The Green Swindle

On August 27, 2010, Sean Hannity aired a special program called “The Green Swindle” that should be a “must see” for everyone concerned about global warming hysteria.  The 42-minute program explains the history of global warming and who stands to profit from all the hype.

27 Responses to The Green Swindle

  1. steve September 6, 2010 at 9:47 am #

    Great show.. Thanks for posting on your site

  2. michael ram September 6, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    How can I get copy of DVD?

  3. paul wenum September 8, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    Saw the show and it was interesting. They will continue and never give up won’t they.

  4. Rian June 23, 2011 at 10:47 pm #

    Interesting collection of material. If Hannity’s main criticism of climate change activists is that they are running a scare campaign, then this video strongly undermines that claim. This is the alternate scare campaign: that enviro-communists are going to tax everyone and create a world-government; and that, somehow, the 3rd world is holding the USA to ransom.
    Also, most of the people interviewed were from the ‘Competitive Enterprise Institute’. I don’t even have to google their name to tell you that’s a free market think tank. What they know about climate change is very little.
    Once again, Faux News has delivered its fair and balanced, right-wing interpretation of events.

    • James Wanchik August 6, 2011 at 12:55 pm #

      Typical left-wing progressive response. All rhetoric and no substance. I understand substance would require that you have some facts to counter the points made. A large part of the interview included a founding member of Green Peace. Let’s just overlook that “inconvenient” fact. I suppose the misrepresentation of the polar bear pics was just “right-wing interpretation of events”. I suppose the medieval warming period being edited out of the “hockey-stick” graph is another example of “right-wing interpretation of events”. I suppose data manipulation…etc….etc… I could go on and on.

      [edited my moderator – see comment rules] Your blathering has nothing to do with opinion…it’s willful ignorance of anything that disrupts your world view.

      • James Wanchik August 7, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

        Dear Moderator,

        Please accept my apologies for not following the rules. You have an excellent website here, and I would not want to diminish its value in any way.

      • Fredrik Fyhr June 1, 2013 at 3:16 am #

        @ James

        What points made? Rian’s analysis is correct, There is no critics against the scientific facts regarding AGW in this video, they are all debunkend since decades. There is however a quirky conspiracy theories spread by think tanks funded by the oil lobby, they succesfully fool the uneducted. As your response so clearly shows.

    • BOX October 21, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

      So, it sounds like you are the all-knowing expert on climate change, I mean you don’t even have to do any research to make your claims. This should tell everyone exactly who you are, a typical mindless climate change zombie that has no facts to support anything they say.

      • Fredrik Fyhr June 1, 2013 at 3:31 am #

        Only the scientiffic world that has proven the basic mechanisms of AGW in at least three independent fields of science.

        1, The satelites measure higher ingoing than outgoing radition-> proofs more anergy stays in the system.
        2, The fingerprint from the Carbon isotopes in the athmosphere shows the increase of co2 content comes from fossil burning, a simple class room experiment shows that co2 blocks IR radiation.
        3, the warming is higher at night time than day time, higher at the poles than equator, higher over land than ocean, higher winter time than summer time. -> fingerprint of warming only consistent with warming caused by increased amount of GHG’s.
        4, No way to explain how earth has left ice ages without the physical properties we know Co2 has.
        5, ice cores and sediment cores shows the close tie between Co2 and temperature, the close tie we know it should have when we examine thephysical properties c02 has.

        And the list goes on…

        There is not a single fact to be found that contradicts the theory, just a bunch of sad garbage pumped out by the fossil lobby. Start to examine these fossil lobby myth’s, you will be surprised over how they shamlessly lies……

  5. Ray Mason December 20, 2011 at 10:13 am #

    The supposed threat of disastrous and sudden climate change due to man-made CO2 is a total scam.

    Anybody with a hint of objective scientific analytical thinking-capacity can see through it.
    Sadly the other 99% are pretty gullible.

    Having said that, It’s clear that Hannity tries to stretch that truth to accuse the entire ecological “movement”.
    Let’s not forget that the media has its hidden agendas too.

    In some ways Hannity is actually supporting the CO2 scam, by linking it to more genuine environmental concerns and then ridiculing them all.

    People tend to reject it all once they find it to be biased.

  6. Yurt September 12, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    You’re right. It’s all a scam. The globe isn’t warming at a rate faster than it has in the last 650,000 years, and the concentration of CO2 is definitely not above what it’s ever been in the last 650,000 years. All those scientists that have spent their lives collecting data, they’re making it up. It’s a joke. It’s a sociological experiment. Those silly tree-huggers worried about the rainforest. Don’t they know? The rainforest doesn’t matter. Those silly Alaskans worried about the melting permafrost and quickly eroding western coastline. Don’t they know we can rebuild? Those silly scientists finding Orcas in Barrow… what are they so worried about? As if the icecaps could really, actually melt and fall into the oceans and raise sea levels? Not possible. Solar power? No way it can create 600,000 jobs in the USA alone. That’s crazy talk, and foolish anyway. We have limitless fossil fuels and perfectly clean air and water. The science is hogwash. Let’s just trust what we’ve been doing our whole lives is going to leave our children with a world exactly the way we found it. There’s no possible way it could be any other way, and there’s no possible way 6 billion people on a planet could have any impact. Please.

  7. César M González Betancourt February 5, 2013 at 3:48 pm #

    They forgot to say that FOX NEWS is FIXED NEWS. The propaganda arm of the extreme right wing Christian wackos.

    • Dan McGrath February 6, 2013 at 5:18 pm #

      That says a lot about the indoctrination you’ve submitted to. The left has taken over many of the so-called main-stream news outlets and despise Fox’s independence, so they rail against them, whipping up the faithful to never take anything said on Fox News as anything but falsities. If Fox News said the sky is blue and grass is green, leftists all over the world would jerk their knees and blather about how stupid Fox is, “if they expect us to believe that right-wing propaganda.”

      We’d all be better off if people were still capable of analyzing different sources of information, applying critical thinking and reaching our own conclusions, but I suppose I ask too much.

      • Fredrik Fyhr June 1, 2013 at 3:37 am #

        Is this really your view of fox news? Im from sweden we do not have propaganda channels like fox here, but i find it entertaining to watch. To me it’s humor to hear people talk about things thay do not have a clue about and still have a very strong opinion. Like Tidal water “it comes in and it comes out and no ones knows why” that is the kind of educational level you have at fox news. No wonder they believe AGW is a hoax.

  8. David Bernard January 13, 2014 at 2:38 am #

    As a qualified Agricultural Scientist and teacher, I cannot support the idea of anthropogenic global warming. This is because of the quality and quantity of climate scientists who disagree and because of the nature of the claims from the AGW position which state “scientific consensus” (Obviously I’m not included or don’t count) and “scientific conclusion” (possible on some levels for some facts but not a generally helpful attitude to hold in the midst of a debate).

  9. Frank Kompotnik September 9, 2014 at 9:22 am #

    Do owls exist?

    A) Yes
    B) No

    • Neilio September 9, 2014 at 8:51 pm #

      Why don’t you ask an owl? Do humans exist? Would there be existence if we were not self aware? Would the climate change if we never existed?

      • Frank Kompotnik September 10, 2014 at 7:53 am #

        I think owls are just a global scam. For centuries scientist tried to convince simple people like me of the existence of owls, but I say it’s enough!

        • Neilio September 10, 2014 at 7:30 pm #

          I see. You are using Owls as an analogue to AGW, and thinking yourself clever, are using that as a way to say that global warming is real, and that it is absurd to think otherwise. Well, Iv’e seen Owls before, in zoos and in the wild, and I know that they are a real thing.
          So where have you seen anthropogenic global warming?

          • Frank Kompotnik September 11, 2014 at 11:46 am #

            Animatronical beasts I tell you! Owls are just like metaphors: I sincerely doubt their existence! There’s just no scientific proof!

            Make-believe I tell you!

            And check your body for the implants friend!

          • Neilio September 11, 2014 at 5:24 pm #

            Whatever Frank.

  10. Vlatko Dudek September 11, 2014 at 11:53 am #

    Did you write something Vlatko? If you did it didn’t show up. Please re-submit your comment. If you had one. -Neilio

  11. Vlatko Dudek September 13, 2014 at 1:30 pm #

    Vlatko will wait for good moderation

    • Neilio September 13, 2014 at 5:33 pm #

      You have to write something for there to be any moderation there Vlatko.

  12. Amos Batto September 30, 2014 at 6:43 am #

    Sean Hannity’s “The Green Swindle” is a propaganda piece, which interviews people from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, but doesn’t interview climate scientists, nor does it even start with the science. Any argument about global climate change should start with the peer-reviewed scientific literature, which this propanda piece utterly ignores.

    Cook et al. (2013) did a search in the Web of Science for *all* the peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals published between 1991 and 2011 under the subject of “global climate change” and “global warming.” Among those articles which express a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of articles say that human activity is the cause. See:

    James Powell did a similar search in the Web of Science for scientific articles under the topics of “global warming” and “global climate change”. He only found 26 out of 25,182 articles published between 1991 and 2013 which reject anthropogenic global warming (AGW). See:

    Powell’s methodology is less rigorous than Cook et al., and he probably missed some articles, but what is interesting is that none of the 26 articles which Powell found have been widely cited in the scientific literature. In a previous study, Cook found that articles which reject AGW have only been cited an average of 5 times and the most cited article was 17 times. In contrast the average number of citations or an article under the topic of “global warming” is 19 times. See:

    I looked through the list of articles which Powell found ( and very few of them are presentations of primary research. They are mostly reinterpretations of other studies–in other words, they are opinions about other people’s research. None of them are published by the small coterie of scientists that the Heartland Institute trots out at their conferences questioning AGW. Clearly, the scientists which give talks at Heartland, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and similar right-wing think tanks aren’t publishing much in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

    What the studies by Cook et al. and Powell show is that there is no real scientific debate on this topic. The few articles which question AGW haven’t raised any significant evidence to question AGW. If they had, they would be widely debated (and thus widely cited in the scientific literature), but they haven’t.

    I have looked at the alternative theories for why the temperature has risen 0.85ºC since 1880, but the evidence directly contradicts those theories. Solar irradiance, volcanic activity, water vapor, urban heat islands and cosmic rays can not account for the warming and climate change we are observing. The Skeptical Science website uses peer-reviewed science to debunk each one of the alternative theories. See:

    The only climate scientist shown in “The Green Swindle” is Richard Lindzen of MIT, who believes that doubling the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will only cause 1ºC of warming, but Lindzen’s 2009 paper on climate sensitivity has been widely debunked in the scientific literature. See:

    We may not like what scientists are telling us about AGW, but it isn’t a good idea to reject science, just because it is telling us something that we don’t want to hear. We have to live in a reality-based world based on science, not the fantasy world which we have constructed to ignore reality.

    • Neilio October 1, 2014 at 5:16 am #

      I just have one question for you. Where is the warming? You true believers tend to leave that out. It’s been almost 20 years of no warming. I don’t see how you can stick to the theory when there is no evidence of it in the real world. Before you reply, you look and see where the warming is then get back to me.

  13. siquijorisland June 25, 2015 at 8:03 am #

    good information

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.