What did you think of that "Great Global Warming Swindle" show?

Answer 1

It is simply a political statement which distorts science. The director has a history of putting out misleading stuff. In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with Nazis. Channel 4 had to apologise for the misleading stuff in that one. The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

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

"Pure Propaganda"

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

Explanations of why the science is wrong.

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

History of the director.

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

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right. This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way. If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information. They also have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming. The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

So, why did Channel 4 broadcast it?

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

Answer 2

I don't think that they necessarily did a convincing job in providing an alternative hypothesis, but then, they shouldn't have to. There are many things in science that have still gone unexplained, that's why we have scientific Laws. but global warming alarmists have insisted that an explanation is necessary within a given amount of time, and settled on the first explanation they researched and immediately "settled" debate.

This is the one place where the film shines - unmasking the very unscientific motivations of the alarmist crowd. People have the mistaken conclusion that researchers are altruistic and near infallible. People have no idea that climatologists who toe the alarmist line are probably the highest paid researchers today. They certainly make more than climatologists who DON'T.

They also did well by reminding folks about the unethical fudging of the "hockey stick" computer model which was trumpeted in the previous IPCC report; after pressure to release the actual modeling software, the "hockey stick" could be made out of virtually any data set. It was a deliberate attempt to perpetrate a scientific hoax.

But, we didn't even get a "my bad" out of the IPCC in their latest report. And it doesn't appear that they will release the modeling software for the current evidence in order to perform a public, independent analysis.

If that doesn't sound like a swindle, I don't know what does.

Answer 3

I never saw it, but the worst swindle of all, would be the day when people wake up to find that the biggest swindle of all has been the one where we've all been living a lie, cheated out of the most important thing I can think of, the very thing that FEEDS your little behind. You don't, with your attitude, deserve her. It's the most special thing we have, and SHOULD get priority one, no matter WHAT polititians are using for their campains. It will eventually come down to the people who give a ---- versus the ones who don't. And when that happens, your side , is not one by which, I'd want to stand. I wouldn't want to stand there now.

Answer 4

i liked it. its criticism from global warmaholics is that there are some technical nuances that are ignored or not explained. those details are irrelevant because the don't change the conclusions of the evidence as a whole. some things aren't explained as deep as they go to keep the film watchable(who likes to read text books?) and to keep the program under the 90min mark. however if you research on your own, (something the G.W. alarmist are steadfast against) you'll see that these minor details don't change any of the assumptions made by the program.

one thing the global warmingistas wont touch is the observation made that after the fall of communism, leftists, socialists and communists had no home. oddly enough, a new cause came about that call for co2 (an industrial gas) to be strongly regulated by government. what a great new home for the libs to express their anti capitalist, anti development, pro government views. touch it libbys i dare ya....

overall i think this film provides a good summary of my side of this man (or USA if you will) made global warming.

Answer 5

I think its great when a bunch of people who fly in private 747's that burn over 30,000 gal of fuel an hour are telling us not to drive our 20 mpg SUV's. Hypocrisy at its finest. Its the traditional democrats do as I say not as I do. They tell us to save gas from their private jets and to not be racist when the welfare system has decimated the low income african american family. I just don't get it at least if you want me to do something start by leading by example. Get of your jets and either fly coach with the rest of us or actually drive the Prius full time, not just to publicity stunts. And if they actually cared about jobs they would make it easier and cheaper for business to operate. Take for example when dems run an area with their high taxes business flees examples include the state of Michigan and DC. Sorry for the rant but their is nothing worse than a hypocrite.

Answer 6

It is a silly waste of time and energy, for the purpose of trying to get people to ignore that we have a serious pollution problem, even if man-made global warming does not exist.

if you look at it realistically, here are the two sides of the global warming debate:

1) pollution causes environmental damage and we must develop more sustainable practices to reduce pollution

VS

2) Global warming does not exist, so we don't have to change our ways at all.

Which argument sounds more realistic?
We already know we have to develop fuel and energy sources that do not rely on fossil fuels, because they aren't going to last forever. But argument #2 wants to delay what we need to do until every drop of fossil fuels is consumed.
essentially that is the goal of the argument #2.

Answer 7

Just shows how much real science differs from Al Gore's political, "chicken little" environmentalism.

Answer 8

you mean the one where everyone spend a lot of money to get there, there was a lot of garbage that had to be removed afterward, and they didn't make a cent on that show?

Answer 9

It is a scam and people like Gore is making millions.

Answer 10

Wish I had seen it. Sounds interesting.