"The Great Global Warming Swindle"

The Great Global Warming Swindle

I think this documentary is food for thought, as it appears to utterly destroy the case for manmade global warming. It appealed to my own prejudices, I must admit, as there's a little voice in my head that always says "This is bollocks." when I find myself encountered with the doomsaying "FOUR YEARS TO SAVE THE PLANET" variety of headline for the umpteenth time.

I'm a little wary of it however, as I can't be certain that the arguments they advance couldn't be as comprehensively trounced as the ones they trounce themselves. Having looked into it a little I did quickly discover that there is a lot controversy surrounding it.

Views?

Originally Posted by Terranix

The Great Global Warming Swindle

I think this documentary is food for thought, as it appears to utterly destroy the case for global warming. It appealed to my own prejudices, I must admit, as there's a little voice in my head that always says "This is bollocks." when I find myself encountered with the doomsaying "FOUR YEARS TO SAVE THE PLANET" variety of headline for the umpteenth time.

I'm a little wary of it however, as I can't be certain that the arguments they advance couldn't be as comprehensively trounced as the ones they trounce themselves. Having looked into it a little I did quickly discover that there is a lot controversy surrounding it.

Views?

Ok, i dont have time to watch an hour of video right now but i can offer my thoughts. If im not wrong, the case for global warming itself is pretty much conclusive (im not that certain on this). It whether or not we are causing it through emissions that is the great question. As far as i know theres no proof w are causing it. But then, it wont hurt to stop ****ing with the planet and do everthing we can to stop global warming and other problems, even if that means *gasp* giving up a little comfort and our 8 litre cars to reduce emissions.

Really, the only argument I ever give is that according to reason, correlation does not imply causation. I really think this is the only argument needed. Just because the temperature went up doesn't mean that Co2 was the cause of the rise in temperature, considering that the temperature fluxuates naturally.

Keep in mind, however, that this doesn't mean that global warming pollution theory is false, it just means that it really isn't proven true, and we really don't know if we're seriously affecting the environment or not.

Originally Posted by Terranix

I think this documentary is food for thought, as it appears to utterly destroy the case for global warming. It appealed to my own prejudices, I must admit, as there's a little voice in my head that always says "This is bollocks." when I find myself encountered with the doomsaying "FOUR YEARS TO SAVE THE PLANET" variety of headline for the umpteenth time.

Actually, it is bullocks. The guy who made it is a notorious liar, and this can be seen quite easily in this film. I don't have time to address each point, but I can give you some reading.

http://www.badscience.net/?p=381#more-381

The film was made by Martin Durkin. In 1997, Mr Durkin produced a similar series for Channel Four called Against Nature, which attacked many of the claims of the environmental movement, and characterised them as comparable to Nazis.

Channel Four was forced in 1998 to broadcast a lengthy apology after several interviewees complained that they had been deceived . The Independent Television Commission (now part of Ofcom) upheld the complaint and found that “the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing”, and that they had been “misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”

RealClimate » Swindled! Aldatıldık! (I recommend this one, written by climate scientists)

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...onLaut2004.pdf

Stoat: The use of Damon and Laut

Swindlers « Fermi Paradox

Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming' | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

CHANNEL 4’S CLIMATE SWINDLE - THE DISTORTIONS CONTINUE

If you want to see how well they represent data, compare their graph:

With the real data:

(I can't take credit for this comparison...I saw it here).

Here is one of their graphs with the original data superimposed on it:

Taken from here.

It seems as though the only data that fits the graphs is false.

As a general rule, don't watch persuasive documentaries.

As a general rule, don't watch persuasive documentaries.

Haha; excellent advice, actually.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter;
As a general rule, [I

don't [/I]watch persuasive documentaries.

What about the Inconvenient Truth? Al Gore is a hypocrite.

Tennessee Center for Policy Research

Al Gore has three houses to begin with. This house, alone, uses 20 times more energy than the average. Now, the funny thing is, people attack this website for releasing public records to the public. So why should people watch the Incovenient Truth if the truth is is that the host is a hypocrite. does him making that movie simply mean that it is ok for him to use 20 times more energy? Does him being able to pay for it suffice? Does it justify? No.

People attack other documentaries, but the funny thing is they don't attack the ones they tend to agree with.

Also might I say that they really have no proof that carbon dioxide causes all of it, or even most of it. I do believe we should cut back, but I do believe that most of it is natural.

He never said he agreed with "An Inconvenient Truth."

He never even stated his views on global warming, only that Swindle was propaganda.

(Mad Hatter)
The graphs... you do realize that they use different extents, right? Putting one on top of the other proves nothing.

Originally Posted by Leinator

He never said he agreed with "An Inconvenient Truth."

He never even stated his views on global warming, only that Swindle was propaganda.

You are putting words in my mouth. I was clearly expressing how the opposite view on things was also wrong in somewhat of the same matter.

Originally Posted by Noscreenname

(Mad Hatter)
The graphs... you do realize that they use different extents, right? Putting one on top of the other proves nothing.

How so? One is 10 years longer then the other, but that's been adjusted for. They both use the same scale and everything.

^^ its because the real one has been raised up by 0.2 on the y axis. But they still differ considerably so it still shows that the fake is a fake.

Originally Posted by HylianShroom

^^ its because the real one has been raised up by 0.2 on the y axis. But they still differ considerably so it still shows that the fake is a fake.

Ah, so it has.

But yes, it does show quite a discrepancy.

I think there's still some value in the documentary--I'm quite sure there's truth in equal measure coming from both sides of the firing line. Unfortunately, is seems that there's dishonesty in equal measure too.

I saw that video a while ago. My personal thoughts; Lets just wait and see what happens. If something does happen due to pollution we know who to blame. If nothing, then keep on living.