The Great Global Warming Swindle:
Rebuttals
1
George Monbiot
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-withscience/#more-1047
Tuesday March 13, 2007
The Guardian
Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the dark ages. All
the great heroes of the discipline - Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein - took
tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today's crank has often proved
to be tomorrow's visionary.
But the syllogism does not apply. Being a crank does not automatically make you a
visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana TshabalalaMsimang, the South African health minister who has claimed Aids can be treated with
garlic, lemon and beetroot, will be hailed as a genius. But the point is often confused.
Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind
farms do not have "any measurable effect" on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has
compared himself to Galileo.
The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation
when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on
future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The
implications could not be graver. Just as the government launches its climate change
bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green
credentials, thousands have been misled into believing there is no problem to address.
The film's main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused
not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the sun. It is built
around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil FriisChristensen that recent temperature variations on Earth are in "strikingly good
agreement" with the length of the cycle of sunspots.
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in
2004 reveals that the "agreement" was the result of "incorrect handling of the physical
data". The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot
cycle has declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, FriisChristensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar
results. But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes - in this case in their
arithmetic.
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of
demonstrating that the sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable
agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover.
This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the
method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact
measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and SolarTerrestrial Physics shows that, when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was
wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared there was a
correlation - not with total cloud cover but with "low cloud cover". This, too, turned
out to be incorrect. Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show
cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying the paper was
a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it
showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays.
As Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa has shown on www.realclimate.org, five missing steps
would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. "We've often
criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying
work," Schmidt says, "but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation
beyond reasonableness that we have seen." None of this seems to have troubled the
programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing
explanations.
The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting
temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered
between temperatures at the Earth's surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or
lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were
proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine.
Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the authors of
a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film.
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface
and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate
models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data
showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and
radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have
been identified and corrected."
Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went back to their labs to start
again. Now, emboldened by the denial industry, some of them, like the film-makers,
shriek "censorship!". This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have
come across. If you demonstrate someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be
silencing him.
But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked:
the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon
dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Wunsch says he was
"completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" by the people
who made it.
This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director Martin
Durkin. In 1998, the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a
similar series, he had "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the
programmes". Their views had been "distorted through selective editing". Channel 4
had to make a prime-time apology.
Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already discredited, and anything and
everything becomes true. The twin towers were brought down by controlled
explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less
intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can
find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most
cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of
them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the
overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you
have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.
But for the film's commissioners, all that counts is the sensation.
Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears
to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a clipping from the
Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited - such
as Durkin. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of
whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the
controversy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
MIT Professor Carl Wunsch
Letter from MIT Professor Carl Wunsch to Mr. Steven Green - Head of
Production, WAG TV.
10 March 2007
Dear Mr. Green:
I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel
4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was
swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you).
Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with
the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that
would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of
climate change---in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in
the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so
unbalanced?
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 thoroughgoing 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.
I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the
ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements
get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic
issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both
in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global
warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one
seeing this film could possibly deduce that.
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.
An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown
explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome.
It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming
from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my
remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand
something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or
otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in
discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience
like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply
embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an
uncomfortable position in which to be.
At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my
participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps
WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should
proceed to make some more formal protest.
Sincerely,
Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography - Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
3
David Miliband
http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/archive/2007/03/
14/5960.aspx
posted on 14 March 2007 13:09
The Great Climate Change Swindle?
Several people have said to me that they couldn’t quite believe what they were being
told in Channel 4’s programme last week on climate change – and I promised
yesterday in my interview on the Today programme to put the facts on my blog.
Below I have set out what Defra scientists say about the 11 main allegations in the
programme. You can read for yourself what the International Panel on Climate
Change say or the statement of the Academies of Science of the 11 largest countries
in the world.
I am convinced well beyond reasonable doubt that the swindle is not being
perpetrated by the vast, vast majority of scientists in the world. 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. If the effect of the programme, instead of making people think, is in fact to
make them disregard the accepted science (in other words stop thinking) then that
would be a real swindle.
The following key allegations are paraphrased from the programme “The Great
Global Warming Swindle”.
1. The high temperatures seen in the last few decades are not unique. Temperatures
are naturally variable and have been higher in the past, for example, during the
Medieval Warm period (800-1300AD).
It is true that temperatures have been higher than today’s in the distant past. However,
for the Northern Hemisphere at least, it is clear the rapid warming of the past half
century has resulted in a level of warmth not seen in at least 500 years, and likely for
at least the past 1300 years. For the Southern Hemisphere, long records of
temperatures are more scarce and therefore it is difficult to draw such clear
conclusions. The important characteristic about the current warmth is that it is global,
whereas many previous warming periods have occurred over smaller areas.
Globally, eleven out of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the warmest 12
years since records began in 1850. Over the past century, temperatures have risen by
0.74°C, with 0.4°C of this warming since 1970.
Climate models indicate that if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, by the
middle of the century the world could reach a level of warmth not seen since the peak
of the last interglacial period, around 125,000 years ago. At that time, sea levels were
around 4 – 6m greater than today.
2. The key piece of evidence used by scientists to prove the warming effect of
greenhouse gases is that in the past, on timescales of hundreds of millennia, global
temperatures have followed carbon dioxide concentrations, i.e. when temperatures
are high, carbon dioxide levels are high. But this is not true, changes in carbon
dioxide concentrations actually lag behind changes in temperature.
Firstly, this is not the key piece of evidence for human-induced climate change. Basic
physics tells us that an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations will have a warming
effect on the climate. Levels of carbon dioxide alone now far exceed that at any time
in at least the past 650,000 years. The trend and pattern of current warming is
consistent with what we would expect for the observed rise in greenhouse gases.
Secondly, it is true that temperature changes appear to have preceded CO2 changes
through glacial-interglacial cycles in the distant past. However, this just suggests that
CO2 was not the initial driver of the glacial cycles. The evidence suggests that CO2
levels rose as a result of warming, possibly as the surface of the ocean warmed. As
CO2 has a warming effect on the climate, it would then act as a feedback –
stimulating additional warming.
Now human emissions are causing the rise in CO2 levels, and therefore, the resulting
warming of the climate.
Aside: Climate models predict that the positive feedback effect between temperature
and CO2 seen in the distant past could happen again in the future if global
temperatures reach high enough levels.
3. The trend in carbon dioxide concentrations over the past century does not match
that of temperature, and therefore, carbon dioxide can not be the key driver. For
example, in the middle of the century, when emissions were growing rapidly,
temperatures actually fell.
It is true that the trend in CO2 concentrations over the last century does not exactly
match the trend in temperature. But we do not expect it to. This is for two key
reasons. Firstly, there is a time lag between warming and changes in CO2, caused by
the inertia in the climate system. Secondly, greenhouse gases are not the only
determinant of temperature. Aerosols, which are also emitted from human activities,
are also important and can be shown to explain much of the cooling seen in the
middle of the 20th century.
Climate models represent the lag in the response of the climate, and the influence of
many external factors. These show that the trend in temperatures does match what we
would expect. Based on these analyses and others, the recent report of the IPCC
concluded that most of the warming over at least the last 50 years has been caused by
the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations.
4. Most of the 20th century warming occurred before 1940, when carbon dioxide
emissions were still relatively low.
This first statement is not correct. Global temperatures did rise during the first few
decades of this century, but much of the warming seen this century has occurred since
around 1970 (0.4°C of the total 0.74°C warming). Global temperatures have risen
almost continuously since 1950. The linear growth rate in temperature during the past
50 years is nearly twice that of the last 100 years. While the IPCC concluded that
much of the warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to greenhouse gases,
the cause of the warming in the first half of the century is not clear. Current thinking
is that it was likely a mixture of natural and human factors.
5. The patterns of warming in the atmosphere do not match what we would expect for
a warming caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations and therefore, can not be
the cause.
This is not correct. The patterns of warming in the atmosphere do match what we
would expect. Previously reported discrepancies were due to problems with early
versions of observed data from satellites and radiosondes. These errors were corrected
a few years ago.
6. Human emissions are only a tiny fraction of total natural emissions and therefore
can not be important in causing climate change.
It is true that human emissions are relatively small compared to natural emissions,
particularly from ecosystems and the oceans. However, these natural emissions are in
balance: the amount emitted is then reabsorbed. Human emissions tip the balance and
lead to an accumulation of gases in the atmosphere. The human source can be shown
through, for example, examining the chemical make-up and distribution of CO2 in the
atmosphere.
7. There is no evidence that human emissions are causing the current warming trend.
This is not true. As stated in the recent IPCC report, a growing body of evidence
demonstrates that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, due to human
emissions, have caused most of the warming observed over the past half century. Both
the spatial patterns and trend of warming can only be explained by the inclusion of
human emissions. It is very unlikely that the rapid increase in global temperatures
seen over the past half century could be caused by natural factors alone. For example,
the most recent report of the IPCC concludes that the warming effect of human
emissions is around ten times that of solar variations.
8. Attribution studies rely on climate models, but these models are tuned to give the
right results and therefore can not be trusted.
Climate models are an essential tool in understanding how the climate will respond to
changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, and other external effects, such as solar
output changes and volcanoes. The models use fundamental physics and chemistry to
simulate processes within the climate system and are rigorously assessed to ensure
their reliability.
9. Past changes in climate have been driven by natural factors, such as changes in
solar radiation and cosmic rays. It is most likely that these same natural factors are
causing the current warming.
It is true that natural factors have driven climate changes in the past. But it is
considered very unlikely that the rapid increase in global temperatures seen over the
past half century could be caused by natural factors alone. Both the spatial patterns
and trend of warming can only be explained by the inclusion of human emissions.
It is clear that changes in solar radiation are a significant driver of the climate.
However, there is strong evidence that changes in solar radiation could not have
caused the rapid warming observed over the past half century. The warming effects of
changes in solar output since pre-industrial are estimated to be less than around one
tenth that of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
Despite recent claims, there is no scientifically robust evidence suggesting that cosmic
ray variations have, or could even, play a significant role in recent warming.
Variations in cosmic rays over the past few decades can not explain the long-term
global warming trend.
10. Observed changes in sea ice are due to natural factors.
Sea ice extent does change naturally, but the current reduction in sea ice extent is in
line with what we would expect in a warming world.
11. The scientific process is biased.
The IPCC is the most authoritative voice on climate change. Its assessments represent
the consensus of thousands of scientists worldwide, based on peer-reviewed research.
Objectivity is ensured by the broad and open review process and shared responsibility
for the report. No one government, organisation or individual has sole responsibility
for any part of the report.
4
Real Climate Website
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
9 Mar 2007
Swindled!
— group @ 5:36 pm - (
)
By William and Gavin
On Thursday March 8th, the UK TV Channel 4 aired a programme titled "The Great
Global Warming Swindle". We were hoping for important revelations and final proof
that we have all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated the
usual specious claims we hear all the time. We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the
only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently
misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers
have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context
indeed [Update: a full letter from Wunsch appears as comment 109 on this post]
So what did they have to say for themselves?
CO2 doesn't match the temperature record over the 20th C. True but not relevant,
because it isn't supposed to. The programme spent a long time agonising over what
they presented as a sharp temperature fall for 4 decades from 1940 to 1980
(incidentally their graph looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected; on a
more usual (and sourced!) plot the "4 decades of cooling" is rather less evident). They
presented this as a major flaw in the theory, which is deeply deceptive, because as
they and their interviewees must know, the 40-70 cooling type period is readily
explained, in that the GCMs are quite happy to reproduce it, as largely caused by
sulphate aerosols. See this for a wiki-pic, for example; or (all together now) the IPCC
TAR SPM fig 4; or more up-to-date AR4 fig 4. So... they are lying to us by omission.
The troposphere should warm faster than the sfc, say the models and basic theory.
As indeed it does - unless you're wedded to the multiply-corrected Spencer+Christy
version of the MSU series. Christy (naturally enough) features in this section, though
he seems to have forgotten the US CCSP report, and the executive summary which he
authored says Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near
the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability
of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically,
surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of
satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This
significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde
data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that
do not show such discrepancies. See-also previous RC posts.
Temperature leads CO2 by 800 years in the ice cores. Not quite as true as they said,
but basically correct; however they misinterpret it. The way they said this you would
have thought that T and CO2 are anti-correlated; but if you overlay the full 400/800
kyr of ice core record, you can't even see the lag because its so small. The correct
interpretation of this is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback: see RC again for
more.
All the previous parts of the programme were leading up to "so if it isn't CO2, what is
it?" to which their answer is "solar". The section was curiously weak, and largely lead
by pictures of people on beaches. It was somewhat surprising that they didn't feature
Svensmark at all; other stuff we've commented on before. Note that the graph they
used as "proof" of the excellent solar-T connection turns out to have some problems:
see figure 1c of Damon and Laut.
Along the way the programme ticked off most of the other obligatory skeptic talking
points: even down to Medieval English vineyards and that old favourite, volcanoes
emitting more CO2 than humans.
It ended with politics, with a segment blaming the lack of African development on the
environmental movement. We don't want to get into the politics, but should point out
what the programme didn't: that Kyoto exempts developing nations.
[Also: other discussion at InTheGreen, Stoat, The Guardian and
Media lens.]
[Update: What Martin Durkin really thinks!]
[Update for our german readers: A german version of the "swindle" film was shown
on June 11 on German TV (RTL); here is a german commentary by stefan.]
5
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
The Great Global Warming Swindle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Great Global Warming Swindle
DVD cover
Genre
Documentary
Created by
Martin Durkin
Country of origin
United Kingdom
Production
75 mins
Running time
Broadcast
Original channel
Channel 4, March 8, 2007
External links
Official website
IMDb profile
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial 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
man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times."[1]
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[2] 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 8, 2007, 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."[3]
Contents
[hide]









1 Viewpoints expressed in the film
2 Claims made in the film
o 2.1 On contradictions in the theory of anthropogenic global warming
o 2.2 On research findings driven by financial or ideological motives
o 2.3 Disputing a scientific consensus supporting anthropogenic global
warming
o 2.4 Killing the African dream of development
o 2.5 Miscellaneous
3 Reception and criticism
o 3.1 Reactions from scientists
o 3.2 Carl Wunsch controversy
o 3.3 Reaction in the British media
o 3.4 Other reaction
o 3.5 Reaction to DVD release
o 3.6 Durkin's response to his critics
 3.6.1 Responses to scientists
4 Contributors to the programme
5 Related programmes and films
6 International distribution
7 See also
8 External links
9 References
[edit] 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?"
Some of the people who are interviewed in the film are environmentalist Patrick
Moore, founding member, but for the past 21 years a critic, of Greenpeace; Richard
Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of
Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy,
professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama;
Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; and Piers Corbyn. Carl Wunsch, professor of
oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but
has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his
interview material was used.[4]
Some quotes from the film include:
"We imagine that we live in an age of reason, and global warming alarm is
dressed up as science; but it's not science, it's propaganda."
Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute, Paris.
"We can't say that CO2 will drive climate; it certainly never did in the past."
Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
"The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for
preventing development in the developing countries."
Patrick Moore, Co-founder of Greenpeace.
[edit] Claims made in the film
The film claims that the consensus on climate change is the product of "a multibilliondollar 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".[1] It uses a series of interviews and graphics to
support its claims that are listed below.[5]
[edit] 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.)[6]

All models of temperature increase as a result of the greenhouse effect predict
that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere
and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. Current satellite and weather
balloon data does not support this model, and instead shows that the surface
warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.

The film shows that increases in CO2 levels lagged behind temperature
increases during glacial terminations.
EPICA 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 Earth's 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[7]), 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.
[edit] 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.

Some supporters of the theory that global warming is man-made do so because
it supports their emotional and ideological beliefs against capitalism,
economic development, globalization, industrialisation, and the United States.

The theory that global warming is man-made was promoted by Conservative
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a means of promoting nuclear power and
reducing the impact of strike action by the National Union of Mineworkers.

Claims that all sceptics are funded by private industry (such as oil, gas, and
coal industries) are false and have no basis in fact.
[edit] 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 Pasteur
Institute 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 that he has received death
threats because of sceptical statements he has made about global warming.[8]
[edit] 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."
[edit] 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.

There were vineyards in northern England during the Medieval period, and
Greenland was once a fertile land farmed by the Vikings, so warming benefits
society.
[edit] Reception and criticism
The show attracted 2.5 million viewers and an audience share of 11.5%.[9] There have
been 246 complaints to Ofcom as of April 25, 2007 [10], including the complaints that
the program falsified data [11] and that Durkin's previous track record was not
disclosed [12]. 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.[13]
[edit] 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 [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."[2]

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.[14]

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.[15]
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.[16]

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."[17]

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.[18]

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" [19].

On 5th July 2007, The Guardian reported that Professor Mike Lockwood, a
physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory had carried out a study that
disproved one of the key planks of The Great Global Warming Swindle's
argument - 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. [20]
[edit] Carl Wunsch controversy
Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, was 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.[21][4] He called the
film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World
War Two."[22] Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action[22] and to have
lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator.[23] 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."[22]
Wunsch 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."[4]
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."[21]
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.[24]
[edit] 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".[25] 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.[26] 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".[27]
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."[28]
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". [29] 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." [6]
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 anticonformist films from ‘mavericks’ like Durkin". [30]
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. [31]
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". [4]
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."[32] 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".[33]
[edit] 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." [34]
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. [7]
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".[35]
Steven Milloy, who runs the Web site Junkscience.com, endorsed the documentary on
March 18, 2007. [36]
The program has been discussed extensively in Australia, including favourable
mentions in an editorial in The Australian[37] and the Counterpoint radio program
presented by Michael Duffy.[38] 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".[39] According to The Australian, scientist, Tim
Flannery had wondered at a conference whether the programme should be classified
as fiction rather than a documentary. [40] 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. [41] Dalton defended the decision, saying: "[Durkin's] thesis
is way outside the scientific mainstream. But that's no reason to keep his views away
from audiences." [42]
In the Czech Republic, President Václav Klaus addressed the audience at the local
first release of the movie on June 28, 2007. He called the premiere a "meeting of
supporters of reason against irrationality" and compared the warnings of scientists
against global warming to Communist propaganda. According to Czech news, Klaus an outspoken critic of scientific consensus on global warming - has been the first head
of state to introduce this movie.[43]
[edit] Reaction to DVD release
Nearly 40 climate scientists have written a letter[44] 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.[45]
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. [7]
In response to the call by these scientists not to market a DVD of the film, Times
columnist Mick Hume, described environmentalism as a "new religion", saying
"Scientists have become the equivalent of high priests in white coats, summoned to
condemn heretics".[46].
The DVD is scheduled for release in the UK on September 30, 2007.
[edit] 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 FriisChristensen 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." [47]
Durkin commenting at a Cannes film festival press conference on April 17, 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." [48]
[edit] 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."[49]
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".[49] 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".[31]
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. [50]
[edit] Contributors to the programme
The film includes appearances from the following individuals:
















Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Professor and Director, International Arctic Research
Center
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.)
Nigel Calder - Former Editor, New Scientist from 1962 to 1966
John Christy - Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of
Alabama in Huntsville and a Lead Author of Chapter 2 of the IPCC Third
Assessment Report
Ian Clark - Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Piers Corbyn - Weather Forecaster, Weather Action
Paul Driessen - Author: Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death
Eigil Friis-Christensen - Director, Danish National Space Center and Adjunct
Professor, University of Copenhagen (who has since said his results were
misused in the programme)
Nigel Lawson - Former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer
Richard Lindzen - Professor, Department of Meteorology, M.I.T.
Patrick Michaels - Research Professor, Department of Environmental
Sciences, University of Virginia
Patrick Moore - Co-founder, Greenpeace
Paul Reiter - Professor, Department of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute,
Paris
Nir Shaviv - Professor, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem
James Shikwati - Economist, Author, and CEO of The African Executive
Frederick Singer - Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental
Sciences, University of Virginia (Misattributed in the film as Former Director,



6
U.S. National Weather Service. From 1962-64 he was Director of the National
Weather Satellite Service.)
Roy Spencer - Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA
Philip Stott - Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of
London
Carl Wunsch - Professor, Department of Oceanography, M.I.T. (who has since
repudiated the programme)
Monbiot (again)
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/#more1055
The Real Climate Censorship
Posted April 10, 2007
It’s happening, it’s systematic, and it is precisely the opposite story to the one the papers are telling.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 10th April 2007.
The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For
many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the
evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are
extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document
can be.
Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the
summaries anything which threatens their interests. While the US government has traditionally been
the scientists’ chief opponent, this time the assault was led by Saudi Arabia, supported by China and
Russia(1,2).
The scientists fight back, but they always have to make some concessions. The report released on
Friday, for example, was shorn of the warning that “North America is expected to experience locally
severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate
change related events”(3). David Wasdell, an accredited reviewer for the panel, claims that the
summary of the science the IPCC published in February was purged of most of its references to
“positive feedbacks”: climate change accelerating itself(4).
This is the opposite of the story endlessly repeated in the right-wing press: that the IPCC, in collusion
with governments, is conspiring to exaggerate the science. No one explains why governments should
seek to amplify their own failures. In the wacky world of the climate conspiracists, no explanations are
required. The world’s most conservative scientific body has somehow been transformed into a cabal of
screaming demagogues.
This is just one aspect of a story which is endlessly told the wrong way around. In the Sunday
Telegraph, the Daily Mail, in columns by Dominic Lawson, Tom Utley and Janet Daley the allegation
is constantly repeated that climate scientists and environmentalists are trying to “shut down debate”.
Those who say that manmade global warming is not taking place, they claim, are being censored.
Something is missing from their accusations: a single valid example. The closest any of them have
been able to get is two letters sent – by the Royal Society and by the US senators Jay Rockefeller and
Olympia Snowe – to that delicate flower ExxonMobil, asking that it cease funding lobbyists who
deliberately distort climate science(5,6). These correspondents had no power to enforce their wishes.
They were merely urging Exxon to change its practices. If everyone who urges is a censor, then the
comment pages of the newspapers must be closed in the name of free speech.
In an interview four weeks ago, Martin Durkin, who made Channel 4’s film The Great Global
Warming Swindle, claimed that he was subject to “invisible censorship”(7). He appears to have
forgotten that he had just been given 90 minutes of prime time television to expound his theory that
climate change is a great green conspiracy. So what did this censorship amount to? Complaints about
one of his programmes had been upheld by the Independent Television Commission. It found that “the
views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective
editing” and that they had been “misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they
agreed to take part.”(8) This, apparently, makes him a martyr.
If you want to know what real censorship looks like, let me show you what has been happening on the
other side of the fence. Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have
been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed.
The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal
agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following
constraints. 1. “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar
terms” from their communications. 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed
the meaning of scientific findings”. 3. Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented
their findings. 4. “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based
materials relating to climate”. 5. “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climaterelated work”. 6. “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed
themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.” They reported 435
incidents of political interference over the past five years(9).
In 2003, the White House gutted the climate change section of a report by the Environmental
Protection Agency(10). It deleted references to studies showing that global warming is caused by
manmade emissions. It added a reference to a study partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute,
which suggested that temperatures are not rising. Eventually the agency decided to drop the section
altogether.
After Thomas Knutson at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
published a paper in 2004 linking rising emissions with more intense tropical cyclones, he was blocked
by his superiors from speaking to the media. He agreed to one request to appear on MSNBC, but a
public affairs officer at NOAA rang the station to tell the programme that Knutson was “too tired” to
conduct the interview. The official explained to him that the “White House said no”. All media
inquiries were to be routed instead to a scientist who believed there was no connection between global
warming and hurricanes(11).
Last year the top climate scientist at NASA, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to
censor his lectures, papers and web postings. He was told by public relations officials at the agency that
there would be “dire consequences” if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse
gases(12).
Last month, the Alaskan branch of the US Fish and Wildlife Service told its scientists that anyone
travelling to the Arctic must understand “the administration’s position on climate change, polar bears,
and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues.”(13)
At hearings in the US Congress three weeks ago, Philip Cooney, a former aide to White House who
was previously working at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted he had made hundreds of
changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush administration(14). Though
he is not a scientist, he had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases
suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming(15).
The guardians of free speech in Britain aren’t above attempting a little suppression, either. The
Guardian and I have now received several letters from the climate sceptic Viscount Monckton,
threatening us with libel proceedings after I challenged his claims about climate science(16,17,18,19).
On two of these occasions he has demanded that articles are removed from the internet. Monckton is
the man who wrote to Senators Rockefeller and Snowe, claiming that their letter to ExxonMobil
offends the corporation’s “right of free speech”(20).
After Martin Durkin’s film was broadcast, one of the scientists it featured, Professor Carl Wunsch,
complained that his views on climate change had been misrepresented. Wunsch says he has now
received a legal letter from Durkin’s 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(21).
Would it be terribly impolite to suggest that when those who deny that climate change is happening
complain of censorship, a certain amount of projection is taking place?
7
Real Climate (again)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/this-week/
There are a few minor items this week worthy of mention:
1. The CO2 rise. Who dunnit?
Here at RealClimate, we have been (naively, apparently) operating under the
assumption that climate change contrarians had long ago moved on from the
untenable position that humans are not even responsible for the observed increase in
CO2 concentrations over the past two centuries. The dubious paper by Ernst Beck we
commented on the other day indicates that there is indeed still a rear guard attack
being waged. As if to drive the point home further, pundit Alexander Cockburn,
known generally for his progressive views, has perplexingly disputed the existence of
any link between CO2 emissions and rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in
a screed he penned this week for the online journal "Counterpunch" (also printed in
The Nation). It's hard to know where to start, since his piece is so over the top and
gets just about everything so thoroughly wrong, it's almost comical. So we'll just hit
the low points: (a) Cockburn claims that there is zero empirical evidence that
anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the
world's present warming trend, despite the fact that not even such strident climate
change contrarians as Pat Michaels dispute that there is a measurable influence of
anthropogenic greenhouse gases on global temperature. Plus there's all the empirical
evidence of course (see the new IPCC report). (b) Going further, Cockburn brazenly
opines that 'it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from
human burning of fossil fuels' despite the fact that there is an isotopic smoking gun for
this connection. He then (c) fails to understand that water vapor is a feedback not a
forcing, and citing 'expert' Dr. Martin Hertzberg, quite remarkably states that 'It is the
warming of the earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the
reverse.' Never mind that isotopic evidence proves otherwise. Upon what evidence
does he base this assertion?
Since no anti-global warming op-ed these days is complete without it, Cockburn (d)
resorts to the usual misrepresentation of lag/lead relationships between CO2 and
temperatures during glacial/interglacial cycles as if they disprove the causal
relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures (see our
most recent debunking of this favorite contrarian talking point here). Oh dear.
2. The other (Glenn) Beck--Even Worse!
CNN gave their resident shock-jock Glenn Beck a forum for spreading more
disinformation on global warming in an hour-long segment entitled Exposed: The
Climate of Fear (see also this discussion by "Media Matters"). We could pick apart
his (rather thin) arguments, which constitute the usual cocktail of long debunked
contrarian talking points. Suffice it to say, however, that the moment a rhetorician
invokes Hitler, Nazi Germany, and Eugenics, it is the moment they are no longer
worthy of being listened to (cf Godwin's Law of usenet debates). We don't seem to be
alone in our opinion here. Beck's performance earned him the dubious title of "worst
person in the world" from analyst Keith Olbermann.
However, there was one amusing moment: Beck asked Christopher 'Incorrect' Horner
what the key thing to google was that would show that Al Gore was wrong. Horner
suggested the lag between CO2 and temperature in the ice cores. Of course, if you do
Google that, the first hit is the RealClimate debunking of the issue. Thanks!
3. Nature's new blog
Nature has started a new blog called "Climate Feedback", which says of itself
'Climate Feedback is a blog hosted by Nature Reports: Climate Change to facilitate
lively and informative discussion on the science and wider implications of global
warming. The blog aims to be an informal forum for debate and commentary on
climate science in our journals and others, in the news, and in the world at large.'
We wish it well, remembering their welcome for RealClimate, though early reviews
based on the first few posts are decidedly mixed.
8
John Ray Initiative
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=8
3
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Programme directed by Martin Durkin on Channel 4 on
Thursday 8 March 2007.
Critique by John Houghton, President, John Ray Initiative.
Download 5 pages PDF or Word.
Some background on Martin Durkin can be found on
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39 and
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/
The programme purported to debunk the science of Global Warming
describing it as ‘lies’ and an invention of hundreds of scientists
around the world who have conspired to mislead governments, and
the general public. The most prominent person in the programme
was Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer who is not a
scientist and who shows little knowledge of the science but who is
party to the creation of a conspiracy theory that questions the
motives and integrity of the world scientific community, especially
as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC).
The material presented was a mixture of truth, half truth and
falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the
science of global warming as presented by the main world
community of climate scientists and by the IPCC.
For the best and latest statement of the science, you are
referred to the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC 4th
Assessment Report published in February 2007 (see: www.ipcc.ch).
You are also referred to a 2-page statement by the Academies of
Science of the 11 largest countries in the world (the G8 plus China,
India and Brazil) addressed to the leaders at the G8 Summit at
Gleneagles in 2005 giving a clear and urgent message about the
reality of Global Warming and its likely consequences and also
endorsing the consensus of the IPCC. This statement by the
Academies is unprecedented. There could not be a stronger
statement supporting the work of the world scientific community by
the most eminent scientists in the world.
You are also referred to JRI Briefing Paper 14, Global Warming,
Climate Change and Sustainability: Challenge to Scientists, Policymakers and Christians" by Sir John Houghton, 2007 that can be
downloaded from:
http://www.jri.org.uk/brief/Briefing14_Houghton.pdf (11mb).
Here I briefly point out the main lines of evidence for humaninduced climate change and then address some of the main
arguments presented in the programme.
1. First, it is important to note that the main lines of evidence for
human-induced climate change not addressed in the
programme were:

* growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mainly due to

fossil fuel burning to a level greater than for at least 600,000
years;
* observations of global warming at the earth’s surface (in
magnitude and pattern) consistent with the increase in
greenhouse gases, the basic science of which has been known
and understood for over 200 years.
2. Climate is always changing – TRUE. However, the
programme also argued that changes in global average
temperature over the last 50 years and as projected for the
21st century are within the range of natural climate
variability as observed over the last few millennia – NOT
TRUE.
Many of the prominent climate changes over past centuries have
been regional in scale. Global Warming is concerned with global
scale changes. The IPCC 4th Assessment Report Summary for
Policymakers has a particular section summarising the conclusions
of detailed studies using a wide range of paleoclimate data. It
concludes that ‘Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation
that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the
previous 1300 years.’
3. That carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so
closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon
dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way
round - TRUE. The programme went on to state 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.
4. The troposphere is warming less than the surface – NOT
TRUE.
This raises a debate that took place in the 1990s but which has now
been resolved. There is now agreement among the scientists
involved in measurements that trends in satellite observed
tropospheric temperatures when properly analysed agree well with
trends in surface temperature observations. The programme also
stated that warming should continue to higher levels. That is not
the case. In fact, higher levels are observed to be cooling,
consistent with the science of global warming that indicates that
there is warming below and cooling above the ‘blanket’ of additional
carbon dioxide.
5. Volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil
fuel burning – NOT TRUE. In fact, none of the large volcanic
eruptions over the last 50 years feature in the detailed record of
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
6. Changes in the sun influence climate – TRUE. They cited the
Maunder Minimum in the 17th century when no sunspots were
observed, as a probable example. Solar influences are the main
driver of global average temperature in the 20th century –
NOT TRUE.
Changes in solar output together with the absence of large
volcanoes (that tend to cool the climate) are likely to have been
causes for the rise in temperature between 1900 and 1940.
However, the much more complete observations of the sun from
space instruments over the past 40 years demonstrate that such
influences cannot have contributed significantly to the temperature
increase over this period. Other possibilities such as cosmic rays
affecting cloud formation have been very carefully considered by
the IPCC (see the 3rd Assessment Report on www.ipcc.ch) and
there is no evidence that they are significant compared with the
much larger and well understood effects of increased greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide.
7. Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide
useful projections of climate change - NOT TRUE.
In the programme, this was illustrated by a statement made by a
youthful Professor Smagorinsky, a pioneer in climate modelling,
speaking in the 1980s explaining some of the inadequacies of early
models. Climate modelling has developed enormously since then.
Modern models include detailed coupling of the circulations of
atmosphere and ocean and detailed descriptions of the interactions
between all components of the climate system including ice and the
biosphere. They have been tested thoroughly in their ability to
reconstruct current and past climates. The 30 or more major
modelling groups in the world regularly compare their methods and
their findings. Contributors to the programme with their parodies of
climate models just demonstrated their complete ignorance of the
significance and capabilities of modern models.
8. The IPCC process stifles debate and is used by scientists
to further their own self interest – NOT TRUE.
I chaired the main meetings of Working Group I during the
production of the first three IPCC scientific assessments. I can say
categorically that the process was very open and honest. The aim
was to distinguish between what was reasonably well known and
the areas where there is large uncertainty. The chapter groups had
complete freedom to investigate and assess the scientific literature
and draw their conclusions.
Contrary to the impression given in the programme, no one ever
resigned from being a lead author in Working Group I because of
their disagreement with the process or the final content of their
chapter. In fact, no one ever communicated to me a complaint
about the integrity of the process.
I should mention, however, a case of disagreement that occurred in
Working Group 2 of the IPCC that dealt with the impacts of climate
change – a more complex area to address that the basic science of
Working Group I. Professor Reiter who appeared in the programme
described how, unfortunately, his expert work on malaria failed to
get recognition in the relevant IPCC chapter.
Even Professor Lindzen, who appeared at length on the programme,
stayed the course as lead author within Working Group I,
expressing his satisfaction with the report’s chapters as good
scientific documents. He has often, however, gone on to express his
view that the conclusions of the Policymakers Summary did not
faithfully represent the chapters. But he has never provided any
supporting evidence for that statement – nor, to my knowledge, has
anyone else who has quoted that statement originating from
Lindzen.
It is important to note that IPCC Policymakers’ Summaries are
agreed unanimously at intergovernmental meetings involving over
200 government delegates from around 100 countries. This
agreement is only achieved after several days of scientific debate
(only scientific arguments not political ones are allowed) the main
purpose of which is to challenge the scientific chapter authors
regarding the accuracy, clarity and relevance of the summary and
most especially its consistency with the underlying chapters.
Agreement at such a meeting has ensured that the resulting
document, so far as is possible, is scientifically accurate, balanced
and free from personal or political bias.
Reference was made in the programme to an article in the Wall
Street Journal in 1995 about the 1995 IPCC report accusing the
IPCC of improperly altering one of the agreed chapters before
publication. This was a completely false accusation as was pointed
out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,
September 1996, 77, pp1961-1966.
9. Action on climate change by developed countries may
have a negative influence on development of the world’s
poorer countries – POSSIBLY TRUE.
A strong non scientific point made towards the end of the
programme concerned the possible effect of pressure from the
developed world on developing countries to develop without use of
fossil fuel sources of energy. There is something inherently unfair in
such pressure that could hamper growth of developing country
economies especially when rather little is being done by developed
countries to reduce their own fossil fuel emissions. Further, the
greater proportion of the damage from climate change will tend to
fall on developing countries. The responsibilities of developed
countries therefore are clear, first to reduce their own emissions as
rapidly as possible and secondly to assist developing countries with
resources and skills to develop their energy and other requirements
in sustainable ways.
[Webmaster's note: Sir John Houghton was co-chair of IPCC
Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002, and Director
General of the UK Meteorological Office 1983-1991. Brief
biographical information is available here and here and here.]