Customer Reviews

Dimming The Sun

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is the most alarming thing I have seen yet on global warming, and it is entirely plausible. If you think global warming will result in beachfront property in Las Vegas and shifting of all belts of flora and fauna more comfortably northward, you haven't seen anything yet! I always anticipated that researchers would soon start to connect the dots and predict large, really large, continent-wide effects in all areas of life, and here they have done it. Nothing will be the same for our world unless we start right now to change our ways. It is NOT just temperature rise--it is so much more, and it probably spells doom.

DIMMING THE SUN (2006)
directed by Peter Chinn, Duncan Copp and Caroline Penry-Davey

This is a NOVA program that examines the phenomenon of "global dimming". To oversimplify the theory, when pollutants are released into the air, tiny particulates (such as sulphates, nitrates etc.) float up into the clouds. New clouds develop around these tiny particles and actually reflect the sun's light away from the earth's surface. You may be wondering how this is possible since we hear so much about the rise in the earth's temperature. Well not only do the dimming effects keep some light from reaching the earth, it also "traps" some of the earth's heat from being lost into the atmosphere. Under this theory, global warming is actually worse than previously predicted, as we haven't truly experienced the extent of it's effects yet due to the dimming effect.

After September 11, 2001, there was a brief time period where no planes flew over the United States. A climate scientist named David Travis studied the effects that this had on temperature. He found that the temperature *rose* during the day. This produces an interesting problem: if emissions are uniformly reduced, we may seriously accelerate the effects of global warming, but if we continue at the current rate of emissions, we will be exposed to unhealthy chemicals and still have to deal with the earth's own "re-radiation".

Highly recommended, especially for people who believe that there are simple solutions to the climate change issue.

the is the only place where the layman can hear the full truth about the impending carastrophe. i for one will expose everyone i can to this film and i beg others to do the same.

its obviously too late, but we must try.

the observations presented in "dimming the sun" (greater daily temperature variability during the period when all commercial air traffic was grounded following the events of 9/11/2001), and the diminished "pan evaporation rates" observed around the globe in the past few decades, both point to only one conclusion, that water vapor in the air is thousands of times more potent at trapping heat than is carbon dioxide. Tyndall himself noted this fact back in 1861 when he first published the results that later became the basis for the preposterous theory that man-made carbon dioxide was the driving force of greenhouse-effect warming of the earth's climate. it is easily demonstrated that water vapor is hundreds of times more potent than carbon dioxide as a "greenhouse gas," and it is well known to high-school students that water vapor is present in the atmosphere at concentrations hundreds of times greater than the total amount of carbon dioxide, natural plus man-made. and since man-made carbon dioxide is increasing the amount that is naturally present by no more than a few percent, ordinary common sense would tell anyone that an increase of a few percent in a factor which itself contributes less than one percent to the total greenhouse-effect cannot possibly be the dominant cause of greenhouse-effect warming.

the facts presented in this video can only be interpreted in one way - namely that anthropogenic carbon dioxide CANNOT POSSIBLY account for ANY sort of climate change, or specifically, "global warming." but rather than recognizing the inescapable conclusion, these so-called "scientists" propose precisely the opposite conclusion, ie, that "global warming" is actually worse than predicted. clearly, these alleged researchers had an agenda, and they were going to "massage" the data to support their pre-determined conclusion regardless of how convoluted and ludicrous the rationale. non-scientists (who are by-and-large totally naive to the workings of science) may wonder how scientists could come up with such completely bogus results. well actually it happens every day, not just in climatology, but every field of science, and for a variety of reasons. first, there is pure incompetence, which is just as common among "scientists" as it is in any other field of endeavor, if not more so. after that, there are a number of very good reasons that ultimately come down to money in the end. how? well, academics stake their careers when they endorse a particular theory, and when that theory is challenged by facts to the contrary, they will respond not as scientists ideally should, but as most average people would when they fear losing their prestige, their authority, and therefore their future earning potential, or even losing their job outright. sadly, most will fight tooth and nail to defend the theoretical turf they have planted their flag upon, even in the face of incontrovertible proof to the contrary. and those who not only have endorsed a particular theory, but who are actively engaged in research (funded) on the topic, will fear losing their funding (paycheck) if they are deemed to be pursuing a dead end, or worst of all, if the issue were definitively resolved. no one wants to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs when they are getting a piece of the omlet. so take it from me, the hype and absurdly alarmist warnings of mass extinctions and catastrophic earth changes are pure, weapons-grade baloneyium. or take it from Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist at MIT's Center for the Earth Sciences, who summed it up succinctly when he said in 2010, "I personally think that '"global warming"' will turn out to be a monumental DISGRACE to both the scientific community and the environmental movement."

if you don't believe me, that's ok. in fact, it's good be skeptical. i recommend that you investigate on your own. below are the titles to a few books you should check out. they are by real scientists, and by that i mean, atmospheric chemists, atmospheric physicists, and paleoclimatologists who have been studying the earth's climate and its workings for many decades, far longer than the popularized "global warming" scare has been with us. their conclusions are unanimous, and in accord with the conclusions i have outlined here. nearly 200,000 credentialled scientists have signed a petition to the president of the US stating that the popular theory known as "global warming" is unadulterated bunk. btw, the so-called "scientists" who comprise the alleged "majority of scientists" who support the idea of "global warming" are mostly minimally educated low-level technicians playing with grossly over-simplified and inadequate computer models that they themselves did NOT create, and who are not qualified to express any opinion on the merits of the scientific assumptions that those models are based upon. likewise they would NOT have the academic credentials required to sign the aforementioned petition, even if they wanted to, so they are likewise NOT qualified to refute it. please do yourself and society a great service, and take the trouble to learn some facts before you start spreading uninformed opinions and sensationalized doomsday prophesies. check out these books, just to name a few among hundreds of titles:

"Climate Change: A Natural Hazard" by William Kininmonth, who headed Australia's National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology from 1986 to 1998

"Climate: The Counter-Consensus - A Paleoclimatologist Speaks" by Prof. Robert Carter (one of the world's leading paleoclimatologists)

"A Primer on CO2 and Climate," 2nd Edition by Dr. Howard C. Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics at UConn

"Global Warming False Alarm: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations' Assertion that Man-made CO2 Causes Global Warming" by Dr. Ralph B. Alexander

"Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam" by Brian Sussman

"Climatism: Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century's Hottest Topic" by Steve Goreham

"The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?" by Christopher Booker

there is a darker reason for falsifying data and promulgating false conclusions. that is to perpetrate deliberate and criminal fraud, and a prime example of that would be al gore and the shamelessly self-serving "inconvenient truth" video. al and his buddies are founding members of, and heavily invested in, the business of carbon-credit trading. if they succeed in terrifying and bullying the nations of the world into universally ratifying the treaties that will regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, they will personally profit to the tune of approximately one-half TRILLION dollars per year. with that kind of money at stake, do you REALLY believe he is an impartial observer and selfless defender of the environment? really? al claims he has an army of experts to testify that his theory is correct. but he is well practiced at that tactic. his family became billionaires selling tobacco, and they had an army of "scientists" who testified that tobacco products were NOT harmful, and even that tobacco is good for you. when you have enough money, you can buy as many experts as you want, and they will all say exactly what you want. since these carbon-credit brokers do not actually WORK for a living, guess where all that money will come from. that's right, out of the pockets of those of us who DO actually work for a living. is that enough motivation for you to actually invest the time to read a few books, instead of watching a cheesy 50 minute commercial video?