This is a very unusual British documentary because it aired on regular public television and contradicts the widely accepted belief that there is global warming AND that it's caused by mankind. While you may or may not agree with this, the film does seem well documented and presents its case well. All the many scientists they feature in the film cannot just be dismissed as "a bunch of kooks". And, showing the FOUNDER of Green Peace speaking against the global warming movement was truly amazing as well as the UN (with the IPCC committee) suppressing dissenting opinions in their reports! It's also rather interesting--provided you have a reasonably open mind. Now I am NOT saying you need to say global warming is a hoax--just be willing to listen to facts and weigh what you hear yourself. But the reasonable arguments being posed in this film need to be answered and not just dismissed offhandedly.
Unfortunately, there is no real debate on global warming today. I do NOT mean that there are disagreements and great differences in what scientists think about global warming. Instead, it is simply not a debate because there is no discussion or even systematic discussion of the phenomenon. Many hardliners, like Al Gore, say "there is no debate--it is fact" as if that somehow means no one has a right to even question this dogma and if they do they hate the planet. So it isn't surprising that some of the reviews on IMDb sound dogmatic--not even addressing whether this TV special is true or partially true or even if it raises some reasonable concerns. In other words, because it doesn't fit into a generally accepted view, it won't even be considered. This is the sort of thinking that kept humans believing that the Sun revolved around the Earth. While I would never say global warming could not occur, it's crazy that no one is listening to contrary opinions--and it's more like a religion instead of science. EVEN IF IT'S WRONG, true science considers options and doesn't just assume it's correct. And, even if celebrities insist it IS true, this does not constitute scientific evidence.
Now if you are a fair person, you cannot give this movie a score of 10 or 1 just because they agree or disagree with your current beliefs. Some of it is surely correct and some of it surely isn't. Plus, whether you mark that you agree or disagree with a review does NOT mean you should mark it "helpful" or "not helpful". It's a lot more important whether or not it makes you think, challenges you and is not a regurgitation of what you are already thinking. And, wow, did this film challenge my thinking. These were not idiots and cranks featured in THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SCANDAL and the reasons they theorize for the theory's popularity make some sense.
My advice is to give it a watch and then watch AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH or some other video that affirms that there is global warming. Don't dismiss or praise a movie before you even see it. A sane person listens to both sides and tries to think before just dismissing one opinion or the other.
By the way, one review mentions how angry and foul the film's creator was when he was later confronted. This is interesting but may just be a reaction to the bombarding of repeated personal attacks and the vehemence of the opposition. I'm not excusing boorish behavior, but have seen that those who are convinced they are 100% correct in this argument are generally angry and impossible to engage in a meaningful discussion. Had I been in his spot, I might have found myself giving some of them the finger or losing my cool because of these nasty and very personal attacks. Why can't we all just have a reasonable dialog? Are we that afraid what the other side has to say?
Unfortunately, there is no real debate on global warming today. I do NOT mean that there are disagreements and great differences in what scientists think about global warming. Instead, it is simply not a debate because there is no discussion or even systematic discussion of the phenomenon. Many hardliners, like Al Gore, say "there is no debate--it is fact" as if that somehow means no one has a right to even question this dogma and if they do they hate the planet. So it isn't surprising that some of the reviews on IMDb sound dogmatic--not even addressing whether this TV special is true or partially true or even if it raises some reasonable concerns. In other words, because it doesn't fit into a generally accepted view, it won't even be considered. This is the sort of thinking that kept humans believing that the Sun revolved around the Earth. While I would never say global warming could not occur, it's crazy that no one is listening to contrary opinions--and it's more like a religion instead of science. EVEN IF IT'S WRONG, true science considers options and doesn't just assume it's correct. And, even if celebrities insist it IS true, this does not constitute scientific evidence.
Now if you are a fair person, you cannot give this movie a score of 10 or 1 just because they agree or disagree with your current beliefs. Some of it is surely correct and some of it surely isn't. Plus, whether you mark that you agree or disagree with a review does NOT mean you should mark it "helpful" or "not helpful". It's a lot more important whether or not it makes you think, challenges you and is not a regurgitation of what you are already thinking. And, wow, did this film challenge my thinking. These were not idiots and cranks featured in THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SCANDAL and the reasons they theorize for the theory's popularity make some sense.
My advice is to give it a watch and then watch AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH or some other video that affirms that there is global warming. Don't dismiss or praise a movie before you even see it. A sane person listens to both sides and tries to think before just dismissing one opinion or the other.
By the way, one review mentions how angry and foul the film's creator was when he was later confronted. This is interesting but may just be a reaction to the bombarding of repeated personal attacks and the vehemence of the opposition. I'm not excusing boorish behavior, but have seen that those who are convinced they are 100% correct in this argument are generally angry and impossible to engage in a meaningful discussion. Had I been in his spot, I might have found myself giving some of them the finger or losing my cool because of these nasty and very personal attacks. Why can't we all just have a reasonable dialog? Are we that afraid what the other side has to say?