The Great Global Warming Swindle

The “Global Warming Consensus” house of cards is beginning to collapse…

UPDATE: There is quite a bit of fallout from this movie:

Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’

Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email … One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

“I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity”

Death Threats …That gives us a pretty good idea as to why Carl Wunsch is trying to distance himself from his participation in this film.

Update 1:Cox & Forkum suggest that there is also the threat of losing funding…


Poor Professor Wunsch, all he tried to do was offer a voice of reason … no good deed goes unpunished.

Unsettled science

Dr. Wunsch is repulsed by the nature of the debate. “The science isn’t mature to the point where anyone can say with any confidence that the Greenland ice sheet will melt,” he says. “Both extremes have reduced the debate to a cartoon war, like a Batman movie.” He does not spare the camp that Mr. Durkin attacks, decrying the “hysterical” claims of alarmists, such as their warnings that global warming might shut down the Gulf Stream or propel Britain into a new ice age — these “are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality,” he says.



  1. I’ll see your two rebuttals …

    Apocalypse my arse

    The heat’s in the sun

    And I’ll raise you one …


    There is an obvious absence of scientific rigor in environmentalist ideology. But science has never been the point of environmentalism. It has always been about population control. Humans in the third world dying by starvation and disease have always been key to all environmentalist objectives.

    Environmentalists don’t bother with bombs … they like their victims to die slowly.

    Let’s discuss the science behind the banning of DDT and the resultant 30 to 40 million deaths (of mostly children). Let’s discuss environmentalist protestation of GM crops that could feed the starving in the developing world.

    The real point of the film (environmentalist anti-humanism) is something both of your rebuttals didn’t bother to address.


  2. Perhaps a bit of level headed research before you publish propaganda may be useful. Idiocracy, I see your raise:

    Dr Wunsch is misreprented in the video, the graphs used were wrong, facts are based on the discredited Friis-Christensen’s paper and the premise that cosmic rays account for the temperature changes has been shown as patently wrong.
    All in all an amateurish attempt that you have given credibility to.

    I’m not going to even bother with your anti-humanist radical environmentalist rubbish.


  3. Heh you source a Wiki. Classic!

    From the same Wiki…

    “Wunsch has said that he has received a legal letter from the production company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he agrees to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented nor misled.”

    Having heard Wunsch speak about this situation, I would have to say he sounds like he’s more inclined to think that the current warming period is cyclical and completely natural. He also seems to really hate the media mayhem.

    Of course Adam was just trolling and never had any intention of actually contributing any logical thought while commenting to this post.


  4. Adam, let me explain why Poli made light of your comment.

    Wikipedia is like a huge whiteboard that anyone can add to. Even if you have knowledge in some field and have confirmed the page correct at the time you linked to it, I could since have vandalised or added an incorrect statement the page you linked to, and so could hundreds of millions of other Internet users; if you don’t have knowledge in that field, you shouldn’t even be thinking of citing a source that could have been produced by someone no more knowledgeable than you. Whiteboards are great for throwing ideas together, but they make for awful references.

    If you are so lacking in knowledge in some field that don’t know where to reference beyond Wikipedia, you probably shouldn’t be commentating within that field at all. At the very least, look at source material listed at the bottom of the article. Read these sources, ensure they’re in agreement, then cite the one you consider most authoritative. If necessary, use other means to find a better range of sources – a search engine will not selectively list sources to support the biases of the article writer.

    Summary: citing Wikipedia is another way of saying “I’m lazy and/or not very knowledgeable on this topic”. Either possibility renders your post not worth the time required to read it. Since you might have the seeds of a very good argument, take the time to back it up properly; others will appreciate your effort and begin to recognise your scholarly approach.


Comments are closed.