Saturday, March 10, 2007 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Update August 2007: Supplementary material (59 minutes), TGGWS debate in Australia
The video is available via:

* Google Video (full 75 minutes, with French subtitles)
* YouTube playlist (8 videos)
* Sevenload
* Bit Torrent (high quality download)
** Copies: XviD, AVI, others
** Downloading program: BitTorrent
* VEdeleteOH online video
* DVD: click the colorful icon to get to for USD 20
Swindle's own new domain
The documentary is much better than I expected and I think that it looks much better than "Doomsday called off". The director of TGGWS and the boss of Wag TV, Martin Durkin, is a "right-wing Marxist" whose main motivation is to allow the third world to get richer. Well, I certainly agree that they have the right. There are some funny moments - for example Margaret Thatcher is painted as the ultimate mother of man-made global warming ;-) because of her complex strategy to promote nuclear energy but there seems to be a lot of good science in the documentary, too.

And there are some minor bugs - e.g. a wrong statement about the amount of CO2 produced by volcanoes. If you want to know which scientist is gonna complain that he has been misrepresented, it is Carl Wunsch. Well, just like in many similar cases, there are two Wunsches. One of them is a rational scientist who has contributed some of his technical knowledge to the documentary. The other Wunsch is controlled by his brainwashing movement and generates scientifically vacuous, alarmist, and unfriendly politicized misinterpretations of the documentary and his role in it on RealClimate.ORG.

If you kindly allow me to add one more minor criticism of Durkin's work, I also think that the self-confidence with which the solar / cosmic ray theory was promoted was a little bit too high. There are several high-profile skeptics I know - including myself - who have certain doubts about this theory. Nevertheless, some of the graphs in the documentary were new for me and quite impressive. I've checked that they can be found in serious scientific literature but still, one must be aware of a certain kind of cherry-picking that was needed to make the case for a new complete theory really strong.

The quality of tricks and dramatization is however very good - at least in the same league as Al Gore's movie.


Channel 4 wants to stay hot so they plan a TV debate about global warming for April. Ofcom has received 145 complaints from warming religious fanatics. ;-) Channel 4 has received 758 calls and e-mails that were mostly (6:1) in favor of the show.

Original text written on March 6th

On Thursday March 9th, 2007, at 9 pm, the British Channel 4 - not BBC - is going to air
revealing some basic facts about the greatest hoax every perpetrated on the civilized nations. The program is supposed to be full of experts. They will promote some of the theories about the influence of the Sun or the cosmic rays.

Another, more reliable insight that should be there is the explanation why we know almost for sure that in the correlation of CO2 and temperatures in the ice core records, temperature was the cause and the CO2 concentration was its consequence - even though many fraudsters find it very convenient to create the impression (or fog) that it could be the other way around.

There should be many scientists on the program. One of them is the first Canadian climatology PhD, Dr Timothy Ball, who appeared on Foxnews' Hannity & Colmes last night and did a great job: video.

Dead Google Video links: dead link I, dead link II, dead link III (less dramatic sound), dead link IV (YouTube), dead link V (YouTube), dead link VI (YouTube, eight pieces), dead link VII, dead link VIII (YouTube abridged), dead link IX (YouTube, nine parts), dead link X: Deutsche Synchronisation (acht Teile, Der große Klimawandel-Schwindel),
link dead from June 2007 (full 75:58 minutes), another one, without first minute, Version mit deutschen Untertiteln (German), YouTube (8 parts erased in Aug 2007), Google without subtitles.

These copies were removed one by one, after millions of viewers saw them.

Not directly related to the movie

On April 1st, I reorganized this page and put all things that are not directly related to the documentary here. The original text from March 6th, 2007, said:

In parts of Massachusetts, we have the coldest March day since 1950 while Sabine Hossenfelder's bike has re-emerged from a glacier because the temperature jumped above balmy -22 Celsius degrees in Waterloo, Canada and reached -19 degrees (although it feels like -27 Celsius degrees). Record cold temperatures are also in Ottawa, Canada, New Hampshire, Philadelphia, New York (where many schools are closed), West Virginia (where people are dying).

It's globally warming, silly

That's a good opportunity to remind everyone that most proponents of the global warming theory are crackpots.
  • Incidentally, Feynman at Caltech asks whether solar variability is behind the climate change in Advances of space research.
Back to the main topic...

And then I continued with the comments about the documentary.

Other popular climate articles on The Reference Frame Other topics

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (45) :

reader Alan M. said...

Given: The worst Greenhouse forcing gases in increasing order of severity are carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (Freons or CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs; safely carcinogenic mechanically dysfunctional CFC replacements)... and, by far the worst of all, hydrofluorocarbons (mandated to completely replace HCFCs and still a mystery for lubrication compatibility).

An advocate makes virtue of failure. The worse the cure the better the treatment - and the more that is required.

reader George said...

I'm not certain how you can characterize the maker of the film as a rightwing marxist.

It sounds more to me as though the message is contrary to marxism which opposes industrialization. It is, in fact, the marxists who have joined the environmental movement, as is pointed out by several scientists in the film; even the founder of Greenpeace points out he left the radical enviro movement when it became so radical that enviros were talking about getting rid of chlorine around the world; which is AN ELEMENT.

Capitalism is not related to marxism unless you're talking about Mussolini's concept that in order to get to your goal of a communist utopia, you need to put up with capitalism until it plays itself out, like what happened with the Roman Empire. Moving from a republic to a democracy and gravitating further and further left with more government intervention is the goal with the environmentalists, which doesn't fit within the Capitalist idea of free markets, competition to produce better products at a better price, getting rewarded for your own work and giving to the needy because you have a loving heart instead of legislated theft (e.g. redistribution of wealth), etc.

reader Lumo said...

Dear George,

the reason why I characterize Durkin as a right-wing Marxist is that he is a right-wing Marxist and if you need to know how I know it, the answer is that because I am an educated person who knows about 100 times more about him than you do.

As many pages including Wikipedia (click) explain, he has been a member of Living Marxism and the Revolutionary Communist Party. The latter formerly Trotskyist and then libertarian network has been strongly pro-industry.

It is also highly misleading or untrue to say that Marxism is anti-industry. Marxism and especially Leninism was heavily pro-industry and started e.g. the whole massive heavy industrialization of Russia / the Soviet Union.


reader Robert said...

Score one for Lubos:

"If you want to know which scientist is gonna complain that he has been misrepresented, it is Carl Wunsch"

Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4 By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor Published: 11 March 2007 in the Independent (UK)

It was the television programme that set out to show that most of the world's climate scientists are misleading us when they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon dioxide. And The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.

But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.

Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.

reader its an Oxymoron world said...

Dear Lumo,

In your ignorance you referred to Wikipedia as your source for Mr. Durkin's biography! Apparently you don't know that anyone with a computer and a link to the WWW can put anything about anyone they chose to malign or exalt. Why even when you go to your "source" it says, and I quote, "The neutrality of this article is disputed".
Are you the contributor to Mr. Durkin's wiki info? Quit patting yourself on the back and blog responsibly.

reader Lumo said...

Dear oxymoron world, anyone can put anything there, but anyone can also correct errors if they appear. The same data about him can be read at dozens of other public and non-public places. Do you have some particular error in mind? I don't understand this discussion.

Best wishes, Lubos

reader its an Oxymoron world said...

Dear Lumo,

Well cite these other sources then. I find it odd that of all the "dozens of other public and non-public places" where "the same data about him can be read" you chose to use "wiki", the source you admit can be 100% fraud. As far as correcting fake data on "wiki" goes, have you ever had to do this? If you have you would know that it turns into a mess with some people threatening "wiki" with lawsuits because it is next to impossible to correct? If you don't believe me let me know. I will show you by example. Cite your other sources and leave "wiki" to the fraud perps.

You "don't understand this discussion"? I'm referring to your 5th grade argument to george that you are " an educated person who knows about 100 times more about him than you do" when he questions your characterization of Durkin as a "rightwing marxist". And wiki is the only source of verification you cite? Are you really an "assistant professor" or is your profile just another "wiki"?

reader Stephen said...

saw the program too. Not all total boolocks, but a whole load of it was jazzed up a fair old bit. Ive been studying geology for a while now (busy with a second Msc at the moment) and just wanted to add my 5 pence. From what the literiture i've read tells me is that theres so many cooling, and warming climate feedback loops which have not yet been proven or dis-proven its hard to see the wood from the trees, they may all be operating but what is causing the climate wariming we see today? After watching this program one must remember some improtant things it doesnt mention: C02 IS a greenhouse gas-fact. C02 levels are very high at the moment and the present spike has been accurately traced with isotope data to the time of the industrial revolution. So clearly we (humans) are influening the amount of C02 in the atmosphere. What the program does point out though is that theres a fair old amount of C02 up there anyway and what we produce is not that much. Is it enough to destabilise the earths natural balance? who knows. Lets hope someone can figure it out before we're all getting wet feet. And btw Durkin is widely known as an idot, so go Lumos! woop!

reader Lumo said...

Dear Oxymoron world, the only reason I see why you create this bad atmosphere and doubts here is that you are an obnoxious moron.

I don't see any rational reasons why you doubt the well-known fact that the director is associated with the libertarian organization that has this Marxist name. It's just a fact. Whom do you need to hear to believe it? If you need an econut, you can open George Monbiot.

Search for Durkin there and please never post on this blog again because you are tracked as potential anonymous trash here.

Most lawsuits against Wikipedia are silly, too.

reader Lumo said...

Dear Stephen, I don't care a single bit whether Durkin is "widely" known as an idiot. He has created an impressive documentary that certainly requires him to be in top 1%-5% in all kinds of skills and intelligence. If he is "widely" considered an idiot, it probably means a well-known fact that imbeciles who dislike skillful people in general and directors in particular belong to a very "wide" set of people.

Well, we have a different perspective. You consider idiots those who have been labeled as idiots by jealous imbeciles. I prefer to reserve the word "imbecile" for the real imbeciles who actually are imbeciles, regardless whether someone tries to insult them or not.

reader RobertL said...

Lubos liebling

surely you can see that its frankly bonkers to say that "In parts of Massachusetts, we have the coldest March day since 1950" disproves the existence of global warming? No? Because in your post here you are ridiculing the identical fallacy. Long term effects, as you rightly say, cannot be proved by short term evidence.

So what do you make of the NOAA very unambiguously saying here about winter 2001-2002 that "Since the winter of 1997-98, four of the five warmest winters in the 107-year record have occurred, and temperatures have warmed at a rate approximately 1.5 F (0.8 C) per century since 1895." And that was before this last winter - try googling "warmest winter record" if you're still not catching my drift. And last year was the warmest on record, everywhere. Please tell me the relative statistical significance, as you see it, of the warmest March day since 1950 in Massachussetts (sorry, that should read "parts of Massachussetts")versus the warmest year, and five of the six warmest winters within one decade, in well over a century? Please? This is not a rhetorical question.

reader Ivan Jankovic said...

The most accurate temeprature record, collected by satelites indicate that has been litle warming since 1998, and that this winter was much cooler than winter 1998. Temperatrure anomaly during period dec 1997 - february 1998 was 0,51 degrees C, and in period dec 2006 -february 2007 about 0,41 degrees C.

Last year was warmest only by GISS record (Jamesd Hansen). All three other data sets, MSU, John et all ad radiosonds do not support this assertion.

reader tearlach61 said...

I live in Juneau Alaska where today, the winter of 2006-07 became the snowiest on record.

reader Angela said...

I have seen the documentary and I give it the credit of attacking the IPCC report, which many embraced in a heartbeat. Still, I don't think it is just a natural cycle. I don't think it is human made either, at least not by driving cars and having big industries.

There have been studies showing that oceans are a big factor in the climate fluctuations. And human are no stragers to affecting the oceans!

reader Geo Karras said...

Before you judge the accuracy of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth its important to find out who actually organized its production and distribution, which might surprise some.


Who is Behind the Great Global Warming Swindle?
Excerpt of Interview with Geo Karras and Zeph Daniel follows initial Zeph music video

Video: Global Warming Money Scam

Tracking of Finance and Personnel documented also at:

reader Frédéric said...

Another high quality link to the GGWS with French subtitles :

reader aburns said...

The Kyoto Protocol will cost $180B annually. It will probably only slightly reduce man's annual contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere, which will inevitably continue to grow as population increases. That is, it can only delay the growth of man's contribution to CO2. It has the possibility of some small effect on global warming. Many suggest it will have no measurable effect.

Alternatively, the $180B could be spent as follows:
1. Reduce AIDS deaths by 28,000,000 ... $27B
2. Reduce malnutrition deaths by 1,200,000 pa ... $12B
3. Reduce malaria deaths by 500,000 pa ... $13B
4. Provide all third world inhabitants with health, education, clean water, sanitation ... $75Bpa
(Reference: Lomborg - Copenhagen consensus)

... which still leaves plenty for tax refunds.

reader Danny said...

This film is based on bad, bad science and a very weak interpretation of international environmental policy. I've put a full explanation of what's wrong with it at if anyone's interested...


reader Lumo said...

I just want to say that the page linked by "Danny" in the previous comment is completely silly, political, and has nothing technical to say about the key points of the documentary such as the direction of causation in the ice core records etc.

It is full of unsuccessful attempts to deny the facts about Thatcher's boost, desire to increase funding etc. Danny is, very politely speaking, a typical warming religion bigot.

reader Ian said...

To be honest, I don't know why anyone would believe this nonsensical, absurd, profoumd and illogical information that claims Global Warming isn't caused by humans, and if it's not, then were helping. I'm 14, and I have more common sense then the moron who made this documentary (I would have said something else to describe the movie, but it might have been inapropriate).

Knowledge from a 14 year-old, what's the world coming to?

reader Lumo said...

Dear ian, you're a brainwashed arrogant, and ignorant teenager, and I urge your parents to spank you at least for one hour. Best, LM

reader Tom said...

lumo, you are a friggin zealot and to me you seem more about being against all of those Al Gore followers than actually being just right.

I would agree if you say that An Inconvenient Truth is hyped and has manipulated facts in ways to dramatize the outcome of the film.

But that is absolutely, and I'm very frank about this, NO reason to deny any human contribution to the recent changes in the earth's climate.

It's a bit like politics: you hate those leftwing nuts, but by being a rightwing nut to distance yourself as far as possible from the other side, you make yourself equally irrational and zealous as those from the other side. The only right side is the one in between them. The side of compromise.

reader Barlycorn, John said...

"Manipulated facts" What a nice way to desctibe the outright lies, as found in a court of law that make up the whole of An Inconvenient Truth. That movie has created more skeptics, not just the movie, the the Global Warming Adventists defense of it, than Lubos ever could.

reader Michael said...

I posted the video on my site so you no longer have to play Whack-a-movie with google.
Click the link that says "learn the truth about global warming" at www(dot)rabbitLink(dot)com
you can download it in ISO divx MPG mov and FLV directly from my site...

reader Michael said...

You can download the great global warming swindle on dvd ISO flv DIVX MPG MOV at my website click on the link that says learn the truth about global warming. You can also watch the great global warming swindle at

reader LenX said...

The global warming is a warning, not a real thing. I wrote a blog related to this and with its addition to Mike Crichton novel. Please read this blog>


reader Michael said...

Watch the great global warming swindle, or download it at

reader meteorologist500 said...

The facts are misrepresented

reader meteorologist500 said...

Wow everyone here blindly follows this Global Warming Swindle. This is good how the skeptics use a conspiracy theory to scare people into believing there is not problem with the way humans act.

Go ahead keep reproducing, over consuming. Because no one cares about the future generations that have to live here.

HERE are some blatantly wrong facts used in this documentary that i find funny.
1) Humans produce less CO2 than volcanoes. WRONG humans produce 100 times more C02 annually than volcanoes. Yes they are right that c02 makes up a small portion of the atm. but that doesnt not mean that adding giga tons of c02 will not change the climate.
2) Solar variations are to blame for the warming not an anthropogenic process. WRONG the the cosmic rays theory/hypothesis has been proven wrong. Solar radiation has actually lessened a little and yet temperatures continue to rise.
3) why do all the graphs they represent end at 1980, That is just bad science, you cannot neglect the past 20 yrs just because the data goes against the theory that you may present
My point is that this documentary does the right thing

My point is that being skeptical is intelligent and the correct thing to do. The scientific method depends upon this. But mis using facts is plain wrong and terrible science. You guys should read
what some of the scientists had to say after the film was released. They talked disagreed and remarked that what they had to say was edited in order to support this BS theory.

COME on HUMANS even if global warming is a total hoax which it is defiantly not, then wHY DONT WE ERROR IN THE SIDE OF CAUTION.

reader Barlycorn, John said...

"the the cosmic rays theory/hypothesis has been proven wrong" -- Metorologist500

Well, since you are a meteorologist and all, with advanced degrees and a fancy edumacation, I am sure you will have no trouble giving me citation for the study that proved it wrong.

reader meteorologist500 said...

Ya the easy way to read about it is going to wikipedia. Just type in Global Warming Swindle. Wikipedia gives both sides of the story. I am not educated at all infact i am a sophomore at PSU striving for a major in Geology.

Listen though i am not trying to come off as an asshole. You guys are skeptics which is exactly the people i like to associate myself with. But for christs sake look at the possibility that Global Warming is indeed occuring. We could possibly turn the oceans anoxic which could potentially wipe out 95% of the species on this planet. I just feel as though Global warming makes sense, there is a lot of evidence.

The C02 that we are producing comes from a period when the oceans warmed around the cretacous. This interupted the thermal haylene circulation which stopped the ability for the plankton to absorb c02 and provide 02, by this time c02 levels were not as high as we see them now, but the oceans died and the c02 was trapped in the dead oceans mostly plankton, now we are burning oil and coal releasing the same substance that almost wiped out the entire earth. Come on we have brains lets not make the same mistake.

All i am saying is do not go ahead and believe what you want, like the global warming swindle just because this documentary says you do not have to change your ways. No no just keep over consuming you humans are perfect in fact the environment does not change at all when you pump giga tons of c02 into the atm. 24/7. Lets think that there might be a possibility that we should clean up our act.

Looking at both sides is good. Be a skeptic of an inconvienant truth, be a skeptic of Global Warming Swindle too. There is so much evidence refuting both sides that i decided to ERROR in the side of caution so that some day when i have kids i dont have to leave them to shit holw earth. maybe i am over reacting or maybe i am just trying to think for myself. GOD bless, even though i am not religous at all

reader meteorologist500 said...

dude i didn't know that wikipedia is 100% fraud is that true? Are they really that incorrect?

reader meteorologist500 said...

I like this site about skeptical science by the way its got some good stuff. I hate the fact that these days you just do not know who to believe. By the way if anyone here actually listens to Glenn Beck that fucking right wing nut they are morons that guy is crazy. High school diploma idiot

reader meteorologist500 said...

haha check this out i do not know if it is credible but it sure shuts you fools up, no offense.

Remember slang these things and fuck these hoes one line at a time up a niggas nose.

reader Barlycorn, John said...

Met500, You are just like all of the other alarmists posters, an idiot who is lying about your credentials, just like all of the other alarmist posters. Why do you guys have to pretend you are something you are not? Why don't you think that your logic can stand up on its own. My guess is bitter experience.

reader meteorologist500 said...

Dude why are you so defensive. I have no credentials I am not an alarmist, I just think that this documentary has its flaws like an inconvenient truth does. I do not claim to be an expert on climatology. This film misrepresents some of the facts that is all. Look at yourself you are pissed that what you heard from the documentary might not be true. You are mad because human beings spewing c02 since the industrial revolution might be affecting the climate. Or maybe that is incorrect, maybe its because much of the rainforest (the lungs of this planet) are being wiped out. Or maybe its mostly methane from agricultural animals (which we usually cut down rain forest to make pastures for them). All i am saying is that humans are apart of the fabric of nature and we have not been exactly a force that finds its equilibrium in nature. I would expect everyone to agree with that. We can change, there is no doomsday. No need to get alarmed, its time to change a little that is all. Its these right wing people who claim everyone who supports global warming as an alarmist, that is BS some of us just think about the future and want a clean planet for my kids.

SO Barlycorn I think that you dislike even the thought of global warming because that means you may have to change some of your over consuming ways, hey do not worry you know that America will keep burning fossil fuels and that China has now almost matched our oil consumption. China also creates a new coal plant a month. So sit back relax and you better pray that this is not a shred of scientific proof that supports global warming which there is a shit load. because the third world countries are fucked if in a hundred years the fabric of nature begins to rip.

reader meteorologist500 said...

I am sick of this being nice to you scientifically illiterate dimwits.

SERIOUSLY do some damn research before acting like total morons.

This fucking bull shit documentary is a fraud. A personal agenda in its self. I bet all you people believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Have a good FUCK TARDS

If any of you can read graphs and scientific data then this piece of evidence should clear your foggy shit for brains

reader Barlycorn, John said...

I think the vile and disgusting content of your posts combined with your puerile rants discredit you plenty. If you have no credentials, then why is your screen name that of a profession which requires a heavy and difficult education?

I know, because you are a dimwit who cannot even parse out that claiming to be a scientist when you are just one more link quoting leftard, and one whose mind carries a lot of filthy racist shit BTW. Reflects on you bro.

reader meteorologist500 said...

This site is not a leftard site but pure science okay, so please read, if it is too dificult then please tug on your wanker young mate. By the way i am only 20 and i have more fucking common sense to make my decisions on science, not what some conspiracy theorists says. i do enjoy talking to arrogant humans like barlycorn. These are the people conspiracy theorists thrive upon. Any person looking for a reason to claim that 6 billion people dont have an effect on the climate what so ever. ITS JUST THE SUN. Ok well what happens if you are wrong, well about 50% of the species will parish in a century destroying nature and guess who sits upon the head of the chain, we do moron. We wont skate by easy cheesy if we fuck up and get this wrong. As for people who dont think that a small amount of c02 like the gigatons we produce every year does anything youare idots too.

The fact that the increase in levels appears insignificant - e.g., is relatively small - is of no consequence. As an example, revisit your high school or college chemistry class and redo the experiements on chemical equilibrium of solvents and preciptation of solids therefrom - indeed, very small “relative” changes can lead to profound events.

reader Barlycorn, John said...

How long did it take you to finally find AR4 instead of the Wikepedia? If you read it with an open mind, you might learn something. It is not written in Greek or Latin, you can understand it. You are doing your cause more harm than good with these seemingly drunken rants. I am sick of trying to coach you alarmist posters up. It is not worth it to me.

reader meteorologist500 said...

I read it, and I had an open mind about it. It seems that the evidence supports anthropegnic global warming. Yes there are cycles in amount of c02 in our atm over last 400,000 years the co2 has spiked directly correlating with the industrial revolution. The cosmic variation theory doesnt quit correlate as well as the c02. It just makes sense that humans 6.5 billion of us many which burn fossil fuels 24/7 are effecting the climate. It does not take much to change the chemistry of the atmosphere. I agree with you Barlycorn that maybe I am a little left on this issue, but i was a Bush supporter and will be to the end. I just do not agree that we should turn our backs on the Eartha nd arrogantly say that humans have zero effect what so ever. Why do people act his way, it is selfish and i know you agree with that. Maybe we should just say fuck it, there is no stopping out consuming behavior, but some people just think that the Earth can support more and more, higher and higher levels of pollution, we are not prepared to take on the problems that could arise, at least not the third world countries. Some day if you have read the book VISIONS by Michio KAKu it talks about the humans having the capabilitiy to alter the climate and such, and our technology increases exponentially...... so yes we will make it through this, but the Earth is hurting. Species are dying out and we do not have the right nor the technology to risk that there may or maynot be global warming. By the the way Barlycorn where did you go to college just curious you sound like an Ohio state asshole, just joking, what is your major?

reader Sam said...

When you do a Google search for “Climate change,” one of the top results that always appears is the Wikipedia entry for this subject. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, most of the people that sign up to edit this article are pro-global warming evangelists who exhibit a clear pro-global warming agenda. This means that everyone from school children to the media are getting this highly biased view of climate change, when they research this topic via a Google search. Fortunately, however, ANYONE can sign up on Wikipedia free of charge in less than one minute and edit this article. I would encourage everyone to sign up and contribute to this article, to ensure it presents the correct view of global warming. Simply go to: (or just go to Google and search “Climate Change” to find the Wikipedia entry right near the top) and start editing! Then you can help to provide the proper balance that is needed in this highly biased article.

-S. Khratzinski

reader Juuso said...

Read George Monbiots comments on the film and Ch4:

reader OldSoul said...

I believe that the whole global warming movement is just bunch of bull. Yes the earth did warm from 1960 until 1997. (Thus the reason most data presentations stop there.)

The data from 1998-2005 that Gore uses is computer modeling not actual data. Yes there is questionable information in the Swindle. and just as much if not more in the InconvTruth.gore doesnt get criminalised for his point of view, yet Durkin does. one thing that I have learned looking at scientists and anything that is pushed by politicians is that if there is money on one side of the agument, look the other way first.

If the global tempurature on Mars has been going up at about the same rate for the exact same time frame, and it just happens to coicide with the activity of our sun, then there is a very slim chance that it is man made in either place.

Please dont get me wrong. we are just passing through on this plannet, and we shoud take the best care of it that we possibly can. Do what ever we can to leave it in better shape than we got it in.

Personaly I think there is a huge problem with Polution, but I think that we are wasting Billions of dollars focusing on the warming aspect of it. too much money is being put into CO2 and very little into the effects our chemical polutants are having on our health and the health of all the other species that we are to be looking after.

The food and water we feed our children is poisoning them more and more every year. Yet the amount of nutrician that comes from that food is less and less every year. The food is geneticaly modified to grow as fast as we can make it and just ends up as bags of water. why do you think they keep raising the number of servings of vegies you need every day. its not so high that you can't possibly fit it all in your stomach in one day. we need to start using our brains to fight the problems instead of wasting them and our money on usless arguments.

Even if we are warming the plannet, I dont give a hoha. Not until we stop poisoning our selves into extinction throuhg the air, water and food that we bring into our bodies. We are suposed to be in an enlightened age. our medicalexpertise is suposedly the best it has ever been. Then why is diseease and illness more rampant than at any point in our history. We can't cure anything, all we can do is treat the symptoms and prolong it. BECAUSE THAT IS WERE THE MONEY IS!

I am a right wing fanatic who believes in taking care of our planet and everything on it, especialy our selves. I will never fully trust a scientist or politician or anyone whoes funding depends on them saying what they are telling me. This man made global warming theory is exactly that. I believe Gore is doing what he believes is right. he has just been blinded by his passion and allowed his emotions to get the better of him. and he uses that emotion to get others emotional with him. That is one thing the left does very well.

Trust me, after we poison ourselves and go extinct, the planet and most of what is on it will still be here and thrive.

We need to solve this problem with truth not emotion. It'll be scary, but the truth almost always is.

reader SAC said...

Here are the points that are wrong with TGGWS

(1) As mentioned already, Volcanoes produce nowhere near as much CO2 as industry.

(2) The people who made the program conveniently forgot to mention the term “equilibrium”. For every 6 molecules of CO2 produced by industry 90 molecules are produced by the oceans and somewhat less by land. Guess how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans: about 90 units! ooops! did they forget to mention this well-known fact? The land also absorbs about as much as it emits. The only NET source of CO2 is from industry.

(3) CO2 molecules make up a small part of the atmosphere; they can't possibly have a large effect. This is the most ridiculous statement in the program, even a child understands that small concentrations can have a large effect. Bacteria, minerals, poisons, ooh, and CFCs - look what happened to the ozone hole.
What’s more, you can see the effect of CO2 directly from space - it takes a huge chunk out of Earth's black-body emission spectrum.

(4) There has been a medieval period that was even warmer than today - absolutely rubbish. Just look it up for yourselves in WIKI for example. You will notice that on the plot they give in TGGWS it conveniently misses out any numbers on the temperature axis - I wonder why that is?
The reason is that they have smoothed the data and averaged over several hundred years, which means that today's temperature appears lower on that plot because it is averaged with earlier temperatures. If there is a swindle here it is this program for misrepresenting data. Look it up for yourselves if you don’t believe me.

(5) It is useless to attack Al Gore’s presentation and say "therefore the science is wrong" Al Gore isn't a scientist and his presentation was wrong in many places and misleading.

(6) The experts on the program.
This is what happens. Some scientist is working on climate change and they decide to look at a new angle, which is great. One looks at Sun spots and seems to find a correlation climate and weather. I looked good initially; they want fame; there excited; the community is more reserved; their results become a part of them, to be defended at all cost, just as football teams become “irrationally” absorbed into peoples personalities. Unfortunately for this young scientist, it is has been shown to be not correct - I don’t know the details of this, but I'll come back to it later.

The other scientist who measured the temperature profile of the atmosphere was I think quite correct. Most models - if not all - do not get the same temperature profile in the troposphere as that measured. This does not mean that global warming is not happening - but something in the model details is not quite correct, that’s all. CO2, H2O, CFCs, CH2, N2O all absorb outgoing IR radiation. In the upper troposphere, because they are cold, they emit less than they absorb. The missing energy goes into the troposphere. You might think there are a lot of complex feedback effects but the bottom line is this: if the Earth warms up will it cause
(1) more of the incoming suns energy to be reflected back to space there mitigating the warming effect (i.e. more cloud formation or more snow or desert) ?
(2) more greenhouse gases to be emitted from the Eath’s surface? This will lead to more warming.

The program claims that most of the temperature increase has occurred between about 1850 and 1930 or so and then there was a cooling for three decades between 1950 and 1980. This graph is nearly correct. But it would be better to say that between 1950 and 1980 there was no significant rise in GLOBAL temperatures. By the way, it is now thought that the reason for this is that there was more sulfate aerosols in the air in that period that reflected solar radiation back to space.