The Great Global Warming Swindle

The-great-global-warming-swindle-Full-version

This ground breaking documentary from Britain’s Channel 4 counters the notion the Global Warming debate has been settle once and for all.

Of course there is a big problem with that since the peer-review process for science related to the issue was been controlled by the same people who look to make massive profits from the $45 trillion currently planned to be thrown at combating the hoax.

Those who follow my writings and my activism know that environmental activism is one of my hot topics of coverage and I routinely advocate against pollution, big oil, fracking, EPA corruption and the sorts.

But after reviewing the research and considering that the earth has routinely had natural periods of heating and cooling the evidence shows climate change is truly a hoax by the corporations and elitists who control our politicians who are just looking to further pilfer the poor to line their own pockets.

Beyond the science there is a systematic pattern of cover ups and corruption by the scientists who have long controlled this debate – hiding data they didn’t find convenient while fabricated or manipulating data to support their theory.

For those who don’t care much for the topic let me point out Kate Johnston who asked Is Carbon Tax The Death of Democracy?

Kate never cared much either until her politicians started making her and her fellow Australians start paying the carbon tax.

Now it is destroying the Australian economy.

For those who think the issue of Global Warming has been settled this documentary should be an eye-opener.

For more on this documentary from Stanford Review:

Review of “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” does not pretend to be neutral or fair-minded. This controversial British documentary, first aired in March on Britain’s Channel 4, is a one-sided attack on the predominant scientific consensus on global warming. Its producer, Martin Durkin, has a reputation for producing controversial films. The bias of this producer and his film is blatant and unmistakable.

But at the same time, Durkin’s documentary plays a useful role: it reminds us that the global warming issue is actually debatable. Many people regard global warming as an unquestionable fact because it is reportedly proven by “science.” More often than not, the media reinforces this perception. For example, in February, the New York Times cited a “leading international network of climate scientists” from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who reported global warming as “unequivocal.”

I am amazed by the powerful emotions that global warming inspires in people—even people who are usually liberal and open-minded about everything else. In reviewing Al Gore’s recent film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic Roger Ebert awarded it four out of four stars, which he rarely rates any film. Then, in a manner completely uncharacteristic of his usual dry wit and impartial indifference, Ebert declared: “You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to… I believe that to be ‘impartial’ and ‘balanced’ on global warming means one must take a position like Gore’s. There is no other view that can be defended.”

It is in this sort of political environment—an environment where people not only believe in global warming, but also insist that there is no room for debate—that a film like “The Great Global Warming Swindle” comes in handy.

Much of the 75-minute documentary is spent interviewing scientists who are skeptical of the consensus on global warming. Some of them claim that human activity is responsible for only a small percentage of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Others argue that carbon dioxide itself comprises very little of the earth’s atmosphere and has a negligible effect on global warming. Still others contend that climate temperatures tend to fluctuate over the years, and that the world is cooler today than it was centuries ago.

For example, Professor Ian Clark, from the Earth Sciences Department of the University of Ottawa, suggests that climate temperatures have been much higher in the B.C. years: “If we go back 8,000 years in the Holocene period, our current interglacial, it was much warmer than it is today. Now, the polar bears obviously survived that period, [and] they’re with us today, they’re very adaptable, and these warm periods in the past, [which] we call hypsithermals, pose no problem for them.”
Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the director of the International Arctic Research Center, also suggests that there is little correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures: “CO2 began to decrease exponentially in about 1940, but the temperature actually begun to decrease [around] 1940, continuing until about 1975. So this [represents] an opposite relation.”

Besides the interviews with scientists, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” also insinuates that global warming research is driven by financial motives. “Tens of thousands of jobs depend on global warming right now… It’s a big business,” says Professor Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia. Professor Philip Scott of London University echoes this sentiment: “It’s become a great industry in itself. And if the whole global warming farrago collapses, there’d be an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work.” They suggest that the prospect of global warming has created many jobs in journalism, the public sector, and academia—jobs that might be at risk if the idea of global warming comes under question. Therefore, scientists, government officials, and members of the media have a vested interest in promoting the idea of global warming, if only because their careers depend on it.

In addition, Durkin’s documentary even plays the race card, suggesting that the global warming movement is an arrogant Western imposition that will come at the expense of poor Third World nations. Prominent space is given to Kenyan economist James Shikwati, who is quoted at great length: “One clear thing that emerges from the whole environmental debate is the point that somebody is keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop.”

With great emotion in his voice, Shikwati then adds: “I don’t see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry…We are being told, ‘Don’t touch your resources. Don’t touch your oil. Don’t touch your coal.’ That is suicide.”

Of course, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is one-sided, and that the producer definitely cherry-picked quotes and facts to suit his belief that global warming is a hoax. At the same time, it is hard to imagine Al Gore as being completely neutral when he selected the statistics and quotes to be featured in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Both Durkin and Gore made their respective films with an eye to their own agendas, and neither is free of bias. The only question is who is correct.

Though there is some truth to the idea of global warming, the issue of climate change should also be openly debated. Although the majority of scientists do believe that global warming is a real phenomenon, there are also some scientists who are skeptical of the prevailing scientific consensus. And it is in the spirit of this debate that “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is relevant.

And From The Independent:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is “unusual” by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.

2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:

  • Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
  • Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
  • Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
  • Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere

Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!

3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.

But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!

I imagine that in the not–too–distant future all the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them.

Categories: ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*