Global Warming analysis

Global warming has become the center of much heated debate especially within the United States, environmental groups, governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim a unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused warming. However, many believes the consequences of global warming are overstated and is used to “fear monger” in legislation. When comparing two documentaries from opposite sides a broader prospective is gained; An Inconvenient Truth focuses on Al Gore’s travels in his efforts to educate the public about the severity of the climate crisis; while The Great Global Warming Swindle takes a strongly skeptical view of current scientific thinking on climate change. Both movies have there share of controversies and back lash, with political implications.


Ever since An Inconvenient Truth first showed in theatres Gore’s monologue has gained acclaim on scorn with dire predictions such as Gore states that “If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a "tipping point" and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet.” For the most part the scientist who has seen An Incontinent Truth had the same general impression, that Gore conveyed the science for the most part correctly, and the world is undeniably getting hotter and it is a manmade.[1]

There is a slight arrogance in his speech, and his view on those who doubt his claims, this may however be part of the “social circle” he associates with. Roger Ebert in his review of the movie stated “I am a liberal, but I do not intend this as a review reflecting any kind of politics. It reflects the truth as I understand it, and it represents, I believe, agreement among the world's experts.”[2] However, there is no getting past the partisan tone of the film, as when we first see Al Gore he says with much laughter and applause from the audience “I’m Al Gore. I used to be the next president of the United States.” Furthering this is Lawrence Bender, the producer of the film who is no stranger to politics. He was a top Hollywood fundraiser for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.[3]

This can be problematic for those who have different views. Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology whom while featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle claimed "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges.” He attacked Gore prior to the release of the film in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal, stating that “A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.”[4] In the film Al Gore tries to debunk skeptics saying that although there is "100 percent agreement" among scientists, a database search of newspaper and magazine articles show that 57 percent question the fact of global warming, while 43 percent support it. These figures are the result, he says, of a disinformation campaign started in the 1990s by the energy industries to "reposition global warming as a debate."

Using a series of interviews and graphics, the film sets out to challenge the scientific consensus by focusing on issues such as perceived inconsistencies in the evidence and the role said to have been played by ideology and politics. Among those interviewed was Professor Paul Reiter who states that in the report issued by the United Nation is that “There are quite a number of non-scientists. Those people that are specialists but don’t agree with the polemic and resign, and there are a number of them I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this “2500 of the worlds top scientists”. We have a vested interest in causing panic, because then, money will flow to climate science.”

According to Reiter, 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." 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 “the migration patterns of squirrels as apposed to the migration patterns of squirrels when affected by global warming.”

The main arguments made in The Great Global Warming Swindle was that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots. One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labeled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000. Dr Friiss-Christensen said that this was based on a graph he had produced some years ago showing the link between fluctuations in global temperatures and changes in solar activity - sunspot cycles - over the past 400 years and that the results shown on the film had been doctored. Solar activity, the programme stated, is the cause of global warming in the late 20th century.[5]

The narrator makes the following statement while the graph is on the screen:

So Professor Friis-Christensen and his colleagues examined 400 years of astronomical records to compare sun-spot activity against temperature variation. Once again, they found that variations in solar activity were intimately linked to temperature variation on earth. It was the sun, it seemed, not carbon dioxide or anything else that was driving changes in the climate.

This is an overstatement that is not supported by the graph, interview statements by Friis-Christensen in the program, nor any related scientific literature. [6]

Another scientist who was on the film Carl Wunsch has also come out saying his interviews were misused. “In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making--- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.”[7]

In conclusions, when comparing the films each has a different strength. In Al Gore’s film the science as well as presentation is very sound, but the messenger comes arose as arrogant, believing in a “consensus.” While The Great Global Warming Swindle, has a major flaw in its general argument, it describes very well the reason behind so much media and scientific attention surrounding the subject.

[1] Borenstein, Seth. "Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy", Washington Post, June 27, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-18
[2] Roger Ebert An Inconvenient Truth Chicago Sunday Times, 2007-01-10
[3] "On a Bender: A chat with Inconvenient Truth co-producer and Hollywood bigwig Lawrence Bender". Grist.org. Retrieved March 7, 2007.
[4] Richard S. Lindzen There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming Wall Street Journal, accessed 2007-01-10
[5] C4 accused of falsifying data in documentary on climate change - Independent Online Edition > Media. Retrieved http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/c4-accused-of-falsifying-data-in-documentary-on-climate-change-447927.html
[6] Friis-Christensen, Eigil (April 27, 2007) Regarding: “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, broadcast in the UK on Channel 4 on March 8, 2007
[7] Wunsch, Carl (11 March 2007). Partial Response to the London Channel 4 Film "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Retrieved on 2007-03-13.

Mankind’s experiment with “Civilization” – (The Gods Must be Crazy Discussion)

When looking at human history scientifically and if the modern human species began at roughly 80-100 thousand years, then most of our history was that of hunters and gatherers. It is in fact the agriculture revolution of 10,000 years ago that brought about the change of behavior and man ceased to be at the mercy of the land, but began to adapt his land to him (which eventually evolved to tons then cities of ever growing complexity as described in the first part of the film).

I wouldn’t say that I am an environmentalist, as I feel that we have to take the needs of mankind above that of lets say a plant. Even the most harden environmentalist would eat an endangered species if he was suffering from hunger, it the survival instinct we all have. Having said that we “civilized” cultures are more harmful and many times unnecessarily so to the environments we “occupy”. I once read a book called Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, which examines mythology, its effect on ethics, and how that relates to sustainability. In the book Ishmael a gorilla in captivity who can communicate telepathically, discusses his learning experience from the wild and into captivity explaining that what he teaches him will be captivity, being the captivity of man under a system that forces him to exploit and destroy the world in order to live.

Before teaching the student he defines key terms in his culture study:

· Takers: "civilized people" Primarily the culture born in an Agricultural Revolution
· Leavers: people of all other cultures; sometimes referred to as "primitive.”
· Story: as an interrelation between the gods, man, and the Earth, with a beginning, middle, and end.
· Enact: is to strive to make a story come true.
· Culture: as a people who are enacting a story.

The difference in Leavers from the Takers is that they (the Leavers) may compete for their needs to the full extent of their capabilities, but may not hunt down competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. They compete but they do not wage War. Going on to say that all species inevitably follow this law, or as a consequence they go extinct. However, the Takers believe themselves to be exempt from this Law and flout it at every point. The Takers are taught to believe themselves to be at the highest point of the evolutionary pole. Who believe the earth was made for them, while many Leavers share this belief what separates its interpretation is that Takers create rules to turn this world into a paradise and their failure to do so leaves them to believe they are fundamentally flawed thus sin is born. Ishmael rebuts this belief of the flaw of man explaining that:

"There's nothing fundamentally wrong with people. Given a story to enact that puts them in accord with the world, they will live in accord with the world. But given a story to enact that puts them at odds with the world, as yours does, they will live at odds with the world. Given a story to enact, in which they are the lords of the world, they will act as the lords of the world. And, given a story to enact in which the world is a foe to be conquered they will conquer it like a foe, and one day, inevitably, their foe will lie bleeding to death at their feet, as the world is now."

Ishmael also believes that a modern society doesn’t have to be Taker, but that a civilization such as this has never existed. I believe the analysis Quinn wrote was spot on the historical and environmental impact of Taker cultures. However, I don’t believe that all the negative connotations he associates with it can be changed or are in fact bad things to begin with.