The Great Global Warming Swindle

Al Gore can go screw himself. Worth the watch if you’ve boughten in to the global warming media frenzy. Or just want some fodder to hit ignorant hippies and fear-mongers over the head with.

I was not aware of some of the misrepresentation going on in this doc, though the whole thing is not to be dismissed. I love being proved wrong when I jump to conclusions! Thanks, barry!

Produced by Channel 4, U.K.

Available in better quality via sweet, sweet DivX over at Joox.net (link).

6 Comments

  1. aw dude. you’re kidding right?

    But if mainstream scientists’ motives for warning humanity about an impending crisis that could be averted with concerted early action are obvious, what motivates some scientists to deny climate change? Some of the interviewees in Durkin’s documentary are obvious cranks, resentful about the mainstream’s rejection of their pet theories. Some are not deniers at all. Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer, complained he had been misled, that his interview had been edited to look as though he was dismissing human-caused climate change. Another interviewee, Richard Lindzen, is a climate scientist but seems something of a contrarian: for instance, he has also argued that passive smoking isn’t harmful.

    Others seem to be unknown to scientists in the field: Paul Holper, manager of the CSIRO’s climate change research program, says of another interviewee (Tim Ball, “professor from the department of climatology, University of Winnipeg”) that he can find no reference to such a department at this university nor to Ball’s affiliation to it. The professor claims carbon dioxide concentrations are currently 0.054 per cent. “No they aren’t,” says Holper. “They are 0.038 per cent. The graphics can’t even correctly present the formula for carbon dioxide.”

    Holper says the Durkin documentary is a “mishmash collection of fiction and fact ? very selective in the material presented, supplying just enough information to suggest considerable scientific uncertainty and then moving on without referring to the abundance of scientific evidence that enables climate researchers to easily explain and dispel many of the claimed uncertainties”.

    this doco is just garbage.

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/06/01/1180205508019.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

    http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/interference-claim-at-abc/2007/05/23/1179601487356.html

  2. barry, nice work. I enjoyed the piece on Carl Wunsch. While I’m still not particularly fond of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, your links here provide a good amount of depth and more opinions untainted further by mainstream media. Thanks!

    Keep in mind this is Fell, not Klint!

  3. I haven’t watched either this documentary, or Inconvenient Truth Yet. But I think it’s healthy to be skeptical about everything, including global warming. That said, as even the global warming doubters like Ron Bailey from Reason Magazine are coming around, the case against global warming seems to be getting thinner and thinner.

  4. Well, the documentary isn’t denying global warming. It shifts the focus from carbon dioxide to the affect the sun has on Earth. I have followed different research on the sun in the past, so I feel more inclined to side with this argument.

    However, I don’t have the time to fully research everything. But I will not completely discount this documentary. I see that they misrepresented some statements made, but earlier this year, with some digging around online, I found An Inconvenient Truth to be sadly short-sighted and biased, as well.

    This documentary is worth the watch, keeping in mind some of the links that barry posted.

  5. thanks for the kind comments. love the blog by the way!

Leave a Reply

© 2014 Technoccult

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑