The Great Climate Swindle

[gocolts 300]

The Great Climate Swindle Part 1 2 min vid

 

The Great Climate Swindle Part 2 3 min vid

 

The Great Climate Swindle Part 3 3 min vid

 

The Great Climate Swindle Part 4 3 min vid

 

The Great Climate Swindle Part 5 4 and a half min vid

 

 

Part 4 is a must see. Watch them if you dare.

 

[Snoopy1 0]

Brought to you by Martin Durkin, producer & director, who also made the famous documentary claiming silicone breast implants are beneficial to women.

 

His previous forary into Environmental television:

 

The decision to commission this programme seems even odder when you discover who is making it. In 1997, the director, Martin Durkin, produced a very similar series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamt up by environmentalists. It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and to edit their answers to change their meaning. Following complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that “the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing” and that they had been “misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”(14) Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has ever made. Are institutional memories really so short?

 

Link

 

So we should believe a person who's previous credits are called laughable, who's researchers have walked out because he tosses research that doesn't fit his conclusions.

 

Next Gocolts will quote RP to support his findings.

[gocolts 300]

Brought to you by Martin Durkin, producer & director, who also made the famous documentary claiming silicone breast implants are beneficial to women.

 

His previous forary into Environmental television:

 

The decision to commission this programme seems even odder when you discover who is making it. In 1997, the director, Martin Durkin, produced a very similar series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamt up by environmentalists. It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and to edit their answers to change their meaning. Following complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that “the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing” and that they had been “misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”(14) Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has ever made. Are institutional memories really so short?

 

Link

 

So we should believe a person who's previous credits are called laughable, who's researchers have walked out because he tosses research that doesn't fit his conclusions.

 

Next Gocolts will quote RP to support his findings.

Maybe I will quote RP. I can see why you wouldn't belive it coming from someone you don't trust. He seems to make some pretty good arguments for the Sun warming up the planet. Anyway, glad your nutjob response is out of the way.

[DAVID RUFFIN 2]

Brought to you by Martin Durkin, producer & director, who also made the famous documentary claiming silicone breast implants are beneficial to women.

 

His previous forary into Environmental television:

 

The decision to commission this programme seems even odder when you discover who is making it. In 1997, the director, Martin Durkin, produced a very similar series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamt up by environmentalists. It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and to edit their answers to change their meaning. Following complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that “the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing” and that they had been “misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”(14) Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has ever made. Are institutional memories really so short?

 

Link

 

So we should believe a person who's previous credits are called laughable, who's researchers have walked out because he tosses research that doesn't fit his conclusions.

 

Next Gocolts will quote RP to support his findings.

 

 

Talk about a punch in the throat. That's going to leave a mark gocolts.