"Global Warming Swindle" Movie Not Quite Offensive Enough For Regulators

When "The Great Global Warming Swindle" aired on British television last year, it was billed by its producers, Wag TV, as "the definitive response to Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth.'" In what is arguably the film's most jarring line, the narrator says: "Everywhere you are told that man-made climate change is proved beyond doubt. But you are being told lies."

Several hundred viewers, including dozens of scientists, filed complaints about the film's accuracy, impartiality and fairness with Britain's Office of Communications, or Ofcom, which among many duties monitors standards for programming. The office's findings on the climate documentary were released Monday, and I have a story in Science Times on the mixed result. I've posted excerpts from the story below, along with links to the report.

Many leading scientists, including Martin Rees of the Royal Society, have criticized the film and the results of the inquiry. Robert Watson, a former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, one of the film's main targets, strongly attacked the TV office today, saying, "The public has been swindled," in an op-ed in the Guardian.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[tkondaks]

How many of you that are commenting on it have actually seen the 115 minute-long "Great Global Warming Swindle"?
Youtube used to have the entire show in about 5 different parts -- and I wanted to provide the links to it here -- but now I can't seem to find it...perhaps the owners had them take it off for copyright reasons as they have released the DVD version in the U.S.
Be that as it may, if you put "great global warming swindle" into the youtube search engine, you'll get some great results, particularly a 9-part debate on Australian TV.
Look, when Al Gore -- or anyone, for that matter -- says that the debate on a particular subject is over, that's when you know that the debate hasn't even begun.

[Exusian]

Scientific debate takes place in the form of papers published in the relevant scientific journals and presented at the relevant scientific conferences. What you see in those venues is plenty of debate about the details of competing forcings and natural variability and the underlining mechanics of the climate system, but what you do not see are legitimate papers showing that the basic science of antropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is wrong.

To be sure a "debate" over whether or not human activity is altering the climate still rages, but it is not a clear-headed objective debate about the science among scientists actually working in the relevant fields, it"s a debate about the impact on human society in the court of public opinion. Those are two entirely different debates that should not be confused. That a substantial portion of the public does not widely accept the science does not make it a scientific debate.

[mamacat]

Feb. 5, 2007, from CNNMoney.com

"Exxon has been criticized in the past for funding groups that promote what many experts believe to be junk science."

"A recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists said Exxon spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 funding 43 'organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.' "

"The oil giant.......pledged to stop funding what many consider to be fringe groups that downplay human's role in global warming."

Was Exxon funding anti-global warming fringe groups out of a sense of civic duty? Or were they trying to protect their bottom line, by averting the movement to develop alternative energy sources and to cut down on our use of petroleum products?

Draw your own conclusions.

[tkondaks]

$16 million?
Over 7 years?
My God, that's a drop in the bucket compared the 10s of billions of dollars spent EVERY YEAR by the federal government on research that is set out to prove global warming.
I would hope that in the future Exxon starts to spend $50 million a year so that we can have some semblance of a debate on the subject.

[mamacat]

There is no government on the face of this planet that is spending 10s of billions of dollars every year on research to prove global warming.

By giving billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear, this federal government is in effect paying for whatever they spend on lobbyists and public relations campaigns.

The debate over global warming resembles the debate over evolution. Among scientists, about the same percentage believe that evolution and/or global warming are not accureate descriptions of reality - a small percentage of less than 1%.
There is a very lively debate among bloggers, and among some pundits, but there is no debate among scientists, because the proof is too overwhelming.

[JScott]

The question everyone should be asking is who funded this, those who benefit from denying global warming.

[tkondaks]

Good question.
Its corollary question should be: Are the reports that Al Gore is worth $100 million in stock ownership in Green Companies true?
If true, isn't Gore's continual promotion of catastrophic man-made global warming a conflict of interest and predispose him NOT to report on evidence that point away from his position?
If true, doesn't Gore have a responsibility to announce this every time he opens his mouth to spout his side of the story?
Certainly you agree, JScott, that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Steeevyo]

Nice attempt at free speech. Environmentalist fascists.

[Mogamboguru]

WHO's the fashist here? Flagged.

[CrzyRussell]

Steeevyo does have a point. Suppressing free speech because you disagree with it's view point is well.....

[mamacat]

Is it free speech, or corporatist funded speech?

[CrzyRussell]

If your facts are strong there there shouldn't be any issues with different viewpoints being presented. Generally when people try to prevent different viewpoints from being presented it's because their position is weak and thus threatened.

[jay1975]

Too true.

[Alethea]

I still find it a little amazing that people dispute the effects of Co2 in our atmosphere. So let's see if I can dumb this down.

1. Co2, by it's chemical nature, traps heat.
2. Humans are pumping approximately 8 Billion Metric Tons of Co2 into the Atmosphere every year - on top of what is already produced naturally.
3. Since Co2 traps heat, then the increase in Co2 has trapped a proportional amount of heat in the atmosphere.

THESE ARE INDESPUTIBLE FACTS!!! Sun + Co2 = retained heat. Humans emitting Co2 = Human responsibility.

This is about a simple as I can state it. Now what will happen AS A RESULT of these facts are up for debate. But the mere fact that SOMETHING will happen is guaranteed. There are processes in the earth that can recycle Co2 out of the atmosphere, but they take time, and there's no guarantee that it will help in our lifetimes or prevent any lasting damage.

So it's just like playing Russian Roulette by yourself, and you're not sure how many bullets are loaded. We might luck out, but it's pretty unlikely. So how daring are we?

I look at it this way: if I'm wrong about the end results of these chemical FACTS, and we switch to cleaner energy, then the worst that will happen is that the air is a little cleaner and some Saudis are a little poorer. But if GW deniers are wrong, then the worst that can happen

[Alethea]

is....

(I meant to add)

[NL207]

"1. Co2, by it's chemical nature, traps heat"

There is nothing about its 'chemical' nature that traps heat. This is entirely a product of quantum physics and wave scattering.

"Humans are pumping approximately 8 Billion Metric Tons of Co2 into the Atmosphere every year - on top of what is already produced naturally"

Just how much is produced naturally? And how much is absorbed natuarlly? You have one post to produce the research or I get to embarass you as an ignoramus.

" Since Co2 traps heat, then the increase in Co2 has trapped a proportional amount of heat in the atmosphere"

This is utter garbage, presuppoing that all greenhouse gases are equally effective in absorbing IR radiation. This is a fallacy as this source shows clearly: "Among those identified, carbon dioxide is among the least effective as a greenhouse gas"
source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg97rpt/chap1.html

The 500 pound gorilla of greenhouse gases is water vapor, over which man has no control.

[MGhamma]

NL207,mentioning water vapor destroyed any credibility you might have been able to claim. You've just shown that haven't a clue what your talking about.

[Mr Grey]

Wait until the perfect storm arrives. Wait until London is hit by a catastrophic flood greater than faced in New Orleans. The same can happen in New York and other major coastal cities around the world. What are they going to say then? How many people are going to have to die? How many weather related disasters is it going to take to wake these people up?

[Mogamboguru]

Let's not presume, let's have facts.

[jay1975]

New Orleans was destroyed because it was below sea level and used levees to hold the waters back. Not likely to be nearly as destructive in a city above sea level.

[joebaggadonuts]

What is the use of arguing? The other side is not listening. Wasted breath is just more hot air. Let them speak so that we may remember their denial and charge them when the great consequences come to pass.

[Mogamboguru]

Earth cooling down 0.6 degrees Celsius in only two years IS a consequence - if one you don't really like to accept.

Right?

[Alethea]

Prove that one for me would you? A link or two would be best.

The best I could find is this http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/uah-global-temperature-dives-in-may/ but those results are ultimately inconclusive since monthly variations don't predict long term rises or falls.

Or this one http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ but it only shows a significant 10 month drop. Not a 2 year drop.

Seeing as how the temps has been rising steadily for the last 100 years, a 2 year drop is nice, but as you can see from some of these other graphs, they not unusual and hardly evidence of any real decline. Especially when the effects of GW are so obvious right now as we speak.

Believe me, I hope we are wrong about GW and that everything will be fine. But the evidence only raises more concerns then they resolve.

[KillTheMessenger]

Except that the Earth did not cool down. It's just a climate troll misinterpreting data. Bummer.

[tkondaks]

And who do WE charge when all the catastrophies that Al Gore predicts don't come true, yet we've spent several trillions of dollars trying to combat them?
And what about all the poor people dying now because of the policies -- such as Ethanol for Fuel -- that have resulted from the pro-global warming folks have tripled the prices of food staples such as corn?
AGJ, AGJ, how many babies have you killed today?

[darthdarcy]

It's those "Liberal Satellites", showing the Ice Melting everywhere..

Those "Liberal Satellites.."

[Mogamboguru]

Yeah -

those, frigging, librul satellites show that, since 1980, the ice around Antarctica has substantially grown in area, as well as in thickness!

Damn, frigging, librul satellites!

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=75&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&config=seaice_index&submit=Refresh&mo0=05&hemis0=S&img0=extn&mo1=06&hemis1=S&img1=conc&year0=2008&year1=1980&.cgifields=no_panel

[Mogamboguru]

Greetings from Mars!

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=75&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&config=seaice_index&submit=Refresh&mo0=05&hemis0=S&img0=extn&mo1=06&hemis1=S&img1=conc&year0=2008&year1=1980&.cgifields=no_panel

Since 1980, the ice around Antarctica has grown substantially LARGER as well as THICKER.

If you don't trust the liberal satellites, perhaps you trust the Martians...

[Alethea]

Interesting link.

Unfortunately this one disproves it as anything significant. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html

The fabled Northwest Passage is becoming a reality. Scary thought...

[Tator]

Now lets add on top of this Hansen has been caught manually manipulating the GISS data again to try and keep the wheels from coming off the hoax AGW . This is getting comical watching the snookered try to keep from being made fools of...but that has already happened.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3327

[darthdarcy]

It's those damn liberal satellites showing the ice melting all over the globe...those damn liberal satellites...

That's the ticket...!

[fumes]

hi guys! my two cents: i believe that that beautiful blue ancient ice coming into view at the poles is indicative of warming, but i don't believe we caused it or can control it. and certainly co2 isn't the force behind anything but photosynthesis.

[NL207]

"certainly co2 isn't the force behind anything but photosynthesis"

CO2 provides no 'force' for photosynthesis. The sun does that. CO2 is the FOOD for photosynthesis. Together with water, it is the basic building block of the carbohydrates plants manufacture. See this for a reasonable description of the chemistry:

http://www.rsc.org/education/teachers/learnnet/cfb/photosynthesis.htm

[fumes]

food is a force, no? i'll stand corrected NL207, it's good to hear from you again!

[KillTheMessenger]

You believe? Now do you also have scientific data for your beliefs? If so, where has it been published?

[fumes]

say kill, i said ''i believe'', and i believe that that's coded rhetoric for imho, no? take a breath!

[RememberTheAlamo]

Hi KillTheMessenger,

Apologies for going off-topic but . . .

(1) Thanks for the thoughts/guidance on Hydraulic Hybrids
(2) Looked into these a little more (liked your summation)
(3) Agree about the low-end, instanteous power
(4) Found a recent publication which you might comment upon . . . .
http://www.dieselmidatlantic.org/diesel/urbanfleets/conferencecalls/3_5_08/kargul_hydraulic_hybrid.pdf

(5) Combine some of the off-the-shelf HHV parts with what the Prius is already doing well and we would have 40+ mpg pick-ups . . .and 80+ mpg Prius's (that could pull boats).

Apologies to all for disrupting such a wonderful debate!

Yours

[hoopesaz]

You misunderstand science and it's ability to confirm a truth...that's evident in your critical response. It was once said that nature whispers yes, but thunders no. Meaning every "yes" answer science provides is still a conditional "yes".

Theories can be well confirmed by the evidence (and I think the evidence confirms that humans have an effect, but the extent of the effect is still up for debate), but they don't PROVE that humans are causing global warming. Proof in this sense must be indisputable, so that every rational man is compelled to agree.

I don't believe that humans are the sole reason for global warming. I'm not sure how responsible they are. REGARDLESS, given that it is an unanswered question, I think the only prudent thing to do is to assume that we are causing it all and take steps necessary to change that trend. If someday we are proven wrong, no harm done. If it turns out to be true, well then we won't have delayed until it was far past too late to do anything about it.

[Mogamboguru]

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

Quote:

"With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

Let the fight begin...

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Lets call it debate or well never get through the rhetoric. I agree, let's have the scientists discuss this, closing the door on anything is stupid in my opinion. I would like to point out that your link and quote have a sidenote:

"The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee."

[Mogamboguru]

A good comment. I agree.

[KillTheMessenger]

And did you read the disclaimer on that page?

"The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee."

That's not science debate but simple opinion. And it says so.

Now, can I hear someone who has a scientific point to make and is not just in it to sound off?

:-)

[Mogamboguru]

With pleasure:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008

Quotes:

"I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector."

"There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it."

"2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.".

"4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect."

Etc., etc...

You are welcome!

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Just as all the deniers like to lambast Gore and the scientists that support AGW. The program as well mistreated and misquoted its individual contributors. I wonder who started this, the bloggers or the program:

Rule 7.1: "Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes.";

Rule 5.11: "¦.due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy¦"; and

Rule 5.12: "In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented".

'Must not be misrepresented'... Hmmmm. Well I guess the OFCOM must be part of the one government socialistic wanna be society then right?

I await your unfair treatment and misrepresentation of facts.

[Mogamboguru]

Let me stick the denomination "denier" back on you, pal.

Because YOU are denying me the rights of the First Amendment.

BTW: I am NOT denying ANYTHING. Instead, I am APPROVING, that the discussion over human-made Global Warming is far from bein closed. This is a fact, which YOU are DENYING ferociously.

In fact, we are right in the middle of the discussion. The only thing I AM denying you is the attempt to silence me. But having an intellectual discourse with you? Anytime, anywhere.

You name it.

[jvarga]

Who would have known your first amendment right applies to a tv show on British television?

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Lawrence Berkeley National Labs - 11AM

Hey I thought you were in the middle of Europe freezing your butt off.

I am with you actually, have the discourse. But know that by the time it is settled to everyones liking with 100% consensus the proof that will have been given will have been disastrous. There are many advantages to reducing our CO2, not just climate change, that we can do while we are debating.

It seems you believe we are in a cooling period. While this year is cooler than the last and the year before and their is debate to the warming trend in general, most of the scientist believe that we are in a warming trend. So I am not going to start there with you. Can we get past that point and move to the next?

[OldKnute]

Oh lets be clear, I AGREE WITH YOU,,,Mogamboguru

WE NEED let them speak. It is our most effective tool. LET THEM SPEAK!

They will show others what is at the false core of their argument.

LET THEM SPEAK.

Then, watch the fires in California.
SEE,, the Japanese gun implements on Okinawa,, NOW UNDER WATER. Walk the Island roads that now wash over with high tide. Go to Venus Italy for vacation, but bring rubber boots.
Watch the homes at Malibu be washed away.
Watch as your cattle die in the field and KNOW you can"t water them.
See your corn flooded and decimated.

Their answer? The sea is not rising.

Venus, Okinawa, Malibu, San Francisco, The Netherlands, Cape town, Brisbane, Sydney, Hong Kong, are not being taking over by the sea,,,, they are just sinking.

The sea is not rising,, we are all just sinking.

Our cattle are NOT dieing of thirst.

????????

I say,,, LET THEM SPEAK!!!!!

Let ALL here them.

JMO

All the best

OldKnute

[KillTheMessenger]

The first amendment guarantees that you can say anything you like. It does not guarantee that I will take you seriously. Or that I have to. In other words: having the right to an opinion does not automatically give everyone the intellectual ability to have an informed opinion.

That's a fact. Care to discuss?

[lfotweaker]

Hopefully, it shows that the skepticism is not only coming from the right, but from those who are waking up to the Hegelian Dialectic playbook.

Must have been the kidney stones article...GJ HuffPo.

[KillTheMessenger]

I take it that YOU are going to vote for Obama this time?

:-)