A guest post by William Connolley.
There has been a vast amount of back and forth about the recent propaganda film “The Great Global Warming Swindle“. Two things have distressed me: that Channel 4 clearly have no interest in whether they broadcast truth or not; and the number of people prepared to fall for this tripe.
It’s possible to go through and analyse why just about everything they said was wrong or misleading, and I’ll try that in a moment. But if you find that going right over your head, then it may be more convincing to point out that:
- They have faked some of their graphs
- One of the most respected scientists interviewed, Carl Wunsch, has since denounced the programme as “an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community”
Even C4 admits the graphs were faked: see here for a comparison of the version shown on Thursday and the re-run on Monday. In the “Thursday” version, the data has been stretched from 1988 to 2003 – this is simply and utterly impermissible. But even the “corrected” version is dishonest, since its a very old picture omitting the most recent warming period; compare to up to date data.
That is not the end of their misleading: the solar vs temperature graph has been truncated at 1980, because the data properly continued to date show no match to the temperature. And the graph of 400 years of solar correlation appears to have “infilled” missing data to match.
That answers one of the points of the documentary: the claimed excellent correlation of solar variation and climate change. It’s not true if you use proper data. The assertion that there isn’t a good correlation between CO2 and temperature is half true, but irrelevant. The figure (from wikipedia – the link will provide you with some idea of why scientists do indeed think that greenhouse gases are the major drivers of present climate change) shows how if you include CO2, other greenhouse gases, solar (a small part, but not ignored as the film implied), volcanic and ozone forcing then you end up with a good match to the observed temperature change. Oddly enough, the programme choose not to mention this at all: an indication of how partial they were.
The other claim that seems to have impressed many people is that “since temperature rises before CO2 in the ice core record, therefore the CO2 doesn’t affect temperature”. This is a logical non-sequitor: nonsense dressed up as sense. The best explanation of why its wrong that I know of is here but its hard work. In short: the favoured explanation for temperature and CO2 is that they form part of a feedback cycle to end the glacial periods: indeed, without the feedback from CO2 its rather hard to explain how ice ages do end. In the present day, we know we’re pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, so the question of feedbacks doesn’t immediately arise. Its also true that the 800 year lag is not definitively established – but fair to say that most people accept it for now.
Comparisons to Al Gores “An Inconvenient Truth” may be instructive. A defence of TGGWS that I’ve seen is “it may be propaganda, but so was AIT”. While I have some quibbles with AIT, the science is fundamentally correct (though I wasn’t impressed with the images of Manhattan flooding, or the bits about spread of disease). Gore, as far as I can tell, hasn’t faked any of his graphs or mislead any of his interviewees. He ignored the T/CO2 lag stuff, which is probably fair enough as it does little except confuse people.
The ultimate question must be, what does this tawdry little episode tell us about communicating the science of climate change? And the answer is, we’re not doing very well. Showing people pictures of polar bears standing on ice floes does nothing to educate them about the real science, and leaves them undefended when presented with equally convincing looking arguments from the “other side”. One solution is to ban this sort of propaganda, or overwhelm it with more propaganda: not a very pretty idea. The better solution is to effectively communicate the real science. Perhaps we now have an opportunity to do so.
Recommended reading:
William, Thank you for this, I have printed out a comment from the scientist Carl Wunsch link expressing his disappointment with the programme:
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP
10 March 2007
Dear Mr. Green:
I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about
your Channel 4 film “The Global Warming Swindle.” Fundamentally,
I am the one who was swindled—please read the email below that
was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and
subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with
the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked
to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way
the complicated elements of understanding of climate change—
in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication
in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be
so tendentious, so unbalanced?
I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because
I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable
climate-change stories in the
British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf
Stream could disappear, among others.
When a journalist approaches me suggesting a “critical approach” to a
technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we
are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious,
and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, “critical” does
not mean a hatchet job—it means a thorough-going examination of
the science. The scientific subjects described in the email,
and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated,
worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the
public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words “polemic”, or
“swindle” appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have
instantly declined to be involved.
I spent hours in the interview describing
many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change,
and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get
exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially
truly catastrophic issues, such as
the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn’t really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
piece of disinformation.
An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more
carbon dioxide than it absorbs — thus exacerbating the greenhouse
gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It
was used in the film, through its context, to imply
that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters
and do understand something of the ways in which one can be
misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some
of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of
complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had
an experience like this one. My appearance in the “Global Warming
Swindle” is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation
has been damaged. I was duped—an uncomfortable position in which to be.
At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly
with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to
its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be
taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.
Sincerely,
Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Carl Wunsch, last year: “Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek.”
Carl Wunsch, in parts of his statement ref the C4 GGWS you haven’t quoted:”I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could “shut off” or that with global warming Britain would go into a “new ice age” are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality.”
Richard Feynman: “There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in “cargo cult science”… It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards… For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it… Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.”
A column syndicated in Australia and the US a couple of days ago: “Even a top adviser to Mr Gore, the environmental scientist James Hansen, admits the former vice-president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws”.
The creeping unease among scientists has emerged in talks, articles and blog entries over the past few months. Among the critics is Robert Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University, Queensland. In a blog late last year, Dr Carter joined other geologists in ticking off Mr Gore over his perceived failure to acknowledge the globe’s long history of climate change.
“Nowhere does Mr Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Dr Carter wrote. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
An emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, Don Easterbrook, told the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America that he did not want to “pick on Al Gore”.
“But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
Professor Easterbrook disputed Mr Gore’s claim that “our civilisation has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this”. Nonsense, Professor Easterbrook said. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century”.
Getting personal, he mocked Mr Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Professor Easterbrook said.”
Freeman Dyson just joined the chorus: “Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.”
and his interviewer posed an earlier question, inter alia, like this: “Contrary to this liberal if not libertarian concept of scientific open-mindedness, there has been growing pressure on scientists to tow the line and endorse what is nowadays called the ‘scientific consensus’ – on numerous contentious issues. Dissenting scientists frequently face ostracism and denunciation when they dare to go against the current.”
You’re not helping. The C4 programme was of course flawed. But why aren’t you quoting Wensch in full, including his criticisms of climate change alarmists? This extraordinary intolerance for dissent is deeply troubling.
Great response William. Some of the readers may also be interested in the programmes director, Martin Durkin’s, profile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_%28television_director%29
Peter, Everyone with a different view on any subject is a dissenter, and I have no problem with that. It’s important to exchange views, to listen and learn from each other. At the end of the day, you either agree or disagree and can express those opinions here. This is William’s guest post invited by me because is a Cambridge-based scientist, and an expert on climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley
Ellee, you wonderful, wonderful person. I thought I was fighting a lone battle here and yet here you are, in one fell swoop, debunking the ludicrous thing. Plus the Wunsch comment above. But oh how a detractor tried to tear Wunsch down after that without addressing the issue itself. The denialists are a very interesting breed.
That’s not what I was commenting about, Ellee. I started out, perhaps two years ago, completely convinced of the rightness of the arguments about anthropic climate change. Now I’m very worried about what the debate is doing to our society. I think Wunsch’s argument that the issue should be approached rather in the same way we approach insurance is persuasive. I also think we have the means to accomplish the necessary technology shifts in a very short space of time. That isn’t the point. The extraordinary intolerance and departure from all scientific norms of, as Feynman said, putting the problems with your own case in your argument, of welcoming scrutiny, of scepticism are deeply worrying.
Wunsch argued in a paper I linked to above (the first link) that not only is anthropic global warming unproved, it is actually unprovable, because of the nature of the evidence. Why is nobody who is quoting him approvingly including that sort of statement?
Why are scientists with different views actually receiving death threats?
Is there any precedent for this extraordinary level of intolerance – one in which James Higham (I assume he was referring to me) assumes I was trying to tear down Wunsch by, er… quoting him. In which it has been seriously argued that people with different views be subjected to Nuremberg-style trials?
The C4 documentary was made by a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and was deliberately controversial. You quote Wunsch’s letter to C4 but not the mail he reproduced on his website from them that said: “Dear Professor Wunsch… The aim of the film is
to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth.”
That isn’t a very distorted explanation of the aims of the programme. Wunsch plainly dislikes the controversy but the programme makers should be represented fairly – as Wunsch was at pains to do on his site.
Wunsch is one of the good guys. He includes the problems when he talks about the issue. He did so on the C4 programme. But he is in a tiny minority in that regard.
If the C4 people distorted data they should be castigated for it. What of the climate alarmists who do the same, as Wunsch among others has pointed out? Connolley wrote as though propaganda would be a novelty in the AGW camp but this is not the case.
It’s a shame that James can’t see this, but I am simply trying to give other views of the subject, including those that were omitted from Wunsch’s statements in the quotes given here, in order to get balance.
I’m making a point of doing so because of this hideous climate of intolerance.
The global warming “debate” is a classic case of rhetoric leading to obfuscation not clarity.
Indeed, all parties demonstrate clear aspects of propaganda – which does not help the public assess viewpoints or be informed. Science is held up here as an absolute – but it is all influenced by human interpretation and selection. No-one knows for sure what is cause and effect – it is mostly speculation and extrapolation.
Then we have insults and name calling, in-vs-out groups, selective use of language, band-waggoning, one-sided arguments, denying there is any other position, taking the moral/ethical highground, blaming the media, etc etc etc.
It is impossible for most people to process all the comments, viewpoints, claims and counter-claims swashing around.
Too many individuals and groups are using the environment to further their own selfish ends – scientists, politicians, economists, activists, corporations, everyone seems at it.
Like children faced with argumentative parents, the public will simply tune it all out. They don’t know who to believe and will make up their mind based on peripheral cues, or simplistic arguments that echo with their own experiences.
I’m left wondering whether current viewpoints are simply too polarised, or if there is hope for intelligent discussion?
Great list from Cambridge Scientists.
It is not propaganda you need to fight with more propaganda – but real alternatives …
alternatives to combustion engines
Humanity has a love affair with cars, China and India will very soon have as many cars and more than Europe and The US.
The people in China & India will take to cheap air travel like ducks to water, or the Irish to Ryan Air.
It is no longer the case that The Amazon Rain forest is losing an area the size of Belgium, it is that we are struggling to save areas the size of Belgium as little ‘natural’ reserves.
We cannot stop population growth and increasing demands (without resorting to wars, or climatic ‘natural’ disaster)s any more than we can stop people eating & consuming and …
So the only answer has to be change what they consume – lightbulbs is a small ‘token’ start.
Changing car propulsion is dooable, congestion charges and higher fuel prices are a regressive tax, taxing those on lower incomes off the roads – without first improving public transport – fattening the Treasury coffers, to pay for Trident?
Got no ideas for replacing demand for cheap air travel. Contrary to ‘economic nonsense’ adding five pounds to air fares (or charging frequent flyers more, instead of rewarding them with air miles) will not significantly reduce air travel.
And Nuclear Power is green – lol!
I lost all faith in science documentaries some time ago. And it isn’t only Channel 4 that can’t tell the truth when it comes to science….
As a scientist, I avoid “science” documentaries like the plague. It just isn’t worth getting worked up about them.
p.s Quasar9 – in the short-medium term, there is very little option but to go nuclear if we want to reduce carbon emissions. No other technology is capable of producing that much electricity that quickly and reliably. The only other option is to stop using energy….. and you tell that to Johnny Plasma TV from Peckham, as no politician will.
In the absence of the presence of mind to speak my mind this evening, I’ll rely on another blog with an excellent post on the subject: Outside Story.
Basically, I think that, yes this programme might be flawed (you might argue that’s inevitable with any programme on science as science is supposed to be fluid) but we are in desperate need for someone to stand up on the opposite end of the argument. It’s not healthy for one side to have such a strangehold over the political sphere, and certainly far from scientific.
It’s a shame that James can’t see this, but I am simply trying to give other views of the subject, including those that were omitted from Wunsch’s statements in the quotes given here, in order to get balance.
That’s a fair comment, Peter but it’s the C4 doc and the head-in-the-sand-everyone-on-the-bandwagon auto-scepticism that’s the issue, rather than your comments on Wunsch.
The personalities are too much to the fore in this whole business and the phenomenon itself too pushed into the background.
That the government has seized on the political advantages of it is a sad indictment but the phenomenon itself should not be tarnished with their brush.
Leaving science aside even, one need only click on, say, a National Geographic site with its pictures of what’s happening to illustrate the ridiculousness of scepticicm.
Over where we live, one need only poke the head outside the door. Of course, in Britain, the effects are not so pronounced and so the scepticism has taken root.
Which is not to say that debate is not healthy, as Ellee says.
Or indeed a “stranglehold”!
Hi Alan, I have no problem with Nuclear Energy
As long as it is made safe & flood proof – lol!
I see Blair is going to get his Trident upgrade thanks to the Conservative vote.
My take on that is that we are about as likely to be ‘nuked’ or face a nuclear threat from anyone, as Saddam or Iraq is likely to invade the US or the UK.
Of course we want to ‘subsidise’ research & innovation in the sciences, but …
Do we want to stay at the top of the arms race, or do we want to be the leaders in alternatives to ‘petrol’ driven cars, eco friendly living space, and space exploration.
If it is all about creating well paid jobs for this generation and the next – but it is a pathetic lie (and downright ‘evil’) to argue that we are under military threat from anyone.
So what is the answer pre-emptive strikes? I’m sure Cheney would be happy to oblige by using pre-emptive strikes on China under the pretence that ‘we’ want to reduce increases in CO2 emissions and prevent ‘climate change’
Remember the 60’s documentary showing lemmings piling off the cliff?
Something which, in fact, lemmings do not do. The suicide urge thing is a myth. They go on migration marches when food goes scarce.
Look closely at the film and you can see the poor little fellas being herded.
You can always find a Polar Bear on an ice floe. The slant the narratpr reads over the film is subject to human control.
As the climate of the earth is forever changing, can anyone explain to me why the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age took place? Can anyone also explain to me why the temperature on Mars is getting higher?
William, thank you. I can’t get C4 here but you have outlined the issues dealt with in the programme well. It’s always a bit silly to try and comment on a programme you haven’t seen, obviously, so I will just say that you have made some environmental science issues clear and interesting to me and I agree with your conclusion.
Welshcakes, I do have a video link this programme and have viewed it via the link, but it no longer seems to be accessible, if anyone else has a different link, perhaps they could post it here.
This is the one I had:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&hl=en
>Mars
You’re assuming it’s”getting warmer” based on what? Who do you trust for that belief?
Why do you trust that source?
As far as I know, it’s the wrong question — we have about 30 years of temperature data; here’s a summary:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192#comment-5324
Some answers: Peter Risdon: I fully agree with CW re the THC stuff. So does RealClimate: see for example here. If you won’t believe CWs own very strong claims that he was mislead, I don’t see what else I could say to convince you. CW didn’t say the anthro GW is unprovable. He said it was *verey hard* to separate human and natural. Thats fair enough: it is. Its also very hard to put men on the moon but its been done.
Easterbrooks claim that the MWP was 20 times bigger than recent changes is just nonsense.
Intolerance: I’m intolerant of people deliberately faking their data. Are you? I don’t see you condeming the documentary for that. Reasonned skepticism is fine, and welcomed: but this was simply propaganda.
Temperature on Mars: why 8do* people believe these things with no evidence? See here for example.
MWP and LIA: were smaller than you think; probably caused by a mix of solar and volcanoes.
Stranglehold on the politics: this is such a weird thing to say. The Bush administration has been staunchly anti-GW, and they are the most powerful.
Quasar9: I think you are muddying the water with the issues here. Iraq, Saddam and the recent Trident debate have very little to do with whether we build more nuclear power stations to reduce CO2.
This is to Peter Risdon
You try to turn Carl Wunsch’s carefully prepared comments about separating out natural and human-induced climate change against his honest unhappiness about appearing in a film that calls a lot of scientific work a swindle and which actually called the people producing this work ‘liars’. I nearly choked on my food when I heard this word. If you include this in your catalogue of flaws perhaps you are not being critical enough of a documentary so full of bad faith it was/is a disgrace to British television. Martin Durkin’s appearance on Roger Boulton’s programme, I think it was Right to Reply, in the late 90s barking at George Monbiot to ‘shut up! shut up!’ was truly instructive. If you want to defend this director and this documentary good luck. Your choice is indeed truly instructive.
Wunsch now has a more polished reply availabe from his home page here. To quote “I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component”.
The Durkin emails (available from http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/) are also worth reading if you’re tolerant of rude words.
I think my friend Dr Jim Fowler would have a lot to say on this matter. (Being a renouned Biologist and statistician…)
I hope he gets back from his field research in time to comment Ellee
Simon
All I can say is that I have a very large and foul tasting pie waiting to be eaten.
Thank you Ellee and William Connolley.
(and everyone for a most excellent thread so far)
Kevin Peat
There is an important distinction between climate scientists, and climate alarmists.
Part of the problem is that the media has typically pushed the climate alarmist viewpoint. The science is far too mundane, and lacks the drama of suggesting that London will be underwater by next week.
With them has been the government being prepared to use it as an excuse to add some more taxes and rules in the name of the environment. Taxes that are not about external cost, but more than that. Idiotic crowd-pleasers about 4x4s and standby switches.
What this has created is a counter viewpoint, that says that it’s all been thought up as a funding and tax wheeze. This viewpoint doesn’t like to look at facts too carefully, either.
The scientific models show there’s a problem. See levels to rise by 12-15 inches over the next 100 years. That is problematic, but hardly a doomsday scenario.
We also have to remember living. That condemning people to a stoneage existence to stave off small global warming effects is not a good trade.
Of course saying “there’s a problem and we need to consider our best options” hardly makes headlines on the 6 o’clock news.
OMG! Don’t let Al “Use-Less” Gore read this! He’ll have a heartache watching the dollars flow away from his coffers! His money-making wheel of convenient lies will fall off! 😉
[…] swindled who? Jump to Comments William Connolley (Stoat) has a nice guest post at Ellee Seymour’sblog. […]
In my opinion, Mr. Risdon has the best of this very interesting conversation. Of course, here in the States, I have not seen the documentary in question — but my clear impression was that Mr. Risdon is not defending the program, but was defending the right — perhaps the duty — to be skeptical in the face of dogmatic claims from scientists.
Mr. Almond’s comment, “We also have to remember living. That condemning people to a stoneage existence to stave off small global warming effects is not a good trade,” is also very important. I think this the trade the Al Gores of the world would impose on us.
And skepticism about rising sea levels or the meaning or import or slight changes in ‘global’ temperatures should not suggest indifference or hostility to serious efforts to find real alternatives to fossil fuels or to preserve rain forests.
And I have seen the National Geographic pictures — but they only prove that there’s been serious changes in the locations photographed…. How these fit into a ‘global’ perspective necessarily involves speculation. Scientists may formulate hypotheses in connection with how change may continue at these locations, but, at present, observation is the only real way to ‘test’ those hypotheses.
Thanks for a stimulating discussion, Ellee.
William
I see from the article you’ve linked that the 800 year time lag is disputed. From what I’ve read there is a fairly general acceptance though, but that the reasons are disputed.
If the reason is a feedback mecanism – temperature rise raises CO2 levels and CO2 rises raise temperature – what stops the whole system spiralling exponentially out of control?
Peter
I think you make a very important point. No matter what you believe about global warming, the sceptics must be heard. Their treatment has been shameful.
Hi Alan, the US has contingency plans to take out Iran’s Nuclear Energy Power Plants.
Some object to Iran or Egypt developing Nuclear Energy, yet one could argue that Egypt needs nuclear energy more than we do in the uk.
C02 emissions from China are growing and will continue to grow. Some twisted minds who themselves do not want to reduce the dependance of their economies on fossil fuels, would not hesitate to use pre-emptive strikes on developing countries, even using the threat of climate change as an excuse.
Is Trident a nuclear deterrant, or are nuclear submarines more to do with the ability to strike (pre-emptive ‘surgical’ strikes) at arms length. The USAF, The Russian & Chinese airforce have the ability to take out any nuclear facility so where is the nuclear threat? – from saddam’s wmds?
Not muddying waters, but trying to remove the ‘cataracts’ from peoples eyes and ‘nuke’ flawed arguments.
Climate Scientists who advocate that we need to take action and positive steps to reduce the risk or possible threat to the planet and humans from climate change, are dismissed by some as alarmists.
What do you call someone who advocates Trident and claims the uk needs a deterrent because of the risk of possible nuclear threat?
If it is investment in Research, development, innovation & technology you advocate, fine – but we know where WMDs are (and are not).
TA: “That condemning people to a stoneage existence to stave off small global warming effects is not a good trade.” -I don’t hear anyone proposing that. The film segment dealing with Africa notably failed to mention that Kyoto doesn’t apply to developing countries.
BH: CO2 spiralling up (or down): yes – the problem is that the mechanisms for getting the CO2 into the atmos during deglaciations isn’t understood. Its assumed to come from the oceans. One obvious way to stop spiralling is to assume a finite reservoir for said CO2.
TC: “the right — perhaps the duty — to be skeptical” – indeed yes. But this prog wasn’t. Did it carefully explain the GW theory and probe it for weaknesses? No. It caricatured the theory and relied on faked graphs to push an alternative. Its pretty clear that a lot of people are very receptive to that message and are accepting it uncritically (are you taking your own advice and being skeptical of the prog?)
William.
Thanks for the answer. I hope everyone is listening critically to everyone involved in the debate, and is condemning anyone who tries to shut it down.
The 800 year lag is more obviously suggestive of temperature rise causing a rise in CO2, but clearly another, more complex, mechanism is possible. Presumably we should be suspicious of it though, because of Occam’s razor.
I `m very cross not to have caught up with this but i will have to later. the dfiorst thing i noticvce is the usual arrogance of those who claim to have a scientific “background ” as if scientists cannot be paid to say just about anything.
I `ll get back to it
Yes the assumption throughout this thread is that science is neutral and cannot be bought.
Rubbish
SCIENTISTS ARE BOUGHT AND SOLD
At second hand there is usually nothing definitive except that weakest of points, “some clever people have said”…everything, you might go on to finish.
The Green argument presented itself as if the climate was unchanging and by act of godless vandalism we have messed it up. Such angst in the pants has an obvious appeal to much the same people who are running around bombing scientists on behalf of furry things for a start. The truth is that any prediction must be founded on an overwhelming mass of ignorance about such an infinitely complex system with patterns we almost certainly have not even identified. The politics and the money are what counts there are endless facts and quoting selectively to and fro is far les scientific that it looks but ….
Scientists like it because it makes them feel important and gets their grant out of the government.
Governments like it because it allows them to tax and control and appear virtuous whilst being active
Large companies like it because a mass of regulation outs market entrants out of business and leaves them a quasi monopoly
Socialists like it for the same reasons as governments in that it bulwarks the odious idea of a societal relationship that can only be expressed through bureaucracies
A lot of people just like being trendy and having a cause
Public Sector employees like it because it justifies further tax which allows larger empires, promotions, and increases to their already overly large slice of a dwindling pie.They contribute little and need all the justification they can get
It is entirely reasonable therefore that everything coming from these interested groups should be viewed with the greatest scepticism. fruit to have been grown .Peaches and other unlikely visitors are mentioned in Marvell.
In fact the very determination of the Greenists to remove the medieval warm period is itself highly suspicious .
You need to wake up to the fact that we cannot be dictated to by the claims of state hirelings whose near relations the BMA and the Hand S have been so useful to those wishing to reduce the citizen to a state of a serfdom.
Until I see VAT lopped off virtuous products I will assume it is all Guano.. How hard do you imagine it would be for me to find the sonorous pronouncements of scientists on behalf of this or that dictatorship or indeed the US tobacco industry. Right or wrong they have become the lackeys of the state doing their dirty work for them with your drip feed propaganda.
The notion that Oil companies are equally fighting their corner is usually trotted out but compared to the burgeoning world state they are nothing .
Where are the armies? Where are the taxes? Where are the controls.
These are things governments do and they are using the green dupes and fellow travellers and to help them.
Pseudo scientists everywhere get out of the kitchen , this is political debate and you role is corrupted .
Socialism needs global warming just as much as it needed global cooling. And we didn’t believe the cooling fairytale and we don’t believe the warming fairytale.
The integrity of the programme GGWS is debased through Mr Wunsch’s letter and the use of a dodgy graph – a criminal conviction would be quashed by such irregularity. Mr Connolley’s educated contribution also brings effortlessly to this debate the force of the scientific consensus. This effortlessness in itself speaks volumes to me.
I feel foolish to have put so much store in this programme and until last week my position was one of ambivalence towards anthroporthic effects on Co2 levels.
I remain dubious towards the motives of UK Government and see little point in tokenism and even less in unilateralism, especially when the greatest exhortees are more often the biggest hypocrites.
Let’s either get very serious about this or forget it altogether. Half-heartedness would be the worst of both worlds and a charter for rip-off merchants and over-weening government.
Global cooling… is a myth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling will help you, if you’re interested in knowledge.
re. E-K’s comment above: unfortunately, our betters in parliament and elsewhere are loathe to trust we mere mortal with ‘shades of grey’. They think: ‘Don’t confuse the poor buggers!’ And go on to present a one-sided case about everything. We would trust them far more if they admitted: ‘we may be wrong’. e.g. ‘80% of the evidence points one way, but 20% points the other. On balance we are going to assume the worst and adjust public policy accordingly.’ We’d also trust them far more if they did not try and ‘own’ the green agenda and extract party political advantage from it. That just makes people doubt them that much more: ‘If they’re playing their usual party political games with this, as with every other, issue, then there can’t be much in it.’ Many people also instinctively react against enforced opinion: attempts to smear or ridicule dissenters drive many people crazy _ which is why there was a sizeable minority prepared to take everything in the Durkin documentary as ‘gospel’, so sickened have we become by the sanctimonious self-righteousness of many in the green lobby, and the way in which so mnay in it have tried to tie it in with their pre-existing hostility to capitalism and all its works. My advice to the scientists is to reclaim the agenda, demand that the politicians tell the whole story. That way people will trust your message more.
Re David Allen’s comments above:
‘Don’t confuse the poor buggers!’
Why is it I only feel thinly veiled contempt directed towards me ? ‘…poor buggers !’
Re William Connolley’s comment:
‘…if you’re interested in knowledge’
You’re losing your subtlety, but you’ve got me converted, Sir.
To clarify:
‘Poor buggers’ intimates that they feel sorry for me. I don’t believe this for one minute and this is manifest in so many bi-party policies.
will help you, if you’re interested in knowledge.
With that sort of auto-erotic conciet Connelly I expect you scientific opinion could be brought extra cheap.Why not make your predictions so we can laugh at the Faustian arrogance when , like all the others so far, they do not happen.
Tell me , why did Al Gore claim that the snows of Kilimanjaro were being warmed away when it isn fact caused by the deforestation in the area and consequent lower humidity.
The fact he knows this is the real worry..he`s got a lovely house by the way nice and warm
Sceptics win public debate with warmers.
Link
To Dave Allen
Re 41 & 42 above.
Thanks for your response to me (40). My replies weren’t meant to sound harsh.
Some more dirt on the documentary. He used data that has been discredited by a number of authors in a number of different ways, in order to justify his “The sun causes it all” hypothesis.
And this from the Royal Society:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
This link is so long that I couldn’t fit it in here, but believe me when I say it’s well worth the effort typing it in. (id=1630 immediatley after ‘?’)
Electro-kevin.
Thanks very much for that – I’ll read it with interest. I did a quick search of the document for “800” to see if they address the 800 year lag issue. It’s not there. This would appear to confirm my suspicion that this is a pretty major problem for the global warming proponents.
Chuckle. I bring you hens and a rooster; soon you have eggs; somewhat later you have more hens and roosters and eggs. Positive feedback, limited by things like the amount of corn and availability of hawks and owls.
Now, that’s a chicken-and-egg problem, which comes first (albeit with an 8-week rather than 800 year lag.
Next experiment, I bring you an incubator with a dozen fertile eggs in it, plug it in, and leave you to watch.
Somewhat later you have more hens and roosters and eggs.
The analogy to the incubator is — the fossil fuel burned. Once CO2 or temperature start to increase, a positive feedback ensues for a while; look at the glacial record. Some ice cores show a lag; some of the latest seem to show no lag.
Either will do.
Hank,
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the 800 year lag disproves AGW. Your analogy may hold. But on the other hand it may not. There are significant issues with the feedback theory – what are the mechanisms involved in starting the warming, in starting the CO2 feedback, and stopping it. These need to be explained. The sceptic view also seems to have problems, although as I’ve said, Occam’s razor would suggest that we should incline towards the simpler sceptic view.
Dear Bishop Hill,
Please explain more about Occum’s Razor and it’s place in scientific development. I’ve read about it on Wikipaedia. Is it used as a ‘decider’ in what is to be scientifically accepted – what prevents it being misused in order to close scientific discourse, as was your concern earlier in this thread ?
I am not sure that the Royal Society paper was in response to TGGWS (I am ambivalent about Co2 – I’m not qualified to be anything but) and you’re right, it doesn’t give much answer to the 800 year lag – I did spot an allusion to it however – that is suspicious.
I see that Mr Durkin gave a very good account of himself at the weekend in The Telegraph.
What came first, Mr Roberts ? That depends on whether you believe in Darwinism (which I do) and see a single cell creature as being an animal or as an egg.
Electro-kevin
I don’t think that Occam’s razor is in any way a decider. The thrust of it is that the simplest solution is the best. I wouldn’t be suggesting for a moment that this should lead to the closing down of the AGW case – as I said in my previous response, the razor would suggest we should incline towards the sceptic case, but no more than that.
E-K, Ockham’s razor comes from the 13th C philosopher/scientist, William of Ockham. It basically means you assume the explanation with the shortest list of possible causes. It represents an important step in the development of empirical thought. It means in essence; the simplest5 explanation is usually the right one.
Does that help?
Thanks, BH & Joe,
Just re-reading Mr Durkin’s piece in the Telegraph. He is most emphatic about temperature driving CO2 “Temperature drives CO2, not the other way round. The global-warmers do not deny this. They cannot.”
He offers rebuttals for all other criticisms of TGGWS too.
[…] Stoat writes a post summing up some of these problems here. […]
[…] Regarding the film, there is little I can add on this subject as it has been thoroughly aired here before. What I found most compelling was the impact of climate change on the world’s population, the climate refugees, such as Darfur, and we all know how terribly they have suffered there. […]
[…] Should Al Gore win Nobel Peace Prize? By Ellee Despite what the sceptics think about climate change, Al Gore has considerably raised its profile throughout the world, he is passionately devoted to initiating international action on this. […]
[…] years of blogging. This is my 1,746th post covering news and politics, women’s issues and the environment, as well as my special causes, including missing people and hemophiliacs; my charity, Headway […]