The Great Global Warming Swindle

This film prevents a compelling counterpoint to the popular conception of anthropogenic global warming. It highlights some of the theory's failings, and offers an alternative explanation for the recent warming and the historical link between temperature and CO2. It relies heavily on the testimony of a dozen or so scientists, professors, and researchers whose qualifications are surprisingly notable (including, for example, the co-founder of Greenpeace).

From a technical standpoint, the production values are high and the direction excellent. It maintains a good pace throughout, though sometimes reiterates the same point a bit. There were a few areas I wish they'd have explored more thoroughly, but such is the case with all documentaries.

Overall, its format is very compelling; it compiles the facts in a straightforward manner, building to a conclusion which is remarkable in its discrepancy with the man-made global warming theory. It touches on many different aspects of the issue, including some which many will find surprising, such as the impact on developing nations. I was expecting a shoddy piece of work, full of half-truths and outrageous assumptions, but this film is very scientific and professional. I'd recommend it to anyone with an interest in the subject.

The obvious comparison with this documentary is An Inconvenient Truth (especially since some of this documentary is rooted in disproving the other). Both are excellent documentaries, both make strong arguments to support their side of the debate. Both have dubious motives and issues pertaining to their interpretation of the data. Anyone who takes one perspective as rote and dismisses the other out of hand (or by using the same "Look at the source/funding" arguments) have missed the point, especially of The Great Global Warming Swindle, and the debate that has opened up after it's airing. Which is this - much of the data the general public is presented with is skewed, edited and presented by someone according to their own beliefs, their funding, background, political aspirations, etc. Anyone who claims impartiality is wrong. I hope the effect of this documentary is to encourage people to look, read and research for themselves the information they are presented with every day and allow themselves the greatest chance of acting with understanding and knowledge rather than ignorance.

I'll start talking about this documentary as it should be, honestly: it is a fraud.

It's presented as a serious movie, but it doesn't take long until you realize that there's something wrong about it. Anybody who has already made a little research about Global Warming know that today's temperature are higher than in the so called "Medieval Warm Period". The graph this movie shows about the recorded temperature shows us that the temperature nowadays are way lower than in that period. I thought myself: "there's something wrong about that", and I decided to make again, a little research about it. Yes, it is a LIE. Pure, unmasked LIE. The period showed by the graph as "NOW" is actually about 1990~1995. Woah, a movie made in 2007 using a 12~15 year-old graph? That doesn't make sense. Why? Because if they had used the graph showing the temperature in, say, 2005, it wouldn't fit to their claims.

There's a lot more misinformation about it than just that. I'll just leave here a link for those interested: http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

If you think that this movie is real, please, read the information on that link. Please! Don't let people fool yourself. Also, there was a debate on the Australian Television "ABC" about this movie with real experts which debunked almost everything in this pseudo-documentary. Look for it over at google and you'll find.

I think this is refreshing to see the other point of view. Much of the press is devoted to one point of view and this represents an attempt at balancing that inequity. Some of the reactions to this movie are attacks upon the accuracy of said movie. Al Gore's statement that the debate is over could not be further from the truth. What is true is that those who contradict his viewpoint do not receive the same degree of publication as do those who support his viewpoint. It is good to hear from those who do not agree and to see what they have to say. It is up to the viewer to decide and investigate further. Much of what the popular press reports seems to be so superficial and lacking in empirical evidence. This report, at least, addresses both theory and evidence even if one camp in the discussion considers it merely "denial." Viewing this movie with the objectivity these individuals say they represent would be a refreshing change.

How scary is it when heads of the IPCC and Greenpeace say that global warming is not what the press says it is?

This is a must watch for anyone who feels guilty for owning gas guzzling cars. Read it in conjunction of State of Fear and then watch Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and see who you wish to trust for the future! Still none of these mentioned that the ozone hole over Australia has nearly closed, why not?

Why is it that time and time against scientists are misquoted and their data manipulated and when they ask for a retraction they are just ignored. The lawyers are ruling the world!