"Swindle" movie - scientific truth or distorted propaganda?

Question

The evidence below suggests the latter. The producer has done some scientifically questionable things in the past. Channel 4 once had to make a public apology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/3/6/8814/25388

Here are two refutations:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

The movie even trotted out the "volcanoes" claim, refuted by:

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

The bottom line appears to be:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

"Pure Propaganda"

Answer 1

I watched 'Swindle' and couldn't beleive that such blatant misinformation was being broadcast under the guise of a supposedly serious documentary.

I know Channel 4 have a well earned reputation for sensationalism and gutter journalism but even by their usually questionable standards this was taking things too far.

To broadcast such propoganda was the height of irresponsible journalism. I'm all for constructive debate and have absolutely no objection to people airing their criticisms of the scientists and their work who are involved in the field of climate change. Constructive criticism is, after all, an important contribution to balanced scientific advancement.

I'm not suprised at all by the reaction of those who featured in the 'programme', if I'd have been one of those scientists I'd have been straight onto my lawyer.

The trouble is, as you are no doubt aware, that many of those with little real knowledge of global warming and climate change will see this is further 'evidence' to support their ideals.

Answer 2

I am unfamiliar with it. We know that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, in amounts that suggest that human activity is responsible. It appears to be true that global temperatures are increasing. There is no evidence other than computer simulations that the effects are related. It is sensible to use no more fossil fuel energy than necessary; it is not sensible to go into panic mode and try to undertake vast programs to reduce CO2 production: the UN has proposed a program to do so; the cost is pegged at $557,000,000,000,000 -- far more than the total value of every asset on this planet.

Answer 3

Yes, the show was just a ridiculous piece of propaganda, as is anything else Timothy Ball chooses to associate himself with.

In fact, one the scientists who appeared on the show (Carl Wunsch) is threatening legal action if the producers do not remove him from the program entirely. Mr Wunsch says that he was deceived as to the nature and content of the program, and would not have consented to appear in it had he known what it actually was. I think you can find his full letter at RealClimate (my favorite source for information on GW, by the way) and somewhere on his personal site.

Answer 4

Human caused global warming is just a myth.

As you guessed already I am on the other side on this one. What I would really like is an open debate on both sides with the evidence examined publicly so that we can get it over with. But Al Gore keeps ducking all invitations.