here for example: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v2929577GEeQHxM?searchId=5280542933435081349&rank=0

Alternatively you can download a high quality version from various torrent sites like isohunt.com

A thousand thank yous, as the Norwegians say, for posting the link to that Channel 4 documentary about the "global warming swindal."  Reaction to the program on environmentalist sites led me to expect an opportunistic, unscientific program.  In fact, it sticks largely to the science and makes a very solid case.  I think I've finally been pushed too far by the environmental hysterics:  they are clearly anti-science, and anti-rational argument.  They should be refuting the main points the video raises--that warming is greater at the earth's surface than in the troposphere; that sun spot activity tracks with temperature much better than do C02 levels--rather than smearing scientists with whom they disagree.  This whole misguided campaign against global warming is going to damage the image of the scientific community for some time to come--just when we badly need the power of science and rational thought to combat the Muslim crazies.

British Channel 4 recently aired a documentary in which meteorologists, geologists, oceanologists and other specialists from numerous universities and institutions around the globe prove that Man Made Global Warming is a lie.

Viewable here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=Global%20Warming%20Swindle&hl=en

Amsterdamsky: "As usual I agree with you Kapitein except on GMO foods.  Pest resistant crops reduce or eliminate the use of herbicides.  In addition they are starting for be used for the production of medicines and vaccines.  It is completely retarded to prohibit them like the EU does.  It is merely a cynical ploy to keep out foreign produce and keep the insane system of farm subsidies in place."

I do not believe in GMOs or herbicides; I buy organic. Agribusiness will permit people to eat garbage (e.g. Kraft, McCain, etc.) if it is profitable. Secondly, people (e.g. obese Westerners) will eat garbage, and many save money by buying garbage. GMOs can be carried by the wind to reproduce amongst organic crops, and if the European Union ends their ban on them it will be a dark day for organic foods.

Furthermore, Americans have many protective measures in place for foreign imports* and support their farmers with subsidies also.

*Arguably, as noted by Paul M. Kennedy, the British during the 19th century were more free-trade oriented than the Americans ever were.

Photosynthesis \Pho`to*syn"the*sis\, n. (Plant Physiol.)
The process of constructive metabolism in which green plants utilize the energy of sunlight to manufacture carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water in the presence of chlorophyll. Giving off oxygen as a by product.

The more co2 in the air the more plants thrive, thus more more plant growth= more food and more oxygen for humans to breathe. co2 at 1000ppbillion and plants really take off, the co2 presently is about 650ppbillion, one could correctly say that this co2 greenhouse warming is nothing more than greedy agrobusiness companies trying to cause food shortages, famine and death in poor countres. I say pump as much co2 into the atmosphere as possible and END world hunger forever.

It alarms me to read comments to the effect that the global warming hysteria, while not actually grounded in reality, is a good thing because it forces us to consider the environment more.  I can accept that religion, despite its questionable foundations, serves a perfectly valid purpose.  But when we start using science in this way, I think we're screwing ourselves over.  How are vaccines going to be developed from a scientific community that sways in the political wind?  For that matter, how will new energy technologies be discovered and perfected within this distorted environment?  Scientists have to be able to stare reality, the physical world, in the face without prejudice.  It is not merely galling but dangerous to permit the climate alarmists to cloak their hysterical predictions in scientific garb just because, for now, we support the outcome of their campaign.  We may be very opposed to future outcomes, at which point it will be too late.  Certainly, the upperwardly mobile peasantry of China, India, and Brazil won't be too thrilled about having their prosperity impeded ten or twenty years from now because of faulty science that even its supporters acknowledge is faulty. 

As usual I agree with you Kapitein except on GMO foods.  Pest resistant crops reduce or eliminate the use of herbicides.  In addition they are starting for be used for the production of medicines and vaccines.  It is completely retarded to prohibit them like the EU does.  It is merely a cynical ploy to keep out foreign produce and keep the insane system of farm subsidies in place.

The concept of global warming, as a process that - (a) is unnecessary and purely the result of human activity, (b) is irrevirsible and will result in catastrophic climate change, (c) is the single largest threat facing human civilisation, and (d) is controllable by Western governments - has become sacrosanct in academic and popular discourse, in spite of the growing chorus of voices, expert and otherwise, that challenge it. Indeed, there is strong scientific evidence to suggest that the Earth experiences warming and cooling phases on a regular basis f.e. the British Isles were warmer during the early medieval era and wine was produced in abundance in southern England; however, without an "unnatural" warming system in the North Atlantic, the British Isles would have the same climate as Norway. Furthermore, the industrialisation occurring with rapidity and little concern for environmental or human welfare in India, China and Brazil will impact "global warming" far more than any reduction in carbon dioxide emissions on the part of Western states.

However, I am not opposed to this fanaticism. Without it, environmental issues would not be on the agenda of Western governments; without a clear and present danger, whether real or preceived (global warming), Western citizenry would not be as nearly concerned with them as they are now. People were quite willing to suffer heavy levels of pollution up until very recently, and they can thank environmentalists for lobbying governments to introduce legislation to protect and clean up the environment; indeed, the air in Western cities is far cleaner than it was during the 1970s, and the same for the water, etc.

The real concern for me is not global warming, but excessive fishing, logging and hunting, non-organic foods (i.e. over-processed, artificially preserved, antibiotic and hormone-laden, genetically modified, etc.), scarification, and toxic pollution in the air, oceans, seas, rivers, lakes, soil etc. If fear-mongering is what is necessary to allow organics to flourish and to keep our environment as pristine as possible, than so be it.

Since nothing nothing exciting ever really happens in Europe, the myth 'global warming' panic gives the bored euroweenies something to talk and worry about. I cannot believe that people put their faith in someone like the has-been politician Al Gore. It is so obvious to a smart person that he is pinning his political comeback on the global warming issue. For every expert on climate change, there is an expert to counter the claim that it is a human issue. The Al Gores of this world are hoping that the scare tactics will be believed without question by those people who are unwilling to research the other side of the issue. If you say the lie over and over, then it must be true. Write a book, hob nob with the hollyweird's crowd, and bingo you are in the news again. Gore's mansion and the energy used for it are a perfect example of a hypocrite who talks the talk, but does not walk the walk.

who cares? It is about a socialist hopping on a helicopter to go to the movies. The title of the movie: An inconvenient truth. That's really inconvenient, isn't it?

The 250 kg per km was mentioned in La Libre Belgique (see link in the article) but after reading some of the comments here, I must admit that the number sounds very improbable.  Maybe they meant 250 kg per hour of flying?

The A109 produces approx. 250KG CO2/KM and it flew a total of 2 hrs from Bierset to Evere to Hasselt and from Hasselt to Evere to Bierset (home base). Google Earth, roughly: Bierset Airport to Evere HQ is 76km and from Evere to Hasselt city centre is 64 km. Totals 140km*2*250= 70t CO2.

Although I do agree with the strain of this remark, I still have my doubts about the amount of CO2, mentioned in it.

I think an helicopter of that type must have a weight comparable with a better class car, let's say somewhere between one and two tons (I might be wrong by a ton), it is hard to believe that it produces 45 tons of CO2 in an hour or so ?

This article reminded me of Britain's very own environmental windbag, Prince Charles, and his recent trip to the United States to collect an environmental award from Al Gore.

Flahaut himself /is/ 300 tons of gas. Gas and flab.

Is there any doubt that this is all a ploy to raise revenue through fines and carbon taxes to create a eurocommiesuperstate?  This has nothing to do with the environment as clearly shown by these idiots off tv/microphone actions.

Don't forget the 2500€ cost per hour and it went around for 2 hrs...