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?