Katana VentraIP

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a 2007 British polemical documentary film directed by Martin Durkin. The film denies the scientific consensus about the reality and causes of climate change, justifying this by suggesting that climatology is influenced by funding and political factors. The program was formally criticised by Ofcom, the UK broadcasting regulatory agency, which ruled the film failed to uphold due impartiality and upheld complaints of misrepresentation made by David King, who appeared in the film.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

United Kingdom

75 mins

8 March 2007 (2007-03-08)

The film presents scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who dispute the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming. The programme's publicity materials claim that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times."[1] Its original working title was "Apocalypse my arse", but the title The Great Global Warming Swindle was later adopted as an allusion to the 1980 mockumentary The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle about British punk band the Sex Pistols.[2]


The UK's Channel 4 premiered the documentary on 8 March 2007. The channel described the film as "a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired."[3] According to Hamish Mykura, Channel 4's head of documentaries, the film was commissioned "to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide."[4]


Although the documentary was welcomed by climate change deniers, it was criticised by scientific organisations and individual scientists, including one of the scientists interviewed in the film and one whose research was used to support the film's claims.[5][6] The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[6][7][8][9]

Viewpoints expressed in the film

The film's basic premise is that the scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising.


The film won best documentary award at the 2007 Io Isabella International Film Week.[10]


A number of academics, environmentalists, think-tank consultants and writers are interviewed in the film in support of its various assertions. They include Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace who later became a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; and Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster.


Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used.[5]

Atmospheric levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has after that increased until 1997.

carbon dioxide

Variations in warming rate. The programme states that all models of -derived temperature increase predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. The programme asserts that current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.

greenhouse effect

Increases in CO2 and temperatures following the end of ice ages. According to the film, increases in CO2 levels lagged (by over 100 years) behind temperature increases during glacial terminations.

EPICA and Vostok ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO2 for the last 650,000 years. ("Current CO2 level" is as of 2006.)

Relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change. The film asserts that carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide.

Influence of oceanic mass on temperature changes. The programme argues that due to the very large mass of the world's oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in oceanic mass, which is why analysis of the and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature by 800 years.

Vostok Station

Influence of on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.

water vapour

Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount—just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.)

[12]

Influence of the sun on climate change. The film highlights the of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The posited mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation.[13] The film argues that the activity of the sun is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth.

solar variation theory

Previous episodes of warming. The programme asserts that the current episode of global warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the , a time of great prosperity in western Europe.

Medieval Warm Period

The was one of the main targets of the documentary. In response to the programme's broadcast, John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988–2002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions. According to Houghton the programme was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming," which he noted had been endorsed by the scientific community, including the Academies of Science of the major industrialised countries and China, India and Brazil. Houghton rejected claims that observed changes in global average temperature are within the range of natural climate variability or that solar influences are the main driver; that the troposphere is warming less than the surface; that volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning; that climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change; and that IPCC processes were biased. Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature, but then writes that the programme's assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC [is] NOT TRUE. For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."[22]

IPCC

The released a statement about The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is highly critical of the programme, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years." Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4's editorial standards, the statement says: "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 programme would be guilty of serious professional misconduct." It uses the [[attribution of recent climate change#Warming sometimes leads CO2 increases|feedback argument]] to explain temperatures rising before CO2. On the issue of volcanic CO2 emissions, it says:[9]

British Antarctic Survey

Ofcom investigation of complaints

Ruling

In an 8400-word official judgement issued on 21 July 2008 the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on "due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy". Ofcom also backed complaints by Sir David King, stating that his views were misrepresented, and Carl Wunsch, on the points that he had been misled as to its intent, and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme's position on climate change. Ofcom further ruled that the IPCC had not been given an adequate chance to respond to adverse claims that its work was politicised and that it had made misleading claims about malaria. However, the regulator said that because "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007", in parts 1–4 the audience was not "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence".[66] According to Ofcom the program caused no harm because "the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast", meaning that climate change was no longer a matter of political controversy.[67]


Channel 4 said in its defence against the complaints that The Great Global Warming Swindle "was clearly identified as an authored polemic of the kind that is characteristic of some of Channel 4’s output", and Ofcom said in its decision that it was "of paramount importance that broadcasters, such as Channel 4, continue to explore controversial subject matter". Ofcom declined to rule on the accuracy of the programme, saying: "It is not within Ofcom's remit or ability in this case as the regulator of the 'communications industry' to establish or seek to adjudicate on 'facts' such as whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon." It noted that it only regulates "misleading material where that material is likely to cause harm or offence" and "as a consequence, the requirement that content must not materially mislead the audience is necessarily a high test."[4]


The regulator ruled that the parts of the programme about the scientific debate "were not matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to public policy and therefore the rules on due impartiality did not apply." In the fifth segment of the programme concerning the political controversy and public policy, however, Ofcom ruled that the programme-makers were "required to include an appropriate wide range of the significant views" but "failed to do this."[4] Channel 4 was required to broadcast a summary of the Ofcom ruling but was given no further sanctions.

General responses

Robert Watson, a former chair of the IPCC, also welcomed Ofcom's ruling that the film had committed a number of breaches of the broadcasting code but expressed disappointment "that Ofcom did not find that the programme materially misled the audience as to cause harm or offence." He characterised the film as inaccurate, not impartial, unbalanced and misrepresentative of the scientific consensus on climate change.[68] Another former IPCC chair, Sir John Houghton, likewise commented that "it's very disappointing that Ofcom hasn't come up with a stronger statement about being misled." Bob Ward, the former head of media at the Royal Society, who played a major role in coordinating objections to the film, asserted that "the programme has been let off the hook on a highly questionable technicality", noting that although the ruling acknowledged that "Channel 4 had admitted errors in the graphs and data used in the programme", the regulator had nonetheless "...decided that this did not cause harm or offence to the audience."


Rajendra K. Pachauri, the former chair of the IPCC, welcomed the ruling as "a vindication of the credibility and standing of the IPCC and the manner in which we function, and [it] clearly brings out the distortion in whatever Channel 4 was trying to project."[21] The Royal Society's head, Lord Rees, issued a statement in response to the ruling, commenting: "TV companies occasionally commission programmes just to court controversy, but to misrepresent the evidence on an issue as important as global warming was surely irresponsible. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' was itself a swindle. The programme makers misrepresented the science, the views of some of the scientists featured in the programme and the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."[69]

Channel Four's response

The ruling was welcomed by Channel 4's Head of Documentaries, Hamish Mykura who commissioned the film stating the channel was "pleased" that Ofcom found the film did not "materially mislead the audience."[4]


When questioned by television industry e-zine C21 about Ofcom's finding against the channel[70] Mykura said:

While he said that he regretted that 'there were some breaches of the code' he said there was "a degree" to which he disagreed with the complaints they upheld:

Shortlisted in the Best Documentary category in the British television industry's 2008 Broadcast awards.

[71]

Best Documentary at the held in southern Italy.[10]

Io Isabella International Film Week

Jury's Special Mention for courageous contribution to the scientific dialogue and for the quality of cinematography in the 3rd International Science Film Festival Awards 2008 held in Athens.

[72]

 – Professor and Director, International Arctic Research Center

Syun-Ichi Akasofu

 – Head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (Misidentified in the film as Professor from the Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg. Ball left his faculty position in the Department of Geography in 1996; the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology.)

Tim Ball

 – Former Editor, New Scientist from 1962 to 1966

Nigel Calder

 – Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville and a Lead Author of Chapter 2 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (Credited in the film as 'a Lead Author, IPCC')

John Christy

 – Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Ian Clark

 – Weather Forecaster, Weather Action

Piers Corbyn

 – Author: Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death (2003)

Paul Driessen

 – Director, Danish National Space Center and Adjunct Professor, University of Copenhagen (who has since criticised the programme for fabricating data and not fully explaining his position on 20th century global warming).[73]

Eigil Friis-Christensen

 – Former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer

Nigel Lawson

 – Professor, Department of Meteorology, M.I.T.

Richard Lindzen

 – Research Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Patrick Michaels

 – Early member of Greenpeace and former president, Greenpeace Canada

Patrick Moore

 – Professor, Department of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, Paris

Paul Reiter

 – Professor, Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Nir Shaviv

 – Economist, Author, and CEO of The African Executive

James Shikwati

 – Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (Misidentified in the film as Former Director, U.S. National Weather Service. From 1962–64 he was Director of the National Weather Satellite Service)[74]

Frederick Singer

 – Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Roy Spencer

 – Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London

Philip Stott

 – Professor, Department of Oceanography, M.I.T. (who has since repudiated the programme)[75]

Carl Wunsch

 - He was professor of meteorology at Stockholm University from 1961 until his retirement in 1990.

Bert Bolin

The film includes appearances from the following individuals:

: An earlier controversial Channel 4 programme made by Martin Durkin, which was also critical of the environmental movement and was charged by the Independent Television Commission of the UK for misrepresenting and distorting the views of interviewees by selective editing

Against Nature

: A film that showcases Al Gore's presentation on global warming, arguing that humans are the primary cause of recent climate change

An Inconvenient Truth

: A documentary film that also denies climate change.

Cool It

: An earlier Channel 4 documentary broadcast on 12 August 1990, as part of the Equinox series, in which similar claims were made. Three of the people interviewed (Lindzen, Michaels and Spencer) were also interviewed in The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Greenhouse Conspiracy

The Denial Machine: A 2007 documentary "how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences". Many interviewees from The Great Global Warming Swindle appeared in—and were the subject of—this film.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Doomsday Called Off: A 2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation expose raising many of the same criticisms of anthropogenic global warming. It includes interviews with several sources of information used, but not interviewed, in The Great Global Warming Swindle (among whom are and Sallie Baliunas).

Willie Soon

NIWA General Manager

David Wratt

climate change sceptic and radio talkshow host

Leighton Smith

Willem De Lange—Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth & Ocean Sciences –

University of Waikato

Cindy Baxter—Greenpeace Climate change consultant

Martin Manning—Professor and Research Fellow in Climate Change at the , Climate Change Research Institute

Victoria University

Climate change denial

The Cloud Mystery

Global warming controversy

Climate change conspiracy theory

Not Evil Just Wrong

Politics of global warming

Booker, Christopher (2009). . Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd. ISBN 978-1-4411-1052-7.

The Real Global Warming Disaster

at IMDb

The Great Global Warming Swindle

WagTV

The Great Global Warming Swindle