"The Great Global Warming Swindle"? Shams & Lies

11 Responses to "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? Shams & Lies

1. 

   inel July 12, 2007 at 7:22 pm #

   Good list. You might also like to add a note about the journal article by Lockwood & Fröhlich, published yesterday in Royal Society Proceedings A.

   This scientific research examines evidence and concludes that the Sun is not responsible for current global warming trends. As the Sun’s effects upon climate have declined in the past two decades, our planet’s temperature has risen.

   This new paper directly contradicts false claims made in TGGWS, and by AGW denialists in general, that solar activity is responsible for climate climate now.

   A good clear explanation of the parameters studied is in tamino‘s post ‘There Goes the Sun’. My post ‘Innocent Sun‘ tracks British press coverage of the Lockwood & Fröhlich paper. (No American paper seems to have picked up on this yet …)

   Reply
2. 

   J. Jerrald Hayes July 12, 2007 at 11:37 pm #

   Thanks for that link inel. I have a list of things I want to write about so the common guys and gals like me can "sort out the wheat out from the chaff" (and discard the real absolute crap too) and one of those topics I’ve been collecting notes for is the all the talk about the "Sun" and "Sun Spots" and that along with your article Innocent Sun will really help there for sure.

   Reply
3. 

   Girma August 6, 2008 at 12:06 pm #

   STOPPING CLIMATE CHANGE: Some want something (climate) that is by its nature changing not to change. I wonder they want to do this by changing the orbit of the earth from an ellipse to a circle, by changing the wobble angle of the earth from about 23 degree to zero, by making the solar energy from each square meter surface area of the sun to be constant, by making the particles between the sun and the surface of the earth to be uniform.

   They tell us in their graphs (IPCC) that the globes temperature has increased by 0.8 degree centigrade in 100 years. How does this change in temperature compare with the 30 degree centigrade change in temperature difference we experience between summer and winter in a single year in the same area on earth, and with about 15 degree centigrade difference we experience within a single day? They also tell us that something that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere (CO2) has more effect on the green house effect than the remaining 99.96%! For me, this is mysticism, not science.

   Reply
4. 

   george rock September 4, 2008 at 11:48 pm #

   Sunspot cycles and temperature correspond perfectly. There is abundant scientific evidence to prove this. It’s probably a little too difficult for the creators of this website to understand. To believe the sun does not affect climate is ridiculous. Al Gore says to congress “magic from the sun” cannot be responsible. After the lies he brought forward about CO2 correlating with temperature when it was well known there is an 800 year lag between temp and CO2 I am astounded that people will still believe in this doomesday cult. The only proof the IPCC offers for CO2 are flawed models which are a hypothesis, not a proof. Did you notice they went from being 66% sure to 90% sure they are right. Now that’s magic! I am 100 % sure I’m right that anyone who believes CO2 is causing global warming is a denialist of real science and succumbing to the religeous cult of global warming. Perhaps you should sacrifice yourselves to appease your God so the rest of us can try to do something real to protect our planet and our childrens future. By the way I am a scientist and an athiest.

   Reply
5. 

   Marcus eustace October 12, 2008 at 2:08 am #

   Alright George, take a long hard think about what you are saying. You are saying global warming is natural? It’s caused by the sun?
   so you don’t think it is caused by the millions of years of CO2 that lie under the earth’s surface, that in a period of 100 years was put into the atmosphere?
   You say that you are 100% that anyone that believes in co2 causing global warming is a denialist of real science? Well as a scientist yourself you must be aware of the statements by NAS? Or the AAS ? think about it, if global warming wasn’t to happen and we took action, the worst case scenario would be a global economic depression, but the world would be a better place to live in. if global warming was to happen and we didn’t take action, the worst case scenario would be Global economic depression, whole costal city’s disappearing and people pushing in on there neighbours causes global wars over space and limited researches, it would be the end of the world as we know it. Think about witch option is worse? Because I’m telling you now it’s better to take action than to not to, instead of fighting over whether or not it’s actually going to happen.

   Reply
6. 

   climate criminal July 14, 2009 at 7:54 pm #

   Sorry if I missed it, but you may have missed http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/ which is a point-by-point analysis and rebuttal of TGGWS.

   Also a search of realclimate.org for swindle turns up the following links.
   http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
   http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
   http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
   http://www.realclimate.org/?s=hornswoggled&langswitch_lang=cz

   Doubtless there will be a degree of overlap.

   Excellent debunking resource. Many of which I had not encountered before.

   Reply
7. 

   livinginabox November 29, 2009 at 11:27 am #

   Girma is a troll.
   He has his own thread [cage] over at Deltoid.

   Girma uses logical fallacies to deceive
   Not all gases are GHGs, that is why most of the atmosphere has no effect on earth’s radiated heat. Water vapour and CO2 have well defined infra-red properties. Therefore a tiny percentage is not necessarily irrelevant.
   For an example of why, just consider the Ebola virus. Would Girma want a few dozen of those apparently insignificant virus particles injected? By his logic, he would have nothing to fear.
   Of course, were such an event to happen the anticipated outcome is highly likely.

   No more Girma-Troll

   Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

1. The Hypocrisy & Swindle « Sumptuous! - July 18, 2007

   [...] The Hypocrisy & Swindle I finally got round to watching the piece of polemic that was the Great Global Warming Swindle (via YouTube). As someone who accepts the anthropogenic global warming theory, I was depressed at how the programme was dismally one-sided. It failed to present more than one perspective or any sense of debate. Judging by how the producer responds to some of his critics, he’s not so interested in fostering discussion – see the section, ‘Responses to Scientists’, on the good wikipedia overview about the programme. And here is an interview with its producer, who’s final response is itself revealing – ‘No flaws, no flaws, no flaws.’ For a list of websites that address many of the flaws in the programme, start here. [...]

2. Diggers think global warming is nothing to worry about at EcoStreet - Raising Green Consciousness since 2002 - September 24, 2007

   [...] don’t need to dig too deep to come up with plenty of material that “debunks, rebutts, and discredits” The Great Global Warming Swin…. Global warming is a MYTH PEOPLE! Not to mention, the total amount of CO2 in the air created or [...]

3. The Denial Machine « Rationally Thinking Out Loud - December 3, 2007

   [...] consider in their evaluation of the validity of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (see “The Great Global Warming Swindle”? Shams & Lies & ABC Australia’s Tony Jones and the “Great Global Warming Swindle” debate [...]

4. From: Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The Big Swindle Movie « Rationally Thinking Out Loud - July 14, 2009

   [...] Thanks Peter (and Tim). I added this great video essay to my own list of debunking references : “The Great Global Warming Swindle”? Shams & Lies [...]

Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply.