Why do people trust a propaganda movie like the "GLOBAL WARMING GREAT SWINDLE" ?

Question

I invite you to read the critics made to the movies and how Mr Durkin answers by f---k you. Very scientific.

Shouldn´t we keep the debat if there is one at a higher level without taking things out of their context ?

See the critics at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

Appearantly, a whole republican shipping came at once to answer a question I didn´t ask with Al Gore´s movie which I also think isn´t at an acceptable scientifical level.

This is clearly making politics instead of raising awareness about junk-science

Answer 1

You can look no further than the "Heat Island" effect caused by the high concentration of buildings and reduced amount of the vegetation umbrella as proof we do have the ability to affect our climate (and that's just localized climate change).

There are two distinct camps. One based on profits, greed and a complete disregard for the planet. The other is one that is stepping back and saying "you can't spend the money if there's nothing to buy."

Answer 2

There are some people who genuinely do beleive that what was shown in 'Swindle' is credible evidence against global warming.

To the initiated the errors in the programme are obvious but to the uninitiated it appears to put forward a compelling case. Therein lies the problem - it appeals to those who don't actually know about global warming and are unable to diferentiate fact from fiction, they simply believe what they're told because it provides 'evidence' that supports their viewpoint.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that many who chose to trust the movie are very selective in what they beleive - if something bolsters their own opinion then it must be true but if it conflicts with their line of thinking then it must be a lie. For example, people may beleive what they see in the movie but will reject the fact that the producer (Martin Durkin) is a revolutionary communist who deliberately flaunts controversy (his words not mine). They'll dimsiss the fact that Durkin described his own movie as 'an irresponsible piece of journalism' and will happily accuse you if lying when you tell them that the scientists featured are taking legal action against the programme for misrepresentation arising from selective editing. It would be pointless to say that the producers drew the graphs themselves that were featured in the programme and they admit that they're falsified.

The programme, by admission, is not based on fact but was created with the intention of causing controversy.

There are genuine concerns about the science behing global warming and it's very important that these are discussed sensibly and openly.

It's hard to make headway when people chose to beleive a single controversial television producer who has never studied global warming in his life in preference to the thousands of qualified professionals in the field.

Answer 3

I really love watch people squirm at the movie. Talk about your crybabies. "The movie is not balanced", like Al Gores' is. By the way read this link were experts are highly critical of the inconvenient truth. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef&k=99551&p=1
Here is a scathing report by the House of Lords in England on the United Nations IPCC http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1210.htm

The out of date graphs that are mentioned have to do with the hockey stick graph. two Canadians, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, to the extent they were able, analysed the data and methodology use by Mann and came to the conclusion that the algorithms used by him produced hockey sticks, regardless of the input data. When Dr Man, the author of the hockey stick curve was asked to produce his data and methodology, he refused.

As for Karl Wunsch, I heard an interview from him, he clearly states that events that global warming supporters say is proof is part of nature. And that was the point of the video. The radio interview can be heard here: http://www.cjob.com/shows/adler.aspx?mc=62757

Answer 4

The truth is inconvenient to those who have vested interests in the status quo. Fixing the causes, some believe, will cut into the fat profit margins. In fact, for some industrial sectors, that might be true; but for most others, more efficient, less polluting operations can mean reduced operating costs and wider, not smaller, profit margins.

It is unfortunate that Al Gore, a politician, was the narrator of "Inconvenient Truth." As consequence, viewers who dispise Gore's politics discount anything he has to say, even if the words he says in the film and in his lectures come from legitimate, respected climatologists.

In a fair sample totalling over 900 refereed studies by climatologists, meteorologists, and the like, not one (zilch) expressed doubts that the excessive rate and degree of warming of the current warming cycle are due to mankind's pollution. Yet the people who dislike Gore's politics continue to discount the words of the experts. For them it is inconvenient to agree with Gore no matter what he says.

And related to the politics issue, people just do not trust our government...the one that wages war in Iraq, failed to respond to Katrina, and elected a President who lost the popular vote. So when people hear our government spokespeople take up the global warming banner, they begin to wonder what the government's hidden agenda might be.

To my way of thinking, the truth or falsehood of global warming should be decided on the basis of refereed scientrific studies not sponsored by pro or con sides. If you think Gore has a political agenda, don't use him as a source. Go to the papers, many of which can be found on the web. Make up your own mind based on knowledgeable experts in the field. That's the smart, informed thing to do.

PS: I find it consistent that people who find the truth "inconvenient" are the same people who would give a thumbs down to someone who suggests that the "truth or falsehood of global warming should be decided on the basis of refereed scientrific studies not sponsored by pro or con sides." These are the same kinds of people who put Copernicus under house arrest for suggesting the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Answer 5

This movie was an attempt to bring what many believe to be a problem to everyone's attention. That is not propaganda! Our world is getting warmer, the ice fields are melting and animals that live in the cold areas of our world have a problem. This is true! But how much are we to blame, and can we reverse what we have done. That is another question. We need to remember that there were about five ICE AGES or more that also means that the world heated up six or more times as well. Are we in another warm up period that our pollutions has made worse, or is Nature getting her revenge on man kind. We do not truely know!

Answer 6

The whole problem with global warming is that both sides are putting out propaganda. The pro-global-warming camp is funded by environmentalist groups and the anti-global-warming camp is funded by industrial interests. None of the so-called evidence either side has offered is truly reliable because of the bias of the scientists involved -- they're getting paid to say what their supporters want them to say. The whole debate is really a joke. The only way we'll ever get a straight answer on global warming is if we get some scientists from other disciplines who are shielded from the money mavens and are allowed to properly apply the scientific method. The scientific community as it stands right now is no longer a disinterested, objective third party.

Answer 7

If worldwide warming is real and we are able to all do our share to a minimum of sluggish it down why does not Gore practice what he preaches? He has a 12,000sq ft homestead that expenditures properly over $20,000 are 3 hundred and sixty 5 days for utilities. He owns a a hundred ft homestead boat plus he and various his relationspersistent SUVs. So how approximately he does his section first if it truly is that undesirable. Or are we meant to do greater effective than our share so he does not might desire to alter his existence type?

Answer 8

Because they are idiots who fail to answer one simple question: who benefits if global warming is real and we do nothing and who benefits if it really is a hoax and we something?

The energy companies are enjoying the greatest profits of any in American history. They have a strong motivation to deny the reality of global warming and they have the resources (no pun intended) to pursue that agenda.

However, the people who are working against global warming have nothing to gain except the knowledge that they are helping save our world from ourselves. There is no company stock that will go up if we start working to save the planet. There is nobody's pocket being lined. That's the main things Americans stupidly fail to think about: motive. The President and Vice President have direct ties to the energy companies and they use their positions to ensure that their companies continue to rake in profits.

And somehow they've managed to pull the wool completely over the eyes of the American populace who fail to realize what is really at stake in this game.

Also, Sarge, you are entirely wrong. Scientists are not funded by environmentalists. Environmentalists do not have money. Scientists are funded by research and grant money to investigate problems. Whether that problem is finding or not finding global warming is inconsequential. As long as they present good science they will continue to be supported. If a scientist were to find good evidence against global warming (which doesn't exist), they would be just as likely to be supported. In fact, the vast majority of scientists initially DID NOT believe that humans were causing climate change. Anyone who has followed the scientific literature over the years knows this. But over time all of the evidence is pointing in the same direction.

Answer 9

wishfull thinking on their part
people do not like the idea that the whole world is changing and that maybe they had something to do with it

ecologists and scientists who work for politicians ,get paid by these politicians and they have downplayed the facts because solutions are expensive and means change and change effects many peoples incomes,and upsets profit margins,so most of the world is kept in the dark of the real things that are going on.

this was my Pagan solution
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=An5ABYMwIL38_MRrKZooGMDsy6IX?qid=20070404121718AAHcuvo&show=7#profile-info-806cfcfd54c819f2d72dcca3e2690d12aa

Answer 10

For the same reason that others trust propaganda movies like "An Inconvenient Truth"