Fraser Drysdale Best suited for critical thinkers, i.e., those with open minds, seekers of truth and not selling out to make money by cheating the system.Saw this documentary about 4 years ago at a time when I believed man caused CO2 was causing earth's average temperature to rise. But I was so ill-informed at that time that I chose to believe what the main stream news medias were pushing! After nearly four years of closely investigating all aspect of this issue, I returned today to watch this documentary a 2nd time.Now is comes across as extremely obvious that we are being scammed. Dr. Judith Curry warned us a couple of years ago that this is a prime example of an "ERROR CASCADE"..... one in which all medias feed off each other's erroneous information further deceiving, not only the public but even themselves....This has happened in history before several times and sometimes with horrific results. The worst case seems to be the 3rd Reich taking control of the German mainstream news media in the 1930's influencing the entire German population and much of the 1st World to believe horrible lies that led to the death of millions.

J.T. Oordenaar Misreprisentations of facts, incorrect graphs, irrelevant correlations, bogus surveys... this documentary is an insult to climate science.Examples (source: Wikipedia):"Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, is featured in the Channel 4 version of the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.[7][30] He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two",[31] and he lodged a complaint with Ofcom. He particularly objected to how his interview material was used:In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening.""Eigil Friis-Christensen's research was used to support claims about the influence of solar activity on climate, both in the programme and Durkin's subsequent defense of it. Friis-Christensen, with environmental Research Fellow Nathan Rive, criticised the way the solar data were used:We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled 'Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years'. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming."volume 20 of the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society presented a critique by David Jones, Andrew Watkins, Karl Braganza and Michael Coughlan. The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science… Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views.""Thirty-seven British scientists signed a letter of complaint, saying that they "believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed"."If you're interested in Climate Change (we have reason to be interested in it), BBC 'climate crisis' series, Chasing Ice, and of course Al Gore's TED talks are recommended.

ChrisLStanton Wow, what a load of garbage. Almost everything is the "documentary" is wrong, grossly distorted or a downright lie. I suspect the makers, WAG TV were on a mission to see how much disinformation they could stuff into 74 minutes. Most of it is just opinions based on junk science found peddled about on conspiracy websites or rightwing bloggers. The programme makers even went as far as to cherry pick years to prove their case. For example, the section about solar irradiance/temperature, conveniently stopping the graph at 1980 because showing the rest would have blown their case out of the water.Or the theory with cosmic rays, based on a book by Svensmark. If the programme makers were serious, they could have drawn on numerous peer reviewed work on the subject, which conclusively shows late 20th century warming cannot be explained by cosmic rays.And if that isn't enough, the programme tries to make the science of climate change into some conspiracy to hamper African development? Huh? And the list goes on. That's why it's not a surprise this programme is the subject of many complaints from the scientific community of distortion, even from the contributors themselves.The only thing good about this "documentary" it is a prime example of disinformation. Students should use this case study to show how to distort facts and take science 'out of context'.

roygroombridge When will C4 update the viewers on the debate? So many eminent scientists etc., gave their support to the programme and it's message. How do they feel now? Do they still feel the same? Is there now more evidence to support the claim that GB is not caused by man made CO2 emissions, or to the contrary?? Personally I have not seen anything that convinces me that GB is man made. We appear to be experiencing one of the coldest winters for some years. I do remember 1957 and 1963, going to school where there were snow drifts 3 feet high. I also remember snow falling heavily on Christmas eve. Something we haven't seen for many years, but are the winters getting colder in the last few years. I also keep trying to get up to date data on the growth or recession of the polar ice caps, especially as the news seems to promote the view that they are shrinking. Unfortunately the data seems elusive.