GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINGLE

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINGLE

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary film that argues against the scientific consensus that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations".[1] It has been described by both its original broadcaster Channel 4 and the British regulator Ofcom as "a polemic".[2]

The film, made by British television producer Martin Durkin, showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are sceptical about the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. The programme's publicity materials assert that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times."[3]

The film's original working title was "Apocalypse my arse",[4] but the title The Great Global Warming Swindle was later adopted, as a nod to The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle, a mockumentary about British punk band The Sex Pistols.

The UK's Channel 4 premiered the documentary on 8 March 2007. The channel described the film as "a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired."[5] According to Hamish Mykura, Channel 4's head of documentaries, the film was commissioned "to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide."[6]

Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors[7][8]). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9][10][11][12] Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting a few errors in subsequent releases.[13] However according to Bob Ward (former spokesman for the Royal Society), this still left five out of seven of the errors and misleading arguments which had been previously attacked by him and 36 other scientists in an open letter.[11]

The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-authored by a group of scientists.[14][15] Ofcom used this complaint in its deliberation,[2] and delivered its ruling on 21 July 2008. It ruled that the programme had unfairly treated Sir David King, the IPCC and Professor Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the 'political' part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality. Regarding the programme's accuracy, Ofcom noted that in its role as regulator it: "had to ascertain – not whether the programme was accurate - but whether it materially misled the audience." On this basis Ofcom ruled that: "On balance it did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence."[2][16] On 4 and 5 August 2008, Channel 4 and More 4 broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings,[17] though it will not face sanctions.[13]

The film's basic premise is that the current scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising.

A number of academics, environmentalists, think-tank consultants and writers are interviewed in the film in support of its various assertions. They include the Canadian environmentalist Patrick Moore, founding member of Greenpeace but for the past 21 years a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; the former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson; and Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster.

Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used.[7]


THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE - SCIENTISTS RESPOND:

To coincide with the ABC’s broadcast of the controversial UK documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” on Thursday 12 July at 8.30pm, the Australian Science Media Centre is providing this resource page including links, critiques and reaction from Australian climate scientists.

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” (GGWS) was written and produced by British documentary maker Martin Durkin and argues against the scientific opinion that human activity is the main cause of global warming.

A 72-minute version of the documentary was first aired on Channel 4 in the UK in March 2007. The ABC broadcast a shortened version (approx 52 minutes) in Australia.


-------------------------



another fine example of prime systemic shit.. another fake debate which will divert your attention from the fact that Nike and Levi's still shouldn't pour billions of toxins into India's rivers, whether our CO2 production is connected to temperature rising or not. ick any 'un-ecological' human activity.

- millions of hectars of lush jungle should not be chopped down yearly...
- accidentally emptying 100 thousand tons of crude oil into an ocean can't be really good...
- inhaling unnaceptable levels of CO2 from the millions of exhaust pipes of the cars of your city will fuck you up..

these three facts above, for example, are completely lost in this fake debate
most people would subconsciously connect the film's winning argument, 'we're not to blame', with a simpler monkey version of it, namely 'it's ok to pollute and fuck up the planet' in general

there's a bit in the early parts of the film, a proffessor of something important claims that the whole scare about CO2 and man-made global warming is a scam from a team of enviromental scientists in order to get money to be poured into their sciences. And you know immediately you think 'that's not necessarily a bad thing..' and before you even have time to finish that thought, the next quote that follows his statements is another scientist, from another university in another country, saying 'now what you shouldnt do, is think that this is not a problem'..