Never mind the Swindle, here’s the real story:
The Great Global Warming Swindle screened on Prime on Sunday night.
For those of you who didn’t see it, don’t bother.
For those of you who did, consider this advice given to the Bush Administration in 2001 by Frank Luntz, a communications advisor:
“The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed….Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”
This is the strategy being followed by corporate America, and the think tanks they fund who are at the forefront of the climate sceptic industry.
10 out of the 16 interviewees in The Great Global Warming Swindle are connected with no less than 30 Exxon-funded Conservative Think Tanks based in the US. See our ExxonSecrets map.
It’s hard to outline the factual errors in the Swindle, because there are so many.
In the first sentence the words “leading climate scientists” is wrong. Only two real climate scientists were interviewed: one had his entire interview removed, and the other has complained about one of the graphs (about the relationship between climate and the sun) being utterly misleading.
Take another interviewee: Fred Singer. This man has been a scientific “expert” on a wide range of topics – commercial whaling, ozone depletion, the nuclear industry, second hand smoke – he has been a “rent a contrarian” for many, many years, and has published little – if any – research on climate.
Patrick Moore, also interviewed on the programme, was never a co-founder of Greenpeace, and is currently a lobbyist for the nuclear and forestry industries. The US magazine Mother Jones published an article on him recently.
There have been many, many pieces written about the Swindle since it first aired on the UK’s Channel 4 channel in March last year.
For a good summary of the eight common myths on climate change, the UK Royal Society is a good source.
For more specific information about the Swindle, check out the Australian Science Media Centre’s page, published after the documentary screened there last July.
The UK’s “medialens” published a full and detailed report on all aspects of the film.
And this is a “must see” - Australian ABC’s Tony Jones interviewing Durkin – it’s a real shame Prime did nothing like this to balance its programme.
Part I
Part II
If you want to complain to Prime for screening this programme without correcting the mistakes or balancing it properly, this is how:
Call: 9 a.m. to 5.30 pm 0800 800 759 or Email.
Related posts
Email This Post
what a load of codswallopl greenies…Mr Moore not a co of greenpeace?? who were the founders??
three scientists appeared on this programme..anyone out there please tell me what Doc’trate they hold…how rude was David! I wonder what each one received as noble peace prize winners, anyone tell me? thank you…
Codswallap? It’s not hard to do a little research…
“The origins of Greenpeace lie in the peace movement and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament generally, and particularly in the Don’t Make A Wave Committee co-founded by Jim Bohlen, Paul Coté and Irving Stowe, followed by an assortment of Canadian and expatriate American peace activists in Vancouver in 1970.
Many of the founding members were members of the Society of Friends. The committee was affiliated with the Sierra Club but it withdrew its support when Jim Bohlen, a member of the committee, told journalists that the committee would send a boat to Amchitka to protest the nuclear test without it having been approved by the Sierra Club….
…Dr. Patrick Moore was the ecologist of note and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada, as well as seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Origins
Next?
David Wratt has a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has 28 years experience of research and consulting on climatology.
Does anyone know what qualifications Leighton Smith has?
I think Leighton has a PHD in Voiciferous Myopicism and an MA in Anti-informed Man’s Best Friend-matism.
I think both are offered as stay-at-home-on-the-couch courses.
please tell me does one have to have a phd to qualify to make a comment on this subject?? if so, who will quality.checked out any comments about the IPCC lately? I still stand by my comment, David was very rude many times on this programme, or did you not see this? thank you…ps how many nobel peace prize winners do we have in NZ???
One does not have to be qualified to have an opinion, but if you’re part of a panel specifically constructed to debate an important topic on national TV you need to have sufficient qualifications. I’ve read a few books and written a few essays on philosophy, but does that make me qualified to be part of a panel with a Professor who has studied at taught it at university for 30 years? Hardly.
As for your other comments, Google.co.nz is your friend - please use it.
“Patrick Moore (b. 1947) is a Canadian ecologist, environmentalist and activist. Most recently he has worked as a consultant and public speaker on environmental issues.
He was a founding member of Greenpeace, although he now voices harsh criticism toward the organization”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29
The Great Global Warming Swindle was shortlisted in the Best Documentary category in the British television industry’s 2008 Broadcast awards. It won the prize for Best Documentary at the Io Isabella Film Festival held in Southern Italy
Next?
Greg (who?) what does qualify a person to appear on a panel? Do we have David’s last word for this? hardly , is this the same person who is now telling us he can predict the weather for the next 82 years (from his new models), I did email him and ask if I should now throw out my shorts and go back to our local second hand shop and buy back my gumboots and overcoat..but then in ten years time I will being closing on 90plus..I do hope I will live to see the day…….Who was Cindy ? how does she qualify? Greg….computer models models are only quessing…ps ‘name required’ Trevor Collins!
Greetings from Whangarei..who the heck is ‘Senoir Luftwaffle’ are you really out in NZ somewhere? I wonder if you are on the election list?
Jon, my understanding of Moore’s role in GP is that he was a early member who attended the early meetings, but not considered one of the “founders”. I don’t think this is necessarily a strong point in the end though. He worked for GP for a long time, as did Paul Watson before he went off to found Sea Sheppard. Just because he is a critic doesn’t mean GP’s position on climate change is incorrect (or the Swindle’s correct).
As for the swindle… I see you posted the one sentence about the film’s awards from wikipedia - did you miss page and a half above on the criticisms and revisions made to it? In the interview posted above Durkin himself chortles about how it was rushed out and changes had to be made.
“The show attracted 2.5 million viewers and an audience share of 11.5%.[14] There have been 246 complaints to the British regulator Ofcom as of April 25, 2007,[15] including the complaints that the programme falsified data[16] and that Durkin’s previous track record was not disclosed.[17] Channel 4 stated that it had received 758 calls and emails about the programme, with those in favour outnumbering complaints by six to one.
Following criticism from scientists the film has been changed since it was first broadcast on Channel 4. One graph had its time axis relabelled, the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans was removed, and following objections about how his interview had been used, the interview with Carl Wunsch was removed for the international and DVD releases of the programme.
Other scientific arguments used in the film have been described as refuted or misleading by scientists working in the relevant fields.[5][18] Critics have also argued that the programme is one-sided and that the mainstream position on global warming, as supported by the scientific academies of the major industrialised nations and other scientific organisations, is incorrectly represented.[5]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception.2C_criticism_and_changes_made_due_to_criticisms
It may have won an award, but this does not in itself make it credible. How many other documentaries get revised so much AFTER their release. Does this not severely undermine the author’s credibility (even disregarding the mountain of hard evidence from scientists) ?
greetings from Whangarei….please do not rely on wikipedia for your sole information on the this…who the heck feeds this misinformation into this system? perhaps one of our comments people could tell me how many people were in the NZ IPCC team and how qualified were they? what about our friend Alfred Gore how qualified is he..he has a BA in what? it is on record ‘I took the initiative in creating the Internet….some 45 years later you will not find his name in any research…..please feel free to research Wikipedia and see what names you can come up with?
Trev,
If you look back to the original post by Cindy you’ll see plenty of good links. Wiki has been used here to illustrate a point.
If you want to question Gore’s qualifications, why don’t you go do some research into his background and the sources he bases AIT on, which I assume you are referring to. Exactly how qualified does he need to be to encourage action on climate change? I’d also like to point out: AIT is a talk that was filmed and despite being filled with scientific arguments it has not been presented as a “documentary” as the Swindle has.
That “I created the internet” thing has also been debunked. See: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
please, someone at Greenpeace tell us who from NZ was on the IPCC team from the last report? did I understand David on the discussion panel said he was? how were they qualified? thank you…
You can find all the author information in the AR4 at: http://www.ipcc.ch and there’s further information at: http://www.niwa.co.nz/ncc/clivar/?a=47832#participation
“New Zealand participates actively in IPCC activities. Several University and Crown Research Institute scientists are convening, lead or contributing authors for chapters in the Fourth Assessment report. New Zealanders contributed as authors and reviewers of the Third Assessment Report, and various Special Reports and Methodological Guidelines. Dr David Wratt of NIWA is a member of the IPCC Bureau which oversees activities including the planning for the Fourth Assessment.”
please tell me when is the fourth assessment due out?? why are we waiting? will all be revealed? from Trevor Collins…
greetings from Whangarei…the last comments on the NIWA site is from David Wratt (15th June 2006…yes 2006..) does one have to contact the official secrets act people to find out? what if some of these were were not scientists? when will the 5th report come out?
Hi Trevor
It is good that you are so interested in the IPCC.
The Fourth Assessment of the IPCC was released last year - in November.
To find out all about it, who contributed to it, who the authors were, what papers, I suggest that you go to the IPCC website which is at
http://www.ipcc.ch
The assessments happen every five years. The first was released around 1990 and there has been one assessment every five years since then: 95-6, 00-01 and now 07.
There is an “about” section of the IPCC.
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm
And also a detailed section as to how it was organised
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/how-the-ipcc-is-organized.htm
And you can download the three major reports, and their summaries. They are synthesised into one final report, which has a summary - you may want to read that first.
As you can see they are huge reports and very detailed. They take into account every single piece of peer-reviewed science over a five-year period and look at them all together. They do not cherry-pick one piece of science and use that to say that global warming isn’t happening. A somewhat more sophisticated process than many of the “experts” you have been quoting.
If you want to find out about NIWA I suggest you call someone at NIWA.
0800 746 464
Greenpeace is not NIWA - they are ENTIRELY different organisations. If you want to know Dr David Wratt’s credentials, again, you’ll have to ask NIWA.
AT last Cindy you have replied! I have indeed asked NIWA a number of times to tell me who was involved in IPCC from them (not Greenpeace, heaven forbid)..so far, no one seem to know or can remember? surely this is not a closed shop… David I think was the only person who put his name to the final document? and of course put into the bank some of that lovely prize money! I wonder how much he got? I trust he gave it to a worth cause?
Cindy and Greg I have found it at last!! what a read…2500 scientific expert reviewers….800 contributing authors and 450 lead authors from 130 countries…6 years work…1 report!! are you impressed? after all, 2,500 expert scientists can’t be wrong…a Google search of “IPCC” and “2500″ produces almost 250,00 results….am I impressed?
never mind the Swindle, what is this with the greenies in the Herald of Thursday ‘Shield for Chernobyl’ predict a death toll of 93,000? is this all to do with computer models again..predictions? on the 18th June 2006, Greenpeace ‘predicted death toll would be 90,000 to 200,000! I am not sure if anyone in greenpeace NZ was living in 1948? remember Mayak (’beacon’) the first Russian nuclear reactor went online…..Greenpeace said that 272,000 people were harmed at this facility, even in the town of Muslyumovo some 50 miles away, ‘one in two adults are infertile, and one in three infants are born with deformities’! I wonder if greenpeace know how many people actually lived in this area during these years 1948-1972? was it 272,000? not likely..how many have died? perhaps someone at the Auckland facility will let us know? ps the Guardian newspaper in London in March of 2006 predicted this figure would be 500,000…mindboggling again..pps only 47 people - members of the emergency rescue crews died in “Chernobyl” from exposure to lethal doses of radiation. This is serious enough, the researcher Kellerer “but overall the amount of radiation that escaped was simply too low to claim large numbers of victims”
Greetings from Whangarei..now we get these greenies from Spain with the false pictures.. do hope this goes to court and they are taken to the cleaners…what do you think? thank you from TC..
Trev, your comments don’t really have much to do with this blog post so I’m not going to get into a debate. That said, the initial death toll from the Chernobyl melt down was indeed low, however, the long term consequences to health (high rates of cancer, birth defects etc.) cannot be ignored. Do you know how many people lived and died in the area? What are your sources on this?
As for the “false” photos… they aren’t news photos. The photos are out of a book illustrating what could happen to low lying areas, like those illustrated in the Mediterranean, if sea levels rise as predicted. The book was intended as a wake up call to encourage action on climate change (it says all this in the article by the way) and thus, the photos were changed to make the point, and this was plainly stated. They aren’t photoshopped images masquerading as news, thus cannot be labeled “false”.
The court case will no doubt be dismissed. With the flow on effects from the sub-prime crisis in the US it’s no wonder why values have dropped 50% there either. Australia’s real estate market is on the wane, NZ’s median house price is dropping, is this GP’s fault too? This court case is scapegoating at its finest.
Greetings from Whangarei…..182 days to go before the North Pole disappears then we will all be in the soup (sorry water) what greenie scientists said this just recently???…
Are you referring to this?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
Nick when did records begin for the North Pole?? please do not take all you read about the Independent for being the complete story about warming or is now climate change ..is this a bet each way? from TC,
Nick and Gregory…greetings from Whangarei…perhaps we should now call this blog, greenie swindle?? You may ‘lovemycarbondioxide’? or you may ‘hatemycarbondioxide’? which ever, this site has some items about the Arctic and the Antarctic with special reference to wikimedia/wikipedia…..well worth a look to see what piece did ‘fall off’!! would you care to look at http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com….click on climate info (A to Z)..arctic and antarctic have have some interesting info…
Sensational website there. I needed a good laugh!
Gregory. thank you for the comment, but did you take time out to check what this site says about the North Pole and South Pole and what your friends at Wiki say (this is more mind boggling)…please tell me is CO2 good for us? thank you from trevor C.
Gregory….IPCC? remember this report? In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that “it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed warming over the last 50 years”. The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. However, only 62 of the IPCC ’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all. not one from NZ? need we say more?..
And…? What does this prove exactly? Did the remaining 246 reviewers disagree? Or did they just not comment as the previous 62 commentators covered all concerns?
And how does this affect the report’s overall conclusions exactly?
“Need we say more… “? Yes. Yes you do. Because you have no argument.
Greetings from Whangarei…no argument? debate closed? IPCC…19 reviewers made just one comment and 18 made between two and five comments. Just 10 made more than 20 comment on this, the most important chapter of the entire report. A total of 1158 comments were made. One reviewer made almost half of these, but almost all his suggested amendments were curtly rejected. the government of the USA made 113 comments :almost 10% of the total, but 32 of its comments duplicate those made by an individual reviewer. [edited by moderator]
The debate isn’t “closed”. If there is a case to be made from the sceptical side then it needs to be made in the proper channels. I have not seen this happen to date. Have you?
And what are you suggesting exactly with these comments about reviewers?
Greetings from Whangarei…I trust you have all been following the ‘ofcom report’?? was it a great swindle? free speech?
Monbiot summed it up well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions1
Gregory…you are just picking again…perhaps we could look at all the comments besides the one that Mr Monbiot made…poor old Mr King (sorry Sir!) could we please have them all on this blog… free speech?
Picking? At what? Monbiot is a respected journalist and commentator, and the article is a good summary. There are plenty more out there too. Eg:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14379-why-climate-swindle-film-is-dangerous-despite-ruling.html
And what are you talking about when you say “Free Speech”? No one is having their right to comment impeded.
Sceptics will see the OfCom ruling as vindication, but of course they would despite the evidence. Doesn’t change the fact that it is a dishonest political polemic masquerading as a documentary.
Gregory you are right, let us point you and any others interested to check out what was said on http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/2/channel4.ofcom also, check out http://www.climateaudit.org and what they said about Sir David King…’what did he say’?? was this a waste of time and energy by this ‘watch dog’?