Great Climate Change Swindle, who is trying to swindle who?

Unfortunately the link above is missing a '.':-(

But it's a good site and the FAQ is here:

http://www.globalwarming101.com/component/opt...

One quote: "Isn't there still a big debate about whether or not global warming is actually happening and whether or not humans have anything to do with it?
Written by FAQ Team
No. The debate is over. There is international consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001; Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 2004, p.2) Since the publication of those reports, scientists have collected even stronger evidence from ice cores, ocean sediment cores and increasingly sophisticated computer modelling. Even Exxon now admits that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to global warming."

This is interesting too (American Association for the Advancement of Science): http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_c...

"Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report only mentioned scattered regional effects.

"Things are happening and happening faster than we expected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, one of the many co-authors of the new report.

The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems -- change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen -- can be blamed on global warming.

For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," such as hurricanes and wildfires.

But the present is nothing compared to the future.(from CNN news )

Carl Wunsch has a page on the Royal Society web-site (keeps timing out ... I wonder why?): http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp... :

Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly __not with the confidence we all seek__. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is __not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence__. It is probably true that __most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present__ in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that __clear-cut proof is not now available__ and may not be available for a long-time to come,__if ever__. Public policy has to be made on the basis of __probabilities, not firm proof__.

- we might be waiting a long time for absolute facts/proof. Mean while the clock is ticking and most main-stream scientists are telling us to act, when normally they always like to just go back and check.

Of course he was tricked into appearing. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was __apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues__(the __producers have a history of doing this__), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ 2007/03/the_great_global_warmi ng_swind.php#comment-367476

I've just received the following email from Carl Wunsch, which confirms that Martin Durkin has been true to type:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Wunsch"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Just wanted to check something

Dave,
I've not seen it and the __context was not at all what we had agreed on__. Was billed as a balanced discussion of the threat of global warming As I began to see ads for the program,__I realized I'd been duped__. I'm wondering if there's some way I can get to see it. If you do register some kind of complaint, can you let me know what it says?

Carl

If you are disappointed/angry at the propaganda that was The Great Global Warming Swindle here is where to complain:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specif...

Complain to C4 itself:

http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI....

Complain to the advertisers:

Volkswagon, Hastings & Direct, Bradford & Bingley, Visa, Yakurt, Orange, Audi, Virgin Media, Mitchelin, Zurich finance, Wrigley (orbit gum), Ing Direct (finance), Magners Cider, confused.com (insurance), Christian Dior (J'adore), Kraft foods (Toblerone, Cote d'or), Nat West, Love Films, Citreon, Nissan, Expedia, Microsoft, Ibuleve, Otex ear drops.

Notice how many car and finance adverts there were. I let The Independent off because they published an article criticising the documentary.

[QUOTE=who-ever]Yes, its true - Carl Wunsch was duped by Martin Durkin and WagTV, and he's not at all happy.[/QUOTE]
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/...

A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat.'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said.'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

Well said who-ever:
[QUOTE=who-ever]If C4 really cares about 'airing all sides of the debate' they would have made sure that the other side (i.e., real climate scientists), were allowed to have their say IN THIS PROGRAMME. In excluding them -- or in Wunsch's case, misleading them and quoting them out of contest -- they created a piece of outright propaganda, making their arguments seem infinitely more credible than they actually are.[/QUOTE]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives... quote: "In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important ---__diametrically opposite to the point I was making__--- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected." quote: "that suggested they were making a film that was __one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading__. I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a __reputation for distortion and exaggeration__." There is even a letter he wrote to them once he knew what the film was really about...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
quote: "What we now have is an __out-and-out propaganda piece__, in which there is __not even a gesture toward balance__ or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are __not widely accepted by the scientific community__. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin"
(my bolding)

They have blown themselves right out of the water! Into the full glare!

This thread is the definitive source for the problems with that program.

High regards to you, Smithy.

Thanks Walt :-)

If anyone is going to show Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle, then to maintain balance they should also show Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps Channel 4 should be required to show An Inconvenient Truth? Now that is a very good idea... Perhaps those who have not complained already will request just that.

However, when showing either of them it would only be responsible to make the scientific basis clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_...
quote "Gore's basic claim—that global warming is real—is supported by current research.

Gore's subsequent claim—that global warming is largely human-caused—is also supported by current research.

Gore presents specific data that supports the film's thesis, including:"(There is loads there...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global...
quote "The documentary received a substantial amount of coverage in the British press, both before and after its broadcast.

One scientist featured, Carl Wunsch said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme,[3][4] calling it "__grossly distorted__" and "__as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two.__"[5] Wunsch was reported to be considering legal action, and a complaint to OFCOM, the UK broadcast regulator.[5] Filmmaker Durkin responded by saying, "Carl Wunsch was most certainly not "duped" into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said."[5]

A critique by Sir John Houghton (former co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) assesses 9 of the main assertions by the programme and __disagreed with most of them__, and described the programme as "__a mixture of truth, half truths and falsehood__"[6] He accepted some statements in the film were factual, but __challenged most__."
(no scientific basis section (yet?), the claims are there, and are the peole involved)

An Inconvenient Truth is still on Amazon's top DVDs list. On amazon.co.uk number 7 (it's been out since December 26th)! On amazon.com number 8 (it's been out since November).

People, I really hope you take the time to read this.
I just have to say that you are COMPLETE and TOTAL fools for buying into "global warming".

Do you not understand that ALL the C02 ever produced by man is literally infinitesimally small compared to the amount produced by volcanoes and the oceans over the ages and eons.

Do you not consider the power nature has, one volcano just 1 very large large volcanic eruption has the capacity to cause dust clouds that would render the world to a state of nuclear winter that could take hundreds of years to pass? that would sure cool things down for you.

Seriously, you people are just buying into sensationalism and propoganda - Do you realise that a whole new form of currency (carbon) has been created to expliot this lie??

All energy on earth derives from the sun (or from space in minute form)- thats right, all of the enery comes from the sun in one way or another.

You must have zero concept of how large and powerful the sun actually is compared to us and how it only takes a relatively small solar event to have comparitavely large measurable effects on earth.

Its almost a form of arrogance to think that the tiny tiny amount of C02 (which is less reflective than the 95% water vapour that makes up greenhouse gasses) we produce heats up the world.

you have all bought into the capitalist ideal of restricting third world development - you are fools, they used to have VINYARDS in the orkneys and shetland islans north od scotland by the arctic circle!!!!!!!!! WAS THAT CAUSED BY TOO MANY JUMBO JETS?? DONT THINK SO, THEY DIDNT HAVE ANY BACK THEN.

The world was WAY warmer back then than it is now, and yet you imbecils panic like were all gonna fry

ITS A NATURAL CYCLE, THE EARTH GETS WARMER AND COOLER, DEAL WITH IT!!!

ITS THE SUN, YOU IDIOTS.

Alex wrote:

People, I really hope you take the time to read this.
I just have to say that you are COMPLETE and TOTAL fools for buying into "global warming".
Do you not understand that ALL the C02 ever produced by man is literally infinitesimally small compared to the amount produced by volcanoes and the oceans over the ages and eons.
Do you not consider the power nature has, one volcano just 1 very large large volcanic eruption has the capacity to cause dust clouds that would render the world to a state of nuclear winter that could take hundreds of years to pass? that would sure cool things down for you.
Seriously, you people are just buying into sensationalism and propoganda - Do you realise that a whole new form of currency (carbon) has been created to expliot this lie??
All energy on earth derives from the sun (or from space in minute form)- thats right, all of the enery comes from the sun in one way or another.
You must have zero concept of how large and powerful the sun actually is compared to us and how it only takes a relatively small solar event to have comparitavely large measurable effects on earth.
Its almost a form of arrogance to think that the tiny tiny amount of C02 (which is less reflective than the 95% water vapour that makes up greenhouse gasses) we produce heats up the world.
you have all bought into the capitalist ideal of restricting third world development - you are fools, they used to have VINYARDS in the orkneys and shetland islans north od scotland by the arctic circle!!!!!!!!! WAS THAT CAUSED BY TOO MANY JUMBO JETS?? DONT THINK SO, THEY DIDNT HAVE ANY BACK THEN.
The world was WAY warmer back then than it is now, and yet you imbecils panic like were all gonna fry
ITS A NATURAL CYCLE, THE EARTH GETS WARMER AND COOLER, DEAL WITH IT!!!
ITS THE SUN, YOU IDIOTS.

Your facts are way, way off.

You need a basic primer in global warming.

Several people have posted links that will help get you started, if you are interested.

Regarding the claim regarding volcanoes on The Great Global Warming Swindle :

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas...

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons)(( Marland, et al., 1998)- The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.).[B]Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes[/B]--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

They also stated that volcanic emissions of CO2 far exceeded those from human activity. This is untrue.[B]Annual emissions from volcanoes are only 1% of the amount emitted to the atmosphere by humans[/B].

A free download on this is at http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/segs/...

equivalent to just 1%

Some how I believe the [B]US Geological Survey[/B](USGS) and [B]British Geological Survey[/B](BGS) know a thing or two about volcanoes...

Why is it that people just blindly believe what they see on the TV?

Many people are complaining that the scientists have not presented the evidence. The Royal Society have quite a well laid out site: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp...

How about a few links to where the science has been presented:

National Climactic Data Centre (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

The National Center for Atmospheric Research:
http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate

The Royal Society on climate change:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp...

Hadley Centre for Climate Change (part of the UK's Met Office):
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressof...

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has 'Global Climate-Change Resources':
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_c...

Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
http://www.ipcc.ch and of course http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.PDF

Science Daily "Your source for the lastest research news" on Climate Change (scientific papers which have just been published in the likes of Nature, Science, Geophysical Papers): http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climat...

The BBC on Climate Change (I find that it is actually quite balanced despite what some might say): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/portal/cl...
or the current Science/Nature news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.s...

A very interesting blog from Climate Scientists that always has very good information:
http://www.realclimate.org

NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre's 'Earth and Sun' section (ie. the Goddard Institute for Space Studies) on climate change:http://www.nasa.gov/cen ters/goddard/earthandsun/index .html
and video segments explaining climate change:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthands...
Yes this is James Hansen: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.htm...
James Hansen claims to have been censored in the past, NASA since changed their policies, and have fun with this graph (try moving your mouse over it): http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/clima...

And try Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/search/index.cfm...

A balance to The Great Warming Swindle is of course An Inconvenient Truth (#7 and #8 on Amazon .co.uk and .com the other day) and it seems it is coming under fresh attack as reported and countered here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
"We reviewed the movie ourselves, looking hard for such 'inaccuracies', and could only find one minor area (the explanation of the complex relationship between the global surface temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations over glacial/interglacial cycles) where justified criticism might be levied (and here, the accusation was only that Gore simplified a complicated relationship, something that is arguably unavoidable in a movie intended for mass popular consumption)."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
"How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. "

Smithy wrote:

Channel 4 Now Ashamed of its Experts http://www.desmogblog.com/channel-4-now-as......
<quoted text><quoted text><quoted text>
So who is trying to swindle who? Who is most likely to be mis-representing the truth?

I think channel 4 are spot on there is a swindle too many people are making money out of the climate change agenda
____THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLIMATE CHANGE THAT IS MAN MADE_____

I believe that there will be some at least who would like to know what David Miliband (the UK Environment Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) has to say about The Great Global Warming Swindle.

http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/m...
"Below I have set out what Defra scientists say about the __11 main allegations__ in the programme." ie. the above link.
"I am convinced well beyond reasonable doubt that the swindle is not being perpetrated by the vast, vast majority of scientists in the world. There will always be people with conspiracy theories trying to do down the scientific consensus, and that is part of scientific and democratic debate, but the science of climate change looks like fact to me. If the effect of the programme, instead of making people think, is in fact to make them disregard the accepted science (in other words stop thinking) then that would be a real swindle."

http://www.defra.gov.uk/

i watched this programme and yes the commentator appeared to have an agenda but what matters is, is the science correct and even if the people on the programme have had dubious financial backing is their science correct and does it stand up to scrutiny
can you answer these questions
1- is the antartic ice sheet expanding while the artic is melting
2- if global warming computer predictions do not include sunspot activity and cosmic ray formed cloud build up. are they then useless
3- if a co founder of greenpeace is claiming that the global warming theory is politically driven and the science is not fully proven. whats his motive

Someone from Herts wrote:

<quoted text>
I think channel 4 are spot on there is a swindle too many people are making money out of the climate change agenda
____THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLIMATE CHANGE THAT IS MAN MADE_____

So, you watched the show and believed everything they said.

Can you explain why? I'm asking seriously.

bernard morrey wrote:

i watched this programme and yes the commentator appeared to have an agenda but what matters is, is the science correct and even if the people on the programme have had dubious financial backing is their science correct and does it stand up to scrutiny
can you answer these questions
1- is the antartic ice sheet expanding while the artic is melting
2- if global warming computer predictions do not include sunspot activity and cosmic ray formed cloud build up. are they then useless
3- if a co founder of greenpeace is claiming that the global warming theory is politically driven and the science is not fully proven. whats his motive

1- the antarctic ice sheet - and other cold places - receives more snow than it once did (it was once considered 'desert' for lack of precipitation). This is expected because as the earth's atmosphere warms it holds more water vapor. This is released as precipitation. This has been correctly modeled and is not an unexpected event.

2-Climate models include everything that can be quanitifed. Because sunspot cycle minimums and maximums are cyclical, they can be included. Their effect must, of course, be estimated, but there are historical boundaries which provide reliable numbers for that. Regarding clouds, the scale of the models is too large to account for individual clouds, so cloud cover is 'parameterized'; that is, the effect of clouds is factored in. Not perfect, to be sure, but ask yourself what it would take to 'model' individual clouds. Perhaps in 20 years this will be possible. Are models therefore 'useless'? Not at all. Models have consistently compared well against actual climate changes. Climate modeling is highly advanced. Go to www.realclimate.org and search on climate models.

3- You will have to ask him. There are more than a few scientists who disagree as well. One thing the program successfully illustrates is this: some scientists insist that man-made GW is all wrong.

What you need to do is look at their assertions. There has been a lot of information posted in this forum with regard to that.