In 2007 Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth met its match in a devastating documentary shown on British television station Channel 4.  The documentary was released at the beginning of March 2007 and two and a half months later had been viewed by millions of people on the internet.

“Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me,” wrote S. Fred Singer in 2007.  An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.

Dr. S. Fred Singer (1924–2020) was a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia. He was the author or editor of 14 books on climate science, energy, and environmental issues as well as the author of over 400 articles in scientific and public policy journals plus over 200 articles in popular publications

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

There is no proof global warming is caused by rising greenhouse gases

There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role of water vapour – and, in any case, water vapour is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming – what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations is the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Mediaeval Warm Period around 1100 A.D. when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is “unusual” by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.

We cannot control the natural causes of global warming

If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:

• Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
• Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
• Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
• Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere

Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!

A warmer climate does not equate to negative impacts

Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.

But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources on fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!

I imagine that in the not-too-distant future all the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them.

About the documentary

According to the group of leading scientists brought together by documentary maker Martin Durkin everything you’ve ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. Just as we’ve begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, Durkin’s documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, slays the whole premise of global warming.

“Global warming has become a story of huge political significance; environmental activists using scare tactics to further their cause; scientists adding credence to secure billions of dollars in research money; politicians after headlines and a media happy to play along. No one dares speak against it for risk of being unpopular, losing funds and jeopardising careers.”

The Great Global Warming Swindle caused controversy in the UK when it premiered on 8 March 2007 on Channel 4. The documentary argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made.

A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be “the biggest scam of modern times.” According to Durkin, the chief cause of climate change is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun.

Some have called The Great Global Warming Swindle the definitive retort to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Using a comprehensive range of evidence, it’s claimed that warming over the past 300 years represents a natural recovery from a ‘Little Ice Age’.

According to the documentary, humans do have an effect on climate but it’s infinitesimally small compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures this way and that. From melting glaciers and rising sea levels, The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the myths and exposes what may well prove to be the darkest chapter in the history of mankind.

Watch the full documentary below.

If the video is removed from YouTube you can watch it on Rumble HERE.

Main contributors to The Great Global Warming Swindle are:

1. Professor Tim Ball – Dept. of Climatology – University of Winnepeg, Canada
2. Professor Nir Shaviv – Institute of Physics – University of Jerusalem, Israel
3. Professor Ian Clark – Dept. of Earth Sciences – University of Ottawa, Canada
4. Dr. Piers Corbyn, Solar Physicist, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action, UK
5. Professor John Christy – Dept. of Atmospheric Science – University of Alabama, Huntsville – Lead Author, IPCC (NASA Medal – Exceptional Scientific Achievement)
6. Professor Philip Stott – Dept of Biogeography – University of London, UK
7. Al Gore – Former Presidental Candidate
8. Margaret Thatcher – Global-Warming Promoter
9. Professor Paul Reiter – IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris, France
10. Professor Richard Lindzen – IPCC & M.I.T.
11. Patrick Moore – Co-Founder – Greenpeace
12. Dr. Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader – NASA
13. Professor Patrick Michaels – Department of Environmental Sciences – University of Virginia, US
14. Nigel Calder – Former Editor – New Scientist
15. James Shikwati – Economist & Author
16. Lord Lawson of Blaby – Secretary of Energy – UK Parliament Investigator, UK
17. Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Director, International Arctic Research Centre
18. Professor Fredrick Singer – Former Director, US National Weather Service
19. Professor Carl Wunsch – Dept. of Oceanography – M.I.T., Harvard, University College, London, University of Cambridge, UK
20. Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Centre
21. Dr. Roy Spencer – NASA Weather Satellite Team Leader
22. Paul Driessen – Author: Green Power, Black Death