How many of you skeptics actually think that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was a legitimate scientific

Question

documentary?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

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

Answer 1

Patrick - There are better links to use:

For science:

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm

For British media analysis:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

Answer 2

Every time someone mentions the Swindle, a skeptic brings up 'An Inconvenient Truth'. There are a number of problems with this comparison.

Gore's film may have exaggerated the effects of global warming by focusing on the worst possible consequences, but the basic science in the film was correct. The basic science in the Swindle was entirely incorrect. They used old data, flawed analyses which have since been corrected, and took interviews out of context. It was blaitantly deceptive.

Another important point is that most of us realize the flaws with Gore's film and don't consider it a valid reference. The Swindle, on the other hand, is frequently cited by skeptics as a valid source. Not necessarily directly referenced, but its arguments are always used - the 800 year CO2/warming delay, Midieval Warm Period, the Sun being responsible, etc. etc. All the arguments we hear by skeptics use the same flawed data and make the same flawed conclusions as the Swindle.

In response to Trevor, I was not laughing when I watched the Swindle. I was literally yelling at my computer screen within the first 30 seconds because I knew the 800 year delay argument was an incredibly stupid one, but that it would appear very convincing to anyone who didn't know better (who hadn't studied the science behind global warming). And I was right - we see people make this argument all the time on Y!A.

It's incredibly irresponsible for anyone to publicize such an intentionally deceptive film about such an incredibly important issue.

Answer 3

I'm a skeptic and I have never seen The Great Global Swindle. I have no idea if it is legitimate scientific documentary or not. That isn't what influenced me to skeptical. Common sense is what causes me to be a skeptic. Just as with the scientific claim that the world was cooling because of man in the 70's, we humans do not completely understand what all variables contribute to weather and climate patterns. It is pretty arrogant to claim that we understand what motivates mother nature and I refuse to run around like a chicken with it's head cut off, unless I am ABSOLUTELY sure of the reason. My personal time and resources are much better spent helping the people who are starving and dying of disease now, not 100 years in the future. You can't live your life in fear of what might happen. If this were the way to go, why have we not destroyed all nuclear weapons? Why have we not been working on some type of global defense against meteors or the like? The bottom line is, until science can exactly explain to me how I am responsible for global warming, and can provide me with more than an incomplete computer simulation of the future, forget it. I refuse to let emotion cloud my judgment. In my opinion, these over zealous environmentalist are no better than the Islamic terrorist. They let emotion dictate their actions, and look how they are judged because of it. Fear and hate are two of the worst emotions to let rule your life.

Answer 4

I wonder how many skeptics know the background to the person who produced it (Martin Durkin) and are aware of his long history of producing similarly inaccurate but controvesial programmes.

I wonder also how many skeptics know that the documentary has been re-edited on average once every two months, largely to avoid legal action being taken by those who featured in the original version (the one that was on Google until it got pulled).

I wonder how many people who actually know about climate change, watched the programme whilst rolling about floor splitting their sides with laughter only to be horrified later when it became evident that it wasn't a comedy show after all.

Answer 5

Don't be so ignorant. Go find out for yourself before acting like the source of scientific hallmarks. This is a case of "You don't know, what you don't know." and making judgments on not knowing what you don't know as if you know.

Google Video Search: Global Warming, Al Gore, Global Dimming, Glaciers.

http:.//www.ted.com search the video content and get informed.

Yes, there are two sides to the story, but don't for one moment act like you can explain the weather phenomena, melting glaciers, and rising sea levels. You can't.

Answer 6

Like "An Inconvenient Truth" It has some good stuff in it but is hopelessly politically slanted in favor of the views of the people who made it.

Answer 7

There is no such thing as legitimate science. Once you start classifying that as legal or not you should just go ahead and quit seperating church and state too.

Answer 8

The movie is based on scientific peer review, scientific journals see the below link for his references.
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/index.html

An inconvenient truth, that is an over exaggeration of the scientific facts.

Answer 9

Swindle? Every one is entitled to their opinion.

Answer 10

It proved that this is a political debate, not a scientific one.