Explain...
2007-06-22 14:22:41 · 12 answers · asked by The Encyclopædia 2 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
An Inconvenient Truth is a little overdramatic, but it has the basic science right. Swindle is flat wrong.
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 publicly for the misleading stuff in that one. The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:
"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."
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
"Pure Propaganda"
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php
Explanations of why the science is wrong.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
History of the director.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)
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 "Ask the Expert" 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?
"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html
2007-06-22 14:43:34 · answer #1 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a swindle! But it's beginning to look like we should all drink from the same poisoned well because group-think is moving along. Climate changes do happen, but it's a little early to stop oil production and start selling off waterfront property.
2007-06-22 21:32:34 · answer #2 · answered by Peter B 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I know nothing about either but can say I doubt global warming can finish us off before the san adreas fault kills us all with tidal waves(still waiting since 1970), a meteorite hits us and flattens life on earth, korea launches nukes at us, the depletion of the amazon jungle starves us all of oxygen(was supposed to happen by the end of the 1980's from memory) we all catch AIDs, and people not reading the bible causes judgement day and the unrighteous to be ridden down and crushed under hooves of hot iron.
Sorry which completely bogus purely political voting issue were we talking about again???
2007-06-22 21:48:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Al Gore movie unfortunately came over as a promotional movie for Al Gore but the basics are sound -
the swindle was a joke
2007-06-22 21:32:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
'Truth' is largely based on documented scientific findings and the issues it raises can be substantiated.
'Swindle' was produced for the purpose of causing controversy and is just one of a long line of similarly but unrelated controversial documentaries produced by Martin Durkin. It is based on what the producer deemed to be points likely to cause controversy.
2007-06-22 22:05:01 · answer #5 · answered by Trevor 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I definitely agree with "An Inconvenient Truth." I'm 66 and without a doubt have seen dramatic climatic changes over the decades.
And even if it weren't true, we have to stop crapping in our one and only nest. It's a crime what we are doing to our air, water and food supply.
2007-06-23 00:55:35 · answer #6 · answered by greenwillowtrie 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Long long ago, in the way back when, Al Gore said that Saddam Hussein was trying to get WMD and was a big threat to civilization. Gore lied, young men died. Can't trust a word he said. ....The most amazing thing is how he tried to steal the election in 2000, then breathed a sigh of relief (as we all did) when he didn't have to be the one to respond to 9/11, and he cried a resounding "George Bush is MY President", .......and then went right back to trashing almost immediately. Talk about flip flopping. Now I know where John Kerry learned it from.
2007-06-22 21:50:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
AIT was based on good science.
GGWS was based on misinformation and bad science. Literally 30 seconds into the film it made a bad argument. A couple minutes in and I couldn't stand it anymore. Absolutely horrible film.
2007-06-23 00:55:30 · answer #8 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
an inconvienient truth to the maximum level
2007-06-22 21:58:02 · answer #9 · answered by karmadogma123 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Haven't seen either one. I've been meaning to, just never got around to it. So I can't agree or disagree with a film I haven't seen.
2007-06-22 21:46:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋