Not signed in (Sign In)
Welcome, Guest!

Did you know you'll have to sign to join the discussions? If you have an account, sign in now. If you don't, register – it's easy and free.

Bottom of Page
The Film And Beyond: Global Warming Swindle Swindle
  1.  
1 to 2 of 2
Apr 12th 2007 edited
The latest piece of work to make the scientific consensus look crazy is The Great Global Warming Swindle. Below is an email reply to a ShareTheTruth participant who asked if I had seen the film. I have, and I agree with the climate scientists.

>>
It can be difficult to sort through all the rhetoric flying about nowadays. The best way that I have found, to be able to make sense of everything--also to spot when people are issuing propaganda--is by familiarizing myself with the actual science.

Indeed, the problem with the film format is that the editing process makes it easy to cherry-pick data, whereas if authors try to pull that off, it becomes apparent rather quickly. Of course, this problem affects An Inconvenient Truth as well since that is a film. Therefore we would do well to familiarize ourselves with the primary sources.
<<

I won't copy the part of the email with book recommendations, since we have a more comprehensive list on this here forum.

>>
As for the Great Global Warming Swindle, I encourage you to look at this statement by Carl Wunsch, whose presence was central to the GGWS movie but after seeing his remarks become distorted to suit the filmmakers' purposes, says he "should have never trusted Channel 4."

When you look into the science of it all, it becomes clear who the propagandists are. Don't despair if you feel there's a lot of conflicting information and you can't determine who's right. All you need to see is who has the last word. Here we have the folks at realclimate.org explaining the faulty claims of the GGWS movie, in an article titled Swindled!

Realclimate is an upstanding blog and you won't be able to find any skeptics arguing science against them. That's how you tell they're right: no one counter-argues them!

Neither does anyone counter-argue Flannery, or Kolbert. Indeed, even attacks on Al Gore are either attacking him as a character, or politician, or distorting the facts in the movie; they don't counter the science as it was presented.
<<

Hope that helps!
Apr 12th 2007 edited
Other useful articles that provide a nice bird's eye view of the movie's intellectual dishonesty:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
  1.  
1 to 2 of 2
Top of PageBack to discussions