How can the swindle video be recommended, after it's been proven to be wrong?

Question

This shows exactly how the video distorted the science, complete with references to the literature:

http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm

The British press took it apart:

"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

Even the channel which broadcast it thinks it's wrong. If you go to their website on the movie it says "Confused now? Ask the Expert", with a link. The questions go to a mainstream scientist who says global warming is mostly caused by man.

So, why did they 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

Corrected second link:

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

Corrected second link:

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

Answer 1

Bob, you must have realised that many global warming skeptics chose to beleive anything that seems to validate their opinions. It doesn't matter how flawed the arguments are or how many times they've been discredited, all that matters is that it supports their opinions.

Tell a skeptic that Mars is warming and they beleive you, tell them that Mercury is cooling and they don't beleive you. Same source, same credibility, one statement conforms to their opinion so is accepted as fact, the other statement doesn't conform so is dismissed.

It's about the worst possible line of defence the skeptics can adopt. By simply ignoring something or dismissing it out of hand they may as well hold their hands up and say 'you got me there'.

Interesting point, those who beleive in global warming are all singing from the same hymn sheet, their arguments are consistent, factual and scientifically based. The arguments used by many skeptics are disjointed, often contradictory, ever changing and invariably can't be substantiated.

It's basically the same approach that a criminal uses when he's been nicked and the evidence against him is overwhelming. Unable to refute the evidence or come up with any credible excuse he starts accusing the police of lying, of evidence being fabricated, trying to blame someone else, anything except facing up to the facts.

Answer 2

I laughed out loud at Trevor’s answer.

He said…

“…he starts accusing the police of lying, of evidence being fabricated, trying to blame someone else, anything except facing up to the facts.”

Er? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that exactly what you Global Warming Alarmists are doing regarding TGGWS? Aren’t you saying that it’s lying and fabricating evidence?

For me, the most important thing that TGGWS has done is to demonstrate just how hypocritical you Global Warming Alarmists are. You will ferociously attack it for lying, distorting the science and being one-sided, while supporting, or at least keeping very quiet about An Inconvenient Truth – a film that is just as guilty of the same faults.

I’m sure your answer will be something alone the lines of: “I don’t support An Inconvenient Truth either”, but that’s just not good enough. You don’t exactly condemn it, do you? Bad science is bad science, regardless of which side of the fence it’s on.

This whole “it’s ok for Gore to tell lies, because he’s on our side” attitude is one of the reasons I became sceptical. It’s not the way science works, it’s the way propaganda works.

Answer 3

Beats me. I could be labeled a skeptic and I would never stoop to watching a documentary about global warming. That goes for an Inconvenient Truth as well. These are political propaganda, regardless of the veracity of their claims.

Answer 4

Why would you get your information from a video in the first place? That is the problem with today's world, we want it all cut and dry in a video. Videos are good to get the word out on something, but they are almost always biased. Get your information from reputable institutions like NASA or NOAA and you will find that neither side of this "global warming" issue has any idea what they are talking about.

Edit: Why did I get thumbs-downed for that?

Answer 5

To "confused p"-No. There are no "counter arguements" to global warming, or its human causes. The facts aren't going to change because a bunch of jackasses keep dreaming up cock-and-bull "objections.

To answer your question--most of this stuff--likethe "swindle" BS film--are simply propaganda put out by the oil companies and other special interests. At this point, I think a lot of the so-called "deniers" are starting to figure this out--but are reluctant to admit, even to themselves, that they've been so gullible.

But there are also a number of them who have made a religious belief--literally--out of denying the science as a "liberal conspiracy." You may as well forget trying to reason with those types--you can't have a rational debate with someone who is delusional.--which they are. That kind of thing isn't "religion"--its a cult behavior.

Answer 6

It comes down to THE most frightening thing, even more frightening than GW: most hairless apes are so uneducated and self absorbed that they cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy. They honestly think the BS is real.

Answer 7

The only people I've seen who recommend it are global warming deniers who are looking for any evidence to confirm their denial, and don't care about its accuracy or source.

Plus the guy who said he changed his mind about global warming due to the Swindle. I guess he wasn't very familiar with the science behind the issue to begin with.

Answer 8

We should be able to debate global warming, and welcome programes like this to give the other side of the argument. Banning any think that is against what you believe in, does not solve anything!

Answer 9

mat - you can debate all you want but I really don't want to debate with someone who insists on backing his arguments with proven lies.

Answer 10

because there are also a lot of counter arguements to those responses which you clearly haven't seen.