The Great Global Warming Swindle

One does not need much scientific knowledge to understand that 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' is a propaganda film of the highest order. More than the scientific evidence that was falsified in the film(Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#cite_note-OfcomRuling-1 and http://www.amos.org.au/publications/response-to-recent-documentary-the-great-global-wa), the way in which the movie presents itself is so blatantly assertive and 'Holier-than-thou' that one loses faith in the movie's arguments from the word go.

Firstly, if a movie has to resort to the opinions of 5 scientists only to generate repeated rhetoric about something that is considered to be factually true amongst the masses based on 1 singular flaw in the scientific evidence in the theory itself, it sets itself up to criticism. The instance I'm quoting here is the way in which the movie starts off. When they say that "Look, the theory states that temperature is supposed to increase as we go up in the troposphere. It doesn't, so it's false." You see what they did there? a. What does that flaw even prove? b. Why the f**k would you spend 20 more minutes of rhetoric on rhetoric to make them sound ridiculous based on only 1 minor flaw in the theory (Even assuming it's true?)

Second, the incentive structures that they set out for 'Global Warming' to become a big issue were flawed beyond recognition. They kept on harping on about how it's all just a scam because 10,000 jobs depend on it. Agreed, but given 10 million jobs depend on Global Warming being a myth, why don't you think that research against 'Global Warming' has been incentivezed? If the viewer thinks twice about it, they would realize that many major industries would profit a whole lot more if Men were not responsible for Global Warming. They would save billions if Environmental responsibility was none of their concern. Given the power that these companies have, they would have probably put in more effort to prove this was a myth in the first place. and that's why I find it hard to believe the word of 5-6 stuck-up british oldies versus the entire scientific community at large.

Thirdly, when they come out and say, that this is a 'Communist' Agenda, my doubt that this could be a propaganda film were solidified. That is exactly how every capitalist nation tried to justify almost everything. Listen, don't have obamacare, it's a commie agenda. Don't do charity, it's a commie agenda. You need to give us more analysis than just this justification.

The other problems I had with the film were the blatant way in which they tried to swing public opinion by repeatedly showing photos of 'Happy people on beaches'. Those scenes had nothing to do with anything which was being said in the movie itself and did not seem to add any value. It had a glaring similarity to the videos that were sent out to the German public when the 'Jews' were always portrayed with big noses and negative roles and the German people were shown partying. And lines like "Look at the sun!! Do you think that humans could have more influence than the sun?" were just meant to appeal to the sentimentality of the public rather than basing themselves in any actual fact that was not contested.

At the end, the movie did make me look itself up on Wikipedia just to see the amount of criticism it faced. The only reason being that it never managed to prove to me "Why? Why would such a huge scandal occur? Why would Coca-cola let it happen?" There have been movies which contest facts which have been agreed upon previously,  eg. The moon landing. Those movies always got perspective from both sides and then disproved everything beyond reasonable doubt one by one. This movie did not even attempt to do so.

Movies like these are meant to dissuade public opinion and should be publicly criticized for doing so. The same way that a movie showing Racial Superiority of Aryans over other races would be criticized, the same should be done for movie like these.

1.0/10

An Inconvenient Truth

Denial, the facts we know to be true but choose not to acknowledge. We deny that there is a strong possibility of the fans falling on our head and our death due to brain hemorrhage. We deny that if we don't wear a helmet, we will die. We deny the fact that our parents will die before we do and at some point of time, we will have to bear the loss. We deny the fact that the cigarette we are smoking will lead to our ultimate demise. The same way, we deny the fact that if we don't change our habits, the world will collapse.

In many ways, denial is necessary for human existence. If denial did not exist, human life would be a curse. It helps us survive. It's a way to keep irrational and even rational fears out. But what if denial is the cause of our demise? What if denial is keeping out something that we should have addressed earlier? In essence, this movie tries to remove this block from the viewer's mind and it does a damn good job.

An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary about Democratic politician Al Gore's slide show about Global Warming with parts showing his personal opinions on the same apart from the documentary as well.

The movie's first half is a horror show about the current crisis, blasting all myths about global warming aside. The studies about global cooling and warming being a cyclical process is destroyed by means of accurate scientific data, which is unlike anything that one might witness in a normal textbook. The movie then moves on to show why the issue is centred around the poles and finally as to why this is a political issue as well. Towards the end, it shows how we can prevent the problem as well, offering a nice, hopeful touch to the entire to the ending.

Somewhere around the halfway mark, we realize the frustation Al Gore has been harboring for america's political system as well, in particular Bush. The movie also offers insights into why Al Gore thinks the way he does and the viewer does sympathize with him to a large extent.

The movie, all in all, is a great way to appreciate the problems of global warming and creating more environment sympathizers. The only problem that I did have about the movie was it failed to adequately tackle the biggest obstacle to environmental protection, Economics. Gore just mocks the Idea with stale ideas like "If we don't have a planet, how can we worry about money?". The fact remains, that most people don't see why exactly their employment should be jeopardized when the factory that they were working in is shut down because it was polluting a lake? In areas where it comes to long term benefit, again, something that will not benefit them, in their lifetime versus the short term benefit of their own employment, they're more likely to choose their own personal gain.

Let's face it, the major way in which the European Union has managed to curb it's emissions to a huge extent, is only via economic counter incentives(eg. Carbon Credits). The movie fails to analyze any of these measures and how they could be implemented.

All in all, an excellent presentation and good direction offering insights into Al Gore's past makes for a good viewing. Any person who sees the movie will end up with at least some empathy for the environment. Even thought the movie does not offer major solutions, but the pertinent question that I asked myself after the movie was " In the same way that we blame the people of the US in the 1800's for torturing slaves, the way we blame our ancestors for the caste system and female oppression. Do I want my descendants to curse my generation for environmental damage?" For that message alone, the movie does it's job brilliantly.

7.8/10