Location: Home > Society, Politics & Philosophy > All Documentaries > The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Director: Martin Durkin
Studio: Pinnacle Vision
Category: DVD

List Price: ~~Ł9.99~~
Buy New: Ł7.18
You Save: Ł2.81 (28%)

New (15) from Ł7.18

Rating: 3.0 out of 5 stars

87 reviews
Sales Rank: 1142

Format: Pal
Languages: English (Unknown), English (Original Language)
Rating: Exempt
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 78
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6

EAN: 5060081370039
ASIN: B000OOOKZS

Release Date: July 23, 2007
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Ships from U.S.A., to anywhere in the United Kingdom! Orders only take 7-10 days! We specialise in service to the U.K. and only ship airmail.

Similar Items:

•	An Inconvenient Truth [2006]
•	An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming
•	Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth
•	Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years
•	Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming

Customer Reviews: Read 82 more reviews...

1 out of 5 stars

You Are Being Swindled July 23, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful

This programme, when broadcast by Channel 4 in the UK last year sparked 265 complaints from members of the public, plus a detailed "group complaint" from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers.

There is not one bit of evidence that proves that humans are NOT causing climate change. Scientists all over the world are over 90% certain that humans are causing climate change. But this does not mean that there is 10% of evidence contradicting this. There is no reliable evidence supporting this alternative view. Most anti climate change evidence is made up by fossil-fuel companies, or companies funded from lobby groups funded by these companies.

From the Guardian newspaper:
"On July 21st Ofcom ruled that The Great Global Warming Swindle broke its guidelines on impartiality in the concluding part of the 90-minute polemic, which claimed man-made global warming was a conspiracy and a fraud.
Ofcom found that Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist, had been misrepresented and that the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Carl Wunsch, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had been treated unfairly.

But the media regulator also said that while it had concerns about "aspects of the presentation (and omission) of fact and views within the programme, it did not believe, given the nature of the programme, that this led to the audience being materially misled".

That decision was immediately criticised by scientists, who accused the regulator of letting the broadcaster off the hook "on a technicality".

But Channel 4 seized on the ruling as evidence it was right to broadcast the programme under its remit and remained unrepentant.

Some broadcasting industry insiders believe the complainants misunderstood Ofcom's role and said it was not for the regulator to decide whether or not the claims made within the programme were accurate.

Although news programmes are required to display "due accuracy", offering equal weight to all sides of the debate, there is no such requirement on documentary programmes.

Bob Ward, a former spokesman for the Royal Society, who submitted one of the complaints received by Ofcom, said: "The commissioning and broadcasting of this programme was clearly a calamitous mistake and revealed serious management failures at Channel 4. It is very disappointing that Ofcom has failed to fully uphold the public interest, and the ruling raises very serious doubts about the ability of the broadcasting regulator to recognise the harm caused by misrepresentations of the scientific evidence on climate change."

Ward and Rado are both expected to appeal to Ofcom, claiming that there is evidence the programme has done significant harm to the public's perception of the climate change debate.

Prof John Mitchell, director of climate science at the Met Office, said the programme had "put the message about man-made global warming back by 10 years in the public's mind"."

Anyone who watches this film should really research the facts themselves. Global warming is a brutal truth. George Monbiot has investigated the accuracy of the film finding that the director Durkin (from the Guardian):

"Froze timelines at points convenient to his argument, producing a misleading impression of current evidence.

Altered graphs, changing the historical record. A graph of 20th-century temperatures was attributed in the programme to Nasa. In reality, it was first published by an Exxon-funded lobby group and creates the false impression that most of the rise in temperature occurred before 1940, after which there was a sharp fall. The data it used ended in the mid-1980s. On Durkin's version, however, the timeline was extended to 2005 -- the change of dates on the graph appeared to support his argument. Following complaints, the dates were corrected when the programme was rebroadcast.

A graph of temperatures over the past millennium was used to make the claim that they were higher during the 12th century than they are today. But again the timescale was altered. An arrow marked "Now" points to data which in fact end at 1975. A third graph had been mislabelled in the same way: the arrow marked "Now" points to the global temperature 108 years ago, in 1900. On a fourth graph, the film-makers altered part of a curve, creating the impression that temperature has precisely tracked changes in sunspot cycles. The author of the original graph complained that the film had presented "fabricated data . . . as genuine" to make its case. In response, Durkin said it was a mistake."

Monbiot said: "It would require a book to catalogue all the distortions and fabrications The Great Global Warming Swindle is alleged to have included. A complaint by a team of senior scientists -- the first peer-reviewed submission ever made to Ofcom -- runs to 176 pages. Not only did the film inflate credentials of some of the contributors; some of them appear to have been made up altogether. The climate sceptic Tim Ball, for example, was said to be a professor at the department of climatology in the University of Winnipeg. There is no such department and he has not held a professorship since he retired in 1996. Philip Stott, the programme claimed, is a professor at the department of biogeography, University of London. While he was once a professor of biogeography, there was no such department, and Stott retired some time ago, becoming professor emeritus. Piers Corbyn was given a doctorate he does not possess and described as a "climate forecaster". He is, in fact, a weather forecaster -- a very different matter -- and has published no peer-reviewed papers on either topic since 1986. Fred Singer is said to have been the director of the US National Weather Service. In reality he was director of the US National Weather Satellite Center.

Far from revealing its contributors' financial interests, the film created the impression that they have taken no money from the coal or oil industries. In truth, 10 of its protagonists have either been funded directly by fossil-fuel companies, or have received paid employment from lobby groups funded by these companies, which campaign against taking action on climate change. Tim Ball claimed in the programme that "I've never received a nickel from the oil and gas companies." But he has received fees from two groups which lobby against taking action on climate change -- Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project -- both of which receive major funding from energy companies.

For more information see the Guardian and research done by Monbiot on this film.

5 out of 5 stars

A sigh of relief July 5, 2008
0 out of 4 found this review helpful

I am not a scientist so I cannot give a scientific argument but I can tell you what I see with my own eyes. I live in London; we didn't have a summer last year and the winter was colder than ever and this year? Summer? Maybe I blinked and missed it! My point - my own eyes tell me that global warming is a load of twaddle.

The hysteria about global warming seems to be encapsulated using one word - FEAR. Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.

Well, after watching this film I felt okay. In fact I felt more than okay, I felt relieved. I slept easier at night. I would highly recommend anyone to watch, just to get a more balanced view of all this hype.

By all means recycle and use energy wisely but have a good night's sleep too! It's not as bad as they want you to believe. I urge everyone to watch this film.

5 out of 5 stars

Scientific evidence against the dictatorship of the "climate change fraternity". June 26, 2008
0 out of 4 found this review helpful

One of the best documentaries I have had the pleasure to watch. I would like to think that people still have the freedom to say what they think without being threatened by "Pressure Groups". This is especially important in Science. Unfortunately, we live times in which brainwashing by these pressure groups is very effective, even acting on people with some degree of knowledge. A very scary situation. Congratulations to the people who made this DVD!!!

1 out of 5 stars

Rubbish June 25, 2008
5 out of 8 found this review helpful

One sided rubbish, made advertantly contravercial in an attempt to make more money.

This "documentary" has been lampooned by most major scientific communities, including 2 of the scientists who appeared in it.

Anyone with a basic understanding of global warmings science will realise this is rubbish.

Dont encourage them by buying it.

4 out of 5 stars

Good documentary June 1, 2008
3 out of 10 found this review helpful

Some good arguments that are much needed to dispel the myths raised by climate alarmists. The reason for giving it four stars rather than five was because the enthusiasm of the programme makers resulted in some of the arguments being presented with a few fairly minor errors which have of course been jumped upon by the green brigade as reasons why the programme should be disregarded. However the basis of the arguments is sound and if you have not seen this then do watch it.
My view, the result of a considerable amount of research, is simple. Yes, the climate is changing. However it has been changing (getting cooler or warmer at different times) since before the horse and cart and there have been warm periods before that are considerably warmer than it is now. The effects of natural cycles and phenomena are much much greater than anything man has done with cars and general industrialisation. No amount of reducing our (I hate using this misused phrase but do it for illustration) "carbon footprint" is going to have a measurable effect, as we are trying to change something that we have not caused in the first place. In fact if we were able to succeed in changing things there have been studies done that show that it would have an adverse affect.
You may ask why more scientists do not come forward and go against the commonly held view of global warming. Unfortunately the politically driven climate debate has all but corrupted the scientific peer review process. If scientists are offered a large amount of money to show that we may be influencing global warming (but nothing if they do not) then guess what they will do. Suddenly scientists have funding!
HOWEVER, this does not mean that we should abuse energy and other resources. But do not do it thinking that you combating global warming and thus saving the planet because that is so untrue. Do it because it is the sensible thing to do. You will then suddenly find that you are using far less than your so called "green" colleagues and friends.