Thursday, July 19, 2007

The Death of The Great Global Warming Swindle

For months, global warming skeptics have been touting The Great Global Warming Swindle as a balanced and fair counterpart to those calling for urgent action on the issue of climate change. In reality, The Swindle is a misleading, dishonest and ill-conceived work of propaganda that is chock full of paid industry mouth pieces while being anorexically thin on genuine evidence.

Nowhere was this better revealed than in a recent interview conducted by ABC Australia's Tony Jones with the Martin Durkin, the film's director. Durkin lurches, sputters and sweats his way through the 10 minute grilling as Jones lines up example after example of omissions and lies that he presented in his film.

For those on the sane side of the spectrum, you are excused from debating this movie with anyone who insists on citing The Swindle as 'evidence' after watching this clip.





Rest in peace GGWS.

See part one of the interview at DeSmogBlog.

8 comments:

Sue said...

Thanks, Odiyya. I teach an environmental sociology course, and was wondering how best to deal with inevitable student questions about the "issues" brought up in The Great Global Warming Swindle, which can be found on numerous blogs as well. This interview provides all the ammunition I need, and I might not otherwise run across it.

Anonymous said...

The same could be said for eco-facists like Al Gore.

The earth has been warming up for 15000 years. How can you be "against" global warming?

Your membership of "Blogpower" ought to be questioned.

Odiyya said...

I love watching someone step into a trap.....

The first and most obvious thing to point out is you're arguing just like durkin. While this video supplies evidence and information you do no better than an ad hominem attack.

Second, where did you get the idea of of being "against global warming". It's nowhere on this post. Perhaps you mean the title line from the blog "the fight against global warming"? I could have said "the fight against anthropogenic GW" but anyone informed on the issue knows that's what we're talking about.

Three, if you'd like to be informed on the issue read this.

And four, if you'd like to comment further, comment on the content of the post, avoid trolling comments like 'eco-fascist' (whatever that is), and thoroughly get up to speed on the issue by reading the hyperlink above.

That is unless you prefer schoolyard antics?

Unpremeditated said...

Great stuff - hadn't come across this interview before. Thanks for flagging it up

Odiyya said...

anyone else notice that durkin has kramer hair?

Odiyya said...

FreedomFighterXL - your comment has been deleted. When you follow the link I referred you to following your comment in Skeptics this Way please, you are more than welcome to post again, if you have new information to offer the debate.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that there seem to be no balanced arguments on this subject. The skeptics section you have is very biased and most people who watch the video will already have their opinions on Durkin. Both sides of this argument seem to be able to disprove the other side´s evidence so it is too early to decide whether global warming is right or wrong.

Odiyya said...

Anonymous, the reason why there is no balanced argument going on, is because there is no balanced argument to be had. Every single reputable, and i emphasize reputable, piece of evidence points conclusively and unwavering at the fact that global warming is occurring, it's man made, and it's a big problem.

The reason why the debate shapes up into a he says she says, however, is more disturbing. it starts with equally true fact that the media machine is deeply invested in feeding otherwise well informed people, especially americans, a raft of carefully manufactured and supported lies.

The best advice i've been able to give here is this - always look at the source. If you the person denying global warming is not a scientist, no a scientists specializing in a relevant field, or is being paid by the fossil fuel industry then it stands to reason you should be seriously questioning what they are saying, and the so called evidence they are bringing to the table.

In a perfect world, the media should be doing this themselves, but given their advertising revenue comes from the same people who are paying the skeptics, we'll need to do the best we can ourselves.