The Great Global Warming Swindle

March 18, 2007 4:01 PM

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary produced by Channel 4 (UK) that takes a hard look at all this "global warming" nonsense.
posted by (bb|[^b]{2}) (35 comments total)

From the synopsis: Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there's no need to feel bad.

According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.

We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.
posted by (bb|[^b]{2}) at 4:01 PM on March 18, 2007

Oh, this'll go well.
posted by solistrato at 4:09 PM on March 18, 2007

fap fap fap...
seriously, how many times do we have to go over this? Buncha scientists say it ain't happening, not our fauuuuuut. Well hell, a buncha MORE scientists say it is.
Consider, everytime you fill up your car with gas, that mass gets put into the atmosphere, that's an awful lot of CO2 and other material...
aw fuck it, nothing short of intense electrotherapy will convince some people. Just cause you can't see the lion with your head in the sand doesn't he's not about to eat your ass.
posted by edgeways at 4:13 PM on March 18, 2007

This [will/will not] end [well/poorly].
posted by EarBucket at 4:14 PM on March 18, 2007

Before this thread is deleted: The Great Global Warming Swindle was an entirely discredited documentary produced by a man with a record of deliberate misrepresentation that took a dishonest look at all this "global warming" nonsense.
posted by flashboy at 4:14 PM on March 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Duh. The problem is chemtrails.
posted by allen.spaulding at 4:14 PM on March 18, 2007

I must say, I applaud the bravado with which you framed this post. Good show!

*gets popcorn*
posted by Galvatron at 4:15 PM on March 18, 2007

Has anyone else noticed the subtle influx of "skeptical opinions" on this subject on metafilter in the past few months?
posted by 517 at 4:16 PM on March 18, 2007

Durkin's lack of bias lends credence to this, clearly.
posted by cortex at 4:16 PM on March 18, 2007

*sarcasm*
posted by (bb|[^b]{2}) at 4:16 PM on March 18, 2007

and, er, the filmmaker is Martin Durkin fer god's sake, not exactly the bastion of neutrality you want advocating ANY sort of science. He's been pumping anti-environmental bile for at least a decade.
posted by edgeways at 4:17 PM on March 18, 2007

I should state, I'm not an opponent of global warming. I believe in it whole-heartedly. I just wanted to throw this link out there to spark conversation, or maybe just show how silly the opponents are. Either way, for better or worse, there it is.
posted by (bb|[^b]{2}) at 4:21 PM on March 18, 2007

The CommentIsFree thread about George Monbiot's comprehensive debunking of this documentary is a terrifying never-ending parade of the sad, the deranged, and the deluded. Compulsive reading in other words.
posted by roofus at 4:21 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Wasn't this already posted and deleted?
posted by basicchannel at 4:25 PM on March 18, 2007

“You’re a big daft cock.”
posted by Olli at 4:31 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Rebuttal to TGGWS link on RealClimate
posted by meddeviceengineer at 4:37 PM on March 18, 2007

From the cock link: Mr Durkin on race, (an upcoming film). Yeah, that's going to be good. Is this fellow actively trying to get the shit beat out of him?
posted by edgeways at 4:39 PM on March 18, 2007

Jonathon V. Last comments.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 4:42 PM on March 18, 2007

Organizationally, the political systems of the 20th century aren't well suited to the problems of the 21st. Geographical jurisdiction is simply dying in a globalized economy, when pollution from China can impact London, and a website in LA can infuriate India. I think the multinationals are ahead of the curve in realizing all of this -- profit always being an effective driver/measure for comprehension -- but the fundamental thread tying together:

1) Intellectual Property / Anti-Hacking enforcement on the Internet
2) Halliburton moving to Dubai
3) Immigration wars -- from H-1B to Mexico to Eastern Europe
4) Global Environmental Policy

...is the fact that a global policy enforcement framework does not exist. Whether it can, or particularly should -- now that's another story entirely. But without enforcement, people barely bother to create policy; what does exist is just there for selective enforcement when convenient.

I don't know that we can do any better. As I repeatedly remind fellow engineers, nowhere is it written that it's possible to get everything we want, or even everything we need.

There is not always a way.
posted by effugas at 4:42 PM on March 18, 2007

yes.. this Jonathan Last is what, some noted authority? Funny, doesn't sound like it.
posted by edgeways at 4:46 PM on March 18, 2007

Regardless of any open questions there may on the causes of earth temperature changes I do think concerned environmentalists would be well served by continually reinforcing the point that aside from the particular case of global warming, there are about a billion and one other terrific reasons not to shit in your own nest.
posted by well_balanced at 4:49 PM on March 18, 2007

Effugas, I always put it this way: the fact that something is desirable doesn't mean it is feasible.

Effugas, Jonathon Last is a citizen who has just as much right to an opinion on this subject as you do.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 4:58 PM on March 18, 2007

One thing that I'm trying to figure out in the global warming debate, is just what the deniers think the people worried about it have to gain for pushing this agenda. The scientists who are issuing the warnings don't have anything to gain in money or influence, so why the vehement push-back against trying to do something about it? Their only agenda is in trying to put the planet on a better course. Does it basically boil down to the fact that companies are worried about their bottom line and the rest are just worried about losing some creature comforts? Don't get me wrong, that makes sense, but the volume at which this debate occurs kind of leaves me scratching my head.

This is not a rhetorical question, by the way, I'm honestly curious.
posted by picea at 5:04 PM on March 18, 2007

Picea, there is a historical undercurrent of thought in some circles that posits all this environmentalism is just a subversive campaign by socialists/communists attacking capitalism. Somebody else can probably expand on this but I have to go stoke the tire fire in my backyard.
posted by well_balanced at 5:15 PM on March 18, 2007

your muslims are our weather.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:19 PM on March 18, 2007

"I don't know that we can do any better. As I repeatedly remind fellow engineers, nowhere is it written that it's possible to get everything we want, or even everything we need.

There is not always a way."

No offense, but if you're an engineer, and that's your philosophy, you're the last bloody engineer I'd be hiring.

There's ALWAYS a better way to do things, systems can always be improved for efficiency, and there's a solution to every problem, given the right tools and ingenuity.
posted by stenseng at 5:22 PM on March 18, 2007

Re: what's possible, this profile of Amory Lovins in the New Yorker was very interesting.
posted by muckster at 5:31 PM on March 18, 2007

Actually, Picea, the standard explanation is that climate scientists are hyping global warming so that they can get more funding.

Damn greedy scientists. First they scare us all with their "germ theory of disease" so they can make big bucks on their so-called "public health research." Then they shake down the tobacco industry with their "cigarettes cause cancer" scare tactics. And lets not forget the "ozone hole" joke.

Scientific greed is bleeding this country dry!
posted by NoiseTrader at 5:34 PM on March 18, 2007

...just what the deniers think the people worried about it have to gain for pushing this agenda. The scientists who are issuing the warnings don't have anything to gain in money or influence...

I have seen numerous skeptics claiming that environmental scientist are reaping some kind of financial benefit from their stand. One, in response to the news that the American Enterprise Institute is offering $10,000 for disputations of climate change said, "That's chump change to people who are used to getting hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars from the NSF for research proving the opposite." I had no idea that the NSF was handing out money on that scale. Probably the NSF didn't either.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:35 PM on March 18, 2007

It's worth pointing out that Martin Durkin was part of a very odd little Trotskyist party called the Revolutionary Communist Party, who, from what I've read, reveled in taking contrarian positions on just about everything, to the point that they eventually evolved into the polar opposite of what their original ideology ostensibly was, becoming pro-corporate right-wing libertarian types. They were and are fervently anti-environmentalist, and their former members all seem to have gone on to become far more influential figures than one would expect.

The RCP and its successors are, all around, one of the strangest political groupings I've ever come across. (Also, IMO, one of the most repugnant- to be sure, my opinions on environmentalism tend towards the deep green, but leaving all that aside, there was the whole thing where they denied the Rwandan genocide.) They could easily be the subject of a full FPP. There's a pretty good summary of them here, a blog post discussing this "documentary" and Martin Durkin's RCP background here, and a Guardian article on them here. And, just to be Fair and Balanced™, here's a link to their current internet journal.
posted by a louis wain cat at 5:40 PM on March 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Buncha scientists say it ain't happening, not our fauuuuuut. Well hell, a buncha MORE scientists say it is.

Your favo(u)rite buncha scientists sucks.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:49 PM on March 18, 2007

Hey! I just gone done believing An Unfortunate Truth. Can't I get a break once in a while?
posted by VulcanMike at 5:58 PM on March 18, 2007

So is anthrogenic CO2 not 0.3 of greenhouse gases and water vapour 95% then?
posted by A189Nut at 6:14 PM on March 18, 2007

Why did Channel 4 air this crap?
posted by Vindaloo at 6:17 PM on March 18, 2007

There's ALWAYS a better way to do things, systems can always be improved for efficiency, and there's a solution to every problem, given the right tools and ingenuity.

No, there isn't. But there is always someone willing to lie to you and tell you that there is, if he thinks he can get some of your money doing so.

There are a lot of problems that cannot be solved right now. There are some problems that probably cannot ever be solved.

That's because sometimes the "right tools" don't exist, and maybe even cannot exist without violating the laws of physics. (Have you ever thought about just how useful and versatile perpetual motion would be?)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 6:22 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]