Swindled?
Whoopsy, seems the much touted “Great Global Warming Swindle” is being exposed as, well, a swindle as yet another scientist expresses their dismay at being misrepresented, and a group of them try to get the DVD distribution blocked.
This is the same doco that was shown against a clip from An Inconvenient Truth on Campbell Live on April 10th. Check it out, as the subsequent debate between Jeanette and Bryan Leyland (of Climate Science Coalition fame) is pure poetry.
Without getting into the many, many, heated arguments about the science (or lack of), frog was interested to note that the director, a Mr Durkin, has a rather interesting filmography, including this little beauty.
Bookmark to:
May 10th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“Great Global Warming Swindle� exposed as a plot by an obscure and cranky sect! Sounds Familiar, Maybe this will add justification to the argument for a sect-tax?
May 11th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
There are a whole lot of ‘experts’ backed up by certain lobby groups such as the Business Round Table who are just trying to bury their heads in the sand!
David Suzuk’s research in the 90’s was denied by Augey the other day on the National radio.
If a scientist can accurately predict the melting of the ice shelf can they be wrong? If they can also accurately measure the carbon emissions since the industrial revolution, can they be wrong?
Big Business and the environment are on a very sharp collision course and some people are still in deniel.
One day the shit is going to really hit the fan!!!!!!!!!
May 11th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Re: Channel 4 and the “Swindle”..
There’s word on the Net of the channel not being a particularly good earner on Lew Grade’s ‘improved performance’ criteria for the whole organisation..
To get by it could be doing paidfors, which would explain why it risks reputation on the “Swindle” showing.. a case of needing the dough and jobs more than..
And biz and its political affiliates do have plenty of dough..
May 11th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Such pious public appeals for the truth (I’ll overlook your attempted smear tactics) would be a little more convincing if you showed the slightest sign of holding warming theory proponents to anything like the same standard.
For example, despite its well documented errors, which are so serious that they render his argument utterly worthless (for example, the historical correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2, which is actually the *reverse* of what he suggests), Al Gore’s piece of propaganda is given a free pass by the theory’s supporters.
Why no post here documenting the gross errors in *that* film? I suspect it’s because you realise that if you took out all the misinformation there would be very little left apart from the opening and closing credits.
Or how about a post here documenting the scandal that is the Hockeystick chart; perhaps the most famous piece of evidence in the global warmer’s arsenal and yet provably a completely worthless fraud.
Why the double standard and distasteful hypocrisy?
The producer of Swindle has agreed that one or two claims made in the film are, in fact, incorrect and that they will be corrected for the DVD release. What more do you want him to do? The essential thrust of the evidence and argument remains. Contrast his response to,say, the shameful display by Michael Mann and the whole realclimate accolytes when the Hockeystick was being exposed for the sham it is. Nothing short of a disgrace.
It is a fact that Swindle is by far the most scientifically accurate of the two films. It is a well produced and compelling piece which looks at the multi-billion dollar global warming alarmist industry (and those who seek political power by exploiting it) in a way that hasn’t been seen before on the politically correct mainstream media.
No wonder all those on the global warming gravy train are alarmed by its impact. They might find themselves faced with a general public that is a bit more willing to subject their ludicrous claims to a sceptical analysis which is has never had to face before. The Green party might just reap the whirlwind for its cynical alarmism.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
These guys are seriously scary.
BB where are you? You should check these characters out man - they’d probably be your worst nightmare. Except that they are helpfully promoting climate scepticism and attacking environmentalists as scaremongers. But read on for the whole gory truth …
The sect behind the C4 Great Climate Swindle programme (and the earlier attach on Environmentalists titled “Against Nature”" that is discussed by George Monbiot on the “beauty” link above) are a bunch of seriously disgruntled Marxists - who have some great analysis of why Stalinism failed when the Soviet Bloc collapsed but Communism did not.
Good intellectual rigour around that and bucketloads of conviction and passion - but a bloody scary crew none the less.
Their core argumemt is the same as Thatcher’s apologia for Monetarism. It didn’t fail because it was never really tried. The name of this group is the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP).
They argue that Marxist communism was never given a chance to succeed because it was hijacked by that despotic megalomaniac Stalin - which is a position that can be fairly strongly argued - at least on my understanding of the historical events of the time.
However, their analysis leads them to the conclusion that true believers in Marxism should do all in their power to bring about a revolution - a necessarily bloody one of course because the “capitalists” and the “petty bourgeois” will not let go of their wealth and power willingly. Doesn’t quite explain the Gates Foundation but they’ve largely got a point - why would they?
Eat the Rich could easily be the RCP mating cry.
This logic then leads them to the conclusion that the only way to effectively promulgate revolution of this ferocity and intensity is to focus all the “forces of opposition to unfettered capitalism” (don’t you just love that language) to a single point.
You got there ahead of me I bet. Yep, the single point is, of course, the RCP.
This clearly necessitates undermining and ultimately destroying any and all other forces for progressive or even radical change. These are clearly simply abherent “reformist” strategies that will just prolong the life of the evil capitalist system. BTW “Reformism” is their pet hate - it’s seen as toxic to true revolutionary fervour.
So that all fits with Monbiot’s piece in the Guardian to this point. What isn’t discussed there, because George is probably not aware, is that the really scary thing about this cult is that it is very structured, rigorous, serious and committed and uses all the key lessons and techniques from religious indoctrination cults of the past 50 years to win over and influence the mindset and behaviour of their recruits.
Yep, they run recruiting campaigns. You can see them all over London on the weekends handing out their leaflets and seeking to engage people in discussion and debate, gain their interest and bring them back in to one of their pretty full-on positive reinforcement “discussion” groups.
Interestingly there’s not really a lot of room for discussion when they don’t countenance disagreement and debate - you get quickly sidelined or learn to shut up and keep your opinions to yourself - least you influence some of the other more “impressionable” members or attendees and disturb the indoctrination process.
It’s true indoctrination guys. Very disturbing.
How do I know any of this?
I was there.
Always was a curious little bloody bastard with revolutionary tendencies. I particularly liked the idea of going along to their meetings and conferences to check them out - particularly as a juxtaposition to the cosy job I had in one of London’s more famously righteous Government institutions.
Bloody interesting to look inside the belly of the beast though - seems to be a habit of mine on a lot of levels. Wonder if I can get a seat around the Business Roundtable next?
May 13th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Mouldwarp Inhe first 30 seconds I saw 1 outright lie and one misrepresentation of the truth. I don’t have the cap, the time or the patience to watch garbage * and given what Kiwinuke just allowed me to see of the underbelly of that beast I am not inclined to bother any further.
You know that if you peddle your merchandise here you get answers. Not answers YOU like but answers we understand better than we understand you.
BJ
* “Non v’ maggior ladro d’un cattivo libro.” which is an Italian proverb… “There is no thief like a bad book” -and in the Russian my wife offers this - “As foolish as this book is, I am more a fool to read it” - which is a lot funnier in Russian.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
kiwinuke says:
“Bloody interesting to look inside the belly of the beast though - seems to be a habit of mine on a lot of levels. Wonder if I can get a seat around the Business Roundtable next?”
Go for it! You’d have an interested audience for your experiences there.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Funny this should come up now, I’ve had a couple of marxists have a poke at my politics lately. Otherwise they’ve been handy co-agitators at various affinity organised actions, but the separatist mud has been flung about a bit recently.
I’m just waiting for a stirring round of “you’re Trot’s” , “well you’re mahkovists”, etc, to sully the infighting, which has seemed to occur every 4 years or so.
Don’t think the sideshow of marxists having a go is about to derail anything much this year, anyway.
But the facists, on the other hand…now that Redwatch has been blocked in NZ, they’re getting mighty tetchy that they can’t express their homegrown misogynist, racist ignorance to the nation. They’ll be as bad as DPF soon, commenting and trolling on other journalists’ blogs.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Ad-hominem attacks, and praise for an attempt to censor film through the courts? Such actions undermine the strength of any arguments you have. Why not argue the facts in the marketplace of ideas, rather than attacking the director and attempting to silence him?
And anyway, playing the ad-hominem game is dangerous when your lead media spokescritter, Al Gore, is a raving fundy and a lying hypocrite
May 15th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Drakula Says:
May 11th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
There are a whole lot of ‘experts’ backed up by certain lobby groups such as the Business Round Table who are just trying to bury their heads in the sand!
=====
I don’t think we can blame all the denying on lobby groups and funding. There are many highly intelligent people who believe in creationism (for example). We can’t assume that when faced with, what we consider sufficient evidence, people will change their views. A lot of people aren’t (perhaps) aware of the assumptions/ wieghtings underlying their beliefs. A critical thinking > argument mapping type approach is the way forward I think.
jh
May 15th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Duncan, I presume you are referring to frogs post when you say ad hominem attacks and censorship. But where are they in frogs post? I can see nothing.
frog is not praising the court action, merely reporting on it. The only thing that frog praises in the post is the debate between Jeanette and Bryan Leyland.
and where is the ad hominem attack? Pointing out that the previous filmography of the director is characterised by similar duplicitous documentaries? That’s hardly an ad hominem attack.
Perhaps you read in frog’s words what you want to read and not what is really there.
May 15th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Stuey,
Frog said: frog was interested to note that the director, a Mr Durkin, has a rather interesting filmography,
Why did frog raise that point, if not to attempt to disparage the accuracy of the movie based on the director’s past history (i.e. the fact that Frog claims he’s a lying commie loon)? Perhaps I’m being too sensitive, but that came over to me as an attack on the facts expressed within the movie due to the politics of the director - and therefore an implied ad-hominem attack.
You said: Pointing out that the previous filmography of the director is characterised by similar duplicitous documentaries? That’s hardly an ad hominem attack.
That is the very definition of an ad-hominem attack - Frog is attacking the movie by attacking the director.
… the much touted “Great Global Warming Swindle”? is being exposed as … a swindle as … a group of [scientists] try to get the DVD distribution blocked.
That’s how I read the paragraph: that frog was claiming the movie is bunk, because a bunch of scientists are attempting to have it censored. Personally, I’d have expected to see the Greens decrying attempts to ban dissent, instead of citing those attempts as evidence of the strength of their argument re. AGW.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
The science on climate change is so complex that all of us, even scientists in other fields, have to, to some extent, rely on the argument from authority. I would be the first to decry those relying on second hand data when first is available, but unless we are all willing to get degrees in atmospheric physics, most of us will have to rely on the authority of experts.
In that case there is nothing wrong with establishing whether the authorities are credible, and this is what frog is doing by establishing the film makers’ filmography. The fact that Al Gore is a hypocrite (if true) does not make him wrong. The fact that a film maker has been caught out deceiving the public in the past does increase the probability that he will do the same thing again, so it is justifiable criticism.
May 15th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
When we have free speech why is there talk of banning a DVD about climate? What do the scientests have to fear? Being mis represented?
Then surely a strong rebutal is in order, not censorship?
Surely we are entitled to hear both sides of an argument and make up our own minds?
Or dont we live in a democracy anymore?
If you think it is a swindle, refute the evidence point by point. So we can all make up our own minds.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Gerrit, Duncan…
The Scientists in question are scientists who’s viewpoints the “director” misrepresented in his film and THEY are suing him to stop him from misrepresenting their positions. They have a perfect right to do so as you very well understand, and I think you both need to get a grip here.
He would not be in this position if he did not play very fast and loose with the interview process.
I watched for no more than 30 seconds and in that time caught out a lie and a misrepresentation, and both almost before the intro finished. That film is long enough and I will not waste my time or my download cap watching it to refute it point by aching point PARTICULARLY when I know the arguments of each of the scientists IN it and have argued those positions out for the last 2 or 3 years now, ad-nauseum.
You pick any argument made in that film and I will hand it back to you with holes or explanations of why it is not even relevant.
I won’t say AGW is a locked in absolute fact, it is still a theory, but it is not thus far, refuted nor seriously questionable except in terms of unbelievable levels of coincidence.
However, this is not the issue. The issue is that this —— took hours of detailed interviews with the scientists in question, cherry picked a couple of statements and used those statements out of context to misrepresent the scientists positions with respect to their own science. Those scientists are p!ssed off.
You would be too. I know I would be if it were MY professional reputation being flung carelessly about.
respectfully
BJ
May 16th, 2007 at 6:31 am
BJ,
My argument is not with the content of the DVD but my right to see it. Once I have seen it I may well come to the same conclusion as you however by banning it I have only your word for it that it is bad.
Would prefer to make up my own mind. That is why the scientest must not get it banned even for their own sakes.
Builds a level of “what have you to hide” mistrust.
Take the creator and publisher to court for misrepresentation sure, but banning is counter productive, an insult to my free speech rights and an affront to my ability to make up my own mind.
Sensorship is the first stop on a road to dictatorial power, something I think you and I would agree on must never happen.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Gerrit
I DO Understand… however, the Scientists who’s reputations and views are being misrepresented have an affirmative right to sue this guy AND prevent further publication.
The original publication did in fact occur and the ( I am not sure which legal term applies, I will use “slander” ) slander WAS published. I am pretty sure you can’t sue like this until there is publication. It is not prior censorship.
But I think there is no requirement to allow a slander to continue to be published if slander can be proven, and there is a requirement to cease further publication of the damaging falsehoods.
As far as the full content goes, having not seen it all I cannot comment. The fact that the first 30 seconds were already false did not give me much confidence even though some of the scientific arguments by some of those scientists are plausible (if improbable) alternatives to AGW theory. You can get those arguments by reading what those scientists have written and said about it. What this director gives us however, is not an accurate representation of their views. The scientists themselves are telling you this by their actions in court.
I don’t know if the scientists will even win in the court.
Me, I’d probably see to it that the guy became a bit accident prone…
Both the scientists involved can publish all the papers they wish telling people what their actual positions are. In scientific circles they may survive this, but the fact that their names were used in this to promote what they regard as false positions will of a certainty survive them if it is published even more broadly.
I don’t regard it as censorship if it is a matter of slander.
If the SOB could present straight arguments without dragging other people’s names into it like he did he can publish whatever he pleases. Then of course, he’d be like all the other half-baked lunatics who don’t KNOW anything and want everyone to know it.
The scientific arguments are something else though, and those get examined more carefully. The problem is that the presentation of alternative theories does not disprove a theory, they merely offer more for experimentation to challenge and disprove one of them… and one of them ultimately does go. The fact that AGW has been around a longish time, and has survived repeated challenges, indicates that it is a pretty good theory. Still theory, but a daunting thing now.
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/chefurka/chefurka051207.html
Especially in light of some of our other problems :0 !!
respectfully
BJ
May 16th, 2007 at 8:20 am
BJ,
“Me, I’d probably see to it that the guy became a bit accident prone… ”
Suggesting that you would take the law into their own hands if someone wronged you?
Mmmmmmm……….
Dont know how that goes in a democratic, free speech country.
Bit like sensorship, second road to dictatorship. Or mafia type control by the mobs.
Seriously, I can see your point BJ. Dont know if in a free society, unless you prove slander in court, there is much that can be done to prevent questionable material from raising the ire.
Except either refuting or totally ignoring it.
If I were a scientist misquoted in the DVD would simply say “I was misrepresented and quoted out of context” No more no less.
What they are doing is fuelling the fire.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Me, I’d probably see to it that the guy became a bit accident prone
Nice. Were you at the anti-GE rally in Auckland a few years back? The only time I’ve ever been assaulted in public was by an anti-GE protester, and now I’m wondering whether it was you.
Anyhow, I agree that it’s entirely reasonable that the scientists who think they’ve been misrepresented be allowed to bring their case before court. But, last I heard, that was one or two out of the couple of hundred who were bringing suit. A very small minority may have been misrepresented; the vast majority are attempting to censor the movie.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Kiwinuke
It seems that everything I post is censored these days, actually I am not sure why I am even bothering to write this as it will never be posted and the propaganda Nazi’s at frogblog are not that keen on hearing a differing opinion.
frogmaster writes: well actually BB, all your posts are being flagged by our spam blocker Akismet, and not by our completely separate moderation blocker. As I have explained before we have no control over what Akismet flags, we only control the list of terms (these are mainly different swear words) in the moderation function.
I note that all of your “test” posts are being blocked by Akismet. I can only assume that you have managed to get your name listed as “spam” by Akismet, which truely is divine justice.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Interesting - I am not a saint, and I don’t pretend to be. I’m a New Yorker by birth and background and that’s a New York turn of phrase…
…but the affront stipulated is both serious and personal enough to have the offender hauled into court and damages assessed which would be less satisfying but more likely for me. So no Gerrit, I probably wouldn’t take the law into my own hands, I could use the money…. and while the temptation is definitely there I’d probably use that OTHER New York turn of phrase, to wit “see you in court”
They already said what you’d say, but THEY don’t have a film or a forum. THEY aren’t publishers. Consider the imbalance of power here…. that’s why the laws exist as they do.
Duncan, You can’t damage my professional or personal reputation by advocating something. You’d have to lie… and if it is just a bit of talk it isn’t a big deal. If someone publishes lies in a newspaper however, it becomes a horse that reflects a rather different wavelength of light.
Actually, my understanding was 2 out of 8 boffins, but I haven’t watched the film. He surely didn’t have a couple of hundred… he didn’t highlight any such number and couldn’t possibly take the time to interview that many at length. Wouldn’t work as a film anyway. Of course I don’t think you’d be able to find two hundred serious dissenters in the planet’s climate science community… but I haven’t counted. Might be more than 8.
respectfully
BJ
May 17th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Gerrit: “Or dont we live in a democracy anymore?”
so a court case taking place in another country, with a group of plantiffs none of whom are from NZ, taking a film production company from England to court.
How is this relevant to the state of NZ’s democracy?
May 17th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Stuey,
Speaking in world wide terms not just New Zealand. There are democracies further from home.
Lighten up.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
hmm, you’re the one taking a single court case by people who don’t want to be misrepresented as proof of totalitarianism and the fall of democracy, I think maybe it is you who need to lighten up.
If you are concerned about the erosion of democratic freedoms you should be more concerned about real laws passed in NZ that weaken our privacy and civil liberties and make us more into a police state:
http://www.greens.org.nz/campaigns/sis/#Features
June 6th, 2007 at 12:52 am
While attempting to find the GGWS or parts thereof on Youtube, I found a much more interesting link to a rebuttal. It lists some of the main misrepresentations, fallacies, and misleading implications utilised in the documentary quite nicely, although you have to put up with some rather choppy sound from the documentary excerpts.
Here it is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573&q=Scam+of +the+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle