what is the thesis statement of the great global warming swindle brainly

• Mobile Site
• Staff Directory
• Advertise with Ars

Filter by topic

• Biz & IT
• Gaming & Culture

Front page layout

Science —

Investigating “the great global warming swindle”, in 2007, channel4 aired "the great global warming swindle", which claimed that ….

Ethan Gutmann - Apr 3, 2008 9:15 pm UTC

Climate change is a contentious issue among the public. One of the main arguments made by people who claim that climate change is not caused by humans states that recent global warming is a result of changes in solar activity. Indeed, a 2007 broadcast on Channel4 titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" tried to make exactly that case.

This case is based on the idea that changes in solar activity influence cloud formation, which influences the climate. The original concept dates back at least as far as a 1975 paper published by the American Meteorological Society, but it's recently been revived as an alternative explanation to the recent rise in global temperatures. This idea has been pushed by papers that Henrick Svensmark has published in the last decade.

The basic sun-climate argument centers on the impact that cosmic rays have on the earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays lead to ionization that, in turn, leads to an increase in highly reflective cloud cover, which lowers the average global temperature. Because increased solar activity causes a decrease in the number of cosmic rays that reach the earth, when solar activity increases, global temperatures increase and vice-versa. Numerous studies have been published on this relationship, some supporting it, others refuting it. The relationship between solar activity and cosmic ray intensity has been clearly documented, but the relationship between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover is widely debated.

To test the hypothesis that changes in cosmic rays due to solar activity are the cause of recent global warming, a paper published in the Institute of Physics' Environmental Research Letters compared cloud cover data with solar activity data for the past 22 years (two 11 year sunspot cycles). They find that fits for the entire 22 years are very poor, but fits for cycle 22 (1985-1996) suggest that solar activity explains greater than 30 percent of the variation in cloud cover. Of course, we all know that correlation does not imply causality, so they dug a little deeper.

To investigate whether the relationship during cycle 22 was causal, they looked at variations in the correlation with latitude. At higher latitudes, the earth's magnetic field deflects fewer cosmic rays than it does at low latitudes. Thus, if the correlation between solar activity and cloud cover is due to cosmic ray caused ionization, this correlation should be greater at higher latitudes.

The researchers found that there was almost no correlation between latitude and the correlation between cloud cover and solar activity. This suggests that, while there may be a relationship between solar activity and cloud cover during cycle 22, it is not due to cosmic rays.

The study also looks at two other tests of the cosmic ray hypothesis and found it lacking. Those that are interested are encouraged to read the entire paper (open access). At the moment the DOI link does not appear to be working, but the article is available .

Environmental Research Letters , 2008. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001

reader comments

Channel ars technica.

What is the thesis statement of the great global warming swindle?  

Insight from top 4 papers.

The thesis statement of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is that recent global warming is neither significant nor due to human activity. The documentary argues against the conventional scientific understanding of climate change and contends that modern climate scientists are either seriously misguided or guilty of lying to the community [1] . The paper by Vincent R. Gray examines the evidence presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and shows that none of it confirms a relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and harmful effects on the climate [2] . The article by Myke Bartlett discusses how the documentary carefully selects evidence and uses powerful imagery to present a contradictory stance on global warming [4] .

Source Papers (4)

Related Questions

Identifying potential thesis statement topics can significantly enhance the clarity and focus of academic research. A well-crafted thesis statement not only summarizes the main ideas but also guides the direction of the paper. Here are some possible topics based on the provided literature: ## Thesis Topics in Medical Procedures - Investigate the effectiveness of current methods for verifying gastric tube placement in clinical settings, addressing the risks of mispositioning. - Analyze the implications of inadequate documentation practices in medical procedures and their impact on patient outcomes. ## Thesis Topics in E-Governance - Explore the role of automated systems in improving documentation processes within governmental departments, focusing on the Lviv Regional Council. ## Thesis Topics in Historical Research - Examine the methodologies for selecting historical thesis topics and their influence on research interest and writing skills. While these topics provide a solid foundation, it is essential to consider the evolving nature of research interests and the potential for interdisciplinary approaches, which may yield innovative thesis statements.

Student dress codes and the allowance for cross-dressing uniforms is a topic that has evolved over time. Forty years ago, it was assumed that constitutional commitments to equality, autonomy, and free expression would preclude strict student dress restrictions . However, in recent years, there has been an increasing percentage of public school students required to wear uniforms or adhere to strict dress codes . The legal and cultural assumptions about student dress codes have shifted, with the majority now assuming that such restrictions pose few constitutional problems . The history of this evolution is a case study in how constitutional law interacts with politics and culture, and how cultural developments in parenting, schooling, policing, gender, and race relations can alter public and judicial perception of constitutional rights . The underlying constitutional case law is indeterminate, but it is argued that an approach that allows for more freedom of expression and autonomy better serves both children and constitutional values .

The best evidence in the Great Global Warming Swindle by S. Fred Singer is his argument that recent global warming is neither significant nor due to human activity. Singer presents an alternative view that challenges the conventional scientific understanding of climate change and argues against the idea that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause of global warming. He contends that climate scientists are either seriously misguided or guilty of lying to the community about the nature and causes of global warming . Singer's work with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is also highlighted, which challenges the contentions made in United Nations reports on climate change .

Climate change fraud is a topic of debate and controversy. Some argue that fossil fuel companies have misled the public about the causes and dangers of global warming, allowing them to continue extracting and selling fossil fuels . Others claim that climate change science itself is a scam, hoax, or fraud, dismissing the evidence and raising concerns about the erosion of science . Additionally, there are discussions about climate crimes, including fraud related to carbon offsets and efforts to mislead the public about the impacts and causes of climate change . It is argued that the failure of political will on climate change can be attributed to a public relations campaign that deceived the American public about the dangers of burning fossil fuels . Overall, the abstracts highlight differing perspectives on climate change fraud, with some emphasizing the actions of fossil fuel companies and others questioning the validity of climate change science.

A thesis is a scientific work that undergraduate students must produce as part of their academic education. It is an original work that is protected by copyright and holds all rights reserved . The thesis serves as a final requirement for obtaining a bachelor's degree and is typically written in fulfillment of various courses studied by the student . The process of creating a thesis involves stages such as analysis, design, and testing, and can be facilitated through the use of web-based online thesis systems . The thesis is considered both an author's administrative document and an original work, and therefore requires legal protection . It is important to note that the copyright and publication rights of a thesis belong solely to the author, and any publication of the thesis requires the author's permission .

Trending Questions

Heavy rainfall can significantly impact maize yields, leading to reductions that vary based on several factors, including timing and intensity of rainfall. Research indicates that maize is particularly sensitive to water stress during critical growth phases, such as flowering and grain filling. ## Yield Reductions Due to Heavy Rainfall - In a study from Central Illinois, it was projected that rainfed corn yields could decline by 23% to 34% by 2055 due to increased precipitation variability and water stress during key growth stages. - In South Africa, climate variability, including changes in rainfall patterns, poses a risk to maize yields, potentially exacerbating food insecurity in a region where maize is a staple crop. - A study in Southern Brazil found strong correlations between rainfall and maize yield, particularly during the reproductive period, indicating that excessive rainfall can disrupt yield formation. While heavy rainfall can lead to yield reductions, it is essential to consider adaptive measures, such as improved water management and crop varieties, to mitigate these impacts.

The comparison between electric vehicles (EVs) and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) reveals significant differences in performance, maintenance, and cost. While EVs are increasingly recognized for their environmental benefits, the economic implications and operational challenges also merit attention. ## Performance - Electric cars, such as the Nissan Leaf, demonstrate superior energy efficiency, consuming only 15-20 kWh per 100 km, compared to ICEVs, which suffer from substantial energy losses. - Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) can achieve ranges exceeding 600 km, while battery electric vehicles (BEVs) typically reach around 350 km. ## Maintenance - EVs generally incur lower maintenance costs due to fewer moving parts; however, battery failures remain a common issue. - ICEVs require more frequent servicing and repairs, contributing to higher long-term maintenance costs. ## Cost - Operating costs for EVs are significantly lower, averaging between Rs. 1.2 and Rs. 1.5 per km, compared to Rs. 10 to Rs. 15 for ICEVs. - Despite the higher initial purchase price of EVs, their total cost of ownership tends to be more favorable over time. In contrast, while EVs present clear advantages, challenges such as charging infrastructure and battery production impacts must be addressed to enhance their adoption and sustainability.

Targeted interventions can significantly enhance agricultural resilience in Cambodia by improving smallholder farmers' knowledge and practices, particularly in livestock management and climate adaptation. ## Knowledge and Training Interventions - Participatory training programs have shown to elevate farmers' understanding of cattle health, biosecurity, and nutrition, leading to improved productivity. In high-intervention villages, cattle productivity increased significantly, with average daily gains 2.4 times higher than in low-intervention areas. - Farmers adopting best practices reported substantial increases in household income, with 53% experiencing a 100% income boost. ## Climate Adaptation Strategies - Given Cambodia's vulnerability to climate change, targeted interventions must also focus on crop resilience. Utilizing climate data to identify optimal crop varieties and planting times can enhance yields under changing conditions. ## Governance and Resource Management - Effective governance of common-pool resources, such as forests and fisheries, is crucial. Community-based management strategies can bolster food security and sustainability, addressing the interconnected challenges of poverty and environmental degradation. While these interventions show promise, challenges remain, including the need for systemic governance reforms and broader public awareness to ensure sustainable agricultural practices across Cambodia.

Miller's preference for specific rice varieties significantly influences the local rice market in Bangladesh, shaping production practices, market dynamics, and consumer behavior. This preference is driven by factors such as profitability, climate adaptability, and consumer demand for quality. ## Impact on Production Practices - Adoption of high-yielding varieties (HYVs) is linked to profitability and risk management, with farmers often favoring varieties that maximize their returns under local conditions. - The choice of rice variety is also affected by climate resilience; traditional varieties (TVs) tend to perform better under changing climate conditions compared to HYVs. ## Market Dynamics - The demand for finer rice varieties is increasing, leading to a decline in coarse rice consumption. This shift reflects changing consumer preferences and a growing off-farm food sector. - Despite the rising quality premium, farmers do not significantly benefit from this market shift, as labor rewards remain similar across different rice varieties. In contrast, while Miller's preferences may drive market changes, they also highlight the challenges faced by farmers in adapting to these shifts, particularly regarding access to resources and knowledge for cultivating preferred varieties.

The South Korean government has implemented several strategies in recent years to combat air pollution, primarily focusing on transitioning from coal to cleaner energy sources. This shift is crucial given that coal-fired power generation accounts for about half of the country's electricity and significantly contributes to air pollutants like particulate matter (PM). ## Transition to Natural Gas - The government is promoting the substitution of coal with natural gas (NG)-based combined heat and power (CHP) systems, which emit considerably less PM. - Public willingness to pay for this transition is notable, with estimates indicating a significant preference for NG over coal, reflecting a societal push for cleaner energy. ## Health Benefits and Policy Support - Studies indicate that reducing coal use could prevent thousands of respiratory disease cases and premature deaths, highlighting the health benefits of cleaner air. - The government is also leveraging findings from environmental programs to inform policies that address both air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing public support for these initiatives. Despite these efforts, challenges remain in fully transitioning to renewable energy, as coal still plays a significant role in the energy mix. Balancing economic and environmental priorities will be essential for sustained progress.

Don't be swindled

Topic: Climate Change

The GGWS rejects that human activity is to blame for global warming. ( Claro Cortes : Reuters )

The Great Global Warming Swindle 'documentary' purports to prove that the warming we have experienced over the last century is, in fact, unrelated to the more than 300 billion tonnes of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases that we have released into the atmosphere since the furnaces of the industrial revolution were first lit. Instead, producer Martin Durkin points the finger squarely at natural changes in the sun.

On the face of it, GGWS appears convincing enough. It follows the style of many well-respected documentaries, with a faceless (and, by implication, objective) narrator, a cadre of well-credentialed experts, and considerable supporting evidence.

Yet in reality, GGWS is a deeply deceptive and propagandist portrayal of the science of global warming. This is not really surprising, when you consider that Durkin was previously reprimanded by the UK Independent Television Commission for using selective editing to misrepresent and distort the views of interviewees in his earlier anti-environmentalist documentary, Against Nature .

Indeed, the running time of the 72-minute original, screened in the UK in March this year, has since been pruned by Durkin to 52 minutes. Deletions include the blatant out-of-context quotes of Carl Wunsch (he threatened legal action after the UK screening), a removal of a slew of false statements (such as that volcanoes release far more CO2 than humans, when volcanoes actually release about 50 times less), and a number of distorted graphics, such as a manipulation of 20th century temperature rise. Alas, many others remain.

Amongst the selected contrarian 'experts' Durkin has rallied to his cause, there are Tim Ball and Patrick Michaels (who also happen to deny that CFCs cause damage to the ozone layer), and Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen (who, in earlier incarnations, had been active denialists of the link between passive smoking and lung cancer, despite neither having any medical expertise).

Investigative journalism has revealed that many of the interviewees who appear have received "research funds", in various guises, from the fossil fuel industry. Most are retired and have not published a scientific paper in years. Many have not published on climate change at all.

The GGWS program is riddled with errors and distortions, including howlers from 'climate scientist' Tim Ball who says the atmospheric content of CO2 is 0.054 per cent (it is 0.038 per cent - someone who purports to understand the atmosphere should get this basic fact right!) and Fred Singer mis-attributing a statement made by environmentalist James Lovelock to the UK Chief Scientist, Sir David King.

Durkin never states that the mythical charts, which apparently show a medieval warm period and Holocene climatic optimum that were warmer than the present day, come from doctored diagrams produced by a German school teacher, EG Beck (see www.realclimate.org). Moreover, the substantial planetary warming of the last three decades (inconvenient to the filmmaker's message) was mysteriously lopped off the end of this chart! This list of inaccuracies and misrepresentations goes on (and on), and has been detailed by numerous scientific and media outlets.

Most strikingly, it is not mentioned in the GGWS that total solar irradiance - the factor claimed to be responsible for global warming - has actually weakened over the last 30 years, and that many of the historical correlations presented have been shown to fabricated. This decline in the sun's output has occurred at the same time as an unprecedented spike in global temperature (which again, is not plotted).

In fact, essentially all the 'contradictory science' Durkin presents, such as that the upper atmosphere is not warming, has been debunked by later research. John Christy, the scientist and interviewee on whose work this latter claim is based, seems to have forgotten that he had written in a US Climate Change Science Program report: "This significant discrepancy [between lower and upper atmosphere warming] no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde [weather balloon instrument] data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies".

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, has previously rebuked the arguments of political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, contained in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist , for 'selective inattention to inconvenient literature and overemphasis of work that supports his lopsided views'. This is indeed an apt description of the GGWS .

It is remarkable that for each apparent 'inconsistency' presented in the program, the well-known alternative (and evidence-based) scientific explanation is never offered. For instance, the cooling from the mid-1940s to the late 1970s in the northern hemisphere is attributable mostly to global dimming (primarily sulphur pollution from post-war industry, prior to implementation of clean air acts).

The 800-year lag between the beginnings of temperature increase and CO2 rise in the polar ice record is because the initial warming that provoked the end of the ice ages was caused by changes in the Earth's alignment and orbit around the sun; not anthropogenic CO2. But it was an eventual increase in CO2, subsequently released by the oceans and biosphere as a feedback after they had begun to warm, that caused much more substantial global heating, and an eventual sea level rise of 120 metres.

Let me conclude by emphasising that the 'expert views' presented in the GGWS in reality represent the opinion of far fewer than 1 per cent of researchers engaged worldwide into research on the causes and consequences of global warming.

It is therefore staggering that such minority views are given such air time by the ABC, and moreover, that they are trumped with such gusto by special interest groups (such as the "Lavoisier group", who were represented on the follow-up panel of debaters) as providing 'the answer to the lies and conspiracy'. One must wonder, what's next on the ABC's agenda? Perhaps it is a documentary on the reality of a 6000-year-old flat Earth, orbited by the sun and other planets, and resting on the shell of a giant turtle?

Professor Barry Brook is the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the University of Adelaide and director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability.

"The Great Global Warming Swindle": a critique

• January 2007

• Bureau of Meteorology

• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Aldo Aoyaqui Gomes Pereira

• Vladimir Tikunov

• Irma Cristina Espitia Moreno

• Jose Maria Merigo

• Brett W. Parris
• Peter Ferguson
• Energ Environ

• Sallie L. Baliunas
• Arthur B. Robinson
• Zachary W. Robinson
• Henrik Svensmark

• A. Kattenberg
• Urs Siegenthaler

• Eric Monnin

• John T. Houghton
• G.J. Jenkins
• J.J. Ephraums
• JT Houghton
• C. A. Johnson
• J Atmos Terr Phys
• Paul E. Damon

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Get involved
• News and stories

Swindles in the “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

The author of today’s post, Lisa Moore , is a scientist in the Climate and Air Program.

In March of this year, British TV Channel 4 aired a 72-minute diatribe called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". The program is filled with old data, data taken out of context, data misattributed, and general misinformation, and at the time it aired we thought it not worth responding to.

But people keep mentioning it, so here are the program’s main arguments and why they’re wrong. Now the next time someone brings this up, you’ll have the facts to give them.

Swindle: Ice core data shows that higher CO 2 concentrations follow, rather than precede, temperature increases, therefore higher CO 2 concentrations don’t cause higher temperatures.

The Truth: The ice core observation is correct, but it doesn’t mean higher CO 2 concentrations don’t cause higher temperatures. It just means that other things can cause warming, too.

Human impact on climate change has been statistically discernable for only the last 50 years. Prior to that, change was initiated by natural factors such as variations in solar energy output. But this warming then caused the release of CO 2 into the atmosphere, leading to more global warming. What the ice core data actually show is an amplification effect. Warming (however triggered) leads to the release of CO 2 , which causes more warming. (For more, see Bill’s previous post on " Causes of Past Climate Change ".)

Swindle: Sun spots show a near-perfect correlation with temperature over the last 400 years – the more sun spots the higher the temperature. This is because sun spots cause solar wind, solar wind prevents cosmic rays from reaching the earth, fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds, and fewer clouds mean more heat. This accounts for all climate change.

The Truth: Sun spots are a proxy for solar energy output, which is also influenced by solar flares and other phenomena. Solar energy output does affect global temperature, and it made a clear contribution to global warming until 50 years ago. But the temperature spike in the last 50 years cannot be explained by a change in solar energy output.

As you can see in the graph below, solar output has not been trending upward since 1978.

Source: Foukal et al. 2006. Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate. Nature 443: 161-166.

Neither have cosmic rays, but temperature is spiking.

Sources: temperature data , cosmic ray counts .

Swindle: From 1900 to 1940, temperatures rose though CO 2 from industry was low. From 1940 to 1975, temperatures fell though CO 2 from industry was high. Therefore CO 2 does not drive temperature.

The Truth: CO 2 concentration is not the only factor influencing global temperature change, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a factor. Rising CO 2 concentrations from human activity have been detectably driving up global temperature for just the last 50 years. From 1900 to 1940, increased solar energy output accounted for higher temperatures. Temperatures fell from 1940 to 1975 because air pollution was dimming the sun . After the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, warming resumed.

Swindle: Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, and the effect of CO 2 is insignificant by comparison.

The Truth: Yes, water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but that doesn’t mean that the effect of CO 2 isn’t critical. When temperatures increase due to higher CO 2 concentrations, the atmosphere becomes more humid, thus amplifying the global warming effect. (For more, see Bill’s previous post on " The Water Vapor Fallacy ".)

Swindle: If greenhouse gases cause global warming, models say that the troposphere (lower atmosphere) should be warmer than the earth’s surface, but it isn’t.

The Truth: The troposphere is, in fact, warmer than the surface. A U.S. government commissioned study , released in 2006, showed there were errors in earlier measurements. (Amusingly, one of the study’s authors is John Christy, a scientist who is heavily quoted in the TV show.)

Swindle: CO 2 concentrations in the past have been 3 to 10 times higher than what they are today, but this is not reflected in the "temperature reconstruction". Therefore CO 2 does not cause global warming.

The Truth: CO 2 concentrations are higher today than they’ve been in the last 650,000 years . And as noted elsewhere in the TV program, CO 2 concentration is strongly associated with global temperature.

Swindle: Global warming will lead to prosperity, not catastrophe. This is demonstrated by the Medieval Warm Period, which was a very prosperous time.

The Truth: The so-called Medieval Warm Period was (1) not as warm as today, and (2) a local rather than global phenomenon. For more, see Bill’s previous post on the Medieval Warm Period .

Swindle: Storms and hurricanes are caused by the difference in temperature between the tropics and the poles, and with global warming this difference is less. Therefore global warming does not cause more intense storms and hurricanes.

The Truth: It’s true that the temperature difference between the tropics and poles is less with global warming, but it’s not true that this differential is what drives storm intensity. The factor that best predicts storm intensity is sea surface temperature – the warmer the seas, the stronger the storms. And there is no doubt that global warming is causing a rise in sea surface temperatures.

Related Posts

• WEF Meeting: Report from Davos
• Rise of Atmospheric Carbon is Accelerating
• Can the U.S. Compete with China? Fred Krupp Says “Yes”

I think you’ve misrepresented the arguments somewhat – for instance, they don’t make claims such as ‘higher CO2 concentrations don’t cause higher temperatures’ and ‘CO2 does not drive temperature’, they claim that CO2 is not the primary driver of temperature.

I have a problem with the idea that the ice core data shows an amplification or positive feedback effect due to CO2. I understand that as a GHG CO2 will contribute to temperatures at least a little in this way but I know of no reason why the vast majority of the warming and CO2 release cannot be caused by the same thing that triggered it. Also, what is the explanation for the periods in which temperature decreases while CO2 is still increasing?

I also have a problem with what you’ve said about sunspots. My understanding is that sunspots correspond to the solar magnetic field strength rather than solar energy output and it is the magnetic field that affects the solar wind and cosmic rays. The sun’s level of magnetic activity has been increasing over the past 100 years – this results in fewer clouds and an increasingly greater amount of the (approximately constant) solar energy output reaching Earth’s surface.

The cosmic ray count data shows a slight decrease in counts over time. This is what is expected for a solar magnetic contribution to global warming.

Hi vk279. Thanks for your comments.

Re the amplification effect… The issue is that the orbital change – and resulting variation in solar energy output – is not enough to account for the large temperature fluctuations. The amount of warming this can produce is easily calculated – there’s no dispute about this. Something else has to be going on. It turns out that this “something” is an amplification effect from the release of CO2 from the initial warming. The TV show itself talked about how warming leads to the release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources. That’s not in dispute, either.

Re your second point… Sunspots are one of the main causes of the variability we see in solar irradiance (energy), which has increased slightly since 1750, but not nearly enough to explain today’s rapid global warming. As shown above, irradiance has been flat over the past three decades. But let’s say that sun spots are related to warming through their magnetic field strength. For the “Swindle” theory to be correct, you’d need to see a decrease in cosmic rays. But look at the graph – it’s not there. The cosmic ray trend is flat, while global temperatures are spiking upward.

You can dig into all the details in the IPCC report . Chapter 6, Section 6.4 (pg. 444) covers glacial-interglacial cycles and CO2. Chapter 2, Section 2.7 (pg. 188) covers solar variability. RealClimate also has good posts here and here .

It seems to me that those who still discount the scientific fact of global warming have a tendency to try to reduce this to a binary problem. But this is not a true/false question.

CO2 is not THE cause of global warming. It is A cause… one factor in the complicated system that is our atmosphere.

It just so happens that atmospheric CO2 is largely a byproduct of our own activities. That means we can change our behavior and reduce CO2 output. That one change, which we have control over unlike most of the other variables, may be enough to avoid disaster.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Off topic, but… The Economist had a great chart recently showing US gasoline consumption stacked up against every other industrialized nation in the world. We use more than all of them combined. This is our issue to take leadership on. If the US takes commits to action, the world will follow. Most of Europe is already on board.

Look at the recent furor over Chinese food safety. If China’s, India’s, et al, “customers” demand change they won’t have a choice.

I appreciate the feedback on this.

On CO2 amplification: I assume the orbital changes you referred to are the ~100ka and longer Milankovitch cycles. There are apparently many problems with this model ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycles#Problems ) yet it seems to be uncritically accepted at RealClimate and by the IPCC. I don’t see how it can be valid to attribute most of the warming observed in glacial/interglacial transitions to CO2 when it seems so unlikely that the trigger has been properly understood.

On the Sun: There is evidence for the Sun’s activity increasing and cosmic ray flux decreasing (from proxies) to 1960. As you wrote in your third point, air pollution is believed to have caused cooling from 1940-1975. With pollution levels decreasing after 1975 it seems reasonable to expect to see temperatures return to 1940 levels and then continue to increase by an amount corresponding to the ‘masked’ solar activity increase from 1940 to 1960, despite there being no apparent trend in solar activity since 1960. Is this expectation realistic and if so is it accounted for in models?

There seems to be an assumption at RC, in the IPCC report and elsewhere that the lack of a recent trend in solar activity implies warming in this time period cannot be solar in origin (i.e. that the above process and any similar lagged solar influences are unrealistic) and much of the warming is thus (perhaps incorrectly) attributed to CO2. I know there will be some contribution to temperature changes in this period from CO2 and other sources – it is the magnitude of the contributions, that I question.

Brian, two things:

First, most skeptics understand that global climate is a “complicated system” as you say, and that’s precisely why we aren’t ready to accept “An Inconvenient Truth” as absolute truth. We recognize — in the spirit of scientific questioning — that there might be undiscovered explanations and we are therefor not willing to make the radical changes the true believers demand.

Second, be cautious about the country comparison charts. While it may be true that the U.S. uses more gasoline than Europe or Japan, what these comparisons FAIL to tell you is that the other countries use MASSIVE amounts of nuclear power. The U.S. has decided to limit use of nuclear power for a number of reasons. If we were to start building more plants, then you’d see the comparisons level off…. but you’d also see the environmentalists complain about use of nuclear fuel.

Additionally, the other factor is economic output. Sure we use more oil than France, but we also have a robust economy that allows for a high standard of living. France — where the people were protesting in the streets during the last presidential election because they didn’t want to work more than a 30-hour-a-week schedule — has an economy that is LESS THAN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA! It’s true: California is the 5th largest economy in the world and regularly rivals France.

Bottom line: We could slow down our economy, work less, do less, and ultimately use less oil. But the United States just isn’t that kind of a country. And for that reason country-to-country comparisons are quite misleading.

Hi J.D. Your comment makes two assumptions:

1. …that the changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would damage the U.S. economy. 2. …that there is no cost to inaction.

Both of these assumptions are incorrect.

Studies show that the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of taking action. Here are links to two posts that explain why in detail:

Green Technologies We Can Do It, and at Moderate Cost

It’s not hard to see that Wall Street under water will have a serious economic impact!

First Swindle: Wait . . . so solar energy caused a warming trend, and the warmth caused a large output of CO2, right? So . . . how does the CO2 output cause more warming? Second Swindle: I actually agree with you on this one! The sun is a significant factor, there are several other earth based factors (what they are, however, we disagree on.) Third Swindle: Once again, sun dimming. Fourth Swindle: 9-26% of the so called “Greenhouse Gas” concentration is CO2. It is said that most of the CO2 is fromthe burning of what are called fossil fuels. Fossil fuels include all forms of petroleum and coal. Note that coal–one of those evil fossil fuels–has been burned increasingly for an estimated 10,000 years; however, global warming is noted as a warming trend occuring over the last 100 years, with a 10-20 year break around the 1970s Fifth Swindle: Your explanation is a bit sketchy, could you expand upon it a bit more? Sixth Swindle: Same as fifth. Seventh Swindle: I don’t trust the proxies. The Medieval Warming Period was followed by a cooling trend from about 1400-1900 called the Little Ice Age. Even if glaciers had melted during the MWP (which isn’t necessarily true, the MWP is specualted to have only warmed .1-.2 Celsius degrees), about the same amount of water would have frozen during the LIA. The water in glaciers is fresh, which would have caused a decrease of ocean salinity. Ocean water has an average temperature of 4 Fahrenheit degrees, well below the freezing point (Salt water doesn’t freeze as easily as fresh water). During the LIA, the less salty ocean water would (a. re-freeze the thawed water from the MWP, and (b. precipitate back onto the barely-thawed glacier, causing a recoating of the missing top layer. Regular summers and regular precipitation have caused the newer top layer to go unnoticed, as the partial thawing and refreezing would be considered regular and very normal natural processes.

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Stepham Harrison responds

Stephan harrison.

The basis for our understanding and attribution of contemporary global warming is that carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas whose addition to the atmosphere would, in the absence of cooling drivers, be expected to lead to planetary energy imbalances and therefore warming. 

With atmospheric carbon dioxide at levels not seen for at least 600,000 and possibly 25 million years, the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR4) argued that the observed warming was very likely (greater than a 90 per cent probability) the result of human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. 

However, an important claim in the Channel 4 Great Global Warming Swindle was that at the termination of glaciations in the past, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide lag rather than lead temperature change, and that this invalidates the idea that carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change. Rather, the programme’s argument was that atmospheric carbon dioxide responds to temperature change and it used the geological record of changes in carbon dioxide and global temperature in support of this.  It is therefore worth assessing the nature of the change in these variables over time in some detail.

Over the last two million years or so, the Earth has undergone repeated periods of glaciations, interspersed by periods of relative warmth called interglacials (like the present Holocene interglacial). The reason why these dramatic climate changes occurred in the past was unknown until work by the 19th century Scottish scientist James Croll developed theories based upon variations in the Earth’s orbit to account for the build up and decay of major ice sheets. This work was further refined by the Serbian geophysicist Milutin Milankoviæ in the 1930s and 1940s and the Milankoviæ-Croll hypothesis is now used to show how small changes in the amount of sunlight reaching earth, and changes in the location of maximum and minimum insolation, can drive continental-scale glaciations. These changes occur at regular intervals (cycling around 23,000, 41,000 and 100,000 year timescales) and the pattern and timing of glaciations/interglacials fits extremely well with these.

However, at the end of glacial periods it must take a lot of energy to melt ice sheets covering much of North America, and Northern Europe to a depth of a kilometre or so, and the global increase in energy produced by the suns rays falling on the Earth (probably less than 0.5 Wm-2) is insufficient to do this.

However, as the Earth warms up at the end of glaciations enormous amounts of carbon dioxide stored in permafrost and the oceans are released into the atmosphere and amplify the warming derived from insolation [solar energy] changes. This added greenhouse effect forms a crucial positive feedback on the warming, driving rapid melting of the ice sheets. Evidence from ice cores drilled into the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets suggests that there is a lag between temperature rise caused by insolation changes and the degassing of carbon dioxide from the oceans and other carbon stores which amplifies this warming. Despite the argument put forward in the Great Global Warming Swindle this lag is not accurately known, but may be up to 800 years in length.

What is different and alarming today, is that we are depositing huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is driving global warming without any significant impact from changes in the sun’s activity.  To use arguments about the role of carbon dioxide in the past to explain the very different conditions operating today is disingenuous at best and can be seen as a cynical attempt to sow confusion.

This article first appeared in the Ecologist March 2007

Donate to The Ecologist and support high impact environmental journalism and analysis.

Channel 4 documentary, 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' response

Ecologist response to Channel 4's Great 'Global Warming Swindle'

Climate Camp comes to The City

• Editors’ Picks
• Ecologist Writers' Fund
• Biodiversity
• Climate Breakdown
• Economics and policy
• Food and Farming
• Brendan Montague
• Yasmin Dahnoun
• Catherine Early
• Simon Pirani
• Gareth Dale
• Marianne Brown
• Resurgence & Ecologist
• Ecologist recycled
• Movement Power
• Megamorphosis

• Write my thesis
• Thesis writers
• Buy thesis papers
• Bachelor thesis
• Master's thesis
• Thesis editing services
• Thesis proofreading services
• Buy a thesis online
• Write my dissertation
• Dissertation proposal help
• Pay for dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help online
• Buy dissertation online
• Cheap dissertation
• Dissertation editing services
• Write my research paper
• Buy research paper online
• Pay for research paper
• Research paper help
• Order research paper
• Custom research paper
• Cheap research paper
• Research papers for sale
• Thesis subjects
• How It Works

Global Warming Thesis Statement Topics & Guide On How To Write

Global warming has increased globally over the last six years. With the melting of the ice rocks at the arctic and Antarctic poles, there is a need to worry. The frequent fires at the Amazon forest have also been witnessed in recent years. It is therefore impossible to miss a global warming thesis in light of all these developments.

What Is Global Warming?

It is a phenomenon of climate change characterized by a general increase in the earth’s average temperatures. These developments modify weather balances and ecosystems for a long time. Global warming continues to be the greatest challenge of the 21st century with the industrial and technological innovations taking place.

The impacts of global warming are adverse, and that is why it is a global pandemic.

How To Write a Thesis About Global Warming

A paper on global warming can be said to be one of the cheapest to write. The backing for this statement is the extensive research in this area. However, some students still have difficulties writing a climate change thesis.

So, what is a thesis statement for global warming?

It is found in the introduction section of the essay or research paper. A research paper has three parts:

• Introduction

Therefore, the thesis statement on global warming falls in the first section, and it expresses the main idea of your paper or essay. An impressive thesis statement for global warming has to meet the criteria highlighted below:

• It must be specific
• It should summarize what you intend to cover in your paper
• It should highlight the scope of your study

The global warming thesis statement research paper appears in the last line of your paper’s first paragraph.

What Constitutes A Strong Global Warming Thesis Statement?

When writing a thesis on climate change, interrogate the following questions:

Does it answer the question? – Helps you remain focused on the question Is my position on the topic debatable? – Are there opposing ideas to your thesis statement? Have I specified my stance well enough? – Does it address a specific issue? Does it pass the ‘so what’ question? – Ensure that it clarifies any penitent issue at hand Do I have enough evidence to back up my thesis statement? Does it answer the ‘how and why’ question?

Now that global warming is a large field with subsequent segments, ensure that you plan on what you specifically intend to cover beforehand. Your thesis statement will dictate the paper’s direction; therefore, make it as precise and manageable as possible.

Formula For Writing A Climate Change Thesis Statement

Most students prefer a template to have a good starting point for their thesis statement. Below are is a template you can use when thinking of writing a global warming thesis statement.

• “Global warming is a leading cause of health-related problems.”

From the example above, you can note that we have mentioned the issue at hand (global warming) and the paper’s direction (health effects of global warming). Since global warming affects many spheres of life, it is necessary to narrow down one in your thesis statement.

A climate change thesis will require you to identify a specific area of implication, which you will tackle in the rest of your paper. Narrowing it down will help you major in one area and prevent you from wandering about in your paper.

Expert Tips For A Global Warming Thesis Statement

On top of considering the format of your thesis statement, there are other critical considerations for a thesis statement on global warming:

• Position: It comes at the beginning of your essay paper. Its strategic position is in line with its purpose – to tell the reader what you will discuss.
• Length: Depending on the number of arguments you will cover, a thesis statement can either be long or short. In most cases, a thesis statement is one sentence long that is concise. The number of words is approximately 30 to 40 words long.
• Strength: Have an arguable statement for your thesis on climate change. It should not be apparent, or one that everyone agrees is true.

Below are global warming thesis statement ideas that you can find motivation from for your global warming thesis:

• Global warming is adversely affecting marine life, especially in the polar regions
• An analysis of climate change reveals one challenge facing Mother Nature: Depletion of natural resources
• High temperatures typically characterize global warming
• Global warming should be treated as a global pandemic to increase its awareness globally.
• To eradicate global warming, experts have to adhere to strict scientific ethics and principles.

Identify the purpose of your paper first (to persuade, inform, or argue) and then make it evident in the thesis statement .

Let us explore some global warming topics for the research paper:

Global Warming Research Paper Topics

• The role of UNEP is creating awareness and sensitization towards the adverse effects of global warming
• How industrialization is slowly depleting the ozone layer
• Increase in greenhouse gases: Are human activities the leading cause of the rising temperature levels?
• How exploitation of forests is leading to climate change
• The adverse effects of fossil fuels on climate change: A case study of gas, oil, and burning charcoal

Anti-Global Warming Thesis Topics

• How fungicides and pesticides are affecting the safety and portability of water
• The role of reliable waste management Programmes in reducing garbage levels
• Why the use of explosives in mining should be prohibited: An analysis of cyanide and mercury effects.
• Why stiffer penalties and fines should be imposed on offenders of climate change
• The need to create a multi-agency body specifically for monitoring the global warming situation and providing recommendations

You can consider the topics above to write on or further your research on global warming as a world pandemic.

By the way, we not only provide good topics for your research paper. We provide professional thesis writing help for those seeking a paper from scratch. All you need to do is click the ‘write my thesis’ tab and get your fully furnished paper in no time!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

• Our network

The Sydney Morning Herald

This was published 17 years ago

The Great Global Warming Swindle

By robin oliver and reviewer, save articles for later.

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

In this controversial Channel 4 documentary, writer and director Martin Durkin insists human activity is only an "infinitesimally small" factor in global warming and the real cause is a change in the sun's radiation. A number of serious-minded, though not always clearly indentified, people line up to debunk theories that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide emissions. This is what we are largely prepared to accept, but Durkin believes we are being told lies. It's a tough argument to swallow, particularly as the experts are limited to sound bites. But agree with him or not, Durkin deserves a hearing as he takes a stab at quite passable television.

Most Viewed in Culture

The Royal Society's response to the documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'

In response to the documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', screened on Channel 4 on Thursday 8 March, Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "Global temperature is increasing. This warming threatens the future health and well-being of many millions of people throughout the world."

"This is especially true of those in the developing countries who are the least able to adapt and who are likely to be the worst affected. Many factors play a part in global warming but there is significant scientific evidence that greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2, are responsible for most of the temperature rise. If present trends continue the projected climate change will be far greater than that already experienced. Greenhouse gas emissions are something that we can and must take action on.

"Scientists will continue to monitor the global climate and the factors which influence it. It is important that all legitimate potential scientific explanations continue to be considered and investigated. Debate will continue, and the Royal Society has just hosted a two day discussion meeting attended by over 300 scientists, but it must not be at the expense of action. Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future."

Email updates

We promote excellence in science so that, together, we can benefit humanity and tackle the biggest challenges of our time.

Subscribe to our newsletters to be updated with the latest news on innovation, events, articles and reports.

What subscription are you interested in receiving? (Choose at least one subject)

What evidence exists that Earth is warming and that humans are the main cause?

We know the world is warming because people have been recording daily high and low temperatures at thousands of weather stations worldwide, over land and ocean, for many decades and, in some locations, for more than a century. When different teams of climate scientists in different agencies (e.g., NOAA and NASA) and in other countries (e.g., the U.K.’s Hadley Centre) average these data together, they all find essentially the same result: Earth’s average surface temperature has risen by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) since 1880. 

( bar chart ) Yearly temperature compared to the twentieth-century average from 1850–2023. Red bars mean warmer-than-average years; blue bars mean colder-than-average years. (line graph) Atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts: 1850-1958 from IAC , 1959-2023 from NOAA Global Monitoring Lab . NOAA Climate.gov graph, adapted from original by Dr. Howard Diamond (NOAA ARL).

In addition to our surface station data, we have many different lines of evidence that Earth is warming ( learn more ). Birds are migrating earlier, and their migration patterns are changing.  Lobsters  and  other marine species  are moving north. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting worldwide, and snow cover is declining in the Northern Hemisphere (Learn more  here  and  here ). Greenland’s ice sheet—which holds about 8 percent of Earth’s fresh water—is melting at an accelerating rate ( learn more ). Mean global sea level is rising ( learn more ). Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly in both thickness and extent ( learn more ).

The Greenland Ice Sheet lost mass again in 2020, but not as much as it did 2019. Adapted from the 2020 Arctic Report Card, this graph tracks Greenland mass loss measured by NASA's GRACE satellite missions since 2002. The background photo shows a glacier calving front in western Greenland, captured from an airplane during a NASA Operation IceBridge field campaign. Full story.

We know this warming is largely caused by human activities because the key role that carbon dioxide plays in maintaining Earth’s natural greenhouse effect has been understood since the mid-1800s. Unless it is offset by some equally large cooling influence, more atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to warmer surface temperatures. Since 1800, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere  has increased  from about 280 parts per million to 410 ppm in 2019. We know from both its rapid increase and its isotopic “fingerprint” that the source of this new carbon dioxide is fossil fuels, and not natural sources like forest fires, volcanoes, or outgassing from the ocean.

Philip James de Loutherbourg's 1801 painting, Coalbrookdale by Night , came to symbolize the start of the Industrial Revolution, when humans began to harness the power of fossil fuels—and to contribute significantly to Earth's atmospheric greenhouse gas composition. Image from Wikipedia .

Finally, no other known climate influences have changed enough to account for the observed warming trend. Taken together, these and other lines of evidence point squarely to human activities as the cause of recent global warming.

USGCRP (2017). Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume 1 [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi:  10.7930/J0J964J6 .

National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership (2012):  National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy . Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Council on Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. DOI: 10.3996/082012-FWSReport-1

IPCC (2019). Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. In press.

NASA JPL: "Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree."  Global Climate Change . A website at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus). (Accessed July 2013.)

We value your feedback

Help us improve our content

Related Content

News & features, 2017 state of the climate: mountain glaciers, warming waters shift fish communities northward in the arctic, climate & fish sticks, maps & data, past climate, future climate, ocean - oceanic climate variables, teaching climate, toolbox for teaching climate & energy, student climate & conservation congress (sc3), climate youth engagement, climate resilience toolkit, arctic oceans, sea ice, and coasts, alaska and the arctic, food safety and nutrition.

The Great Global Warming Swindle: Different Views on the Issue Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Film’s Key Points

Global warming is a controversial issue by itself; however, the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle has made it even more debatable. The film was released in March 2004 in the UK and caused different opinions about the issue which is presented. Global warming critics supported the documentary, while different scientific organizations greatly criticized it.

The film presents the idea that global warming can hardly be man-made with CO2 emissions having no relation to raising the temperature of the Earth. Instead, as the film posits, global warming “is one of the defining moral and political courses of our age” ( The Great Global Warming Swindle 2007). According to the film, the main aim of the scientific organizations is to get funding for the research of this problem and attract additional attention to global warming, while in reality, the climate is changing regardless of human activities.

While the world is greatly preoccupied with the theory of anthropogenic global warming, The Great Global Warming Swindle argues against this theory. Its main arguments are that the climate has always been changing and that some facts within the issue under consideration do not match the theory; on the one hand, the arguments presented in the film are convincing, while on the other hand, they are based on the out-of-date research, which makes the problem of the global warming still open to discussion.

First of all, the documentary in question expresses the idea that CO2 emissions have no relation to global warming. Several scientists agree with the view that the greenhouse effect is caused by humans (Newman 2000; Manahan 2007). As stated by them, “the most common cause of … greenhouse effect is the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere” (Manahan 2007, p. 22). In this way, industrious society and the use of technologies are blamed for global warming. However, there exists an opposing view that “long-term global warming is not caused by human beings” (Vilcox and Mohan 2007, p. 87).

The documentary supports this idea by stating that “the Earth climate is always changing” (The Great Global Warming Swindle 2007). Expressing this point, the film gives several examples of how the climate of the Earth changed throughout the centuries; at this, carbon dioxide emissions were quite low. Thus, the film mentions the Little Ice Age which took place in the 14 th century, the Medieval Warm Period, the Holocene maximum, etc. These events date back to those times when humans hardly knew anything about environment-destructive technologies, which is why climate change is not connected with human influence.

In addition, to prove their right, the contributors to the film state that certain facts in human history do not match the theory of anthropogenic global warming. For instance, when there was an industrial revolution in 1940, the CO2 emissions were higher than ever. According to the theory, the temperature of the Earth should have increased; however, it went down instead. This resulted in the assertion that human CO2 is not what causes global warming.

The fact that the film contributors are professors, researchers, and scientists makes their views convincing, which is why the attitude of several people towards the issue of global warming changed after the release of the movie. This, however, made the proponents of the opposite view look for the flaws in the film’s ideas.

The ideas regarding the climate change causes presented in the film documentary are quite convincing. The strongest point of the film is that the arguments are logical. Thus, the film contributors clearly state their point of view (man-made global warming is senseless), support their opinion with evidence (no temperature rise when CO2 emissions were high and no technology used when the global warming took place), and show where exactly the theory of anthropogenic global warming is erroneous (some facts do not match the theory).

At the same time, however, their arguments have a weak point. They are based on out-of-date research (the latest are the 1950s), which creates limitations to their findings. It was named after the 1950s that technologies started developing most rapidly, becoming more numerous, and even more destructive for the environment. This is why the argument presented in the documentary cannot be considered completely reliable.

The documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle altered some people’s ideas about the issue of global warming or, to be more exact, its causes. This film presents the idea that the greenhouse effect is not caused by carbon dioxide emissions and, thus, has no relation to the industrious society and the use of technologies. The logical presentation of the argument and the credentials of the contributors into the film make this view convincing. At the same time, the out-of-date research on which these contributors rely does not allow considering their arguments fully valid. This is why the issue of global warming and its causes remains controversial.

Manahan, SE 2007, Environmental science and technology: a sustainable approach to green science and technology , CRC Press, London.

Newman, EI 2000, Applied ecology and environmental management , Wiley-Blackwell, New York.

The Great Global Warming Swindle , 2007, Documentary film, broadcaster Channel 4, United Kingdom.

Wilcox, MW and Mohan, TO 2007, Contemporary issues in business ethics , Nova Publishers, New York.

• Global Warming Issues Review and Environmental Sustainability
• Ozone Depletion: A Case of Humans Fixing What They Broke
• Anthropogenic Climate Change
• Physical Therapy: Orthopedic Chairs Proposal
• ‘The Global Warming Myth’ by David Bellamy
• The U.S. Withdrawal From Kyoto Protocol: Causes and Effects
• The Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming
• Global Warming: Ways to Help End Global Warming
• The Influence of Global Warming and Pollution on the Environment
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 29). The Great Global Warming Swindle: Different Views on the Issue. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-great-global-warming-swindle/

"The Great Global Warming Swindle: Different Views on the Issue." IvyPanda , 29 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/the-great-global-warming-swindle/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'The Great Global Warming Swindle: Different Views on the Issue'. 29 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. "The Great Global Warming Swindle: Different Views on the Issue." November 29, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-great-global-warming-swindle/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Great Global Warming Swindle: Different Views on the Issue." November 29, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-great-global-warming-swindle/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Great Global Warming Swindle: Different Views on the Issue." November 29, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-great-global-warming-swindle/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

The Power of Independent Thinking

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now 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. An Inconvenient Truth , on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.

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

1. 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 vapor 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 or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor 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 are 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 Medieval 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. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. 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.

2. 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:

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!

3. 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 to 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.

The Great Global Warming Swindle Documentary Debunked

When the Great Global Warming Swindle was first broadcast  - climate deniers thought that at last they had the definitive polemic to beat back the forces of science and reason..... This 8-minute video corrects multiple manipulations of data presented in the film, including points relating to volcanos, sun spots, scientist quotes, out-dated findings, edited footage, and selective use of graph data.

For more in-depth analysis of the film, continue on to parts 2, 3 & 4 .  

A Note from Films For Action: If you're skeptical about climate change or have seen the aforementioned film, definitely take a minute to watch these. After watching The Great Global Warming Swindle ourselves several years ago, we were admittedly pretty dismayed by what we watched. The film by itself is very convincing and caused us to question our thinking and made us doubt whether this issue was real. However, with every issue, if you want to be thorough, you have to look at the other side, especially views that directly challenge this film, and then try to weigh the arguments by their own merits so much as is possible.  What we found provides a rather astonishing lesson in media literacy, showing us how convincing a film can be on the surface despite its conclusions falling so far from the truth when examined with scrutiny.

We learned that at least a few scientists quoted in the film claim that they were totally misrepresented, and it seems the director has suffered some legal problems in the past for selectively editing footage to misrepresent facts. Because of this, the station had to issue an on air apology. Here are some more links for further research:

An article about the film's director that goes into more detail about other films he has worked on. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/ This is a Wikipedia article showing some of the scientific disputes that certain scientists have with the film. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_SwindleCriticism_and_reaction Here's a short article by an astronomer about sunspots. http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2007/03/sunspots-and-global-warming-oh-my.html This is an article that takes major points of the film and tries to judge their validity. It agrees with some and disagrees with others. http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83 Here's an article about the U.S. government trying to suppress evidence of global warming. http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/06/11/nasa-admits-deutsch-muzzled-scientist/  

Here is a far more exhaustive critique of the film: 

Rate this video  User Ratings Become a Patron. Support Films For Action. For $5 a month, you'll gain access to over  50 patron-exclusive documentaries  while keeping us ad-free and financially independent . We need 350 more Patrons to grow our team in 2024. Subscribe | Explore the 50+ Patron Films Our 6000+ video library is 99% free, ad-free, and entirely community-funded thanks to our patrons! Sign up for our Email Newsletter Date Added Views Length min Topics 215 IMAGES Persuasive Essay Sample: Global Warming Global Warming Essay Essay On The Cause And Effect Of Global Warming With Some Solutions To | STEM The Effect and Strategy of Global Warming Book Review: Global Warming: The Causes, the Perils, the Solutions VIDEO Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 5/9 Thesis 2024 Parody on climate change Lord Christopher Monckton on global warming part 1 The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 2 of 8) Riscaldamento Globale : La Grande Truffa COMMENTS The Great Global Warming Swindle The Great Global Warming Swindle is a 2007 British polemical documentary film directed by Martin Durkin.The film denies the scientific consensus about the reality and causes of climate change, justifying this by suggesting that climatology is influenced by funding and political factors. The program was formally criticised by Ofcom, the UK broadcasting regulatory agency, which ruled the film ... The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle The Swindle is a one-sided anti-global warming argument put together by a film maker with a name for skewing the facts, and featuring greenhouse skeptics with media profiles that far exceed their ... The Great Global Warming Swindle swindle › Science Features (ABC Science) The Swindle is a one-sided, anti-global-warming argument put together by a film maker with a name for skewing the facts, and featuring greenhouse skeptics with media profiles that far exceed their ... Investigating "The Great Global Warming Swindle" Indeed, a 2007 broadcast on Channel4 titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" tried to make exactly that case. This case is based on the idea that changes in solar activity influence cloud ... What is the thesis statement of the great global warming swindle? The thesis statement of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is that recent global warming is neither significant nor due to human activity. The documentary argues against the conventional scientific understanding of climate change and contends that modern climate scientists are either seriously misguided or guilty of lying to the community. The paper by Vincent R. Gray examines the evidence ... The real swindle The 2007 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle combined many distinct issues into one 'great swindle' by ... the statement 'the Kyoto Protocol is a success' remains a subject worthy of ... PDF COMMENTARY The real swindle documentary Th e Great Global Warming Swindle combined many distinct issues ... the statement 'humans contribute to climate change' meets with much consensus (Fig. 2b). On this topic ... The Great Global Warming Swindle: Response The Great Global Warming Swindle: Response. The key argument mounted by Martin Durkin in the Channel 4 documentary, 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', was that the sun's activity had more to do with global warming than levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We asked Dr Richard Betts of the Met Office Hadley Centre to explain the ... The Great Global Warming Swindle: Response Richard Washington. In his documentary, 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', Martin Durkin presented the argument that the troposphere - Earth's upper atmosphere - appeared to be cooler than climate models suggest. Durkin also argued that the global temperature fell in the post-war economic boom, despite rising levels of carbon dioxide. Don't be swindled The Great Global Warming Swindle 'documentary' purports to prove that the warming we have experienced over the last century is, in fact, unrelated to the more than 300 billion tonnes of heat ... PDF The Great Global Warming Swindle The Great Global Warming Swindle I watched a programme on television last week called the Great Global Warming Swindle. It presented a compelling case for the view that Global Warming is real, but is not caused by carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by humans, but instead is due to variations in solar output. I personally found the "The Great Global Warming Swindle": a critique The Great Global Warming Swindle (GGWS) is a controversial documentary on climate. change by British television pro ducer Martin. Durkin. This documentary argues against. conventional scientific ... Swindles in the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" Swindle: If greenhouse gases cause global warming, models say that the troposphere (lower atmosphere) should be warmer than the earth's surface, but it isn't. The Truth: The troposphere is, in fact, warmer than the surface. A U.S. government commissioned study, released in 2006, showed there were errors in earlier measurements. The Great Global Warming Swindle The Channel 4 documentary, 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', put forward the idea that carbon dioxide did not in fact cause global warming, but instead was a product of global warming. It also suggested that the Earth frequently enters cold and warm periods of climate, and that the current warming was simply a natural phenomenon. We put these arguments to Stephan Harrison, an Associate ... Global Warming Thesis Statement Topics & Guide In most cases, a thesis statement is one sentence long that is concise. The number of words is approximately 30 to 40 words long. Strength: Have an arguable statement for your thesis on climate change. It should not be apparent, or one that everyone agrees is true. Below are global warming thesis statement ideas that you can find motivation ... The Great Global Warming Swindle The Great Global Warming Swindle. In this controversial Channel 4 documentary, writer and director Martin Durkin insists human activity is only an "infinitesimally small" factor in global warming ... The Royal Society's response to the documentary 'The Great Global In response to the documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', screened on Channel 4 on Thursday 8 March, Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "Global temperature is increasing. This warming threatens the future health and well-being of many millions of people throughout the world." "This is especially true of those in the ... What evidence exists that Earth is warming and that humans are the main Full story. We know this warming is largely caused by human activities because the key role that carbon dioxide plays in maintaining Earth's natural greenhouse effect has been understood since the mid-1800s. Unless it is offset by some equally large cooling influence, more atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to warmer surface temperatures. The Great Global Warming Swindle Conclusion. The documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle altered some people's ideas about the issue of global warming or, to be more exact, its causes. This film presents the idea that the greenhouse effect is not caused by carbon dioxide emissions and, thus, has no relation to the industrious society and the use of technologies ... The Great Global Warming Swindle The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly: 1. 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 ... PDF "The Great Global Warming Swindle": a critique show that global temperatures for 2007 are currently running at warmest on record. The documentary's use of out-dated datasets also allows it to make the clearly incorrect statement that most global warming occurred prior to 1950. This central claim is clearly false, particularly when data from the last 10 years are included in the assessment. The Great Global Warming Swindle Documentary Debunked When the Great Global Warming Swindle was first broadcast - climate deniers thought that at last they had the definitive polemic to beat back the forces of science and reason..... This 8-minute video corrects multiple manipulations of data presented in the film, including points relating to volcanos, sun spots, scientist quotes, out-dated findings, edited footage, and selective use of graph data. PDF Global Warming: Critical Reaction, Support, and Author Response clicking on "The Great Global Warming Swindle" allows you to view the 1 1/4 hour program broadcast in Great Britain in March. This is must-see viewing for everybody. Also, see a May 15 news release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works entitled "Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief assignment essay homework paper phd report resume review speech thesis