Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iceage77 (talk | contribs) at 19:08, 6 June 2007 (per RfC: "The descriptor "controversial", used in the first sentence of the intro, however, is problematic."). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary film by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the scientific opinion that human activity is the main cause of global warming. The film showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are sceptical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Publicity for the programme states that global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times."
The programme's accuracy has been disputed on multiple points and several commentators have criticised it for being one-sided, noting that the mainstream position on global warming is supported by the scientific academies of the major industrialized nations and other scientific organizations. The film disputes the positions of these scientific organizations by interviewing scientists and others, including Richard Lindzen and other contributors to reports by the IPCC, who disagree with explanations that attribute global warming to human activities.
Channel 4, which screened the documentary on March 82007, described the film as "a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired."
Viewpoints expressed in the film
The film's basic premise is that the current state of knowledge on global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests of science and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging this. The film explains the publicised scientific consensus as the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Another target is Western environmentalists who, the film claims, promote expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, holding Africa back from industrialising. The film asks the question: "...if solar and wind power are too expensive for America, how can poor Africa afford it?"
The film claims that the consensus on climate change is the product of "a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media". It uses a series of interviews and graphics to support its claims that are listed below.
On contradictions in the theory of anthropogenic global warming
Records of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then. (This graph used in the programme's first airing was twenty years old and was originally sourced as "Nasa", but later was said to be from a 1998 graph found in the Medical Sentinel journal. The authors of the graph were from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, publisher of the Oregon petition. Durkin acknowledged that the graph's time axis was "mislabelled", indicating that 1988 data was valid through 2000. The graph was corrected in subsequent showings by ending the data series at 1988.)
While theories of global temperature increase caused by increasing greenhouse gases predict that temperatures in the troposphere should increase at a higher rate than they have near the surface, satellite and weather balloon data do not support this.
The film shows that increases in CO2 levels lagged behind temperature increases during glacial terminations.File:Co2-temperature-plot.svgEPICA and Vostok ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO2 for the last 650,000 years.
Carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide.
Due to the large oceanic mass, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in the mass of the ocean, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature lag temperature increases by 800 years.
Water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water vapour in the form of clouds acts to reflect incoming solar heat. The effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.
The total concentration of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is just 0.054%, a very minuscule amount. Humans contribute much less than 1 % of that. The documentary states that volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans (Durkin has subsequently admitted that this claim is wrong), while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and that the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a "mere" 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions therefore cannot be causing global warming.
Solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation. Solar activity is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth.
The current warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the Medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in Europe.
On research findings driven by financial or ideological motives
There has been an increase in funds available for any research related to global warming "and it is now one of the best funded areas of science."
Scientists seeking a research grant award have a much more likely chance of successfully obtaining funding if the grant is linked to global warming research.
It is more likely that vested interests occur among supporters of the proponents of the theory of man-made global warming because hundreds of thousands of jobs in science, media, and government have been created and are subsidized as a result of this theory.
Scientists who speak out against the theory that global warming is man-made risk persecution, death threats, loss of funding, personal attacks, and damage to their reputations.
Claims that all sceptics are funded by private industry (such as oil, gas, and coal industries) are false and have no basis in fact.
Disputing a scientific consensus supporting anthropogenic global warming
The claim that "2,500 top scientists" support the theory of man-made global warming mentioned in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report are false, and that in fact the report includes many politicians, non-scientists, and even dissenters that demanded that their names be removed from the report but were refused.
IPCC reports misrepresent the views of scientists who contribute to them through selective editorializing. For example, when Paul Reiter of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of San Juan, Puerto Rico complained that the IPCC did not take his professional opinion under greater consideration, the IPCC kept his name on the report as a contributor. His name was not removed until he threatened legal action.
The concept of man-made global warming is promoted with a ferocity and intensity that is similar to a religious fervor. Sceptics are treated as heretics and equated with holocaust deniers. Retired university professor Tim Ball states in the film, and in subsequent press publicity"Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'". Retrieved 2007-05-20. {{cite web}}: Text "News" ignored (help); Text "Telegraph" ignored (help); Text "Uk News" ignored (help) that he has received death threats because of sceptical statements he has made about global warming.
Killing the African dream of development
Author and economist James Shikwati says in the programme that environmentalists campaign against Africa using its fossil fuels: "there's somebody keen to kill the African dream. And the African dream is to develop." He describes renewable power as "luxurious experimentation" that might work for rich countries but will never work for Africa: "I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry ... We are being told, 'Don't touch your resources. Don't touch your oil. Don't touch your coal.' That is suicide."
An example is given in the film of a Kenyan health clinic which is powered by solar panels which do not provide enough electricity for both the medical refrigerator and the lights at the same time. The programme describes the idea of restricting the world's poorest people to alternative energy sources as "the most morally repugnant aspect of the Global Warming campaign."
Miscellaneous
A similar scare emerged during the 1970s when scientists predicted global cooling and the imminent onset of a new ice age.
The negative consequences of the precautionary principle, as applied by supporters of the anthropogenic theory of global warming, are discussed. For example, the World Health Organization estimates that every year, four million children die globally from respiratory diseases due to inhaling smoke from cooking fires. The film says these deaths could be avoided if their parents had access to electrical cooking devices; yet environmentalists are opposed to the construction of large-scale power plants, because of the possible effects of global warming in the future.
Reception and criticism
The show attracted 2.5 million viewers and an audience share of 11.5%. There have been 246 complaints to Ofcom as of April 25, 2007 , including the complaints that the program falsified data and that Durkin's previous track record was not disclosed . Channel 4 stated that it had received 758 calls and emails about the programme, with those in favour outnumbering complaints by six to one. The channel subsequently announced that it would be hosting a debate about the global warming issue to be broadcast in April.
Reactions from scientists
The programme has been criticised by scientists and scientific organizations.
The IPCC was one of the main targets of the documentary. In response to the programme's broadcast, John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions. According to Houghton the program was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming", which he noted had been endorsed by the scientific community including the Academies of Science of the major industrialized countries plus China, India and Brazil) along with the IPCC. Houghton rejected claims that observed changes in global average temperature are within the range of natural climate variability or that solar influences are the main driver; that the troposphere is warming less than the surface; that volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning; that climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change; and that IPCC processes were biased. Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature, but then writes that the programmes assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC NOT TRUE. For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."
The British Antarctic Survey released a "Statement" about the The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is highly critical of the programme, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years." Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4's editorial standards, the statement says: "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 programme would be guilty of serious professional misconduct." It uses the feedback argument to explain temperatures rising before CO2. On the issue of volcanic CO2 emissions, it says:
A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions.
Eigil Friis-Christensen's research was used to support claims about the influence of solar activity on climate, both in the programme and Durkin's subsequent defence of it. Friis-Christensen and colleague Nathan Rive have criticised the way the solar data were used:
We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming.
In response to a question from The Independent as to whether the programme was scientifically accurate, Friis-Christensen said: "No, I think several points were not explained in the way that I, as a scientist, would have explained them ... it is obvious it's not accurate." Durkin said in an email to Friis-Christensen that the error with the graph was "an annoying mistake", and that it didn't alter the programme's argument.
Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading and Chief Executive of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, commented on the film in New Scientist. He wrote, "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role...Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence."
Scientists will continue to monitor the global climate and the factors which influence it. It is important that all legitimate potential scientific explanations continue to be considered and investigated. Debate will continue, and the Royal Society has just hosted a two day discussion meeting attended by over 300 scientists, but it must not be at the expense of action. 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.
Thirty-seven British scientists signed a letter of complaint, saying that they "believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed" .
Carl Wunsch controversy
Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, was featured in the programme and said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed. He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator. Filmmaker Durkin responded, "Carl Wunsch was most certainly not 'duped' into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said."
Wunsch wrote in a letter dated March 152007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component". He also says he had thought he was contributing to a programme which sought to counterbalance "over-dramatisation and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts". He raised objections as to how his interview material was used:
"In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening."
On March 11, 2007, The Independent covered the Carl Wunsch controversy, and asked Channel 4 to respond to what it described as "a serious challenge to its own credibility". A Channel 4 spokesman said:
"The film was a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the contributors has concerns about his contribution we will look into that."
Wunsch has said that he has received a legal letter from the production company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he agrees to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented nor misled.
Reaction in the British media
The documentary received substantial coverage in the British press, both before and after its broadcast.
George Monbiot writing for The Guardian before the programme was shown, discussed the arguments for and against the "hockey-stick graph" used in An Inconvenient Truth, claiming that the criticism of it has been "debunked". He also highlighted Durkin's previous documentary Against Nature, where the Independent Television Commission found that four complainants had been "misled" and their views were "distorted by selective editing". After the film was shown, Monbiot wrote another article arguing the documentary was based upon already debunked science. He accused Channel 4 of being more interested in generating controversy than in producing credible science programmes. Robin McKie, science editor of The Guardian, attacked the documentary for opting "for dishonest rhetoric when a little effort could have produced an important contribution to a critical social problem".
Dominic Lawson writing in The Independent was favourable toward the show. He echoed many of the show's claims and recommended that viewers tune in. He largely focused his attention on the reactions of the environmental community, first at Durkin's earlier production, Against Nature, and now at Swindle. He characterized the opponents of the film as being quick to leap to ad hominem attacks about Durkin's qualifications and political affiliations rather than the merits of his factual claims. Lawson summarized examples from the production of how dissenting scientists are pushed into the background and effectively censored by organizations such as the IPCC. Lawson describes the scientific theory posed by these dissenting scientists as "striking."
Geoffrey Lean, The Independent's environment editor, was critical of the programme. He noted that Dominic Lawson is the son and brother-in-law, respectively, of two prominent global warming sceptics (Nigel Lawson, who is featured in the programme, and Christopher Monckton), implying that Lawson was not a neutral observer. The Independent mostly disagreed with three of the film's major claims, for example stating: "recent solar increases are too small to have produced the present warming, and have been much less important than greenhouse gases since about 1850". In a later Independent article, Steve Connor heavily attacked the programme, saying that the programme makers had selectively used data which was sometimes decades old, and introduced other serious errors of their own:
The original, and corrected versions of Temperature data from TGGWS, along with NASA GISS data
"Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. 'There was a fluff there,' he said. If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the NASA website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940—although that would have undermined his argument. 'The original NASA data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find,' Mr Durkin said."
The online magazine Spiked published an interview with the film's director, Martin Durkin. In the interview, Durkin complains about how OfCom censures "seriously controversial work", saying that the end result is "phoney controversialism on TV but not much real controversialism". Spiked describes the programme's "all-encompassing cosmic ray theory" as "a little unconvincing", but says that "the film poked some very big holes in the global warming consensus", and argues "we could do with more anti-conformist films from ‘mavericks’ like Durkin".
The Times science editor Mark Henderson listed a number of points where, he said, "Channel 4 got it wrong over climate change". In this section he highlights the feedback argument for the ice core data, the measurement error explanation for temperatures in the troposphere, and the sulphate cooling argument for mid 20th century cooling.
Janet Daley writing for The Daily Telegraph headlined her column "The Green Lobby Must Not Stifle The Debate", noting that "Among those who attempted to prevent the film being shown at all was the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the environment, Chris Huhne, who, without having seen the programme, wrote to Channel 4 executives advising them in the gravest terms to reconsider their decision to broadcast it".
Huhne sent a letter to The Daily Telegraph about Daley's column, writing "Janet Daley is simply wrong to state that I wrote to Channel 4 'advising them in the gravest terms to reconsider their decision to broadcast' Martin Durkin’s The Great Global Warming Swindle. I wrote asking for Channel 4’s comments on the fact – not in dispute – that the last time Mr Durkin ventured onto this territory he suffered serious complaints for sloppy journalism – upheld by the Independent Television Commission - and had to apologise." The Daily Telegraph
apologised, saying they were happy to accept that "Mr Huhne's letter was not an attempt to prevent the film being shown or suppress debate on the issue".
Other reaction
UK Secretary of State for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, David Miliband presented a rebuttal of the main points of the film on his blog and stated "There will always be people with conspiracy theories trying to do down the scientific consensus, and that is part of scientific and democratic debate, but the science of climate change looks like fact to me."
Bob Ward, former spokesman for the Royal Society, complained to Britain's media regulator about inaccuracies in the film. British broadcast law demands impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy — and penalties can be imposed for misrepresentations of fact.
The documentary has not yet been broadcast in America. On March 9, 2007, Paul Joseph Watson (a British reporter who works for American radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones) argued that criticism of the film by Zoe Williams had relied upon ad hominems instead of disputing the arguments. He wrote, "The establishment left has already attempted to savage the documentary, but The Guardian's Zoe Williams cannot address the evidence, instead attacking the messenger by discrediting one participant from Winnipeg University, and selectively ignoring the roster of other experts which included MIT and Princeton professors".
The program has been discussed extensively in Australia, including favourable mentions in an editorial in The Australian and the Counterpoint radio program presented by Michael Duffy. The Australian stated the film "presents a coherent argument for why governments must hasten slowly in responding". Duffy noted the program's claims regarding Margaret Thatcher. In response, writing in an opinion piece for the Australian Financial Review, John Quiggin criticised the program for putting forward "conspiracy theories". According to The Australian, scientist, environmental activist and Australian of the Year 2007 Tim Flannery had wondered at a conference whether the programme should be classified as fiction rather than a documentary. The Australian rights to the programme have been bought by the ABC and a 60 minute version (edited by Durkin) will be aired in July 2007. The Australian reported that this was "against the advice of ABC science journalist Robyn Williams, who instructed the ABC's TV division not to buy the program." Williams described the programme as "demonstrably wrong", and claimed that the ABC board had put pressure on ABC TV director Kim Dalton for the programme to be shown. Dalton defended the decision, saying: " thesis is way outside the scientific mainstream. But that's no reason to keep his views away from audiences."
Reaction to possible DVD release
Nearly 40 climate scientists have written a letter urging Martin Durkin to drop plans to release a DVD of the film. In the letter they say Durkin "misrepresented both the scientific evidence and the interpretations of researchers." Durkin said in response: "The reason they want to suppress The Great Global Warming Swindle is because the science has stung them".
The Associated Press reported that these scientists demand Wag TV remove the aforementioned misrepresentations if it decides to move forward on a DVD release. Durkin has called this demand tantamount to censorship. Bob Ward, former spokesman of the Royal Society, said, "Free speech does not extend to misleading the public by making factually inaccurate statements. Somebody has to stand up for the public interest here." Durkin acknowledged two of the errors mentioned by the scientists — including the claim about volcanic emissions — but he described those changes as minor and said they would be corrected in the expanded DVD release.
In response to the call by these scientists not to market a DVD of the film, Mick Hume, a Times columnist and former editor of Spiked, described environmentalism as a "new religion", saying "Scientists have become the equivalent of high priests in white coats, summoned to condemn heretics"..
Durkin's response to his critics
On March 17, 2007, The Daily Telegraph published a response by Durkin to what he calls the "feeble" attacks of his critics. In it, he rejects any criticism of the close correlation between solar variation and temperature change, saying that Friis-Christensen stands by his work. He accepts that the time axis of one graph was incorrectly labelled when the programme was first transmitted, but says that this does not change his conclusions. Regarding the Carl Wunsch controversy (see above) he repeats that Wunsch was not duped into taking part in the programme.
Sulphate aerosol and greenhouse gases effect on climate change
Durkin goes on to reject his opponents' position that the cooling period observed post Second World War was caused by sulphate aerosol cooling: "Thanks to China and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then. Why isn't it perishing cold?" He concludes by saying that the "global warming alarm...is wrong, wrong, wrong".
Durkin commenting at a Cannes film festival press conference on April17, 2007, noted "My name is absolute mud on the Internet; it's really vicious," adding "There is no good scientific basis for it but the theory continues to hold sway because so many people have built their careers and reputations on it".
Responses to scientists
The Times reported that Durkin had seriously fallen out with a scientist who had been considering working with him. Armand Leroi was concerned that Durkin had used data about a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures which had subsequently been found to be flawed. Leroi sent Durkin an e-mail saying, "To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were wrong -- and may have been deliberately faked . . . what abundant experience has already taught me -- that, left to their own devices, TV producers simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth. I am very disappointed. I am copying this to Lou Bolch. And to Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, and Olivia Judson -- fellow connoisseurs of this sort of thing."
He copied the e-mail to scientific author Simon Singh. Durkin responded to Leroi saying "You’re a big daft cock". Singh sent an email to Durkin urging him to engage in serious debate. Durkin responded stating, "Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing", and concluded with, "Go and fuck yourself". Durkin later apologised for his language, saying that he had sent the e-mails when tired and had just finished making the programme, and that (despite his comments) he was "eager to have all the science properly debated with scientists qualified in the right areas".
Following Eigil Friis-Christensen's criticism of inaccuracies in the film, Durkin said in an email to Friis-Christensen that the error with the graph labelled "Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years" was "an annoying mistake", and that it didn't alter the programme's argument.
Contributors to the programme
The film includes appearances from the following individuals:
Tim Ball - Head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (misattributed as Professor from the Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg. Ball left his faculty position in the Department of Geography in 1996; the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology.)
Carl Wunsch - Professor, Department of Oceanography, M.I.T. (who has since repudiated the programme)
Related programmes and films
Against Nature: An earlier controversial Channel 4 programme made by Martin Durkin which was also critical of the environmental movement and was charged by the Independent Television Commission of the UK for misrepresenting and distorting the views of interviewees by selective editing.
An Inconvenient Truth: A film that showcases Al Gore's presentation on global warming, arguing that humans are the cause of climate change.
The Greenhouse Conspiracy: An earlier Channel 4 documentary broadcast on 12 August1990, as part of the Equinox series, in which similar claims were made. Three of the people interviewed (Lindzen, Michaels and Spencer) were also interviewed in the The Great Global Warming Swindle.
^ Connor, Steve (14 March 2007). "The real global warming swindle". The Independent. Retrieved 2007-03-14. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |url1= ignored (help)
