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, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising. A number of academics, environmentalists, think-tank consultants and writers are interviewed in the film in support of its various assertions.
These steps have also applied to climate change discussions: Deny it With this step, we saw a lot of skepticism initially coming from US-based scientists, many accused of reporting for big business interests, such as oil and automobile industries. Dilute it With step 3, it is interesting to note that the climate change negotiations that led to the Kyoto Protocol involved extremely heavy concessions on steps and measures to take, in order to get the United States in on the agreement.
To criticize later the Kyoto Protocol for being a political document see below is a cruel irony. Delay it With step 4, many have criticized the US and others of delaying effective action or in other ways attempting to derail effective action. Steps 5 and 6: Do it and Market it Steps 5 and 6 still have to unfold for the climate change issue.
At the same time, while the Bush Administration has at least admitted it is not against action on climate change just that it opposes the Kyoto Protocolit is spending money on research and technology.
If its companies can find ways to be more efficient and clean, then it can gain clout and prestige and recognition of help save the world. By going its own way, it is ignoring international issues and concerns, and so this can be seen as a political move to ensure economic and geopolitical success on this major environmental issue without consideration of the rest of the world.
Unfortunately it is often this go it alone approach that also creates a lot of resentment against the US in the eyes of many around the world. While NASA said this was standard procedure to ensure an orderly flow of information, the scientist, Dr.
James Hansen disagreed, saying that such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead.
Hansen, according to the New York Times reporting this, noted that these were fresh efforts to silence him because he had said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth a different planet.
Furthermore, After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen that there would be dire consequences if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews. Earlier, inDr. Hansen fell out of favor with the Bush Administration for publicly stating before the presidential elections that government scientists were being muzzled and that he planned to vote for John Kerry.
The New York Times also notes that this echoes other recent disputes, whereby many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.
And in terms of media manipulation, the Times also revealed that at least one interview amongst many others was cancelled because it was with NPR, which the public affairs official responsible felt was the most liberal media outlet in the country.
At the beginning of June,the BBC Panorama documentary followed up on this and found that many scientists felt they were being censored and that various reports had been systematically suppressed, even altered.
In one case, a major climate assessment report was due out a month before the presidential elections, but was delayed because it had such a bleak assessment, and the Bush administration did not want it to be part of the election issues. It was released shortly after the elections were over. Panorama also interviewed a pollster who had advised the Bush Administration when they came into power in to question global warming, that humans caused it if it existed at all, to hire skeptical scientists, and play down its impacts.
Just weeks before hurricane Katrina devastated parts of Southern United States, Panorama reported that Another scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA … had research which established global warming could increase the intensity of hurricanes.
He was due to give an interview about his work but claims he was gagged. When a leading scientist was asked why NOAA came out with such a statement, he suggested it was ideologically driven.Product description.
The Great Global Warning Swindle DVD A documentary by Martin Durkin ASIN: Boo1C17EVE Review.
The Great Global Warming Swindle should be seen by everyone interested in the global environment, especially those who have seen the Al Gore movie. - . Find The Great Global Warming Swindle (DVD) at metin2sell.com Movies & TV, home of thousands of titles on DVD and Blu-ray.
The Great Global Warming Swindle uses a plethora of leading scientists who will not bend to political or philosophical or ideaological pressure.
So watch this film and make up your own mind. See More. Boards and CEOs are more tech-savvy than they once were, but they still don't always know the best questions to ask CIOs.
With the push for digital transformation they need to be armed with the right questions at the right time. Music, Film, TV and Political News Coverage. Title: What is Causing Global Warming? Grade/Subject Level: 7 – 10 Overview: Help students identify and understand the influencing factors of global warming, sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and the different fossil fuels that contribute to the global climate.
Purpose: Engage students using a variety of media outlets to analyze and evaluate the relationship between CO 2 and global warming.