A "Global Warming Swindle?"

I received an e-mail today from a family friend. In it was the following message, as well as a link to a film hosted on Google.

I have been hearing about a British Television presentation that fairly presents the other side of the global warming issue in an intelligent, civilized manner. No bullhorns or shrieking protestors or mindless politicians, just interviews with some of the most influential scientists on both sides of the Atlantic and a well told story of how the movement gained traction.

The film takes more than an hour, but I guarantee that you will never look at this issue the same way again. Some may find a better use of their time, but I think its one of the best hours I have ever invested. The matter of man-made climate change is on the verge of becoming one of the most dangerous and expensive public hoaxes in history.

If you have any desire to understand this issue, please take the time to watch this presentation.

The following link should work, but if you have any trouble with it, just "Google" the title - "The Great Global Warming Swindle" you will find several links.

It is one of the fastest 1 hour and 14 minutes you'll ever experience. If you are one of those who thought Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" contained hidden science, you will hate this.

He also included the following after his sign-off. I thought it a good quote to go with his message.

Who makes himself a sheep, will be eaten by the wolf. ~ Sicilian Proverb

Having a free hour at that moment, I hit the provided link and watched the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is an easy upload for any high-speed connection and you can watch the film during the upload. After watching, I sent the following reply via e-mail.

Thanks for the link. I watched the movie. I can't say that it convinced me of its viewpoint, but it did provide me things for which to watch. That is always welcome.

I suppose that money is as good a reason not to believe in this way of thinking as any other, for while the money and jobs noted on the "side of" man-made global warming was put at $3B and 10K jobs, Exxon Mobile alone made $8.4B in the first quarter of 2007 and employed 83,700 people in 2006.

And while the movie posits that environmentalism has swept political America and is (perhaps) the dominate force today, it cannot count me as a believer in that assertion. Yes, it gets a fair amount of media play -- though often with a counter viewpoint, regardless of what these people believe -- and politicians do pay it lip service. However, I would still categorize it as a grassroots movement. There is a huge push in the other direction; after all, money much more often than not is politics in America. To say that Bush mentioning that America has to fight global warming means that the Bush government will actually lift a finger in that fight demonstrates a remarkable gullibility in the face of not only the administration's record... but of the record of American politicians generally on just about any subject.
It was smart movie-making to tug at the heartstrings of viewers at the end with the topic of the supposed environmental movement's affect on the developing third world. After all, what "bleeding heart liberal" doesn't want to see poverty erased and so on? In spite of this, I actually found it the movie's weakest point. Right now, I will grant that solar technology doesn't exist to power trains and steel mills. (Though we aren't really trying that hard as a people to move forward either.) However, history has shown that when third-world nations have resources that could be used for the benefit of their people, first-world nations both in the form of governments and of business interests reap the greatest rewards in their harvest. Locally, governments and government officials may grow wealthy, but that is a far cry from "trickle-down economics" reaching the people.

Finally, I'll simply note that the science presented in this movie has been called into question, very much like it presented the science of Al Gore's film. (Although that shouldn't surprise anyone, regardless of their take on things.) One of the scientists featured in the film, Carl Wunsch of MIT, has since repudiated the film and likened it to propaganda. Sure, he could have felt pressure from the environmental machine, but would not an MIT professor have been smart enough to surmise such pressure before entering into such a project?... assuming the project for which he signed on was accurately represented to him, of course. Many of the scientists featured alluded that they knew of the likely firestorm that would be coming.

On your part, I would be hesitant to accept anything in the film at face value. Rarely in life is that wise at any turn, but of course you know this. As for myself, I'm not sure if it is better or worse if this film is correct... for as unruly a species as mankind is, nature is far more unforgiving and much harder to control.

Have a nice weekend and thanks again for the link.

John Doe

PS: I liked your Sicilian proverb. It brought to mind an old science class chestnut from high school regarding a frog and water. If a frog is placed into a pot of hot water, he will jump out, but if he is placed into water that is room temperature, he will stay in the water as it is heated... until he is cooked.

I have transferred this exchange to my blog for two reasons. The first is to see if anyone – assuming that anyone is actually reading this! – has watched this film. If so, have you learned of any science to either support or refute its claims? From what sources did the science emerge and what where the credentials of those bringing it forward? All of this would include the assertions made in this film towards those in An Inconvenient Truth.

Secondly, I did some further digging, however shallow, which will at least start the inquiry and a possible debate. Blog, ahoy...

Martin Durkin was the man responsible for The Great Global Warming Swindle, acting as both writer and director. Other documentaries by Durkin include Against Nature (1997), Equinox (1998), and Modified Truth (2000). Swindle appeared on Britain’s Channel 4 on 8 March 2007. As you might imagine, Durkin has been a controversial figure in the UK for some time, not only for his views on the environment, but also for the fact that he is was once an avowed communist. Swindle brought scientific opponents out even before it first aired. The science editor of The Observer, Robin McKie, ran a story on 4 March 2007 based on an advanced screening. You can read McKie’s article for yourself. It made me want to follow up on a few names from the film after they were repeated in the article.

The first is Philip Stott, who was a professor at the University of London and a former editor of the Journal of Biogeography. Beyond publishing works throughout his academic career, from which he appears to be retired, he is now often a contributor for The Times (UK) in print and on radio and television for the BBC. Since Stott was a professor at a respected university, I’m assuming that he holds advanced degrees of some sort. However, I could not find exactly what degrees he holds. (Anyone?)

Piers Corbyn, the London-based meteorologist featured in the film, is the second. The film presented Corbyn as something of a national hero, but there appears to be reason to doubt this portrayal. He has long taken heat for being unwilling to make public the claimed scientific basis for his weather predictions – in other words, he refused to release his scientific model – and has suffered further criticism for maintaining what have been called “unfounded claims” about the infallibility of his predictions, even when they turn out to be incorrect. During Swindle, I found it odd that he used a single week – or was it a single month? – as an example in favor of his work. Were I him, I think I’d want to base it on months/years/decades of data that demonstrate the validity of my approach. I have been unable to find any reference to any scientific degrees held by Mr. Corbyn. (Anyone?) It should also be noted that Mr. Corbyn makes his living via his weather predictions. He was featured in an article by Tom Standage in the February 1999 issue of Wired Magazine.

I could find only one science-related job in the background of Nigel Calder, our third featured person. From 1956-66, he was a writer for New Scientist magazine and also served as its editor from 1962-66. However, he has been the author of many papers, books, and screenplays from 1957 to the present. I can find no mention of any scientific degrees held by Calder. (Anyone?)

Nigel Lawson, our final entry, is a politician. His most prominent position was that of British Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983-89, though he served as Secretary for State Energy from 1981-83 as well. Throughout his tenure during this era, he was a staunch proponent (and architect) of Prime Minister Thatcher’s privatization policy, a policy which included Britain’s “environmental asset concerns,” principally in the form of coal and gas.

The only other thing that I will say at this point about these four men is that I could find no indication that any of them have had difficulty getting their views out into the public. All have published many, many writings and/or have been continually featured on television programs since 1990. Their names, their viewpoints, and their writings pop up continually in searches of scientific, environmental, and political searches. Mr. Kurkin also seems not to suffer from a lack of media exposure, it should be added.

My final entry today will regard Mr. Wunsch of MIT. I think the most straight-forward way to deal with Mr. Wunsch and Swindle is to quote the entire text of an article by Ben Goldacre and David Adam in The Observer, published on 11 March 2007.

A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

The film, shown on Thursday, was made by Martin Durkin. In 1997, he produced a similar series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which attacked many of the claims of the environmental movement.

Durkin said: '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.'

Channel 4 said: 'We feel it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the scientists featured now has concerns about his contribution, we will look into it in the normal way.'

I could find no indication that Durkin ever produced such correspondence to the media. I did, however, look into papers published by Wunsch. From them, it is easy to see that while he is not an overt supporter of global warming as portrayed – for example – in A Simple Truth, he does believe that global warming is taking place and that man should confront this reality. He asserts time and again that what is driving global warming is up for debate, but that man-made factors could indeed be playing a large role. His writings certainly portray the issue as complex and in need of study from many different points of view.

Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.

Addition on 12 May 2007: I received the following reply from my friend who originally sent word of the movie. I'll quote it below in black. My reply to him will be interspersed in an alternate color. I appreciate his follow-up to my original reply and I think that it is important to document the conversation here after beginning my inquiry yesterday.

I've been watching the "global warming" movement unfold for 6 or 7 years. Many years ago I became aware of the fact that climate fluctuations were cyclical and that the recent, small contribution to greenhouse gases by man is such a recent event that logic would dictate that other forces were at work. When you hear the sound of hoofbeats, think of horses - not zebras. The sun existed at the birth of the planets and is likely responsible.

You have to admit that the issue should be a scientific one - not political. So what's Al Gore doing in the mix with his mid-double digit IQ? An issue is known by its supporters. I have known this group for 40 + years and regard their ilk with the greatest contempt. They must have an entire wardrobe of anti-establishment t-shirts.

I can agree with you here, but only to a point. "What" global warming is should be the "property" of science. However, if humans are the cause, then surely the push for a human response must be political. We must have both a national and an international response to the issue and that dictates politics.

And I'm going to assume that you meant an IQ of closer to 150 for Gore, rather than to 50. :-)

Exxon Mobile produces a product and employs an army of accomplished people. It seems these days that being very good at what you do is bad. Wal-Mart, any bank, any industrial company ....any teacher, anyone or any enterprise that excels must be crooked or must have taken advantage of their employees, the environment, some third world country or cheated on their taxes.

That employers such as the ones that you mention have accomplished people in their ranks isn't the issue, nor could it be thought otherwise. Nor, really, is being "crooked" the issue. However, to use Exxon again as an example, it exists to make money... period. Only enforced legal boundaries will stop it from doing anything to advance that singular goal. Nothing else matters. If laws can be changed, it will work to do so. If it is less expensive to break the law than to follow it, it will be break the law. It is not a matter of being bad or good, it is a matter of fulfilling its purpose. A lion kills not because it is bad or good, but because it must eat. So, too, must an oil company have oil in the largest, cheapest way possible.

I have no doubt that there are exceptions to the rule I note above. I know that there are good people whom I would consider moral in their ranks and even at their head. And I believe that the forces of "corporate nature" are forever pushing them to be other than what they want to be.

I would also suggest that the proverbial right-winger in America willingly puts his head in the sand on this type of issue. They choose not to see child labor issues, environmental degradation, or the rending of laws and liberty when it surfaces. Corporations can't be wrong. It is the "liberal media" or some political movement that creates the story. I say "proverbial" because me making a sweeping statement regarding all Conservatives would be as unwarranted as the reverse being said.

I would also say that the right often seems to do in reverse what you are charging the left. "The media is liberal." "The protesters are all brainless reactionaries." "Those who oppose corporations are all bad... and they want to pull them down."

The video, I think, was somewhat off base at the last. The real agenda of the "global warming" movement is to realign the world's industrial base by making life unbearable for the wealthiest nations for the benefit of the emerging economies - a form of wealth redistribution. Our imbecilic senators even saw through the first shot across the bow - The Kyoto Accord - by voting down a preliminary approach 95 to 0.

I suppose that I'm still a part of this movement and I certainly don't want my electricity, my plane travel, my automobiles, my food supply, or just about anything else in my daily life to disappear. Some of it should be transformed in its nature, but that is quite different. I would also work against any such changes based on what I know at this point.

I think that this time you are being "had." My files are full of articles going back to a time when this issue was being debated in thoughtful journals, not on Hollywood Blvd. Rachel Carson's "scientific facts" have been proven to be somewhat fraudulent. The "population bomb" never went off. Acid rain never gained traction. This is the latest salvo of the left. Too bad it is a left-right issue instead of a right-wrong issue.

If conservatives were on the pro-global warming side, where would you stand?

Here, I think that you do me a disservice. As has been said, the issue of global warming as to what it is should be an issue of right or wrong, not left or right. I am both smart enough and possess sufficient self awareness to form my own opinions on the subjects of our time. I was against the Iraq war not because Bush supported it, but because I believe that anyone with common sense could see that it was the wrong move to make. I am a proponent of gay rights not because Focus on the Family is against them, but because I believe they are Constitutionally secured. And I am in general support of both the death penalty and a strong, overwhelming military not because Democrats are often seen as disapproving of both, but because I think both are necessary.

I am a registered Democrat because I see the party as the lesser of two evils, but the width of its difference from the Republicans is that of a hair. Change must always come from both within a system and from without. However, I am not so brave as to work too far outside of our norms, nor probably would I want to do so even if I possessed sufficient courage.

As you know, I have Conservatives in my immediate family. I think that they are wrong on many issues -- and certainly we have healthy arguments on them -- but I also believe that they are good, caring people. I don't see Republicans -- and here I mean citizens in general -- as bad people. I do see their leadership generally as corrupt, immoral, and as not having the best interests of my country at heart. I see most of the Democratic leadership in the same light.

Power does corrupt. We just have to hope for leaders that can fight that maxim as much as possible.

Addition on 21 May 2007: My friend e-mailed me the following excerpt from an article that appeared in Science Magazine. The article was titled Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages and was presented by J.D. Hays, John Imbrie, and N.J. Shackleton. The issue was Science, 10 December 1976: Vol. 194, no. 4270, pp. 1121-1132. His message arrived on 15 May 2007, but I'm only now getting to my e-mail after a several very busy days. Prior to quoting me the text, which I will also place below, he wrote the following:

Read item 7 of the abstract (I can't afford to buy the whole article). So much for sophisticated climatology.

The excerpt:

1) Three indices of global climate have been monitored in the record of the past 450,000 years in Southern Hemisphere ocean-floor sediments.

2) Over the frequency range 10^–4 to 10^–5 cycle per year, climatic variance of these records is concentrated in three discrete spectral peaks at periods of 23,000, 42,000, and approximately 100,000 years. These peaks correspond to the dominant periods of the earth's solar orbit, and contain respectively about 10, 25, and 50 percent of the climatic variance.

3) The 42,000-year climatic component has the same period as variations in the obliquity of the earth's axis and retains a constant phase relationship with it.

4) The 23,000-year portion of the variance displays the same periods (about 23,000 and 19,000 years) as the quasi-periodic precession index.

5) The dominant, 100,000-year climatic component has an average period close to, and is in phase with, orbital eccentricity. Unlike the correlations between climate and the higher-frequency orbital variations (which can be explained on the assumption that the climate system responds linearly to orbital forcing), an explanation of the correlation between climate and eccentricity probably requires an assumption of nonlinearity.

6) It is concluded that changes in the earth's orbital geometry are the fundamental cause of the succession of Quaternary ice ages.

7) A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next seven thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.

.