The Great Global Warming Swindle (BBC)

[El Tejon]

In case people here don't watch the BBC, here's a very insightful BBC program on the fraud and misrepresentation that is "global warming":  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

[RJMcElwain]

I've got to run to work, so I only saw about a third of it, but that's excellent. I'll see the rest tomorrow morning.

Bob

[Iain]

It's not the BBC, it's Channel 4. It was also made by a man who has been found to mislead and misrepresent through creative editing*. It has been renounced publicly by one of the contributors (Prof. Carl Wunsch) who is disgusted by the way that he was misled into thinking that it would be a documentary discussing the complicated public debate about climate change, a debate he feels is sometimes somewhat alarmist (and I'd tend to agree) but who overall has clearly stated that he believes climate change is real, and is a serious threat.

I removed Sir John Houghton's response from my sig, seems I was a bit premature, if you can bear to read it, it can be found here. We've been through this once in the 'Climate change is a big issue for hunters' thread.

Again, I'll say this - you're not a skeptic if you believe everything you see on television that fits with your preconceptions.

* as a side note, I think this chap would be very lucky to get commissioned by the BBC after they threw out his documentary about how breast implants reduce the risk of breast cancer because they realised he had ignored all evidence to the contrary. In one of those 'weird how the world works' things, he espouses something called 'Living Marxism' which has bizarrely morphed over the years into 'libertarianism'.

[Iain]

I suppose I could continue to post stuff, but I'll just be accused of attacking the source. This one was sort of too good to let pass though.

Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.

In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.
...

Dr Leroi was particularly concerned about a segment that featured a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures, which was based on a 1991 paper in the journal Science by Eigil Friis-Chris-tensen. He was surprised that the programme failed to mention that while these findings look convincing superficially, they have been revealed as flawed by subsequent research by Peter Laut.

Dr Leroi e-mailed Mr Durkin about his use of data, concluding: “To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways.” He copied Mr Singh into the exchange.

Mr Durkin replied to both later that morning, saying: “You’re a big daft cock.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece

I'll look forward to Durkin's documentary on race. Have high hopes for it.

The sad thing about it is there are some questions that validly need to be asked, there needs to be an 'upping' of the public debate. Durkin hasn't helped.

[El Tejon]

Channel 4!  Sorry, it was on my cable station and I just assumed.  Well, that's what I get for not being more careful.

Thought it was interesting show despite being Channel 4.

[Iain]

Because of the odd way that television is set up here, when Channel 4 was given airspace and a charter in the early 80's it was required, and still is, to produce minority interest and controversial programmes. They probably knew full well what was going to happen, they had to issue an apology over a programme Durkin did for them in '97.

Like I said, there is a definite place for discussion, especially discussion about public discussion of these matters, most scientific matters in fact. Wunsch said he would declined to be interviewed had the word 'polemic' (which CH4 are now using to describe this piece) been used in approaches to him. He says he spent a good deal of time, hours, discussing the science and his concerns about alarmist pieces in the paper such as shutdown of the Gulf Stream, he is an oceanographer after all. All that was cut down to a couple of slots...

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making

(from his piece in yesterday's Independent)

Ignoring the complex science for the moment, that allegation reminds me a lot of the 'Cold dead hands' Heston speech in BFC, that he never made in Flint. The bit about inaccurate computer models featured a clip from a specialist in the field saying that computer models are incomplete. The clip was from the 1980's, things have moved on a bit since then we'd hope.

In the end what we got was a film that seems to have convinced a lot of people as being somehow the final nail in the global warming coffin, despite the serious concerns about the data used in the film. The power of television eh. A serious documentary talking to Lindzen and his opponents, that eschewed bizarre conspiracy theories, could have been a powerful example of good television. It could still be made.

[RJMcElwain]

I'm not a scientist, but about a year ago, i did a Google search on the subject and, ignoring the popular media sites, found an abundance of more scientific sites which covered much of the same material that was discussed in the video. Much of the evidence is in the range of high school science.

My conclusion is that, yes, there is global warming and, second, we don't know a specific cause, but mankind is probably a minor player in the event. Clearly, hysteria is not a reasonable response. And spending billions on it is just one more way for our government to pi$$ away money.

I have some friends who live in a condo on the beach in Florida and, if they should live there for another 2 or 3 hundred years, I'm fairly certain their condo will not be significantly closer to the wet stuff than it is right now.

In spite of the vitriol between various members of the scientific community, I thought the video was well worth watching and added to keeping the ongoing debate in perspective.

Bob

[Iain]

I'll disagree about the evidence being in the range of high school science, and suggest that is probably a little insulting to those doing the research, but I'm not willing to get into a debate about the science. Clearly most agree that there is global warming, and most agree that there is an anthropogenic component.

The problem I have with Durkin's documentary is that the opportunity does exist for a good programme on the subject, featuring Lindzen and other voices of dissent. This programme isn't it, and I don't think it contributed anything more to the debate that Bowling for Columbine contributed to the gun control debate. It was a polemic, and that's fine, but at least one of the figures involved would not have contributed had he known that. Durkin is the Michael Moore of the anti-environmental movement.

[RJMcElwain]

I'll disagree about the evidence being in the range of high school science, and suggest that is probably a little insulting to those doing the research, but I'm not willing to get into a debate about the science. Clearly most agree that there is global warming, and most agree that there is an anthropogenic component...................

I didn't mean for my comment to be insulting. Rather, I was trying to point out that much of the information could easily be understood by high school science students, such as the statement that cooler oceans can hold greater amounts of CO2. And the references to sun spots and solar winds. Clearly, the program was aimed at the general population and, as such, probably needed to be limited to the number of arguments presented.

Clearly, the debate is not over, but is just beginning, but it's good to air all sides of the issue.

Bob

[Iain]

Wunsch wasn't happy about the context his cooler/warmer oceans comments were placed in.

The programme was aimed at the general public, and that is why allegations that it misled contributors, presented faulty data and ignored contrary opinions are serious. It looks like it may have been a programme aimed at misleading the general public, it seems like it limited its arguments to the ones that supported the general thrust of the editors opinion. Which is fine as long as it is done openly, and preferably isn't some sort of grand conspiracy theory.

[RJMcElwain]

Wunsch wasn't happy about the context his cooler/warmer oceans comments were placed in.

The programme was aimed at the general public, and that is why allegations that it misled contributors, presented faulty data and ignored contrary opinions are serious. It looks like it may have been a programme aimed at misleading the general public, it seems like it limited its arguments to the ones that supported the general thrust of the editors opinion. Which is fine as long as it is done openly, and preferably isn't some sort of grand conspiracy theory.

More likely just the beginning of a long and interesting dialogue.

Bob

[Dannyboy]

Because of the odd way that television is set up here, when Channel 4 was given airspace and a charter in the early 80's it was required, and still is, to produce minority interest and controversial programmes.

So, is Channel 4 kind of like Fox News?  Or would that be ITV?

[Iain]

I wouldn't put it like that, but Channel 4 has been accused of pretty much everything under the sun.

--------------------

To respond to something from the other thread - it's very easy to paint people as what you want them to be. Don't believe I have indulged in opinions about global warming recently, instead I do have opinions about the debate itself. My perceptions of the debaters are not enhanced by them trying to label me.

[Iain]

I'm loathe to dig this up really, it's like a canker sore.

Anyway, Christopher Merchant at Edinburgh University's School of Geosciences has produced a rather large powerpoint presentation dealing with this programme. It features clips and his own responses to the arguments put forward (both their logic and their content)

I guess if you have time to watch Durkin on youtube then maybe watching this will prove an interesting counterpoint, surprise me.

http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris

Down it (Why the Great Global Warming Swindle is Wrong), extract the files and select the file entitled 'Play', this will stitch all the other files together into one powerpoint presentation with sound, video and narration.

[MechAg94]

Iain, you say you hate to attack the source, but you do it a lot. 

I have seen your first link and it addressed a few points from that show, but not all.  Some of the points were addressed poorly.  I guess I'll have to look at this second link later when I get time. 
It seems interesting all this response to one show against the global warming mainstream. 

[Iain]

Maybe, but I haven't got any more reason to trust Durkin's work than I would have to trust Michael Moore's. From my viewpoint they look pretty similar, the techniques employed etc.

Anyway, I'd guess the response is because scientists feel the show is misleading and perhaps deliberately so. A lot of people will have watched that show, it appeals to what might be termed 'wishful thinking', in that this is all a scam to tax us (which may be the motives of some politicians), we can carry on as normal. People do like a good conspiracy theory, and the idea that Margaret Thatcher started all this to push a nuclear agenda is certainly that. Plenty of people have been reciting that show pretty much verbatim, without further investigation.

[RJMcElwain]

Maybe, but I haven't got any more reason to trust Durkin's work than I would have to trust Michael Moore's. From my viewpoint they look pretty similar, the techniques employed etc....................................

Same here. I'm much more inclined to trust my own judgement and reasoning, based on my own reading. And my inclination is that Global Warming is not the fault of the human population to any significant degree. It seems more reasonable that it's nothing more than long term trends that we have no control over.

Bob

[Iain]

I'll elucidate my own position. After reading around I came across an article on realclimate, of which I only really read one thing. It was a quote from Bertrand Russell on scepticism, and it stuck.

There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. .... Nevertheless, the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.

So, after the reading I had done I realised that to claim that I did understand what was going on was foolish. I understand very little, except the basic mechanisms for how this could all work.

The one thing I did understand, despite the attacks on consensus and all that, the large majority of scientists do take the consensus position, that global warming more than likely has a major human component. I said 'large majority', so I cannot claim that according to Russell we are in position (1), so I'll not claim that the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain, for some can claim certainty that the opposite opinion is certain, but they need serious understanding to claim this. Very serious, like Lindzen serious, not Milloy or Durkin.

We are not really in position (3) either, for very few claim that there are no grounds for a positive opinion, but we are nearer there than (1) perhaps, so suspension of judgement seems absolutely valid. I'll opt for position (2), that no opinion can be held to be certain by a non expert.

There are aspects of global warming theory that I do hold to be fairly certain, there is science that I understand. My major objection in these debates here on APS and elsewhere, and sometimes my position appears utterly reversed, is the certainty that non-experts express about matters that experts either do not agree, or where the large majority of experts holds the opposite opinion. My problem is the quality of the debate, and false claims of scepticism and understanding. Oftentimes the debate is reduced to ridiculous hearsay and speculation, with either conspiracy theory or nutty environmentalism thrown in.

[RJMcElwain]

I'm not aware of any polling of the experts, unless one measures the amount of column space given to the various opinions. By that measure, clearly, it's our fault.

OTOH, the media loves a circus. Read:  Nicole Smith and O J Simpson.

Bob

[richyoung]

1.  The theory of man-induced global warming REQUIRES that the lower atmosphere be warming up more than it is observed by satellites and weather balloons.  When a major predicted result of your theory is proven wrong, thats a signifigant strike.

2.  The famous "hockey stick" algorithm returns a "hockey stick" shape when fed random data.  Strike Two.

3.  CO2 is a trailing, not leading, indicator of warming.

4.  By far, the major green house gas on Earth is water vapor - almost all of it from natural causes, and thus beyond mankind's ability to maipulate.

5.  The scientist who DID the IR obsevations syas the observed warming is at the limits of measurable difference for the techniques used - it might simply be "noise" in the instruments.

6.  Temperature maps much more closely to changes in solar output that it does to anthropogenic CO2 production - in fact, the Earth warmed up failry rapidly from the begining of the century, then cooled signifigantly post-WWII, despite greatly increased CO2 production.

7.  Temperature, weather, and climate VARY.  You can shout the alarm of "Warming" OR "Cooling" by judicious selection of what your "normal" is.

8.  CO2 is PLANT FOOD, and warmer climates mean more rain, more growth during the growing season, and longer growing seasons.  Heck, the Sahara might even be arable again...

9.  "Global Warming" symptoms are occuring on Mars, Venus, and Jupiter.  What's the common denominator, here?   The SUN, maybe??

10.  We have 30 to 50 years of "sorta-good" data, to attempt to predict things that have cycles measured n tens and thousands of years.  Not enough data for the claims being made.

[Iain]

The sceptic who isn't.

We've been through all this before. Suffice to say, whether global warming or the gold standard, enough doubt can be cast on each of your points as to raise questions as to why you assert them so forcefully as truth. Enough doubt for most but you.

I could either do it myself, or go out and look for someone to come here and have a go at each of those points. I'm not going to do either, because it would be all heat and no light. You cite these claims, you could not support them with proper scientific references, and I think you know that. You'd never publicly cede that, or anything else however.

Your choices to believe your sources and thus have these opinions are perfectly valid (well, Russell wouldn't agree), everyone is entitled to an opinion. It is my opinion, based on my post above, to regard your opinion as somewhat irrelevant to the larger debate. Try get involved in the debate somewhere where people are willing to argue the science, and not where they already agree with you. Let me know how it goes.

-----------------------

RJMcElwain - there are several different reasons why I have come to the conclusion I have about where the majority stand. One is that whenever articles with 'sceptics' get posted here, or I read them elsewhere, it is the same names (and sometimes those names come out and claim they are actually being misrepresented and they do believe in AGW, see Wunsch and others). These guys are either Galileo's - and I have no basis in science to believe that they are, believing so would be an act of utter faith - or they are in the minority. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, but see my previous post.

Secondly, there is a list on wikipedia (which I expect is scrupulously up to date) of those with a background in natural sciences that have announced themselves in opposition to the IPCC reports. The list is about 25 names long. See that those names match the names in my first point.

Thirdly, Oreske's research. Peiser's criticisms investigated, and some of them dropped by Peiser himself, it seems that her work largely stands. She did not find objection to the IPCC consensus in peer reviewed journals.

Applying a bit of Occam to these last two, either a group of scientists is very effectively censoring others, and preventing them from speaking out with their objections. Or, objections are very few and are not rigorous enough in the main to be published. Conspiracy theory or no conspiracy theory? -  I'll go with no conspiracy theory most of the time.

[RJMcElwain]

....................Applying a bit of Occam to these last two, either a group of scientists is very effectively censoring others, and preventing them from speaking out with their objections. Or, objections are very few and are not rigorous enough in the main to be published. Conspiracy theory or no conspiracy theory? -  I'll go with no conspiracy theory most of the time.

Iain,

With all due respect, it's my opinion that this subject is less about Occam's Razor and a good deal more about Chicken Little. 

A great deal more evidence is going to be needed before I feel guilty about the temperature outside.

Bob

[Iain]

I'm wondering if you believe that this is scientific 'Chicken Little-ism' (as in, on the part of scientists), and if so, what makes you believe that.

This is what I'm interested in, why the public (a group in which I include myself) holds the opinions that it does, especially when those opinions run counter to what scientists themselves would say. I very much doubt that climate scientists would accept a criticism of chicken little-ism on their part, although some would argue and probably accurately, that the media does have a taste for the more extreme climate stories. But you know, sex, scandal and imminent coastal flooding does sell papers.

I don't believe that we should defer to any and every authority, an allegation that can be levelled at both extremes of the public's views in this debate. I'm not arguing for believing in everything we're told. I am arguing for viewing the conspiracy (and the minority opinion) more often than not as the most unlikely scenario. So claims of unnecessary alarmism on the part of scientists on the whole, or suppression of dissent by scientific journals or any other allegation like that does fall in to the conspiracy theory for me.

[richyoung]

I'm wondering if you believe that this is scientific 'Chicken Little-ism' (as in, on the part of scientists), and if so, what makes you believe that.

Let me take a stab at that - these are the SAME JERKS that gave us "nuclear winter"  (a fraud), AND the "Holes at the Poles" ozone non-crisis.  Their track record is abysmal, with a demonstrated history of "Chicken Little-ism" - ESPECIALLY at the expense of developed Western society in general, and the United States in particular.

[roo_ster]

Iain:

When I look at the data*, the closest I can get to human-caused global warming is, "inconclusive."  That is granting the GWers a few points as a gimme, just to keep it interesting.  Truly, the correlation of purported temperature rise and what the GWers claim cause the temp rises is not in the GWer's favor. 

I think two major non-science influences are at play in the GW debate: money and religion.

Money
Which of the following approaches would be more likely to net some grant money for a middle-rung academic scientist:

1. Sober & Honest: "I have nothing really pressing, world-ending, or civilization-shattering.  I would just like to better understand the world and how it works.  And I want you to pay me to do so."

2. Apocalyptic: "The world is coming to an end, unless we DO SOMETHING**!  The seas will rise, billions will starve, and fluffy puppies will be stomped to death in the ensuing chaos!  You MUST give me money to figure out how we can stop this impending doom!  Skin-cancer...Hellfire & floods, hellfire & floods!"

Scientists get subsidized, carbon-offset companies get $$$ from guilty-feeling GWers, politicians get more tax $$$, the GW-faithful gets something to believe in (and something to feel superior about whilst driving their Prius to the Sierra Club shindig).

Religion
The more we learn about the human mind, the more evidence comes to the fore that humans are genetically hard-wired for religious belief.  This sort of revelation causes atheists to snort, "A-ha!  That explains all the foolishness!" and prompts theists to say, "Of course we are."

All those foks in the West who have rejected Christianity need something else to believe in: The Goddess Reason, marxism, facism, Lysenkoism, herbal enemas, Ayn Rand, The Juice Man, environmentalism, Vitamin C shots, vegetarianism, animal liberation, and such have all done duty as objects of faith in the post-Christian crowd.

Human-caused global warming*** has most of the aspects of a successful post-Christian "religion":

• Sacred Texts (Silent Spring, Earth in the Balance, Kyoto Protocol, IPCC Report, Hockey Stick)
• Evangelizers/Prophets of Doom (Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jeremiah, )
• Apocalyptic Dogma (Coming Ice Age, Global Warming, Acid Rain, Alar, Anthropogenic Climate Change)
• Concepts of Sin/Rules to Live Life (Consumption is bad, hydrocarbons are bad, recycling is good)
• Angels/Positive Totems/Fetishes (Prius, UN, IPCC, Carbon Taxes)
• Demons/Negative Totems/Fetishes (George Bush, Halliburton, SUVs, styrofoam cups, "Big Oil", "Developers", The American Consumer, Bjorn Lomborg)
• Forgiveness of Past Sin (Indulgences/Carbon Offsets)
• Non-Negotiables/Inscrutables/Unprovable Assertions to Be Taken on Faith(The entire premise: .7deg of warming over the last ~100 years is the fault of humans)

* Collected over a short period of time, relative to the age of the earth.  This includes ice-core data.

** Obviously, not a fan of Calvin Coolidge:
"When you see ten problems rolling down the road, if you don't do anything, nine of them will
roll into a ditch before they get to you."
----Calvin Coolidge

*** A subset of environmentalism