The Great Global Warming Swindle!!!

Marcus's picture
Submitted by Marcus on Sat, 2007-03-10 19:12

Surprise, surprise.

You can watch the entire thing now - for free - already on Google Video.
Watch it while you can, here is the link below.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle.

This astounding documentary was aired last Thursday night (8th of March) in the UK.
What it illustrates both clearly and definitively is that global warming through human activity is the most contrived pseudo-science of the last 30 years. The scale of the swindle is both frightening. As the film narrator boldly states:

“Everywhere you are told that man-made climate change is proved beyond doubt, but you are being told lies. Each day the news reports grow more fantastically apocalyptic. Politicians no longer dare to express any doubt about climate change.
This is the story of how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology.
It is the story of the distortion of a whole area of science. It is the story of how a political campaign turned into a bureaucratic band-wagon. This is a story of censorship and intimidation. It is a story about westerners invoking the threat of climatic disaster to hinder vital industrial progress in the developing world. The global warming story is a cautionary tale of how a media scare became the defining idea of a generation.”

This film proceeds to completely strip away the emperor clothes of the theory of global warming caused by man-made CO2. It’s main points against the theory are that:

1) “We are told that the earth’s climate is changing, but the earth’s climate is always changing. In earth’s history there have been countless periods when it was much warmer and much cooler that it is today. When much of the world was covered by tropical forests or else vast ice sheets. The climate has always changed, and changed without any help from us humans.”

“The polar bears obviously survived that period, they are with us today, they are very adaptable and these warm periods in the past posed no problem for them.” Says Professor John Clark – Dept of Earth Sciences – University of Ottawa.

2) If you take the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere of all gases, it is 0.054%. The proportions that human are adding is even smaller, the main source in fact coming from the world’s oceans. CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. The geological records show that in fact CO2 does not precede warming, but lags behind it by some 300 years. So as Gore rightly says in his film “An Inconvenient Truth” that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. However it is not a positive one, but a negative one, in fact often an inverse correlation.

3) The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases and a small percentage of them are the greenhouse gases. And of that small percentage, 95% of it is water vapour, and that is by far the most important greenhouse gas often in the form of clouds. Further, solar activity is the most accurate way of predicting climate changes on earth. The interplay between water vapour and solar activity being the main determinants of earth’s climate and human beings have almost no influence upon.

4) If greenhouse warming were presently occurring you would get more warming in the troposphere, because greenhouse gases trap heat from escaping the atmosphere in the troposphere. However, that is just not the case. The data collected from satellites and weather balloons show that the earth is in fact warmer than the atmosphere. This evidence damns the theory of greenhouse effect upon climate through CO2.

Surprising is the origins of this political scandal. Apparently it originated from a desire of Margaret Thatcher in the eighties to discredit fossil fuels in favour of nuclear power.

Even more shocking is that the entire present global warming lobby, hijacked from Thatcher by neo-Marxists and Environmentalists, has become in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats an evil “gravy train” of the millions of tax dollars pocketed in this disgusting “global warming” industry which is based upon a lie.

“Fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend on Global Warming right now. It’s a big business.” Says Professor Patrick Michaels – Dept of Environmental Sciences – University of Virginia.

“Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.” Says Dr Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader – NASA.

As the film spells out for us:

Man-made global warming is no ordinary theory. It is presented in the media as having the stamp of authority of an impressive international organisation. The UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change or IPCC.

“The IPCC like any UN body is political. The final conclusions are politically driven. It’s become a great industry in itself and if the whole global warming farrago collapsed, there would an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work.” Says Professor Philip Scott – Dept of Biogeography – University of London.

“This claim that the IPCC is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists: you look at the bibliographies of the people and it is simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists. Those people that are specialists but don’t agree with the polemic and resign, and there are a number of them I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this “2500 of the worlds top scientists”. We have a vested interest in causing panic, because then, money will flow to climate science.” Says Professor Paul Reiter – IPCC and Pasteur Institute of Paris.

“And to build up the number to 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and Government people and so on, anyone who has been close to them. And none of these people are asked if they agree, many of them disagree. People have decided that you have to convince other people that since no scientist disagrees - you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science you know that it is pure propaganda.” Says Professor Richard Lindzen – IPCC and M.I.T.

Unfortunately as the Times notes, the whole Global Warming bandwagon has evolved into “less an issue and more a doom-laden religion demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil fuel-driven ways.”

“There is such intolerance. This is most politically incorrect thing possible to doubt this climate change orthodoxy.” Says Lord Lawson of Blaby (In 2005 a House of Lords enquiry was set up to examine the scientific evidence of man-made cause of Global Warming and Lord Lawson was a member of it.) He goes on to comment - "We had a very thorough enquiry and took evidence from a whole lot of people expert in this area and we produced a report. What surprised me was to discover how weak and uncertain the science was. In fact there are more and more thoughtful people, some of them a little bit frightened to come out in the open. But who quietly privately and some of them publicly are saying ‘hang on, wait a moment, this simply just does not add up’."

“I often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there are many that simply think that is not true.” Says Professor John Christy – Lead Author IPCC

And finally the definitive comment of the documentary must belong to Nigel Calder – the Former Editor of the New Scientist.

“I have seen and heard their spitting fury at anybody that might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way. The whole global warming business has become like a religion and people who disagree are called heretics. I am a heretic. The makers of this programme are all heretics.”

After this documentary and more publicity, hopefully not heretics for much longer!!!

( categories: )

No Linz, I didn't accuse you of anything...

Marcus's picture

... I just wanted to know what your criteria were.

So, if Cameron started to give better speeches than Tony on the Iraq war, then you would support him instead. His environmental policies are not as important to you.

Fair enough. That's all I wanted to know. I am not accusing you of any other motives in that choice.

As you say, we would both "not choose" Cameron for similar reasons.

I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Blair or Cameron, because just as you still love Blair for his Iraq war speeches, so too do I despise him for being the international torch-bearer of environmental fascism and stifling us domestically with evil socialist legislation.

Who do you think introduced anti-smacking legislation in this country? Blair did, probably making it ever so popular amongst NZ politicians!

And Blair’s anti-smacking legislation has been one of many sinister and manipulative pieces of legislation he has passed so far!!!

Marcus ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I would support Blair over Cameron for the reason you'd support Brown over Cameron. For that matter, I wish Tony would stay on. Brown is worse than he. Um, and there was the little matter of Iraq that I mentioned. Tony Blair's speeches on that have been better than Bush's. I think you may have noted that yourself. Doesn't mean I support Blair's GW bullshit. Of course I don't! You're as bad as Valliant accusing me of being a homophobe-supporter because I support Bush over Gore/Hillary/Osama ... !!!!! Smiling

"Criteria" is plural. What is my criterion or what are my criteria?! Smiling

Cameron vs. Blair.

Marcus's picture

The election will be not be between Cameron and Blair, but Cameron and Brown.

Anyway, they both say they support the Iraq war and they are both ass-lickers of the environmental movement.

So, Linz why on earth would you support Blair (60% CO2 reductions entrenched in law + heavily taxing anyone not building a "carbon-free" house + banning the sale of conventional lightbulbs in favour of fluorescent) over Cameron (air travel rationing)? They are both competing to lick environmentalist ass! So, what is your criteria?

At this moment in time, I would choose Brown over Cameron. But only because I think Brown is slightly less of a socialist environmental ass-licker than Cameron and I also think he would more likely lead a lame-duck Government with much diminished power.

Thanks Elizabeth...

Marcus's picture

...that deabte looks absolutely riveting given Crichton and Lindzen on the same team - and they won!

Of course I have already attended an IQ squared meeting. The deabating series was started here in the UK by the Times, and last year they started letting you Yanks in on the action Smiling

On the 27th of March I will be going to one on religion with Richard Dawkins and handing him a FR, if it gets here on time!


Jameson's picture

for the link to the Global Warming debate, Liz - looking forward to reading it...

Sorry Jason

Jameson's picture

It was a pathetic poke at Peikoff - I know where you stand. Smiling

Glad to hear the fatwa's folding, Lindsay...

Welcome, Elizabeth!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Hello Lindsay
I have never posted to Solo before(actually this is my first post on any forum), though I have read Solo for quite awhile. It holds a special place in my day. I will introduce myself properly on another post. Til then - you can be sure I will not be voting Demscum across
the board.

I hope we see you post often. You seem to have sorted the pic issue. Smiling

I think there are now only two people in America apart from card-carrying Dem-scum who'll be voting Dem-scum across the board—Peikoff and Diana. Leonard's other defenders have been at pains to say they won't vote Dem-scum across the board. The credibility of the fatwa is in tatters after the debate that has occurred about it and actual developments since the Dem-scums' victory. I am extremely proud of the role SOLO has played in this. The KASSless Society was characteristically mute.

This debate has been/seen KASS in action. Independence and integrity writ large.

Something else KASS is happening right now—NZ's Chiefs are KASSing South Africa's Lions in the Super 14 Series. What a magnificent spectacle!


Oh, and given the choice between Blair and Cameron I would absolutely vote for Blair given Cameron's unspeakably disgusting butt-licking of the eco-fascists and Blair's staunchness re Iraq. Blair would put the Hsiekovians to shame.

Edited to add—the Chiefs won by a KASS 34-7. South Africa's 7 points were scored by one Pretorius. Very similar to our S. African-born webmaster's name, Pistorius. Very confusing. One reason I call our dear webmaster Pissed Sorry Ass. No confusion there! Smiling

No Glenn

Jason Quintana's picture

Actually my opinion is much closer to Ross's then Peikoff's. I am not concerned about any looming theocracy or any crap like that from any of the conservative parties. I think most of the world's democratic parties work as hard as possible to move toward the middle (and that includes the Republican Party in the United States).

In the case of the U.K., and based upon my limited knowledge of the situation a theoretical vote between Blair and Cameron would easily go to Blair. There is nothing Hsiekovian about my voting methodology in this case. It is merely a question of which is the least flaky candidate for prime minister. I don't know enough about Mr. Brown to make a similar comparison.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Instituteion -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.


Ross Elliot's picture

One debater is from the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS. It's spookily reminiscent of the Junior Anti-Sex League in Orwell's 1984, and probably just as much fun Sad

[Note to self: create smiley for disdain]

Intelligence Squared Debate

Liz's picture

I think this debate will be of interest to a number of you.

Global warming is not a crisis

"IQ2US marks the launch of Oxford -style debating -- one motion, one moderator, three advocates for the motion, three against -- in New York City." Two of the speakers for the motion were featured in the 'Swindle' documentary -Professor Richard Lindzen and Professor Philip Stott, along with Michael Crichton.

You may download the debate transcript now - audio/podcasts are not online yet.
The before and after audience vote shows there is still some hope left Smiling

Hello Lindsay
I have never posted to Solo before(actually this is my first post on any forum), though I have read Solo for quite awhile. It holds a special place in my day. I will introduce myself properly on another post. Til then - you can be sure I will not be voting Demscum across
the board. Smiling


ps. I have my photo in my user profile how do I add it to my posts ?

I'm sure Piekoff

Jameson's picture

would agree with you Jason...

Brit Politics

Ross Elliot's picture

"I don't really [know] enough about British politics to comment on it intelligently."

Jase, my opinion: no matter how much you know about British politics, it's almost impossible to comment on it intelligently. Smiling Kenny may have a different view.

Like all western democracies, the traditional conservative parties seem to be falling over themselves to outdo their liberal opponents. It's almost like they've suddenly discovered pop politics and are willing to do or say anything to get a date to the prom. They're turning into real sluts. Only in Australia does the trend seem to be resisted. Staunch blokes, those Aussies.

The Brit Tories have been in crisis mode for years. How many leaders? Oh, let me count the heads. Blair isn't quite like the Teflon Clinton, but his cachet may be enough to get Labour back into power come next election.

In NZ, our conservative opposition has gone liberal and is in danger of winning the next election. A parliament of whores, indeed.

Good Post Ross

Jason Quintana's picture

What is the deal with this Cameron guy? Whenever I read about him it gets worse and worse. I don't really know enough about British politics to comment on it intelligently (the only current names I would know in a pop quiz are Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron) but from far away it sounds like Labour is actually the better bet for voters. Blair strikes me as a pretty damn good politician given the alternatives.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

Tory ratfucksonsofbitches

Ross Elliot's picture

"Britain's Tories are looking at rationing flying to combat global warming."

The audacity to even propose such a measure! How confident they must be. John Key's source of inspiration is becoming clearer every day.

A few days ago I was discussing with someone the measures governments will take to meet their C02 reduction targets. I mentioned things like mileage allowances for private cars, power supply, heating oil & gas quotas, and severe restrictions on *personal air travel*. They thought I was nuts. You see, I was talking to one of the many people--I think the majority--who believe this whole thing will go away if we just use paper bags instead of plastic, and build a few unsightly wind farms. They don't see any meaningful restrictions being placed upon their *freedom*.

Well, the day cometh, and that right soon.

The politicians have worked out, of course, that simply hiking taxes may not have the desired effect and, let's face it, to the bureaucratic mentality, it doesn't really offer any scope for true *control*.

This is what happens, as Rand said, when people come to regard factories, power stations, etc. as *natural* phenomena. They just are, and will always be. Well, they won't. Not if the warmists have their way.

NY Times back-pedals!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

See here

How low will Al Gore go?

Jameson's picture

Well spotted, Marcus... the article also reports: He said increased regulatory intervention would eventually penalise those who did not take a proactive approach to managing their carbon footprint.
"Whether it's by cap and trade, by taxation or by regulation, accountability for carbon is going to be a regular part of the marketplace sooner or later," he said.

And guess who just happens to own a carbon credit company in which you can invest your pension funds? Al Gore, chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that invests your money in green projects.

Stealing from old ladies now. Cunt.

The greenhouse gas this man generates is quite astonishing -- and I’m not talking about his public speaking gigs; every fortnight Big Al’s house consumes the same amount of electricity the average American home uses in a year. But, he tells us, he’s off-setting that with carbon credits bought from (you guessed it) Generation Investment Management. In effect this eco-schiester is buying stock in his own company!!

Now that's a greenhouse cycle…

Slippery slope moi?

Marcus's picture

It is true that the west would have to be quite far gone not to make sure they don't become economically and militarily weaker than their trading partners. (Although the eco-mentalists were yesterday trying to stop the UK from renewing her nuclear capability.)

Glenn wrote:
"You know you're fucked when you're looking to China and India to help restore capitalist values in the West."

Very true Smiling

Here is a news item from today's Independent on your former US vice-president currently touring the UK.

"The former US vice-president Al Gore hit out at the short-termist attitude of corporate executives and fund managers yesterday, urging the British pension fund industry to use its muscle to force companies to take a more responsible approach to environmental issues.

Speaking at the National Association of Pension Funds' annual investment conference in Edinburgh, Mr Gore warned that companies' obsession with meeting short-term profits targets, rather than taking a longer-term view, was working against the battle to reverse climate change...

Mr Gore said pension fund trustees and managers had a "fiduciary obligation" to look much more closely at the impact of the climate crisis on the companies in which they are investing.

"I am urging you to look at ways to integrate [sustainability] systematically into your analysis of what is a good investment," he said. "We have everything we need to make this transition with the possible exception of the will to act. But the will to act is a renewable resource."

Mr Gore has been a long-term environmental campaigner. Last year, he released a film documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, explaining the extent of the current environmental crisis."

Gore urges pension funds to act on the environment.

You know you're fucked when...

Jameson's picture

you're looking to China and India to help restore capitalist values in the West.

Well Marcus, now you are

Jason Quintana's picture

Well Marcus, now you are going slipperly slope on us. But it is true that the developing countries in Asia won't see that it is in their best interest to go along with the global warming stuff.

I think Robert has it right. It will likely wake people up to the fact that their ability to compete on a level economic playing field is being neutered.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

I hope you are right Robert, but...

Marcus's picture is how it stands at the moment.

Tony Blair has just announced that he is passing new legislation to force the UK into reducing CO2 emissions by 60% within the next 50 years. (His green lobby are already screaming that this is not enough and Cameron or Brown may increase it further.)

Assuming the US continues to move in the same direction as the UK, the effect of this will be to force all western industry (what is left of it) to Asian countries with anti-western quasi-democracies. Then these Asian countries will have the West by the balls and will be able to make whatever demands they like on us by withholding trade. The present problems with the Middle East will seem trivial in comparison.

Taken to its logical conclusion it will mean the downfall of the West being replaced by an eastern superpower. Goodbye freedom of speech, goodbye justice, goodbye democracy - hello 1984!!!

It's just that scary - because the majority of Western Governments, Businesses and Voters are currently enthralled to this new eco-ideology. Even George Bush and Bill Gates for fuck sakes!!!

"the Environmental Marxists have pretty much won"

Robert's picture


They may be on the march with respect to Global Warming in the West, but developing countries like China and India will never stomach this bollocks. They can't, to supress their citizen's desire to make a better life for themselves through technology will lead to bloody revolution.

And when Joe Average figures out that China and India are getting a free pass on their polluting at his expense then the penny will drop. We just have to keep bagging away.

C4’s debate on global warming boils over!

Marcus's picture

Durkin tells Dr Leroi to go fuck himself in e-mail exchange, according to the times. However much more importantly, Durkin says at the end of the article that he is requesting a live channel 4 deabte on the science of GW. This is urgently needed! I really hope this goes ahead!

"Dr Leroi e-mailed Mr Durkin about his use of data, concluding: “To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways.” He copied Mr Singh into the exchange.

Mr Durkin replied to both later that morning, saying: “You’re a big daft cock.” Less than an hour later, Mr Singh, who has worked for the BBC, intervened to urge Mr Durkin to engage in serious debate. He wrote: “I suspect that you will have upset many people (if Armand is right), so it would be great if you could engage in the debate rather than just resorting to one-line replies. That way we could figure out what went wrong/ right and how do things better/ even better in the future.” Mr Durkin replied nine minutes later: “The BBC is now a force for bigotry and intolerance . . . Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing.

“Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of shit programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?

“Never mind an irresponsible bit of film-making. Go and f*** yourself.”

Last night Dr Leroi said that he was amazed at the rudeness of Mr Durkin’s reply...

Last night Mr Durkin apologised for his langauge. “As far as I was concerned these were private e-mails. They arrived when I was quite tired having just finished the programme in time for transmission,” he said.

“Needless, to say, I regret the use of intemperate language. It is so unlike me. I am very eager to have all the science properly debated with scientists qualified in the right areas and have asked Channel 4 if they will stage a live debate on this subject.”

C4’s debate on global warming boils over.

Glenn and Jason...

Marcus's picture are right this is scary shit. Although I hate to say it, the Environmental Marxists have pretty much won - capitalism and reason have lost. Of course we shouldn't give up - look at my post above - some cause for optimism I hope.

This is THE issue

Jason Quintana's picture

I agree with you Glenn, because this is something that politicians in the highest offices of the world's most important countries all give lip service to. All of them talk about the need to "do something about climate change". It is one of those superficial "issues" that politicians will clamor to do something about to score political points.

It is a mainstream political belief that has influence far beyond any religious political movement. It also has the potential to do much more real damage then any foreign threat.

In America we have a religion/state barrier that does an ok job of limiting religious statism. A serious gap in our constitution allows democracy to run unchecked in issues like this that attack private property and economic growth in the name of protecting some "greater good". This is a serious glitch which makes individual rights and economic prosperity susceptible to whatever trendy paranoias the majority of voters may have.

A t-shirt would be great though!

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

Global warming = Economic cooling

Jameson's picture

Marx would have donated both testicles to dream up a gambit this good to redistribute global wealth -- and fuck capitalism in the ass in the process.

I don’t know about you guys but this issue's making me sweat way more than Islamofascism and so-called theocracies. Even Rudy Giuliani is on this out-of-control bandwagon.

And I don’t think a kick-ass t-shirt’s going to stop it.

Any other ideas?


Marcus's picture

"Marcus, can you find the reference for the BBC newsnight’s debate where a member of the IPCC (pro-GW theory) was asked if the CO2 lag behind temperature was correct as shown in the documentary segment they aired. Nervously he admitted that indeed it was correct.?"

I can't get the footage, but I can direct you to the Newsnight forum where the programme is discussed. Look at Post No.29. The poster makes the same comment I did about the revelation made by IPCC scientist Brian Hoskins on the programme.

You can always rely on the Times...

Marcus's picture come up with the Good News story of the day Smiling

"In Westminster politicians are donning hairshirts and covering themselves in woad in an effort to outdo Brussels in their antiindustrial fervour.

Confounding tradition, the Conservatives strike more aggressive postures than Labour. A tax on flying is the Tory answer to Labour’s assault on filament lightbulbs and, in his isolationist sentiment, David Cameron seems to be allying his party to Europe’s protectionists. Yesterday Christine Lagarde, the French Trade Minister, said that the Doha Round of trade talks should be put on hold. The Doha agenda, which would open doors worldwide to greater trade, fails to address the threat of climate change, she said.

Too much trade will warm the planet, the French say. Container ships full of cheap Sri Lankan brassieres and Chinese shoes will cause the seas to rise and flood. It is a policy gift to the reactionary, the fearful and the environmental Maoists who yearn for a bucolic preindustrial world of peasants, cottages, windmills and muck. It is frightening and a threat to Britain, a nation that is now wholly dependent on London’s continuing success as a financial trading hub and airborne megalopolis.

The good news is that Europe’s business community is unconvinced. Those who have to make real financial decisions about emitting carbon dioxide (rather than a decision to expel CO2 in pompous speeches) are hedging their bets."

Scary exercise in political handwringing.

And, interestingly...

Jameson's picture

There's now a lock on the box: Wikipedia has announced that This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.

They mean when hell freezes over...

Good points both

Jameson's picture

As you men say, a conspicuous evasion of the hinging argument (mankind’s tiny contribution to CO2 levels that make up a miniscule 0.05% of greenhouse gases) and utterly poor journalism (I’d go further and say Goebblesian journalism).

An addition has since been made to Wikipedia:

The documentary has received little attention in America. One exception is a comment made by Paul Joseph Watson, a British reporter who works for American radio host Alex Jones, who observed that the criticisms of the film relied upon ad hominems instead of disputing the arguments put forth by the scientists in the documentary. Watson wrote, "The establishment left has already attempted to savage the documentary, but The Guardian's Zoe Williams cannot address the evidence, instead attacking the messenger by discrediting one participant from Winnipeg University, and selectively ignoring the roster of other experts which included MIT and Princeton professors."[12]

Nice - refocusing on the ideas.

Marcus, can you find the reference for the BBC newsnight’s debate where a member of the IPCC (pro-GW theory) was asked if the CO2 lag behind temperature was correct as shown in the documentary segment they aired. Nervously he admitted that indeed it was correct.?

This would make an excellent counter-counterpoint.

Poor journalism

Robert's picture

One side presents uncited scientific results as evidence and the other side replies with yet more uncited scientific evidence.

And in order to sway the reader into believing that The Independent's uncited evidence is more credible then that presented in the C4 documentary, the objectivity of the unnamed people who compiled the uncited research quoted in the C4 documentary is questioned by implying that they are linked to the Republican party/big business.

On that basis The Independent is suspect because it is a big (private) business. And round and round it goes. What's missing here is reference to the science as it appears in the peer reviewed scientific literature so we can check the voracity of each argument against the experimental facts. And even then I suspect you'd be left scratching your head because the whole issue is no where near settled.

So let's not forget the reason why objectivity in this argument has gone out the window. It's because Nanny State has decided to levy your wallet and your liberty in pursuit of a dubious goal. And the greenies are cheering Nanny on, even to the point of locking people up for cutting down a tree. The Greens cheer Nanny on when she prevents private industry from producing CO2-free electricity by Nuclear Power. And to cap it off the Greens complain to Nanny State about C4 screening a dissenting opinion, expecting her to punish C4 for exercising it's right to air an opposing opinion. And what is the The Independent --a newspaper-- saying about this obvious attempt to abridge free speech?

Given their track record, I'm inclined to take anything the radical environmentalists say (especially when Patrick Moore comes out against them) with a large grain of salt.

Like you Marcus I can't believe models don't take into account Sun-spot activity, nor the capacity for the ocean to dissolve gas as it cools and release it as it warms. This documentary addresses those questions. The pro-global warming lobby does not and objects strenuously (even violently - one of the contributors to the documentary has recieved death threats) to that line of questioning.

But the thing that none of the critics of this documentary have addressed yet is the question about how the third world will respond to the environmentalists attempts to keep them in poverty. Do they really think that they can stop the likes of China and India from doing exactly what they want to with their own country and resources?

The real global warming swindle!

Marcus's picture

The Indepedent is going all try and discredit this documentary and praise all the EU and UK CO2 target cutting measures of politicans.

Even if I accepted all the claims in this article to be true they have still not addressed two points.

1) How could a minor component like CO2 be the main driver of the earths climate and (even if it was) how could mankinds contribtion make any significant difference to it?
2) How can one possibly discount the effect of solar activity on the climate?

"A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent. The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists."

The real global warming swindle

Dunno Marcus

Lindsay Perigo's picture

But I myself found this morning that your original link brought up a message that said "Video may not be available." I've altered it so it brings up the video again.


Marcus's picture

How is that a new link? The original link I posted was also at google video.

New Link

Jason Quintana's picture

Phil as usual you are annoying but absolutely correct.

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

Do hold your breath!

Marcus's picture

A hilarious letter to the editor of the Metro today Smiling

"If all the people who passionately believe that global warming is the result of human-generated carbon dioxide were to practice what they preach and simply stop breathing out carbon dioxide for just ten minutes, the planet would rapidly become a better place."

Murray Grainger, Middlesex.

Global Warming is the new racism!

Marcus's picture

On BBC newsnight’s debate a member of the IPCC (pro-GW theory) was asked if the CO2 lag behind temperature was correct as shown in the documentary segment they aired. Nervously he admitted that indeed it was correct. He then jumped up to say, that although the documentary was correct about how warming had occurred in the past; the warming mechanism has now changed due to industrialisation!!!

Another thing he reluctantly admitted was that the causes of climate change are still open to debate despite the media reports to the contrary. They got Paul Reiter from the documentary on the show to debate him, but he would only talk about the lack of objectivity of the IPCC and not comment on the climate science because it is (quite rightly) not his field.

More and more opinion is now shifting in the UK due to this documentary.

For example in “the Sun” newspaper today (UK's highest selling newspaper) columnist Jon Gaunt in an article "Just how Green do they think we are?" makes the following comments on Linz’s “Tory Cameron flight rationing” news story posted below:

"This is just another gimmick to prove that Cameron's green rather than blue and it's about as convincing as his recycled trendy trainers. If he really wanted to do something ...he would have stayed in last week and watched The Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4. In 90 minutes, this programme managed to prick the balloon of self-righteous indignation surrounding global warming. It proved there is a significant scientific community who believe this 21st scientific "Band Aid, let's save the world" nonsense is just a lot of hot air. In short, the contribution that we humans make in CO2 emissions is not the primary reason for global warming. But just like most of the Press and the BBC, Cameron will probably just ignore it...Global Warming is the new racism and woe betide you if you dare to question this new plot to screw even more taxes out of us!"

I hope this anti-GW taxes momentum continues!!!


Mitch's picture

If Crichton's name is familiar, that's because he wrote Jurassic Park. I wonder if that lefty Spielberg will make a movie out of State of Fear Smiling

State of Fear

Mitch's picture

Has anyone read this book by Michael Crichton? I have just been doing a little Wikipedia reading and apparently the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) gave this fictional book their Journalism award in 2006. Wikipedia lists the AAPG as "The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate"

A link to the AAPG's Climate Change Policy is:

and a write up of State of Fear:

Oh, well geez!...thank you

PhilipC's picture

Oh, well geez!...thank you for the condescension!!

Despicable beyond words

Lindsay Perigo's picture

No, not you Phyllis (for a change) Smiling

Britain's Tories are looking at rationing flying to combat global warming. (Hat-tip: TIA Daily.)

Why are we getting

PhilipC's picture

Why are we getting side-tracked into these personalities issues? Gossip and who has what background and is he consistent or does he have an agenda or is his biography accurate are all less important than the ideas. Kevin has managed to sucker you guys into this crap.

it's a mistake to be wiling to acknowledge or debate at length any wild hair up his ass that someone raises. (Because there is only limited bandwidth and that shuts out..and discoourages....more important ideas.)

"Great minds discuss ideas;
Average minds discuss events;
Small minds discuss people."

--Hyman G. Rickover

Is this Marxist stuff really

Jason Quintana's picture

Is this Marxist stuff really true? I Googled this and saw a guy make insinuations about it on a blog, but these insinuations didn't seem to carry any weight. Secretly enacting a conspiracy which involves making a film to promote capitalism in order to bring on a FUTURE Marxist revolution???? Huh?

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

Good on you, Phil...

Jameson's picture

Will do what I can to help.


Kenny's picture

Sorry for not replying sooner. I have been having broadband connection problems for a few months - hence my lack of recent activity.

I cannot answer your pertinent question - that is why I referred to that critic's view. There is no doubt about Durkin's past affiliations - a google search will provide several links that confirm them. The Living Marxism crowd are a strange bunch. They are libertarian on freedom of speech, right to smoke etc too.

The Trots have always fought turf wars with their leftist comrades in the UK. In 80s Liverpool, the Militant Tendency opposed the left's gay rights agenda - deflected the working class from the real struggle etc. I can only guess that the new Trots see environmentalism as a similar distraction.

As Ross says "with enemies this good"....

The Wind of Change?

Marcus's picture

Newsnight (the BBC nightly current affairs program) is tonight having a scientific debate over whether humans contribute towards global warming.

Is this the wind of change? I hope so. It seems to have been inspired by this channel 4 documentary. There was practically no TV debates aired on the cause of GW in the UK previously.

They write: "Despite the fact that most reputable scientists agree that human activity in raising carbon emissions is leading to global warming, could they - in fact - be wrong?"

Update: Wow! BBC Newsnight aired about ten minutes of the Great Global Warming Swindle!


Marcus's picture

Why on earth would Durkin (if a Marxist) present a conspiracy theory to debunk fellow neo-Marxists when the entire world is currently brainwashed by the theory of anthropogenic Global Warming?

All he could possible gain would be to upset his fellow comrades in arms and whip up what last little resistance still exists against this new hippy, anti-industry, anti-west and anti-capitalism ideology.

> Anyone up to writing it? I

PhilipC's picture

> Anyone up to writing it? I don't think I'm well versed enough in the subject to make it stick.

I just did.

The global warming article on Wikipedia probably has enormous world wide readership and impact. Where would you go after typing "global warming" into Google?

The place to contest the scientific validity of global warming is on the main article by that name on Wikipedia (not on some transient article fighting over one documentary). The main article is 'semi-protected', which means you have to be a non-anonymous user (easy to do) and have to have been signed up for more than four days.

The sneaky tactic of the main global warming article on wikipedia is to 'bleed' off the skeptics into separate articles and allow very little questioning of the scientific 'mainstream'...and no details whatsoever of the reasoning to appear in the first few paragraphs of the article, which is what will be read by most people passing through. And so few people will click through, not having been given sufficient grounds to think global warming is actually controversial.

To show that some grounds exist, I have just added the following. Go to wikipedia (if it hasn't already been deleted by an angry enviro!) and you will find this just before the last sentence of the second paragraph--->

"The causes of climate change are an enormously complex issue and the forecasting of long term changes is in its early decades. That global warming is primarily or even largely caused by greenhouse gases or human actions as opposed to the effects of the sun or other natural causes is not yet scientifically proven. Nor is the exact operation and influence of even longer climate cycles, such as the ice ages, yet clearly understood."

The last sentence of the second paragraph remains unchanged and constitutes a link to a detailed article outlining the reasons for global warming skepticism:

"A few scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming."

Note that detailed reasoning for global warming skepticism is in the hyperlinked article. If I put it here, it would simply be deleted. But what I have done will give thoughtful people a reason to hit the hyperlink to the scientists who disagree.

Here's the problem: My contribution, mild as it is but daring to suggest strong arguments against g.w. right away in the second paragraph is likely to be deleted and I don't have time to keep monitoring it every day

If people want to *help* instead of just talking about it to a dozen others on this board in impotent, helpless frustration...assuming you agree with what I wrote...copying the above three sentences and re-inserting them more than once if they are deleted will actually have an impact on the global warming debate. [After signing up, anyone can edit a page by clicking on edit this page up top (or paragraph by paragraph with the little 'edit' button to the right of the start of the section name. Always 'preview' your work before 'saving' to edit out typos, etc.]

Wikipedia is incredibly influential - taken more seriously and referenced more more widely read and is more detailed than...almost any other source, more so that the New York Times in all probability.

Moreover, this is a starred or "featured article" on Wikipedia.

I've taken the time and effort to make the first step and given my reasons for that step. If you're willing to fight, please post so here. Else i will assume there is no interest and I won't attempt to carry the entire posting and re-posting battle myself.


Ross Elliot's picture

"One critic has suggested that Durkin and his colleagues are promoting the most obnoxious capitalism possible to hasten capitalism's inevitable demise and replacement by Trotskyite communism."

Gee, with enemies this good, who needs friends?

Durkin is a Marxist Trot

Kenny's picture

You can buy the DVD of the programme here. It is only £13 or $25. The programme is repeated on Channel 4's sister channel More 4 tonight at 10pm GMT. More 4 is available on Freeview and possibly satellite too.

Martin Durkin, the producer, is actually a Marxist Trotskyite. He was involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party and £Living Marxism" magazine. He has been targeted by the left for his support for generically modified food. One critic has suggested that Durkin and his colleagues are promoting the most obnoxious capitalism possible to hasten capitalism's inevitable demise and replacement by Trotskyite communism.


Marcus's picture

...that the Martin Durkin entry in Wikipedia has a note now saying that its neutrality has been questioned.

Also the documentary entry says it needs a clean-up

Yes Linz, Radio Pacific streams live now. It has done so at least since I first looked up the radio website, which was a few months ago when you were last on. Its quite convenient for me to listen in the UK on a sunday night when you are on in NZ on monday morning Smiling

Excellent, Phil

Jameson's picture

Anyone up to writing it? I don't think I'm well versed enough in the subject to make it stick.

> find positive references

PhilipC's picture

> find positive references and give Wikipedia a damn good edit. As I understand, anyone can do this - but does anyone here know how to do this? [Jameson]

I've done it on several topics. It's extremely easy...just follow the instructions on the page. My edits on a very major and controversial philosophical topic have not been undone and it's been since 2005 for the most substantive of them.

I think the key to having your edits 'stick' is to be highly objective and provide backing, no ad hominems, and have what wikipedians call a neutral point of view.

After reading a leftist p.o.v. in a wkpd article, I more than once simply add another paragraph: "Another point of view is...." People who edit articles there think that is fair and leave my writing alone, whereas if I had simply deleted the leftist paragraph, it would have been quickly replaced.

Also, it is more effective to leave the leftist view there, followed immediately by a sane 'on the other hand'. That way people can compare.

"There's nothing Rick's hate

Jason Quintana's picture

"There's nothing Rick's hate more for an answer than being told to 'go read a book' or 'follow this link'. Drives me mental."

Yes, I did this one time and really took a beating for it. And I think I was actually pointing out a chapter in a book to another person!

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.


Rick Giles's picture

This elitist would be both embarrassed and insulted by your endorsement.

T'is a bit.

Sorry Rick,
I thought you wanted to know how cosmic rays made clouds

There's nothing Rick's hate more for an answer than being told to 'go read a book' or 'follow this link'. Drives me mental.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Is Radio Pacific streamed now too? I didn't know that.

Great Show Linz!

Marcus's picture

But by the way channel 4 is a public broadcaster (set up by Thatcher) as a not-for-profit company with a remit to make challenging programming. But it does not receive Government funding and does not belong to the BBC.

Update Wikipedia

Jameson's picture

Yes, find positive references and give Wikipedia a damn good edit. As I understand, anyone can do this - but does anyone here know how to do this?

All the external links from

Lance's picture

All the external links from the wikipedia entry on both the programme page and on Durkin's page are to negative newspaper reviews of the programme.

The independent has this to say:

DURKIN SAYS: The sun is the main cause of global warming. The sun's activity increases from time to time, with increased solar flares, cutting down on cloud formation and raising temperatures on Earth. This activity correlates well with warmer periods over the past several hundred years.

GORE SAYS: The culprit is humanity's emissions of "huge quantities" of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which trap more of the infrared radiation of the sun that would otherwise escape out into space.

WE SAY: Variations in solar activity may have been responsible for past warm periods, though it's hard to be entirely sure because we have been taking good measurements of it only since 1978. But recent solar increases are too small to have produced the present warming, and have been much less important than greenhouse gases since about 1850.

Does anyone know of a counterpoint to the assertion that the "recent solar increases are too small"? In the words of Alan Davis "I'm sorry, that's rubbish... prove it!"

I think you are right Ross

Jason Quintana's picture

This thing will get shot down in an ad hominem orgy. It may be enough to make some people take pause though. I think they are planning to show this in America. In fact, I believe I saw a short segment on Fox news interviewing one of the show's participants last week trying to plug the program. Or maybe they are looking so sell DVDs.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

Well observed, Marcus

Ross Elliot's picture

These people are well organised, far better than the forces of freedom. None of this happens by accident or through the disconnected actions of individuals. Rebuttal to this doco would have been planned and research would have been carried out way before it was ever broadcast. They would only have waited until after it was shown to give the appearance of fair consideration.

Kudos to the producers, and bloody good job, but we'll need many more of these before the tide can be halted, let alone turned.

Self-fulfilling prophesy of irrational responses

Marcus's picture

I have looked at a few blogs...negative reaction to the documentary.

So far, they have been trying to erode the integrity and calling Durkin a right-wing nutter who often makes dodgy documentaries. Even that Channel Four is not "socially responsible" and that it's broadcasting licence should be removed!!!

They are fast, having already set up critical wikipedia entries on both Durkin and the documentary. Apparently these entries didn't exist before the documentary was screened!!!

Of course they all have started personal attacks of integrity rather than arguments against the science presented there. Just as the documentary itself would have predicted.

That kind of answer?

Mike Erickson's picture

Sorry Rick,

I thought you wanted to know how cosmic rays made clouds. Pretty simple really. I thought the animations, pictures and links to the studies might be of some help.

Carry on.

Mike Erickson


Marcus's picture

...I understood the argument to be that cosmic rays (from supernovae) help form clouds through nucleation. They can be diminished from reaching the earth by stronger solar winds from the sun, another indirect effect the sun has upon determining climate apart from the obvious fluctuation of sun-spot activity on global temperature.

But that is just what they state in the documentary. If you want to understand it better, I guess you will have to look it up.

I hadn't heard of this cloud theory before, but it is an intriguing one.


Rick Giles's picture

Not to be ungrateful, Mike, but if I wanted that kind of answer I'd have gone to Google not SOLO.

Cosmic Rays

Mike Erickson's picture

Here is an explanation and additional links:

Cosmic Rays and Climate

Mike Erickson


Rick Giles's picture

I didn't understand how cosmic rays make clouds (I understand how they made the Fantastic Four just fine...) Someone run that by me again?

Beyond outstanding!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Effing phenomenal! I can't wait to plug it on air tomorrow. And I'm sending the link to one Neville Key right away.

I hadn't realised Maggie Thatcher's role in giving the GW movement a push. Talk about unintended consequences! Smiling

How wonderful to hear the co-founder of Greenpeace acknowledge the movement is "anti-human."


Outstanding Program

Jason Quintana's picture

This gets my highest recommendation.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

Thanks Marcus

Mike Erickson's picture


I don't have a realistic hope of this documentary completely crushing the global warming environmentalist argument. But it should. This is a very good video, worth the 1 1/4 hour watching it. I hope to hear people talking about it, I'll be sending the link to many friends and family. Thanks very much for posting it.

Mike Erickson

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.