“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle

Discussion in 'Politics' started by futurecurrents, Feb 9, 2013.

  1. So bwb's much vaunted video is as I thought.

    The Great Global Warming Swindle” (DVD/video/movie) is a pseudo-documentary in which British television producer Martin Durkin has fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate. Movie director Durkin has willfully misrepresented the facts about global warming just to advocate his own agenda. The program was originally aired on England’s “Channel 4” (The “Supermarket Tabloid” of the airwaves). In the past, “Channel 4” has had to broadcast a prime-time apology for broadcasting another of Martin Durkin’s “sleazebag” pseudo-documentaries.

    “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is aimed at and appeals to the “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind” audience. There may be future media presentations by those who wish to promote ignorant political viewpoints instead of presenting factual knowledge. (Or possibly, the individuals involved have never passed a high school science course and don’t understand that there is a difference.)

    Martin Durkin’s modus operandi for the various versions of the DVD/video/movie appears to be:
    1) I want to propagandize my anti-environment, anti-global warming agenda.
    2) What kind of wild stories, manufactured “evidence”, etc. can I include this time to provide political fodder for the scientifically illiterate dimwits?

    The one cardinal rule in science is that you do not misrepresent the data. But this is what the producer of this pseudo-documentary has done to try to promote his own opinions.

    The picture-pairs that follow are Print Screen images from the video version of the pseudo-documentary vs. the factual data. At one time Google had a copy of the video at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170 . All references refer to this Google “Wag TV” video version although it appears that it is no longer available at this link. There may be another slightly shorter version at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566 Please search the Internet for other versions if this shorter version also disappears.

    Viewers are encouraged to compare each of the picture-pairs below and draw their own conclusions as to whether the pseudo-documentary is based on factual data, or if the pseudo-documentary falsifies the data as part of an anti-environmental campaign. (See the 2nd half of the pseudo-documentary for the anti-environmental campaign.)

    The Actual Recent Temperature Record

    This first pair of pictures compares the partial temperature record as presented in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” vs. the actual observations as shown at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    The vertical bars at the right are the pseudo-documentary’s assertion that most of the recent rise in global temperatures occurred before 1940. The exact words from the pseudo-documentary are:
    “Most of the rise in temperature occurred before 1940.” (About 14 min. 20 sec. into the presentation.)
    Please take a close look at the right-hand portion of the graph.

    The picture below shows the actual changes in the world’s temperature as presented by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    Again please take a close look at the right-hand portion of the graph. The pseudo-documentary version of the temperature graph omits the last 20 years of data. (And “fluffed” the graph to disguise this omission.) The rapid increase in world temperatures over the last 20 years has paralleled the rapid rise in carbon dioxide concentrations. However, the pseudo-documentary does not include this data. (Note: The slight cooling that took place from 1940 to the 1960’s was caused by increasing sulfates in the atmosphere - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png )

    The director of the pseudo-documentary has willfully omitted this most recent data because it would disprove the personal agenda that he is trying to promote. When anyone misrepresents real data to try to present a personal agenda, what he is doing is flat out


    As defined by “Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law” at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud

    “fraud - specifically : a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another”

    read more, there's a lot.

  2. 377OHMS


    AGW doesn't exist.

    I'm afraid you've wasted your life over essentially... nothing.
  3. Umm spamming the AGW message, doesn't help your cause, all it does is make you look impotent and desperate.
  4. Your brain doesn't exist. You and your retarded right wing deniers are about as stupid they come.

    Read the about how the film is a fraud. Get a clue.

    "Climate scientist ‘duped to deny global warming’

    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. - Guardian

    Professor Wunsch said: “I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled.” - Independent"
  5. Bottom line. The video is fraudulent, error-filled, deceptive denier bullshit, typical of the kind of tabloid psuedo-science trash that the moron denier crowd relies on.

    I wish I could print it out so I could wipe my ass with it.
  6. The Other “Experts” in the Program

    The pseudo-documentary implies that the other people who appeared are knowledgeable experts in their fields. In practice, their best expertise seems to be wrangling payments from large energy companies - especially anti-environmental organizations. The following list of brief biographies is a long quote from:
    http://climatedenial.org (Original posting will scroll downward)

    Fred Singer. Despite the caption on the programme, Singer has retired from the University of Virginia and has not had a single article accepted for any peer-reviewed scientific journal for 20 years. His main work has been as a hired gun for business interests to undermine scientific research on environmental and health matters. Before turning to climate change denial he has argued that CFCs do not cause ozone depletion and second hand smoke does not cause cancer (more… ). In 1990 he founded “The Science and Environment Policy Project”, which aggressively contradicts climate science and has received direct funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. Exxon is also among the funders ($20,000 in 1998 and 2000)

    Patrick Michaels is the most prominent US climate change denier. In the programme he claimed “I’ve never been paid a nickel by the old and gas companies” which is a curious claim. According to the US journalist Ross Gebspan Michaels has received direct funding from, among others German Coal Mining Association ($49,000), Edison Electric Institute ($15,000), and the Western Fuels Association ($63,000) an association of US coal producing interests (more…). The WFA is one of the most powerful forces in the US actively denying the basic science of climate change, funding, amongs other things, the Greening Earth Society which is directed by Patrick Michaels. Tom Wigley, one of the leading IPCC scientists, describes Michaels work as “a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation”. (More on Michaels…)

    Philip Stott was captioned as a Professor at the University of London although he is retired and is therefore free of any academic accountability. Stott is a geographer by training and has no qualifications in climate science. Since retiring Stott has aimed to become Britain’s leading anti-green pundit dedicating himself to wittily criticizing rainforest campaigns (with Patrick Moore), advocating genetic engineering and claiming that “global warming is the new fundamentalist religion.”

    Patrick Moore is Stott’s Canadian equivalent. Since a very personal and painful falling out with Greenpeace in 1986 Moore has put his considerable campaigning energies into undermining environmentalists, especially his former friends and colleagues. Typical of his rhetoric was his claim in the programme that environmentalists were “anti-human” and “treat humans as scum”. Throughout the 1990s Moore worked as lead consultant for the British Columbian Timber Products Association undermining Greenpeace’s international campaign to protect old growth forest there. Whenever he has the chance he also makes strong public statements in favour of genetic engineering, nuclear power, logging the Amazon, and industrial fishing- all, strangely, lead campaigns for Greenpeace (more on Moore..)

    Piers Corbyn has no academic status and his role in such programmes is to promote his own weather prediction business. He has steadfastly refused to ever subject his climatological theories to any form of external review or scrutiny.

    Richard Lindzen. As a Professor of Meteorology at the credible Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lindzen is by far the most reputable academic among the US climate deniers and, for this reason, he is heavily cited by sympathetic journalists such as Melanie Phillips and Michael Crichton. His arguments though are identical to the other deniers – for example an article in the Wall Street Journal (June 11 2001) he claims that “there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends or what causes them”.
    He is strongly associated with the other people on the programme though co-authored reports, articles, conference appearances and co-signed statements.

    Tim Ball was captioned as the University of Winnipeg. In fact he left in 1996 and since then he has run political campaigns through two organisations he helped found: the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and the Friends of Science which, according to their websites aim to run “a proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol”; and “encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol”. Ian Clark is also on the board of the NRSP.
  7. 377OHMS


    AGW doesn't exist.

    You're going to need a new crisis. I'm sure you'll find something.

    Maybe you could take the opportunity presented by the complete collapse of your worldview to reassess your life and try to do something positive instead of calling everyone retards. You could try dating or maybe get a college degree (the one you have is worthless) in a subject that could help you out of your dead-end job.

    How about nursing? I understand from RCG that a guy can get rich administering enemas, changing soiled bed sheets and shaving patients for surgery. You could trade FX like he does and become fabulously wealthy, even starting with a $1.00 account. If a trade goes bad you can just add to the position at large multiples and apparently never lose money.

    I know you are going through a bit of a shock right now but it is important to keep a positive mental outlook.
  8. OK, sure, AGW doesn't exist. Keep telling yourself that.

    CO2 has gone up 35% from man. It's a greenhouse gas. How could that NOT raise temps. You never answer that basic question.

  9. Damn you ohms, :mad:
    you just outed my new career and trading plan.
    I figured I could just go down to Home Depot and take some of their DIY plumbing classes. Then I'd pop on over to Homan prison and do my internship practicing on the death row inmates (hey it ain't like they will be missed or anything).

    I'm pretty sure rcg will show me his secret forex technique if I let him give me a blowjob or two.

    Man this retirement thing was really starting to work out until you let the two headed cat outta the bag.
  10. jem


    your models failed.

    you currently have not science showing co2 causes temperature to rise on earth.

    if you had any proof...
    present it right here.
    #10     Feb 10, 2013