Where do I begin ? After watching "THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE" on Channel 4 this evening with growing disbelief, and much shaking of the head, I came to the conclusion that the film itself is the swindle :-
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
I decided to start by deconstructing the GRAPHS shown in the film, but there is more, much more, to upick. I really don't know how a major TV Channel allowed the Film to be peddled, without checking out the basic facts, unless they too are part of the great swindle. Here are just a few of the incredible errors :-
1. The Legendary Medieval Warming Period
The graph that was used in the film seemed to be based on a chart for localised European temperatures that was constructed about 15 years ago. When you look at more data sources, from a variety of proxy and direct measurements, and look more globally, the Medieval Warming Period is seem as a true bubble in a small teacup compared to very recent global average temperature change. The science has moved on. Why are people still stuck in the past over the legendary MWP ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ipcc7.1-mann-moberg.png
red line = IPCC 1999
blue line = IPCC TAR 2001
black line = Moberg et al 2005
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
2. The Fabled Little Ice Age
Again, it seems that cooling was mostly in Europe, and since that was where the majority of people lived at that time, it's not surprising that all anecdotal evidence is about cooling. If you look at more data sources, from a variety of proxy and direct measurements, globally the temperature can be smoothed quite remarkably, and the LIA is seen to be a mere passing phase of no great magnitude, unlike what is happening now in terms of Global Warming :-
http://www.pages2005.org/mediaroom/paperpics/mann1.gif
http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/images/cetann.gif
Also, there are a number of human-related factors that could have helped to create the Little Ice Age, from the mass burning of trees for industrial purposes, to changes in agriculture.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2004Q4/211/hockey_etal.gif
3. The Holocene Maximum
So, like 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, the Earth started to heat up and became warmer than it was today ? You got Global Warming at around the time of the first major attempts at human civilisation, when humans started to cut down trees to burn, and plant crops...oh yes, maybe humans had something to do with this...It's not true to say that humans had no impact on Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere until they started to burn Fossil Fuels.
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/figures/5_18.html
4. The Post-War Cooling Period
It depends on which data you look at, as to whether the Post-War Cooling Period was four decades of consistent decline in temperatures or not - and again - on the global scale is less of a downwards trend than a plateau :-
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/globaltemperature.html
http://www.actewagl.com.au/education/...
http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/global_temperature.jpg
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif
The period after the Second World War was clearly a time of great industrialisation, and enormous particulate emissions, which have now been shown to cause Global Dimming, the dirt in the air acting as light shields, reducing the warming effect of the Sun's radiance :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml
As the makers of the programme point out, since the 1970s global temperatures have been rising - which neatly coincides with the attempts by the industrialised countries to clean up their act. Cleaner air means more incident radiation on the oceans and land which means more global warming. What we are seeing now is the true impact of increased Carbon Dioxide emissions on the Greenhouse Effect. One major blip being the particulate emissions in Asia, which are perhaps preventing full Carbon Dioxide induced warming, but are contributing in their own way to warming and drought and storms :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6421303.stm
In summary, their use of old/localised graphs does no favours to the film makers, and their simplistic arguments do nothing for their case.
If you were to follow the argument put forward by Timothy Ball in the Swindle Film, that Carbon Dioxide cannot possibly have a big effect, as it is present in very small amounts in the atmosphere, consider this : it is a very efficient absorber of radiation in the part of the spectrum which includes sunlight reflected from the Earth's surface
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/images/4.jpg
It is a very efficient part of the blanket of gases that keeps the Earth liveable. If it weren't for Carbon Dioxide and water vapour in the atmosphere, there would be no mammals, or in fact, not much of any life at all.
Several of the interviewees in the film say that the Sun is all, the Sun is the largest influence. Well, that would be true if it weren't for the atmosphere and the part played by Carbon Dioxide. And you must know that, taking into consideration many factors such as solar sunspot changes, cosmic ray cloud nucleation changes, Earth's Poles precessing and volcanic activity, at the moment the Earth should be experiencing a cool-down. It's not.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861403.jpg
And this is even before I begin on the political manipulation of the interviews...
Tim Ball @ DeSmogBlog
Tim Ball - One of DeSmogBlog's favourite deniers - check out his less than underwhelming credentials here
Oh, what a night...
Oh, what a night of climate related tv.
1. The Great Global Warming Swindle
2. Question Time featuring Siân Berry
3. Panorama: Go Green or Else (rpt)
4. Dispatches: Greenwash (rpt) - presented by he that say turn off your tv.
Prog. 1 tried to make out that scepticism doesn't pay and 'alarmism' does.
Funny then that the ad breaks on prog. 4. were only 1 minute long - I timed one, and thoretically at least the time of broadcast should not affect this. However the ad breaks for prog. 1 just seemed to go on and on.
Exxonsecrets exposé of Richard Lindzen.
Holding development back
I thought the last section about developed countries putting pressure on developing countries to not develop was particularly interesting. There are many development NGOs e.g. WDM that would have been sympathethic to that valid concern. Yet none were interviewed.
We were shown that a fridge and a light bulb could not be powered by 1 or 2 panels on the roof of a small health centre - not surprising. But we were encouraged to think that solar power was not a suitable power source in Africa rather than that the bloke running the fridge actually needed a third solar panel.
African emissions per capita are tiny compared to the developed countries and it is going to be decades before they waste energy in the same amounts that we manage to do.
Complaining to Channel 4
http://www.channel4.com
--> Contact us
--> Complain
Dear Channel 4,
I think it was highly irresponsible of you to publish what you called a "science programme" which contained inaccurate graphs and presented superceded scientific theories as if they were fact.
Also, some of the people interviewed in the Great Global Warming Swindle are known as being in the pay of ExxonMobil which has a documented vested interest in denying that Global Warming is a result of its commercial activities.
What I find amusing is that the film itself can easily be dismissed as a swindle, but by presenting this film you have stirred up a hornet's nest of conflict, because some people have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.
No one is pretending that the IPCC is perfect. Some of my colleagues feel that the IPCC is not telling the true story - and that conditions are worse than the official summary.
By being conservative the IPCC allows non-experts such as Timothy Ball and Fred Singer to continue to peddle controvertible misinterpretations that have been deconstructed (debunked) very frequently.
I cannot believe that in this day and age, when there are heaps of scientific experts, many sources of accurate information, and good investigative journalism that you have allowed this film to be made and aired. Who paid ? Why did they want to stir up conflict ? What is Channel 4's agenda ? It's clearly not scientific enquiry, from my point of view.
I think it was ultimately disgraceful that you followed through the derogatory and painful discussion about Africa and development. Solar panels are known to be expensive. There are other, low cost and low emissions technologies to make electricity from the power of the Sun. The film makers clearly do not know this, or chose to ignore it.
There are many ways that you could have checked the contents of this film and given a caveat emptor notice before it was aired.
By showing it with no comment, you have brought despair and frustration and conflict to many people, and as such, this is completely lacking in any accountability.
If you present scientific information about Global Warming without talking about the development and proofs of the theory that used to be known as the "Callender Effect", you are reneging on your obligation to be a responsible broadcaster as far as I am concerned.
By the way, I accept no payment whatsoever for my work on Climate Change, as I do not wish to be accused of being anybody's lackey.
Ms J. Abbess BSc
PS I refuse to contribute to the diatribe and anger in the forum on this subject. You need to hear my complaint directly.
You can read my first partial dissection of this dead-as-a-dodo film on :- http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820
One more bit of C4 Info for your complaint pack
Here's one further bit of ammunition to add to anyone's C4 complaint log, cribbed from my own complaint, as follows:
"We hear that Channel 4 is suffering from a bank balance which has been rapidly sliding into the red. Could it now be that your Chief of Finance, coupled with the Board of Directors is jumping up and down with glee at the free publicity caused by the current furore against your programme? The prospect of BIG sales to climate-denying US networks beckons. Or has it already been pre-sold?"
Flipside Vision
thanks for
thanks for information...
THE GREAT CHANNEL FOUR SWINDLE
From : George Marshall at http://coinet.org.uk
Sent : 09 March 2007 12:51:21
Subject : THE GREAT CHANNEL FOUR SWINDLE
This article has been posted to the blog http://www.climatedenial.org. Please fee free to circulate and add your comments on the site.
THE GREAT CHANNEL FOUR SWINDLE
George Marshall
Last night Channel Four kindly gave an hour and half and a large budget to the international network of professional climate change deniers. ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ was a propaganda gift to the various vested interests who seek to undermine the fragile political and social will to take action on this global action.
And it was sometimes very convincing, as strongly worded opinions often are when they are not subject to any verification or external challenge. For example, there are excellent rebuttals against the contention that global warming is correlated to cosmic rays (for example see... )
There was only one scientific advisor on the programme, Martin Livermore, whose sole scientific qualification is that he is the Director of a web-based think tank, The Scientific Alliance. The Alliance was set up by in 2001 by Robert Durward, the fiercely anti-green director of the British Aggregates Association, and Foresight Communications, a Westminster public relations and lobbying company, to “counter scare-mongering by the so-called green lobby". (For more…)
The Scientific Alliance has no affiliation with any recognised scientific body but, like most of the contributors to the programme, it does have very strong links with the US public relations and lobbying organisations that have been so effective in setting the Bush agenda on climate change.
The writer and presenter of the programme was Martin Durkin. Although it was written in a highly personal and opinionated style- speaking freely of “liesâ€, and the “shrill frenzy†of “scare stories†– we never saw Durkin or discovered his personal credentials. As George Monbiot has revealed Durkin is closely affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party which has a strong ideological opposition to environmental science (more on Durkin and the RCP.
In 1997 Channel Four was forced to issue a humiliating public apology over a previous series of anti-environment programmes directed by Durkin called “Against Natureâ€. The Independent Television Commission found that “the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing†and that they had been “misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.â€
For this programme Durkin drew up a dream team of scientists who have built personal careers as media pundits debunking the peer-reviewed work of their colleagues. There are few of them, but they are well supported by the Washington lobbies and kept very busy with media debates, documentaries and opinion pieces. (I have personally debated with five of them in media debates).
Is it any surprise then, that they were so persuasive. Most of the people on the programme are professional communicators who are more familiar with the chat show than the lab. Of course they give good interviews - it is what they do for a living.
And let us not forget that we all want to believe them. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to believe that the science is unsettled, that all that carbon dioxide that we are pumping into the atmosphere really has no effect, and that we do not have to worry about the future.
It would be entirely possible to put together a similar programme, with a string of credible former academics, to argue that smoking does no cause cancer, that HIV does not cause AIDS, or that black people are less intelligent. However, Channel Four would not dare broadcast the programme and we would not believe them if they did. Is it not a reflection of the deep public ambivalence about climate change that these dissenters are given such a prominent and uncritical showcase and that we are so keen to listen to them?
Make up your own minds from their records. Here is a little more information on some of the people who appeared on the programme:
Fred Singer. Despite the caption on the programme, Singer has retired from the University of Virginia and has not had a single article accepted for any peer-reviewed scientific journal for 20 years. His main work has been as a hired gun for business interests to undermine scientific research on environmental and health matters. Before turning to climate change he has argued that CFCs do not cause ozone depletion and second hand smoke does not cause cancer (more... ). In 1990 he founded "The Science and Environment Policy Project", which aggressively contradicts climate science and has received direct funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. Exxon is also among the funders ($20,000 in 1998 and 2000)
Patrick Michaels is the most prominent US climate change denier. In the programme he claimed “I’ve never been paid a nickel by the old and gas companies†which is a curious claim. According to the US journalist Ross Gebspan Michaels has received direct funding from, among others German Coal Mining Association ($49,000), Edison Electric Institute ($15,000), and the Western Fuels Association ($63,000) an association of US coal producing interests (more...). The WFA is one of the most powerful forces in the US actively denying the basic science of climate change, funding, amongs other things, the Greening Earth Society which is directed by Patrick Michaels. Tom Wigley, one of the leading IPCC scientists, describes Michaels work as "a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation". (More on Michaels…)
Philip Stott was captioned as a Professor at the University of London although he is retired and is therefore free of any academic accountability. Stott is a geographer by training and has no qualifications in climate science. Since retiring Stott has aimed to become Britain’s leading anti-green pundit dedicating himself to wittily criticizing rainforest campaigns (with Patrick Moore), advocating genetic engineering and claiming that “global warming is the new fundamentalist religion.â€
Patrick Moore is Stott’s Canadian equivalent. Since a very personal and painful falling out with Greenpeace in 1986 Moore has put his considerable campaigning energies into undermining environmentalists, especially his former friends and colleagues. Typical of his rhetoric was his claim in the programme that environmentalists were “anti-human†and “treat humans as scumâ€. Throughout the 1990s Moore worked as lead consultant for the British Columbian Timber Products Association undermining Greenpeace’s international campaign to protect old growth forest there. Whenever he has the chance he also makes strong public statements in favour of genetic engineering, nuclear power, logging the Amazon, and industrial fishing- all, strangely, lead campaigns for Greenpeace (more on Moore..)
Piers Corbyn has no academic status and his role in such programmes is to promote his own weather prediction business. He has steadfastly refused to ever subject his climatological theories to any form of external review or scrutiny.
Richard Lindzen. As a Professor of Meteorology at the credible Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lindzen is by far the most reputable academic among the US climate deniers and, for this reason, he is heavily cited by sympathetic journalists such as Melanie Phillips and Michael Crichton. His arguments though are identical to the other deniers – for example an article in the Wall Street Journal (June 11 2001) he claims that "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends or what causes them".
He is strongly associated with the other people on the programme though co-authored reports, articles, conference appearances and co-signed statements.
Tim Ball was captioned as the University of Winnipeg. In fact he left in 1996 since when he has run political campaigns through two organisations he helped found: the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and the Friends of Science which, according to their websites aim to run "a proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocolâ€; and “encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocolâ€. Ian Clark is also on the board of the NRSP.
This article was posted on the 9th March to http://www.climatedenial.org
Why do we have to waste our time re-denying the deniers ?
Why oh why oh why do we have to waste our time re-denying the Climate Deniers ? What's in it for Channel 4 ? Sparking public debate ? Not exactly. Who's got the money and the time to counter this absurd film ? It's just plain nasty.
I know i'm not in denial,
Who is swindling whom ?
From : Jim Scott - Save Our World
Sent : 09 March 2007 15:48:14
Subject : Whose Great Warming Swindle ?
From: Save our World
To: Guardian Letters
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 3:33 PM
Subject: Whose Great Warming Swindle?
Sir,
Whose Great Global Warming Swindle?
The disgraceful thing about last night's Channel 4 Programme 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' ('Last Night's TV' 09 March 2007), is not that alternative theories to human causation of global warming were presented, but that they were presented as 'the truth' without any counter-arguments being aired at all. This might be acceptable as satire for a technically well informed audience, but is inexcusable for a general audience that is unable to weigh-up one side of proclaimed evidence without being given the other. It is particularly irresponsible of Channel 4 to show this programme because it inevitably creates confusion and doubt in uninformed viewers' minds as to whether they need to take action themselves, and support action by others (including political), that could well affect the future of their descendants' lives and the future of life on earth.
Unfortunately, the time has passed when disinterested enquiry for its own sake was the guiding light of science, and we have to accept that scientific evidence is increasingly sought and selected in order to support an already decided ideological or theoretical position. This is all the more reason why the producers, in all forms of public media, must be required to present both legitimate arguments and counter-arguments on an issue as vital as climate change. One contributer to the programme last night ridiculed the notion of climate sceptics being regarded like Holocaust deniers. However, the dangers of causing public confusion are such, that a case can indeed be made for inserting a clause in the current Climate Change Bill to make it a punishable offence knowingly to spread misinformation about climate change, on a par with Holocaust denial.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Scott,
chairperson,
SAVE OUR WORLD
14 Richborne Terrace,
London SW8 1AU
020 7640 0492 & 07717 221617
Forced Group Think
Make someone else's opinions or ideas illegal. Wrong or not, do you really want to do that? What would be the punishment? Complete denial- Felony 10yrs hard labor. Not sure about the data yet- Minor Offense 1 yr re-education camp with review afterward. Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin would be really proud of you Jim. Keep up the good work, I know those high paying do nothing jobs are exhaustive, but someone has to use all that free Government money, don' t they.
David Riordan
Chairman,
DPR Look at Me Inc.
Hate & Lies are not Free Speech
Hi David,
I guess by the way you spell the word "Offense" that you are American. I'm sorry if I have this wrong, but it is relevant to what I will say next.
In the United States of America you vigorously protect your Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. I forget which Amendment this is, if it is.
The point is that you protect the right to Free Speech even when that can influence people to believe things that are not true, or bad for them. Hence in the United States you had the Cult Dravidian, and you still have the Moonies and the Global Warming Contrarians.
In Europe, we have quite strong opinions about leading people down the wrong path.
We also have laws that criminalise messages or politics of hate.
There are certain so-called "political" parties that have been rightfully been made unlawful, and in the United Kingdom, hate crimes are highly targeted.
Global Warming could do severe damage. When the future of peoples' way of life and the future of the Earth habitats and the future of a large proportion of plants and animals are at risk, it is to me a crime to belittle the science of Climate Change and to assert untruths, particularly old and debunked untruths.
I resent people using the medium of television to put out derogatory opinion, old lies and selective reporting as fact.
This is not a conversation between religions or cultures where my God could be seen to be equivalent to yours in some way.
This is not a debate on the culture of whether the milk should be put in the teacup before or after the tea is poured.
There is science and there is lies. Since so much rests on getting the science right, and shaping policy according to the science, anyone speaking lies is a danger to safety.
I really don't mind if they try to perpetrate their opinions in private, or even try to put their opinions in a serious scientific forum, but to usurp the medium of television without the opportunity of being refuted is unacceptable.
I think that the Swindle film should have been blocked, or at the very least Channel 4 should have commissioned an alternative film from people who are up-to-date with the current science, and who are not known Climate Deniers.
There are other areas where American Free Speech has had a negative impact on British ideological life : Creationism (now called Intelligent Design) for example, has spread its deceptive tentacles all the way through British Church life. I object to this nonsense being sold to children almost as much as I resent the non-science being peddled by the Global Warming Deniers. If children believe that the Earth is only 4,500 years old they will never believe where Fossil Fuels come from, geology, radio-carbon dating, archaeology, biology and perhaps they won't accept medical treatment because they don't believe in that, by extension. A dangerous lie.
Global Warming skepticism (scepticism in the UK) is anathema to truth.
The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, not 4,500 years old. And the Earth is warming, mostly because of energy production and land use behaviour of people. The sooner you come out of denial and wake up to this truth, the sooner you will begin to see how humankind is set to destroy the Biosphere with a final, all-encompassing sword stroke unless we change our behaviour. Wake up, please.
You are hateful
jo, you simply want to silence dissenting voices. I see this as a species of violence and hate. Many politically unfavourable groups have been marginalized and silenced throughout the centuries. Now you want to silence anyone with an opinion contrary to your own, whether it is climate change or intelligent design. In your Swindle transcript, you painstakingly describe how the programme makers are sharing opinions. Well, if they are sharing opinions, then won't people recognize it, and reject them if they are ridiculous? Do you think the average viewer is too stupid to see through ill-conceived opinions? Or, are your own opinions so infirm that they can't stand up against these other opinions? Are the "tentacles" of Intelligent Design spreading because people are stupid? Are people so stupid that they must have everything they hear or see filtered by someone more enlightened, such as you, lest they fall prey to a swindle?
jo, YOU are hateful.
Ad astra per aspera
Please Adjust Your Ideology
Dear Al,
I suspect that you are American, by your spelling of the word "marginalized", so we will possibly never meet. If you were to meet me you would find that I am a tolerant, peaceful person, and so I am asking you to adjust your ideology.
I feel that accusing me of being hateful is a personal attack which is totally unjustified, but unfortunately you may not discover this, for me to be able to prove this to you we would need to get to know each other better.
I am trying to live as a Christian and a pacifist. I could just ask for your comment to be deleted, but instead I am going to reply.
There is a very sharp distinction between fact and opinion.
There are facts which I am sure you will agree with : for example : the Moon rotates around the Earth, and the Earth rotates around the Sun.
There are more modern facts that we the public have been convinced of : smoking causes lung and other horrible cancers, HIV causes AIDS, that feeding animal parts to cattle causes BSE.
These are scientific facts. Not all people that smoke get a cancer, but smoking is still the cause of a distinct set of cancers in those who get them. Not all people who get HIV get sick immdiately, but HIV still causes AIDS in the vast majority of people who have it. Not all cattle get BSE, but prions from dead animal brains in cattle feed are the cause of BSE in those cattle that acquire it.
It would be unwise to claim that HIV does not cause AIDS, and yet that is what some people do. In some countries of Africa there is a vast social denial that HIV infection causes AIDS, partly because HIV infection is related to sexual activity. And more people are contracting the virus and suffering horribly as a result of the denial.
In the same way, it is unwise and not very intelligent of people to claim that Man-Made Carbon Dioxide Emissions cannot possibly be a cause of Global Warming. Man-Made Greenhouse Gas Emissions and mankind's bad management of land and forests are the largest factors in Global Warming. That's a fact, well established, and in no doubt.
If there were a public speaker in the United States who came out and said, under the cover of Free Speech, that HIV does not cause AIDS, do you think that they would be tolerated ? Do you not think that there would be lawsuits to address this most heinous of lies ?
Freedom of speech should not be used as a cover for deliberate propaganda, nor should it be used as a vehicle for ill-formed opinion, which would mislead people dangerously.
You may not understand the difference between the facts in the IPCC reports and the opinions of the Global Warming deniers. This is probably because you are not fully fluent in the current science.
We do not have enough time to permit propaganda a platform as we only have around 7 to 10 years to get in control of Greenhouse Gas emissions.
A "dissenting voice" is fine if the voices are expressing opinions about feelings or social science. When it comes to matters of health, ecology, security and conflict, "dissenting voices" are dangerous for humankind.
The point is that in the science of Global Warming, dissenting voices are included in the process already, and it is inappropriate to continue with confrontational claims unless you are willing to get engaged with the process.
I recommend that you learn more about the science and engage with the people who are doing the science. This is what I am trying to do.
Global Warming is not an issue of mere public opinion, or politics. It's an issue of science.
Sure, there will need to be political responses to Global Warming, and policies and measures will need to be introduced through the political power structures.
However, do not confuse opinion with fact.
An opinion is like, whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla icecream. An opinion about icecream and your preference can be made regardless of your science education.
A fact is like, how many people are going to be at risk from starvation and heat stress in the next 25 years if we don't reduce net Greenhouse Gas emissions to the atmosphere from removing biomass and the burning of fossil fuels.
I did the transcript of the Swindle film in order to let people read it. I included my own comments in the right places in the transcript, so that it would be easy to relate my comments to the transcript.
Why don't you try viewing the film several times on Google Video or on the soon-to-be-released DVD ? And then why don't you compare what the film is saying with mainstream science ? And then why don't you see the flaws in the film ?
I made comments on the film in order to get some people up to speed with the flaws in the film. I don't claim to be a total expert, but I could see flaws in the film the first time I saw it on TV.
Some other people could not detect the flaws when they saw it on TV because they are not scientifically literate enough. So efffectively, for them, the film was pure propaganda. They had no way of knowing whether it was true or false in its claims.
It is for this reason that I could call the the film makers "charlatans" or "quacks". What they are selling are dangerous and wrong ideas in my view, akin to selling olive oil hand cream as a cure for liver cancer. If you personally believe that olive oil hand cream can cure your liver cancer, then who am I to stop you believing that ? It won't become an issue we all need to vote on in a democracy. Only you, personally, will suffer.
However, public opinion about Global Warming is leading to politics about which we will have to vote, and therefore truth-telling about the science of the causes of Climate Change is of the essence.
If a radical Islamic cleric were to give a sermon on TV, would you resist that as being irresponsible ? I think that giving Climate Change deniers and contrarians a TV platform is irresponsible.
If a person were to show a programme on radio and use it as a platform to claim that Martians were invading the Earth, would you think that dangerous to the safety of the people, and would you try to stop it ? I think that giving retired scientists with Oil Company funding a platform to tell us that Global Warming is not caused by the use of Oil is highly dangerous to the safety of the people, and for that reason I strongly oppose the Swindle film.
Find out more about the people that were interviewed in the film, and find out more about the people listed in the credits of the film as "helping". They all have curious CVs (resumes), apart from Carl Wunsch it seems. And they all have histories of offering opinions that have been subsequently debunked (apart from Carl Wunsch it seems).
This film has tipped quite a few people into doubting 50 good years of science - because the viewers were not sufficiently scientifically literate to be able to spot what appears to have been a total fraud (apart from Carl Wunsch it seems, although his words appear to have been highly spun).
Please don't resort to accusing me of being hateful. You know in your heart that some views should not be aired on public television as they cause people to do things that are risky. Do you still have cigarette advertisements ?
I respectfully disagree.
I respectfully disagree. Free speech in the US is a distorted and hideous incarnation of a good principle. However, that aside, it is far more broad than you understand. I do agree that some opinions are irresponsible. However, I trust people to come up with them on their own. I don't see why you even have anything to worry about with the GGWS. I don't think it's changed many people's minds. The news, the scientists and everyone says GW is so and everyone believes it. Most people see the GGWS as the ranting of crazy people. I think your worry is excessive.
Of course, in the past, people subscribed whole heartedly to other scientific facts about which there was great consensus. What about Eugenics? It was supported by Winston Churchill and many prominent Americans. Supporters included Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson; Supreme Court justices Holmes and Brandeis; and celebrities such as A.G. Bell, M. Sanger, L. Burbank, L. Stanford, H.G. Wells, and G.B. Shaw. Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. Research was performed at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and probably Oxford. The American National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and the National Research Council all supported eugenics. However, the Germans carried the concept further that the Americans, killing Jews rather than simply sterilizing the undesirables. When Germany invaded Europe and the War started, "scientific facts" quickly changed. By the end of the war, NO ONE supported eugenics. In fact, it was completely disavowed. With modern understandings of genetics, we now know that eugenics was junk science. Yet, look at all the famous people and institutions that supported it, for many years. Consensus can be wrong. People used to think the sun revolved around the Earth. They thought it was a scientific fact. Rome banned Galileo's heliocentric ideas; they had "scientific facts" and the weight of everyone on their side. Rome thought Galileo's ideas were dangerous and that no one should hear them.
What about Paul Ehrlich and the The Population Bomb from 1968? He predicted that mass starvation would result from overpopulation in the 1970s and 1980s. None of the measures he encouraged were adopted, yet mass starvation has not occurred. In fact, the world-wide standard of living has increased. Some European countries, which culturally subscribed whole-heartedly to his Malthusian predictions, now face population declines and are providing incentives for procreation (France).
What about the frenzy everyone got into in the 1970s about global cooling? The Earth cooled from 1945 to 1970 (an industrial period when pollution was not limited or well understood - CO2 release was extensive). Sir Fred Hoyle wrote, in 1981, Ice, the Ultimate Human Catastrophe about the coming of the next ice age. Lowell Ponte, in 1978, wrote The Cooling, which included this quote: "We simply cannot afford to gamble...by ignoring it. We cannot risk inaction. Those scientists who say we are merely entering a period of climatic instability are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." He was writing about global cooling!
Science and conjecture
Earth science is a pure science, unlike some of the other things you refer to. Eugenics is neither science nor non-science, it is a set of policies against which moral objections were raised. Genetics has not 'disproved' eugenics, much of a person's physical and mental make-up is inherited. The Roman church's view of the earth-sun-moon-planets system was based partly on scripture. Religious institutions are not scientific institutions. Ehrlich's theory did not well model improvements in agricultural yields but these are tailing off and a growing no. of scientists fear population crises this century, accelerated by climate change effects.
The effect of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases is a matter of experimental physics and calculus, and for over a century the question has not been, will the result be global warming, but rather, is there any counter-process we haven't predicted that would curb global warming? The cooling trend you refer to (actually it was fluctuation) between 1945 and 1970 can be attributed partly to global dimming from increasing anthropogenic aerosols. There are decades' worth of data on global dimming from the 'pan test' - how long does a certain-sized pan of water left in the sun at different locations and times of day take to evaporate? This time increased in many locations over much of last century.
Incidentally, trying to counter the warming effect of rising greenhouse gases by artificial dimming (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/geo-engineering-in..., http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6369971.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6354759.stm) would still leave very considerable side effects, and leading exponents of such propositions say it is far preferable to curb GHG emissions.
Whether eugenics or
Whether eugenics or heliocentrism was considered science or not was not central to my contention. The central idea was that these were very widely held beliefs, including by the elite scientists of the day. Only few dissenters spoke out, and at great personal cost. You have not addressed this aspect.
Also, that global warming has been an accepted "truth" for over a century flies in the face of every piece of information I have. Can you substantiate that the scientific community has been worried about global warming since 1907? What about all the global cooling alarmists of the 70s and 80s?
What we are discussing is what people think, not truth. You cannot prove anything with certainty. I read many climate change source documents and scientists are quick to admit the lack of absolute certainty. They may contend that something is likely but scientists do not speak of truth - they speak of what they think or believe. Therefore, it is relevant that a bunch of people thinking are sometimes wrong.
"What we are discussing is
"What we are discussing is what people think, not truth. You cannot prove anything with certainty. "
This is a fascinating statement and perfectly true. In the light of which, is there any point in continuing?
I'm interested to know if there is any hypothetical argument or event that might change your point of view?
If we are immune to argument (since nothing is certain), how do we choose what we think?
Now we have no 'truth' to hide our values behind.
Geometry & The Weight Of Evidence
With some very basic mathematics, and through studied observation of the Moon in its changes, it is possible to prove quite conclusively that the Moon travels in an orbit around the Earth and that the Earth travels in an orbit around the Sun, and moreover that the Earth is spherical. It is possible to know how large the Sun is, and how large the Moon and Earth are, and how far they all are apart at any given time. As long as you believe in geometry.
But you also need to judge a collection of perhaps conflicting and confusing evidence, to sort out which things may be more true (or true-er) than others, and which things may be more significant than others. You also have to spend some time following trends, and checking predictions made on your initial workings out. You have to refine your ideas, your internal picture of the system, until a clarity emerges. Sometimes, multiple minds are needed to arrive at a better understanding.
People on the trail have included :-
Svante Arrhenius ( 1859 - 1927 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
Svante Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect ("On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground", Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76). He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of CO2 and water vapour. Arrhenius' painstaking calculations were later shown to be erroneous.
Guy Stewart Callendar (1898 - 1964 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Stewart_Callendar
Guy Stewart Callendar (Feb 1898 - Oct 1964) was an English steam engineer and inventor. His main contribution to knowledge was propounding the theory that linked rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to global temperature. This became known as the Callendar Effect. Callendar thought this warming would be beneficial, delaying a "return of the deadly glaciers."
Roger Revelle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Revelle
Revelle was instrumental in creating the International Geophysical Year in 1958 and was founding chairman of the first Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean (CCCO) under the Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) and the International Oceanic Commission (IOC). During planning for the IGY, under Revelle's directorship, SIO participated in and later became the principal center for the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Program. In July 1956, Charles David Keeling joined the SIO staff to head the program, and began measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and Antarctica.
Charles David Keeling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_David_Keeling
Dr. Keeling started collecting carbon dioxide samples at the base. By 1960, he had established that there are strong seasonal variations in carbon dioxide levels with peak levels reached in the late northern hemisphere winter. A reduction in carbon dioxide followed during spring and early summer each year as plant growth increased in the land-rich northern hemisphere. In 1961, Keeling produced data showing that carbon dioxide levels were rising steadily in what became known as the "Keeling curve". In the early 1960s, the National Science Foundation stopped supporting his research calling the outcome "routine". Despite this lack of interest, the Foundation used Keeling's research in its warning in 1963 of a greenhouse effect. A 1965 report from President Johnson's Science Advisory Committee similarly warned of the dangers of the greenhouse effect.
There is now a significant weight of evidence that major industrial development in the 20th Century caused a Global Dimming (or Cooling) effect.
There is now also significant weight of evidence that since industrial production has become less smoke-generating, that a Global Warming is taking place.
The major gas chemists suggested this was due to Carbon Dioxide (mostly) accumulating in the air.
We no longer need to resort purely to basic geometry or basic chemistry or basic physics.
The observed data is now a weight of evidence.
I think debate, of course,
I think debate, of course, is vital. It's common these days, however, for people to say, "Global warming is truth." And there the debate ends. I don't feel comfortable with this line of thinking. Let's discuss the issues, not preclude contrary points of view.
Contrary Points of View
Question for you Al : Are the Moonies right or wrong ? The Mormons ? Jehovah's Witnesses ?
Now, I'm all for them having "contrary points of view", particularly in the field of religion. But do they have valid points of view in say, the context of medical care ?
From their religious stance, do they have valid contributions to make as regards, say, the specific temperature at which cow's milk can be safely pasteurised ?
If there is something in the holy documents or holy pronouncements of the religious groups that can accurately inform science and public health, then I'm all for including their points of view into the debates on science.
And by a direct parallel, if people are funded by Oil Companies, even indirectly, or have been known to be holding contrary positions for reasons of their own public notoriety and fame, then I would not consider their points of view to be as implicitly valid as those of people employed by academia and the democratic governments.
I would put into this category, on evidence, Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels and several of the other interviewees and contributors (in the rolling credits at the end) to the film THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE.
They are not playing fair in my view.
They need to do more to prove that their views are objective and based on sound evidence before I admit their contrary points of view as valid.
You cannot have a debate about sobriety with an alcoholic.
To add to this can someone
To add to this can someone explain this role of aerosols. It is said that these caused global dimming during 1940-1970s causing the temps to cool. They were also the reason for causing the hole in the ozone layer (esp Antarctica). This was going to cause absolute chaos to weather and crops. These aerosols were banned and thus the global dimming effect was negated and temperatures increased.
However the hole in the ozone layer was its largest in 2006 - and, according to the report, it was caused by colder than normal temperatures in the Antarctica. What was amazing about the report that it was relegated to Page 7 - no hysteria, no doomsday warnings.
Was the hole in the ozone layer (caused by cfcs) just another furphy? Was their science wrong? Another consensus gone wrong?
Aerosols and aerosol propellants
CFCs are chemicals that were commonly used as aerosol propellants as well in fridges, i.e. they were not aerosols themselves. Aerosol sprays are so called because aerosol is the word for the droplets of spray (that form) whereas the propellant (partly in liquid form inside the can) changes quickly to a gas as it escapes from the nozzle (in doing so, powering the spray). The moratorium on CFCs was good from a climate point of view, as CFCs are significant greenhouse gases, as well as good for the ozone layer amid fluctuation of other factors like temperature.
In the context of climate modelling, aerosol refers to atmospheric soot, dust, salt spray and sulphuric seeding of water droplets, see for introduction:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/an-aerosol-tour-de... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/global-dimming-and...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/aerosols-the-last-...
I hope that explains.
Why should winners try to censor debate?
I take issue with the letter by Jim Scott of ‘Save Our World’ to the Guardian, posted earlier in this thread.
Comparison with the controversy over ‘Holocaust Denial’ is wholly inappropriate. Moreover, the ‘solution’ proposed by Jim Scott is dangerous and plays into enemy hands.
There is simply no comparison between the situation or arguments of those who question the official narrative of World War Two events (so called ‘Holocaust Deniers’) and those who question the veracity of the mainstream (IPCC) view on anthropogenic climate change.
The former are persecuted; the latter are not.
The former have no corporate backing; the latter have been well-endowed by corporate vested interests.
The former have no access to the mass media; the latter have ready access.
The former are refused the opportunity to debate their opponents; the latter have plenty of opportunities (arguably too many!)
I could say more… but I don’t want to debate the issue of World War Two and the ‘Holocaust’ in this place. That would be inappropriate.
However, as you have brought the topic up, I feel it IS legitimate to point out the fallacy of your comparison. More importantly, your suggestion that ‘Climate Change Deniers’ should be subject to criminal law is bizarre and would be highy counter-productive. As a fan of The Enlightenment, I also find it intellectually offensive.
The entire concept of ‘denial’ is a misleading trick. It has utility only when there are obvious and incontrovertable facts, not competing theories. But that’s rarely if ever the case with complex debates about the natural or social world.
The talking heads presented on the Channel 4 Climate Change Beat-Up are not ‘deniers’ in any meaningful sense. They are not, for the most part, refuting certainties. They are questioning theories.
They are quite entitled to do this. The way to overcome their challenge is to win the intellectual argument in fair and open debate. In the process, the climate change campaign gains strength, as we are forced to re-check facts, sharpen our arguments and better target our message. I agree, the media provides this minority view with a disporprotionate amount of coverage. I agree the folk have interesting connections with vested interests. (Those connections, of course, are part of the debate.)
But take heart!
The western mass media, in 2007, gives very considerable coverage to the (now mainstream) view that anthopogenic climate change is a serious global crisis. By contrast, ‘Holocaust Deniers’ are routinely deported, imprisoned, vilified, bankrupted, deprived of their profession, beaten up or worse.
In any dispute, it is unjust and oppressive to try to silence intellectual adversaries. It is plain irrational to try to do this in the case of the climate change debate, where the minority “no worries†view does not have the weight of science on its side and is increasingly losing the debate.
What are your sources?
Sid you state "'Holocaust deniers' are routinely...beaten up or worse", can you give examples with sources?
Sources as requested
Hi jimroland
I don't want to take this thread off topic. Nor do I particularly want to be banned from participating in the site. This topic is well known to turn many liberally-minded intellectuals into raving authoritarians. My main concern here was to argue that 'denial' is a false paradigm, wrongfully used in other cases and that we would be most unwise to label our opponents 'deniers' in the climate change debate. They are the "no worries", "business as usual", "let's play Russian Roulette with the planet" crowd - not "deniers".
We don't have a complete, accepted, indisputable model for climate change. Nor do we have certainty about solutions. We need debate - not a silly attempt to shut down dissent. The corporate stooges can be exposed as such.. If there is merit in ANYTHING they say... fine, that's nothing to fear. On the contrary, through hearing, debating and where necessary adapting to critics, the broad consensus view can be refined and strenthened.
Nevertheless, you've asked a question and are entitled to an answer, .Check out these three references for starters: (Professor Faurisson - victim of at least ten physical attacks) (François Duprat - murdered, wife crippled for life) (David Cole - subjected to death threats) [NOTE: URLs to a site with highly offensive content deleted - Moderator]
We should legislate for Climate Harm
Hi Sid,
I don't care what you call yourself, but if you deny the truth, you can justifiably be
called a "denier". If you prefer though, I can call you a "contrarian" - taking views
that are contrary to mainstream science and policy.
When you say :-
>
> This topic is well known to turn many liberally-minded intellectuals into raving authoritarians.
>
I think you are imposing emotional value on something that is a rational issue.
There are quite rightly laws to control and punish libel, lies, bribery and corruption.
I believe quite dispassionately that there should be laws to punish people who lie
in public about Global Warming science. That doesn't make me a "raving" anything.
Meet me. Then you'll know I rarely rave about anything. And I'm certainly not an
authoritarian, since I'm liberally minded !
Lying about Global Warming science is analagous to lying about financial accounts.
If people cannot censor or control their own behaviour, then laws have to control and
punish them. Enron, my friend.
When you say :-
>
> We don't have a complete, accepted, indisputable model for climate change.
>
We do, actually. It is enshrined in countless peer-reviewed scientific papers and journals.
When you say :-
>
> We need debate - not a silly attempt to shut down dissent.
>
This is not a silly attempt to shut down dissent. There is no longer any debate.
Global Warming is a proven fact. And humankind's Fossil Fuel burning activities
are the major cause of it.
I'm not being pompous. I'm being factual. If you don't believe me, read more (but
not the right-wing American blogs).
However, there are valid debates in science about certain numbers and climate
effects. Will the warming be stronger or less strong ? Well, that depends on a
number of other factors, positive feedbacks, cooling effects in the systems,
ocean turn-over and so on.
Also, there are perfectly valid debates in policy about how we tackle Climate Change,
both on the front of mitigation (stopping Carbon emissions) and adaptation.
Sorry, but your arguments are 20 years too old for this forum.
Get your ideology up to date before coming back.
Misunderstanding?
Hi Jo
My comment that "This topic is well known to turn many liberally-minded intellectuals into raving authoritarians" did not refer to the climate change debate, but rather to the other topic mentioned in my post and the earlier reply: so called "holocaust denial".
A lot of your reply is therefore based on a misunderstanding. I'm sorry if my earlier post wasn't clearly written.
Regarding your comment that "we do, actually... have a complete, accepted, indisputable model for climate change", I beg to differ. I doubt you'd get many members of the IPCC to agree with you on that either. Climate modelling is a relatively new and evolving scientific field. Variables are many. Complete certainty is not really possible - and attempts to suggest there is certainty where there isn't, IMO, play into enemy hands.
What we do have is a developing consensus that climate change is serious, has been triggered by human action - and that urgent ameliorative action is required.. As someone who lobbied for action on greenhouse emissions as long ago as the late 1980s, it's obvious there has been a major shift since that time. The mainstream consensus then was that uncertainties were so great that action wasn't justified.
It's ben a long hard slog to get from here to there. For all I know you may have played a key role in that achievement. If so, well done. I can also understand the frustration you feel when you see industry-funded preudo-scientists poke holes in the growing consensus, courtesy of the mainstream media.
Nevetheless, bans on free speech are counterprofuctive and can never been justified, even on tactical grounds alone, unless the case one seeks to defend by force of law does not stand up on its own merits.
That doesn't apply, IMO, in this case.
Just let me clarify...
When Jim Scott says :-
>
> However, the dangers of causing public confusion are such, that a case can indeed be
> made for inserting a clause in the current Climate Change Bill to make it a punishable
> offence knowingly to spread misinformation about climate change, on a par with
> Holocaust denial.
>
I think after this exchange I am tending to agree with him. Lies are lies and should be judged.
When you say :-
>
> Climate modelling is a relatively new and evolving scientific field. Variables are many.
>
I don't dispute that. I agree with you on that.
However, the BIG PICTURE is well established now, so I stand by my claim that :-
>
> we have a complete, accepted, indisputable model for climate change.
>
There really is no contention amongst those who are up to date with the science.
There are still discussions about the size of the impact of some factors.
There are still discoveries going on about other, previously undocumented factors.
However, the core model has been evidenced.
The Holocaust is an historical fact.
Global Warming and Acid Ocean are physical facts.
The causes of the Holocaust are well-established.
The causes of Global Warming and Acid Ocean are well-established.
We may never know how many lives were obliterated by any of the holocausts or genocides in history,
and we do not yet know exactly how many lives and lifeforms may be affected by Climate Change.
However, there's no use in denying either the Holocaust or Global Warming.
I think that anyone who denies the atrocities of the Holocaust should be shamed by being shunned.
I think those people that deny the science of Global Change should be shamed by being shunned.
Complete, Accepted, Indisputable?
Hi Jo,
Who you decide to shun - and who you don’t shun - is up to you. It doesn’t bother me.
What does concern me are
(a) laws the stifle intellectual debate and dissent
(b) suggestions that it would be advantageous for the environmental movement to call for such laws.
I’m willing to discuss World War Two history with you, but not here. I don’t think it’s appropriate to this forum – and I suspect the moderators would agree. By all means PM me if you genuinely want that discussion at the level of detail required for a meaningful exchange. I’ll look forward to learning the “undisputable†truth direct from the oracle (did you obtain it in tablet form?)
I will, however, point out here that so poorly argued is your summation of the “certainties†of climate change, you manage to make contradictory statements in consecutive sentences.
For instance:
“the BIG PICTURE is well established now, so I stand by my claim that we have a complete, accepted, indisputable model for climate change. There really is no contention amongst those who are up to date with the science. ( - FOLLOWED BY - ) There are still discussions about the size of the impact of some factors. There are still discoveries going on about other, previously undocumented factors.â€
Given your apparently difficulty stringing together a logical argument, I have little faith in your self-professed certainty on historical and scientific matters.
In your repressive utopia, critics would be silenced, for heavens sake!
Don’t be surprised when most sensible people opt for open debate and free speech.