fashion. It only demonstrates that you believe your own arguments cannot withstand rigorous scrutiny.

    How do you explain that fact that the temperature drop over the last 12 months has all but eradicated the warming of the last 100 years?

    How do you explain that this winter’s snowfall over the entire Northern Hemisphere is the heaviest since 1966?

    How do you explain that Canada’s government has stated that their observations show that the polar ice sheet has not only returned to normal but, in many places, is thicker than previously measured?

    I’ll wait…

  5. Trenton-

    Dont talk about what you dont understand.

    John is right – they have been paid and disproven.

    The phrase is ‘climate change’ – global warming causes the disruption of systems which leads in places to cooling. The coolness of 2008 specificaly is due to the weather pattern called El Nina but the trend is still up.

    As to the original post before the video – Just about everything writeen their and stated as fact goes against the beleif of the vast majority of scientists.

    Here are but a few large scientific organisations that support AGW and thus contest just about every point – AAAS, NAS, the G8 national acadamies, WMO, IPCC, NOAA, NCAR. So basicaly all the worlds climate scientists.
    I am not claiming that all follow AGW but it is a very small group that do (Iv watched pleanty of these videos and the same names keep comming up).

    As for the video itself, Im not even going to comment. Its a complete load of crap that goes against almost all scientific understanding, research and data.
    My favourate part is when the guy apperently disproves the best scientist and equipment in the world with a tree and a dead woman. Yep, definately an expert.

  6. As usual, the truth is obscured between flamethrowers on the right and left implementing their own scorched earth policies. From what I have read, Christy is a respected and awared winning climatologist, (Who owns a tiny share of Gore’s Nobel Prize) and one of just a handful that have first-hand knowledge building temperature data sets. He agrees that Man has contributed to Global Warming, as most scientists do. He agrees that the earth is warming, as most scientists do. He disagrees on the estimated temperature variance we will see over time, and believes it is drastically over-stated, that the real impact is likely to be negligable. All historical temperature reconstructions depend to some extent on the knowledge and assumptions of the person aggregating the data. Whether you want to talk about Christy’s work or any other historical temperature data, they’ve all made mistakes in construction that they’ve corrected over time… and there is still some disagreement about actual past and current temperatures, though consensus is slowly building. Christy fairly points to many shortcomings in the argument supporting catastrophic global warming… not to say that he’s right in each case, but he is a valuable voice in the discussion. The best data I’ve read indicates we have been in a period of mild global warming over the past century. The best I can make of current evidence is that it will continue to warm, at a rate of somewhere between 1 and 5 degrees celsius… but I’m leaning towards 1, and it seems unlikely we can do much of anything about it. On the other hand, I do believe that we need to do a lot of things to slow the rate at which we are poisoning ourselves with various forms of pollution, and I do believe that we are close to the point where the toxins we spew will reduce our longevity as much as medical advances will increase it… i.e. we are close to a balance point. But this idea of catastrophic global warming reminds me too much of the religion I ditched for good when I was 13…. lots of claims, not enough evidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *