The swindle in this case was the entire documentary. It was a misrepresentation of the facts and a distortion of the arguments - it wasn't too difficult to guess something was amiss with the entire documentary as it proceeded.

It's not an exaggeration to say this documentary has caused a stir amongst climate scientists who are angery their work is represented in such sensationalist terms - this is fine for Daily Mail readers, not so good for those after the truth.

So, here we go. Check this lot out:

The article in The Guardian that gives an overview on the problems with the documentary.

On the subject of the graphs, here's a start on the Bad Science forum with discussions on the presentation of data in the graphs, and some more discussion on the erroneous graphs here.

Information on some of the experts here. This thread includes a post from one of the scientists misrepresented on the programme.

More information of flaws in the programme addressed at www.realclimate.org.

bearedbruce - A look at the Wikipedia entry on Abdusamatov makes interesting reading, He is not a climatologist but a mathematician and physicist. Using other planets as models for what is happening on the Earth (and vice-versa) is not good science. Although it's helpful to compare data on other planets systems on theose worlds invariably behave very differently to systems on this one - there may be parallels but often these are because the differnet systems demonstrate some convergence rather that a straight reproduction of a particular behaviour or result.

It is outrageous that science is misrepresented in this way. The result of programmes like this is to give justification to the selfish idiots who tool around in their Humvees and SUVs in between taking too many plane flights and leaving their AV setup on standby permanently.