Progressive Democrat Issue 113: THE GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

I have discussed the craziness and duplicity of the denial lobby before (e.g. here). And I have been just beginning to discuss the need to move on, to evolve the discussion, from a supposed "debate" over whether global warming is happening (it is!) to a discussion of solutions. Personally, I do hope to help evolve the discussion. But sadly, the denial lobby continues its supid, suicidal crusade against science.

The latest salvo of the denial lobby was in England, though I am starting to hear eager references to it here in the US from our own denial lobbyists. On Thursday the 8th, the London TV Channel 4 aired a program titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". This program turns out to be largely devoid of integrity and intelligence and, to quote two climatologists commenting on Real Climate, "it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time." This program is just one more pack of denial lobby lies.

Real Climate has a detailed refutation and discussion of the Great Channel 4 Swindle. But what is even more interesting, is that one of the scientists used by Channel 4 in their program to supposedly counter global warming claims, Carl Wunsch, has written into Real Climate expressing his feeling of being swindled by Channel 4. He feels completely misrepresented by Channel 4. Here are excerpts from his response:

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component...

The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,...). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.

I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility...They also are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats.

I should note that I have in the past used this as an example of what IS controversial in the field. So far I am largely in agreement with this gentleman even though I sometimes feel that he spends too much time emphasizing the "over-dramatization" and not enough on the "under-dramatization" done by the denial lobby. But basically I am on the same page as this guy and emphasizing too much things like the Gulf Stream shut off, which remains controversial, is unnecessary and can be counter productive. It is only due to the influence of a dramatic movie that scientists felt they had to discuss this theory in public as part of the global warming debate.

In the part of the "Swindle" film 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 in many different ways, some unexpected.

Let me emphasize this: this scientists statements were used to make a point diametrically opposed to the point he was actually making. THAT is the duplicity of the denial lobby.

Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics". There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.

The letter I sent them as soon as I heard about the actual program is below. [available here]

As a society, we need to take out insurance against catastrophe in the same way we take out homeowner's protection against fire. I buy fire insurance, but I also take the precaution of having the wiring in the house checked, keeping the heating system up to date, etc., all the while hoping that I won't need the insurance. Will any of these precautions work? Unexpected things still happen (lightning strike? plumber's torch igniting the woodwork?). How large a fire insurance premium is it worth paying? How much is it worth paying for rewiring the house? $10,000 but perhaps not $100,000? There are no simple answers even at this mundane level.

How much is it worth to society to restrain CO2 emissions --- will that guarantee protection against global warming? Is it sensible to subsidize insurance for people who wish to build in regions strongly susceptible to coastal flooding? These and others are truly complicated questions where often the science is not mature enough give definitive answers, much as we would like to be able to provide them. Scientifically, we can recognize the reality of the threat, and much of what society needs to insure against. Statements of concern do not need to imply that we have all the answers. Channel 4 had an opportunity to elucidate some of this. The outcome is sad.

Channel 4's swindle will probably be touted by denial lobbyists for years to come. But it is a swindle. Here are excerpts from Carl Wunsch's letter to Channel 4 (linked to above):

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we
are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved...

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.

There is a great deal more good stuff there, but due to formatting problems I have to edit line by line if I quote from it, so I picked out a couple of key points and leave it to you to go directly to his full letter and read on.

So it comes to this. One of the most respected scientists in the field, and one who does think there has been some over-dramatization of the issue, was misrepresented as believing global warming is a "swindle," something this scientist SPECIFICALLY told the makes of the polemic was NOT his point.

Again, be warned. Channel 4's load of crap will be touted by right wing nuts for years to come. But despite this, I still think the time has come to evolve the debate to focus more on solutions than continued rehashing of what we already know: that anthropogenic global warming is happening and is something we as a global society need to address.

Click here to go back to THOUGHTS section and Table of Contents for this issue.