Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” seemed to bring to a close some of the misinformation about climate science. A small coterie of climate skeptics- not scientists themselves- had managed to hold the planet to ransom by claiming to represent a marginalised but legitimate climate-skeptic position within the scientific community. In fact, these people were in general paid by Big Oil and Big coal to spread this misinformation: there has been no significant dispute amongst climate scientists for more than 10 years.
The workings of this shadowy group of professional deniers is most ably described in Jeremy Leggett’s fascinating insiders’ account of the political machinations and conferences leading up to the Kyoto protocol described in his book “The Carbon War”.(2001).
But just as the battle seemed to have been won and there was a wide-spread acceptance of the science behind man-made climate change, along came a 50-minute channel 4 documentary that seems to have set back public understanding of this global issue 10 years or more.
I have not seen the Channel 4 Documentary made by Martin Durkin “The Great Global Warming Swindle” but have followed the responses with interest. It was immediately debunked soon after it came out last year by Medialens as “pure propoganda”; and also by George Monbiot .
Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists involved in the documentary, gave his response here soon after it was broadcast, explaining how he had been misled, and also giving valuable insights into how difficult it is to be a scientist: unlike polemicists or politicians, scientists have to be very cautious about the conclusions they draw; they are an inherently conservative bunch as a result, reluctant to give more than a probabilistic conclusion to the data. This in itself is a major reason that the world has been slow to wake up to the peril we are in: scientists are the ones who really understand how scary it all is, but are just too circumspect from a professional point of view to run around screaming “Fire!”
The excellent Real Climate site- written by climate scientists on the front line like Wunsch- has also given comprehensive analysis of the issue raised in the film regarding sun-spot activity here.
Many people who watched it at the time and who really should have known better were praising the documentary. To my horror, my father told me he had been so impressed that he had written a letter to Channel 4 complimenting them on their coverage of the climate skeptics’ position and suggesting that it would be great if they made a similar programme, for balance, putting the case for the other side!
During the Critical Thinking classes I gave on the Kinsale Permaculture course at the beginning of this year, it became apparent that several of the students- presumably a group more informed in general about the environment and climate change than the wider population- had also been confused by the programme and believed that scientists were still split about the courses of global warming, and that sun-spot activity and other natural cycles could easily be as good an explanation.
The most extraordinary aspect of the film seems to be the claim that scientists have dreamed up the notion of anthropocentric climate change (ACC) in order to get funding! It is hard to work that one out really; on the other hand it is obvious that the fossil fuel lobby has a very big incentive in misinformation and a vested interest in deflecting attention from anything that might reduce our consumption of their products.
It is also clear how such a piece of propaganda as this could have such an appeal: not just to assuage our fears, but to assuage our conscience and give us a green light to continue to pollute with the high energy lifestyles we have become accustomed to.
Now, however, Channel 4 has been fiercely criticised by the TV watchdog for distorting the views of climate scientists in the programme. George Monbiot has another fine piece in which he claims the criticisms dont go far enough, failing to address the issue of the public being materially mislead.
Whatever about the culpability of Channel 4 and Martin Durkin and the fossil fuel lobby, this is another tragic example of the public’s failure to understand how science works and how dependent we are on its methods and the truths it unveils. The education system, the media, science itself all fall short in bridging the gap between science and the public; and as I have been ranting on for some time now, sections of the environmental movement itself are also to blame. We all have a role to play and a responsibility in educating ourselves and becoming better spokespeople for science and engaging more pro actively in spreading this understanding.
4 Comments
Hi Graham I tried to watch this twice, fell asleep both times. It was a bit like reading the Daily Mail…. a real polemic nonsense coming from the most absurd place. Bit like the guy I met recently who argued that Al Gore only campaigns on climate change because if carbon trading comes in he will make a fortune….
I would be careful though, saying that the people who made it are funded by oil companies… yes Leggett does talk about that, but this film is a different thing, and if you don’t have specific evidence that there have been brown envelopes passing to film-makers I would be careful… last thing we want is for Zone5 to be taken offline by a stiff solicitor’s letter!
Yes there are documented examples of organisations and individuals who argue against climate change who have been funded by oil companies, but not all of them are, and I would be wary about throwing possibly litigious claims around.
I too encounter people who fell for it, but I think we should never lose sight of the fact that climate science is very complex, and few of us are trained in it, and the data is such that it can be interpreted in different ways, ways in which someone without a deep grounding in the science can be mislead.
Ultimately a lot of people want to be misled. The one I love is David Icke’s saying, as part of his election campaign against David Davis recently (he got 110 votes, Davis over 17,000) that climate change is a ‘myth’, cooked up by the New World Order to control our lives and make us live in fear. Never could quite figure why such a thing would happen, given that climate change is a right royal pain in the arse for corporations, and the US government still denies it all. Anyway, best not to go there…
Good piece as ever, just watch you don’t end up in the libel courts, we need you here! Great to see an increased use of shorter paragraphs at Zone 5, makes it much easier to read… thanks… and have a great summer….
Hi Rob Im flattered that you think anyone would bother to take legal action against Zone5! maybe I should take legal advice, but I didnt say specifically that Durkin was paid by Big Oil to make the film.
There are several sources who have published what i am only repeating, apparently without fear of legal recriminations themselves. Monbiot in today’s Guardian (see link given in the post above) is quite explicit:
“Far from revealing its contributors’ financial interests, the film created the impression that they have taken no money from the coal or oil industries. In truth, 10 of its protagonists have either been funded directly by fossil-fuel companies, or have received paid employment from lobby groups funded by these companies, which campaign against taking action on climate change. Tim Ball claimed in the programme that “I’ve never received a nickel from the oil and gas companies.” But he has received fees from two groups which lobby against taking action on climate change — Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project — both of which receive major funding from energy companies.”
It is a while since I read Leggett’s book (your copy i think!) and I dont have it with me but I was impressed by the specifics of who was paid what by whom for what. It was the same old suspects co noodling with the Saudi and US delegates in conference after conference, plotting in the lobby to sabotage the agreements any way they could.
And Alistair McIntosh has this to say in his new book “Hell and High Water” with regard to Durkin’s film:
“Meanwhile, George Marshall of the Climate Outreach and Information Network drew attention to the fact that several of Durkin’s experts were in bed with industry and political lobby groups dedicated to denying climate change…
“Another of Durkin’s interviewees, Fred Singer, was founder of The science and Environment Policy Project which, syas Marshall, ‘aggressively contradicts climate science and has recieved direct funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO’.
“On 4 September 2006 Exxon… had been sent an unprecedented letter from the Royal Society. This accused the company of willfully funding thirty-nine groups that ‘misrepresented the science of climate change , by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change, or by overstating the amount and significance of uncertainty in knowledge…’ “
I havnt seen any attempt to rebut or refute any of this- it seems to me to be firmly in the public domain and equivalent in certainty to the facts of climate science themselves.
Fair enough, thanks for that… I hadn’t read Monbiot’s piece.. will now though.. thanks for clarifying that! Shocking isn’t it… how do these people live with themselves… “what did you do during the Climate Change daddy?”
There are still flat earth societies. And people who think whites are superior to other races. And people who think that women are inferior to men. And people who think any number of crazy things that have been proved totally wrong.
There will always been climate ‘skeptics’. They call themselves climate ‘skeptics’ because to be a skeptic in todays so-called ‘scientific society lends an air of credibility to people who ain’t that bright. If you don’t think something is true, you automatically have more cred than those who do. We have a weird situation where belief (even with huge amounts of documented evidence) is seen as something dubious and doubtful. Welcome to the backlash against organised religion.
I see these climate deniers as just another faith. They’re touting their religion in an attempt to gain attention and credibility.
Shame that they’re wrong. I wish climate change wasn’t happening too. I also wish Santa Claus existed and that the Tooth Fairy were real.
Post a Comment