Response to: “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

April 9th, 2007 by MrLuxuryFashionGuru

Ok, so here’s my public service post.  A couple weeks back I saw a film that first aired Mar 8, 2007 on Channel 4 in the UK titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle” that (in brief) rejects the idea that climate change (global warming) is significantly prompted/accelerated by greenhouse gases produced by human industry (namely carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels). 

It was a disturbing film to watch, to say the least.  Anyhow, I was disturbed enough to ask some questions and do some research on my own, so here’re the results.  In summary: “Swindle” is a big swindle.

Read my more detailed comments below (originally posted to the campus discussion list where I first heard of “Swindle”):

To C and everyone else,

I’m glad the Channel 4 “polemic” (their label, not mine, but note this is NOT an objective “documentary”) has come up on this list again so I can post about it. I can say that when I first saw it I thought it seemed pretty persuasively put together, and being a complete non-expert in the very specific fields covered (oceanography, atmospheric dynamics etc.) I wasn’t prepared to come to any conclusions. As background, I am a senior in ESPP, so it’s not as if I haven’t had a substantial amount of exposure to these fields or their experts; I’m just not an expert myself, as I imagine to be generally the case in society.

So I went to the head of ESPP, Professor James McCarthy, who’s worked on the IPCC report (co-author and/or co-chair for parts of the two most recent Reports). (Unrelated: He’s also Master of Pforzheimer House.) Anyway, I sent him a copy of the video and asked for his response. After he saw it, he rejected the arguments presented as being generally without merit (which is putting it mildly). Which of course skeptics and cynics might find unsurprising. However, here’re some revealing facts that emerge, which you can verify from various online sources.

To summarize:

(1) The main scientific counter-theory (or theories, if you like) to a significant human contribution to climate change via greenhouse gases has been roundly refuted a number of times already by a slew of other papers in Science and Nature, and mostly before 2005! (For example, the clips of Professor John Christy talking about discrepancies in troposphere/surface warming are outdated since Professor Christy has already authored a paper admitting that his earlier findings were wrong.) For more details on all this, here’s an easy-to-read summary:,,2032572,00.html

(2) The journalistic integrity of the filmmaker, Martin Durkin, is very questionable, which you can easily verify for yourselves. See the complaints of intentional and complete misrepresentation levelled by one of the scientists who appeared:

Carl Wunsch, the MIT oceanography professor in the film, has posted his official response to the “The Great Global Warming Swindle” program on his MIT website. In it, Professor Wunsch says that he was completely misrepresented, and is very unhappy about that, to say the least. He opens his response with: “I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component.”

And specifically on the way his comments were edited into the film: “By [my comments’] placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening.”

On the film “An Inconvenient Truth” (heavily attacked by “Swindle”): “I am often asked about Al Gore and his film. […] Some of the details in the film make me cringe, but I think the overall thrust is appropriate.” (emphasis mine) In other words, one of the few credible scientists in the film (and the only credible one according to Professor McCarthy) in fact believes the exact opposite of what the filmmaker(s) portrayed him as saying/believing!

Read Professor Wunsch’s response in full (and see links to other revealing news articles and websites about the science and filmmaker behind “Swindle”) online here:

I appreciate the attention of those people who’ve read this far. I think debate is important, including in the natural sciences (and of course in the policies that lean on that science). At the same time I think the definitive conclusion to draw about Durkin’s film is NOT to take anything in “Swindle” very seriously without careful consideration.

Jason Yeo

PS: Please feel free to forward this to other lists where you’ve seen “Swindle” discussed or mentioned. I think it’s important that people have an opportunity to conclude for themselves whether the film has any actual merit.

PPS: Kindly refrain from making overly broad assumptions about the details of my personal (non-expert) opinions about climate change or how individuals and societies should respond to the issue.

Be Sociable, Share!

9 Responses to “Response to: “The Great Global Warming Swindle””

  1. Buddy Fimbres Says:

    imagine how much dog waste that end up in landfills per day? I personal flush my dog’s waste with a flushable dog poop bag !

  2. Poker Says:

    Easily, the post is really the best on this deserving topic. I agree with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your coming updates. Saying thanks will not just be enough, for the phenomenal lucidity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. De lightful work and much success in your business endeavors!

  3. Marlene Finger Says:

    good reading here. ive got a few friends i will be refering to this article p.s fantastic website youv’e done a wonderful job in creating a informative website on subject’s such as these ! i work for the new york times as a editor and this website has some really well written articles. i have passed this article onto some close colleagues who should find this well worth a read. please visit a government initiative .

  4. Brice Wetterauer Says:

    Nice, I have already bookmarked your this web page…Now I don’t have sufficient time for read however by studying starting half I have to say…it was a positive begin .. Would love to learn additional too…Thanks for nice post!

  5. Tracey Olveira Says:

    I have to be the alone accurate being who never heard of this diet plan above-mentioned to a ages ago. I still accept the actual best access to lose weight is just to absolute calories and clutter aliment and sweets and not chase any specific diet plan. Just eat abundant less, just a little of everything. Atkins diet sounds acute to me accurately accustomed that it causes poor animation and being like that. No acknowledge you, but for those who like it that’s accomplished but it’s just not? for me.

  6. Jamaica cruise excursions Says:

    Whoa the following information is certainly fantastic it really aided me and even our kids, appreciate it!

  7. Jack Lennihan Says:

    Ah just have fun as my friend Garry Eicher play only free games in your free time.

  8. effects of global warming Says:

    Good info. Lucky me Wereach on your website by accident, Webookmarked it.

  9. Luis Rabeck Says:

    When I read a piece like this and then think back to the days of Bull Reese and Larry MacDuff, I get a little misty-eyed. Please don’t ever leave us, WM we would be more devastated than Scipio was when they canceled Designing Women.