See update below!The BBC produced a documentary so titled. I don't think anybody would make the claim that the BBC is a tool of big oil or of conservatives, yet this movie does a great job debunking the claims and misrepresentation of facts made in Gore's award winning documentary...and all without dramatics and emotional pleas, but instead with SCIENCE.
CO2 levels, natural weather patterns, global climate cycles, ice cores, sun spots, solar activity, sea levels, storms, polar ice caps, permafrost, dissenting opinions being censored, oil & gas behind dissension, the money trail, you name it and the BBC documentary covers it. An amazing array of accomplished scientists participate and present science not presented in Gore's movie.
Also it's important to understand that the idea of a Global Warming crisis is about money and a political agenda and not about conservation and environmentalism. Climate science and those who practice climatology are made relevant and get funding if there is a looming crisis. In the end, if you're unwilling to listen to all evidence, all the theories, that are central tenets of Global Warming and man's role...well then you're intellectually dishonest, close minded and intolerant.
Many schools, churches and other venues offered free showings of Gore's movie....will those same venues now offer the BBC documentary as a counterpoint? Will it make its way into theaters or onto mainstream television channels? I think we all know the answer!
IF YOU BELIEVE the points made n Gore's movie, you must view the BBC piece so that your personal view can have integrity!
BBC Channel 4's official page for The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary is a great resource of information.
Apparently links to the full BBC movie are being taken down by those who don't like its content (intolerance)...so here are several.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Update: From today's Wall Street Journal opinion blog Taranto had a reader point out an interview Gore gave last year where he basically makes it clear that he's ok exaggerating, if not lying, for the greater good when it comes to global warming...problem is that this is all about science and this completely goes against the foundation of good science.
------------------------------------------------------------------
'An Over-Representation of Factual Presentations'After our item yesterday on scientists critical of Al Gore's "global warming" alarmism, a reader called our attention to an interview with Gore that appeared last May in a publication called Grist:
Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
2 comments:
Global Shrinkage????
"Yet significant activity continues beneath the surface. And the activity has been increasing lately, scientists have discovered. In addition, the nearby Teton Range of mountains, in a total surprise, is getting shorter."
This has to do with the "super volcano" located underground at Yellow Stone Park. I'm sure Mr. Gore will no doubt tie this into his "inconvenient truth".
I agree that we should all be open to alternative views. I actually believe that climate change is real (manmade or not) and that it's likely tied to mankind (not entirely certain, but that's my view for now).
So, I watched this with open eyes. And some of the points are interesting. But you should be aware that one of the major interviewees for the film, Carl Wunsch, completely refuted how his statements were used. He felt the film amounted to "propaganda".
Additionally, the producer's bias has to be somewhat in question: he has made something of a career with the BBC of making counter-environmental pieces. Is he wrong? No, not on the face of it. But his consistent stances imply a strategy of skepticism which is then validated. In short, I see no reason why THIS movie is more credible than something like An Inconvenient Truth. That does not mean that you're wrong. I just don't trust this piece.
Last point: I don't get one thing. There are two propositions in mainstream global warming. 1) The earth's climate is going to experience volatility and warmer temperatures that are tied to a variety of phenomena. 2) The key to the phenomena is human consumption of fossil fuels and other energy sources.
2) might be in dispute. 1) is almost entirely accepted. So, let's say man is not the source. Isn't this still a serious problem worthy of a serious plan?
Post a Comment