Other scientific arguments used in the film have been described as refuted or misleading by scientists working in the relevant fields. 9 18 Critics have also argued that the programme is one-sided and that the mainstream position on global warming, as supported by the scientific academies of the major industrialised nations and other scientific organisations, is incorrectly represented. 9 Complaints received by Ofcom edit The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications ( Ofcom received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-written by a group of scientists. 19 20 Ofcom ruled on that the programme had unfairly treated Sir david King, the ipcc and Professor Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the 'political' part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality; however, the code rules on impartiality thank did not apply to the scientific arguments in parts 14, because the link between human activity and. OfCom did not rule on the programme's accuracy, but did rule that: "On balance it did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence." 1 On 4 and, channel 4 and More 4 broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings, 21 though. 22 reactions from scientists edit sulfate aerosol and greenhouse gases effect on climate change based on meehl. (2004) in journal of Climate The ipcc was one of the main targets of the documentary. In response to the programme's broadcast, john.
And the shakespeare African dream is to develop." he describes renewable power as "luxurious experimentation" that might work for rich countries but will never work for Africa: "I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry rather a transistor radio.". Don't touch your oil. Don't touch your coal.' That is suicide." The film describes a kenyan health clinic that is powered by two solar panels that do not provide enough electricity for both the medical refrigerator and the lights at the same time. The programme describes the idea of restricting the world's poorest people to alternative energy sources as "the most morally repugnant aspect of the Global Warming campaign." Reception and criticism edit The show attracted.5 million viewers and an audience share.5. 17 Channel 4 stated that it had received 758 calls and emails about the programme, with those in favour outnumbering complaints by six to one. Following criticism from scientists the film has been changed since it was first broadcast on Channel. One graph had its time axis relabelled, the claim that volcanoes produce more co2 than humans was removed, and following objections about how his interview had been used, the interview with Carl Wunsch was removed for the international and dvd releases of the programme.
The film argues that ipcc reports misrepresent the views of scientists who contribute to them through selective editorialising. The film highlights the case of paul reiter of the pasteur Institute who complained that the ipcc did not take his professional opinion under greater consideration. It states that the ipcc kept his name on the report as a contributor and did not remove his name until he threatened legal action. According to the programme, the concept of man-made global warming is promoted with a ferocity and intensity that is similar to a religious fervour. Denialists are treated as heretics and equated with holocaust deniers. Retired university professor Tim Ball states in the film (and in subsequent press publicity) that he has received death threats because of sceptical statements he has made about global warming. 16 Killing the African dream of development edit author and economist James Shikwati says in the programme that environmentalists campaign against Africa using its fossil fuels : "there's somebody keen to kill the African dream.
Global Warming - new Strategies to Stop
The film asserts that scientists seeking a research grant award have a much more likely chance of successfully obtaining funding if the grant is linked to global warming research. Influence of vested interests. The programme argues that vested interests have a bigger impact on the proponents (rather than the detractors) of arguments supporting the occurrence of man-made global warming because hundreds of thousands of jobs in science, media, and government have been created and are writing subsidised. Suppression of dissenting views. According to the programme, scientists who speak out (against the view that global warming is man-made) risk persecution, death threats, loss of funding, personal attacks, and damage to their reputations. The film proposes that some supporters of the finding that global warming is man-made do so because it supports their emotional and ideological beliefs against capitalism, economic development, globalisation, industrialisation, and the United States.
The programme asserts that the view that global warming is man-made was promoted by the British Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher as a means of promoting nuclear power and reducing the impact of strike action in the state-owned coal industry by the national Union. The film argues that the assertion that global warming denialists are funded by private industry (such as oil, gas, and coal industries) are false and have no basis in fact. Disputing the global warming consensus edit The film argues that the consensus among climate scientists about global warming does not exist. Status of ipcc contributors. The programme asserts that it is falsely homework stated that "2,500 top scientists" support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc s reports on global warming. In fact, according to the programme, the report includes many politicians and non-scientists, and even dissenters who demanded that their names be removed from the report but were refused. Accuracy of representation of ipcc contributors.
Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming. Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount—just.054 of the earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1 of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more co2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more co2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made co2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming.
(Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions. 14 ) Influence of the sun on climate change. The film highlights the solar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The posited mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation. 15 The film argues that the activity of the sun is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth. Previous episodes of warming. The programme asserts that the current episode of global warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in western Europe. Political issues edit The programme makes a number of assertions arguing that the integrity of climate research has been compromised by financial, ideological and political interests: Increased funding of climate science. According to the film, there has been an increase in funds available for any research related to global warming "and it is now one of the best funded areas of science." Increased availability of funding for global warming research.
Malayalam, writing, converter - a tool that converts Romanized
Increases in CO2 and temperatures following the end make of ice ages. According to the film, increases in CO2 levels lagged (by over 100 years) behind temperature increases during glacial terminations. Epica and Vostok ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO2 for the last 650,000 years. Relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change. The film asserts that carbon dioxide levels increase or reviews decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release. Influence of oceanic mass on temperature changes. The programme argues that due to the very large mass of the world's oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in oceanic mass, which is why analysis of the vostok station and other ice cores shows that changes in the. Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95 of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature.
anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media". 2 13 Using a series of interviews and graphics, the film sets out to challenge the scientific consensus by focusing on what it says are inconsistencies in the evidence, and the role said to have been played by ideology and politics. Evidential issues edit The film highlights what it asserts are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence supporting man-made global warming. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has after that increased until 1997. Variations in warming rate. The programme states that all models of greenhouse effect-derived temperature increase predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. The programme asserts that current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.
The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change., later broadcasts corrected three errors in the original film. Contents, viewpoints expressed in the film edit, the film's basic premise is that the current scientific opinion on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, evernote are western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising. The film won best documentary award at the 2007 io isabella International Film week. 12 A number of academics, environmentalists, think-tank consultants and writers are interviewed in the film in support of its various assertions. They include the canadian environmentalist Patrick moore, former member of Greenpeace but now a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the massachusetts Institute of Technology ; Patrick michaels, research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia ; Nigel Calder. Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used.
Lipikaar - online malayalam typing English
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemical 1 documentary film that suggests that the scientific opinion on climate change is influenced by funding and hazlitt political factors, and questions whether scientific consensus on global warming exists. The program was formally criticised. Ofcom, the uk broadcasting regulatory agency, which upheld complaints of misrepresentation made. The film, made by British television producer. Martin Durkin, presents scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who dispute the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming. The programme's publicity materials assert that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times." 2 3, its original working title was "Apocalypse my arse but the title. The Great Global Warming Swindle was later adopted as an allusion to the 1980 mockumentary, the Great Rock 'n' roll Swindle about British punk band the sex Pistols. 4, the uk's, channel 4 premiered the documentary on The channel described the film as "a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired." 5, according to hamish mykura, channel 4's head of documentaries, the film was commissioned "to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who.