The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Great Global Warming Swindle (translated: The big fraud of global warming ) is a British documentary by Martin Durkin from 2007, which challenges the prevailing scientific view of global warming. It was broadcast on 8 March 2007 for the first time on Channel 4 and is widely used on the Internet. The film was widely criticized for serious content error. Channel 4 describes the film as follows: ". It is essentially a polemic, and we expect that it will stir up trouble, but so is the controversial programming, is known for the Channel 4 "
The documentation was in a revised English version under the title The climate hoax the first time on 11 June 2007 in the late evening program of RTL, n-tv repeated the broadcast on 7 July 2007.
Content
In the film it is alleged that the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was not the cause of global warming. By the action of cosmic rays and changes in solar activity, the temperature changes could be explained better. According to Durkin had the effect of strengthening the solar wind decreased exposure to cosmic radiation, which in turn leads to a lower cloud formation takes place. The reduced cloud formation in turn leads to a reduced albedo of the earth, and thus to an increased absorption of solar radiation.
According to Durkin could be said that there were between sunspot activity and the mean annual temperatures of the past four hundred years matches, far greater than the average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the same period. In particular, in the period between the forties and the eighties of the 20th century had fallen by about 0.2 degrees Celsius, while in the same period the CO2 concentration has increased substantially and the mean temperature. This is reason enough to consider a causal relationship between CO2 concentration and warming skeptic.
On the computational model, which would have significantly influenced the IPCC reports, is to criticize that they all made the proposition to be proved assumption that carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming is already a prerequisite. The largest factor of the greenhouse effect - water vapor - who was causing two-thirds of the greenhouse effect, and its concentration is subject nature due to strong fluctuations, remain unconsidered. The climate models are unable, for climate change over the past 10,000 years a well-researched period replicate. It is incompatible with scientific criteria, border soon to mislead, to make the model calculations at all the basis for a statement that raise the claim of scientifically based guidance for itself.
The focus on measures to reduce CO2 emissions have negative consequences for development in the Third World. Media and science would not publish this because it would be against their interests.
The film also deals with the question of why the science establishment almost unanimously based on the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 production is the cause of the warming. An explanation illuminates an aspect of the financial structure of the research operation, namely the dependence of the research of public funds. Meanwhile, a state is reached in which the man-made climate change is a political and social, especially but is an economic factor that implementing some four billion dollars a year. This conditional dependencies and interests that are not always conducive to objectivity.
Another aspect consists in total of distorting representation of the IPCC report; this by no means give the prevailing view of climatology again, but rather a cut. A number of participating scientists represent not the statement of the IPCC report, others were eliminated from participation, but it still relies on this.
The interaction of politics, UN bodies and publicly funded scientists as a psychological dynamics: Meanwhile, the conviction of the man-made climate change wearing quasi- religious characteristics, among others, would have the effect that you can no longer stand as a representative of a different opinion in the scientific discourse but rather as a heretic was being treated. With these statements, the film takes part in the controversy surrounding global warming.
Criticism
The film was sharply criticized. So it contained serious errors that reduce the credibility, and use graphics that outdated, distorted, mislabeled or are simply wrong to support his theses. Opponent facts would be completely concealed, so the fact that developing countries are exempted under the Kyoto Protocol for CO2 reduction. Meanwhile designated an employee of Channel 4 's documentation as " polemical ".
The meteorologist Alan Thorpe writes in a commentary in the New Scientist that the main message of the film is wrong, and there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role.
The British Royal Society criticizes the film to play a dangerous game he represented edge opinions, disregarding evidence and thus distract from the necessary mitigation measures.
The film presents example, from the IPCC report taken from data on the development of solar activity and the annual temperature change by two superimposed graphs in a timing diagram. Based on the synchronous course of the two graphs should be shown that the sun is responsible for global temperature development. The curves ended in Durkin presentation, however, in 1980, although the IPCC report provided more recent data suggesting that significantly lagged the solar activity behind the growing temperature change.
George Monbiot accused the Channel 4 to distort the facts to sensationsheischend to create a controversy. If you already use disproved works like this movie and results select them one-sided, one could practically represent anything as true. Actually, the transmitter was already known that the film's producer, Martin Durkin, have worked untrustworthy On an earlier documentation, and the station at that time had broadcast a public apology because he has deceived interviewees and played their falsifying statements. Also in connection with "The Great Global Warming Swindle " Durkin is alleged to have provided comments from interviewees in a wrong context. Carl desire a concerned professor, speaks of a "twist " of his statements and " pure propaganda as anything since World War II". In many cases, Durkin was also accused of spreading his film conspiracy theories.