The Great Global Warming Swindle

[chikopapi]

Using similar arguments presented in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle", would a good controversial oral topic be  that Climate Change is not as a result of man / CO2 ?

[Nick]

I really enjoyed watching that film/report. It was fairly intriguing. Although due to analysis by many journalists and climate change experts, the film lost credibility. They manipulated many elements of graphs to support their arguments and interviewed many indviduals who lacked credibility.

[Collin Li]

How credible are journalists and climate change experts though?

I don't have a stance on it, I haven't actually watched it, I'm just asking you to question things more than once (actually, I'm not even saying that you haven't done that either - maybe you have, maybe you haven't).

[Nick]

How credible are journalists and climate change experts though?

I don't have a stance on it, I haven't actually watched it, I'm just asking you to question things more than once (actually, I'm not even saying that you haven't done that either - maybe you have, maybe you haven't).

It was on the ABC last year. They showed the film and then had a huge debate about it afterwards. There was so much debate and speculation that you did not know who to believe.

[DrowNz]

I really enjoyed watching that film/report. It was fairly intriguing. Although due to analysis by many journalists and climate change experts, the film lost credibility. They manipulated many elements of graphs to support their arguments and interviewed many indviduals who lacked credibility.

Where did you pull that from? They had some very credible sources like the former head of Greenpeace, some of the leading scientists in their respective fields from the IPCC, some exceptional scientists that achieved noble prizes and exceptional scientific awards from NASA and some scientists that worked closely with the issue of global warming from its very origin (like that Calder journalist who was part of the televisional propaganda). And yes, even some less mainstream scientists which is also great! We gain some perspective from some less biased IPCC influenced science.

I found the movie to be quite credible. If there was any manipulation of evidence done in substantial proportions that would be on "An Inconvenient Truth" IMHO.

[Nick]

I really enjoyed watching that film/report. It was fairly intriguing. Although due to analysis by many journalists and climate change experts, the film lost credibility. They manipulated many elements of graphs to support their arguments and interviewed many indviduals who lacked credibility.

Where did you pull that from? They had some very credible sources like the former head of Greenpeace, some of the leading scientists in their respective fields from the IPCC, some exceptional scientists that achieved noble prizes and exceptional scientific awards from NASA and some scientists that worked closely with the issue of global warming from its very origin (like that Calder journalist who was part of the televisional propaganda). And yes, even some less mainstream scientists which is also great! We gain some perspective from some less biased IPCC influenced science.

I found the movie to be quite credible. If there was any manipulation of evidence done in substantial proportions that would be on "An Inconvenient Truth" IMHO.

I can't remember the exact details. It was a program on the ABC in around August last year. There was a panel discussion afterwards which basically attacked the credibility of numerous elements of the film. You would have to watch the discussion that occurred afterwards. I can't remember the specifics, it was so long ago.

[DrowNz]

hmm... fair enough. I am not familiar with the discussion obviously. Ill see if I can get my hands on it.

[Nick]

There must be a way of getting a transcript from somewhere. Search the newspaper websites. They probably wrote articles about it due to the speculation.

[chikopapi]

Youtube.

[Eriny]

IMO
An Inconvinient Truth>The Great Global Warming Swindle. (I watched both + that discussion Nick was talking about)
Although I agree that it is difficult to know who to believe, I figure it's better to err on the side of caution in this case, although I guess believing in God is also erring on the side of caution, so being an atheist, I really don't know what to do.