Interesting "review". It leaves the topic pretty early to go on an Al Gore-bashing bender, which is the real purpose of the article.

The author is correct that the "hockey stick" has been dropped, leaving only a huge pile of other evidence for AGW. But here's a quiz for the deniers: what is the glaring omission in this article, regarding "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

Anyone?

Curmudgeon?

Well, if you said "the NASA graph that forms the basis for Swindle has since been withdrawn, and the producer, Martin Durkin, has publicly apologised for manipulating it to represent the opposite of what it actually indicates, but that didn't stop Ian Plimer using it in his book Heaven & Earth", you're right!

Congratulations. You're better informed and less dogmatic than the average anti-science crusader.

Having taken the author to task for "Gore bashing" sancho then, in a complete non-sequitur, proceeds to bash Ian Plimer - who isn't even mentioned in the article.

One good turn deserves another, Clownfish. The article purports to be review of a doco about DDT, but is actually an excuse to attack Gore. I started with Durkin, whose film is mentioned, and moved on to Plimer.

You're conspicuously talking around the point though: the hockey stick graph was found to be inaccurate and is therefore no longer used by the IPCC.

Durkin retracted his graph and publicly announced that not only was it misrepresentative, but he had doctored it to make it so. Ian Plimer, knowing this, included it in his book anyway.

It's another signpost reminding us that denialists lie and have no regard for truth or facts.

Could say that most of the viewpoints on the above thread seem to be from city slickers, as we call them in the bush.

Though Global Warming may not happen as quckly as certain commentators may want it to, could say that Global Warming has been a possibility ever since the beginning of the Industrial Age, or when man replaced both work animals and axe-handles with mechanical monsters and the monstrous human greed that has gone along with it.

It is so interesting though there is still not much love between them, most old cockies going on 90 like myself, have to admit that the Greenies do have the right focus on the danger of mankind buggerin' up the globe.

Maybe Adam Smith foresaw it all when he warned not to let human greed over-run need, when he warned about his laissez-faire needing to be also related to care.

Cheers-BB, WA.

Mark, I think the filmmakers (and your) use of DDT as an example of environmental hysteria to be exceptionally poor. This is the wrong hammer to use on this particular nail. DDT is an exceptionally stable neurotoxin that does not break down in the environment very easily, i.e. it is highly residual, and is fat soluble and so bioaccumulates. Indeed, they are still finding residues of it in Antarctic penguins more than 30 years after it was banned for use in most countries. At the time Rachel Carson wrote her famous book, DDT was not restricted for use only on African houses. Oh no. It was sprayed profligately throughout the environment, on lakes, swamps and food crops. Insecticide resistance in pest species was becoming a serious issue, ever increasing the amount that had to be sprayed and DDT was becoming an economic liability. It is effective in Africa today because it hasn’t been sprayed in the environment for more than 30 years. Ironically, why it has been recommended for structural treatments, given that there are a number of alternatives, is what caused it to be banned in the first place- it is highly residual. This means treatments don’t have to be applied as often and become effectively cheaper.

“Immense damage” was what we were starting to cause by the profligate use of DDT, to both humans and environment and there are alternatives, they just aren’t as cheap because they aren’t as residual. I am sure that most people have not met anyone who has had DDT poisoning, but I have and it came from a structural treatment to their house. But I’m sure it’s safe for Africans if you only spray the bits they don’t touch much. Did the filmmakers tell you that serious environmental scientists as well are concerned about runoff and spills of these chemicals? My guess is probably not, why let a balanced and valid concern get in the way of a good portrayal of environmental hysteria and hypocrisy.

This film sounds like the kind of hatchet job that Ben Stein might try. Not evil, just wrong.

Bruce talks about Global Warming as a religion.

Does Bruce know that...

"with the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[72]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

A *few* are neutral, none dissent.

On the other hand, these are just *some* of the consenting scientific organisations that agree with global warming, and you’ll find it’s all the world's most prestigious scientific organisations.

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

European Academy of Sciences and Arts,
InterAcademy Council,
Joint science academies' statements
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
National Research Council (US)
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)

The Wildlife Society (international)
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)