The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary film that argues against the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations". It has been described by both its original broadcaster Channel 4 and the British regulator Ofcom as "a polemic".
The film, made by British television producer Martin Durkin, showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are sceptical about the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. The programme's publicity materials assert that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times." Its original working title was "Apocalypse my arse", but the title The Great Global Warming Swindle was later adopted as a reference to The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle , a mockumentary about British punk band The Sex Pistols.
The UK's Channel 4 premiered the documentary on 8 March 2007 . The channel described the film as "a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired." According to Hamish Mykura, Channel 4's head of documentaries, the film was commissioned "to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide."
Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting a few errors in subsequent releases. However according to Bob Ward (former spokesman for the Royal Society), this still left five out of seven of the errors and misleading arguments which had been previously attacked by him and 36 other scientists in an open letter.
The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-authored by a group of scientists. Ofcom used this complaint in its deliberation, and delivered its ruling on 21 July 2008. It ruled that the programme had unfairly treated Sir David King, the IPCC and Professor Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the 'political' part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality. Ofcom said that the rules on impartiality did not apply to the scientific arguments in parts 1-4, because global warming caused by human activity was a settled fact: "In this respect it could be said that the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast ( 8 March 2007 ). In Ofcom’s view the link between human activity and global warming also became similarly settled before March 2007. Having reached this view, it follows that the rules relating to the preservation of due impartiality did not apply to these parts.". Regarding the programme's accuracy, Ofcom noted that in its role as regulator it: "had to ascertain – not whether the programme was accurate - but whether it materially misled the audience." On this basis Ofcom ruled that: "On balance it did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence." On 4 and 5 August 2008, Channel 4 and More 4 broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings, though it will not face sanctions.
Viewpoints expressed in the film
The film's basic premise is that the current scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising.
A number of academics, environmentalists, think-tank consultants and writers are interviewed in the film in support of its various assertions. They include the Canadian environmentalist Patrick Moore, founding member of Greenpeace but for the past 21 years a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; and Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster.
Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used.
Assertions made in the film
The film takes a strongly sceptical view of current scientific thinking on climate change. It argues that the consensus on climate change is the product of "a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media".
Using a series of interviews and graphics, the film sets out to challenge the scientific consensus by focusing on what it says are inconsistencies in the evidence, and the role said to have been played by ideology and politics.
Evidential issues
The film begins by highlighting what its makers assert are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence supporting the theory of man-made global warming.
- Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO 2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then.
- Variations in warming rate. The programme states that all models of greenhouse effect-derived temperature increase predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. The programme asserts that current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.
- Increases in CO 2 and temperatures following the end of ice ages. According to the film, increases in CO 2 levels lagged behind temperature increases during glacial terminations.
- Relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change. The film asserts that carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide.
- Influence of oceanic mass on temperature changes. The programme argues that due to the very large mass of the world's oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in oceanic mass, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature by 800 years.
- Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.
- Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount - just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO 2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO 2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO 2 , and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO 2 by far." Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO 2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO 2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.))
- Influence of the sun on climate change. The film h
Tag - global warming - News
Yesterday, with Anaïs and two friends, I watched An Inconvenient Truth. This movie is about global warming and I highly recommend it!
Climate Crisis
We all contribute to global warming every day. The carbon dioxide you produce by driving your car and leaving the lights on adds up quickly. You may be surprised by how much Co2 ...
FOXNews.com - Global Warming: The Movie - Opinion
Junk Science: Global Warming: The Movie, Featuring sensational weather phenomena, the global warming disaster movie 'The Day After Tomorrow' is intended to scare us into submitting ...
Global Warning
thom hartmann's book "last hours of ancient sunlight" three rivers press
The EPA Climate Change Kids Page--Climate Change Animation
EPA Climate Change Kids Page: Welcome to Flash Animations of Global Warming and Earth Processes. Here you will find animations of how Global Warming occurs and how it is linked ...
global warming organizations AND ARTICLES
global warming organizations AND ARTICLES ... MOVIE - "WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?"
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
The situation presented on global warming is unsettling, but I appreciate that the filmmakers ... Discuss this movie with other users on IMDb message board for An Inconvenient Truth ...
Congregations Caring for Creation --
- Sign up to reserve a global warming movie for your congregation to screen ... 200 Minnesota Congregations will be hosting a screening of one or more global warming ...
Global Warming Movie
It’s about Global Warming……. We face a threat that weaves terror into the fabric of our lives and airport security check points will not protect us.
I SAVED THE WORLD FROM GLOBAL WARMING! on MySpace Films - New Films ...
MySpace Filmmaker profile for I SAVED THE WORLD FROM GLOBAL WARMING!. Watch, movie clips & trailers from I SAVED THE WORLD FROM GLOBAL WARMING!, including films, movies ...