we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Mar 15th 2007

The Great Global Warming Swindle

An interesting UK documentary on global warming. Heretical!

17 Responses to “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

  1. Just watched it.

    Excellent video. Terribly difficult in these types of matters to fully understand the science for oneself but if the information that they share is accurate…wow.

    As I watched it I was reminded of Dennis Miller on one of the late night talk shows showing an article from several decades before in Time magazine or something detailing fears of dropping temperatures. Also this cartoon

  2. […] All-encompassingly has a video stream. […]

  3. that was pretty impressive. i was pleasantly surprised with the quality of the documentary all the way around — from the sweet use of graphics and special effects to the wide array of important experts they interviewed to the comprehensiveness of the issues they covered and bogus arguments they refuted. it is just as deserving of movie industry awards as al gore’s ‘inconvenient lie truth’. but it probably won’t win any, because this documentary’s conclusions are, just as you said, heretical to the man-made-C02-causes-global-warming faithful who make those decisions.

    thanks for posting the video.

  4. someone has noted that dr. tim ball, one of the experts featured in the documentary, is now experiencing the leftist’s form of peer review: death threats

  5. John Jauregui

    Pay a tax, change the weather. I don’t think so. Humans account for only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the biosphere annually (Google: carbon cycle). Congresswoman Pelosi’s and Senator Reid’s plans for regressive new carbon offset and green tax legislation are designed in concert with UN and Kyoto Accord mandates. The goal is to reduce human CO2 production by 1/3. How high would new carbon offset taxes on transportation and heating fuels need to be to motivate you and everyone else to cut back by 1/3? At best that level of taxation will reduce annual CO2 production by a mere 1 percent globally. Not much mitigation or hope there. Certainly 1% is not enough to make a difference in the perceived problem of anthropogenic (human) global warming gases. The impact of such draconian tax measures can only be imagined. However, it does beg the question, “If humans can’t really be expected to make much of an impact on global warming gases, how can they possibly be blamed for warming in the first place?” Why are people compelled by politicians and the media to feel responsible and guilty for causing global warming? For the answers, Google “blame, shame and guilt used as political controls”, read “Unstoppable Global Warming” and “The Chilling Stars” for the scientific facts and “State of Fear” for the political dynamics behind this renewed eco-tax controversy. Those party faithful that think this debate is over are sorely mistaken. It’s a little late, but welcome to George Orwell’s “1984”. Watch -

  6. John

    Another expert featured in the documentary (Carl Wunsch) explains how his comments were taken completely out of context:

    “In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle 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.”

    “Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of “polemics”. There is nothing in the communication we had that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value – a great error.”

    I encourage all to read Wunsch’s full response here:

  7. doug

    The insight provided by Wunsch’s expertise isn’t so much to prove/disprove that man drives global warming. It is to disprove the cataclysmic alarmism of global warming “advocates.”

    For example, the other day on CNN you’ve got Bill Nye saying that the gulf stream is going to shut down…which Wunsch says is ridiculous:

    Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could “shut off” or that with global warming Britain would go into a “new ice age” are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality.

  8. John

    “The insight provided by Wunsch’s expertise isn’t so much to prove/disprove that man drives global warming. It is to disprove the cataclysmic alarmism of global warming “advocates.”

    Except that the documentary uses Wunsch’s expertise to imply that human influence must not be very important in global warming, “diametrically opposite to the point” he was making. You should reread the specific example he cited where he believes he was misrepresented. (You should also learn when to concede a point).

    In short, the documentary attempts to carefully highlight Wunsch’s criticism of the “cataclysmic alarmism” of the more extreme global warming “advocates,” without mentioning the inconvenient truth that Wunsch does in fact believe that global warming is primarily human-driven and quite threatening. In fact the filmmaker implies just the opposite about Wunsch’s views.

    For more problems with the documentary check out these links:

    P.S. Doug, you can still believe that Gore is wrong, that global warming is bogus AND that this documentary is imperfect (or even downright rubbish). It’s a bit more nuanced, mature and honest approach to debate and discussion, but I’m confident you’re up to the task.

  9. doug


    You’ve misunderstood what I wrote.

    What I’m saying is that his comments (taken out of context in the documentary) are irrelevant. Looking beyond the documentary, the contribution he brings is that he puts a damper on the alarmism of global warming.

  10. John

    That last postscript sounded a bit condescending/sarcastic. The tone was unintended. I’ve commented before that I think you guys are capable of more than the punditry that often appears here. So take that as a sincere critique AND compliment as well as yet another plea to be a little less partisan/reactionary and move the level of discussion up a notch.

  11. John

    “You’ve misunderstood what I wrote.”

    If I did, it was only because I thought your comment logically followed from mine. Now I see it was actually completely non-responsive (I was questioning the editing ethics of the documentary makers, while you were delving off into the contribution of Wunsch outside of the documentary.)

    I find it troubling that you think this misrepresentation is “irrelevant.” It places in doubt the validity of the documentary as an honest critique of its opposition. I thought that a valid point after all the comments here praising the film as “impressive” and “excellent.”

  12. doug


    I’m not sure what your end-game is.

    Do you want me to “admit” that the documentary is imperfect?

    Of course it is!

    I never claimed it was perfect. That was you projecting.

  13. this documentary is imperfect

    …. and you would describe al gore’s documentary as ____________ (fill in the blank, keeping in mind your request that this discussion be “nuanced, mature and honest”).

    thanks in advance!

  14. 2sides2story

    When I originally saw the Swindle video, I was confused. Diametrically opposed points of view w/ Inconvenient Truth. Both well presented. So who should you believe?

    After subsequent comment on both and waiting for discrediting comments, I have to distrust the Swindle Video. Everything is doctored and controlled to promote their point of view. The biggest item was the 800 year lag on the the CO2 levels. Rather convincing. But if you think about it. Temp goes up, 800 years later CO2 goes up. Now what happens if the CO2 goes up to unprecedented levels PRECEDING a temperature increase. Great argument for man made levels of CO2 (as opposed to Volcanic eruptions). If you research, you will find much reputable discreditation to the Channel 4 effort. Do not take Swindle Video as gospel becausse you find it to be a “Convenient Truth”.

  15. Temp goes up, 800 years later CO2 goes up. Now what happens if the CO2 goes up to unprecedented levels PRECEDING a temperature increase. Great argument for man made levels of CO2 (as opposed to Volcanic eruptions).

    here is that statement mathematically:

    2 + 2 = 4. Now what happens if 4 + 4 = 2. This is a Great Argument that fours cause twos!

    much like al gore’s ‘an inconvenient truth,’ that ‘great argument’ is a completely baseless concoction.

  16. correction. as i have stewed over that penultimate comment, a famous logical fallacy came to mind, but i couldn’t think of its name. i googled, “fallacy if a then b. b, therefore a.” eventually, i found what i was looking for at wikipedia. you affirmed the consequent:

    Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

  17. If P, then Q.
  18. Q.
  19. Therefore, P.
  20. Arguments of this form are invalid (except when the argument also instantiates some other valid form). Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true. The name affirming the consequent derives from the term for the “then” clause of a conditional claim.

    One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example:

  21. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
  22. Bill Gates is rich.
  23. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
  24. That argument is obviously bad, but arguments of the same form can sometimes seem superficially convincing, as in the following example:

  25. If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
  26. I have a sore throat.
  27. Therefore, I have the flu.
  28. But of course many illnesses cause sore throat, such as the common cold or strep throat. Thus this argument is weak at best.

    your Great Argument also has issues with post hoc ergo propter hoc. the hilarious thing is,

    many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.

    so your post hoc problem is no surprise given the cultist zeal with which your “humans cause global warming” camp operates.

    see also regression fallacy and cum hoc ergo propter hoc

  29. doug

    What?!?!? No straw man fallacy? 😉