Swindle book report

Washington county Sheriff s Office adult daily

They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future. 25 Thirty-seven British scientists signed a letter of complaint, saying that they "believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed". 10 According to the guardian in 2007, a study published by, among others, mike lockwood, a solar physicist at the rutherford Appleton Laboratory was partially inspired in response to The Great Global Warming Swindle. 26 Lockwood then had co-authored a paper about solar data from the past 40 years. 27 he found that between 19, the solar factors that should affect climate performed an "U-turn in every possible way 27 therefore 2007 cooling would have to be expected, which was not the case then. 27 28 Lockwood therefore was"d several times as critical evidence against various claims made in the film.

On the issue of volcanic CO2 emissions, it says: A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the co2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions. 11 Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of reading and Chief Executive of the uk natural Environment Research council, commented on the film in New Scientist : "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant design role. Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence." 24 The royal Society has issued a press release in reaction to the film. In it, martin rees, the president of the royal Society, briefly restates the predominant scientific opinion on climate change and adds: Scientists will continue to monitor the global climate and the factors which influence. It is important that all legitimate potential story scientific explanations continue to be considered and investigated. Debate will continue, and the royal Society has just hosted a two-day discussion meeting attended by over 300 scientists, but it must not be at the expense of action. Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game.

swindle book report

Kids books, games, videos, news, and More scholastic

In response to the programme's broadcast, john. Houghton (co-chair ipcc scientific Assessment working group 19882002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions. According to houghton the programme was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming which he noted had been endorsed by the scientific community, including the Academies of Science of the major. Houghton rejected claims that observed changes in global average temperature are within the range of natural climate variability or that solar influences are the main driver; that the troposphere is warming less than the surface; that volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel. Houghton acknowledges that ice core writing samples show CO2 driven by temperature, but then writes that the programme's assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the ipcc is not true. For instance, i often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide." 23 The British Antarctic Survey released a statement about The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is highly critical of the programme, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears.

swindle book report

The berenstain bears and the homework hassle: Stan Berenstain

Other scientific arguments used in the film have been described as refuted or misleading by scientists working in the relevant fields. 9 18 Critics have also argued that the programme is help one-sided and that the mainstream position on global warming, as supported by the scientific academies of the major industrialised nations and other scientific organisations, is incorrectly represented. 9 Complaints received by Ofcom edit The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications ( Ofcom received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-written by a group of scientists. 19 20 Ofcom ruled on that the programme had unfairly treated Sir david King, the ipcc and Professor Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the 'political' part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality; however, the code rules on impartiality did not apply to the scientific arguments in parts 14, because the link between human activity and. OfCom did not rule on the programme's accuracy, but did rule that: "On balance it did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence." 1 On 4 and, channel 4 and More 4 broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings, 21 though. 22 reactions from scientists edit sulfate aerosol and greenhouse gases effect on climate change based on meehl. (2004) in journal of Climate The ipcc was one of the main targets of the documentary.

And the African dream is to develop." he describes renewable power as "luxurious experimentation" that might work for rich countries but will never work for Africa: "I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry rather a transistor radio.". Don't touch your oil. Don't touch your coal.' That is suicide." The film describes a kenyan health clinic that is powered by two solar panels that do not provide enough electricity for both the medical refrigerator and the lights at the same time. The programme describes the idea of restricting the world's poorest people to alternative energy sources as "the most morally repugnant aspect of the Global Warming campaign." Reception and criticism edit The show attracted.5 million viewers and an audience share.5. 17 Channel 4 stated that it had received 758 calls and emails about the programme, with those in favour outnumbering complaints by six to one. Following criticism from scientists the film has been changed since it was first broadcast on Channel. One graph had its time axis relabelled, the claim that volcanoes produce more co2 than humans was removed, and following objections about how his interview had been used, the interview with Carl Wunsch was removed for the international and dvd releases of the programme.

Essay about nature in kannada : Equity assignment

swindle book report

Essays - the, college board

The programme asserts that the view that global warming is man-made was promoted by the British Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher as a means of promoting nuclear power and reducing the impact of strike action in the state-owned coal industry by the national Union. The film argues that the assertion that global warming denialists are funded by private industry (such as oil, gas, and coal industries) are false and have no basis in fact. Disputing the global warming consensus edit The film argues that the consensus among climate scientists about global warming does not exist. Status of ipcc contributors. The programme asserts that it is falsely stated that "2,500 top scientists" support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc s reports on global warming. In fact, according to the programme, the report includes many politicians and non-scientists, and even dissenters who demanded that their names be removed nanyang from the report but were refused. Accuracy of representation of ipcc contributors.

The film argues that ipcc reports misrepresent the views of scientists who contribute to them through selective editorialising. The film highlights the case of paul reiter of the pasteur Institute who complained that the ipcc did not take his professional opinion under greater consideration. It states that the ipcc kept his name on the report as a contributor and did not remove his name until he threatened legal action. According to the programme, the concept of man-made global warming is promoted with a ferocity and intensity that is similar to a religious fervour. Denialists are treated as heretics and equated with holocaust deniers. Retired university professor Tim Ball states in the film (and in subsequent press publicity) that he has received death threats because of sceptical statements he has made about global warming. 16 Killing the African dream of development edit author and economist James Shikwati says in the programme that environmentalists campaign against Africa using its fossil fuels : "there's somebody keen to kill the African dream.

14 ) Influence of the sun on climate change. The film highlights the solar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The posited mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation. 15 The film argues that the activity of the sun is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth. Previous episodes of warming. The programme asserts that the current episode of global warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in western Europe.


Political issues edit The programme makes a number of assertions arguing that the integrity of climate research has been compromised by financial, ideological and political interests: Increased funding of climate science. According to the film, 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." Increased availability of funding for global warming research. 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. Influence of vested interests. The programme argues that vested interests have a bigger impact on the proponents (rather than the detractors) of arguments supporting the occurrence of man-made global warming because hundreds of thousands of jobs in science, media, and government have been created and are subsidised. Suppression of dissenting views. According to the programme, scientists who speak out (against the view that global warming is man-made) risk persecution, death threats, loss of funding, personal attacks, and damage to their reputations. The film proposes that some supporters of the finding that global warming is man-made do so because it supports their emotional and ideological beliefs against capitalism, economic development, globalisation, industrialisation, and the United States.

Free industry and industry reports from The Economist

According to the film, water vapour makes up 95 of hazlitt all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming. Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount—just.054 of the earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1 of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more co2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more co2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made co2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.

swindle book report

The programme asserts that got current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere. Increases in CO2 and temperatures following the end of ice ages. According to the film, increases in CO2 levels lagged (by over 100 years) behind temperature increases during glacial terminations. Epica and Vostok ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO2 for the last 650,000 years. Relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change. The film asserts that carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release. Influence of oceanic mass on temperature changes. The programme argues that due to the very large mass of the world's oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in oceanic mass, which is why analysis of the vostok station and other ice cores shows that changes in the. Influence of water vapour on climate change.

of Virginia ; Nigel Calder. Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used. 7 Assertions made in the film edit The film takes a view strongly opposed to current scientific thinking on climate change. It argues that the consensus on climate change is the product of "a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media". 2 13 Using a series of interviews and graphics, the film sets out to challenge the scientific consensus by focusing on what it says are inconsistencies in the evidence, and the role said to have been played by ideology and politics. Evidential issues edit The film highlights what it asserts are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence supporting man-made global warming. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has after that increased until 1997. Variations in warming rate. The programme states that all models of greenhouse effect-derived temperature increase predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth.

4, the uk's, channel 4 premiered the documentary on The channel described the film as "a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired." 5, according to hamish mykura, channel 4's head of documentaries, the film was commissioned "to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who. The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change., later broadcasts corrected three errors in the original film. Contents, viewpoints expressed in the film edit, the film's basic premise is that the current scientific opinion on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the. 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 shakespeare solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising. The film won best documentary award at the 2007 io isabella International Film week. 12 A number of academics, environmentalists, think-tank consultants and writers are interviewed in the film in support of its various assertions.

Battle royal, define, battle royal

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemical 1 paper documentary film that suggests that the scientific opinion on climate change is influenced by funding and political factors, and questions whether scientific consensus on global warming exists. The program was formally criticised. Ofcom, the uk broadcasting regulatory agency, which upheld complaints of misrepresentation made. The film, made by British television producer. Martin Durkin, presents scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who dispute the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming. The programme's publicity materials assert that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times." 2 3, its original working title was "Apocalypse my arse but the title. The Great Global Warming Swindle was later adopted as an allusion to the 1980 mockumentary, the Great Rock 'n' roll Swindle about British punk band the sex Pistols.


swindle book report
All products 33 Artikelen
Visit Scholastic's website for kids about books, reading, authors, games & more. Kids connect to books through online friends in their community profiles.

3 Comment

  1. Washington county Sheriff's Office 24 hour Period From 0700 5/17/18 to 0700 5/18/18 adult daily book-in Report J3900 traf-ms-other. The "Mercury toxicity" Scam: How Anti-Amalgamists Swindle people Stephen Barrett,. More than half a century ago, orson Welles panicked his radio audience by reporting that Martians had invaded New Jersey.

  2. The perth Mint Swindle is the popular name for the robbery of 49 gold bars weighing 68 kg from the perth Mint in Western Australia on The bullion was valued at A653,000 at that time (2011:2.02 million). As Jan 8th, 2018, the value of the 68 Kilograms of gold would approach aud.7 Million. The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemical documentary film that suggests that the scientific opinion on climate change is influenced by funding and political factors, and questions whether scientific consensus on global warming exists. The program was formally criticised by Ofcom, the uk broadcasting regulatory agency, which upheld complaints of misrepresentation made by david King.

  3. Zoobreak (Swindle) Gordon Korman. The sequel to gordon Korman's swindle-the man With a plan is back! When Griffin Bing's class goes to a floating zoo.

  4. Swindle gordon Korman. Free shipping on qualifying offers. With 11-year-olds, in a super stand-alone heist caper from Gordon Korman! After a mean collector named Swindle cons him out of his most valuable baseball card.

Leave a reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.


*