The Great Global Warming Swindle

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!

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.

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.

I have read tons of "climate crisis" material, and some facts mentioned in this movie are thought-provoking, such as: - how much percentage of CO2 are humans actually emitting, versus volcanic activity and other forms of life (plants, plancton etc)? - what is the correlation between temperature and solar activity?

and I will investigate on that. Yet the documentary is in denial about irrefutable facts: the average world temperature IS rising rapidly, humans are altering in a dramatic way the planet, ice caps are rapidly melting, more humidity in the atmosphere creates even more global warming, deforestation adds more to the disaster etc and most of these factors show a positive loop effect! It's a fact that some ecologist groups are a lobby, that Africa would surely benefit from industrialization, but that should not stop us from a scientific investigation of facts. CO2 contributes from 10 to 25% of greenhouse effect, and CO2 has increased 30% in the last century. The major contributor to greenhouse if water vapor, which is also increasing because of higher temperatures. This spells hard times for humanity. Denial won't help. Saying "we should not do anything until we have a mathematic evidence" is like saying "we should wait until the patient dies before we do a serious investigation about his problem".

A blatant lie is told about polar bears adapting to climate change: population of polar bears has already diminished by 30% in the last few years; 25% of Arctic ice has already melted, how can they adapt to a rapidly dwindling territory.

This is a very unusual British documentary because it aired on regular public television and contradicts the widely accepted belief that there is global warming AND that it's caused by mankind. While you may or may not agree with this, the film does seem well documented and presents its case well. All the many scientists they feature in the film cannot just be dismissed as "a bunch of kooks". And, showing the FOUNDER of Green Peace speaking against the global warming movement was truly amazing as well as the UN (with the IPCC committee) suppressing dissenting opinions in their reports! It's also rather interesting--provided you have a reasonably open mind. Now I am NOT saying you need to say global warming is a hoax--just be willing to listen to facts and weigh what you hear yourself. But the reasonable arguments being posed in this film need to be answered and not just dismissed offhandedly.

Unfortunately, there is no real debate on global warming today. I do NOT mean that there are disagreements and great differences in what scientists think about global warming. Instead, it is simply not a debate because there is no discussion or even systematic discussion of the phenomenon. Many hardliners, like Al Gore, say "there is no debate--it is fact" as if that somehow means no one has a right to even question this dogma and if they do they hate the planet. So it isn't surprising that some of the reviews on IMDb sound dogmatic--not even addressing whether this TV special is true or partially true or even if it raises some reasonable concerns. In other words, because it doesn't fit into a generally accepted view, it won't even be considered. This is the sort of thinking that kept humans believing that the Sun revolved around the Earth. While I would never say global warming could not occur, it's crazy that no one is listening to contrary opinions--and it's more like a religion instead of science. EVEN IF IT'S WRONG, true science considers options and doesn't just assume it's correct. And, even if celebrities insist it IS true, this does not constitute scientific evidence.

Now if you are a fair person, you cannot give this movie a score of 10 or 1 just because they agree or disagree with your current beliefs. Some of it is surely correct and some of it surely isn't. Plus, whether you mark that you agree or disagree with a review does NOT mean you should mark it "helpful" or "not helpful". It's a lot more important whether or not it makes you think, challenges you and is not a regurgitation of what you are already thinking. And, wow, did this film challenge my thinking. These were not idiots and cranks featured in THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SCANDAL and the reasons they theorize for the theory's popularity make some sense.

My advice is to give it a watch and then watch AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH or some other video that affirms that there is global warming. Don't dismiss or praise a movie before you even see it. A sane person listens to both sides and tries to think before just dismissing one opinion or the other.

By the way, one review mentions how angry and foul the film's creator was when he was later confronted. This is interesting but may just be a reaction to the bombarding of repeated personal attacks and the vehemence of the opposition. I'm not excusing boorish behavior, but have seen that those who are convinced they are 100% correct in this argument are generally angry and impossible to engage in a meaningful discussion. Had I been in his spot, I might have found myself giving some of them the finger or losing my cool because of these nasty and very personal attacks. Why can't we all just have a reasonable dialog? Are we that afraid what the other side has to say?