"The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Fri, 2007-03-09 09:18Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

"The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Here's a tart review of the above-named UK Channel 4 TV program that aired last night. The review, by Climate Outreach and Information Network executive director George Marshall, comes complete with background information and links on the usual suspects who will go to any lengths to deny the science of climate change. It sounds like the show was pretty much what we would have expected: lots of hyperbole, zero reliable science.

It's also worth looking at the COINet website, and especially at the assessment of different online carbon calculators. You have to like an organization that would produce such an assessment and bump its own entry into second place.


from one of the world’s foremost climate scientist: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.htm... Enjoy!
Good link, Johan. I wonder why Desmog hasn’t got around to smearing Lindzen yet. He’s been out there for years talking about real cliamte science.
Lindzen actually does science and publishes, doesn’t make as many silly arguments, and doesn’t lie about his credentials, unlike Tim Ball.

I dont think you could have said it any better

To quote Lindzen: “Genuine science is about gathering evidence and testing the veracity of theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology. That is what is so disturbing about the current debate on global warming. Healthy scepticism, which should be at the heart of all scientific inquiry, is treated with contempt.” James Hoggan recently spoke to a group of PR professionals about this site and delivered an Al Gore-like recitation of the dangers of climate change. He claimed this blog is designed to encourage a healthy public discussion, yet this blog does anything but that. Instead, anyone who voices an opinion that doesn’t endorse Gore, Suzuki, Gelbspan, etc is shouted down, defamed and accused of being on Exxon’s payroll. This site provides no debate, no discussion, no respect for other points of view and perfectly represents Lindzen’s comment.

Anon said: "Instead, anyone who voices an opinion that doesn't endorse Gore, Suzuki, Gelbspan, etc is shouted down, defamed and accused of being on Exxon's payroll. This site provides no debate, no discussion, no respect for other points of view and perfectly represents Lindzen's comment".

What is being called is when people misuse science, distort the truth, cherry pick data, take quotations out of context and generally make a mockery of what true scientific debate is about.

Most of them happen to be on Exxon's payroll but that is probably just a coincidence.

Ian Forrester says:
"most of them happen to be on Exxon's payroll but that is probably just a coincidence"...

That doesn't seem to be the view of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Sam Kazman, when he spoke to the Washington Post:


to quote The Post
"...The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a "major donor" largely as a result of its effort to push that position.

"I think what attracted them to us was our position on global warming," said Sam Kazman, CEI's general counsel. "And we hope to get support from other industries that agree with us." "

The CEI received more than $2 million from Exxon 1998-2005.

The company has specifically stated that its funding to many of these groups was for climate change work.

Shindig, my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek when I typed that.

more like vulgar smear. Which corporations fund you?

JIK, once again you do not understand the difference between a true statement (most of the AGW deniers are associated with Exxon or other CO2 spewing industries) and your idea of a smear. A smear (which you actually use a lot) is to tell lies about some one. Once again you seem to be unable to understand simple words like honesty, truth, integrity

As for which corporations fund me, I will gladly let you know if you let me expose you and your corporate connections. But then again, you are speaking against the views of your corporate link and they probably wouldn't like that.

So why does Lindzen sound so much like Peter Duesberg, the Richard Lindzen of AIDS denialism. Duesberg is also a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and he did important early work on retroviruses. According to Duesberg
HIV is harmless, a mere “passenger” virus …”To pretend to think that HIV causes AIDS is politically correct, socially attractive and very,very fundable”… even in “the freest of all countries, as George Bush calls the US, nonconformists are excommunicated at all social and scientific levels”
They bought the same hymnal and are about as trustworthy.

Like Peter Duesberg, Richard Lindzen has a German-sounding name.

And do you know who else was German?

That's right -- HITLER.

Ethan, give me a break. I've got a really German-sounding name (heck, my first name is Hans, though I'm part Swedish) and I'm on the "warmers" side, so that dispells that silly notion.

Ethan, stop that right now.

So, you deny being German? You also deny being on the side of the denierists. That’s a lot of denierism.

But then, maybe that’s what your masters at Exxon are paying you for, which is being a denierist?

Please deny that, if you wish. That would only prove what you’ve already made obvious with your compulsive denials.

OK, enough Ethan. I'm tired of this silly German thing already (as are most on DeSmogBlog, I assume).

Well considering everyone always takes themselves so seriously its good to have a laugh everyonce and a while too.

OK, enough Ethan. I’m tired of this silly German thing already (as are most on DeSmogBlog, I assume).”

Yes, we’re tired all right, Stephen. Tired of your denierism, that is.
(Just attempting to close someone’s italics; I don’t know if this will work.)
Ah. I thought they’d have something to say on the dodgy science of Martin Durkin: check out Real Climate for the details: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414
I went over to RealClimate, and their comment policy precludes any comments on issues they claim are “settled” so as not to “muddy the waters”, so I don’t see how it is anything but a propaganda site. But they are still using Mann’s hockey stick to discredit the solar forcing arguments even though the IPCC has dropped it from its usual place of honor in the summary, at least in AR4. Mann’s hockey stick has been discredited as statistically naive and incorrect. It is also how RealClimate shows that solar forcing does not correlate to temperature history. I don’t see how RealClimate has discredited anything, except for some comments about CO2 that were probably ill-advised. Volcano erruption, rotting leaves, which are simply recycling atmospheric CO2, ets, I don’t see how real climate has laid a glove on them. If realclimate does get around to publishing my comment there, I will be sure to go back and point out how dishonest they are being in defending Gores use of the correlation between CO2 and Temperature. They make the argument that CO2 will be a knock on effect of warming and so the correlation matters, but Gore presents the CO2 correlation as a driver of change, which is another matter entirely. Reclimate is the one which is misleading by ommission of relevant facts.
Why not just watch the documentory for yourself and make up your own mind?

Available online here.

I followed the link in the original article to the COIN website but I can’t find a review of the Swindle programme - can someone point me straight at it?
Here is the full program. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=great+glob... 1 hr 16 minutes, and worth every minute of it. There is an easier way to dismiss the program than to smear all the scientists as liars without evidence, you could explain why AGW’s central hypothosis, that the troposphere will warm first, and then the surface, has *not* been proven false. I see a lot of references to Dr Tim Ball lying about his credentials. He himself says that he has recieved many death threats as well, but I haven’t seen any actual evidence of lies or misrepresentations on his part. One of the central points of the program is that many scientists who have resigned in disgust from the IPCC still have their names listed as part of the “consensus”. One even had to threaten legal action to have his name removed for the list of climatologists who supported the AGW theory.

It's here!

As reported in the paper. Says he was duped into appearing in the program. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0„2031455,00.html
You can watch the Great Global Warming Swindle video by copying the link below and pasting it into your browser window. It runs for about an hour and a 15 minutes. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED! Desmoggers may find the contents disturbing. Here’s the link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+...
I am not surprised to see reports that this documentary does some fast and loose editing of interviews, it has unfortunately become common place to drive the message. Look at Michael Moore and his work, he put in footage of Heston from years before Columbine to make him look worse. Consider Gore’s doc about American cars not being able to be sold in China due to fuel economy even though the largest single seller of cars in China is GM. And no mention that none of those cars could be sold in the US because they fail to meet current environment standards. China is currently one standard behind the Euro’s current and plans to adopt the current Euro standard when Euro adopts its next. Also Gore points to the loss of snow at Kilamanjaro as being caused by human global warming when the IPCC indicates that it is solar irradiance at the cause of it and not man made. I am not surprised that this film has also been found to misrepresent the intentions of those interviewed or the facts. It has unfortunately become common. Each side in this debate seems to be able to misuse data to their own ends and does so with the intention of manipulating our opinions. Each side indicates a destruction of the world or the economy or that it is the greatest oppurtunity. It would be really great if a few non-agenda persons with credentials in this area could speak on the topic so that when I decide how to vote I won’t make a mistake. Until that time, climate change is normal as our planet’s history indicates. Or as Earth says, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
really I did have paragraphs in that post, man it is poor now. how do you do paragraphs here outside of a couple ?

Sorry, that was an oversight on my part. I have added the paragraph tag into the mix. This is all in an attempt to make this site less attractive to spammers, and unfortunately that means limiting input options for regular users as well.

It's good to see that this bad, bad documentary is getting the debunking it deserves.

I've added my own contribution - a detailed (if slightly ranty) explanation of what's wrong with each of the programme's main claims - here:


Hope it's helpful,


Global warming is a swindle and you are all buying into it, Al Gore is a hypocrite, a liar, a cheat. We must give him no more ease, time for the public to start asking questions, not some fancy pumped up scientist.

Shove that in your pipe and smoke it

And produce lots of CO2 in the process