"Perhaps they would like to burn it, if not for the CO2".

Yes. Perhaps they would like to do that on May 10th, since it's coming up, "in honor of" 1933? Scary.

Funny we don't get official complaints that Gore's AIT should also be amended for its inaccuracies.

kris, California, USA

Mick Hume's views seems to be that ideology trumps science. His ideology says that 'Marxism is the only path to a true understanding of the world'.

If the scientific evidence is rather different - well then science must have got it wrong.

His chum Martin Durkin's film resorted to 'making stuff up' to mnake it's point. Durkin has already 'amended' it himself once when one of the graphs it contained was shown to be fraudulent. He's admitted he's going to have to make other changes such as removing the proposterously wrong claim that 'most CO2 comes from volcanoes'.
Martin Hume defends Durkin in the interest of 'free speech'. Freedom to spread porkies more like...

Dean Morrison, Hastings, UK

Decarbonising the energy supply is a survival issue. Of course we are facing an unprecedented existential crisis. Of course any religious leader should come to terms with this. Mick Humes neurotic nitpicking is not so clever . It just manages to play well to febrile, over-intellectual nihilists as well as dumb-ass petrolheads.

John Stanley, Galway, Ireland

I'm going to make it my goal to trample carbon footprints all over the beige carpet of environmentalism.

Nickolas Arson, Svenlta,

Ken Leyland - you're not wasting your breath! I'm quite ready to change my opinion if the evidence is there. I wasn't aware of the time lag issue and looked into it. I found this article - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
what do you think?

Rob Percival, Welwyn Garden City, UK

I can tell Ron Percival of Welwyn Garden City why his simple argument is flawed - though I know I'm wasting my breath. The Ice-core record does indeed show a close relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature variation. What is conveniently ignored is that CO2 follows temperature change, and the time-lag is about 900 years. CO2 isn't a cause, it's a CONSEQUENCE.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

I know just enough about science to know that it's not based on certainty but on doubt; that proper science does not set out to prove a hypothesis, but to try to disprove it. Contrast that with the "religion" of the greens and their pathetic scrabbling round for any scrap of information to "prove" a case long since deemed "unchallengeable". It breaks every rule in the book. Why? Well, it gives the stupid and confused the delusion they're doing something useful, they're making a difference, and they're on the side of the angels. It's worse than pathetic, it's criminal.

Catspindle, Liverpool, U.K.

I've got a replica Accrington Stanley shirt with "I'm not a plastic Man Utd supporter" on it.

Stanley Accrington, Accrington, UK

Enjoyable article.

As a side comment, I personally feel the blame is unevenly spread between the guilty parties.
Case in point, a UN paper which clearly said the MAJOR contributor to global Co2 emmissions is live stock (?!).
and this whole time I was thinking we should blame oil and other petroleums.
Other examples include the plane and car( "The private car must go the way of the coach-and-four"). We have been told transport accounts for 25% of Co2; what about the other 75% ?
Generally, the blame goes like this:
"We are addicted to oil: our industries, our cars, or for that matter our whole modern lifestyles".
Indeed, I've heard more, in the UK, about restricting the way we shop, travel, or generally consume than approaching the problem with a more constructive (not to mention popular) attitude.
Self-sacrifice isn't going to sell well ! (especially with the aspiring middle classes in India/China). We need tackle the problem from the supply side and not demand.

Ryan Millerioux, London,

In response to Scott, Murray, I think the answer to his basic question is as follows:

We know that CO2 levels and temperature are very closely related: the graphs (obtained from arctic ice) match up over the last 200,000 years or so.
We know that CO2 levels are increasing at a faster rate than at any point in the last 20,000 years, and that this is a result of human activities.
We are 99% sure that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas: experiments confirm that CO2 lets heat in but stop some of it getting out. This would explain the strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
Therefore, it seems very likely that increased CO2 levels are the cause of the increase in temperatures, and the continuing increase of CO2 levels will result in a continuing increase in temperature.

That is my understanding (and it does not rest on any computer model - biased or otherwise). Can anyone convince me that this simple argument is flawed?

Rob Percival, Welwyn Garden City,

Brilliant Mick. doing a proper journos job!
At last some debate. Green issues as you have pointed out are like a life raft to the politicians and establishment that are moribund and out of touch with real issues. To the politicians they can tax and snoop more and for the establishment (church etc) they can look a bit fUnKy for the kids.
Also having run an organic grocery shop I know that most 'greens' are at best misanthropic and at worst exhibit the same glassy eyed unquestioning entrancement to the cause as a David Koresh disciple.
Humans can and will find a way to combat what ever is thrown at them.
So debate its good for you!

LordShaw, Tingham,

So the respondent's consensus is that the Great Global Warming Swindle program, so far limited to one channel of UK TV and the internet as far as I know, has some scientific flaws and should be amended or discraded before anyone else sees it.

Would that not be equally true for Mr. Gore's apparently self promotional film that has been somewhat more widely publicised and promoted around the world? Or is there absolutely nothing wrong with the discredited and fanciful science Mr. Gore presents? (According to a number of commentators with diverse leanings on the subject.)

I have seen neither film so have no vested interest one way or the other. I would though observe that Mr. Gore seems to have many people from the land of deep religious convictions who appear to have plenty of time available to them to trawl and critique the smallest details and often the most insignificant sources of climate related information. Such situations are usually unhealthy from a historic perspective.

Grant, Derby,

I have yet to read or see a Global Warming advocate
answer for me these basic questions:
- We know the climate has always changed. How can we
know that the 0.6C increase since 1970 is due to CO2 increases?
- I am told that computer models demonstrate that the 0.6C change is due
to CO2 increase. If so then when do these models predict the
arrival of the next ice age?

The answers I see all seem to get back to these computer models
which are apparently so relaible. As a compuet programmer I know
a computer program can be made to say anything you want it to.

Until I get convincing answers I will continue to be very suspicious.

Instead of answers we are exhorted to sign up to the new state religion that I call Gaia and partake of its sacraments like recycling.

Gaia says we must pay more for our electricity, have our rubbish collected
once a fortnight, have rats and maggots in our bins, pay more for our food, ...

Scott Murray, Dunstable, UK,

Because several commenters seem to have ignored it, I repeat the comment of Milton Crofts, Warrington:

Hume did not pass comment here on the accuracy or otherwise of "The Great Global Warming Swindle". He was illustrating how any challenge to the green orthodoxy is likely to be met with a pseudo-religious response from the green lobby.

In case you still don't get it, whether or not "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was deceptive is simply not at issue here.

Simon Crowfoot, Kidderminster, UK

You don't have to be a fanatic to see benefits from some "green" ideas: given a JS jute bag at Christmas, I now wouldn't use anything else. Long comfortable handles to hook over the shoulder save loss of circulation to the fingers, big enough for a decent load with no fear that the bottles of hooch will drop through and dash to pieces, and back home no torrent of screwed up bags on the floor whenever the kitchen cabinet door is opened!
Newspapers do some pretty weird things too - years ago they started swanking about using recycled paper and at the same time increased their bulk with endless supplements, so that at weekends a normal mortal may soon need a sack-barrow to carry them home. And ever tried using your trusty old fountain pen on the crossword - or for that matter on the hideously expensive greetings cards nowadays? Good news for ballpoint makers, and now I'll never win a Mont Blanc on a Saturday!

Mike Medina, St. Albans, England

The 'Great Global Warming Swindle' used exactly the same techniques that the Big Green Propaganda Machine uses daily. It was obviously shock/horror to be the subject of this kind of propaganda rather than the originators. But in its favour, it did point out many 'Inconvenient Truths'.

The classic techniques (used by both) is the selective use of data (ignore those that don't fit) and the spurious accuracy of historical data (data quoted down to a decimal place or two when the maximum accuracy of the actual data was +/- a few degrees.)

A re-make should honestly include the plus and minus factors of the Anthropogenic hypothesis and its detractors.

Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Greece

Christ on a bike! This is a such a lazy article. So Christians are doing their bit to protect future generations by tackling climate change on a local level. They are not following "orthodoxy", they are taking account of scientific facts and acting in a caring considerate manner that Jesus would have approved of.

Climate change deniers like to redefine clear scientific facts about climate change as "accepted orthodoxy" in the hope that it makes denial look less selfish and less wrong. By the same logic, we only believe the world is only round because it is "accepted orthodoxy".

If a DVD came out proclaiming Holocaust denial to be fact, most shops wouldn't stock it because it would dangerously portray lies as truths. Shops should refuse to stock "The Great Global Warming Swindle" for precisely the same reason.

richard Milne, edinburgh, UK

So good to see Bill, Paul and others entirely prove the point of the article. Only a fool or a charlatan claims that science is conclusive and the argument is over on any topic. Progress in our understanding of the universe is through continual challenge, not through blithely accepting the orthodoxy. That is why environmentalism has become a religion and not a science - it promotes a view based on its prejudices and refuses to accept that that view can and must be open to challenge. Only time will tell which side is right in terms of global warming, but the simple truth is that we know next to nothing about our climate and history has demonstrated that those who make extravagent claims based on low levels of real knowledge are usually wrong.

Tim, London,

And strange, how as everyone grasps at this new orthodoxy to recyle and snaps up their trendy bag, they forget the first two parts of the mantra - 'reduce & reuse'. But then, there's no consumer mileage in telling people to buy less stuff and make do with what they have, is there?

Margot, Toronto, Canada

Everyone these days seems to take a 'holier than thou' stance about the environment. Who recycles more, who drives less, who washes their dog the least, etc, etc.

I get the feeling a lot of people do it to feel smug, not because it helps the environment.

Arthur, Newcastle,

The joint letter from scientists about the 'great Global Warming Swindle' merely seeks for the major misrepresentations of facts and views in the programme to be corrected before the DVD is distributed. You can read the letter and accompanying documents at: http://www.climateofdenial.net

Bob Ward, London, UK

Mick, you have a point that many proposals to save the planet, from Sheryl Crow's 'only use one square of paper when you use the toilet' to Ken Livingstone's 'don't flush the toilet after you've had a wee', are just barking mad. And clearly we should be sceptical of people jumping on to the green bandwagon a few moments before trying to sell us something. But this does not affect in the slightest the fact that we do need to fundamentally change the way we use the planet, from 'rape and pillage' to 'protect and nurture' - and when you criticise criticism of The Great Global Warming Swindle I'm afraid you lose the last vestiges of credibility.

Jonathan Vause, Bournemouth, UK

Hume did not pass comment here on the accuracy or otherwise of "The Great Global Warming Swindle". He was illustrating how any challenge to the green orthodoxy is likely to be met with a pseudo-religious response from the green lobby.

Milton Crofts, Warrington, UK

The phrase "the will of God" used to be the great catch all used by those in authority end arguments requiring justification for getting what they wanted and where they could not explain ther reasons, felt that the audience were too thick to understand or would disagree.

Added to this now are "The War on terror" and "to prevent global warming".

Alex, London, England

Mick Hume's contrarianism is entertaining in small doses, but he should pick and choose his targets rather than be wearisomely anti-everything. According to him, everything we do now is absolutely right and must never change, which interestingly, marks him down as a good old conservative rather than the radical he poses as.

David, London, England

Many sound ‘green’ recycling notions have been around a while, and there can sometimes seem to be a possible element of humbug when the new green aspect is embraced after the old economically prudent had fallen into disregard.

In today’s profit conscious world, using the unwritten surfaces of old envelopes as an alternative to notepad or post-its can make as much sense to the bottom line as a green credential, and can also serve as a clear demonstration of visible accountancy calculation method.

It may, moreover, save the planet from beer mat overproduction

dr venables preller, Warminster, UK

The point about the The Great Global Warming Swindle is that the programme repeated arguments which have long since been discredited, it and made up absolutely false claims, and it misrepresented some of the contributions from scientists. It is non-science - pseudo science dressed up as fact. For the programme maker to attack 200 very eminent scientists as people more concerned with their jobs than the truth is deeply offensive and typical of the rampant anti-intellectualism in this country. I suggest they make a programme called the The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle to refute the untrue garbage the original programme vomitted out.

Paul Keeling, London,

If Mick would do a little scientific research, he could get out of the “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind” crowd.

The problem with “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is that it has fraudulently misrepresented the facts - via “experts” whose main expertise consists of wrangling contributions by large energy companies.

Lots of details and evidence at:
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle
http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

Bill Butler, Durango, Colorado, USA

Mick I agree with every single word. If anyone else uses the meaningless phrase "carbon footprint" to me I'll scream. You are so right about the role of scientists, though I wouldn't expect anything else from the craven C of E. I used to think you were a Surrey based Man U glory hunter and I still do but at least you're annoying all those ecobores by driving back and forth to the theatre of prawn sandwich eaters (how many food miles?) when you could watch it on Sky at home. I never drive anywhere when I can possibly fly. When are people going to see through Camera on and all this vote blue go green nonsense?

John Clough, Framlingham, England

"I've got a replica Accrington Stanley shirt with "I'm not a plastic Man Utd Supporter" scribbled on it.

John O'Hara, Accrington, UK