The Real Story on "Global warming"
Sarah Houston
BECK: All right, welcome to "The Real Story." Now I want you to know
right up front, I am not an expert in very many things. In fact, I`m not
an expert on anything, really. And I make no secret of that.
When I talk about global warming, for instance, I`m not coming to you as
a climatologist. Low pressure system over here. I`m just some boob on
T.V. who`s just trying to put some common sense and balance back into a
debate that has become ridiculously one-sided.
This is why this next story is so important. I mean, it proves beyond
any reasonable doubt, that the actual science of global warming,
irrelevant. The media doesn`t give a flying crap, they really don`t.
Let me set the scene for you. Last Friday, BBC, the reporter at the BBC
had just published a story on their Web site, with the headlines, global
temperatures to decrease. I remember reading it. I saw it. Decrease?
Wait. I mean I saw Al Gore`s slide show. There`s no decrease in my
charts. I mean, the line was virtually straight up. Remember he had that
little scissor lift thing? He had to get to the stop. Well it turns out
global temperatures have not risen since 1998. That`s odd, isn`t it?
I mean considering that the world is now pumping out well over 23
percent more CO2 than we were pumping out in 1998. Why isn`t the
temperature rising? I thought they were locked in. Details, details. I
know, it`s pesky, isn`t it?
Well the BBC, they put this story up. It went up early Friday morning.
Immediately got the attention of a British climate activist named Jo.
Like any good activist, Jo got right to work, 10:12 a.m., she fired off
an e-mail to the BBC reporter Roger. Here it is. Subject, correction
demanded. Dear Roger, please can you correct your piece published today
entitled "global temperatures to decrease?" You should not mislead
people into thinking that the sum total of the earth system is going to
be cooler in 2008 than 2007. Thanks for your attention to the matter,
and just thanks for paying attention to all the facts and figures
available, Jo.
The earth system is still warming. Thank goodness, because that`s
definitely what people mean when they talk about global climate change.
Glad you cleared that up for us there, Jo. About 10 minutes later,
Roger, the reporter, replied. He wrote this. Dear Jo, no correction is
need. If the secretary-general of the WMO, that`s the World
Meteorological Organization tells me that global temperatures will
decrease, that`s what we`ll report. There are scientists who question
whether warming will continue as projected by the IPCC. Best wishes,
R.H.
In other words, beat it, chick. But, activist chicks like Jo don`t
really give up on saving the planet that easily. She writes back, hi,
Roger, personally, I think it`s highly irresponsible to play into the
hands of skeptics. Spelled two ways for some reason, I guess maybe in
case there`s any spelling skeptics out there, who continually promote
the idea that global warming finished in 1998 when that`s so patently
not true. As time goes by the - catch this life, the infant science of
climatology improves, so please do not do a disservice to your
readership by leaving the door open to doubt about that -- Jo.
Who`s trying to silence who? Don`t leave the door open to any doubt? And
my other favorite line is, the infant science of climatology. The infant
science of climatology. Wow, you know what, if my infant said that the
house was going to catch fire because the oven was getting warmer and it
would continue to get warmer, would you listen to them? Or maybe wait
until they gain a little bit more knowledge and experience and learn how
the oven works? I`m just saying.
How about we don`t use infant science to make multi-trillion dollar bets
on things we don`t really understand because -- just an idea. Rog
responds 20 minutes later with this.
The article makes all of these points quite clear. We can ignore the
facts that skeptics, spelled just one way here, have jumped on the lack
of increase since 1998, and it is appearing regularly now in general
media. Best to tackle it and explain it, which is what we`ve done, or
people will feel the debate is being censored, which makes them very
suspicious -- Roger.
You know what? I`ve got to tell you, aside from the fact that Roger the
writer apparently hates using any kind of punctuation whatsoever, I kind
of like this guy. He`s, you know, he`s holding strong here. Then, Jo, as
always, unleashes the nuclear option on him.
"Hi, Roger. Your word debate, this is not an issue of debate. This is an
issue of emerging truth." I love that. "It would be better if you did
not quote the skeptics, again trying to silence the debate. Their voice
is heard everywhere on every channel. They`re deliberately obstructing
the emergence of the truth. Otherwise, I would have to conclude that
you`re insufficiently educated to be able to know when you`ve been
psychologically manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable
reporter. I am about to send your comments to others for their
contribution, unless you request I do not. You may appear in unfavorable
light because it could be said that you have turned your head by the
skeptics. Respectfully, Jo."
Respectfully. I love that. I didn`t catch an ounce of respect in there.
She called into question his education. Then she basically extorted him
by threatening to harm his credibility if he didn`t give in. Well here
is Roger final`s Churchill-esque reply. "Have a look in 10 minutes. Tell
me if you`re happier. We`ve changed the headline and more."
Wow. Thanks, Roger. There`s a spine for you. I want you to take a look
at just the differences between the old story and the new activist-
friendly one. Here`s the original version. It said this, quote, "This
would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some
to question climate change theories."
OK, sounds fair. Some are questioning it. But the new line was deleted
and replaced with this, quote, "But this year`s temperatures would still
be way above the average and would soon exceed the record year of 1998
because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases."
Not scientists say or experts predict or it`s a consensus. Nothing. Now
it`s just a fact that because of greenhouse gases the earth is soon
going to be much, much warmer. We`re all going to burn to death in some
icy flood. No one is even questioning it. It`s an emerging truth, you
know.
In just under 90 minutes, a sole activist with a clear agenda was able
to get the mainstream environmental reporter to completely change their
story. Imagine what the powerful groups with, you know, big, $300
million bank accounts and advertising budgets like Al Gore can do.
The real story on global warming is now clearer than ever before. You
can control the language, and you control the debate. You control the
debate, and you control the media. You control the media, and you win
the war.
Noel Sheppard is an associate editor of NewsBusters. He was the first to
bring this to my attention. Noel, you watch, you`re kind of a
conservative watchdog or liberal watchdog. You`re on the conservative
side. You brought this to my attention. Do we know anything about Jo? Is
she a scientist? Because obviously Roger`s just not well-educated
enough.
NOEL SHEPPARD, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, NEWSBUSTERS: Yeah, that is one of the
real questions here, is why did Roger cave so quickly to someone who is,
by no means a scientist. She`s not a Ph.D. Of course, neither are you
and I. But then again, we`re not asking for major press outlets to
change their story line.
BECK: Right.
SHEPPARD: So what`s interesting to me is when he gets that first
complaint, and you and I get e-mails all the time. I`m sure you get a
lot more than I do. Why didn`t he do a Google search or a Yahoo! search
or whatever his choice and identify who this was and find out that, you
know what, this is just a climate activist, this is not a climatologist.
This is not a meteorologist. This is someone who works for a group
called the Campaign against Climate Change and another group called
Christian Ecology Link, which is trying to tie Christian principles to
environmentalism.
So, why did he cave like this? I mean, after all, this wasn`t an e-mail
from, let`s say James Hanson of Goddard. It wasn`t Gavin Schmidt. Lord
knows it wasn`t even Nobel laureate Al Gore. Why cave like this so
quickly? Especially what I do find interesting is, as you said in your
introduction, he kind of held firm initially. You know I think that this
is a good article, it`s balanced.
And then as soon as she kind of threatens him with, well I`m going to
send it all over the Internet and you`re going to look unfavorable, all
of a sudden he caved in 16 minutes. And in 16 minutes he had a response
back to her that included full edits. I mean, it`s really - - it`s quite
extraordinary when you think about it.
BECK: We called the BBC. They won`t even comment on it. They don`t want
anything to do with it.
SHEPPARD: Really?
BECK: We tried to get them on. We`re still trying today. We hope to have
them on tomorrow. So far the BBC is like, no comment on this one at all.
And they`ve removed the original, right? Usually, if there`s an update,
you`ll get a time stamp and it will show, story change. The "A.P" does
this, story`s been updated. Story`s been changed. They`ve removed all
time stamps on this story. Is that not true?
SHEPPARD: And that`s what`s really curious here, Glenn, is he even told
her in his third e-mail, he said, updated version, note the page, date
and time has not been changed. Why? It doesn`t make any sense. And the
reason why you have updates at the top of the page is so that your
readers know that the story has been changed. It seems like not only did
he roll over, and write exactly what he wanted. I mean in reality,
what`s interesting is, three of the first four paragraphs were changed.
Three of the first four. So not only did he roll over and do exactly
what she said, he seems to have done it in a fashion so that people
wouldn`t have known it.
BECK: Reminiscent of Genghis Khan if I may quote someone. Thank you very
much. Noel, I`ve got to run. Hopefully tomorrow we`ll have an update for
you on this story from the BBC and also have another guy, who`s a
hurricane expert, hopefully, who will come on tomorrow and say, this is
McCarthyism. It`s all happening, gang. That`s the "Real Story" tonight.
Webmaster
causing Global Warming. (1.2 hr video)
Webmaster
Webmaster
address:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3928695593212006635&q=The+Global+Warming+Swindle&total=349&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9
Webmaster
Captain Compassion
> Sorry about the link to "The Global Warming Swindle". It has a new
> address:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3928695593212006635&q=The+Global+Warming+Swindle&total=349&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9
>
>
of "Loose Change". Nothing but distorted conspiracy tripe.
The clown who made it is an avowed communist! Right wing idiots quoting
communists! How about them apples!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_%28television_director%29
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a pile of lies:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6089
http://www.swindonclimate.org.uk/200703GGWS
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_adam/2007/03/envirocon.html
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&I...
http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/14/stuff-and-nonscience/
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2031117,00.html
Reactions from scientists
* 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 and China, India and Brazil. 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
programme's assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main
evidence for global warming by the IPCC [is] 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."[5]
* 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.[19]
* 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."[20]
* The Royal Society has issued a press release in reaction to the film.
In it, Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society, shortly restates the
predominant scientific opinion on climate change and adds:
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.[21]
* 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".[22]
*
On 5 July 2007, The Guardian reported that Professor Mike Lockwood, a
solar physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory had carried out a
study, initiated partially in response to The Great Global Warming Swindle,
that disproved one of the documentary's key planks ? namely that global
warming directly correlates to solar activity. Lockwood's study showed that
solar activity had diminished subsequent to 1987, despite a steady rise in
the temperature of the Earth's surface. The study, to be published in a Royal
Society journal, used temperature and solar data recorded from the last 100
years.[23]
In a BBC interview about this study, Lockwood commented on the graphs
shown in the documentary:
All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why,
because things diverged after that ... You can't just ignore bits of data
that you do not like.
* Volume 20 of the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and
Oceanographic Society presented a critique by David Jones, Andrew Watkins,
Karl Braganza and Michael Coughlan.
The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current
state of knowledge in climate science? Many of the hypotheses presented in
the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due
scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical
examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes
to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a
way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science,
and to support a set of extremely controversial views.[24]
* A public forum entitled ?Debunking ?The Great Global Warming Swindle"?
was held at the Australian National University in Canberra on 13 July 2007,
at which scientists from the Australian National University, Stanford
University, USA, and ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies exposed
what they described "as the scientific flaws and half-truths in the claims of
climate change skeptics"[25]
[edit] Criticisms by the film's contributors
Two of the scientists featured in the film, Carl Wunsch and Eigil Friis-
Christensen, have since stated that they disagree with the way their
contributions were used.
[edit] Carl Wunsch
Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, was originally
featured in the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely
misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to
be interviewed.[26][3] He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close
to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."[27] Wunsch was reported
to have threatened legal action[27] and to have lodged a complaint with
Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator.[28] The production company denied that he
had been misled and that correspondence to Wunsch had clearly stated the
programme would 'examine critically the notion that recent global warming is
primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2'.[3] 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."[27] Wunsch has since said that
Durkin "clearly quite deliberately understood my point of view but set out to
imply, through the way he uses me in the film, the reverse of what I was
trying to say" [4].
Although Wunsch has admitted that he finds the statements at both extremes of
the global change debate distasteful [3] he wrote in a letter dated March 15,
2007 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."[3]
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."[26]
Wunsch has said that he has received a 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. Wunsch
refused.[29]
Following Wunsch's complaints, his interview material was removed from the
international and DVD versions of the film.
On December 7, 2007, reacting to what he claimed were new and further
distortions by Durkin, Wunsch stated that Durkin made a false statement about
Wunsch's reasons for demanding his material be removed[5]:
"Durkin says that I reacted to the way the film portrayed me because
of pressure from my colleagues. This is completely false. I did hear almost
immediately from colleagues in the UK who saw the film who didn't berate me.
They simply said, "This doesn't sound like you, this seems to be distorting
your views, you better have a look at this".
During the interview, Wunsch restated and strengthened his critique of
Durkin's "Swindle" on ABC's Lateline after the channel screened the film:
"I'm somewhat troubled that TV companies around the world are
treating it as though this were a science documentary. It's not. It's a
tendentious political propaganda piece of the sort I really could imagine the
Bush Administration in this country could have put out on its own to throw
raw meat to their believers. It's not a science film at all. It's a political
statement."
[edit] Eigil Friis-Christensen
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, with environmental Research
Fellow Nathan Rive, 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.[4]
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."
Following Eigil Friis-Christensen's criticism of the ?Temp & Solar Activity
400 Years? graph used in the programme (for perfectly matching the lines in
the 100 years 1610-1710 where data did not in fact exist in the original),
Durkin emailed Friis-Christensen to thank him for highlighting the error: "it
is an annoying mistake which all of us missed and is being fixed for all
future transmissions of the film. It doesn't alter our argument".[30]