User Reviews

This documentary is essential if you want to get to some light in the global warming "debate" led (meaning guided but not Light-Emitting-Debate) by the new Nobel prize winner Al Gore. Al Gore's film is not a documentary because it does not take into account any alternative hypothesis or model that could in any way jeopardize his own approach. This here film is a documentary because it does take into account several approaches and it is always referring to the CO2 hypothesis and the IPCC process. This documentary brings forward a whole set of scientific research that question the CO2 hypothesis and bring forward other hypotheses. It is thus essential if we want to know more than what we are allowed to absorb from the standard point of view that has become politically correct. Then it is also essential because it acknowledges the fact that all climatologists work on models and that models are not reality but only a tool for us to analyze and interpret reality, but a tool that tends to project onto reality the a priori vision that the model contains. The third important contribution of this documentary is the historical dimension it takes and develops. It connects several historical events and political motivations and shows how these had to bring forward the present CO2 approach. Margaret Thatcher's distrust of the Mine Workers' Union, hence coal, and of the Middle East, hence oil, made her invest in nuclear power. The miracle of North Sea oil exploited by the English intensively and wastefully. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the recycling of left-wing militants from communism to anti-capitalistic ecology or whatever. It also insists on the fact that the West's desire to limit development is particularly egocentric and selfish because it means to maintain the undeveloped areas of the planet in un-development: the documentary gives examples of the deadly consequences of the lack of electricity in Africa. It also rebukes the pretension that malaria is a southern, hence tropical disease, what's more only at low altitudes. Yet it is not complete. One thing is missing at least. It is BP who is selling solar panels in ex-English colonies and Total is said to detain the similar license in France. This means the present campaign against CO2 corresponds to the change in strategy of these enormous corporations that have worked essentially in oil and now are preparing the after-oil future. At the same time the documentary is slightly short. There is no reason whatsoever to pollute when we can be clean, and that for two main reasons, first if pollution can be avoided it is ethical to avoid it, and it is also economical to do so because we can thus save on the cost of post-pollution cleaning up. But yet this documentary is essential for us to start seeing some light in the total darkness of the anti-CO2 faith-requiring religious campaign.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

You might be used to watching a film and then watching it again when the Director becomes more famous and more powerful and gets free rein to produce "The Director's Cut".

However, since its release in March 2007 The Great Global Warming Swindle is up to its 4th version. The original version at 72 minutes contained material that was in error or that had to be removed because the interviewee found themselves to have been misrepresented. Subsequent versions have been changed as more errors and writs come to light. I watched the "International version" which clocks at a mere 52 minutes. I can't wait until it reduces to opening and closing credits.

The overwhelming consensus is that man's activities are producing excess greenhouse gases that are contributing to global warming beyond any natural cycle. This film attempts to refute that and impute that you are being lied to and that there is an anti-capitalist, anti-human, anti-Africa conspiracy leading this charge.

The biggest problem with this documentary is that everything that is presented as new and amazing is actually old and proved to be wrong. The only bits that were correct were twisted misrepresented to appear to support Martin Durkin's ideas, and as such have since been removed under threat of litigation from the scientists involved.

What at first seem to be strong and logical arguments can be brought into question or even demolished with a bit of google and the pause button: 1. When the graph label says "NOW", why does it stop at 1990? Temperature rose after 1990 and that would have killed the argument the graph was trying to make. 2. Why does the solar graph stop at 1950? Because the "strong correlation" between solar activity disappears during the period of greatest warming after 1950, again killing the argument. 3. The New York Times date is 1996... but the letter quoted from it is supposedly criticising the UN IPCC report released in 2001. 4. One scientist is given a prestigious title. You aren't told that he held that post from 1962 to 1964. 5. One "Professor of Climatology" who gives extensive talks to debunk global warming, hasn't published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal for over 10 years. 6. A few of the featured scientists have previously argued that passive smoking is harmless and that CFCs do not affect the Ozone layer. It appears that their science can be bought by companies funding their research. 7. Suggesting that Africa cannot develop their resources of coal and oil to help their people because of the green conspiracy ignores the high levels of corruption and foreign debt that are probably the real reason. 8. Why is 20 minutes missing?

In 1998, after another film he made about the environment was broadcast, Martin Durkin was found by the Independent Television Commission (UK) to have "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes" and "distorted (their views) through selective editing".

This film tells you that everyone has lied to you about climate change and greenhouse gas. Don't be swindled! http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/12/1976998.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/13/1977504.htm http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/

if science was being hijacked by interest groups, i really would want to know. i watched this entire video online, and i saw some very interesting claims made. unfortunately, almost none of them actually seem to be true. i encourage everyone to try to keep an open mind, but with that being said, i believe this documentary should come with materials to explain some of their claims in depth. like, why one of the scientists they feature intensely threatened legal action after he saw how his words were used. if you'd like to know more, please visit this link: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

This film claims that Carbon Dioxide is not a greenhouse gas because it does not cause warming. Though the filmmakers do refer to CO as a greenhouse gas. They claim that millions of barrels of fossil fuel being pumped into the atmosphere on a daily basis has no effect on the environment. It also does not even mention the effects of having less vegetation to process the carbon dioxide.

The film also paints all environmentalists as anti-technology “Neo-Marxists” that are effortlessly trying to prevent the development of the modern world. Environmentalists are the Neo-Gestapo of industry. It’s laughable.

This film claims that climate change is brought about by Supernova’s (stars exploding) that cause “cosmic rays” which in turn causes clouds which cools the planet. That solar spots reflect these “cosmic rays” therefore causing less cloud formation which causes the planet to heat up. That glacial melting is simply “seasonal.” I’m embarrassed to even write this conclusion. It’s comical.

On the other hand the quality of the documentary was par. They obviously had a good budget and put much effort into supporting their arguments. If one is to gain something out of this film and think positively about spending time watching it, it is that one gets to hone their critical thinking skills by debunking the film as it plays out.

I love pollution and don't care what I do to the environment, and when people see me littering or spraying pesticides, they shout at me and start their hippie lectures, it's highly pathetic and annoying. So I was trying to find a film that explained the other side of the global warming issue, and like this film says...

There is no 'global warming issue!' Global warming is a natural cycle, not caused by man but on its own, and this film has the scientific data to back this up. Not only is it informative but it is also not biased the way Al Gore's 'an Inconvenient Truth' was. Decide for yourself which one you'd rather be; uninformed environmentalist hippie fighting for a cause that isn't there, or an educated individual who learns that there are two sides to every story. This is an excellent film and it deserves a 10/10.

By Thomas Sowell...

Britain's Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It has apparently not been broadcast by any of the networks in the United States. But, fortunately, it is available on the Internet.

Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global warming hysteria is.

These include scientists from MIT and top-tier universities in a number of countries. Some of these are scientists whose names were paraded on some of the global warming publications that are being promoted in the media -- but who state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them.

One scientist threatened to sue unless his name was removed.

While the public has been led to believe that "all" the leading scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats -- and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were "consulted," but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.

There is no question that the globe is warming but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there were any automobiles and before there was as much burning of fossil fuels as today.

None of the dire things predicted today happened then. CARTOONS | Jerry Holbert View Cartoon

The British documentary goes into some of the many factors that have caused the earth to warm and cool for centuries, including changes in activities on the sun, 93 million miles away and wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Kyoto treaty.

According to these climate scientists, human activities have very little effect on the climate, compared to many other factors, from volcanoes to clouds.

These climate scientists likewise debunk the mathematical models that have been used to hype global warming hysteria, even though hard evidence stretching back over centuries contradicts these models.

What is even scarier than seeing how easily the public, the media, and the politicians have been manipulated and stampeded, is discovering how much effort has been put into silencing scientists who dare to say that the emperor has no clothes.

Academics who jump on the global warming bandwagon are far more likely to get big research grants than those who express doubts -- and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities.

Environmental movements around the world are committed to global warming hysteria and nowhere more so than on college and university campuses, where they can harass those who say otherwise. One of the scientists interviewed on the British documentary reported getting death threats.

In politics, even conservative Republicans seem to have taken the view that, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em. So have big corporations, which have joined the stampede.

This only enables the green crusaders to declare at every opportunity that "everybody" believes the global warming scenario, except for a scattered few "deniers" who are likened to Holocaust deniers.

The difference is that we have the hardest and most painful evidence that there was a Holocaust. But, for the global warming scenario that is causing such hysteria, we have only a movie made by a politician and mathematical models whose results change drastically when you change a few of the arbitrarily selected variables.

No one denies that temperatures are about a degree warmer than they were a century ago.

What the climate scientists in the British documentary deny is that you can mindlessly extrapolate that, or that we are headed for a climate catastrophe if we don't take drastic steps that could cause an economic catastrophe.

"Global warming" is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible.

We always hear "save the environment" and see a lot of things promoting that message. this covers the other half of the story, or so I thought, it is why I watched it anyways. this while after the movie I was able to contradict, if they did not contradict themselves in the movie, almost everything that was said, or find flaws. without even talking about the information, the movie directing itself does have some minor flaws, for example we see the title about five time at the beginning. the thing is that not only was I able to contradict most of their information, which is formed on a scientific basis, but I don't even study science, I study theatre! My advice would be maybe to watch it if you are curious, but if you are looking for some ACTUAL research information, save you're self some time and skip this feature.

Brrrr. As I write this review, it's rather chilly outside. As a matter of fact, there's been sub-zero temperatures in these parts of late. Wait a second. Is that an icicle I see starting to melt? OMG, man-made global warming is real! How can this be, when just last week I practically had to chisel away at the nasal mucous?

There's nothing like a convenient invisible enemy for the powers-that-be to scare the masses with, in the hope of achieving the long-term goal of gaining more power and control over a naive and unquestioning populace.

With each passing year and using the Trojan Horse of 'climate change' the world inches its way closer toward a centralized, technocratic, one-world superstate, led by 'globalists,' yes...albeit the majority of whom I suspect are more Luciferian heliocentrics (contrary to what the 'term' suggests).

Recently, I've been reading in the news of credit cards soon-to-be rolled out that will track their users' CO2 emissions. Clearly, this has less to do with genuine concern for the environment as it's so patently obvious that this is nothing more than a communist-style social credit system in the making.

Fatuously, the agriculture industry has also been under attack in recent years, since 'they' not only want to control what goes into our minds but our bodies as well.

Despite what these soulless interferers who get off on tampering with the natural forces of Terra Mater are doing, the very ones responsible for causing actual damage to Earth and to humanity, with their umpteen asinine policies, their spiritually dark transhuman agenda, techno-smog, synthetic food, GMOs, geoengineering, God-playing scientific meddling and what-not, fantastically these ones then have the chutzpah to scold the rest of us for our supposedly not caring about the environment and to encourage us to look to and trust them for solutions, in line with their Hegelian Dialectic. Artificial meat and lab-created milk, really? All because a few idiotic billionaires in power claim to be afraid of a few little cow burps. What a lot of hot air and bent-over gas emissions.

The common stereotype of anyone who questions or is critical of the official climate change narrative is that they're shills for the oil industry. Blah blah blah. I counted close to fifteen interviewees in this (including the great Patrick Moore and Tim Ball), the majority of whom are listed as professors, each one of them, it seems, with the intelligence and critical thinking skills to see through the Climate Cult rhetoric and dogma and none as far as I could tell were shown sucking on stogies or giddily doing cartwheels around derricks.

It goes without saying that global warming is quite natural and historical, just as the Earth has gone through numerous global cooling periods, as well. That's all that really needs to be said. So simple and easy to understand, this. The Earth could care less about what climate hoax deniers and virtue-signaling poster children for some highly politicized, pseudo-environmental movement have to say regarding what for millennia has been the case.

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE merits a 10/10 rating for its self-explanatory message but unfortunately it's not without its faults. For one thing, I found its presentation to be a little all over the map, unfocused. As well, whereas this British-made film points to players like Margaret Thatcher for being instrumental figures in the game, strangely there's no mention of much more highly influential names like Paul Ehrlich, Maurice Strong, and the Club of Rome.

Frankly, I yawned, I fidgeted, and found my mind wandering at times and dreaming of hot & juicy hamburgers made from real beef, only to return my attention to the film and its talk of graphs, charts, and technical data. Hmm. How to make this topic palatable to non-nerds and entertainees? Therein lies one of the greatest challenges of our times. Still, a doc that might best be played at the next UN climate change conference, for the benefit of any truth-loving fence-straddlers in attendance capable of being deprogrammed.