Inconvenient Truth And The Global Warming Swindle

How do these Movies both Educate and Mislead the Public?

 

 

Global warming has evolved to be a controversial topic. Scientists globally have postulated divergent views regarding global warming phenomena. In the recent past two documentaries, ‘an Inconvenient Truth' and ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle' have been released to the public to represent these divergent views. The ‘Inconvenient Truth' was released in 2006, it was presented by Al Gore, the former American Vice-President and directed by Davis Guggenheim while ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle' was released in 2007 and was directed and produced by Martin Durkin. The objective of this essay, therefore, is to discuss how the movies ‘An Inconvenient Truth' and ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle' educate and mislead the public.

Both movies the "Inconvenient Truth" and "The Global Warming Swindle" are centred on the global warming and its effects. Conversely, the two movies are divergent in data presentation and in purpose. For example, in the ‘An Inconvenient Truth' global warming is purely anthropogenic and its repercussions are explicit worldwide. However, ‘The Global Warming Swindle" argues that global warming is a result of a natural cause but acknowledges its presence. The two movies confirm to the public that global warming and its effects are a reality. Similarly, these two movies are instrumental in educating the public on the relation between Carbon (IV) oxide production and the temperature. On the same note, these documentaries sensitize the public on climate change and its potential consequences to mankind (Nolan, 2010).

On the other hand, the two documentaries mislead the public through data presentation. For example, ‘Inconvenient Truth argues that the disappearance of the snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro in the East Africa is as a result of global warming (Inconvenient Truth, 2006). This claim lacks scientific evidence to illustrate such a fact. Similarity, the movie asserts that melting of ice in the Greenland and the West Antarctica was to happen soon.  "The Global Warming Swindle," on the other hand, misleads the public by asserting that global warming is entirely a natural occurrence with no human interference.  Similarly, it also misleads the public by claiming that release of the industrial or greenhouse Carbon (IV) oxide does not contribute to the rise of the global temperatures (The Global Warming Swindle, 2007). Both documentaries therefore misinformed the public through the use of inaccurate data.      

In conclusion, both movies are potential sources of information on global warming and its effects. Nevertheless, after watching the two documentaries, it is not easy to differentiate propaganda from the truth. However, the movies are vital to the public especially in understanding how global warming and its effects are closely linked to the political context (Upadhyay, 2008). Important to note is that global warming scientists are in consensus that climate change is factual. They also agree that the world is warmer today that it was in 1880 and they attribute this rise in temperatures to both human activities and natural causes.  Similarly, they agree that production of Carbon (IV) oxide is on the increase due to human activities. Lastly, global warming scientists agree that Carbon (IV) oxide is responsible for the rise in the global temperatures.

References

Inconvenient Truth. (2006). [DVD] U.S.A: Davis Guggenheim.

Nolan, J. M. (2010). " An Inconvenient Truth" Increases Knowledge, Concern, and Willingness to Reduce Greenhouse Gases. Environment and Behavior.

Upadhyay, J. R. (2008). Global Warming: Documentary War and Manipulation of the Masses.

The Global Warming Swindle. (2007). [DVD] Britain: Martin Durkin