You might be used to watching a film and then watching it again when the Director becomes more famous and more powerful and gets free rein to produce "The Director's Cut".
However, since its release in March 2007 The Great Global Warming Swindle is up to its 4th version. The original version at 72 minutes contained material that was in error or that had to be removed because the interviewee found themselves to have been misrepresented. Subsequent versions have been changed as more errors and writs come to light. I watched the "International version" which clocks at a mere 52 minutes. I can't wait until it reduces to opening and closing credits.
The overwhelming consensus is that man's activities are producing excess greenhouse gases that are contributing to global warming beyond any natural cycle. This film attempts to refute that and impute that you are being lied to and that there is an anti-capitalist, anti-human, anti-Africa conspiracy leading this charge.
The biggest problem with this documentary is that everything that is presented as new and amazing is actually old and proved to be wrong. The only bits that were correct were twisted misrepresented to appear to support Martin Durkin's ideas, and as such have since been removed under threat of litigation from the scientists involved.
What at first seem to be strong and logical arguments can be brought into question or even demolished with a bit of google and the pause button: 1. When the graph label says "NOW", why does it stop at 1990? Temperature rose after 1990 and that would have killed the argument the graph was trying to make. 2. Why does the solar graph stop at 1950? Because the "strong correlation" between solar activity disappears during the period of greatest warming after 1950, again killing the argument. 3. The New York Times date is 1996... but the letter quoted from it is supposedly criticising the UN IPCC report released in 2001. 4. One scientist is given a prestigious title. You aren't told that he held that post from 1962 to 1964. 5. One "Professor of Climatology" who gives extensive talks to debunk global warming, hasn't published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal for over 10 years. 6. A few of the featured scientists have previously argued that passive smoking is harmless and that CFCs do not affect the Ozone layer. It appears that their science can be bought by companies funding their research. 7. Suggesting that Africa cannot develop their resources of coal and oil to help their people because of the green conspiracy ignores the high levels of corruption and foreign debt that are probably the real reason. 8. Why is 20 minutes missing?
In 1998, after another film he made about the environment was broadcast, Martin Durkin was found by the Independent Television Commission (UK) to have "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes" and "distorted (their views) through selective editing".
This film tells you that everyone has lied to you about climate change and greenhouse gas. Don't be swindled! http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/12/1976998.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/13/1977504.htm http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/
However, since its release in March 2007 The Great Global Warming Swindle is up to its 4th version. The original version at 72 minutes contained material that was in error or that had to be removed because the interviewee found themselves to have been misrepresented. Subsequent versions have been changed as more errors and writs come to light. I watched the "International version" which clocks at a mere 52 minutes. I can't wait until it reduces to opening and closing credits.
The overwhelming consensus is that man's activities are producing excess greenhouse gases that are contributing to global warming beyond any natural cycle. This film attempts to refute that and impute that you are being lied to and that there is an anti-capitalist, anti-human, anti-Africa conspiracy leading this charge.
The biggest problem with this documentary is that everything that is presented as new and amazing is actually old and proved to be wrong. The only bits that were correct were twisted misrepresented to appear to support Martin Durkin's ideas, and as such have since been removed under threat of litigation from the scientists involved.
What at first seem to be strong and logical arguments can be brought into question or even demolished with a bit of google and the pause button: 1. When the graph label says "NOW", why does it stop at 1990? Temperature rose after 1990 and that would have killed the argument the graph was trying to make. 2. Why does the solar graph stop at 1950? Because the "strong correlation" between solar activity disappears during the period of greatest warming after 1950, again killing the argument. 3. The New York Times date is 1996... but the letter quoted from it is supposedly criticising the UN IPCC report released in 2001. 4. One scientist is given a prestigious title. You aren't told that he held that post from 1962 to 1964. 5. One "Professor of Climatology" who gives extensive talks to debunk global warming, hasn't published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal for over 10 years. 6. A few of the featured scientists have previously argued that passive smoking is harmless and that CFCs do not affect the Ozone layer. It appears that their science can be bought by companies funding their research. 7. Suggesting that Africa cannot develop their resources of coal and oil to help their people because of the green conspiracy ignores the high levels of corruption and foreign debt that are probably the real reason. 8. Why is 20 minutes missing?
In 1998, after another film he made about the environment was broadcast, Martin Durkin was found by the Independent Television Commission (UK) to have "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes" and "distorted (their views) through selective editing".
This film tells you that everyone has lied to you about climate change and greenhouse gas. Don't be swindled! http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/12/1976998.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/13/1977504.htm http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/