Occasionally my rural postie (hi Jenny!) brings me something more interesting than bills. Last week, I received a package from Sky TV. Packed in a brown paper bag that looks remarkably like an airline sick bag, sealed with a “Warning: content may offend” sticker, was a DVD copy of The Great Global Warming Swindle, the sceptic “documentary” that caused a furore* when first shown on Channel 4 in the UK last year, and which Prime plan to show here in the next few weeks. Full marks for creative PR, but a definite fail for factual inaccuracies in the promotional leaflet they sent out (copy here). Apparently “the theory that man-made emissions of CO2 have a discernable (sic) effect on climate lacks robust scientific evidence”, “there’s overwhelming evidence indicating that it’s solar activity that determines temperature”, and “everything you’ve ever been told about Global Warming is probably untrue”. Sorry Prime, none of those statements are true, and the Advertising Standards Authority might have a thing or two to say about that…
The Great Global Warming Swindle is not a documentary, it’s a one-sided piece of propaganda made on behalf of climate sceptics that alleges that the world’s climate scientists are lying about global warming. It contains glaring inaccuracies, distortions of fact, and misrepresentations of the real state of climate science (and yes, I have watched it). It’s been the subject of 250 complaints in the UK (a ruling is expected from OFCOM, the UK broadcasting standards body, any day now), and the version being shown here still contains factual errors and distortions that were drawn to the film-maker’s attention at the time TGGWS was shown in Australia (July last year). It’s worth taking a moment to watch ABC’s science correspondent Tony Jones’ interview with Martin Durkin, the film’s producer (here and here). Neither of the two graphs Jones mentions have been corrected in the version Prime apparently plans to show in NZ. Nor have any of the serious scientific errors pointed out by Aussie scientists last year (Jones, D., Watkins, A., Braganza, K., and Coughlan, M. (2007), “The Great Global Warming Swindleâ€: a critique. Bull. Aust. Meteor. Ocean. Soc., 20(3) 63-72 – available as html, or PDF), or summarised nicely by Bob Ward at Climate of Denial. The Australian Science Media Centre also has a good resource page on the film. It remains a fundamentally flawed work that fails to meet any reasonable standard of accuracy.
Prime are clearly hoping to stir up a bit of controversy and boost their audience. They plan to show a “debate” following the screening, pitting cranks against scientists. By doing that they’re playing straight out of the sceptic playbook. They’re “teaching the debate”, when the debate has long since moved on to more interesting and relevant stuff. And they’re poisoning the well of public debate by showing material that’s been repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong. Prime should insist that Durkin corrects all the errors before the film is shown here, and identify it clearly as one man’s opinion, not a factual documentary. To provide some semblance of balance, they should drop the idea of a debate and replace it with a counterpoint from NZ’s climate scientists.
Freedom of speech should not extend to freedom to lie. The climate cranks want to make a political argument about climate policy – do nothing, or not very much, and then only slowly – but that is a political not a scientific argument. I’m happy to defend their right to hold their political opinions, but making up evidence in support of their arguments is simply wrong.
* Good summary of the row, and comprehensive links, at medialens.
ah yes. the greatest piece of climate fiction since Michael Chrichton’s State of Fear.
Here’s a handy ExxonSecrets map to the interviewees in the doco and their affiliations with Exxon-funded right wing think tanks.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831
Careful Gareth…or next time Jenny will be delivering you more of those ‘cease and desist’ type letters from Heartland and the C?C.
TGGWS might be only one man’s opinion but it is good enough to serve as the opinion for a whole bunch of cranks.
Must say I do like the packaging though – it seems there a musical references to be had on both sides of the warmist/denialist divide.
“It’s the morality tale of the decade and politicians are eager to pander to middle class green prejudice, throwing vast quantities of public cash into scientific research aimed at supporting an unsupportable theory.”
Heeheehee… what a pleasant surprise… I was just blogging about climate conspiracy theories.
Documentaries are generally poor venues for scientific discourse. Even though I’m a skeptic I don’t like the polemic tone of the film. It is, however, no more propogandist and inaccurate than Gore’s film.
I dunno…Gore didn’t falsify data or trick interviewees (see the wikipedia entry). In AIT, that judge ruled that there were 7 arguable points/errors and that it was “broadly accurate”. I think ‘Swindle’ is in a different league.
Gore’s Law in 4! A new record!
Although it’s tempting to slot Gore’s film into the same category as TGGWS, it is a far better reflection of the state of the science (at the time it was made). And before anyone mentions the UK court finding of “errors”, we should note that he explicitly cleared the film for showing in schools, and the “errors” were minor, and in many cases debatable.
AIT is certainly a polemic: it doesn’t pretend to be anything else, whereas Durkin’s diatribe pretends to be revealing the shocking truth about climate science.
Has this particular debate already happened (and is just waiting to be aired)? I was just thinking, if I were one of the scientists I’d probably want to talk about the Heartland 500 list. Gets ’em every time. 🙂 🙂 🙂
I don’t like the idea of having a Gish-Gallop-type debate either, but since such a debate is going to happen anyway, the scientists may as well make the most of it.
debate hasn’t happened yet. I’m sure the Heartland 500 will get a mention 😉
“Freedom of speech should not extend to freedom to lie. The climate cranks want to make a political argument about climate policy – do nothing, or not very much, and then only slowly – but that is a political not a scientific argument. I’m happy to defend their right to hold their political opinions, but making up evidence in support of their arguments is simply wrong.”
Gareth, it seems to me that the lies are essential to the politics. Their political position can only be advanced either out of ignorance or by telling lies about the real situation. The urgency with which some of the leading deniers promote their arguments suggests lies rather than ignorance. I find them quite sinister and can’t summon up much enthusiasm for defending their right to their political opinion, in which human welfare doesn’t seem to rate very highly. No doubt there are some genuinely deluded amongst them, but there is some frightening intensity somewhere in there.
As I’ve said before, I suspect that most of our local cranks have adopted their position for political reasons – and because they view the world through ideological spectacles, they actually can’t (or don’t allow themselves) to see just how daft their position is. They are in effect saying “I don’t like what we have to do to sort out this problem, therefore it can’t exist”.
The real Machiavellian machinations are being conducted by the likes of the Heartland Institute in the US: people who have constructed a carefully thought out programme of managed deception. Again the motivation is political, but the conduct is highly professional and thoroughly cynical.
Our cranks are along for the ride, because Heartland provides money and support. It has helped to create a global network of disinformation specialists, and our cranks are happy to go along with that crowd.
It is interesting how anyone who questions the THEORY of anthropgenic climate change immediately gets called names like “cranks”, “sceptics” and “deniers” and is accused of “lies”, Machiavellian machinations” etc, whereas everyone’s friend Mr Gore is excused his “little” errors. Such as suggesting that what has happened on the Antarctic Penninsular is representative of Antarctica. He needs to look at the data for the rest of Antarctica. It tells a very different story.
And of course anyone who questions the wisdom of the IPCC report and the politicians who run with it – to the detriment of mankind as a whole – MUST be in the pay of oil companies. Yeah right!
I guess Gallileo, Copernicus, Darwin and others all had the same sort of reaction from the great mass of the public who did not like being exposed to a new way of looking at scientific data and who did not know that true science welcomes crticism and questioning.
The comments from others do not seem to specifically dispute any of the facts talked about in the documentary and do not refer us to where any one of the interviewees said “I was tricked” or “What I said was taken out of context”.
So my conclusion is that the rantings from these others against this documentary are from non-scientists with no actual facts at their disposal. How sad!
Sorry Charles, the latest data on the mass balance of the East and West Antarctica ice sheets (excluding the peninsula) suggests a significant overall mass loss.
The debunking of the nonsense in TGGWS is in the links in the post. There’s no point in repeating them here when you can see the job very well done elsewhere.
Durkin certainly suggests a new way of looking at scientific data: make it up on the spot to support your political argument.
Charles
Enter “Carl Wunsch Swindle” into your favourite search engine for the answer you seek in para 4.
Better still go to Realclimate.org and search TGGWS for a view of what climate scientist think of Durkin’s work.
As for the new way of “looking at scientific data”, my observation after only a short time following the “debate” is that there is nothing new from the denialist camp. Search “Global Warming Sceptic Bingo” for a light hearted look at this.
Enjoy
Andrew
PS. “Sceptic” is a badge of honour not an insult.
“Denier” is a realistic description for an AGW sceptic.
“Crank” is just Gareth having a bit of fun.
Gareth, where do we find “the latest data on the mass balance of the East and West Antarctica ice sheets (excluding the peninsula) “? cheers
Some official site links would be GREAT to have on this site!
The data comes from NASA’s GRACE gravity anomaly measurement mission. The key paper is Velicogna & Wahr, 2006 (NASA press release here). A quick Google will get the paper and much discussion.
The “Notes & Sources” page provides the background links for what went into the book. When I get round to a site upgrade (could be soon), I might well provide a “reference” page, but you can get pretty much the same thing by reading AR4 and using RealClimate’s search box.
Thanks. I just want something a bit easier than using the ‘search’ box for the on-screen info or navigating through the search results on a website, which I will of course do.
Further in my foray into the colourful world of climate conspiracy theories, I think I found where the “Thatcher vs. coal miners” theory was coming from.
Hey there,
Watching the psuedo-doco right now… would call it a mockumentary, but mockumentaries are usually funny, ironic, and full of satire… this isn’t. It’s full of blatant lies, and is so very painful to watch because I unfortunately know a lot of people who would watch this and take it all totally as it says… and that is really frustrating.
I am glad to see there are more people out there aware that this ‘thing’ is full of lies, and completely distorted facts.
I am an interested party because of family members who are climate change scientists.
Thanks for some of the links to other websites – could have got them from my family, but keep forgetting to ask.
Will be interesting to see how the panel after Prime’s screening of the film.
Also nice to see someone else mention that Prime may be going against the advertising standards… there’s also a big chance they’re breaking the Broadcasting Standards too… I know some people who are looking into that.
I can’t watch it (though if I really wanted to I would hop on YouTube), but I suppose I am a little curious about what their main thesis is – there is a part of the ad that says “it’s the sun” even though it, uh, isn’t, but is there more than that?
Not a lot.
Martin Manning was the hero of the debate, in my view. Cindy did her best to keep the focus on the politics, and Leighton Smith was bumptious. If Willem de Lange is the best the sceptics can do in NZ, then I’ll breathe a deep sigh of relief.
But the key message was Cindy’s. By positioning this as a debate, Prime give the sceptics what they want – a platform based on uncertainty. That’s the bad news. The good news is that it’s Queen’s Birthday weekend, and I doubt the ratings were good…
Are there any online versions of the debate?
Not that I know of, R2. I had a recording on my Sky box for a while, but that’s long since disappeared…
Just a minor correction regarding the “small” errors in “Inconvenient Truth”….how about the fact that the hockey stick diagram showing a dramatic rise in temperature in the latter part of the 20th century, was later proved by a Canadian scientist to be based on incorrect calculations – it was actually warmer in the 1930s. Since then the hockey stick diagram has been silently “dropped” by our friends at the IPCC. Strange – as this was a central part of their evidence…
The IPCC is part of the United Nations, one of the most corrupt (and crucially, non-accountable) organisations on earth.
I for one am amazed by the way many people just accept the global warming argument as total fact – it is still only “theory”. Scepticism and questioning is perfectly healthy until such time as the evidence is overwhelming, and the science has moved to “fact”.
Climate change in itself is not a theory – the climate has always changed – no-one can disagree with that. What causes that change, we are no closer to understanding, and yet the cars we drive, the amount we are to pay for electricity, and many other things are set to change – all based on an un-proven theory.
Sceptical? Perfectly and justifiably so.
Hmmm…So that would mean the ‘hockey stick’ is NOT on page 467 of the Paleoclimate chapter in the latest IPCC report…wouldn’t it?
“Scepticism and questioning is perfectly healthy until such time as the evidence is overwhelming and the science has moved to “factâ€.”
This is true, but if you actually know anything about climate science, you will find the current scientific evidence is overwhelming and it indicates that the warming over the last few decades is most likely caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Skeptics are so silly, especially the ones that say ‘I am not a scientist and have never studied science, but I will make these grand scientific claims that go against the scientists that actually study climate science’
Al.
The “Canadian scientist” you refer to was Willie Soon – and his pal Sallie Baliunas. Their paper was partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute and found to be full of holes. Indeed, the peer review process conducted by Chris de Freitas caused so many problems that editors of Climate Research (the journal that published it) resigned in protest.
De Freitas is no longer at Climate Research either. One can only speculate as to the circumstances which caused him to leave.
The hockey stick has been borne out by more studies after Michael Mann’s and is, as Stephen says, on page 467 of the paleoclimate section of the IPCC.
The sceptics say it’s not in the IPCC but it’s just that they didn’t read beyond the Summary for Policymakers.
I ‘spose the Greens sum it all up here:
http://greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other11882.html
What? The debate’s finished? Will be nice to see a transcript of it. 🙂
Tushara:
These “skeptics” don’t look very skeptical when it comes to regurgitating conspiracy theories and other talking points.
Hi Al – thanks for dropping in
“the climate has always changed – no-one can disagree with that”
Yet many do – or did. It is the first stage of denial. Until the evidence becomes overwhelming then people move on to “we’re not the cause”.
“the cars we drive, the amount we are to pay for electricity………..are set to change”
Peak oil will have the same effect – might as well get moving in the right direction before the going gets too tough.
Cindy – I thought he was talking about McIntyre..(I guess “scientist” was the clue)
cheers
Andrew
And I thought Al was getting his skeptic memes confused, and wrong too… I thought he was referring to McIntyre but mixing together the hockey stick and the GISS data error. How about clearing up what you’re actually talking about, Al?
hmmm. Cld be McIntyre – Al tell us please.
I’m just commenting on the credible science expounded in ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’and not the bollocks expounded by some of your previous correspondents.Eminent scientists have lost their careers by telling the truth about global warming, whilst other, less ethical, scientists are profiting from deceiving the population with the support of taxation- hungry politicians.
The Earth warms up, The Earth cools down and has done for thousands of years. Enjoy the current warm period ,New Zealand,by growing more grapes and making more excellent wine, but save fossil fuels for when, quite independently of all Man’s efforts, The Earth cools once more.
If my heretical views result in excommunication, then I am in good company!
Perhaps you have your own definition of ‘credible’..?
Also, try googling ‘climate change censorship’ for the work of ‘taxation hungry politicians’… (your point there is a laughable political argument anyway).
There are many things that make me smile in the ‘climate change’ debate. It’s been hilarious watching the swallowists try to dig themselves out of their warming hole – as the Earth cools. As graphs show temp plummeting, the people who sprout warming nonsense are to be seen scuttling around trying to make some sense of it. They keep coming up with new worries – like Arctic ice melt (oh dear, even that’s not happening now). However, I really liked their response, for it made me laugh out loud: ‘Yes, but when this cooling is over, the warming will rebound with a vengeance’. Dear oh dear! When I was 13 I was quite small. However, a year later I began a rapid growth spurt. These last couple of decades that growth has come to a dead stop. However, I shouldn’t be concerned, as according to the swallowist’s theory, my growth will begin again with a vengeance. I’m going to be eight feet tall, at least.
From my perspective, Harry, you remain a person of restricted growth. An intellectual dwarf… 😉
Congrats Gareth, a brand new insult!
You’re saying an individual human’s growth is as complex as climate, which as i’m sure you’ll agree, has changed throughout history, yet you’re scoffing at this very assertion? Not the best analogy.