Email Updates - Get notified each week via email of the best new documentaries      Sign Me Up!
Processing your request, Please wait....

Enjoy this Documentary? Express your views below!!

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Click Stars Below to Vote!
0saves
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 3.6/5 (23 votes cast)

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a contentious documentary film which implies that the threat of global warning is pushed upon us by scientists who are influenced by funding and political factors. The filmmaker talks to scientists and other experts on weather and atmospheric science who dispute the claim that global warming is a scam.

Watch for yourself and you be the judge!

The Great Global Warming Swindle, 3.6 out of 5 based on 23 ratings
Subscribe via RSSPlease subscribe to our RSS feed to have new doc's delivered straight to your reader.
This Video is Tagged With:

, , , , , , ,

URL:

754 Comments

  1. izaccy says:

    @AsatrusFire Im not in the politics of this issue, but do research for living, before the skeptics denied the charts, they demanded more measurement, they got the measurement, then they demanded other measurement they got them, then they said they want sattelite measurementthey got them. but then they wanted historical data. dating back to 1000s f years ago.they also got those measurements. Im waiting for what they want next.

    • Dex says:

      I agree with you. The deniers keep on moving the goalpost. It seems that even in the face of overwhelming facts they want to keep the illusion that there is still an argument about 1) The existence of climate change 2) The causes 3) What we can do to slow it down and finally 4) The devastating consequences of doing nothing.

      The argument is over and has been over for a while now.

      No more measurements, no more Co2 debates. It’s happening and if you don’t believe it is, open your eyes.

  2. AsatrusFire says:

    You can almost feel the anger in the tree huggers when they see one of the founders of Greenpeace saying man made global warming is BS. Science is science and the science doesn’t jive with the political correctness. Look at who is heavily invested in green energy … George Suros and oddly enough Al Gore who just purchased a mansion on the beach in California. I bet his house uses more energy and pollutes more than your home and your vehicles combined …probably more than 10 of you combined.

    • Dex says:

      I’m a “treehugger” and it doesn’t anger me.

      This mockumentary is HARDLY a compelling argument against climate change and the causes.

      If you don’t believe climate change exists you should really go enroll in a local community college and take a 101 Environmental Science course. It’s pretty basic really.

      Al Gore laid it all out Barney Style for those of you that are still deniers. However, you watch too much Fox News and you most likely don’t have the ability of free thought anymore. If you’re a climate change denier then you’re really a lost cause and can’t be rationally engaged in conversation.

    • Dex says:

      It’s typically the right wingers that get incensed by the mere mention of Al Gore. I love it.

      Al Gore is a reliable source. Because he makes a lot of money, or because he flies in an airplane or has a big house has no bearing on the validity of his message. None. (and you know it). Rarely can someone argue with his facts as he laid them out in An Inconvenient Truth but rather they try to paint him as part of the lunatic fringe without being able to contest a single legitimate fact he lays out with a single legitimate counter point.

      Al Gore has accomplished more before being the Vice President, Nobel Prize Winner then most deniers do their entire silly selfish lives.

      Open your eyes.

  3. izaccy says:

    Remember when you watch this movie it was brought to you byThe Global Climate Coalition.The Global Climate Coalition is made of different industriesExxon Mobile, British Petroleum, American Petroleum, American Sheep,American Trucking, American Farmers association. But as the scientific evidence for global warming is growing stronger,most of the companies have opted out of this org. mainly the Farmers who will be hit by severe drought.

  4. izaccy says:

    Frank Luntz to George W. Bush in 2003 -The scientific debate is closing against us, but not yet closed,theres still a window open and opportunity to challenge the science, dont close the argument, but rather challenge the uncertainty of science.act only with all the facts in hand.

  5. Pooknottin says:

    @junglistguy9669 So, you don’t think that it may have something to do with the concentration of the population, the number of vehicles operating in the area, the closed structures, the number of businesses and homes producing heat for various reasons? Must just be the smog.

  6. @DonAmazzatutti man, its a pretty simple and known fact, THE reason the temperature on Venus is 450 degrees IS BECAUSE of the C02. Because, it just IS NOT that close to the sun to be THAT HOT otherwise. So I assume nothing, but KNOW the correct answer through research on Venus. C02 levels on Venus ARE the reason it is so hot there. There is no other answer.

    • Fir3ManSam says:

      Yes, but CO2 levels on venus are thousands of times higher than here. We have such an insignificant amount of CO2 in our atmosphere that if it went up 10x it would still have no effect on the environment. Human polution only has effect locally, not world wide.

  7. @junglistguy9669 You’re assuming a one way causal relationship between CO2 and Temperature. Its a correlation not causal relation. I.e. the temperature on Venus could have first increased and then the CO2 levels. Even in this order we’re assuming Temp increase causes CO2 increase and omitted all over variables relevant to temperature change.

  8. MAJOR CITIES ARE ON AVERAGE 4-8 degrees cel. hotter then outside the city. I live in Toronto and I have measured this with instrument multiple times, through multiple seasons, at random, and all instrumentation concludes the city is hotter then outside of it, mainly do to the smog, dirty greenhouse emissions, which you can see in a thick yellow cloud as you drive in to Toronto. this again is PRETTY SIMPLE SCIENCE.

  9. No, C02 can not drive climate, thats why, Venus, a planet with an atmosphere made up of 99.99% of C02 has an average surface temperature of 450 degrees cel. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If Venus had an atmosphere more like Earths, its temperature would match ours to. PRETTY SIMPLE SCIENCE RIGHT THERE.

  10. Ameritarded says:

    American retards and idiots, global warming exists and is human-caused. There is NO legitimate debate. There is NO controversy. There is only the wishful thinking of retarded, selfish Americans who want to continue consuming, guzzling oil and playing with their toys.

    All rational people know this – which is of course why Americans don’t.

    • Fir3ManSam says:

      Did you even watch the film? Have you ever even sat through the opposing sides argument? You sound like a lunatic.

  11. janeflaherty says:

    I’m a scientist. There isn’t a single thing that man can do to alter climate. That way of thinking is the epitome of man’s arrogance.

    This, of course, is not my real name. I would be fired. Too many of us depend on funding to say what we really think.

  12. Sean says:

    Everyone seems to dance around the central issue. There is no conclusive evidence for or against human contribution to the global climate. Since we do not fully understand how our atmosphere works to produce climate, it is impossible to determine human influence. Just as, in a previous example, it is not a valid argument to say that smoking causes cancer. If that were true, everyone who ever smoked will get cancer. That is obviously not true. It can be a contributing factor and should be treated as such.

    Having said that, it is also not wise to dump substances into our environment when we don’t know the overall effect that they will have. There simply isn’t enough information to properly determine how much our climate is changing. For all we know, there could be a sudden dip in overall global temperatures next week. How many different theories of climatic input have you seen? I have seen quite a few and a lot of them are in conflict with each other. We simply don’t know how it all works.

  13. Nick says:

    Are we really going back to those 30,000 scientist thing again? Weren’t most of those scientists not even in the same field as those who study climate?
    I also love the follow-the-money argument. God forbid scientists make money. Why is it alright for oil and coal companies to make money and not scientists? I have followed the money, as you suggest, and it leads straight to corporations seeking profits over everything else, including the security and safety of the US and every other country out there. If you continue to follow the money you also see that we send over a billion dollars overseas – everyday. As a veteran who hauled jet fuel all over Iraq I faced combat everyday. Where do you think Middle Eastern countries get most of their funds?

    Follow the money, indeed. Wake up.

  14. Bob says:

    Why not try looking at solar waves and sunspots? If something gets hot dont you generally look at the source of the heat first?

    Actually over 30’000 scientists from all over the globe have signed a petition to squash the idea that global warming is man made. Links below

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

    and

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    Global warming is happening but nowhere near the rates the UN were claiming it was going to get to (4-5 degrees) Infact Lord Christopher Monckton senior advisor to Margaret Thatcher speaks about the paper which proves this in his speech, its totally correct go find it for yourselfs. Basically if we burned all our remaining fossil fuels we would get an increase in temperature from 0.5 to 0.7 degrees celsius. Its all in black and white go read it. Link to Lord Monckton below, its long but worth watching if you want to know your onions about “global warming” Enjoy!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

  15. rich says:

    The religion is flawed. There is no ‘majority consensus’ about the cause of global warming if it does exist in the long term. Wanna know the truth? Follow the money! How else ais a flock of meteorologists going to get a paycheck if they don’t try to create a sense of doom and forboding. The cathedrals of pop science are crumbling so the believers are feaking. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Think of how so many of us mock those ignorant folks from centuries past for their poor scientific understanding, glad I won’t be around when future generations judge us. P.S. It’s DENIAL not denile. The deniers are those that persist in believing a debunked tenant of your social religion. God save us from ALL fanatics, yet pity them for they are blind.

    • Fir3ManSam says:

      Your last sentence is an oxymoron, in fact your entire paragraph is. Don’t mention god on a scientific debate.

  16. J. Smith says:

    Hey, i found many of the information seekers and givers here, that’s why trying to locate the facts….

    Are we all Dying soon?

    I have been threatened by the author of this blog about the complete destruction of earth and end of human race on earth…Do you think whatever he is saying is going to happen? Please take your valued time and explain your expert lookout to reassure me.

    http://rush2me.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/global-warming-a-doomsday-in-near-future

  17. Typokign says:

    Well said Don ;)

    if global warming is really caused by CO2 then the cure is to let the trees take it in or to launch a few hundred nukes at america (who guzzle most of the oil and food in the world) and that would give the rest of us a chance, a chance to recolonize america and a chance to live the fallout dream

  18. Don Edinger says:

    Au contraire. You are the denier. Why can’t the left allow scientists speak on behalf of the other side? There are hundreds of them, and they aint Flat Earthers. Since weathermen can hardly predict next week’s weather, what makes all you global warming hysterians think that mankind can predict the Earth’s weather a hundred years in advance, or even 20? Just imagine if we’re about to enter the next Ice Age. Global Warming might save out butt. You guys are so rigid in your thinking. Some species might thrive with global warming, including man. Some cities will revive. Still, it hasn’t been proven that global warming is manmade, not by a longshot. Read ALL the evidence.

  19. Joe says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Criticism_from_two_scientists_featured_in_the_programme

    Criticism from two scientists featured in the programme

    Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, is featured in the Channel 4 version of the programme. Afterwards he said that he was “completely misrepresented” in the film and had been “totally misled” when he agreed to be interviewed.[7][32] He called the film “grossly distorted” and “as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two.”[33], and he lodged a complaint with Ofcom. He particularly objected to how his interview material was used:

    “Eigil Friis-Christensen

    Eigil Friis-Christensen’s research was used to support claims about the influence of solar activity on climate, both in the programme and Durkin’s subsequent defence of it. Friis-Christensen, with environmental Research Fellow Nathan Rive, criticised the way the solar data were used:

    “We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming.[8]”

    http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/global_warming_deniers_took_a.html

    The Global Warming deniers are the same as the people a few decades ago who said there was not enough scientific evidence too show that tobacco causes cancer.

  20. Mark says:

    The documentary is right on target. The description provided by Documentary Tube, however, is typical “Church of Global Warming” rhetoric. Let the documentary speak for itself. The scientists in the documentary knew exactly what they were saying and made well thought out and supported arguments. A person can’t even view the program and make their own conclusions. The description written by Global Warming Apologists strives to invalidate the program even before the viewer sees it. Typical liberal propaganda.

  21. Madelyn says:

    Then again the Y2K and Ozone hole were both real problems which were aeliveatld with real solutions.Oil is running out and there certainly is a population bomb. Both are a matter of when not if.Global cooling had a small following in the scientific community. More papers back then were pushing a future of global warming.

  22. Yohana says:

    This page had a lot of interesting inmtofarion on it. You know I have been to this site over and over now, off and on. I have yet to make a comment, so I thought I’d drop you a line I really appreciate the work you do on here always providing great content! This one’s going to facebook!

  23. Camilo says:

    my username and psrawosd are incorrect, but then I’m kinda dumb when it comes to technical stuff on the computer. I really wanted that french looking yellow and white background. Oh well. I’ll check out the tutorial.

  24. Mohamed says:

    Earth has always seen an ienrcase in world temperatures. This is the evolution of the earth from being an icy planet to the days that we are living now. It is a natural phenomena. Global warming as claimed by the scientist are caused by gases like CO2, CH4 etc. One of the main contributors of CO2 emission are human beings, animals, plants, transport sectors and industrial activities. In cold and icy climates, to ienrcase the crop yield, often you require heat and light, which is the fundamental process for photosynthesis. So, artificial greenhouse effect is created for the plants, which in turn ienrcases the heat for the plants. So, if there are natural global arming, may be plants will be benefited during winter times. But that may also sound negative during the other seasons.

Leave a Comment