December 22, 2008
The Great Global Warming Swindle
A DVD of the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, will be
available from mid July. The
DVD is an expanded and improved version of the film broadcast in the
UK on Channel Four.
More interview material has been added, covering
a broader range of subjects than was possible in the broadcast film.
However, we urge those interested in hearing the case against the
theory of man made global warming to dig deeper. The main purpose of
this site is to point people towards key scientific papers, books
and other relevant material.
We have received literally thousands of emails from scientists and
others expressing their support and encouragement. These emails are
also often very useful, steering us towards new studies in different
Please keep sending them.
The email address is:
The general reaction to the film has been overwhelming and
enormously encouraging. As Channel Four reported in Broadcast
magazine, they received a record number of phone calls following the
first transmission. They calculated that the calls were 6 to 1 in
support of the film.
It would be nice to claim that the explosion of interest was due to
the film itself, but the fuss started even before the film was
broadcast. The reason, we suspect, is that the coverage of ‘global
warming’, on TV, radio and in the press, has been so one-sided and
uncritical. In Britain, hours and hours of programs have been
broadcast by the BBC on the subject, much of it scientifically
The very fact that a science documentary dared to challenge
the orthodoxy was itself news.
Why have journalists been so craven or biased?
How has a theory
which demonstrably lacks really solid supporting evidence become an
What of the impressive, much talked about
scientific ‘consensus’ which is used to forestall any awkward
questions about the evidence?
The film made a humble stab at suggesting some possible answers, but
there was limited space for these bigger questions.
The whole global
warming alarm, we believe, raises serious issues about the way
science functions in the real world, about the political bias of
scientists, about censorship within the scientific community itself,
about the routine practice of scientists drawing false or inflated
conclusions from ambiguous or uncertain data, about the manifest
failure of the peer review process, about the extraordinary
unwillingness of scientists who have invested time and reputation in
a particular theory to consider evidence which directly contradicts
it, about the elevation of speculation (models) to the level of
solid data, and much else besides.
Science and scientists cannot always rise above the prejudices of
their class and of their age. The selection and handling of evidence
often reflects these prejudices. The most highly qualified and
respected scientists can be blind to obvious deficiencies in a
theory, and will be dismissive of evidence when it undermines what
they want to believe.
But the scare over man made global warming may prove to be the first
great example in the modern Western world, when science was betrayed
by scientists themselves
This web-site is still young, and the people running it are doing so
in their spare time (when they really should be making television
programs). So apologies for its shortcomings.
The makers of the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle have
made many science documentaries before.
The thing they found most
shocking when they started to make this one, was the weakness of the
case for man made global warming, and the quantity and quality of
the evidence which flatly contradicts it.
One of the most curious aspects of the global warming alarm is the
persistent reluctance of some climate scientists to consider the
role of the sun.
The idea that variations in solar activity,
observable in the form of sun spots, influence the earth’s climate
has a long, important history, stretching back to the astronomers
Maunder, Herschel and beyond. It would be surprising, surely, if the
sun did not have a major influence on the earth’s climate (why is
summer warmer than winter?).
Among those scientists who are actively
exploring the solar-climate connection there are different views as
to how the relationship between sun and earth is mediated.
look out for in research papers include:
An excellent introduction to the topic is ‘The Manic
Sun’ by Nigel Calder, who recently also wrote, with Henrik Svensmark,
‘The Chilling Stars’. Also worth looking at is Willie Soon’s short
book on Edward Maunder.
One central problem for those who promote the idea of man made
global warming is the earth’s temperature record – on almost all
In the last decade, there has been no clear warming trend (as the UK
Met Office and IPCC’s own figures demonstrate). In the last century,
much of the warming occurred prior to 1940, when human emissions of
CO2 were relatively small compared to today.
During the post-war
economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise)
the world cooled, from the 1940s till the mid-70s (again, this is
evident from accepted data used by the
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
But it’s important to look back further in time 1,000 years. The
climate record which used to be accepted as the standard account of
this period was published in the first IPCC report.
But this account
posed a problem. A thousand years ago there was time a warm period –
apparently warmer than today (known to climatologists as the
Medieval Warm Period). This was followed by a relatively cold period
(known as the
Little Ice Age), from which, over the past two to
three hundred years, seem to have made a slow, welcome recovery.
This was all rather undermined the idea that current temperatures
were either unusual or alarming.
In subsequent IPCC reports the original graph was replaced by
another – the famous ‘Hockey Stick’ (so-called because it looks like
one - click below image).
The Hockey Stick was a lot more dramatic, and was featured
proudly on the top of the front page of the new IPCC reports. But
was it true? The Hockey Stick debate is very telling, and we
readers to review it.
Further back in time, still within our current ‘interglacial period,
we find more warm spells – notably what geologists call the
‘Holocene Maximum’ when, for a few thousand years, the earth was
significantly warmer than we find it today.
Over longer time periods of course, the earth has been far, far
hotter than it is today (with tropical forests covering much of the
earth) and also far, far colder, with much of the earth buried under
miles of ice. The Earth’s climate has always changed, and changed
without any help from us.
But there is another problem, a very major problem, for those who
promote the idea of CO2-led global warming.
According to global
warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect is responsible for
warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise should be
greatest in that part of the earth’s atmosphere known as the
troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the observations,
from weather balloons and satellites have consistently shown that
not to be the case. I
urge readers to look at the Christy et al
The latest one was recently published in the
of Geophysical Research (2007).
CO2 & Temperature
The ice-core data is frequently cited as principal evidence to argue
that CO2 is the earth’s main climate driver. It is, in a way, the
jewel in the crown of the theory of man made global warming. But the
ice-core data does not show that CO2 drives climate. It shows, very
clearly, that variations in temperature precede rises in atmospheric
CO2 – not the other way round. The two phenomena are divided by a
time lag of several hundred years.
There is no evidence that CO2 has ever ‘driven’ the climate in the
past, nor is there any compelling evidence that it is doing so now.
According to global warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect
(from increased levels of CO2 or indeed any other greenhouse gas) is
responsible for warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise
should be greatest in that part of the earth’s atmosphere known as
the troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the
observations, from weather balloons and satellites have consistently
shown that not to be the case. I urge readers to look at the
Christy et al papers. The latest one was recently published in the
Journal of Geophysical Research (2007).
This may seem like a rather
technical issue, but it strikes at the very heart of the theory of
man made global warming.
The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change
IPCC & Consensus
One of the biggest barriers to a rational discussion about
climatology, is the persistent and sinister use of the ‘consensus’
argument. The idea that there is a consensus between ‘the world’s
top scientists’ is used to brow beat politicians, to forestall media
criticism of the global warming orthodoxy and to marginalize and
ridicule those scientists who dare to speak out against the theory
of man made global warming.
Until now, few people have explored the nature of this ‘consensus’.
Who are these ‘top scientists’ and who says they all agree? As
readers will see, from the few introductory links below, the
‘consensus’ is not all it seems. We urge readers to look at
Professor Reiter’s testimony, for example, to the House of Lords.
There are indeed many scientists, journalists and others who have
built careers and staked their reputations on man made global
warming. We should not accept their protestations that ‘the debate
is over’, and ‘there is no more room for doubt’.
The implications on public policy of the global warming alarm (for
all of us, in the developed world and even more the developing
world) are enormous. We are being asked to turn the world upside
down, to stifle industrial progress, in order to address this
alleged problem. This is too big an issue for us to rubber-stamp the
declarations of a semi-political body such as the IPCC.
Orthodox views have been proved wrong time and again. We were
assured, you may remember, by a consensus of scientists in Britain,
during the BSE ‘Mad Cow Disease’ alarm that, by now, as much as a
third of the British population would be dead from eating
contaminated hamburgers. The mad cow apocalypse singularly failed to
Sadly, we have no option, but to be grown up, to examine the
question ourselves, and make up our own minds. Is this global
warming alarm built on solid evidence?
On the wider political and economic implications of the global
warming alarm we would recommend two excellent books:
Extreme Weather Events
So much has been blamed on global warming, from Hurricane Katrina to
the Asian tsunami.
So many ludicrous claims have been made in this
area, it is hard to know where to begin debunking it all. In the
global cooling scare of the 1970s, all the same extreme weather
events were blamed on the world getting colder.
Here we go again.
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord
with the increase in global air pollution associated with
industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding
-- Reid Bryson
"Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational
strategy for Man", (1971)
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will
undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve
to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.
Population control is the only answer
-- Paul Ehrlich
The Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000
-- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.
Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the
stench of dead fish.
-- Paul Ehrlich
Earth Day (1970)
Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . in
which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing
-- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the
rest of the century
-- Peter Gwynne
There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun
to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic
decline in food production - with serious political implications for
just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could
begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has
now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are
hard-pressed to keep up with it.
-- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If
it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world
famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about
before the year 2000.
-- Lowell Ponte
"The Cooling", 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees
colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees
colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to
put us in an ice age.
-- Kenneth E.F. Watt
on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day
The Great Global Warming Swindle
December 22, 2008