Speaking of swindles, did anyone see David Milliband on the lunchtime news
yesterday making the incredible claim that the government had, quote:
"broken the link between economic growth and increasing pollution"?
I think Mr Miliband and Mr Hitchens come from the same planet, really.
From: Nick James <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Swindle complaint
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:02:58 EDT
Media lens advise us all to complain to C4 about this. C4 should commission
an environmentalist to do a reply. I didn't know that the film was made by
a former RCP activist. Now it makes sense. That vicious sect of former
(bogus) Marxists have a kind of hive mind, like 'The Borg' from Star Trek:
when Frank Furedi moves to the right, all of his friends move with him, at
exactly the same time. When I was a student they used to hang around
university campuses, calling people like me bourgeois reactionaries because
we objected to their attempts to take over every radical campaign and
reduce
it to a recruitment vehicle for the RCP. In Sheffield they used to bully
and rob their own supporters and operated with a distinction between a
'supporter' and a 'member': to be a 'member' you had to pass a test on
their
policies, but to be a supporter you just had to hand over your cash on
demand, in exchange for whatever crap pamphlet they had just produced, at a
mark-up to make the average capitalist go gooey with admiration. They
hated
animal liberationists and environmentalists with a passion; labelled
opponents on the left 'fascist' while failing to confront and even
cosying-up to real fascists, and went on and on about being 'pro-science'
while ignoring every bit of scientific evidence that didn't suit them. Now
their publications openly acknowledge funding from drug companies and
groups
on the 'libertarian right', and Furedi's pieces in the Times Higher read
like a typical Daily Mail column, with rants targeting 'animal rights
terror', 'dependence culture' and people with depression. But his disciple
Durkin has surpassed him with this film.
>> MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
>>
>> March 13, 2007
>>
>>
>> MEDIA ALERT: PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE
>>
>>
>> The Scientists Are The Bad Guys
>>
>> On March 8, Channel 4 screened The Great Global Warming Swindle, a
>> documentary that branded as a lie the scientific consensus that
man-made
>> greenhouse gasses are primarily responsible for climate change.
>>
>> The film was advertised extensively on Channel 4 and repeatedly
previewed
>> and reviewed in newspapers. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph,
Christopher
>> Booker declared:
>>
>> "Only very rarely can a TV documentary be seen as a pivotal moment in a
>> major political debate, but such was Channel 4's The Great Global
Warming
>> Swindle last Thursday. Never before has there been such a devastatingly
>> authoritative account of how the hysteria over global warming has
parted
>> company with reality." (Booker, 'A turning point in climate change,'
>> Sunday Telegraph, March 11, 2007)
>>
>> Peter Hitchens commented in the Daily Mail:
>>
>> "If you were worried about those snaps of polar bears clinging to
melting
>> ice-floes, sentenced to a slow death by global warming, you may now
>> relax. They'll be fine. Channel 4 has paid in full for its recent
>> misdemeanours by screening, last Thursday, the brilliant, devastating
>> film The Great Global Warming Swindle." (Hitchens, 'Drugs?', Daily
Mail,
>> March 11, 2007)
>>
>> Doubtless like many who saw the film, the Financial Times' reviewer was
>> left bewildered:
>>
>> "Not so long ago, the venerable David Attenborough on the Beeb was
>> telling us that human-driven global warming was real and was coming for
>> us. So that was settled. Now Channel 4, like a dissident schoolboy, is
>> scoffing at the old boy's hobbyhorse and I don't know what to believe."
>> ('Slaughterhouse three,' Financial Times, March 10, 2007)
>>
>> The film opened with scenes of wild weather and environmental disaster
>> accompanied by dramatic captions:
>>
>> "THE ICE IS MELTING. THE SEA IS RISING. HURRICANES ARE BLOWING. AND
IT'S
>> ALL YOUR FAULT.
>>
>> "SCARED? DON'T BE. IT'S NOT TRUE."
>>
>> This was immediately followed by a series of equally forthright talking
>> heads:
>>
>> "We can't say that CO2 will drive climate; it certainly never did in
the
>> past."
>>
>> "We imagine that we live in an age of reason. And the global warming
>> alarm is dressed up as science. But it's not science; it's propaganda."
>>
>> And:
>>
>> "We're just being told lies; that's what it comes down to."
>>
>> The commentary added to the sense of outrage: "You are being told
lies."
>>
>> This was indeed superficially impressive - when several experts make
bold
>> statements on the same theme we naturally assume they must be onto
>> something - but alarm bells should already have been ringing. This,
after
>> all, was ostensibly a film about science - about evidence, arguments,
>> research and debate. Why, then, the language of polemic and smear?
>>
>> The remarkable answer is provided by the film's writer and director,
>> Martin Durkin:
>>
>> "I think it [the film] will go down in history as the first chapter in
a
>> new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate
>> scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys. It is a
big
>> story that is going to cause controversy.
>>
>> "It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a
>> turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is
>> the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks."
>> ('"Global Warming Is Lies" Claims Documentary,' Life Style Extra, March
>> 4, 2007;
>>
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary)
>>
>> Compare and contrast this with the aim as described in a letter sent
by
>> the makers of the film, Wag TV, to Professor Carl Wunsch, a leading
>> expert on ocean circulation and climate who subsequently appeared in
the
>> film:
>>
>> "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."
>> (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response)
>>
>> Wunsch comments:
>>
>> "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were
>> distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to
>> what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that
this
>> was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is
>> going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would
>> have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been
swindled."
>> (Geoffrey Lean, 'Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4,' The
>> Independent, March 11, 2007;
>>
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece)
>>
>> We will hear more from Wunsch in what follows.
>>
>>
>> Deeply Deceptive
>>
>> The film presented viewers with an apparently devastating refutation of
>> the "theory of global warming". And these were not picky, esoteric
>> criticisms. Durkin insisted that the world's climate scientists are
>> guilty of the most fundamental error imaginable: increased atmospheric
>> carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the cause of higher temperature, as the
>> experts claim. Quite the reverse: increasing atmospheric CO2 is itself
>> the +result+ of rising temperature.
>>
>> As evidence for this contention, Durkin argued that global surface
>> temperature dropped dramatically between 1945-1975, at a time when CO2
>> emissions were rapidly rising as a result of the postwar economic boom.
>> According to Durkin, if CO2 emissions were responsible for increasing
>> temperature, then temperature should not have fallen between 1945-1975.
>> Clearly, then, some factor other than CO2 emissions must have caused
the
>> subsequent global temperature rise.
>>
>> But Real Climate, an internet site run by climate scientists, such as
>> NASA's Dr Gavin Schmidt and Dr William Connelley of the British
Antarctic
>> Survey, describes Durkin's discussion of the 1945-75 period as "deeply
>> deceptive". (Real Climate, March 9, 2007;
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled)
>>
>> In this section of the film, Durkin focused heavily on a graph
depicting
>> temperature changes. The graph, Real Climate comments, "looks rather
odd
>> and may have been carefully selected". It appears to show a dramatic
>> cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping between the
film's
>> version of the global temperature record:
>>
>> http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t63/izzy_bizzy_photo/capture.jpg
>>
>> and the temperature plot that normally appears in the scientific
>> literature:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
>>
>> The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.
>>
>> Without knowing more details of how Durkin may have manipulated the
data
>> plotted in his graph, it is difficult to comment on the presentation.
>> What we can say is that Durkin's "four decades of cooling", implying a
>> relentless temperature drop over 40 years, is not an accurate
description
>> of the trend over this period. There was some cooling for +part+ of
this
>> time but also some plateauing, with fluctuations up and down.
>>
>> But why did the temperature not simply rise in line with the post-war
>> increase in greenhouse gas emissions?
>>
>> In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature
>> between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of
>> industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere.
>> These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as
"global
>> dimming". By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate
>> aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels
of
>> CO2. By the 1980s, however, stronger warming had exceeded this masking
>> effect and global temperature has since continued to rise. As Real
>> Climate notes, by failing to explain the science behind this
phenomenon
>> the programme makers were guilty of "lying to us by omission."
>>
>>
>> The Ice Cores
>>
>> The film repeatedly gave the impression that mainstream science argues
>> that CO2 is the +sole+ driver of rising temperatures in the Earth's
>> climate system. But this is not the case. Climate scientists are well
>> aware that solar activity plays a role, though a minor one at present,
as
>> do long-term periodic changes in the Earth's orbit, known as
Milankovitch
>> cycles. (See:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)
>>
>> The point is that there is a vast body of evidence that very strongly
>> supports the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is
>> the most important, are +primarily+ responsible for +recent+ global
>> warming. The 4th and most recent scientific assessment of the
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes:
>>
>> "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since
>> the mid-20th century is very likely [.i.e. probability greater than
90%]
>> due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
>> concentrations." ('Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,'
>> Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, February 2007, page 10;
>> http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)
>>
>> We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments. Antarctic
>> ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years behind
>> temperature rises at specific times in the geological past. This,
argued
>> Durkin, +proves+ that CO2 cannot be responsible for global warming -
>> instead global warming is responsible for increasing levels of CO2. But
>> this was a huge howler.
>>
>> What Durkin's film failed to explain was that the 800-year lag happened
>> at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years. (See:
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores)
>>
>> Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when
>> the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic
>> change in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Jeff Severinghaus,
Professor
>> of Geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains why the
>> rise in CO2 initially lags behind the temperature rise:
>>
>> "The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000
>> years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows
>> is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the
5000
>> year trend." (Real Climate, 'What does the lag of CO2 behind
temperature
>> in ice cores tell us about global warming?', December 3, 2005;
>>
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/)
>>
>> The best current explanation for the lag of 800 years is that this is
how
>> long it takes for CO2, absorbed by the ocean in an earlier warm period,
>> to be "flushed out" at the end of an ice age. Once that CO2 has been
>> released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a
greenhouse
>> gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback.
(See
>> Caillon et al., 'Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature
>> Changes Across Termination III,' Science, 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no.
>> 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731)
>>
>> Professor Severinghaus summarises:
>>
>> "In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an
>> amplifier once they are underway."
>>
>> Durkin's analysis, then, was way off the mark.
>>
>> The film's claim that solar activity might account for recent warming
is
>> also without credibility. In September 2006, the Times reported the
>> latest findings from researchers writing in the top journal, Nature:
>>
>> "Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over
the
>> past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated
with
>> today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30
>> years have also turned up nothing. 'The solar contribution to
warming...
>> is negligible,' the researchers wrote in the journal Nature." (Anjana
>> Ahuja, 'It's hot, but don't blame the Sun,' The Times, September 25,
>> 2006)
>>
>> The film's other scientific claims can be similarly dismissed. Carl
>> Wunsch - who, as discussed, appeared in the film - comments:
>>
>> "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."
>> (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response)
>>
>> For further help in understanding the weakness of the film's claims,
see
>> the following resources:
>>
>> Real Climate, 'Swindled',
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled
>>
>> Campaign Against Climate Change, including a rebuttal to the film by
Sir
>> John Houghton, who chairs the Scientific Assessment Working Group of
the
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
>> http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820
>>
>> Royal Society: Facts and fictions about climate change:
>> http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761
>>
>>
>> "I Was Duped" - Déjà Vu?
>>
>> Many readers will be aware that Durkin has previous 'form'. In 1997,
>> Channel 4 broadcast his three-part series, Against Nature, which
>> suggested present-day environmentalists were the true heirs of the
Nazis.
>> (See George Monbiot, 'The Revolution Has Been Televised,' The Guardian,
>> December 18, 1997;
>>
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/)
>>
>> Several interviewees who appeared in the film felt they had been
misled
>> about the programme-maker's agenda. Responding to complaints, the
>> Independent Television Commission (ITC) found that the editing of
>> interviews with four contributors had "distorted or misrepresented
their
>> known views". (Geoffrey Lean, 'Climate change: An inconvenient truth...
>> for C4,' The Independent, March 11, 2007;
>>
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece)
>>
>> In addition, the ITC found: "The interviewees had also been misled as
to
>> the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take
part."
>> (Paul McCann, 'Channel 4 told to apologise to Greens,' The Independent,
>> April 2, 1998)
>>
>> Ten years on, it appears that history may have repeated itself. In his
>> letter of complaint to the film-makers cited above, Carl Wunsch
writes:
>>
>> "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 embarrassing, 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."
>> (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response)
>>
>> Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter,
Richard
>> Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and
>> Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing
>> think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars
from
>> Exxon.
>>
>> Greenpeace provides a fascinating online 'map' detailing how Exxon
funds
>> these climate sceptics. Go to:
>> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831 (click 'Launch' then
>> click 'skip intro')
>>
>> In his book, Green Backlash, environmental journalist Andrew Rowell
noted
>> that Fred Singer has also attacked scientific and environmental stances
>> on other green issues such as ozone, acid rain, automobile emissions
and
>> even whaling. Singer has worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell,
Arco,
>> Unocal and Sun.
>>
>> According to the Environmental Research Foundation, a non-governmental
>> organisation:
>>
>> "For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where
he
>> was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets
pooh-poohing
>> climate change." (Quoted, Sharon Beder, Global Spin, Green Books,
1997,
>> p.94)
>>
>> Rowell wrote that a quarter of Patrick Michaels' research funding was
>> reportedly received from companies such as Edison Electric Institute,
the
>> largest utility trade association in America. Michaels' magazine, World
>> Climate Review, was funded by the Western Fuel Association and a video
>> produced by him was funded by coal companies and distributed by the
>> Denver Coal Club. (Rowell, Green Backlash, Routledge, 1996, p.143)
>>
>> Both Singer and Michaels represented the fossil fuel lobby's Global
>> Climate Coalition and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leader in
>> global warming scepticism.
>>
>> Journalist Ross Gelbspan noted that in May 1995, Richard Lindzen and
>> Patrick Michaels were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of
>> Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers
>> and coal-fired utilities. Gelbspan said of Lindzen:
>>
>> "I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay
>> of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly
>> funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting
with
>> fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his
>> consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the
US
>> coal industry and so forth. That's not to say Dr Lindzen doesn't
believe
>> what he says, but it is to say that he stands in very sharp distinction
>> to really just about virtually all of the climate scientists around the
>> world." (Tony Jones, 'Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the
>> spotlight,' Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 7, 2005;
>> http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1318067.htm)
>>
>> Journalist George Monbiot wrote of Philip Stott:
>>
>> "Professor Stott is a retired biogeographer. Like almost all the
>> prominent sceptics he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on
>> climate change. But he has made himself available to dismiss
>> climatologists' peer-reviewed work as the 'lies' of
ecofundamentalists."
>> (Monbiot, 'Beware the fossil fools,' The Guardian, April 27, 2004;
>>
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1829315,00.html)
>>
>> Paul Driessen is a fellow at two right-wing think tanks in the US,
which
>> are part of the Wise Use movement. One of the think tanks is headed by
>> Ron Arnold, who has spent the last twenty years attacking the
>> environmental movement. His fellow director is a fundraiser for
America's
>> gun lobby. The list goes on...
>>
>> By contrast, Greenpeace spokeswoman Mhairi Dunlop said her organisation
>> had been interviewed by Durkin but none of the material had been
included
>> in the film:
>>
>> "They interviewed us but I guess what we said didn't fit in with the
>> [story] they were peddling." (McCandless, op. cit)
>>
>> Following the film's broadcast, Professor Martin Rees, president of the
>> Royal Society - the government-sponsored academy of sciences for the
>> United Kingdom - has said that many factors contribute to global
warming
>> but it is clear that emissions of "greenhouse gases," particularly CO2,
>> are to blame for most of the current temperature rise. Rees added:
>>
>> "Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of
>> evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting
>> attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the
>> best possible future." (Ibid)
>>
>> On March 11 the Observer published a letter from a group of climate
>> scientists responding to Durkin's film:
>>
>> "This programme misrepresented the state of scientific knowledge on
>> global warming, claiming climate scientists are presenting lies. This
is
>> an outrageous statement...
>>
>> "We defend the right of people to be sceptical, but for C4 to imply
that
>> the thousands of scientists and published peer-reviewed papers,
>> summarised in the recent international science assessment, are
misguided
>> or lying lacks scientific credibility and simply beggars belief." (Alan
>> Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council, Brian Hoskins, University
>> of Reading, Jo Haigh, Imperial College London, Myles Allen, University
of
>> Oxford, Peter Cox, University of Exeter, Colin Prentice, QUEST
Programme,
>> letter to the Observer, Sunday March 11, 2007;
>> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2031117,00.html)
>>
>> Viewed from one perspective, Channel 4 has done a huge public
disservice
>> in spreading absurd and mendacious arguments guaranteed to generate
>> confusion. This at a time when a fragile momentum is building on the
need
>> to take urgent action on the very real threat of catastrophic climate
>> change.
>>
>> But from another perspective it may well be that this film does for
>> climate scepticism what Tony Blair's "dodgy dossiers" did for the
pro-war
>> movement ahead of the invasion of Iraq. Wildly distorted propaganda
often
>> does have a powerful initial impact. But stretched beyond a certain
point
>> of unreality, it also has a tendency to turn on, and bite, the
>> propagandists.
>>
>> Durkin's grandiose prediction that his film "will go down in history"
>> will surely prove correct, although perhaps not for the reasons he
>> imagined.
>>
>>
>> SUGGESTED ACTION
>>
>> The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and
respect
>> for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you
>> to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
>>
>> Send a complaint to Channel 4:
>>
http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE?New,Kb=C4_Author,Company={2EA1BB9C-510E-44A5-A481-01EB1DDA1669},T=CONTACT_VE,VARSET_TITLE=General
>>
>> See material on 'Complaining to C4', including a model letter, at
>> http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820
>>
>> Send a complaint to Ofcom:
>> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/
>>
>> Please send a copy of your emails to:
>> [log in to unmask]
|
