TGGWS in Iltalehti

Over Easter, I quietly fumed about how Iltalehti published a reader comment recommending -- what else? -- The Great Global Warming Swindle to Finnish viewers. Wow. Recall that one interviewee in TGGWS later claimed that he was "the one who had been swindled" as he was "misrepresented" as a climate change sceptic. (The good thing about YouTube's current copyright infringement battle? TGGWS has been removed from the web.) The Iltalehti reader commenting on the film actually argued that, "The issue that we ought to be concerned about is environmental protection... I think it is mostly the media's and politicians' fault that climate change has become a more visible issue than taking care of the world's environment and oceans (sic). They are, after all, two totally separate issues."

First of all, I'm not even sure what I was doing reading Iltalehti, and secondly, I'm sorry, but what the heck? Oh my God. It is hard to fathom someone would genuinely write such a piece. The compartmentalization is simply mind blowing. Since when were environmental protection and climate change separate issues? Since when was the environment separate from the oceans? Despite the incoherence, Iltalehti afforded that piece of writing one third of a page, advertised TGGWS and juxtaposed this with a picture of pretty yellow flowers. It was clearly an effort to provoke, since that's what tabloids are about, but it's irresponsible: polemic that instills complacency.

The least critical and the least educated are the most likely to get their "science" from Iltalehti. Climate scepticism and films like TGGWS may claim to be about enhancing scientific literacy and inspiring dialogue, but most of us do not have the education to fully understand the science of climate change, anyway. The scientists themselves do not claim to fully understand it! None of us fully understand the consequences of our actions and nobody can predict the future, but does it stop us from living our lives? No. We do the best with whatever knowledge we've got, (hopefully) not doubting our every move. So why would anyone let the climate change polemic brew such doubt that they do nothing? How cocky to think that just by observing the weather and reading the dailies one could know better than individuals who've devoted their entire careers to the subject! Scientists have very little to gain from telling us the environment is changing and we're causing it. When thousands of scientists tell us they are confident something is for real, why can we not take it on faith -- are people that untrusting with the so-called establishment these days? Can the tabloids not go back to antagonizing Hollywood?

Here's a link to the discussion. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the original comment on the web; they probably only published it in the actual paper. I especially enjoyed that comment where someone tells another writer to "calm down, you're not going to die," and the other one responds, "I most certainly will, you wanna bet?" Me too, I will most certainly die. It's probably not going to be climate change that will kill me, just like the Greenland ice sheet won't melt next year, but that doesn't mean those things won't eventually happen.

Swindle

Readers on a New York Times forum are referring others to the The Great Global Warming Swindle for credible (some argue "unassailable") evidence against human-induced global warming. The Swindle movie is so conveniently available on YouTube that literally hundreds of thousands of people have watched it over the past three weeks.

I posted quotes on the forum from the Guardian and the Independent to discredit Swindle. It was pretty much the same stuff posted here on our blog a few weeks ago. If you'd like to read the forum, my comments are under my first name; someone also responded to me (they got my name wrong and spelled it Kristeen, but just ctrl-F that and my name and there's my slice of the debate if you're interested.)

A forum like that shows the depth of doubt and breadth of opinion out there. I felt it was imperative to comment publicly on this film. People with no scientific background are trying to debate the larger issues by arguing over details that most of us simply cannot understand without extensive science education. The details don't change the big picture: we are putting gas in the atmosphere, hence it warms. Period. Many are using a film like Swindle to infer that human-induced climate change is merely a liberal hoax. All I'm saying is, I'm not an atmospheric scientist (either); sometimes you just have to trust the people who are. These are people who are working for a fraction of what they'd get in industry, telling us this thing is real. Endless debating among lay people without PhDs is what keeps the masses from taking action. Why are we willing to believe marketing and all kinds of hype, but unwilling to believe scientists?

Once the real evidence arrives, it may be too late. This view finds support in Oxford Today, which in its latest issue published an article about green energy:

Likewise, [Good Energy CEO Juliet] Davenport agrees that saving the planet is more about people than science. 'I do believe that humanity is incredibly innovative and incredibly powerful. But for governments to take action there has to be real public awareness of the issue', she says. 'I do believe that we will come up with a way of solving this problem. But to get to that critical tipping-point of public awareness, I fear there may have to be casualties first.'

Ben Franklin said it best: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Happy Easter / Passover everyone. More blog entries from me next week.

UK Broadcasting Woes

The other day I wrote an entry about The Great Global Warming Swindle, a film shown on the UK Channel 4 last week, and asked "Why is a UK government channel showing it? Who paid for it and who received the proceeds?"

This was a show that aimed to discredit climate change. The channel is publicly funded. Short of calling Channel 4 irresponsible, today's Guardian quotes one of the channel's founders as saying the channel has "lost its soul", and showing an anti global warming film "looks like opportunism." May a publicly funded channel air a production that may not be in the interest of the general public? What level of responsibility do public media outlets have as far as choosing their content is concerned? How does their degree of responsibility vary compared to commercial media, or does it?

Most DealBook Comments Ever?

John Doerr's tears elicited the kind of responses one would expect: disbelieving, cynical, accusatory, sympathetic and everything in between. There have probably never been as many comments on DealBook.

One reader pointed others towards The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that was shown on the UK Channel 4 last week.

What is powerful about this provocative program is the way TGGWS unearths how the public feels about climate change. People start discussing this stuff over the internet, and it is obvious many people harbor serious doubts. If you watch even a few minutes of this film, you'll see why and how, because it is fairly well made (with groovy background music...) Unsurprisingly, many viewers responded positively; some even saying that just as they had been convinced of global warming, they were right back to square one after having watched TGGWS. Here's one reader quote from a British news site, in response to TGGWS:

"Good. The sooner all this global warming hyper nonsense is consigned to the dustbin, the better off we'll all be. I've been telling people, for many years, to ignore the scaremongers. There never was any convincing evidence that CO2 produced global warming - and there's still none. More and more evidence, however, points firmly to the Sun as the cause of episodes of warming and cooling."

— Posted by Peter Warlow, Brentwood, UK

fter seeing a film like this, you start to ask questions: who made this film? Why? Why is a UK government channel showing it? Who paid for it and who received the proceeds?

1) The director of the film Martin Durkin doesn't have the greatest reputation. The Guardian's George Monbiot wrote about his films back in 2000, after Mr Durkin filmed a number of questionable documentaries, including one that claimed silicone breast implants protect women from breast cancer.

2) Professor Carl Wunsch of MIT, interviewed in TGGWS, is considering making a formal complaint against Channel 4, because his views on climate change in the film were misrepresented. Professor Wunsch believes human activity causes climate change, but his interview was edited such that he appears sceptical. Said professor Wunsch, "If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

You could argue that the greater issue this raises is the inadequacy of science education that renders many of us frankly incapable of making sound critical judgments regarding the natural sciences.

Becoming hysterical helps nobody; Greenland won't melt next year. But even if fossil fuel combustion caused no environmental effects whatsoever (and it does, in addition to CO2 emissions), we would still have to find alternative fuel sources because oil resources are limited. Someone is still going to have to figure out what those sources are, and someone is still going to have to risk their money to fund the R&D.

90 percent of the world's transportation systems run on oil. Nobody contests the Hubbert peak oil theory, according to which the world will eventually run out of oil. People complain about gasoline prices, but they don't see the connection: increasing demand for a finite, declining resource leads to higher prices! Simple. Eventually the cost will be very high, and sometime later, we will need to rely on other fuels. John Doerr has more than a fair right to feel badly; who cares if he hopes to make a few dozen million dollars more? If one of his companies actually strikes gold and popularizes a new affordable, clean fuel to power all our cars, Doerr, in my view, is more than deserving of the cut he makes -- much more, one could argue, than the CEO of Shell that received a 6% pay raise (from €3.5 to €3.7 million) for overseeing the company's most profitable year ever, according to today's WSJ.