Meet The Climate Sceptics

Filmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate scepticism to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming and to try to understand the people who are making them.

Do they have the evidence that we are heating up the atmosphere or are they taking a grave risk with our future by dabbling in highly complicated science they don’t fully understand? Where does the truth lie and how are we, the people, supposed to decide?

The film features Britain’s pre-eminent sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton as he tours the world broadcasting his message to the public and politicians alike. Can he convince them and Murray that there is nothing to worry about?

From The Web
Join The Conversation
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

    This film is a bit too ‘safe’ for my liking. I still don’t know if I can believe in Global warming if it is known that scientists are fraudulently representing data. Surely if it is real they wouldn’t need to fake it in the first place? It just seems to be a big scam benefiting those who clearly do not have our best interests at heart.

    • min

      The point of this film is not to help you decide whether or not Global Warming is real and is a result of human activity.

      The main idea put forth in this documentary is that this is first and foremost a scientific question (rather than a political or philosophical debate) and only science can dig out the truth on this subject. That’s the power of the scientific method: it will find the truth eventually. People like Al Gore and sir Monckton are just polarizing people from both side of the spectrum. They contribute nothing to the scientific debate; they know nothing about climate science. By portraying themselves as experts on the subject they misinform their respective audience. This leads to an ever widening chasm of incomprehension and tension between two groups of people that are as ignorant as they are violent and vitriolic towards anyone that doesn’t agree with them. And of course politicians and the media are more than happy to join in: polarizing and dividing people for their own interest is what they do best.

      This is pointless and actually counterproductive for everyone: it slows down the scientists in their research. The slower it goes, the less prepared we are. At the end of that is the life of millions of people that could be at risk if we fail to understand these complicated yet dangerous phenomenons in time.  Even if we are not the main cause of Global Warming, even if there is no Global Warming, climate still has a strong influence on each and every one of us. It is crucial that scientists -not people, not politicians- do their job and try to figure out how it all works and identify the threats posed by both anthropogenic and natural causes. That way we can advance our countries, cultures, civilizations towards a safer and brighter future.

      The bottom line is: it has nothing to do with anyone’s freedoms. It has nothing to do with the American dream. It has nothing to do with religion. If it’s THE truth that you want, leave the job to the scientific community. No one’s more interested about knowing the truth than a scientist and they have the best tools and the best knowledge to uncover it. HOWEVER, be aware that the truth might not agree with your beliefs and values (and so far, it seems that an overwhelming quantity of scientific evidence tends to validate global warming). Meanwhile, if someone asks you about the influence of human activity on our planet’s temperature, “I don’t know. I’m not a Climate Scientist” is an appropriate answer. If they try to advance some kind of scientific argument, ask them about their scientific background.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

        Kinda redundant when everyone including the scientists are lying then isn’t it? We will never know at this rate so please don’t assume what my beliefs are, nor did I ask for a wall of text on logic, thank you.

        • Blizzard

          …but they’re not lying. :

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

            I wonder did you watch the film at all? Some of these scientists were busted for distorting the data and facts in support of man made global warming, and you’re saying they were not lying? Surely if it is the truth they wouldn’t need to distort the facts? Yet I am frowned upon for questioning that. Geez. Maybe I should listen to everything the scientists say because they obviously aren’t human and could not possibly be driven by notions such as greed. Maybe I should just take those flu/HPV vaccines too since scientists say they’re perfectly safe despite killing and maiming thousands of people. So sorry for using my brain and questioning the status quo. Honestly… 

          • Sieben Stern

            actually the scientists weren’t found to have distorted anything… as i understand it they were using different data sets from different places, to try and explain the complexity of the climate.  The question was, between non scientists was why they would do that, when they were using the best sets of data instead of the same types.

            It was was fox news that distorted the leaked ‘findings’ and the meaning behind the emails – they DO have an ulterior motive.  If you’re still questioning vaccines, then you’re not using your brain, just listening to celeb and pop news hype.

            It’s easier for people to think that global warming isn’t their fault because it means that they don’t have to change their lifestyles.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

            I do live an eco-conscious lifestyle, I try my best. But I refuse to pay carbon tax for an industry that is corrupt and even more pollutant.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

            And actually I have two young relatives who suffer from seizures after having their third cervical cancer shot. So I would suggest you shut the hell up.

          • minmax

            And I have two friends who died in a car crash after eating at McDonald’s. Does that mean McDonald’s causes car crashes ?

            It’s a very good thing to use your brain. But you should try to use it for thinking. It’ll blow your mind !

          • NAND Gate

            lol your logic isn’t logic. Sorry.

          • Sieben Stern

            actually the scientists weren’t found to have distorted anything… as i understand it they were using different data sets from different places, to try and explain the complexity of the climate.  The question was, between non scientists was why they would do that, when they were using the best sets of data instead of the same types.

            It was was fox news that distorted the leaked ‘findings’ and the meaning behind the emails – they DO have an ulterior motive.  If you’re still questioning vaccines, then you’re not using your brain, just listening to celeb and pop news hype.

            It’s easier for people to think that global warming isn’t their fault because it means that they don’t have to change their lifestyles.

        • Agust Kristinssion

          why would scientists lie ? what exactly do they have to gain by lying about global warming. meanwhile its quite easy to spot who gains the most of keeping the lifestyle we have right now intact  

          fact of the matter is that we need to drastically change our way of life. everyone can see that the way we live to day can not last for ever… as we live on a finite planet.

           we are destroying the earth. we all know it 

          why not just accept that we need to figure out a way to live in harmony with our home and move on with our lives ? it dose not matter weather global warming is real or not, its simply a result of our current lifestyle that we are seeing changes in our planet at a faster rate. 

          what we call it is irrelevant, what is relevant that we open our eye’s and start fixing obvious problems instead of debating when the point of no return  will come.   

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

            Why are you asking me? Go ask them.

        • NAND Gate

          You are insane if you think millions of family-man scientists on institutional wages are lying to you.

          Totally insane. Think about it.

          • Lord Xenu

            We don’t have “MILLIONS” of scientists. Think about it. Dumbass.

          • Lord Xenu

            We don’t have “MILLIONS” of scientists. Think about it. Dumbass.

          • NAND Gate

            Sorry to correct you “dumbass”, but even 10 years ago, the US ALONE had 2.6million scientists. There are around 28-35 million scientists worldwide. Roughly 82% of these claim they believe in anthropogenic climate change. So, even at the lowest estimate, there are over 20 million scientists worldwide who concur with me.

            So you sir, are completely f#$%in owned. Do your own research. I shouldn’t have to do such basic maths and research for you.

            But then, I am used to people on here claiming they are smart – right up until they meet me. Back in your box.

          • Lord Xenu

             I apologize good sir. What an idiot of me. How could i be so stupid? When i said think about it, i made the mistake of assuming you would… or could. One might then infer from my subtle point that an overwhelming majority of the population you cited has NOTHING to do with the subject being discussed, and in fact has never been consulted. I’m tempted to make a joke here about my proctologist and global warming…. but you probably wouldn’t get it and i’d just have to spell it out for you.

             There is no international register of climatologists (That’s the study of the climate BTW 8o ) but most estimates put the number of climatologists worldwide upwards of 35,000 to 55,000. When you lump in related fields such as meteorologists glaciologists, and paleoclimatologists your looking at the very low end of the 6 digit’s. Honestly, you shouldn’t be doing basic math for anyone.

             Trying to make a point by citing millions of people in completely unrelated fields to the subject at hand is a dumbass thing to do. I reiterate, you DONT have millions of scientists. Dumbass. So, no… before you ask – nobody went around asking Podiatrist’s about their position on global warming. Im sorry, they just didn’t. Why? Well, i’ll leave that little mystery up to you to figure out.

             This is some serious pwnage fail. However, you pwned yourself pretty well, lol. Nice try though kiddo. Now that iv “met” you, I’ll try not to be too intimidated by your obviously higher powers of intellect next time we “meet”. rofl

             Heres an exerpt of a little reading assignment for you from the national post;

             “An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC’s comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.

            A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.”

             And yet nowhere is the mention of “millions”… lol dumbass.

          • NAND Gate

            yap yap yap

            Point stands.

          • NAND Gate

            yap yap yap

            Point stands.

      • Lord Xenu

        @Min; the only issue i take with your position can be summed up in the term “science for hire”. Back in the 70’s big tobacco company’s were able to commission study’s that “proved” no link between smoking and cancer. The institutes commissioned were considered some of the most reputable at the time.

         How does this happen? Corruption of the peer review process. I am 100% with you over the scientific method, but like the time of Galileo science always takes a back seat to politics and popular opinion. Just look at states now suggesting IT as an alternative to evolution.

         Anyone with enough time on their hands can study the field and evaluate the evidence for themselves… or at least they could if the ipcc agreed to release the METHODS of testing for some of their study’s. Not all of them mind you, but some apparently compromise national security somehow…

         Let me illustrate my point;

         In 1974 a government funded study was published on the effects of heavy
        marijuana use in monkeys. Called the Heath/Tulane study, it showed that monkeys given 30 joints a day began to atrophy and die after 90 days. It was determined that the monkeys had brain damage after comparing the number of dead brain cells with a control group. This became the cornerstone study of anti-pot special interest groups (and is still cited today by christian and Scientologist groups) It was also used by regan as part of the war on drugs…But they didn’t release the METHOD of their study.

         After 6 years and a court supena, it was finally revealed that in the study, the monkeys had gas masks strapped to their heads and the equivalent of 63 joints were pumped into their lungs in 5 minutes. . . They were suffocated.

        -part of a decent doc about it

         Blind faith in the scientific community is still blind faith… I assure you it is rife with bias.

         I don’t know that the ipcc is wrong, as i cant verify much of what they cite. I DO know that multinational banks and oil companys such as Royal Dutch/Shell are among the ipcc’s biggest backers. I DO know that some climate scientists have had to threaten legal action to have their names removed from the ipcc’s “consensus”. I DO know that the founder of the weather channel John Coleman and over 9000 PHD’s have tried to sue Al Gore for fraud over the issue. I DO know that in 2009 the new york times predicted Al Gore would become the worlds first carbon billionaire, and that carbon trading is a WAY more lucrative industry than “climate denial”.

         So i remain skeptical yet open minded. I think what we need is more public transparency, or a more open peer review process but i would be interested to hear your thoughts or solutions. Cheers.

      • Lord Xenu

        @Min; the only issue i take with your position can be summed up in the term “science for hire”. Back in the 70’s big tobacco company’s were able to commission study’s that “proved” no link between smoking and cancer. The institutes commissioned were considered some of the most reputable at the time.

         How does this happen? Corruption of the peer review process. I am 100% with you over the scientific method, but like the time of Galileo science always takes a back seat to politics and popular opinion. Just look at states now suggesting IT as an alternative to evolution.

         Anyone with enough time on their hands can study the field and evaluate the evidence for themselves… or at least they could if the ipcc agreed to release the METHODS of testing for some of their study’s. Not all of them mind you, but some apparently compromise national security somehow…

         Let me illustrate my point;

         In 1974 a government funded study was published on the effects of heavy
        marijuana use in monkeys. Called the Heath/Tulane study, it showed that monkeys given 30 joints a day began to atrophy and die after 90 days. It was determined that the monkeys had brain damage after comparing the number of dead brain cells with a control group. This became the cornerstone study of anti-pot special interest groups (and is still cited today by christian and Scientologist groups) It was also used by regan as part of the war on drugs…But they didn’t release the METHOD of their study.

         After 6 years and a court supena, it was finally revealed that in the study, the monkeys had gas masks strapped to their heads and the equivalent of 63 joints were pumped into their lungs in 5 minutes. . . They were suffocated.

        -part of a decent doc about it

         Blind faith in the scientific community is still blind faith… I assure you it is rife with bias.

         I don’t know that the ipcc is wrong, as i cant verify much of what they cite. I DO know that multinational banks and oil companys such as Royal Dutch/Shell are among the ipcc’s biggest backers. I DO know that some climate scientists have had to threaten legal action to have their names removed from the ipcc’s “consensus”. I DO know that the founder of the weather channel John Coleman and over 9000 PHD’s have tried to sue Al Gore for fraud over the issue. I DO know that in 2009 the new york times predicted Al Gore would become the worlds first carbon billionaire, and that carbon trading is a WAY more lucrative industry than “climate denial”.

         So i remain skeptical yet open minded. I think what we need is more public transparency, or a more open peer review process but i would be interested to hear your thoughts or solutions. Cheers.

    • Jane Doe

      It has been proven that the Earth has gone through many climate changes over billions of years, but do you really think that dumping millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere has no affect at all?
      Maybe this was meant to be another change for the Earth, but we are certainly helping to speed it up.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

        No, I think blowing up thousands of nuclear bombs and intentionally spilling oil into the sea is effecting the earth. Nowhere did I say pollution is good, but it certainly isn’t going to stop. I love how everyone thinks the people at the top actually give a crap by making even filthier and more pollutant façades like “carbon neutral” and “carbon tax”, please explain to me how throwing our money at it is going to solve the problem? I do not deny the damage we are doing, but I am certainly not stupid enough to buy the fear mongering. 

        • Jane Doe

          Actually, I haven’t watched this because I don’t need to. I was just wondering if you are one of the naive, who think humans haven’t contributed to climate change. Good to see you know we are.

          Nowhere did I say I think “people at the top” actually give a crap and nowhere did I mention money.

          Scientists don’t lie – that’s what we have politicians for.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

            So naive. Scientists are obviously higher beings in your eyes, they cannot possibly be human like us. How idiotic.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

            So naive. Scientists are obviously higher beings in your eyes, they cannot possibly be human like us. How idiotic.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

            So naive. Scientists are obviously higher beings in your eyes, they cannot possibly be human like us. How idiotic.

    • David

      you “still don’t know if I can believe in Global warming”?
      what about gravity, do you believe in it? oh no, wait, scientists are lying about it too, gravity does not actually exist!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

        Not in the fear mongering, no. That doesn’t mean I’m okay with pollution you patronising dolt.

      • meh

        Scientists don’t even know what gravity actually is, what really causes it, what kind of field it is.  We know stuff is attracted to other stuff.

        I don’t think the question is “Is the planet getting warmer?”, it’s “are we the cause of the warming?”

        I don’t think we are.

      • meh

        Scientists don’t even know what gravity actually is, what really causes it, what kind of field it is.  We know stuff is attracted to other stuff.

        I don’t think the question is “Is the planet getting warmer?”, it’s “are we the cause of the warming?”

        I don’t think we are.

      • meh

        Scientists don’t even know what gravity actually is, what really causes it, what kind of field it is.  We know stuff is attracted to other stuff.

        I don’t think the question is “Is the planet getting warmer?”, it’s “are we the cause of the warming?”

        I don’t think we are.

    • David

      you “still don’t know if I can believe in Global warming”?
      what about gravity, do you believe in it? oh no, wait, scientists are lying about it too, gravity does not actually exist!!

    • Anonymous

      Hi Tamryn Louise

      May I answer your concerns by asking you a question,it takes a little effort but I assure you it will be worth it.

      Here is a regular temperature index showing daily highs and lows –

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/101?

      Can you tell me what causes the temperatures to rise and fall ?,don’t worry ,it is not a trick question and the answer is fairly obvious but there is another question after this if you care to continue and you will eventually see where I am coming from and going with this.

    • Anonymous

      Hi Tamryn Louise

      May I answer your concerns by asking you a question,it takes a little effort but I assure you it will be worth it.

      Here is a regular temperature index showing daily highs and lows –

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/101?

      Can you tell me what causes the temperatures to rise and fall ?,don’t worry ,it is not a trick question and the answer is fairly obvious but there is another question after this if you care to continue and you will eventually see where I am coming from and going with this.

    • Anonymous

      Hi Tamryn Louise

      May I answer your concerns by asking you a question,it takes a little effort but I assure you it will be worth it.

      Here is a regular temperature index showing daily highs and lows –

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/101?

      Can you tell me what causes the temperatures to rise and fall ?,don’t worry ,it is not a trick question and the answer is fairly obvious but there is another question after this if you care to continue and you will eventually see where I am coming from and going with this.

    • Anonymous

      Hi Tamryn Louise

      May I answer your concerns by asking you a question,it takes a little effort but I assure you it will be worth it.

      Here is a regular temperature index showing daily highs and lows –

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/101?

      Can you tell me what causes the temperatures to rise and fall ?,don’t worry ,it is not a trick question and the answer is fairly obvious but there is another question after this if you care to continue and you will eventually see where I am coming from and going with this.

  • NAND Gate

    Great documentary, showing the climate deniers for what they are – egocentric clowns.

  • LordCheebahawk

    Climate change is a completely redundant term.  The climate is always changing.  What is the number one contributor to CO2 emissions in the atmosphere? THE OCEAN.  What causes the oceans temperature to rise? THE SUN.  Why don’t the so called “climate scientists” explain the role played by the sun.  Why did the IPCC alter the historic climate data for the years 950-1100 A.D.?

    Just turn a blind eye to the facts.  Increase taxes on everything. Prevent the third world from developing by putting constraints on CO2 emissions.  Let the wealthiest people in the world take over the carbon trading business.  

  • LordCheebahawk

    Climate change is a completely redundant term.  The climate is always changing.  What is the number one contributor to CO2 emissions in the atmosphere? THE OCEAN.  What causes the oceans temperature to rise? THE SUN.  Why don’t the so called “climate scientists” explain the role played by the sun.  Why did the IPCC alter the historic climate data for the years 950-1100 A.D.?

    Just turn a blind eye to the facts.  Increase taxes on everything. Prevent the third world from developing by putting constraints on CO2 emissions.  Let the wealthiest people in the world take over the carbon trading business.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583603516 Tamryn Louise

      Thank you, someone with a brain.

      • minmax

        Let me rephrase your comment here : “Thank you, someone with an opinion that fit with my beliefs”.

        I really wish you were bright enough to realize how ignorant and contradictory your comments are.

        But go ahead ! You definitely have the right to believe in the anti-AGW propaganda and become the puppet of energy corporations. It’s just a tad ironic that you’ll be used to promote the very ideas that you’re standing against : more taxes, less freedoms.

      • minmax

        Let me rephrase your comment here : “Thank you, someone with an opinion that fit with my beliefs”.

        I really wish you were bright enough to realize how ignorant and contradictory your comments are.

        But go ahead ! You definitely have the right to believe in the anti-AGW propaganda and become the puppet of energy corporations. It’s just a tad ironic that you’ll be used to promote the very ideas that you’re standing against : more taxes, less freedoms.

    • NAND Gate

      Yeah right. The millions of family-man scientists on an institutional wage are out to trick you. Lord Monckton needs to cite this paper:

      berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/

  • http://profiles.google.com/easymailing12 Johny Lightwell

    I don’t know about
    Global Warming with exact figures, is there scientific evidence to
    suggest that our Sun, and natural earth changes (volcanoes) and
    unnatural (meteorites) can massively affect the global temperature,
    in cycles. It’s something that we might or might not greatly
    influence.

    Yet subjectively, I
    think carbon emissions is surely not the single most important
    factor in our environment, whereas blatant POLLUTION is. How many
    toxic man-made chemicals have been released into the atmosphere,
    waters (rivers, lakes, seas, oceans). Mercury has been found in
    plankton, in the Arctic! In very abnormal quantities. Reference
    article

    http://ec.europa.eu/research/infocentre/article_en.cfm?id=/research/star/index_en.cfm?p=39&item=Environment&artid=7216

    And that’s just a tiny
    fraction of what we do. Allergies, skin diseases, and respiratory
    problems are on the significant rise in children living in
    cities/industrial areas today, more than 10/20/30 years ago, partly
    due to high heavy metals. Talk about radio pollution? TV, Wi-Fi
    (millions of hotspots/homes), Wi-MAX, 3G, 4G. How does that affect
    your body being bombarded with signals from multiple sources,
    millions/billions of times per second?

    All the plastics that
    we use in the world today, do you believe them to all be harmless
    substances? Check out what organic chemicals some of them have, and
    how they can affect your body with just a tiny fraction of them
    coming into contact.

    And what about the
    man-made chemicals used in all the packaged foods today.
    Preservatives, colourants, and flavourings “identical to natural”.
    Some of them safe, some are out right toxic, yet allowed in many
    countries.

    I think it’s a learning
    process, its part of our technological-revolution, before we start to
    get our act together with the environment and earth, we probably need
    to get our act together in our fuzzy minds and lives. By raising
    AWARENESS, and choosing the better option/solution, by our demands
    the businesses/corporations will have to follow. It’ how the economy
    works. (Unless you are unconsciously led , and choices are made for
    you)

    • Luayursula

      Oh… so true. And the fact, that while some of those chemicals have been tested on humans, many, just barely… and when we talk about interactions and mixtures of those chemicals. NOTHING IS TESTED!

       It’s just like Joker’s plot, on the old Burton’s movie…

    • Luayursula

      Oh… so true. And the fact, that while some of those chemicals have been tested on humans, many, just barely… and when we talk about interactions and mixtures of those chemicals. NOTHING IS TESTED!

       It’s just like Joker’s plot, on the old Burton’s movie…

    • Luayursula

      Oh… so true. And the fact, that while some of those chemicals have been tested on humans, many, just barely… and when we talk about interactions and mixtures of those chemicals. NOTHING IS TESTED!

       It’s just like Joker’s plot, on the old Burton’s movie…

  • http://profiles.google.com/easymailing12 Johny Lightwell

    I don’t know about
    Global Warming with exact figures, is there scientific evidence to
    suggest that our Sun, and natural earth changes (volcanoes) and
    unnatural (meteorites) can massively affect the global temperature,
    in cycles. It’s something that we might or might not greatly
    influence.

    Yet subjectively, I
    think carbon emissions is surely not the single most important
    factor in our environment, whereas blatant POLLUTION is. How many
    toxic man-made chemicals have been released into the atmosphere,
    waters (rivers, lakes, seas, oceans). Mercury has been found in
    plankton, in the Arctic! In very abnormal quantities. Reference
    article

    http://ec.europa.eu/research/infocentre/article_en.cfm?id=/research/star/index_en.cfm?p=39&item=Environment&artid=7216

    And that’s just a tiny
    fraction of what we do. Allergies, skin diseases, and respiratory
    problems are on the significant rise in children living in
    cities/industrial areas today, more than 10/20/30 years ago, partly
    due to high heavy metals. Talk about radio pollution? TV, Wi-Fi
    (millions of hotspots/homes), Wi-MAX, 3G, 4G. How does that affect
    your body being bombarded with signals from multiple sources,
    millions/billions of times per second?

    All the plastics that
    we use in the world today, do you believe them to all be harmless
    substances? Check out what organic chemicals some of them have, and
    how they can affect your body with just a tiny fraction of them
    coming into contact.

    And what about the
    man-made chemicals used in all the packaged foods today.
    Preservatives, colourants, and flavourings “identical to natural”.
    Some of them safe, some are out right toxic, yet allowed in many
    countries.

    I think it’s a learning
    process, its part of our technological-revolution, before we start to
    get our act together with the environment and earth, we probably need
    to get our act together in our fuzzy minds and lives. By raising
    AWARENESS, and choosing the better option/solution, by our demands
    the businesses/corporations will have to follow. It’ how the economy
    works. (Unless you are unconsciously led , and choices are made for
    you)

  • NAND Gate

    10 years ago, the US ALONE had 2.6million scientists. There are now around 28-35 million scientists worldwide. Roughly 82% of these claim they believe in anthropogenic climate change. So, even at the lowest estimate, there are over 20 million scientists worldwide who believe in anthropogenic climate change.
    But of course, its not them that is right – it is you and Lord Monkeyton. And even though they are only on institutional wages, dedicated to pursuing truth – they are all lying to you.
    Why? Because you are just so damn clever – too damn clever – and they were bored and hope to annoy you, that’s why.

    I’m going over here to vomit in the corner. Why? Oh, no reason.

  • goldensilence

    ICE AGE <<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WARM AGE

  • Ljhglhjglkj

    NAND Gate your a fuck wit. a sheep…… nah a fuck wit

    • Luayursula

      Wow… Such weight to your argument… Behold… A scientist! While you Americans (only ones in doubt, thanks to your lobbyists) deny human-made climate destabilization, you spray the hold world with your fucking chemtrail tankers at an attempt of mitigating it. Geoengineering the fucking world because you’re so into oil, it’s better to risk the hold planet’s health so you can keep burning your damn fossil fuels.

  • DH

    You fail to realise the goverment’s across the world implemented “Earth Saving” agendas to then impose carbon taxes and green tax on you all. Don’t you get it? You cant trust ANYTHING the goverment says anymore.

  • DH

    And the scientists follow orders. Come off your high horses for a second and just think back to the last scientist you knew that “stepped down” after speaking out. Then cast your minds back and think about what happens to them when they don’t “step down”. The EXACT same thing happened with the M.O.D over here in the UK when Dr Kelly spoke up about weapons of mass destruction. Its the same thing. The scientists will do as there told, say what they’ve bin told to say and hypothesis on any subject they’ve bin given.

  • http://yahoo David

    How arrogant the present human race is to think there is no micro-effect on the environment due to the millions of metric tons of pollutants that are spewed every day. How childishly arrogant to think this entire planet will be affected. When the Human Race tries, and tries, and tries, to terraform Mars, then will they learn their proper place.

    • FSandlewould

      It is arrogant to think we could as small as we are affect the Earth. But you don’t understand that because you don’t understand science David.

  • Pingback: M returns, while I waste more time on Senator Belfry… | Neil's Commonplace Book()