User login
Navigation
Search
Channel 4 : Great Global Warming Swindle
29 March, 2007 - 22:03
#62
Are there any natural processes occurring on Earth for which humans are not responsible? Is it reasonable that absolutely no percentage of global warming results from natural processes?
Humans produce CO2 (including by breathing) --> the CO2 traps the solar energy --> the warming Earth has more water (melted ice) and more water vapour --> more global warming
Were there any temperature variations, at all, prior to humans coming on the scene?
Why do volcanoes contribute to global cooling when they produce so much CO2?
Is it possible that believers in human-caused global warming are somewhat delusional megalomaniacs?
30 March, 2007 - 01:35
#63
re. #6: Volcanoes emit a lot of sulphur and dust and, especially with very large eruptions, propel these to very high altitudes where they block sunlight from reaching the lower atmosphere, the sulphur (as SO2/SO3) seeding high level cloud.
re: #8: For other sides to the story see http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1819
1 April, 2007 - 13:22
#64
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 ?
1 April, 2007 - 13:42
#65
Peace Be With You Al,
>
> When you say :
> [ According to Grubb then, the report is important because of the contribution made by politicians NOT the
> contribution made by the scientists.
>
What you claim is not correct as I see it.
Let me take a parallel example. Now, we all, especially women, recognise that it is important to promote the rights of women in the face of millennia of discrimination and exploitation. But it is not considered more important than, say, the advancement of business, and so, when a Government decides to promote the rights of women, it creates a "Minister for Women" or somesuch, and devolves the issue from the centre of power. It shows that it is addressing the issue, but puts the issue into the hands of people that do not have central power.
So, in the Climate talks, held each year by the United Nations, the environment ministers come with their delegations, but not the economics ministers, or the central policy wonks. So do you think the environment ministers have enough power to enact environmental policy ? Most of the time it is limited by the fact that the issue is not central to the governments.
With the issuing of the Stern Review, finally a central power called for an economist to produce a report on a key environmental issue. And this has had a big central government effect.
This is why Michael Grubb says "If you didn't have that then the report wouldn't be so important. It's as simple as that..."
Al, please don't try to fudge the issue here. The IPCC needs to be fully supported from the governments in order to have sufficient power to influence real policy.
If the IPCC reports showed that there is not really a big problem, then that result would go straight to the heart of the governments and the policies would be minor.
As it is, the IPCC reports are acting like a deadweight on all central governments just now, and they are all feeling the gravity to respond with appropriate policies.
Don't tell me that all politics is inconsequential ! It's because of politics that we have such things as hopsitals, schools and clean drinking water. Plus, theoretically, through politics, we have outlawed slavery, which is no mean thing !
Governments are made up of human beings, and human beings have children, homes and bank accounts, all of which are going to be affected by Climate Change. So they understand they need to come up with appropriate policy.
1 April, 2007 - 14:13
#66
Hi Al,
I like to think of myself as a visionary and not under a delusion.
It is very hard to predict the future accurately, but it is necessary to envision the future in order to understand what could go right or wrong.
Personally, I'm not a megalomaniac, although I am ruler of my own world and enjoy a little crazy fun from time to time.
Of course there are natural processes occurring on Earth for which humans are not responsible. The trees grow, the oceans roar, the birds fly, the bears defecate in the woods.
We are so not responsible for the creation or sustenance of this beautiful world. We are provided with all sorts of food, all kinds of work and entertainment, all kinds of amazing things to discover and learn, all the cute and endearing creatures that seem to defy imagination in the way they are formed. The Pope has every reason to be a Catholic.
However, humans are responsible for quite a lot of destruction of our amazing habitat, and sometimes permanently so, and I think this needs to be more widely explored in your analysis.
We burn rainforest that will never have a chance to re-grow. We out-fish whole areas of ocean. We drop clusterbombs for future limbless kids. We put polluting chemicals in ancient water resources. We mess with Providence daily.
The Earth goes round the Sun. It spins with a wobble, and precesses around its Poles. The Sun in all its glory changes in magnitude and power. So yes, of course throughout history there have been changes in heating and cooling.
But no, the Earth has never seen conditions like today's, ever.
During Earth history the Carbon cycle has changed in its level of efficiency of containment and release, and Carbon levels in the atmosphere have risen and fallen, caused by, and themselves causing warming until they could be re-absorbed by the Biosphere.
However, there has never been such a rate of change before. The rate of additional Carbon Dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere has never been so high as now it seems, in all of the Earth's history.
The oceans are not able to take this up as quickly as we are producing it with our burning of fossil fuels and our bad land and forest management.
This is new. It is potentially highly dangerous. And the science has focussed on it and rightly so.
Volcanoes contribute to Global Dimming because of the quantities of particulates they put into the atmosphere.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_qa.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimm-nf.html
It is as if a shield of dust has come between the Earth's surface and the Sun - so the sunlight cannot heat the Earth quite so much as normal.
However, they also put Carbon Dioxide and Methane into the atmosphere, which contributes to the thermal blanket effect and add to the warming of the Earth.
We need to know the basic science.
Gas chemists of the last couple of centuries have shown that various gases cause various effects. One of the effects that is quite interesting is the absorption of certain heat radiation frequencies.
Light, infrared, ultraviolet, radio, microwave, X rays are all part of the great EMF : electromagnetic spectrum, and one of the interesting things is that certain frequencies cause heat generation in certain materials. So for example, microwave ovens cook your food, and infrared hobs can warm your milk in a saucepan.
Sunlight falls on the Earth in a range of frequencies, and bounces off various materials in a changed range of frequencies.
Some of the bouncing light is very easily and highly absorbed by Carbon Dioxide, in particular.
Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing, and we have evidence that this is due to mankind's activities. This means that the atmosphere retains more and more heat inside its envelope, which slowly spreads out through all the Earth systems, oceans, rocks etc
The climate systems, based around the massive water and water vapour cycle and the massive wind and ocean current systems, carry heat about and it changes them. Rainbelts move, trade winds change course, floods densify, droughts intensify.
Water vapour is indeed a Greenhouse Gas, but its heat-trapping effect has not been changing as much as the increasing fraction of the "basket" of Kyoto Greenhouse Gases.
All of this science was suggested in the 19th Century, codified in the mid 20th Century and well-establised by evidence and models in the 1980s.
1 April, 2007 - 15:28
#67
See the new comment on this thread for a rebuttal from the University of Cambridge Programme for Industry :-
2 April, 2007 - 21:21
#68
It seems that right-wing letter writers have targetted our local newspapers, and are offering copies of THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE to schools...
2 April, 2007 - 22:22
#69
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!
2 April, 2007 - 23:46
#70
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.
3 April, 2007 - 02:46
#71
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.
3 April, 2007 - 03:48
#72
"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.
3 April, 2007 - 19:34
#73
George Monbiot's correspondence with Channel 4's Hamish Mykura
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/01/correspondence-with-hamish-my...
4 April, 2007 - 00:30
#74
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.
4 April, 2007 - 23:26
#75
We know things are hotting up, Mark Lynas has decided to join the fray over the swindlous film :-
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/4/the-great-channel-4-swindle
Go Mark, go ! And throw your Ninja Frisbee into the ring !
4 April, 2007 - 23:41
#76
Yes ! It's good old "Chemistry World" magazine offering the following on the Swindle film :-
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/April/Editorial.asp
Editorial: Swindled?
The UK government has long seen itself as a world leader in tackling climate change, and on 13 March it unveiled a unique bill that laid down a legal framework for cutting the country's carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. The ambitious bill, as previewed late last year (see Chemistry World, December 2006, p8), is likely to become law in 2008 - the first of its kind anywhere in the world.
Some critics have pointed out that an earlier manifesto commitment - reducing carbon output by 20 per cent by 2010 - is just as far away as it was at the turn of the century. So is the bill all hot air? It is certainly long on rhetoric, but it's clear enough that as well as improving energy efficiency, a mix of different technologies - carbon sequestration, using hydrogen as an energy carrier, and second generation biofuels, to name but three - are all likely to play a vital role.
I'm sometimes asked why Chemistry World devotes the space it does to climate change and energy. The answer is simple: chemistry is at the heart of these issues. They also give chemists yet another opportunity to shape our planet's future, from developing new enzymes to make cellulosic ethanol to making catalysts that can further exploit carbon dioxide as a feedstock chemical. But there are still many who question whether the globe really is warming, or, if it is, whether mankind has anything to do with it. A letter in this month's issue is typical of many received by Chemistry World in recent months that have raised these questions. Why should chemists respond to what might turn out to be a phantom menace?
A television documentary which aired in the UK on 8 March also puts climate change science in the dock. Thanks to the power of YouTube, The Great Global Warming Swindle has truly gone global, giving succour to climate change sceptics the world over. The programme's premise is that we have been hoodwinked, and that rising carbon dioxide levels are a consequence, rather than a cause, of global temperature rises.
Yet after some rigorous questioning by journalists and scientists, the programme-maker has now admitted that graphs shown on the programme used data that were either incorrect or 20 years out of date, or were manipulated to make some of the lines 'less wiggly'. Debate is an important part of science. But this is not debate - it is a distortion of the evidence.
While chemists have an important role to play in coming up with scientific solutions to global warming, few of us know the finer details of ice core records, climate model projections and the like. To some extent, we must use the same rules of thumb available to anyone else outside the field in judging the work: Was the science peer reviewed? Has it been replicated? How much consensus is there within science on the topic? Who stands to gain from promoting that view?
In one corner, I give you the overwhelming majority of climate science favouring anthropogenic global warming. In the other, a discredited television programme.
The bottom line is that just a few degrees increase in global average temperatures is likely to have a severe impact on human life. The silver lining of anthropogenic climate change is that, being man-made, at least we stand a chance of doing something about it.
Mark Peplow, editor
5 April, 2007 - 00:16
#77
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.
5 April, 2007 - 13:59
#78
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.
12 April, 2007 - 22:30
#79
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?
12 April, 2007 - 23:20
#80
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.
16 April, 2007 - 12:12
#81
This is the first time (16 April) that I have seen the comments on my proposal to "make it a punishable offence knowingly to spread misinformation about climate change, on a par with Holocaust denial", since someone posted my original letter here without my knowing it - in connection with the C4 programme on Great Global Warming Swindle.
Now that I have read the responses to date, I agree with those who object to the suppression of freedom of speech in principle, which my statement conveyed. However, I still believe that those who do knowingly spread misinformation about climate change should pay a commensurate penalty of some kind, so as to make them and others aware of the potential costs to those whom they might mislead. For corporations, this could most effectively be a hefty fine. For those without financial means, I am unsure.
Are there any lawyers among you who might be able to propose an appropriate form of penalty?
16 April, 2007 - 23:51
#82
Welcome back JimScott.
I'm not a lawyer, or even litigious, but if I had the time to waste, I would seriously consider, but neglect, to ask my legal brief to write a little letter to the producers of the Channel 4 film THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE and ask for some form of remuneration for the waste of my time.
I have spent countless waking hours having to explain to people that the film was, in all probability, merely propaganda.
There was yet another colleague in my office today, saying, "You know, I saw a film recently where they said that Global Warming is not caused by Carbon Dioxide at all...and they said that it was changes in the Sun's activity..." I spent 20 minutes of my time explaining :-
* The science of Global Warming is over a 100 years old. It was seriously considered that Climate Change was a possibility back in the 1950s and resolved as factual by evidence and modelling in the 1980s, as I understand it.
* The people who were interviewed for the film, or credited for "help", were mostly known contrarians, with debunked claims, as far as I know.
* The interviews were carefully cut to make certain things stand out and others fade into the background, in my view.
* The graphs were either (a) old and outdated (b) old and incorrect or (c) used in the wrong context, in my experience.
* That the effect of Carbon Dioxide is of the order of 10 times larger on Global Warming than changes in the Sun's strength.
* That most people do not have sufficient knowledge to be able to counteract the claims of the film, which means they did not understand the problems with it that I believe I found.
At the end of the conversation, my colleague said "Why did they show the film then ? Shouldn't there be a way to stop that kind of thing happening ?"
I said, "Clearly not. Probably because media people do not have science degrees in general, so they can't detect when they are being manipulated or misled."
If I had a pound for every minute I have had to spend answering people regarding their questions and assertions about the film I would be at least a hundred-thousandaire by now.
Do any of us have the right to claim damages from Channel 4 ?
17 April, 2007 - 10:45
#83
I don't usually contribute to comment threads, but I have seldom seen such a stupid, counter-productive and undemocratic proposal from an environmental campaigner. A "hefty fine" for saying something with which Jim Scott disagrees? Surely a more effective remedy would be breaking at the wheel?
Even if you have somehow persuaded yourself that it is appropropriate to use the law to prevent people from taking a different line, you must surely be able to understand that this is precisely what the film makers want. They are desperate to see themselves as martyrs - censored and suppressed - and to portray environmentalists as intolerant opponents of free speech. I remember Jim taking a similar line on Lomborg - demanding that newspapers ban him from their pages - and being similarly appalled both by his desire to suppress contrary opinions and by his breathtaking lack of strategic thinking. I would ask him (and Jo) to remember than when his comments are published, the environment movement as a whole could be judged by them, as the deniers are desperate to find a stick with which to beat us, and have so far been unsuccessful. Is this really so difficult to understand?
I strongly dissociate myself from his calls for censorship and I call on other environmentalists to do the same.
George Monbiot.
17 April, 2007 - 21:34
#84
Hi George,
You appear to be saying that the real intentions of the people involved in the production of THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE film are that they want to be be cast in the role of victims, in order to be able to make capital out of outrage at their oppression.
If their wishes are as you describe, then perhaps martyrdom is too good for them. They'll have to make do with mild scorn from people like myself who have no real influence.
If there is no value in working to get their behaviour audited and corrected, as you indicate, then there is no point in pursuing it.
But censorship does potentially have a place in my view.
Surely censorship is appropriate in certain cases in public life where evidence of risk or harm has been established ?
I mean, we have rules about censorship of hate-crime organisations, tobacco advertising, child pornography, Internet fraud. I think most people, except the perpetrators of these crimes, are in general agreement about this censorship.
Sadly, we still have child pornographers, and tobacco companies trading on the stock exchanges, but at least not so many people are losing all their money to e-mail scams or their lives to racist thugs.
It has been clearly established in law that fraudulent claims that could cause public harm, particularly in the areas of medicine and technology, are punishable, criminal offences.
What about scientific beliefs that could have an influence on public health ?
You could be taken to court for knowingly infecting someone with the HIV virus, without their knowledge or consent, as it is a clear crime. It would not be an adequate defence to claim that you do not believe that HIV causes AIDS, or have never understood that the transmission of HIV is sexual.
In the near future, public health will be at non-negligible risk from the impacts of Climate Change.
Poor, undeveloped countries will suffer first, but they are virtually invisible to the international media (except during the African famine around 1985).
Yet Climate Change will soon enough have a big impact on the public health of developed countries as well.
The United States Pentagon (2005) and a bunch of retired generals (2007, this week) have clearly established the risk of Global Warming to personal and national security.
The major Aid and Development Agencies including Christian Aid, Tearfund and CAFOD are desperate to educate the general public that donations are in vain if Global Warming is not tackled.
Medact is one of several health organisations warning Europeans on the health risks.
The national academies of science, and major universities in many countries have called for the authorities to act on Climate Change.
Your local, national and continental governments all claim that Climate Change is a threat to your livelihood, lifestyle, social benefits and health.
So why are Singer, Ball, Lindzen et al not publicly castigated and barred from claiming that Global Warming is not really a serious problem ? Why are they permitted to claim that Global Warming is nothing much to do with mankind's activities ?
For me, it all hinges on whether it can be established that the Deniers (or Contrarians) recognise that they might be lying.
I mean, if I were to claim that I am the publicly unacknowledged love-child of some titular peer of the realm, or an ex-lover of a royal prince, the truth or falsity of my claim could be established easily, even by tabloid journalists, and if necessary exposed as being a lie.
If it can be established that the editors of THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE film were knowingly engaged in deception, should they not be censored or fined in some way ?
The question is : whose job is it to research this programme ? And who would bring the case against them ?
If they are charlatans or quacks, should they not be exposed ? Should the film be aired again, if they are not telling the truth ? The makers and contributors should not be given a platform if they are shown to have knowingly deceived the public, surely ?
But who amongst the campaigners and activists has sufficient time and funds to be able to take on such a task ?
In the end, we might have to live with the extreme irritation and intellectual danger that this film has caused, without recompense to justice.
I don't think people should continue to be permitted the liberty of free and open speech if they are found to have seriously abused it.
I think we have to censor people who cannot censor themselves. I do believe we have to censor certain behaviours and ideas, like paedophilia, like rape, like domestic abuse, like slavery, mental cruelty, deception for material gain...
Ideas have meaning, and cause action.
The evidence I have now seen and read indicates to me that it is no longer possible to have opinions about whether Global Warming is real or whether or not mankind's activities have anything to do with it. It is not like choosing a favourite colour or icecream. I believe it is no longer a matter of individual choice or personal world view. There are clear and identifiable risks. There are strongly evidenced theories. We are in the realm of high certainty, not mere whim.
What you make clear is that it's not really for us mere plebian, ordinary citizens to call for censorship. It will be imposed from on high.
Come on, Favourite Miliband, get DEFRA to make a public announcement !
26 April, 2007 - 02:21
#85
This as reported by the Associated Press, written by our friend Raphael Satter, who normally only gets to cover "cute" environmental stories. It only seems to be being taken up by the American press so far. Chew on this, sleepwalking public !
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/25/ap3651991.html
http://www.kansas.com/473/story/54131.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4748215.html
http://www.nola.com/newsflash/international/index.ssf?/base/internationa...
Film on global warming is challenged
By RAPHAEL G. SATTER
Associated Press Writer
LONDON - A group of British climate scientists is demanding changes to a skeptical documentary about global warming, saying there are grave errors in the program billed as a response to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" aired on British television in March and is coming out soon on DVD. It argues that man-made emissions have a marginal impact on the world's climate and warming can better be explained by changing patterns of solar activity.
An open letter sent Tuesday by 38 scientists, including the former heads of Britain's academy of sciences and Britain's weather office, called on producer Wag TV to remove what it called "major misrepresentations" from the film before the DVD release - a demand its director said was tantamount to censorship.
Bob Ward, the former spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain's academy of science, and one of the letter's signatories, said director Mark Durkin made a "long catalog of fundamental and profound mistakes" - including the claim that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than humans, and that the Earth's atmosphere was warmer during the Middle Ages than it is today.
"Free speech does not extend to misleading the public by making factually inaccurate statements," he said. "Somebody has to stand up for the public interest here."
Durkin called the letter "loathsome."
"This is a contemptible, weasel-worded attempt to gag scientific criticism, and it won't work," he said. "I don't believe they're interested in quality control when it comes to the reporting of science - so long as it's on their side."
Durkin acknowledged two of the errors highlighted by the scientists - including the claim about volcanic emissions - but he described those changes as minor and said they would be corrected in the expanded DVD release.
But the scientists do not want the DVD released without edits to completely remove the material they object to - something Ward said would fatally weaken the film's argument.
"The fact is that it's a very convincing program, and if you're not very aware of the science you wouldn't necessarily see what the errors are," Ward said. "But the errors are huge. ... Without those errors in, he doesn't have a story."
Ward has also complained to Britain's media regulator, which said it was investigating the matter. British broadcast law demands impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy - and penalties can be imposed for misrepresentations of fact.
The decision to broadcast Durkin's documentary on Channel 4 was an unusual move in a country where the role of man-made carbon emissions in heating the globe is largely taken for granted and politicians regularly spar over which party has the greenest environmental policy.
As for the former vice president, Gore has been hired as an adviser to the British government, which plans to send copies of his film to schools around England.
26 April, 2007 - 02:34
#86
9 May, 2007 - 12:02
#87
The Independent ran with the story that C4 (Channel 4) has been accused of falsifying data, by a second contributor to the film THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE, after Professor Carl Wunsch initially complained.
==========================================================================
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece
C4 accused of falsifying data in documentary on climate change
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 08 May 2007
The makers of a Channel 4 documentary which claimed that global warming is a swindle have been accused of fabricating data by one of the scientists who participated in the film.
The Great Global Warming Swindle was broadcast on 8 March and has been criticised by leading scientists for errors, distortions and misrepresentations.
The film has also been referred to the regulatory watchdog Ofcom which is considering a complaint from 37 senior scientists that the programme breached the broadcasting code on the misrepresentation of views and facts.
Now even a climate sceptic whose dissenting views were used by the film- makers to bolster their claims about the "lies" and "swindles" of global warming has accused the documentary of promulgating falsehoods.
Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, has issued a statement accusing the film-makers of fabricating data based on his work looking at the links between solar activity and global temperatures.
Dr Friiss-Christensen said that a graph he had produced some years ago showing the link between fluctuations in global temperatures and changes in solar activity - sunspot cycles - over the past 400 years had been doctored. The documentary used the graph to pour scorn on the idea that the global warming in recent decades is the result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. Solar activity, the programme stated, is the cause of global warming in the late 20th century.
However, Dr Friiss-Christensen has issued a statement with Nathan Rive, a climate researcher at Imperial College London and the Centre for Climate Research in Oslo, distancing himself from the C4 graph. He said there was a gap in the historical record on solar cycles from about 1610 to 1710 but the film-makers made up this break with fabricated data that made it appear as if temperatures and solar cycles had followed one another very closely for the entire 400-year period.
"We have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless," Dr Friis-Christensen said.
"Secondly, although the commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming," he said.
Dr Friis-Christensen, a physicist, believes that solar cycles play an important role in climate change and that not enough effort has gone into addressing the theory. The fabricated data did not, he said, make any difference to the overall view he takes but he is still critical of the way the film handled the scientific evidence. Asked by The Independent whether the documentary was scientifically accurate, Dr Friiss-Christensen said: "No, I think several points were not explained in the way that I, as a scientist, would have explained them ... it is obvious it's not accurate."
The C4 programme also used out-of-date solar cycle data relating to the past 30 or 40 years which made it appear as if temperatures and solar activity were rising together when in fact solar activity has levelled off for the past few decades. "After 1985 we don't see any rise or shortening of the solar cycles compared to what we saw in the temperature [record]," Dr Friiss-Christensen said.
Dr Friis-Christensen is the second scientist to appear on the programme who has criticised the way the film was made. Professor Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that the way his interview was edited gave the misleading impression that he was not concerned about rising levels of carbon dioxide - a diametrically opposite view to his stated position.
Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the programme, was unavailable for comment but admitted in an email to Mr Rive that the graph was wrong. "Thank you for highlighting the error on the 400-year graph. It is an annoying mistake which all of us missed and is being fixed for all future transmissions of the film. It doesn't alter our argument," Mr Durkin said.
However, the graph and its fabricated data will still be included in the DVD of the programme which went on sale yesterday. The advertising for the DVD says: "Everything you've ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. This film blows the whistle on the biggest swindle in modern history."
Mr Durkin has already apologised for an error in another graph used in the film which had to be corrected before the film's second transmission on the digital channel More 4.
The scientists who have written to Ofcom include Sir John Houghton, the former chief executive of the Met Office, Lord May of Oxford, a former government chief scientist and past-president of the Royal Society, and Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge. In a letter to Mr Durkin they call for changes to the programme before the DVD version is released, even though DVDs are not covered by the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.
"So serious and fundamental are the misrepresentations that the distribution of the DVD without their removal amounts to nothing more than an exercise in misleading the public," they say.
==========================================================================
Meanwhile in the reactionary provinces, the Bournemouth University (formerly the Wallisdown Polytechnic or Wally Poly) has shown the SWINDLE film, to much local newspaper agitation, to which you can add your sane comments in reply :-
==========================================================================
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/search/display.var.1371095.0.uni_screen...
Uni screening of ‘fraudulent’ film defended
By Louise Isaacs
BOSSES at Bournemouth University have hit back at claims that it was a disgrace to invite students to watch a controversial film disputing the link between global warming and human activity.
Third World fundraiser David Weight from Poole says it is both damaging and dangerous to pollute the minds of young people "with such trash" by letting them watch The Great Global Warming Swindle at the university.
The film, shown on Channel Four last month, prompted an outcry among the scientific world and media after it argued that global warming has nothing to do with Man's negative effects on the environment.
The film was due to be shown at the campus last night as part of a series called Global Cinema.
Mr Weight said: "I deal with Cafod fundraising and I have become increasingly aware that helping the poor in the Third World is not enough and does not get to the root of the problem.
"Much poverty and violent hostilities are caused by drought, caused by global warming. For example, the war in Sudan is caused by environmental migration caused by drought.
"This film is fraudulent."
Among others, the Royal Society, the British government and leading climate scientist Sir John Houghton have all condemned the content of the film, said Mr Weight.
A press spokeswoman at Bournemouth University said: "It is important as a university that we represent a variety of views and do not shy away from what is controversial.
"It is through controversy and showing students that there is a variety of sources of information - some good, some bad, some indifferent - that we come to understand how the world works and how the perspectives of others are influenced.
"Our students have to form their own opinion about the reliability of sources."
7:00pm Wednesday 2nd May 2007
===========================================================================
9 May, 2007 - 12:21
#88
Hi Climate Changers,
Yet another place to post comments about the film THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE...
Be warned that George Monbiot recommends that we do not call for censorship, as Martin Durkin is apparently seeking martyrdom through career suicide.
===========================================================================
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=634922007
C4 film denying global warming under fire
IAN JOHNSTON ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT
A CONTROVERSIAL Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming was not happening has come under fresh attack with a point-by-point rebuttal of some of its key claims being sent to Ofcom, the television regulator.
The 90-minute The Great Global Warming Swindle, described as persuasive even by its detractors, claimed that any rise in temperatures was "mild, beneficial" and not caused by humans.
However, a complaint sent to Ofcom by Bob Ward, the global science networks director at the international consultancy Risk Management Solutions, said the current science on climate change was misrepresented and listed seven examples.
These include the claim that the world was hotter during the "Medieval Warm Period" based on a graph that ended in 1975, and that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than humans. According to one study, volcanoes produce about 2 per cent of the emissions from human use of fossil fuels.
Mr Ward and nearly 40 climate scientists have also written to the documentary maker, Martin Durkin of Wag TV, urging him to drop plans to issue a DVD, which is being marketed as "the definitive response to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth".
The letter says the programme "misrepresented both the scientific evidence and the interpretations of researchers".
However, Mr Durkin said: "The reason they want to suppress The Great Global Warming Swindle is because the science has stung them. Look at the mountains of absurd nonsense pedalled in the name of 'man-made climate change'. How many of these people complained when Hurricane Katrina was blamed on global warming?
"This letter is gutless. The DVD will be on sale shortly at a shop near you."
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=634922007
Last updated: 25-Apr-07 01:35 BST
9 May, 2007 - 13:00
#89
17 May, 2007 - 02:25
#90
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426040.200-warming-swindle.html
Warming swindle
19 May 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Martin Durkin London, UK
Alan Thorpe, attacking my film The Great Global Warming Swindle, tells us not to "play games with the evidence" (17 March, p 24). Right ho. Let's not.
He says: "There is no question that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet becomes." Perhaps Thorpe is too young to remember the post-war economic boom. To remind him, it was the biggest explosion of economic activity in the history of human civilisation up to that point; an unprecedented volume of CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere from lots of factories. What happened to the temperature? It went down. According to most temperature records, it went down from 1940 to about 1975.
Coincidental with the post-war cooling was a marked downturn in solar activity. Yet Thorpe boldly asserts, without any supporting evidence, that solar variations have an insignificant effect on the Earth's climate. I refer interested readers to the work, published in 2005, by Jan Veizer (Geoscience Canada, vol 32, p 13) and Willie Soon (Geophysical Research Letters, vol 32, L16712).
Then Thorpe admits, reluctantly, that in the ice core data, the temperature variation is followed, rather than preceded by changes in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. So carbon dioxide is clearly not driving climate. Awkward. So what is driving it? Thorpe says it's the sun (mighty powerful thing, the sun), but then he tries, feebly, to salvage his CO2 argument by suggesting that maybe the resulting changes in CO2 amplify the temperature changes still further.
Oh really? As it happens, there is no evidence at all that this is true. Very often in the ice cores CO2 rises like a rocket, while the temperature plummets. So who is playing games? Thorpe implies that I think there is a global warming conspiracy. I don't. But I know that lots of scientists (like Thorpe), and journalists too, have staked their reputations on this theory being true. Many have built their careers on it. I sympathise with them.
The editor writes:
For full discussion of climate myths, turn to Climate myths and www.newscientist.com/climatemyths - and comment on Veizer's paper is at http://celestial.notlong.com
From issue 2604 of New Scientist magazine, 19 May 2007, page 26
Response to #6:
If volcanoes belch lots of CO2 (albeit less than humans produce), why do they cause cooling?
Response to #8:
Lindzen's statement before the US Senate: "The summary does not reflect the full document... For example, I worked on Chapter 7, Physical Processes. This chapter dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments – including those of clouds and water vapor. The chapter was summarized with the following sentence: 'Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport.'"
From Nature's Mark Schrope:
"We found some understatements of uncertainties, but generally changes made from the technical chapters to the SPM didn't affect the impact of the statements very much, which was very impressive," says Ralph Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist and chancellor of the University of California, Irvine, who chaired the NAS panel. Cicerone adds that his panel conducted a quick survey of IPCC authors in the United States and found that those who responded said unanimously that the SPM accurately represented what they wrote in the main text.
[A "quick survey?" Does that mean Cicerone called two friends and asked them what they thought?]
But Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an author of the NAS report, does not see it the same way. "Within the confines of professional courtesy," Lindzen wrote in an opinion piece in The New York Times, "the panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the US government." Lindzen has long argued that evidence for climate change is too shaky to justify the costly strategies mooted to tackle it.
Some critics of the IPCC believe that removing politicians from the process could be one way of ending the arguments. "Let the scientists tell the world what the scientists said," says Robert Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University in Tempe. Although Balling contributed material to the Working Group II report, he is a prominent global-warming sceptic and a vocal critic of the IPCC.
But most participants in the IPCC process believe that the presence of national delegates is crucial. "If you didn't have that then the report wouldn't be so important. It's as simple as that," says Michael Grubb, an energy economist at Imperial College London and a Working Group III lead author. He argues that involving government officials in the IPCC process forces politicians to take a close look at the report and the underlying science, rather than simply putting it on the shelf.
[According to Grubb then, the report is important because of the contribution made by politicians NOT the contribution made by the scientists. That seems worrisome when you're considering scientific theories, or as jo calls them, "The Truth." So, the report is important because of the politicians' contribution yet supposedly the reason to have the politicians involved is so that they can take a close look at the science? Some might see this, rather, as political filtering of scientific data to suit political ambition. The number one rule in politics is to be part of solving an ongoing, lengthy and expensive problem that you not only understand but to which you are very sympathetic. Does anyone else see the politicians as having a vested interest in alarm?]