Scentis Claims Fraud in Global Swindle “Documentary”
Posted by
Kevin
Seems at least one of the scientists in the British global warming denial film claims he was lied to and misquoted:
A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ‘grossly distorted’ and ‘as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two’.
He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. ‘I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,’ he said. ‘This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.’ He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.
Remember, the director of this piece has a history of doing this:
TC ruled that the programme makers “ distorted by selective editing” the views of Tony Juniper and other interviewees; and ” misled” participants over the “content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”
I dealt with the terrible “science” and outright distortions that are apparently in the film here.
See the full terrible movie here
Comment 3/11/2007
>he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat.
So is he mad they misquoted him? Or just that they used his views to support a conclusion he disagreed with?
If the former, then he certainly has a basis for a complaint. If it’s the latter, well then back up the Whambulance.
Comment 3/11/2007
SD
Well, he also says that his comments were taken out of context. I would think that would qualify as misquoting him.
Comment 3/11/2007
See the full terrible movie here
Great to see you posting here Lubos. I enjoy your Blog. Highly recommended.
So why does CO2 lag temperature increase?
Instead of being the cause of Global Warming, it is clear C02 is the result of Global Warming. Think the worlds Oceans have anything to do with CO2 production?
Hint, warmer oceans, more C02.
Kevin, your thoughts?
I have been suggesting to Man Made Global Warming supporters that they shift their dogma to reducing air pollution and supporting coal gasification and solar for domestic energy independence to strengthen national security. In this respect I can agree with the Global Warming groups. Without those additional platform planks the Global Warming effort provides nothing for people like me.
It is a compromise solution, it is only a matter of time before man made Global Warming loses its appeal. Better have a fall back position.
Comment 3/12/2007
So, wait a minute… you’re suggesting that carbon dioxide levels are increasing not because burning fossil fuels produces CO2, but because warmer oceans somehow release CO2? That seems like an odd assertion, given the fact that we KNOW fossil fuel use produces CO2…
Comment 3/12/2007
you’re suggesting that carbon dioxide levels are increasing not because burning fossil fuels produces CO2, but because warmer oceans somehow release CO2?
C02 has increased. It has been measured. Why is it up? Humans? Or some other cause? C02 is not the cause of Global Warming, it is a result. Yes, warmer oceans may be the reason for the increased C02.
As I have written before, I do not know the definitive truth. but neither does anyone else. This model deserves the same consideration as other models. Right? We are discussing scientific method aren’t we?
Is the answer in the center of this solar system?
Comment 3/12/2007
Interesting backlash related to the documentary.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
Comment 3/12/2007
Number9:
Apart from the fact that we KNOW we produce a LOT of CO2, and that Occam’s Razor is your friend (that CO2 is going up because we’re putting it there is a simpler and better explanation than some magical warming-ocean mechanism), the alternate models you have put forward in the past generally aren’t supported by much good evidence, and in some cases (solar aberrations, for example) have been debunked outright.
That’s what’s so frustrating to us. It’s one thing to demand more evidence before accepting something as true. It’s quite another to put forth alternative ideas which are either unsupported by the evidence, or worse, contradicted by the evidence. It seems to us that the latter is what you keep doing. When Kevin says “you don’t engage on substance,” I think he has a legitimate complaint. Sure, you link farm and give links to alternate theories, but when it’s demonstrated that those theories are flawed and/or have been debunked, rather than acknowledging that or addressing it, you simply move on to the next half-baked model.
Is there a possibility that climatologists are wrong about the extent to which human activity impacts the climate? That possibility ALWAYS exists. But that the possibility exists doesn’t necessarily make it so. And coupled with the fact that the vast majority of the evidence that we DO have points the them being right rather than wrong, and that the claims of those who question them generally don’t withstand scrutiny, it’s difficult for me to understand why people are so in love with the contrarian point of view.
This is where my cynicism comes in. I think that people embrace this anti-AGW POV not because they think it’s the one with the best science behind it, but because they find the problem of AGW (and its most viable solutions) to be extremely politically inconvenient.
Comment 3/12/2007
(that CO2 is going up because we’re putting it there is a simpler and better explanation than some magical warming-ocean mechanism),
How much of the Earth is dry land? How much is Ocean?
Occam’s Razor would look to the largest source of C02 generation. That would be the Oceans. Who is the denier now?
You suggest that man can generate climate change? That files in the face of Occam’s Razor.
I am sympathetic to the idea of conversation and new technologies for energy independence. But trying to defend this man made model of Global Warming will have a short half life.
Explain if you will, if it it possible, why is the model of warmer oceans releasing more C02 not a viable model? Other than just your saying it is not.
Comment 3/12/2007
Hard to misinterpret the current state of science on this issue. From Science Daily:
Comment 3/12/2007
I don’t think anyone can deny man is having an impact on the environment. I just think it’s a bit arrogant to say we have such an overwhelming impact that we are the major cause of warming.
Why is it that global warming is shown on several other planets where man is not present? Take a look at this link and ask yourself if issues other than man-made problems are the major cause of global warming.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread221608/pg1
Comment 3/12/2007
#9 -
How much of the Earth is dry land? How much is Ocean?
That would be relevant if CO2 production were solely related to surface area and unrelated to what was going on, on that surface (such as, oh, burning fossil fuels). It is not. Thus, the argument is specious.
Big U -
Consider a simple model: Imagine a tank of water with a hose pumping in 100 gallons a minute and a drain taking out 100 gallons a minute. I come along and start throwing in water from a bucket at a rate of 1 gallon a minute. Someone says “You keep doing that, eventually you’re going to make that tank overflow.” I say “How arrogant! What difference can I make? That hose is pushing in 100 times what I do!”
Is that a reasonable statement? Of course not. In fact, I’m the sole cause of the change in the water level that results.
In the same way, yes, it would be arrogant to say that humans cause the whole climate, but no, it is not arrogant to say that we can be (and are) the major cause of a change in the climate, especially when that change can be relatively small (hey, what’s 3-4 degrees C?) and still be devastating to human society.
Comment 3/13/2007
LarryE
Your example assumes that there is never a change in the water flow naturally. A more accurate example (as shown by history) is that the hose pumps the water in at between 95 and 105 gallons per minute depending on water pressure. Then you start putting in a gallon a minute. Will you have an impact? Yes.
If the flow is at 98gpm, your impact will not really be noticed. If the flow is already at 105 gpm your impact will be more noticable but it will not be responsible for the difference between 95 and 106 gpm. It will only be responsible for the last gallon, meaning it’s impact is not as significant as the original water pressure coming from the hose.
Comment 3/13/2007
I take it none of you that persist in the C02 is the cause position have watched the movie from the first post.
Even Gore’s movie shows C02 trails warming. Does this not cause you concern? Shouldn’t C02 precede warming?
Just asking.
I saw Al Gore’s Update on HBO last night. He is trying to answer the objections that are beginning to question his beloved theory.
The sad part is carbon credits and the chance to do some real good will fade as this movement becomes a fad. The smart move is to diversify the movement and support new technologies like large scale solar and coal gasification. Embrace the pollution aspect as much as the C02 aspect. That is the only way for this movement to be viable in four years.
Comment 3/13/2007
Number9, I agree with you that embracing the pollution aspect as much as the global warming aspect is a good idea.
I do wonder why you insist global warming is a fad. Other countries are taking steps to deal with it. Why is pollution less of a fad?
Comment 3/13/2007
Number9:
I agree with Ted. Also, you seem to misrepresent the environmental movement. Nobody’s arguing that we should focus solely on carbon reduction. In fact, environmentalists have been fighting other forms of pollution for decades. Many of us simply say that we should also reduce carbon emissions, and that doing so is the single biggest thing we can do to stop warming.
Since carbon use cannot be eliminated outright, we should also embrace such market-driven ideas as carbon offsets.
And as you point out, there are a wealth of political reasons why we ought to look at alternative (non-carbon) energy, even without the global warming factor.
Getting back to the Ocean/CO2/surface area argument you made earlier, you still haven’t identified the major mechanism by which the ocean produces this mass of CO2 (outweighing our poor power to add or detract).
Finally, I’m not entirely sure where you’re going with the whole “maybe warming causes CO2″ angle. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, meaning it’s known to help the planet absorb and retain heat. This fact is not disputed, not even by the Richard Lindzens of the world. Might there be a feedback loop at play, in which increases in heat in turn cause increases in CO2, which in turn cause further increases in heat, etc.? Of course, and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a climatologist deny this. But if one accepts the premise that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas (which virtually everyone does accept), I don’t see how you can then deny that increasing CO2 output would have negligible or no impact, which is what AGW skeptics seem to be denying.
Comment 3/13/2007
A better explanation of the CO2 lag is here, although I’m almost sure someone has already linked this. In a nutshell, all it demonstrates is that CO2 isn’t the only thing that can cause warming (and that historically, other things have been to blame), a fact which absolutely nobody is denying.
If I find a body in the street lying in a pool of blood with a bullet hole in the chest, I don’t rule out the possibility of a gunshot wound being the cause of death simply because in the past, other people have died from heart attacks, stabbings, and strangulation.
Comment 3/13/2007
George Monbiot responds to Channel Four:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/#more-1047
Guys, we are allied to some extent here. I am neither trying to micro-manage or divert, I am simply stating that unless the message changes it will die. The “perception” is that this is about reducing C02 even if it bankrupts nations. There is little time to change that perception.
Again, while Al Gore has made some progress, the question is at what price. I submit he is now a concern. Too sensational and too over the top. The message is becoming more about Al Gore than about Global Air Pollution and Warming. Did you see how I wrote that? Sounds different doesn’t it? More comprehensive.
As the population ages the pollution part is as important as the warming part. Tie in nation security through energy independence and now you have a product that can sell. Global Warming alone is not a product that people will buy. The message needs work. It must be diversified to be a real product.
Comment 3/13/2007
Number9:
Suppose, just for a moment, that Gore and the climatologists are actually 100% right about CO2 and global warming. Does that change your idea of what the message needs to be?
And again, people are doing exactly what you say they ought to be — tying in energy independence and national security concerns, fighting pollution, etc. — they’re just ALSO saying we should reduce CO2, and correctly identifying this as the biggest thing we can do to combat warming.
Comment 3/13/2007
[…] Here is a great read, from a highly unlikely source, commenter Number9. The most prescient point: Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went quietly back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the global denial industry, some of them, like the film makers, shriek “censorship!” This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have ever come across. If you demonstrate that someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him. […]
Pingback 3/13/2007
Suppose, just for a moment, that Gore and the climatologists are actually 100% right about CO2 and global warming. Does that change your idea of what the message needs to be?
It doesn’t matter what I think the message is. It matters what Joe Sixpack thinks the message is. To answer your question, yes even if there was slam dunk proof about C02, the messaging needs to be diversified. If you understand vertical marketing you understand that this message is too vertical, it is too narrow. You will never reach outside the base with this message.
Your assertion that people understand it is also about energy independence and air pollution is completely wrong. This is seen as a hippie, green, left, Hollywood movement. It is not mainstream. It cannot succeed unless it is mainstream.
Where are the blue haired ladies in this movement?
Comment 3/13/2007
So ultimately, what you’re saying is, we have to spin it. Facts are unimportant, PR is the only thing that matters. In that regard, it depresses me to admit that you’re probably right about that in today’s society.
Also, I think you misunderstand what I’m saying about the diversity of the message. Environmentalists have been arguing these things for years. It hasn’t gotten much press, because our press cares only about sensationalism. “The Day After Tomorrow” is sensationalist; hybrid cars to fight terrorism aren’t.
Comment 3/13/2007
hybrid cars to fight terrorism aren’t.
Bingo, the case for hybrid cars fighting terrorism was NEVER made. The point is it should have been part of the messaging.
Now you are getting it. It isn’t spin, it isn’t PR, messaging is different. Ultimately we are talking about selling a product. Think of it in that regard as opposed to politics or ideology.
Slowly but surely you are seeing my point.
Comment 3/13/2007
Actually no, it is not selling a product. It is establishing a basis for both future government policy and social change. There are substantial differences between the two.
Comment 3/13/2007
Big U -
Your example assumes that there is never a change in the water flow naturally.
a) Yours assumes that the outflow is unaffected by the inflow and thus is inadequate as a model of the climate, as you apparently intend it to be.
b) My model, on the other hand, was never intended to be one of the climate - I certainly did not present it as one - and so your argument against it is irrelevant. It was intended to illustrate a point: Just because an effect is a small part of a whole does not mean it cannot be responsible for a change in that whole.
Thus, the statement that humans are largely responsible for the currently-seen climate change cannot be dismissed as “arrogant” on the grounds that our impact is not “overwhelming,” since it doesn’t have to be to make an important difference. Your reply did not refute that contention.
Comment 3/13/2007
Number9:
Bingo, the case for hybrid cars fighting terrorism was NEVER made.
Incorrect. During the Super Bowl of 2002 or 2003 (I forget which), an environmental organization ran ads arguing that fuel inefficient vehicles like SUVs ultimately help finance terror organizations, and that fuel efficient vehicles would be a better choice. People howled with rage at the assertion.
And it is PR, despite your protestations. The truth shouldn’t require image consultants and a rep.
Comment 3/13/2007
Oh, and lots of people are talking about hybrid cars and terrorism, if you know where to look. Just because CNN and Fox News haven’t picked up on it doesn’t mean the discussion isn’t happening.
Comment 3/13/2007
Oh, and lots of people are talking about hybrid cars and terrorism, if you know where to look. Just because CNN and Fox News haven’t picked up on it doesn’t mean the discussion isn’t happening.
That is my point. CNN and Fox haven’t picked it up.
Global Warming, reducing air pollution, and energy independence fit well as a package. You have to recruit outside the base to effect change. It would also help to get some more people to be spokespeople. Too much of Al Gore is not a good thing.
TerraPass could rock the world if it offered a large scale project like a solar project in the desert western United States. Expect also to see consolidation soon in the carbon credit firms. I expect TerraPass to start acquiring smaller firms.
Comment 3/14/2007