"The Great Global Warming Swindle"

[Blitzen 1]

This is part 1 (not sure if all other parts are on Youtube - saw it on Google video but it doesn't seem to be there anymore). I strongly recommend that anyone sold to the "CO2 causes climate change" side watch it. It's actually pretty good and convincing. The producer had to change a few graphs that were mildly incorrect but I truly haven't seen a great rebuttal to it yet short of scientists threatening legal action so the DVD isn't published. They should produce a rebuttal instead. The other rebuttal I have seen is that "this researcher shown in the video is retired", which isn't exactly earth shattering.There are a couple of incorrect statements in there but a lot of it hasn't been challenged.

 

Two kickers in there:

 

1) Ice cores show that historical temperature increases have preceeded - not followed - CO2 increases. Those who don't like the documentary are now saying that they've known this and this isn't news but it's interesting that they chose to not make a big deal out of it in the past.

 

2) One researcher in the video who worked on the last IPCC report - and who disagreed with the final report - had to threaten legal action because the IPCC wouldn't remove his name from the list of "scientists -who-approve-this-report". He says he knows other researchers who experienced the same thing.

 

As a former scientist, I'll be VERY interested in seeing if anyone comes up with a decent rebuttal to the facts presented in it. I think it's certainly hit a nerve.

[hoytdwow 202]

You're off message. Even Bush believes in Global Warming now.

 

itsatip

[Blitzen 1]

You're off message. Even Bush believes in Global Warming now.

 

itsatip

 

The documentary isn't saying that warming ain't happening, it raises the point that CO2 may not be the main culprit.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You're off message. Even Bush believes in Global Warming now.

 

itsatip

 

Then you should NOT believe in "Global Warming" since you think Bush hasn't been right on anything.

[wiffleball 4,797]

The documentary isn't saying that warming ain't happening, it raises the point that CO2 may not be the main culprit.

 

 

I'm no sceintist or anything, but isn't - i dunno - heat - the main culprit behind global warming??

[SUXBNME 1,609]

I'm no sceintist or anything, but isn't - i dunno - heat - the main culprit behind global warming??

 

That and illegal immigration. Damn messicans

 

 

 

[Snoopy1 0]

This is part 1 (not sure if all other parts are on Youtube - saw it on Google video but it doesn't seem to be there anymore). I strongly recommend that anyone sold to the "CO2 causes climate change" side watch it. It's actually pretty good and convincing. The producer had to change a few graphs that were mildly incorrect but I truly haven't seen a great rebuttal to it yet short of scientists threatening legal action so the DVD isn't published. They should produce a rebuttal instead. The other rebuttal I have seen is that "this researcher shown in the video is retired", which isn't exactly earth shattering.There are a couple of incorrect statements in there but a lot of it hasn't been challenged.

 

Two kickers in there:

 

1) Ice cores show that historical temperature increases have preceeded - not followed - CO2 increases. Those who don't like the documentary are now saying that they've known this and this isn't news but it's interesting that they chose to not make a big deal out of it in the past.

 

2) One researcher in the video who worked on the last IPCC report - and who disagreed with the final report - had to threaten legal action because the IPCC wouldn't remove his name from the list of "scientists -who-approve-this-report". He says he knows other researchers who experienced the same thing.

 

As a former scientist, I'll be VERY interested in seeing if anyone comes up with a decent rebuttal to the facts presented in it. I think it's certainly hit a nerve.

 

 

I've seen portions of this before and have responded before as thus: It's very hard to take seriously someone (Mike Durkin-director/producer) who has been sued for for falsely portraying what people have said be use of selective editing.

 

If I recall correctly, the last time one of his science shows broadcast, the station that put it on the air was forced by courts to apologize due the massive bs and out and out lies in the show. I find it a bit humorous you mention one researcher threating legal action to have his name removed from a report, when many have actually sued Durkin.

 

An open letter sent Tuesday by 38 scientists, including the former heads of Britain's academy of sciences and Britain's weather office, called on producer Wag TV to remove what it called "major misrepresentations" from the film before the DVD release -- a demand its director said was tantamount to censorship.

 

Bob Ward, the former spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain's academy of science, and one of the letter's signatories, said director Mark Durkin made a "long catalog of fundamental and profound mistakes" -- including the claim that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than humans, and that the Earth's atmosphere was warmer during the Middle Ages than it is today.

 

"Free speech does not extend to misleading the public by making factually inaccurate statements," he said. "Somebody has to stand up for the public interest here."

Durkin acknowledged two of the errors highlighted by the scientists -- including the claim about volcanic emissions -- but he described those changes as minor and said they would be corrected in the expanded DVD release.

 

But the scientists do not want the DVD released without edits to completely remove the material they object to -- something Ward said would fatally weaken the film's argument.

 

"The fact is that it's a very convincing program, and if you're not very aware of the science you wouldn't necessarily see what the errors are," Ward said. "But the errors are huge. ... Without those errors in, he doesn't have a story."

[Toro 3]

I've seen portions of this before and have responded before as thus: It's very hard to take seriously someone (Michael Moore-director/producer) who has been sued for for falsely portraying what people have said be use of selective editing.

[Snoopy1 0]

Do you have a point, toro, besides that when I type, I don't proof-read?

[gocolts 300]

This is part 1 (not sure if all other parts are on Youtube - saw it on Google video but it doesn't seem to be there anymore). I strongly recommend that anyone sold to the "CO2 causes climate change" side watch it. It's actually pretty good and convincing. The producer had to change a few graphs that were mildly incorrect but I truly haven't seen a great rebuttal to it yet short of scientists threatening legal action so the DVD isn't published. They should produce a rebuttal instead. The other rebuttal I have seen is that "this researcher shown in the video is retired", which isn't exactly earth shattering.There are a couple of incorrect statements in there but a lot of it hasn't been challenged.

 

Two kickers in there:

 

1) Ice cores show that historical temperature increases have preceeded - not followed - CO2 increases. Those who don't like the documentary are now saying that they've known this and this isn't news but it's interesting that they chose to not make a big deal out of it in the past.

 

2) One researcher in the video who worked on the last IPCC report - and who disagreed with the final report - had to threaten legal action because the IPCC wouldn't remove his name from the list of "scientists -who-approve-this-report". He says he knows other researchers who experienced the same thing.

 

As a former scientist, I'll be VERY interested in seeing if anyone comes up with a decent rebuttal to the facts presented in it. I think it's certainly hit a nerve.

 

I'm on itI posted a link to all of it back in March.

[Snoopy1 0]

Now even a climate sceptic whose dissenting views were used by the film- makers to bolster their claims about the "lies" and "swindles" of global warming has accused the documentary of promulgating falsehoods.

 

Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, has issued a statement accusing the film-makers of fabricating data based on his work looking at the links between solar activity and global temperatures.

 

Dr Friiss-Christensen said that a graph he had produced some years ago showing the link between fluctuations in global temperatures and changes in solar activity - sunspot cycles - over the past 400 years had been doctored. The documentary used the graph to pour scorn on the idea that the global warming in recent decades is the result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. Solar activity, the programme stated, is the cause of global warming in the late 20th century.

 

link

 

Yeah, gocolts, my Durkin's a nutjob, was really off the mark.

[Blitzen 1]

I've seen portions of this before and have responded before as thus: It's very hard to take seriously someone (Mike Durkin-director/producer) who has been sued for for falsely portraying what people have said be use of selective editing.

 

If I recall correctly, the last time one of his science shows broadcast, the station that put it on the air was forced by courts to apologize due the massive bs and out and out lies in the show. I find it a bit humorous you mention one researcher threating legal action to have his name removed from a report, when many have actually sued Durkin.

 

I've said before that the volcanoes spewing more than humans is bunk and it's one of the few errors in there but, again, I haven't seen too many rebuttals of the main points he makes. If you have those, I would be happy to read it. And remember, I am more on the other side of the fence than on this one to start with so that movie had to contain some convincing stuff to get me to consider it at all.

[Snoopy1 0]

I've said before that the volcanoes spewing more than humans is bunk and it's one of the few errors in there but, again, I haven't seen too many rebuttals of the main points he makes. If you have those, I would be happy to read it. And remember, I am more on the other side of the fence than on this one to start with so that movie had to contain some convincing stuff to get me to consider it at all.

 

 

Okay besides the fact that Durkin is a proven in court liar (and I'm going by memory, Im not watching this again) the main point he makes is that CO2 levels can't be connected to earlier instances of global warming. Correct?

 

What about other greenhouse gasses, such as methane. A significant ammount of methane released into the atomosphere would also produce the same effect. Methane traps heat at a rate 22 more then CO2, so it would obviously take 22 times less methane to create such an effect. Methane can be produced by animals and decomposition of plant matter, so under the right conditions you could increase global tempertures without a significant CO2 spike.

 

Does the documentary the other possible cause of warming in other times. Also see above where the sun-spot guy is pretty pissed at Durkin for liberties & fabrications.

 

 

Quick search shows I was pretty on: Link

[pimptastic69 0]

Okay besides the fact that Durkin is a proven in court liar (and I'm going by memory, Im not watching this again) the main point he makes is that CO2 levels can't be connected to earlier instances of global warming. Correct?

 

What about other greenhouse gasses, such as methane. A significant ammount of methane released into the atomosphere would also produce the same effect. Methane traps heat at a rate 22 more then CO2, so it would obviously take 22 times less methane to create such an effect. Methane can be produced by animals and decomposition of plant matter, so under the right conditions you could increase global tempertures without a significant CO2 spike.

 

Does the documentary the other possible cause of warming in other times. Also see above where the sun-spot guy is pretty pissed at Durkin for liberties & fabrications.

Quick search shows I was pretty on: Link

 

The main point about the flick is that GW causes CO2 levels to rise. The two are related, just not in the way we were told to believe. It says in the film that in the past, once a warming trend starts (for whatever reason) a few centuries later CO2 levels began to rise. When you look at a graph depicting 100,000 years of data, it would look like CO2 and temperature are right on top of each other. But when you zoom in, a gap can be seen where CO2 followed temperature.

 

So, if you follow this logic, trying to control carbon emissions is pointless. It's like trying to limit fires by getting rid of ash.

[Strike 6,030]

Just finished watching the documentary and then doing some research on the controversy surrounding it. It's an interesting piece of work and compelling if you don't read up about it. I find it odd that so many people are trying to censor it as inaccurate yet support Gore's "An incovenient truth" as if it was accurate when it's clearly not either. But what I really take out of this one is the fact that it does show that there are numerous scientists who are either skeptical or flat out don't buy the global warming hysteria. And I think the points this film makes about the political nature of the movement is worthy as well.

[Snoopy1 0]

Just finished watching the documentary and then doing some research on the controversy surrounding it. It's an interesting piece of work and compelling if you don't read up about it. I find it odd that so many people are trying to censor it as inaccurate yet support Gore's "An incovenient truth" as if it was accurate when it's clearly not either. But what I really take out of this one is the fact that it does show that there are numerous scientists who are either skeptical or flat out don't buy the global warming hysteria. And I think the points this film makes about the political nature of the movement is worthy as well.

 

 

Like these guys:

 

Fred Singer. Despite the caption on the programme, Singer has retired from the University of Virginia and has not had a single article accepted for any peer-reviewed scientific journal for 20 years. His main work has been as a hired gun for business interests to undermine scientific research on environmental and health matters. Before turning to climate change denial he has argued that CFCs do not cause ozone depletion and second hand smoke does not cause cancer (more… ). In 1990 he founded “The Science and Environment Policy Project”, which aggressively contradicts climate science and has received direct funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. Exxon is also among the funders ($20,000 in 1998 and 2000)

 

Patrick Michaels is the most prominent US climate change denier. In the programme he claimed “I’ve never been paid a nickel by the old and gas companies” which is a curious claim. According to the US journalist Ross Gebspan Michaels has received direct funding from, among others German Coal Mining Association ($49,000), Edison Electric Institute ($15,000), and the Western Fuels Association ($63,000) an association of US coal producing interests (more…). The WFA is one of the most powerful forces in the US actively denying the basic science of climate change, funding, amongs other things, the Greening Earth Society which is directed by Patrick Michaels. Tom Wigley, one of the leading IPCC scientists, describes Michaels work as “a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation”. (More on Michaels…)

 

Philip Stott was captioned as a Professor at the University of London although he is retired and is therefore free of any academic accountability. Stott is a geographer by training and has no qualifications in climate science. Since retiring Stott has aimed to become Britain’s leading anti-green pundit dedicating himself to wittily criticizing rainforest campaigns (with Patrick Moore), advocating genetic engineering and claiming that “global warming is the new fundamentalist religion.”

 

Patrick Moore is Stott’s Canadian equivalent. Since a very personal and painful falling out with Greenpeace in 1986 Moore has put his considerable campaigning energies into undermining environmentalists, especially his former friends and colleagues. Typical of his rhetoric was his claim in the programme that environmentalists were “anti-human” and “treat humans as scum”. Throughout the 1990s Moore worked as lead consultant for the British Columbian Timber Products Association undermining Greenpeace’s international campaign to protect old growth forest there. Whenever he has the chance he also makes strong public statements in favour of genetic engineering, nuclear power, logging the Amazon, and industrial fishing- all, strangely, lead campaigns for Greenpeace (more on Moore..)

 

Piers Corbyn has no academic status and his role in such programmes is to promote his own weather prediction business. He has steadfastly refused to ever subject his climatological theories to any form of external review or scrutiny.

 

Richard Lindzen. As a Professor of Meteorology at the credible Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lindzen is by far the most reputable academic among the US climate deniers and, for this reason, he is heavily cited by sympathetic journalists such as Melanie Phillips and Michael Crichton. His arguments though are identical to the other deniers – for example an article in the Wall Street Journal (June 11 2001) he claims that “there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends or what causes them”.

He is strongly associated with the other people on the programme though co-authored reports, articles, conference appearances and co-signed statements.

 

Tim Ball was captioned as the University of Winnipeg. In fact he left in 1996 since when he has run political campaigns through two organisations he helped found: the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and the Friends of Science which, according to their websites aim to run “a proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol”; and “encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol”. Ian Clark is also on the board of the NRSP.

 

I have no problem with debate, questions, re-analysis of facts, if it's done in an honest fashion. Perhaps the documentary provided you with new idea or thoughts, but it's intellectual dishonesty seems to be more of the norm of the 'sceptic' crowd.

[Colbert Nation 0]

I agree with whatever Ron Paul thinks is right...

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I find it odd that most of the other planets are warming also. Did GM open a plant on Mars? ###### us whiteys who went to college, studied our azzes off, got married, had kids and needed a large car.......on Mars? Gosh people who can afford an SUV are the devil. I think Caddy just opened one up on Neptune also.....will we not be content until WE destroy the entire solar system!?!?!?!?!!?

[Snoopy1 0]

I find it odd that most of the other planets are warming also. Did GM open a plant on Mars? ###### us whiteys who went to college, studied our azzes off, got married, had kids and needed a large car.......on Mars? Gosh people who can afford an SUV are the devil. I think Caddy just opened one up on Neptune also.....will we not be content until WE destroy the entire solar system!?!?!?!?!!?

 

The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.

 

 

Link

[Recliner Pilot 61]

"Global Warming", Neptune Warming, Mars Warming....................it's the SUN!

 

Focking idiots.

[Strike 6,030]

Like these guys:

I have no problem with debate, questions, re-analysis of facts, if it's done in an honest fashion. Perhaps the documentary provided you with new idea or thoughts, but it's intellectual dishonesty seems to be more of the norm of the 'sceptic' crowd.

 

There were a lot of other scientists interviewed on that show than the handful that website chose to discredit. Maybe they discredited those they could and just chose not to mention the ones that were beyond reproach? Included is a professor who specifically asked that his name be removed from the U.N.'s IPCC report and had to resort to legal action to get them to do so. He questioned how many of those on the credits list for that report actually agree with it's conclusions because he knows of much from the draft version of the report that was removed; he called it the worst case of peer review abuse he'd ever seen. And he has not been discredited in any way. Did you actually watch the documentary or did you just go out and look for negative pub on it? Because I did both, and balanced them to come to the conclusions I posted above.

[Snoopy1 0]

There were a lot of other scientists interviewed on that show than the handful that website chose to discredit. Maybe they discredited those they could and just chose not to mention the ones that were beyond reproach? Included is a professor who specifically asked that his name be removed from the U.N.'s IPCC report and had to resort to legal action to get them to do so. He questioned how many of those on the credits list for that report actually agree with it's conclusions because he knows of much from the draft version of the report that was removed; he called it the worst case of peer review abuse he'd ever seen. And he has not been discredited in any way. Did you actually watch the documentary or did you just go out and look for negative pub on it? Because I did both, and balanced them to come to the conclusions I posted above.

 

 

I did watch it back in March.

 

The point being that I have a hard time accepting the credibility of something that fabricates evidence(they did), produces "experts" who are anythiing but and makes "mistakes" that damage the entire premise.

[Strike 6,030]

I did watch it back in March.

 

The point being that I have a hard time accepting the credibility of something that fabricates evidence(they did), produces "experts" who are anythiing but and makes "mistakes" that damage the entire premise.

 

Did you see "An Inconvenient Truth"? What did you think of it if you did?

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I did watch it back in March.

 

The point being that I have a hard time accepting the credibility of something that fabricates evidence(they did), produces "experts" who are anythiing but and makes "mistakes" that damage the entire premise.

 

Thats just Gore being Gore, im sure you'll let him fool you again.

 

Oh, and you forgot to add Neptune's moon Triton and Jupiter to your little quote......from that reaaally objective website.

[Blitzen 1]

There were a lot of other scientists interviewed on that show than the handful that website chose to discredit. Maybe they discredited those they could and just chose not to mention the ones that were beyond reproach? Included is a professor who specifically asked that his name be removed from the U.N.'s IPCC report and had to resort to legal action to get them to do so. He questioned how many of those on the credits list for that report actually agree with it's conclusions because he knows of much from the draft version of the report that was removed; he called it the worst case of peer review abuse he'd ever seen. And he has not been discredited in any way. Did you actually watch the documentary or did you just go out and look for negative pub on it? Because I did both, and balanced them to come to the conclusions I posted above.

 

I agree with this and I would like to see the full list of experts who back the UN report to gauge whether some of them are just government reps who know nothing about climate research, another point made in the film. The film is certainly FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from perfect but I have yet to see a UN-produced document that would be anywhere close to perfect. If bureaucrats had not been involved, then I might have a higher opinion of it but you have to understand that the UN is like all of the world's bureaucracies put together - you end up with the least common denominator every time. I know a guy who is pretty far up the totem pole there and he has interesting stories...

 

Also I still haven't seen a good rebuttal of the temperature preceeds CO2 increase.

[Snoopy1 0]

Did you see "An Inconvenient Truth"? What did you think of it if you did?

 

 

Didn't bother, if I want to pay to get preached at I'll go to church.

 

Why is it worth seeing? Is Rachel McAdams in it...I"ll see anything with her.