I own An Inconvient Truth. And i%26#039;ll be wactchin the Swindle tomorrow. As fourth year university student, I recognize that neither of these movies are going to be compleatly perfect.
Without praising one or the other as The Holy Grail, and without compleatly discrediting the other, i%26#039;d like to hear everyones insights into these movies.
Thanks!
The Swindle was, to be blunt, little better than a propaganda piece. It made virtually every mistake possible.
In the first 30 seconds of the film, it tried to make the argument that CO2 can%26#039;t cause global warming because it hasn%26#039;t in the past. This is a completely ridiculous argument, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so we know it can cause global warming. If it couldn%26#039;t, the planet would be completely frozen.
The film doesn%26#039;t get any better after that. The scientist making this argument is Tim Ball, who claims to be a climatologist but in reality is a geographer. A geographer! No wonder he doesn%26#039;t understand the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. Nice letter here about Tim Ball lying about his credentials.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/...
The film also used a solar output graph which ended in 1980, and claimed that 1980 is %26quot;present%26quot; or %26quot;now%26quot; (I forget which). The reason is stopped in 1980 is that over the past 30 years solar output has decreased slightly as global warming has accelerated rapidly. So if they showed the entire graph (linked below), it would disprove their argument that the Sun is responsible for the current warming. But by using out-of-date data, the argument almost seems convincing.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-...
The film also interviews Dr. Christy, who claims that the troposphere is cooling, which disproves the man-made global warming theory. It turns out Christy had made an error, and has since corrected this statement.
%26quot;The climate trend shown by the UAH satellite data has changed through time, due to corrections in the processing and as the climate has varied. During the first several years of data collection the global trend was downward. That has since changed and the most recent long-term average global climate trend seen in the satellite data is +0.14 C (about 0.25° Fahrenheit) per decade.%26quot;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christ...
But the Swindle still contains this error.
One of the worst deceptions in the film was to take the interview of Dr. Carl Wunsch out of context to make it seem as though he was making the exact opposite point.
%26quot;Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, was originally featured in the programme. Afterwards he said that he was %26quot;completely misrepresented%26quot; in the film and had been %26quot;totally misled%26quot; when he agreed to be interviewed.[26][3] He called the film %26quot;grossly distorted%26quot; and %26quot;as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two.%26quot;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Globa...
Wunsch threatened legal action, and they eventually took his interview out of the film. One of many corrections which have been made since it was first released.
Basically there wasn%26#039;t a single honest and scientifically valid point made in the entire film. If you have to watch it, take it with a grain of salt. Sorry, I know you asked for people not to entirely discredit one film or the other, but in all honesty the Swindle isn%26#039;t even worth watching. 47% 8 Votes
%26quot;It is clear that the Defendant understandably formed the view that AIT was an outstanding film, and that schools should be enabled to show it to pupils. %26quot;
Here%26#039;s a bunch of stuff about %26quot;Swindle%26quot;. You%26#039;ll need to look at the links.
It is simply a political statement which distorts science. The director has a history of putting out misleading stuff. In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with Nazis. Channel 4 had to apologise for the misleading stuff in that one. The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:
%26quot;A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors.%26quot;
http://news.independent.co.uk/environmen...
%26quot;Pure Propaganda%26quot;
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313p...
Explanations of why the science is wrong.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
History of the director.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durk...
Gore%26#039;s movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right. This movie does not.
Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way. If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information. They also have a way to %26quot;Ask the Expert%26quot; about global warming. The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.
So, why did Channel 4 broadcast it?
%26quot;The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy.%26quot;
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climat... 0% 0 Votes
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/g... 0% 0 Votes
They are the myths and they%26#039;ve been proven wrong. 0% 0 Votes 0% 0 Votes 0% 0 Votes
[2] http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...
[3] http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2...
[4] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi... 6% 1 Vote
-
Answer hidden due to its low rating
I think it was Thomas Edison who said, %26quot;five percent of people think, 10 percent of people think they think, the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.%26quot;
It%26#039;s that ignorant eighty-five percent who are in a state of denial about this planet. %26quot;If it ain%26#039;t chokin%26#039; me, drownin%26#039; me, or killin%26#039; me - as I speak, right now - it ain%26#039;t happenin,%26#039; so I don%26#039;t have to be responsible! If I%26#039;m not responsible I can just go on doin%26#039; what I%26#039;m doin.%26quot; If I don%26#039;t think about it, if I do nothin%26#039; about it, if I shout it down, It%26#039;ll go away. If I can belittle or humiliate someone and call them names, I must be right and I feel better.
Albert Einstein said, %26quot;Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.%26quot;
This earth is inhabited by approximately seven billion people - six and a half billion of them are as freaking stupid and clueless as a bucket of bottle caps. It%26#039;s also those six and a half billion people who mindlessly foul this planet day in and day out, and who take no responsibility for doing so.
So who%26#039;s right? If you have a brain - go figure. 0% 0 Votes