1

I was recently told about a movie on YouTube.com regarding global warming, but then I found a higher

quality version located on Google Video, which I downloaded and watched. The movie was a television

special from England on “Channel 4 UK” and was titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” At first I was

impressed by the quality of the production and the seemingly notable number of scientific experts, until I

arguments and seen these very names before. However, this television “documentary” had repackaged the

material in a manner that required me to use some critical reasoning skills to unravel.

If you watched the video and were convinced that global warming is a conspiracy, then you owe it to yourself

and to your children to read on. This document has references throughout it, so that you can verify what I

am stating. Take the 15 minutes or so to read this, and learn how the fossil fuel industry and those benefiting

What was not noted in the TV program is that switching to a renewable-energy economy will spawn tens of

millions of jobs worldwide, and will be of much greater benefit to the planet than the fossil fuel industry ever

has been. Additionally, switching to renewables will also bring about energy independence, creating national

energy stability for all the countries of the world. Finally, switching to renewables will curtail the problem of

global warming, and many other related problems.

Please know that I was not always an environmentalist - not even five years ago. I have always cared about

the environment as I’ve enjoyed hiking and camping since my late teens, but I was and still am for the most

part, a normal American 30-something man. However, I had an epiphany while reading Ross Gelbspan’s

book “The Boiling Point” and the awakening continued as I read more, using my critical reasoning skills to

intellectually debate what I was reading. The reality of our situation becomes clearer as you learn more.

First off, as I have stated publicly during my presentations on Global Warming, there are literally only a

above the natural cycles of warming seen for hundreds of thousands of years, and 2) with 90% certainty that

humans are the primary cause (“anthropogenic global warming”).

Please note that my presentations and my time as a Climate Change Presenter is completely volunteer time.

I am presenting this information, or to invite me to present to a group, please contact me directly.)

Well, the handful of anti-global-warming scientists has again found their arguments at the forefront of the

anti-global-warming debate, yet without any scientific studies or evidence on which to base their

study, submit it for inclusion in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.” Yet, to date they continue with the

anecdotal evidence and still have not submitted any studies of significance to any peer-reviewed journal.

I offer two sources, for reference sake, for the fact of a widespread consensus view among scientists

regarding global warming. The first source is a study regarding 10 years of published studies in peerreviewed

scientific journals, from 1993 to 2003. Various criteria were used for selecting the studies, but the

primary criterion is that the studies all dealt with the topic of global warming. Please follow the link below to

2

read the full article on this study. However, suffice it to say that out of the 928 published studies that met the

criteria spanning the past decade, 0% of the published studies dissented from the consensus view regarding

Assessment from February 2007. It is a fact that this report had over 2,500 Scientific Expert Reviewers

(scientific experts who reviewed the contributions from the authors for any inaccuracies or problems), over

800 Contributing Authors (scientific experts from diverse disciplines relevant to their contributions), 450 Lead

Authors (again, scientific experts from diverse disciplines relevant to their contributions), from over 130

that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming. However, if we are not the primary cause,

then it is asserted that we are certainly one of the major contributing causes. The term “anthropogenic global

warming” is now used in reference to global warming among many scientists, as 90% certainty makes it

extremely likely that humans are the primary cause. And there are many sources of information on this topic,

some of which I will list Internet-links to below.

The consensus view on the topic of global warming is vast, and spans many scientific disciplines including:

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The American Meteorological Society, The

American Geophysical Union, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, NASA's Goddard

Institute of Space Studies (which includes the nation’s leading climate modelers), and The National

Academies of Sciences of: The United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Russia,

Japan, China, India, Brazil, Belgium, Indonesia, Ireland, and Sweden. And the list goes on, as this is but a

short list.

Other scientific sites, related to this topic:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://www.globalwarming101.com/

http://www.climate.org/

One of the best sources of information regarding this topic, divided into short concise rebuttals for skeptics,

is on the environmental website the Gristmill. Please browse this excellent learning resource, which is based

As for non-scientific groups also getting onboard in the fight against global warming, there are a number of

groups including: Republicans for Environmental Protection, the Evangelical Climate Initiative, the US

Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Council of Churches of Christ, plus many more.

Even a number of CEOs from major corporations are now joining together to combat this global crisis,

including: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman

Brothers, and Pacific Gas & Electric. The CEOs of these corporations have all recently urged the US

government to become more proactive on this issue. Other major corporations have also been sounding the

3

alarm and letting it be known that switching to a renewable energy economy is good for profits, including

Wal-Mart.

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” television program reminds me of the book “The Politically Incorrect

Guide to Global Warming,” in that it is filled with information from individuals and groups known to have

direct ties to the fossil fuel industry. In fact, this book’s author, Chris Horner, is an attorney who has long

been on the payroll of ExxonMobil. Listed below are some of the main scientists used for this television

production, all of which were carefully hand selected as known opponents to the global warming theory

(except for one, who is now pondering a lawsuit for being included in the TV program due to his claim of

being lied to about what the documentary was attempting to do).

Tim Ball, retired professor at the University of Winnipeg's department of geography, magically turned into

"Professor Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg, Department of Climatology." First off, there is no department of

climatology at the University of Winnipeg. See here for a list of all the departments at the University of

Secondly, Tim Ball is listed as a paid "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization

called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). FOS has admitted, after being caught, that they receive a major

portion of their funding directly from the fossil fuel industry. Read more about this story at:

Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT was exposed by Ross Gelbspan, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, as being a

paid “consultant” for the fossil fuel industry. This is an unfortunate trend we see among many of the antiglobal-

warming scientists. In fact, Mr. Lindzen was paid $2,500 per day by the oil industry in the mid-1990’s

while he was a member of the previous IPCC, and his report 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of

Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC.

However, another MIT scientist was duped into appearing on this show. Dr. Carl Wunsch, professor of

physical oceanography at MIT says he was lied to about the TV program. Here’s an article from the

Guardian about his considering legal action due to his inclusion in the TV program under false pretenses:

A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into

appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl

Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to

take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat.

'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he

said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the

issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

4

Paul Reiter sits on the "Scientific and Economic Advisory Council" of an organization called the "Annapolis

Centre for Science-Based Public Policy." The Annapolis Centre is a US think tank that has received

$763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil and has been very active in playing down the human contribution to

global warming. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals Reiter has published over 30 pieces of

original research in peer-reviewed journals mainly on the subject of infectious disease, with some work on

the relationship between disease and climate change.

Paul Cooper is listed as an "Allied Expert" for the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP), a lobby

organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris

and Dr. Tim Ball (see above for information on Tim Ball). The NRSP also has ties to Canadian energy-sector

lobbyists. Copper is a Professor Emeritus at the Laurentian University Earth Sciences department. A search

of 22,000 academic journals shows his primary academic topic is palaeobiology.

On September 16, 2006, the Washington Post took an in-depth look at climate change skeptic Pat Michaels,

who is very outspoken in the TV program we’re discussing. There was a huge controversy regarding an

electric utility industry association memo pointing Michaels out as a scientist willing to sow public doubt for

the right price, which was apparently around $100,000 according to the memo. As per the Washington Post

article:

Michaels, a professor at the University of Virginia, also moonlights as one of the country's most

aggressive and, in some circles, most reviled skeptics about the scientific consensus on climate

change. It was that role that landed Michaels in the center of a small controversy in Richmond

last month, when the administration of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) asked him to be clear that he

is not speaking for the state when discussing issues such as global warming.

... [Michaels] position [on climate change] has earned him wrath from others in the climatechange

debate who say that Michaels -- especially when he is quoted as a state climatologist --

creates the false impression of another side to a closed debate. "He's sort of one of the central

figures in what I would call a disinformation campaign," said Eileen Claussen, president of the

Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/1128642041.html?dids=1128642041:11286420

41&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Sep+17%2C+2006&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post&ed

professor at the University of Virginia” in the Washington Post’s archives)

Nigel Calder is touted in the film as the former editor of "New Scientist" magazine. Well, this is true, but it

was back between 1956 and 1966. He’s not really been a viable member of the scientific community for

quite some time.

Dr. Frederick Singer also appears in the video, and from what we see along the way prior to this point, it is

no great surprise. This is the same guy who publicly challenged the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke

(along the lines that it isn’t dangerous), after receiving money from the tobacco industry in the early 1990’s.

Furthermore, he is affiliated with 11 think tanks and associations, all of which have received major funding

I do not want this section of this document to be misunderstood as an “ad hominem” attack. The above

information regarding the handful of scientists claiming that anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming

isn’t happening is meant as biographical background information, highlighting the fact that just about all of

the scientists in the TV program “The Great Global Warming Swindle” have direct ties to the fossil fuel

industry. Though we did not name all of them here, please feel free to research these scientists for yourself.

Furthermore, some of the claims made about these men are completely false, such as claiming that the

retired geography professor, Tim Ball, is a current professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg.

5

The science in this TV “documentary” is skewed at best and outright lies at worst. It is the same old

arguments that these same scientists have been bringing up for the past decade, only occasionally the

debate is somewhat repackaged to appear like there are new arguments. These arguments, for the most

part, are anecdotal – meaning that they are based upon the observations and beliefs of the speakers and

are not based upon any actual scientific studies. Even so, these arguments have been taken into

consideration by the IPCC and the other groups involved in studying global warming and climate change.

Furthermore, studies have been conducted and the results published, which debunk these arguments. Yet,

here we hear them all again, the same old anecdotal thoughts of a very small group of scientists. If they truly

desire to prove their points, and assist the scientific community in “seeing the light” and coming to the

conclusion that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is not occurring, then they should conduct and publish

several studies to prove their anecdotes.

Most disturbingly is that to the unknowing public their arguments seem like a big deal, like new arguments

rebutting the theory of anthropogenic global warming, when in reality these are the same old anecdotal

arguments used again and again. The fossil fuel industry stands to lose a lot of money and influence if they

don’t switch their business models to focus on renewables, which is exactly what British Petroleum and

Royal Dutch Shell are now in the early stages of doing. However, companies like ExxonMobil are not

moving in this direction, and thus they have been the key funding source for many of the anti-global-warming

groups.

This anti-global-warming debate seems itself to be much more conspiratorial than to believe that somehow

the environmental movement has gained control over all scientific associations, religious groups, leading

Below I will outline the science of the anti-global-warming arguments, showing how their anecdotes have

above starting on page 1, as this is a crucial component leading into this section on the science.)

Here are some of the anti-global-warming arguments, a good number of them as depicted in the TV show:

The Climate is Always Changing argument states that the climate has always changed. The argument asks

the question, “Why are we worried now, and why does it have to be humanity’s fault?”

Well, yes. The climate of the earth has always varied in the past, and for many different reasons. Some of

the reasons are better understood than other reasons, but the scientific community continues to advance

and to discover more, leading to a better understanding of past climate. However, the present-day climate

change is very well understood, and it is noted that it is not following the cycles of natural variability or

change. The argument’s premise that “something happened before without humans, thus humans cannot be

causing the change today” does not demonstrate that the change happening today is not being caused by

humans. This argument has a false premise.

6

According to scientific studies:

understood to be caused by changes in the orbit of the earth, though the mechanism behind the

response has not been conclusively established. These orbital cycles are regular and predictable

Such rapid warming is very rare in the geological record, and though such rapid warming is extremely rare it

has happened in the very distant past. The geological record shows us that when it happened in the past

due to a variety of reasons acting together at that time, the results were catastrophic for the biosphere – for

the earth and life on it at that time.

The difference with today’s warming is that we know for sure that human activities are a major contributing

factor to the rapidity of the warming, which is actually a good thing and a bad thing. It is bad, because we

are the cause. It is good also because we are the cause, and thus we can make a difference by changing

our planetary behaviors individually.

The Little Ice Age argument states that today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age.

The problem with this is that the argument relies on an implicit assumption that there is a particular climatic

baseline to which the earth always returns. The argument implies that every time the earth goes through a

“cold cycle” of some sort that it will inevitably return to the baseline and get warmer. However, what is the

scientific basis for this assumption?

There actually is no evidence of such a climatic baseline. The earth’s climate is influenced by many things,

which change or remain stable in their own ways. The current accepted scientific understanding of the Little

Ice Age (LIA) is that it was likely the result of a decrease in solar irradiance combined with an increase in

volcanic activity, which blocked additional sunlight. The LIA was also not the same for all areas around the

world, as it affected different regions at different times. We do know that solar output did increase somewhat

in the early 20th century, which did contribute to the warming at that time. However, it is agreed among the

scientific community that this is not the cause of the current global warming.

The Medieval Warming Period argument states that it was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period

(MWP) as it is today. They also state that Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England.

However, there is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally experienced warm period as the current

warm period is today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth, such as in

Europe, but every single global proxy reconstruction agrees that it is considerably warmer now. Additionally,

7

the temperature is rising much faster now as well, more so than at any other time in the last two thousand

years.

Anecdotal evidence of wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland do not amount to a global

assessment. In fact, on the NOAA website it is noted that there are a lot of proxy studies indicating that

temperature is much warmer globally now than during the MWP.

The NOAA website states:

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today,

however, has turned out to be incorrect.

As for grapes previously growing in England, let it be known that grapes are growing there right now and

information about the history of wine in Great Britain, as it relates to past and present climates, on this

The Holocene Climatic Optimum argument states that during the Holocene Period, some 6,000 years ago, it

was warmer than it is today and we know humans did not effect this warming. Well, this is something that

the scientific community has studied. Many hypotheses have been made, and the conclusions from such

have been put through the test of peer-review. The conclusion that has been accepted for some time now is

posted on the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) website, see the link below.

As per NOAA:

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but

only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of

The Global Cooling argument, as used so often by Chris Horner, is rather amusing. It is based upon a few

reports in the 1970’s, having some basis in a scientific hypothesis from the 1950’s. However, it never

received widespread consensus and never became a “theory” – rather it was only a potential hypothesis put

forth in the normal process of scientific discovery. It was disproved as a viable hypothesis and thus became

debunked and unaccepted by the scientific community. Though, due to the nature of sensational news

stories, which have been a plight and a joy for our modern culture, this hypothesis became written about in

the 1970’s.

Today, we see huge scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming (see Consensus View

starting on page 1), which is supported by the national academies of sciences of many countries, as well as

all the major scientific institutions. These scientific groups are all solidly behind the warning that the global

8

warming trend will continue to get worse until we dramatically reduce our fossil fuel emissions.

Also note that in the 1970s, there was a single book written on the topic of global cooling, as well as a few

news articles. However, there were no daily headlines, and no huge amount of scientific articles all stating

the same thing. In essence, there was not a consensus view in the scientific community regarding global

cooling. Quite simply, there really is no comparison to the theory and consensus view of global warming as

seen today.

The Water Vapor argument is a much more important argument, but what the anti-global-warming group

wants to point out is actually only a half truth, in that the most powerful greenhouse gas is water vapor. This

is true. However, this has little to do with our current warming dilemma, which relates to another greenhouse

all the water out of the air, it would immediately be replaced from the oceans due to evaporation. Though

climate.

warming effect will occur due to the increased humidity in the air. This is why global warming is seen

occurring at an exponential rate, increasing rapidly.

The “It’s Part of the Natural Cycle” argument states that the current warming is just part of a natural cycle.

To make this argument, the arguing party must show the forcing agent, the cause of the warming for the

current warming cycle.

According to the scientific data:

The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent

theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes

that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that

9

Is this graph a candidate for explaining today's warming? A naive reading of this cycle indicates

Not only is the direction of the change wrong, but compare the speed of those fluctuations to

today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the

sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of

So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified.

There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle

precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we're now witnessing.

In short the answer is: No.

Additionally, as I pointed out at a recent presentation when a professor of microbiology challenged the

never passed 300ppm (parts per million), whereas in just the past 100 years we have shot up to over

380ppm. Essentially this professor was challenging my reiteration of the consensus view regarding global

However, what is most frightening about our surpassing the natural cycles, is that we know that temperature

rises. For 650,000 years we have seen cycles of ice ages (glaciation) with warm periods following, and then

10

whereas currently we have exceeded this past warm period peak by over 25% as we are now at 383ppm

and rising. This 25% increase has occurred in just the past 100 years, and the global temperature is rising

much faster than ever before in the past 650,000 years, on the order of 10 times as fast.

the past several hundreds of thousands of years, then we would only see a peak of no more than 300ppm of

An interesting blog-type entry from NOAA’s Steve Albers, written in January 2006, regarding this topic can

The science in this TV “documentary” is based upon the rhetoric of the anti-global-warming group, and

simply just is not proven science. This group seems to have an agenda, to cause confusion and debate in

the public’s eye, so that the public does not come to grips with the severity and seriousness of global

warming and climate change. This same thing happened in the 1950’s and 60’s when advertisements

claimed that certain doctors endorsed certain cigarettes as “the better brand.” It is sad and frightening to see

this same old tactic being used today, but it is our reality.

warming and climate change, I encourage those reading to surf to the websites listed above under the

Consensus View section (i.e., the list halfway down page 2) and start reading up on the topic – start

learning. The global warming dilemma is primarily caused by us, our lifestyles, and most specifically in the

responsibility to stop polluting for the sake of the world and future generations.

I did not address every issue or concern in the TV program, but I did address the main ones. However, once

a person starts to study the data, especially the website for skeptics’ questions on the Gristmill site, or the

RealClimate.org website, or the Union of Concerned Scientists website, then you start to see that the antiglobal-

warming debate is not based upon science.

For a quick and concise read with references listed, browse to the Gristmill website at:

Climate Change Presenters include an expanded and revised presentation often including regional

information – thus some of the information shared with the audience is new information not seen in the