Looking for:
The great global warming swindle movie download |
The great global warming swindle movie download.Browse more videos
The great global warming swindle movie download.The Great Global Warming Swindle - FULL Documentary HD
The Christopher Booker book The Real Global Warming Disaster provides a detailed synopsis of the programme, as well as an account of the subsequent complaints and Ofcom verdict. David Miliband , at the time the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, presented a rebuttal of the main points of the film on his blog and stated that "there will always be people with conspiracy theories trying to do down the scientific consensus, and that is part of scientific and democratic debate, but the science of climate change looks like fact to me.
Steven Milloy , who runs the website Junkscience. The programme has been discussed extensively in Australia, including favourable mentions in an editorial in The Australian [53] and the Counterpoint radio programme presented by Michael Duffy. Duffy noted the program's claims regarding Margaret Thatcher. In response, writing in an opinion piece for the Australian Financial Review , John Quiggin criticised the programme for putting forward "conspiracy theories". He called the premiere a "meeting of supporters of reason against irrationality" and compared the warnings of scientists against global warming to Communist propaganda.
According to Czech news, Klaus—an outspoken critic of scientific consensus on global warming—has been the first head of state to endorse this movie. In September , Iain Stewart presented a documentary series The Climate Wars covering the climate change debate, in which a clip from Durkin's film showing the link between solar activity and temperature was shown, noting 'it seems a convincing argument!
Stewart's documentary then showed that the correlation didn't hold if more recent data available at the time but not used in The Great Global Warming Swindle was included. Thirty-seven climate scientists wrote a letter [9] urging Martin Durkin to drop plans to release a DVD of the film. In the letter they say Durkin "misrepresented both the scientific evidence and the interpretations of researchers. In response to the call by these scientists not to market a DVD of the film, Times columnist Mick Hume , described environmentalism as a "new religion", saying "Scientists have become the equivalent of high priests in white coats, summoned to condemn heretics".
Christopher Monckton , a prominent British global warming sceptic , is funding the distribution of the documentary in English schools as a riposte to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth , which is also being shown in schools. On 17 March , The Daily Telegraph published a response by Durkin, "The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?
Regarding the Carl Wunsch controversy see above , he repeated his claim that Wunsch was not duped into taking part in the programme. Ofcom later ruled against Durkin on this point. Durkin went on to reject his opponents' position that the cooling period observed post Second World War was caused by sulfate aerosol cooling : "Thanks to China and the rest, SO 2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then.
Why isn't it perishing cold? Commenting at a Cannes film festival press conference on 17 April , Durkin noted: "My name is absolute mud on the Internet; it's really vicious," adding "There is no good scientific basis for it but the theory continues to hold sway because so many people have built their careers and reputations on it. The Times reported that Durkin had seriously fallen out with a scientist who had been considering working with him.
Armand Leroi , a geneticist, was concerned that Durkin had used data about a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures that was subsequently found to be flawed.
Leroi sent Durkin an e-mail in which he said that he thought the programme "made some good points the politics of the IPCC and some bad points anthropogenic global warming is a conspiracy to keep Africa underdeveloped ," but said what had most interested him were some of the scientific claims about solar activity and global temperature.
He said he looked for citations of the Friis-Christensen scientific paper used in the programme. While Leroi acknowledged "I am no climate scientist," he said that after reviewing criticisms of the paper, he had become convinced that: "To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were wrong—and may have been deliberately faked Leroi copied the e-mail to other parties including The Guardian journalist and Bad Science columnist Ben Goldacre and science writer and mathematics expert Simon Singh.
Singh then sent an email to Durkin that said: "I have not paid the same attention to your programme as Armand has done, but from what I did see it is an irresponsible piece of film-making. If you can send me a copy of the programme then I will examine it in more detail and give you a more considered response Durkin responded: "The IPCC's own figures show the hottest year in the past ten was , and the temp has been flat-lining now for five years.
If it's greenhouse gas causing the warming the rate of warming should be higher in the troposphere than on the surface. The opposite is the case. The ice core data shows that temperature change causes the level of atmospheric CO 2 to change — not the other way round.
Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of shit programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC? Go and fuck yourself". In an word official judgement issued on 21 July the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on "due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy".
Ofcom also backed complaints by Sir David King , stating that his views were misrepresented, and Carl Wunsch , on the points that he had been misled as to its intent, and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme's position on climate change.
Ofcom further ruled that the IPCC had not been given an adequate chance to respond to adverse claims that its work was politicised and that it had made misleading claims about malaria.
However, the regulator said that because "the link between human activity and global warming Ofcom declined to rule on the accuracy of the programme, saying: "It is not within Ofcom's remit or ability in this case as the regulator of the 'communications industry' to establish or seek to adjudicate on 'facts' such as whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon.
The regulator ruled that the parts of the programme about the scientific debate "were not matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to public policy and therefore the rules on due impartiality did not apply. Robert Watson , a former chair of the IPCC , also welcomed Ofcom 's ruling that the film had committed a number of breaches of the broadcasting code but expressed disappointment "that Ofcom did not find that the programme materially misled the audience as to cause harm or offence.
Rajendra K. Pachauri , the former chair of the IPCC, welcomed the ruling as "a vindication of the credibility and standing of the IPCC and the manner in which we function, and [it] clearly brings out the distortion in whatever Channel 4 was trying to project.
The programme makers misrepresented the science, the views of some of the scientists featured in the programme and the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The ruling was welcomed by Channel 4's Head of Documentaries, Hamish Mykura who commissioned the film stating the channel was "pleased" that Ofcom found the film did not "materially mislead the audience. When questioned by television industry e-zine C21 about Ofcom's finding against the channel [71] Mykura said:. It has scrutinised the documentary in great detail over 16 months. Any film scrutinised for that long would have revealed some factual inaccuracies, but crucially, it's said that what it found was not of a significant magnitude to materially mislead the viewer.
It said that there were some things that weren't right, but ultimately it has exonerated us. While he said that he regretted that 'there were some breaches of the code' he said there was "a degree" to which he disagreed with the complaints they upheld:. On the complaint from Sir David King, there was a quote by a contributor in the film that was wrong, which he had wrongly picked up from someone else and was quoting.
On the second point regarding the IPCC, Ofcom decided that we didn't give it enough time to respond to the allegations presented. We gave them 10 days, so you can decide as to whether you feel that's enough time. And on the complaint from Carl Wunsch, he complained that we hadn't made it significantly clear he would be appearing on a polemic climate change programme. But we told him we were going to explore the issues of the counter argument to global warming and he got the same letter as everyone else, and no-one else claimed they didn't know what they'd be appearing on.
A modified version running time 55 minutes of the documentary was shown in Germany. Many interviews were cut out, with others replaced by German speaking interview partners, and some claims were abandoned or changed. For example, the reference to Margaret Thatcher was replaced by the claim that Helmut Schmidt promoted climate change to justify the construction of nuclear power plants in Germany.
The programme on RTL was followed by a discussion roundtable. A shortened version, excluding the interview with Carl Wunsch and claims about volcanoes, among other material, was shown by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 12 July But that's no reason to keep his views away from audiences" [83]. The broadcast was followed by an interview between Durkin and ABC reporter Tony Jones , in which Jones challenged Durkin on a number of points, including the accuracy of graphs used in the program, criticism of the program's claims by climate scientists, its allegation of a conspiracy theory and the claims of misrepresentation by Carl Wunsch.
Lateline , which followed, included an interview with Wunsch. See Carl Wunsch section for full details. According to a group of leading scientists brought together by documentary maker Martin Durkin everything you've ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. Just as we've begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, Durkin's documentary slays the whole premise of global warming.
No-one dares speak against it for risk of being unpopular, losing funds and jeopardizing careers. Browse more videos. Featured review. An alternative view - read between the lines. The obvious comparison with this documentary is An Inconvenient Truth especially since some of this documentary is rooted in disproving the other. Both are excellent documentaries, both make strong arguments to support their side of the debate.
Both have dubious motives and issues pertaining to their interpretation of the data. Which is this - much of the data the general public is presented with is skewed, edited and presented by someone according to their own beliefs, their funding, background, political aspirations, etc. Anyone who claims impartiality is wrong.
I hope the effect of this documentary is to encourage people to look, read and research for themselves the information they are presented with every day and allow themselves the greatest chance of acting with understanding and knowledge rather than ignorance.
Details Edit. Release date March 8, United Kingdom. United Kingdom. Official site. That's probably because it is the kind of film that will offend the man-made global warming crowd, and positively reassure the sun-made global warming crowd.
I would suggest you watch this movie with an open mind if you are of the former, and with a questioning mind if you of the latter. Overall, this film confirmed for me that global warming is happening, but that it is not a man-made phenomenon, and it should not be something to fret about. I far preferred it to Al Gore's movie because that film seemed less about global warming and more about Al Gore the eco-messiah!
I found that a bit disappointing. This film on the other hand is not trying to focus on any one person and is a far less emotive and more rational in its approach.
Serious people will enjoy that about the Great Global Warming Swindle. On a final note, I originally thought the movie's title was bit over the top, and I still think it may deter people from watching it - however, in hindsight, the film so soundly refutes the claim of man-made global warming and highlights so many of the socio-political-economic agendas behind the theory, that I think the title is actually very appropriate.
Happy watching. What an amazing documentary, fast-paced, professionally shot and edited, filled with startling details about a conspiracy finely tuned and carefully guarded. It is an international disgrace that the blatant lie of global warming has been permitted to gain such traction, reaching all the way into the highest seats of power on earth, now leading to a point where freedoms will once again be chipped away in the name of emergency measures. The last three U.
They are either all deceitful proponents of stealing from the people in the form of carbon taxes, blind to the factually based opposing arguments or intellectually too lazy to find out for themselves what is going on.
For the refutations make a whole lot more sense than the absurd theory of global warming. Oh yes, let us not forget how proponents recently altered the nomenclature to "climate change.
If nothing else, the most obvious lies should stand out to people victimized by the clever little atheist liberals running the world's largest news organizations. Such as, when Al Gore proclaims that the time for debate is over, one might ponder the lack of ever having noticed any debate to begin with.
In other words, these con artists pulled the whole thing off by creating a complete lie, getting their allies in the media to play along, then fending off arguments by stating the arguments had already been waged and decided. Adding in how the news networks have been pretending this brilliant documentary doesn't exist kind of like how they pretend opposing arguments by degreed scientists don't exist lends further doubt to the supposed credibility of the global warming gang. Then take into account how the entire scam got exposed a couple weeks ago by way of emails leaked to the public.
In them, the top people pretending that global warming is a crises were found to be confessing their scheme to each other, describing ways of keeping the world from finding out how they faked the numbers. To the surprise of nobody who bothers to dig for the truth in this age of deceit, the press has ignored what immediately came to be known as Climategate too.
I recommend watching this documentary, getting onboard with the growing millions trying to expose these hucksters. Tell your friends. Vote the atheist liberals out of power worldwide.
The great global warming swindle movie download.The Great Global Warming Swindle - FULL LENGTH - video Dailymotion
Menu All. Sign In. New Customer? Create account. Everything you've ever been told about Global Warming is probably untrue. This film blows the whistle on the biggest swindle in modern history.
We are told that 'Man Made Global Warming' is Read all Everything you've ever been told about Global Warming is probably untrue. We are told that 'Man Made Global Warming' is the biggest ever threat to mankind. There is no room for scientific doubt. Well, watch thi Well, watch this film and make up your own mind. Director Martin Durkin. Martin Durkin. Top credits Director Martin Durkin.
See more at IMDbPro. Photos Add photo. Top cast Edit. Piers Corbyn Self. Patrick Moore Self. Nigel Calder Self. Bert Boling Self archive footage as Prof. Bert Boling. Paul Driessen Self. More like this.
Storyline Edit. Did you know Edit. User reviews 38 Review. Featured review. An alternative view - read between the lines. The obvious comparison with this documentary is An Inconvenient Truth especially since some of this documentary is rooted in disproving the other. Both are excellent documentaries, both make strong arguments to support their side of the debate. Both have dubious motives and issues pertaining to their interpretation of the data.
Which is this - much of the data the general public is presented with is skewed, edited and presented by someone according to their own beliefs, their funding, background, political aspirations, etc. Anyone who claims impartiality is wrong. I hope the effect of this documentary is to encourage people to look, read and research for themselves the information they are presented with every day and allow themselves the greatest chance of acting with understanding and knowledge rather than ignorance.
Details Edit. Release date March 8, United Kingdom. United Kingdom. Official site. Technical specs Edit. Runtime 1 hour 14 minutes. Related news. Contribute to this page Suggest an edit or add missing content.
Edit page. More to explore. Recently viewed. Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.
No comments:
Post a Comment