So as I’m sure most of you know, tonight there is a documentary about how we don’t need to worry about global warming.
www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Whatever your feelings about climate change, there are good reasons to to have serious concerns about the film:
It’s made by Martin Durkin. In 1997 he made a series called Against Nature for Channel 4. It targeted environmentalists, and presented them as ‘the new enemy of science’ and comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World.
As well as the normal objections to the content that you might have expected – and fair enough to have your opinion – there were much more serious problems. Channel Four eventually had to broadcast a prime-time apology. The Independent Television Commission ruled: “Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them… as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.” Etc.
Now, it seems slightly odd to me to get the same bloke to make the same documentary after that’s happened, whatever your feelings on global warming and mankind’s role in it, but there you go.
To me this is about trust. As a viewer I can account for bias, but not out and out misrepresentation.
Incidentally, in general, I don’t cover green stuff in the column, for two reasons:
1. Lots of other people write about it, whereas – especially when I started 4 years ago – nobody was writing about the stuff I write about. And…
2. I tend to do things where people have simply and unambiguously got a piece of science completely wrong, and this tends not to be the issue in green issues, it tends to be more about how you synthesise thousands of little bits of evidence, which is fun for a book, but gives no sting for a column other than “I reckon”, which is exactly the kind of journalism I try to avoid writing.
So, well, if there’s anything totally bonkersly wrong in this, do please let me know. My guess, before it goes out, is that the program will be some political rhetoric about the economic dangers of implementing measures to restrict carbon dioxide emmissions, and the rumour is it might also feature a one-sided view of the “hockey stick controversy”?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
I would imagine that few counterveiling views will have wished to participate, because of the the obvious problems with Durkin.
EDIT
So after watching it, I’m just left wishing I could have seen a documentary on a similar subject made by someone I could actually trust, because it’s obviously a really interesting area. The only figure who was on where I had prior knowledge was Piers Corbyn. The program said his predictions on the weather are consistently more accurate than the Met office. As far as I know, from reading around him a year or so ago, this is entirely incorrect, but I would welcome evidence to the contrary. Oh, and Nigel Calder is introduced as the ex-editor of New Scientist (he’s 75, and edited new scientist briefly between the ages of 31 and 35, shortly after its launch).
In the end it’s just frustrating. A program presenting a challenging view on a complex and controversial subject is interesting and valuable; a program presenting a challenging view on a complex and controversial subject by someone with a proven track record of misrepresentation is not, especially when a lay person – which is what I effectively am for this subject – can already spot what seems to be one howler – Corbyn’s record – at first sight.
I am approaching this entirely as a punter. Call it an experiment: I’ve specifically not double checked all the facts in the documentary. It’s an unnerving feeling, the fear of being misled and in the dark, either by this program, or what went before, I don’t get that feeling often enough, and I’m going to embrace and enjoy it, so I can empathise more with “the publics”, as they call it in thinktank world.
I would absolutely love to see a documentary on similar material by someone I could trust.
evidencebasedeating said,
March 9, 2007 at 7:16 pm
shallow comment long overdue….
Durkins dodgy documentary on Channel 4? Crikes
Just think what ‘Tonite with Trevor McDonut’ would have done with it.
Shudder…
gruff said,
March 9, 2007 at 7:34 pm
#99
It is true that temperatures were higher in the last interglacial, thought to be in large part due to the change in the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit around the sun (a more circular orbit means warmer winters and less ice, leading to a change to the earth’s albedo, etc). But, as far as we can tell from ice core records, at most atmospheric CO2 levels reached 280 parts per million (ppm) during the last few interglacials, and the variation was slow and cyclical. At present, CO2 is over 380 ppm, and apparently rising, and that change was initiated in the 18th century. It’s that rapid perturbation to the climate system that has people worried. And we are in a glacial period right now, not an interglacial.
And as for the Medieval Warm Period, a huge part of the controversy surrounding Mann et al.’s results was that his error bars for 1000-1600 AD were unrealistically small. Now that the data have been re-evaluated more rigorously by the National Academy in the US, we know the uncertainties are very large, so we can’t say with any great confidence what the temperature was like then. But they do say it it is likely that the temperature in the MWP was not higher than today.
This is a good intro to ice core records:
www.geo.oregonstate.edu/people/faculty/publications/brooke/Brook_TinyBubbles.pdf
Here are the National Academy findings:
dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf
Tom Whipple said,
March 9, 2007 at 7:39 pm
With respect to Piers Corbyn, here is my own humble hatchet job on the man – his predictions didn’t seem terribly effective to me, and it strikes me that – irrespective of the other arguments – if you have to rely on someone like him then something is going wrong.
media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,,1990182,00.html
Robert Carnegie said,
March 9, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I gather the problem with sea ice melting and/or floating away and sea level is its position in the cycle – snow falls on Greenland/Antarctica -> piles up on land -> slips off into the sea -> floats, melts, icebergs etc. the floating ice itself displaces its own mass of water, so sea level doesn’t rise when it melts, but does rise when more ice plops in off the land.
In summary – the ice caps melt, sea level rises.
imagineyoung said,
March 9, 2007 at 9:54 pm
www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/2948/
Gimpy said,
March 10, 2007 at 8:21 am
Well the spiked article is a bit of a puff piece and doesn’t address the issues of Against Natureor for the matter the Thursdays programme. Their defence of the LM “contributors” presented in Against Nature is slightly disingenuous as John Gillott and Frank Furedi more than just contributors to LM. Also, they were presented as independent experts when Furedi is a sociologist specialising in the “nanny state” and Gillott is a mathematician with a laymans interest in genetics, hardly the kind of people to present opinions on climate change. Many of the comments above have identified contributors to Thursdays programme also lacking expertise in climate change.
Having said all that the spiked article does make a good point about the difficulty in debating environmental issues and the luddite attitudes of a lot of greens. But counteracting these attitudes shouldn’t be by selective editing and presenting non-experts as experts.
banshee said,
March 10, 2007 at 9:50 am
Just finished reading all the contributions since i posted a while ago – thanks to everyone for contributing.
i still think Ben (and others) are wrong to use the ad hominem arguments and the fact that someone has been scensured before is hardly a sound basis for censuring (or should that be censoring) them again. View their comment with skeptiscism certainly, question their contribution.
Couple of thoughts – I recommended Lomborgs book a few posts ago and although he is vilified by what Junkkmale called the dark green corner (#41) – his book covers a great many environmental issues but one of his fundamental points is that generally things are getting better. Another is that dealing with C02 emissions is not a zero sum game and will cost significant resources which could be spent usefully elsewhere – such as helping the poor to adapt to climate change in the way richer communities have been able to do for many problems (eradicating malaria in Britain for example) or teh provision of health care, anitation and clean drinking water for the world’s poorest communities.
Lomborg’s book is one of (I admit it) few I’ve read but is outstanding in lacking the polemic seen in other’s books and being utterly comprehensive, fully referenced and gives a lot of background to the political processes that have led to the current scenarios from the IPCC – all of which are subject to the difficulties of data sets that are incomplete, incompatible in some regards and models which will be unable to demonstrate their accuracy until a few centuries have passed – which will be way too late. (#98, 99 102).
My understanding is that emissions control may make a difference – but even the much trumpeted Kyoto treaty (accoridng to the models) if fully implemented by everyone only would have delayed warming by a few years (similar global temprature rise by 2100 rather than 2096). If we believe that global warming is anthropogenic and we must control it as soon as possible then we need some massive leaps in either the technology and resources around energy use and generation or we drastically change our modern industrial societies and freeze frame the rest of the world in poverty.
My personal take as an interested scientist but essentially a lay person in climatography:
is global warming happening? Highly probably.
Is it anthropogenic? Probably an important but not sole factor.
What can we do about it? Requires extensive and sensible debate. The precautionary principle fails utterly here…..
Final thought – if nothing else read Lomborgs book – whatever your views it is good science all the way through.
Cheers
b
jessina said,
March 10, 2007 at 2:11 pm
102 – Thanks for the info, I will show it to my sceptical Geography teacher who still asserts that the majority of scientific opinion only believes that Global warming is partly caused by CO2 emissions.
JQH said,
March 10, 2007 at 4:04 pm
They made the claim that limiting human industrial CO2 emissions would prevent economic growth in Africa and illustrated the point by showing a woman cooking over an open fire that filled her one room house with smoke. Of course, if villages like this were on an electrcity distribution grid, there’s no reason why the electricity couldn’t be generated by nuclear power rather than fossil fuels; so you can limit CO2 emissions at the same time as having economic growth.
They also made the point that sun and wind power are unreliable. This may be true in Central Africa for all I know but I do know that there is plenty of continuous sunshine during the South African summer and you can power considerably more than a transistor radio from it.
EssTee said,
March 10, 2007 at 4:21 pm
“Of course, if villages like this were on an electrcity distribution grid, there’s no reason why the electricity couldn’t be generated by nuclear power rather than fossil fuels;”
Standing in the way of that idea – which I think is a good one – is the environmentalist preoccupations with “sustainability”, the “precautionary principle” (outlined by various of the previous contributors) and “risk”, and of course, fears about nuclear proliferation.
Instead of campaigning for the industrialisation, NGOs and environmental pressure groups foist the idea that the developing world ought to limit its expectations. So we get “hand pumps and goats for Africa”, not “atomic power for all”. These groups are large, and powerful, and have hundereds of millions of dollars with which to advance their agenda in the third world, are a powerful lobbying force at the UN, and have the ear of development politicians in the EU – who use this kind of foreign policy to demonstrate their “ethical” credentials. The kind of policy that we get then, is less about creating momentum in the third world, but assauging first world guilt.
jackpt said,
March 10, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Instead of campaigning for the industrialisation, NGOs and environmental pressure groups foist the idea that the developing world ought to limit its expectations. So we get “hand pumps and goats for Africaâ€, not “atomic power for allâ€. These groups are large, and powerful, and have hundereds of millions of dollars with which to advance their agenda in the third world, are a powerful lobbying force at the UN, and have the ear of development politicians in the EU – who use this kind of foreign policy to demonstrate their “ethical†credentials. The kind of policy that we get then, is less about creating momentum in the third world, but assauging first world guilt.
I don’t buy this. Every stable African country has eco-unfriendly power stations churning out gases and smog. There’s a great deal of industrialisation in the stable countries also, in fact growth. It seems to me that the only countries that don’t have power infrastructures/industry are the countries that are unstable. I don’t think people campaigning for or against industrialisation have much to do with the causes of instability in those countries (in fact many countries have declined since the 1950s, way before the green movement you’re focussed on). There’s often geopolitics at play but they don’t seem to have much to do with the pro or anti green movement or assuaging ‘first world guilt’, my understanding of the geopolitical situation in parts of Africa suggests it’s far more amoral than that. I’d be willing to bet that given enough stability the continent would be covered with power stations. Focusing on ‘development’ seems as monomaniacal as people that focus on any single issue with regards of Africa.
bazvic said,
March 10, 2007 at 6:32 pm
IMHO global warming is an example of a Tragedy of the Commons.
In a sense the science is unimportant as the politics are the dominant part of the debate. Nobody will give anything away unless it buys an advantage and all will cheat to some extent. The powerful will remain powerful at the expense of the weak.
My original view in the 1990’s was it did not matter if global warming was real or man made. The measures to counter it would generally improve the environment. At worst it was an “honourable lie”.
However some proposals such as biofuels will simply make the 3rd World starve so we can drive our cars on a little less oil. Global warming is being used as another means for the developed world to dominate the rest.
Long term problems will need long term solutions. Logically, global population reduction to a level the planet can sustain is required. But that is a very big can of worms, which more or less makes my point.
EssTee said,
March 10, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Jackpt hasn’t read 110 properly. I didn’t argue that environmentalism can account for the instability of the developing world, but that it impedes development. his argument is also typical of the movement which seeks “limits to growth” to pretend that development is a “single issue”. Perhaps he would be content with the current rate of development, just so long as people living in the third world passed his measurement of “happiness”.
Unless the third world is able to develop economically, and industrialise, then political progress is virtually impossible. It’s hard to engage with the political process when you’re eeking out a subsistence living. The environmental movement’s demands for “sustainable development” forces people to remain in this exhausting relationship with the land. But then, a politically alienated third world is exactly what the movement wants; if developing nations were in a better position to be able to argue for their own interests, the environmental movement wouldn’t have any victims to be claiming to speak on behalf of.
BlurredVeg said,
March 10, 2007 at 7:29 pm
For interest, the realclimate guys have put in a page discussing the scientific issues raised in the programme, with some good resources in the comments section::
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
jackpt said,
March 10, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Jackpt hasn’t read 110 properly. I didn’t argue that environmentalism can account for the instability of the developing world, but that it impedes development. his argument is also typical of the movement which seeks “limits to growth†to pretend that development is a “single issueâ€. Perhaps he would be content with the current rate of development, just so long as people living in the third world passed his measurement of “happinessâ€.
Wow. That’s bold.
Gimpy said,
March 10, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Despite EssTee’s opinions being straight out of the “International Development for Furedi Acolyte’s” handbook s/he still makes a reasonable point. You can’t abolish poverty without increasing wealth and you can’t increase wealth without industrialisation.
Anyway, the poorest parts of the world are generally the most ideal for sustainable energies such as solar or wind. Unfortunately the start up costs for these technologies are extortionate, they need political stability to be effective and you think the rich world wants the solution to future energy crises to be in the third world. I mean the middle east is bad enough.
jackpt said,
March 10, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Hi Gimpy
I wasn’t really disagreeing that to increase wealth countries need to industrialise, I was arguing that issues of stability are more important than getting hot under the collar about environmental/sustainable development policy.I think industrialisation will not be possible in countries that are unstable. Where Africa has industrialised it is relatively stable. So I think arguments regarding environmentalism are unnecessarily diverting the broader argument of Africa’s stability. Most of the famines are not simply about droughts, the droughts are major factors, but they’re also about how instability affects things, through bad governance, neglected or non existent infrastructure and geopolitics. So I think the emphasis that EssTee and others have placed on environmental and sustainable policy and their influence ignores the geopolitics and Africa’s internal politics that have led to the instability.
EssTee said,
March 11, 2007 at 1:51 am
Why has this thread dropped off the main blog?
dyspraxia said,
March 12, 2007 at 12:05 am
I must first say I cam across this site becouse of thi program and the reactions to it my own blog.
I posted the information on it to let people know it was on and they made a few comments about it being rather refreshing and I agreed with some of its points, especially relating to Al Gore and his crass movie.
Then I got hate mail from people who seemed to be telling me that the world its definatly going to end and its all my fault becouse im promoting ideas that might change the debate a bit.
Im glad I read this page, It made me feel a whole lot better.
CaptainKirkham said,
March 12, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Having not watched the programme, but reading all of this thread, I think it is incredibly important to know the affiliations and past of someone making a programme like this.
There are many people out there without scientific training or knowledge who will generally trust what is told to them by people who say “I’m a scientist, trust me”. That is pretty much the majority of the population right there. From medicine, to flying in a plane, to using a mobile, to, well, everything – none of us understands it all and relies on others who do.
So yes, it matters if someone has distorted or misrepresented in the past. That is not an ad hominem insult – that is relevant criticism. And yes, it matters if someone is funded by a body on one side or another or an argument – or rather, it matters if they are AND HAVEN’T SAID SO. If someone tells me their affiliations I can account for what may or may not be bias. If they haven’t, that is dishonest and leads me to doubt their bona fides.
guthrie said,
March 12, 2007 at 3:51 pm
EssTee doesnt happen to be our old pal ST, perhaps?
As for environmentalism impeding development, surely that only occurs if you take a short term view and do not count the long term cost of the ecological damage that almost invariably accompanies development.
If it is ST, the quote:
” All it shows, though, is that you’re making your decisions about which science to trust based on your own political agenda, not the science.”
Is most entertaining, given ST’s continued deliberate ignorance of global warming, the science behind it and the probable dangers.
EssTee said,
March 12, 2007 at 4:51 pm
“As for environmentalism impeding development, surely that only occurs if you take a short term view and do not count the long term cost of the ecological damage that almost invariably accompanies development.”
On the contrary, it is poverty which causes much more environmental damage, and health-damaging pollution. Once an economy develops, people start to pay more consideration to their environment. That’s why we in the West enjoy far cleaner cities and towns, and rivers and beaches than people in the developing world. For us, nature is a pleasure. For people eeking out an existance, nature is a pain in the neck.
“Is most entertaining, given ST’s continued deliberate ignorance of global warming, the science behind it and the probable dangers.”
I’m not sure what this has to do with the discussion either. My argument has been that whatever risks are posed by climate change, what mediates damage from the environment – in terms of human cost – is development. I’ve never argued that climate change wont cause human problems – I’ve always argued that climate has always caused human problems… But if you compare problems that climate causes for people living in the third world, with people subject to the same forces in the first world, you can see directly how development saves thousands and thousands and thousands of lives. People are actually pretty good at coping with a wide range of conditions and adapting to circumstances – when they have the means. Without the means, an event which kills a handful of people has the potential to kill thousands.
Dr Madvibe said,
March 13, 2007 at 11:03 am
> > Dr Madvibe,
> > If an “ordinary†person sat down to watch this, they would see a decently constructed programme which pulled in lots of “academics†and “experts†from around the globe casting aspersions about global warming. Why wouldn’t they believe what they are told, or at least question the generally accepted view?
> Squander Two
> If that’s true, then wouldn’t an ordinary layperson tend to believe the thousands of claims that they’re exposed to every day that global warming is anthropogenic and not the handful of competing claims presented in just one program?
Hopefully they will choose the “right path”, but I sure some will (possibly a lot) will use it as an excuse not to do anything claiming the “controversy” as the reason not to – head in the sand thinking.
And cheers for the links Lurkinggherkin, most informative
One more thing though, I do feel rather sad that the stupid programme has generated such a long discussion. I see Prof Wunsch is complaining about being misrepresented and duped by durkin (capital letter withheld). Why couldn’t Channel 4 have acted with more responsibilty. Did you know they have there own microsite dedicated to it, including a poll and game!
Big Al said,
March 21, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Thanks for the response, mcnash – it does seem sensible. However, we then get onto “the longest period of sustaned warming for at least a thousand years”, which I’ve seen repeated a lot. That sounds as if records (or rather exemplars such as dendrochronology, ice core oxygen isotope ratios etc) do exist for much longer periods.
My least favourite comment these days is the “four-legs-good-two-legs-bad” bleat about “scientific unanimity over AGW”. As far as I can see, that’s pretty damn’ peripheral. I want to hear the science, not the message. I want to see the error bars. I want to see how the sulphate emissions track the 40s – 70s cooling and how CO2 then takes over. I’m willing and ready to be convinced. I’m a big boy now: I can take it, Doc.
But all I get is “But the scientists all agree!”
Still, I live in hope.
stop-global-warming said,
March 22, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I agree that Durkin lacks credibility after issues that were raised in his “Against Nature” documentary.
In “The Great Global Warming Swindle” Durkin shows a scientist rolling his eyes at how a scientist could make it on to the “top 2,500” list through the IPCC. But, then a few minutes later (at the 1 hour mark) Durking is rattling off the positions held, awards, and books authored by Patrick Michaels as though _that_ was all of a sudden some soft of credibility.
This doco wreaks of “conspiracy theories”. There are legimate claims opposing man made global warming, but they aren’t as interesting as what Durkin has decided to highlight. Isn’t it then funny, that one of the scientists in Durkin’s doco suggests that you are more likely to get funded by producing dramatic results, than boring results.
Big Al said,
March 23, 2007 at 11:02 am
Can we please have some detailed refutation of the science? I gather all to clearly that Durkin is not highly regarded, but this seems to be extended as reason to refute the claims of the scientists in the documentary. Are they right? Are they wrong? If so, why?
I’m prepared to accept that the claim that volcanoes emit far more CO2 than human activities is false. However, another claim was based on the undeniable fact that CO2 is heavier than air, and that volcanoes have the energy to drive it high into the atmosphere, whereas human activities don’t, so human-generated CO2 sinks into the ground and the oceans. To a layman like me, this seems a persuasive argument: can someone please debunk it?
The tropospheric (non-) warming does seem a valid bone of contention. I’ve read a lot about the need to take into account orbital decay and problems with weather balloons, but I’ve also heard that the method of measuring ocean temperatures has changed and may give erroneously high results (this was not mentioned in the documentary). What’s the current state ofplay on delta T in the troposphere? Are the corrections applied to the old satellite and balloon data valid scientific adjustments or post hoc fiddle-factors designed to give the “right” answers?
Any chance of some scientific data rather than biographic background of Mr Durkin?
Deano said,
March 23, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Can we please have some detailed refutation of the science-
tricky Big Al
– there’s bugger all ‘science’ to refute…
As for the C02 is ‘heavier than air’ thing – salt is ‘heavier than water’ –
– some basic understanding of the physical properties of the gases shows that CO2 mixes very well in the atmosphere right up into the Troposphere – there is absolutely no controversy about this.
Indeed C0 2 levels have been measured at the top of a mountain in Hawaai since 1953 – which is how we know it’s increasing globally .
The tropospheric warming ‘problem’ has now been conclusively been shown to have an artefact of satellite measurement -and that has even been accepted in a scientific paper by one of the contributors to the prog -although he seems to have forgotten it for TV.
It’s a bit quiet here – I’d suggest you join Ben’s forum if you want to catch up with the ‘debate’:
badscience.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=3
9bare15d said,
November 14, 2008 at 10:04 am
I think that it is absolutely great that people can see the otherside of an often one sided arguement, the problem is people take it too seriously and they think that people will belive every word in every documentary, you have to keep an open mind whilst watching these channel 4 things. I loved the great global swindle although i still believe that global warming is a massive problem.
diudiu said,
December 21, 2009 at 5:37 am
ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy jeans ed hardy jeans
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy t shirts ed hardy t shirts
ed hardy uk ed hardy uk
ed hardy bags ed hardy bags
ed hardy hoodies ed hardy hoodies
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids
proba said,
October 14, 2010 at 12:16 am
great documentary , it has very good proves .
You can watch other relates documentaries here Documentaries