Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Monckton to Send TGGWS Film to UK Schools

By

From The Times:

Please, sir – Gore’s got warming wrong

THE tormentors of Al Gore, who last week won a legal victory against his film, An Inconvenient Truth, are to step up their battle by sending British secondary schools a documentary attacking the science of global warming.

and The Independent:

Climate deniers to send film to British schools

Secondary schools across Britain are to be sent copies of the controversial television film The Great Global Warming Swindle, as the polemical battle over climate change heats up in the wake of last week’s Nobel Peace Prize award to former US vice president Al Gore and the UN’s climate change panel.

The main figure behind the move is Viscount Monckton, the journalist and former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, who is likely to couple the Swindle film, made by radical television producer Martin Durkin and aired on Channel 4 in March, in a package with an anti-climate change film of his own entitled Apocalypse No!.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  2. SJT says

    A judge agrees that Gore made nine points that are debatable, a couple of which could be errors, but is fundamentally correct, and backs the IPCC report a being sound science.

    In response, a “documentary” which is fundamentally wrong, and has had to be cut by 1/3 due to outright fraud, which includes wackos like a hobbyist with no scientific credentials who refuses to publish his methods? That’s balance.

    As has been said already, why don’t the deniers come up with something of quality, instead of rubbish.

  4. John says

    The matter before the judge was whether Gore’s film was political and thus in contravention of UK laws. The judge was not asked to determine if the science was accurate.

    Probably on the basis of their widespread popularity the judge decided that a film clearly representing the IPCC’s claims (which I find to be lacking in evidence) would have been an acceptable non-partisan level. Gore exaggerated the IPCC’s claims, and I think added a few of his own, and this took the film into the political area.

    Any claims that the judge found the film fundamentally correct are in fact fundamentally flawed because he was not asked to make such a decision.

    Durkin’s film had flaws which were hastily corrected – you can’t say that for Gore’s movie. I have seen both the original and the shortened version and the shorter version is much tighter and much better. Among the parts deleted was the contentious issue of Wunsch claiming he had been deceived. Durkin disagreed but elected to remove that section lest attention should be focussed on it to the detriment of the rest of the film.

  5. Ender says

    Paul – “Secondary schools across Britain are to be sent copies of the controversial television film The Great Global Warming Swindle”

    Which one I wonder. Is it the one with the worst lies edited out or the original with them still in?

  7. Paul Williams says

    SJT, all the sceptics have to do is point out errors. It’s the warmongers who have proposed the theory of AGW, and the response to that theory by politicians is likely to be extremely costly and ineffective.

    Pointing out the obvious holes in the argument for AGW (and the proposed solutions) should be greeted with fact and counter argument, but it simply results in faeces flinging and gibbering by the chief warmongers. Though that is quite entertaining. I look on it as some mild recompense for the taxes being hoovered out of my pocket to pay for the AGW scam.

  8. Luke says

    Good. Nails Monckton’s philosophical coffin down nicely in the history books. All sing now “Any old iron, any old iron, any any any old iron”.

    P.S. But being fair don’t we need a judge to pick the errors out first. But that’s right Monckton and the Scientific Alliance are probably out of cash and exhausted.

    ROTFL – really guys – who do you think you’re kidding.

  9. Luke says

    Hey I thought the war mongers were the neo-cons. I don’t get it? Oh well we’ll just coin “denialist shill neo-fascists”.

  10. Louis Hissink says

    Luke et al,

    your war has already been lost – all we need do is wait for you and your mates, like the hapless Japanese soldiers after WWII, to emerge from your virtual forces to discover political reality.

    Personally I find it totally offensive that taxpayers are funding the distribution of Al Gores’ “Inconvenient Truth” to government schools.

    You are truly a socialist who espouses the banal philosophy that “what is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine”.

    Incidentally, have you any other forum in which you post your opinions, or is Jennifer’s blog your only “free” outlet.

    You are free to comment on my articles at Henry Thornton , you know.

  11. Paul Williams says

    Luke it’s WARMongers as in “purveyors of warming scam artist neocommies”. Geddit! ROTFLMAO!!!!!

  13. John says

    Yes Luke, I laughed at that web page too.

    I am staggered
    (a) that some people still believe that scientific matters are determined by consensus

    (b) that the notion of consensus was given legs by the IPCC when just 4 reviewers without direct vested interest in the crucial 9th chapter of the WG I report explicitly supported the findings of that chapter (Maybe that should be 3 because the other comment came from a person who made no other comment for any of the 11 chapters)

    (c) that you willfully ignore the fact that any climate scientists responding to questions will likely be influenced by issues such as future employment prospects

    Yet again you are woefully short of evidence to support your claims.

  14. Luke says

    John – sigh

    The science isn’t determined by consensus – the document is a review of published science in a big field. OK you don’t like it – you could write it then. You could have a “B” team but that will just make it competitive vis a vis scientific. You could review it to death. Or you can reject it. There is no way you would accept anything that you didn’t agree with is there? Anything against your world view would be by defintion a corrupt process.

    As for (c) – John you don’t have a clue – get yourself along to one of CSIRO’s open climate 3 day annual forums and see how much debate there is in the presentations. You’re an outsider looking in on a process and people you know nothing about but imagining how it works. If money was your goal – mate you wouldn’t be doing climate science. You’d be out of there in a flash. It isn’t the motivation. Hope you’re not judging by your own ethical standards are you?

    Perhaps some people might just want to do good institutional science. But there are heaps easier ways of getting rich without 9 or more years training.

    Anyway nothing will convince you coz you’re right hey? And you know you are too?

  15. Anthony says

    Hilarious Louis, struggling to get attention on your blog hey? I notice your last two articles realy caused a stir…I mean… no comments, your readers must be stunned by your brilliance.

    Me thinks you have had a few too many lonley night in the 4WD dreaming of gold and diamonds.

    Apparently peple buying bechside properties proves sea levels wont rise. Hmmm, interesting theory. Why do you hate Al Gore so much? Is it because he is making more cash than you while bashing the industry that supports you?

    It’s not too late to invest in cleantech you know…maybe upgrade that Masters in something a little more contemporary?

  16. SJT says

    John,

    most of those scientists are smart enough to get a job in private industry that pays a lot better than what they are getting now. They do the job because they love doing science. If someone could come up with conclusive proof that AGW is wrong, he wouldn’t be thinking about sticking with the consensus, he’d be thinking he’s a genius who proved every one else wrong.