« June 2008 | Main | August 2008 »

July 31, 2008

An Alternative Explanation of Climate Change

A pdf copy of Ian Wilson's talk to the Lavoisier Group AGM (11th July 2008) in Melbourne, Australia, is posted at:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf

Ian Wilson was born in Ipswich , QLD, in 1955. He graduated in physics from the UNE in 1977 and obtained his PhD in astronomy in 1982 from the ANU, having worked at the Mt. Stromlo & Siding Spring Observatories.

He was subsequently a Junior Research Fellow at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, a Research Fellow at Harvard, Ass. Professor at the Universities of Toledo and Oklahoma , and Operations Astronomer at the Hubble Space Institute in Baltimore MD.

Since 1995 he has taught science and mathematics in Queensland and is now teaching in Toowoomba.

Posted by Paul at 10:20 PM | Comments (70) | TrackBack

Hansen and the IPCC Wrong Again: Bangladesh Gaining Land, Not Losing

New data shows that Bangladesh's landmass is increasing, contradicting forecasts that the South Asian nation will be under the waves by the end of the century, experts say.

Scientists from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) have studied 32 years of satellite images and say Bangladesh's landmass has increased by 20 square kilometres (eight square miles) annually.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted that impoverished Bangladesh, criss-crossed by a network of more than 200 rivers, will lose 17 percent of its land by 2050 because of rising sea levels due to global warming.

Director of the US-based NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, professor James Hansen, paints an even grimmer picture, predicting the entire country could be under water by the end of the century.

AFP/Yahoo News: Bangladesh gaining land, not losing: scientists

Posted by Paul at 04:54 PM | Comments (40) | TrackBack

Gone with the Wind

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the state.

Reuters, 27th February 2008: 'Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency'

Posted by Paul at 02:54 AM | Comments (70) | TrackBack

Slaves to Fossil Fuels?

Birmingham University (UK) has seen fit to publicise an article by Jean-Francois Mouhot from the Modern History Department entitled, 'Free the Planet,' which is published in the journal History Today. The University Media Release follows:

Slaves to Fossil Fuels - a Dangerous Warning from History

A historian has drawn uncomfortable parallels between our current attitudes to fossil fuels and climate change and the behaviour of mid 19th century slave owners, with worrying predictions for the future.

Jean-Francois Mouhot, from the University of Birmingham, calls for a recognition of “the evil of continuing to live as we currently do.” Comparing the attitude of slave owners with our modern day attitudes to oil says Mouhot, is valid and useful, because so many people acknowledge that owning slaves is wrong.

Mouhot says: “It is almost impossible in our contemporary world to live without relying on some sort of energy of the fossil variety. We are perhaps as much victims as culprits of a consumer society. However, our moral duty once we become aware of the evil of the system is to resist it.”

In an article for History Today, Mouhot claims that there a more similarities between current attitudes to oil, gas and coal and those of slave owners that might immediately be perceived. His comparison rests on the premise that it is a feature of human nature to take advantage of having someone or something else to work for them for free or at a small cost, even if it came at a high moral cost.

Looking at the impact on human suffering, beyond the obvious pain caused by slavery, large-scale burning of fossil fuels is inflicting global suffering, in terms of the environmental impacts of droughts, flooding, threats to crop yields and the displacement of large numbers of people.

Mouhot calls for an honest recognition of the damage being done to the planet and humanity, and warns of the dangers of ignoring the powerful lessons of the past.

“We all want to identify with abolitionists, but at the same time we know that the slave owner in each of us will want to resist change. Our abundant energy gives us an extraordinary power but we should never forget that power corrupts.

“If we do not change, our generation, and our children’s generation will pay heavily for the consequences of our reckless activity.”

Jean-Francois Mouhot’s article Free the Planet is published in the August issue of History Today, and is available online at www.historytoday.com.

Ends

History Today: Free the Planet

Jean-François Mouhot traces a link between climate change and slavery, and suggests that reliance on fossil fuels has made slave owners of us all.

Most of us approach slavery with the underlying assumption that our modern civilization is morally far superior to the barbaric slave-owning societies of the past. But are we really so different? If we compare our current attitude to fossil fuels and climate change with the behaviour of the slave owners, there are more similarities than one might immediately perceive.

Historians have long argued that there are numerous links between the commerce of slaves and the Industrial Revolution. Slavery encouraged early industrial production in a circular way, by channelling demand for goods and providing capital for investments. The slave trade stimulated production: slaves were exchanged against goods produced by manufacturers in Europe, such as textiles or firearms; the demand for padlocks and fetters to chain slaves represented a significant market for burgeoning industrial cities like Birmingham. Goods grown by slave labour and exported by planters helped create the first mass consumer markets and made Europe dependent on imported commodities. Plantation agriculture also resembled the ‘factories in the field’ that prefigured the manufacturers of the future. Finally – though the importance of this phenomenon is still debated – some of the capital accumulated by slave traders and planters fuelled investment in new machinery, which helped to kick start the Industrial Revolution. Slave traders therefore played a significant – if perhaps indirect – role in the establishment of the industrialist system at the core ....

Posted by Paul at 01:43 AM | Comments (42) | TrackBack

July 30, 2008

New Paper Demonstrates Lack of Credibility for Climate Model Predictions

A new paper by Demetris Koutsoyiannis et al has been published, which demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value. The full paper entitled, 'On the Credibility of Climate Predictions' is published in the Journal of Hydrological Sciences, and is available for free download. 18 years of climate model predictions for temperature and precipitation at 8 locations worldwide were evaluated.

The Abstract states:

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

Hat tip to Climate Audit

Posted by Paul at 04:54 PM | Comments (54) | TrackBack

Join the Bloggers: Check the Temperature Data

I was interviewed by journalist John Stewart on ABC TV’s Lateline program tonight.

The segment was about global warming with a focus on blogging.

Mr Stewart made the claim that the only place where the science is still debated is on the internet amongst bloggers. In fact we were accused of still “attacking” the science of global warming.

Interestingly Andrew Bolt was not described as one a News Ltd columnist but rather as a skeptic and a blogger. He was shown making the point that there has been no increase in global temperatures for ten years.

I was also as described as a blogger and also shown making the point that over the last 10 years it hasn’t got any warmer.

If Mr Stewart had gone to the trouble of checking the internationally recognised sources of real world (as opposed to computer generated) data on global temperatures he would have been able to confirm that what Mr Bolt and I said was correct: there has been no warming over the last ten years.

Monthly globally averaged lower atmospheric temperature anomaly since 1979 as measured by NOAA and NASA satellites.
With the additional mark up from gorelied.blogspot.com, with thanks.

Even James Hansen’s GISS data shows that global temperatures have plateued, if not cooled over the last ten years.

NASA GISS Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Analysis since 1998

But instead of the news program confirming our pronouncements with reference to the data (as they might on a business program), I was accused of “spreading doubt about the world getting hotter”.

Graeme Pearman was then introduced, not as a warmaholic, but as a former CSIRO scientist, with Mr Stewart explaining that he believed the data from the Hadley Centre in the UK provided no evidence that the world is getting cooler. [So does this mean the world might not be getting warmer?]

Monthly near-surface from 1850, from the Hadley Centre

Direct comment from Dr Pearman then followed in which he appeared to avoid reference to global temperatures instead making comment about temperatures in Australia – but the average viewer probably thought he was referring to global temperatures.

I did get to make two final important points: 1. that Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, should look at the global temperature data and, 2. that it was wrong for the Minister to suggest, as she did recently with the release of the green paper on emissions trading, that 12 of the last 13 years have been the warmest in history.

This is indeed an outrageous claim with the Minister ignoring much of geological history.

The Minister might have got away with saying that of the last 150 years, the last 13 have been relatively warm. But to suggest that 12 of the last 13 are the hottest ever is just plain wrong. Whatever happened to the medieval warm period, not to mention that planet earth is very old – in fact about 4,550 million years old.

Of course the earth’s climate has always changed and continents have moved, mountain ranges formed and when continents have pulled apart huge quantities of volcanic water, carbon dioxide and methane have been released into the atmosphere.

Don't forget that just 120 million years ago Australia was at the South Pole but it wasn’t cold. Global sea levels were about 100 metres higher than at present and the sea surface temperature was 10-15C higher than now. Indeed parts of inland Australian were once covered in a shallow tropical sea.

The Lateline segment finished with John Stewart stating that we, the bloggers, aren’t going to go away. He has got that bit right.

I would have like to have made a couple of additional points, ten years is not a very long period of time, but there is now a breakdown in what was a close correlation for about 30 years between increasing levels of carbon dioxide and increasing global temperatures.

It may of course start warming again next year – but a recent paper in the journal Nature suggests global temperatures may now plateau until at least 2015 – that is there may be no more warming for a few years.

Of course it is worth remembering that there has been a general warming trend for the last 18,000 years and over this period sea levels have risen about 100 metres.

All in all I think John Stewart did a pretty good job with a difficult topic.

In fact, I’m hoping he will now become a regular reader of blogs and start checking the temperature data and pondering the difference between correlation and causation with us.

Cyclone Nargis - of course it's easier to read a graph than a cyclone.

Update
A video clip of the segment is now here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/07/29/2318074.htm

Posted by jennifer at 12:19 AM | Comments (97) | TrackBack

July 29, 2008

Charges and Counter Charges Against 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' Sorted by Tom Harris

Those of us who are promoting The Great Global Warming Swindle (TGGWS) film need to know how to answer questions about the judgments against the film by the British regulator “Ofcom” (as well as the Royal Society’s brief statement – see here: http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=7901). It is, however, very time consuming to read the whole report from Ofcom (available here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb114/issue114.pdf).

Trying to stay up to date on all the charges and counter charges being made and defended against in the media is nearly a full time job so I thought it made sense to write down my conclusions after spending the past day reading everything I can about the situation. Fell free to use, or not use, anything I say below. This is not an official ICSC statement but is merely my own suggestions as to what I would say if questioned about the Ofcom ruling – I am very interested to hear if other people have a different take on the situation and perhaps a better way to address the issue.

My overall conclusion can be summarized as follows:

Most of the rulings of Ofcom were in favour of TV4’s broadcast of TGGWS or they said the topics of the complaints were outside of their mandate since they were not established to adjudicate between competing scientific views. They did judge against TV4 on some, somewhat minor (to the program when seen in total), areas. For example, Ofcom concluded that Swindle broke rules that required the program to include alternative points of view on the policy-oriented parts of the program (i.e. part 5 of 5). Personally, I consider that this judgment, while appearing to be theoretically correct from a broadcast rules point of view, is not in any way serious since the ‘alternative’ point of view (namely the IPCC’s) is about the only thing the media ever cover these days. Ofcom also concluded that both the IPCC and David King were not given an adequate opportunity to present their points of view to contest the statements made about them in the film. Again, this appears to be theoretically a violation, but is unimportant for the same reason. There was a partial misquote at the end of the film where it was implied that David King (identified indirectly) made the whole statement cited when in fact he made only about 80% of it, the other 20% (the part about breeding couples) actually coming from James Lovelock. While it made King look even less informed than what he actually said, it didn’t materially affect the program in my opinion.

And that, is the overall conclusion of Ofcom as well – they wrote, “In summary, in relation to the manner in which facts in the programme were presented, Ofcom is of the view that the audience of this programme was not materially misled in a manner that would have led to actual or potential harm.”

Some other important quotes from the Ofcom ruling:

1. “Also at no point did the programme advocate that the audience should not protect the environment. For example, it did not advise people to use energy unwisely or inefficiently. As a result Ofcom considered it highly unlikely that the programme could have caused actual harm. As to potential harm some complainants had considered that the programme’s questioning of the theory of man-made global warming would create doubt and confusion in viewers’ minds about the need to take action against global warming. Ofcom considers that, although the programme may have caused viewers to challenge the consensus view that human activity is the main cause of global warming, there is no evidence that the programme in itself did, or would, cause appreciable potential harm to members of the public.”

2. ”As with the errors in the graphs, Ofcom did not consider any of these other inaccuracies were of such significance as to be capable of materially misleading the audience so as to cause harm and offence in breach of Rule 2.2.”

3. ”In the context of this particular programme, given the number of scientific theories and politico-economic arguments dealt with in The Great Global Warming Swindle, it was not materially misleading overall to have omitted certain opposing views or represented them only in commentary.

4. “while unfairness to participants has been found (failures to give an adequate opportunity to respond and the unfair presentation of views), Ofcom does not consider that, overall, these failures led to material being transmitted which was so misleading that harm would have been caused to viewers.

Here are the details based on my read of the situation, if you want to delve a bit deeper:

Most media are painting the picture of TV4 (who broadcast TGGWS) being in a lot of hot water over the documentary and that they have been thoroughly condemned by Ofcom. This isn’t true.

First, here are some of the pieces that take this anti-TV4 stance, and some of my comments about the articles listed:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/21/channel4.ofcom puts emphasis on where Ofcom judged that the film broke broadcast rules and de-emphasizes where it judged they did not. In comparison with many other articles against the film, this one is less harsh than many, however.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions - massive overemphasis on where the film was judged to breach the rules (breaches highlighted in bullet form, while non-breaches, of which there were many more, are either underemphasized or not mentioned at all).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/22/channel4.ofcom - biased but not too bad, except giving space to Bob Ward, a former spokesman for the Royal Society, who said: "It is very disappointing that Ofcom has failed to fully uphold the public interest, and the ruling raises very serious doubts about the ability of the broadcasting regulator to recognise the harm caused by misrepresentations of the scientific evidence on climate change."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7517444.stm: Predictably, the BBC made the originator of much of the complaints against the showing of TGGWS on TV4 into a hero.

Robert Watson waded in with some damning comments as well at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/ofcom.channel4 where he wrote “... The Great Global Warming Swindle did a major disservice to the public at large and tried to undermine the scientific basis which governments and the private sector are using to address cost effectively one of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced. … Attempts to undermine the strong scientific consensus on this issue detract from the urgent challenge that the world is facing – namely, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently and rapidly enough to avoid dangerous levels of climate change in the future. … Sceptics who disseminate misinformation and argue that there is no need to address this urgent issue are placing the planet at risk, threatening the livelihoods of not only the present generation, but even more future generations – our children and grandchildren.”

The worst coverage (in the UK, at least) was the steady bombardment from climate campaigner/journalist George Monbiot, some of which is as follows:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange - lots of nonsense here and confusion between climate change and environmental protection in general

*** To see what we are really up against on Swindle, and to prepare for the inevitable questions we will get it is worth listening to the following Monbiot interview on the topic, even if you don’t have time to read any of his pieces: http://download.guardian.co.uk/audio/1216707819290/5876/gdn.new.080722.pm.Monbiot.mp3 .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions1 is another error-riddled piece by Monbiot. He does however make one point here that is worth noting. He writes, “In fact, it is precisely because "the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast", meaning that climate change was no longer a matter of political controversy, that a programme claiming it is all a pack of lies could slip past the partiality rules. The greater a programme's defiance of scientific fact, the less likely Ofcom is to rule against it.” Note – see * in PS below.

Monbiot has a point in some ways. Ofcom said that it was not necessary for TGGWS to show the other side of the science (i.e. the IPCC side) in the first 4 parts of the video because there was essentially no significant controversy about the science among governments or in society at large. Ofcom accept as a given that there is also a strong consensus in the climate science community on the side of the IPCC. This means that, as ICSC and our allies succeed in increasing debate in society at large about the real causes of climate change, videos like TGGWS WILL have to include much more on the IPCC side, something to keep in mind as we move forward on the issue. A benefit to this ruling is however that, if applied fairly, the BBC and other UK media will be required to start including our side as we succeed in making the issue more of a frequent debate in society. BTW, Ofcom seem to contradict their own certainty about the soundness of the science backing climate alarmism, when they write in the report, “In dealing with an issue such as the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which is the subject of scientific controversy, (italics added) those involved in the debate will - by definition - disagree over the factual accuracy of each others’ claims.” And “The Committee acknowledged that while there is a broad consensus amongst scientists, governments and the public that global warming is directly related to anthropogenic causes, this is still a topic of debate.” (my italics)

The letter seen at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/23/channel4.climatechange is the typical reaction to the situation from most reporters and a pretty good indication of what we will face from the media and audiences, I suggest.

There was some very limited media coverage in defense of showing TGGWS on TV4, particularly by Hamish Mykura, the man who I understand would have been in charge of making that decision – see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/22/channel4.ofcom - this piece is, I suggest an absolute minimum read for anyone handing out the video as is the audio of the interview with him part way down the BBC Web page at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7517509.stm. Here is an audio of an interview with the film producer, Martin Durkin, well worth hearing as well since he addresses the complaints of Professor Wunsch: http://www.nrsp.com/NRSP-Media/Audio_Wave/Martin%20Durkin-15-03-07-Charles%20Adler.wav .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/21/do2106.xml is also quite good (and short) piece.

Of course, the anti-TV4/TGGWS media coverage has not been limited to the UK – A Google search on "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and Ofcom yields 5,890 results. Here is one from Australia that tells readers only about the (relatively few) findings against the film: http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/climate-program-swindled-viewers/2008/07/21/1216492357002.html

Here is a small, sarcastic report in a Cincinnati newspaper

TUESDAY JULY 22
A British TV station is in big trouble after its anti-global warming film was deemed unfair, biased and totally misleading by the country's regulatory body. According to the BBC, The Great Global Warming Swindle broke impartiality rules by failing to reflect a range of views about Earth getting hotter. The film blames rising atmospheric temperatures on "changes in the sun's output," which was determined after months of research by England's regulator of communications to mean "daytime."

In Canada, the worst of the attackers were actually correct when they posted http://www.desmogblog.com/media-coverage-slams-the-great-global-warming-swindle since nearly all media did slam the film using the Ofcom ruling as a media hook.

Here is another article published in Canada that references the topic: http://thereview.on.ca/topstory016.php - note essentially that there is essentially no reference to the majority of Ofcom findings that the film did not break broadcast rules (BTW, this piece contains serious errors that are corrected in Dr. Ball’s letter to the editor the newspaper published here: http://thereview.on.ca/topstory016.php. I will be writing to them about their biased coverage of the Ofcom ruling since a local association in that region is showing TGGWS to the public in a couple of weeks).

There has been a little bit on the Web in defense of the Ofcom decision; here are a couple:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/ofcom_global_warming_swindle_adjudication/

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/22/the-great-global-warming-swindle-alarmists-lose-another-round-in-ofcom-ruling/

That’s it for now – hope some of this is useful to people as they face reporters and the public.

Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
http:///www.climatescienceinternational.org

PS: To save people time, I have cut and paste some excerpts from the original Ofcom ruling that might be useful to people when discussing the topic. Here they are, in no particular order:

Channel 4 disputed that the way facts and views in the programme were presented misled the audience. For example, in relation to allegations that the programme could undermine or dissuade people from taking action to help prevent climate change, Channel 4 emphasized that the programme did not in any way advocate that the audience should not protect the environment, nor did it advise people to use energy unwisely or inefficiently. In short, Channel 4 argued that the programme did not advocate complacency or inaction of any kind with regard to climate change, which the programme had not denied was taking place.

Factual Accuracy

The complainants (including the Group Complaint) stated that the programme was not accurate and therefore in breach of the Code. However, whilst Ofcom is required by the 2003 Act to set standards to ensure that news programmes are reported with “due accuracy” there is no such requirement for other types of programming, including factual programmes of this type.

It remains the case, however, that broadcasters must comply with standards set by Ofcom to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material . In drafting section 2 of the Code (which contains the rules relating to this objective), Ofcom set a requirement that factual programmes should not materially mislead. Accordingly, Rule 2.2 states that:

“Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience”.

The accompanying Ofcom guidance to the Code explains that “Ofcom is required to guard against harmful or offensive material, and it is possible that actual or potential harm and/or offence may be the result of misleading material in relation to the representation of factual issues. This rule is therefore designed to deal with content which materially misleads the audience so as to cause harm or offence.” (Emphasis in original). Ofcom therefore only regulates misleading material where that material is likely to cause harm or offence. As a consequence, the requirement that content must not materially mislead the audience is necessarily a high test.

In dealing with these complaints therefore Ofcom had to ascertain – not whether the programme was accurate - but whether it materially misled the audience with the result that harm and/or offence was likely to be caused. It is not within Ofcom’s remit or ability in this case as the regulator of the ‘communications industry’ to establish or seek t o adjudicate on ‘facts’ such as whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon, nor is Ofcom able to reach conclusions about the validity of any particular scientific theories. In dealing with an issue such as the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which is the subject of scientific controversy, those involved in the debate will - by definition - disagree over the factual accuracy of each others’ claims.

Therefore, it is to some extent inevitable that in a polemical programme such as The Great Global Warming both sides of the argument will violently disagree about the ‘facts’.

Ofcom’s role, as regards factual accuracy, is to decide whether this programme breached the requirements of Rule 2.2 of the Code. To do this, it must reach an opinion on the “portrayals of factual matters” in a programme in order to determine whether the audience was materially misled by them overall – bearing in mind that Ofcom’s remit to review the factual matters in a programme can be based only on an appropriate and proportionate review of the evidence for this purpose. To help fulfil this aim, Ofcom looked at four illustrative areas of complaint about the portrayal of factual matters in this programme and examined them in light of Rule 2.2 of the Code.

(a) Presented facts in a misleading way

In deciding whether facts were presented in a materially misleading way Ofcom considered the context in which the programme was broadcast. As the Code explains, context includes factors such as the editorial content of the programme and the extent to which the nature of the content can be brought to the attention of the potential audience.

The anthropogenic global warming theory is extremely well represented in the mainstream media. A large number of television programmes, news reports, press articles and, indeed, feature length films have adopted the premise that global warming is caused by man-made carbon dioxide. In light of this it is reasonable for the programme makers to assume that the likely audience would have a basic understanding of the mainstream man-made global warming theory, and would be able to assess the arguments presented in the programme in order to form their own opinion.

Ofcom also noted that the programme was clearly trailed and its authorship was clearly identified, so that there was a certain audience expectation as to its controversial content.

At no point did the programme state that the theories it contained were the mainstream or majority view. For example, the very beginning of the programme narration expressly recognised that anthropogenic global warming theory is the generally accepted orthodoxy:

"Man-made global warming is no longer just a theory about climate it is the defining moral and political cause of our age. Campaigners say the time for debate is over, any criticism no matter how scientifically rigorous is illegitimate ...even worse dangerous.”

In summary, in relation to the manner in which facts in the programme were presented, Ofcom is of the view that the audience of this programme was not materially misled in a manner that would have led to actual or potential harm. The audience would have been in no doubt that the programme's focus was on scientific and other arguments which challenged the orthodox theory of man-made global warming. Regardless of whether viewers were in fact persuaded by the arguments contained in the programme, Ofcom does not believe that they could have been materially misled as to the existence and substance of these alternative theories and opinions, or misled as to the weight which is given to these opinions in the scientific community.

Ofcom noted that the programme did not at any time deny that global temperatures are rising; rather, it was concerned with questioning the causes of this phenomenon. Also at no point did the programme advocate that the audience should not protect the environment. For example, it did not advise people to use energy unwisely or inefficiently. As a result Ofcom considered it highly unlikely that the programme could have caused actual harm. As to potential harm some complainants had considered that the programme’s questioning of the theory of man-made global warming would create doubt and confusion in viewers’ minds about the need to take action against global warming. Ofcom considers that, although the programme may have caused viewers to challenge the consensus view that human activity is the main cause of global warming, there is no evidence that the programme in itself did, or would, cause appreciable potential harm to members of the public.

As with the errors in the graphs, Ofcom did not consider any of these other inaccuracies were of such significance as to be capable of materially misleading the audience so as to cause harm and offence in breach of Rule 2.2.

Ofcom considers there is a difference between presenting an opinion which attacks an established, mainstream and well understood view, such as in this programme, and criticising a view which is much more widely disputed and contentious. In the former case, programme makers are not always required to ensure the detailed reflection of the mainstream view (since it will already be known and generally accepted by the majority of viewers). In the context of this particular programme, given the number of scientific theories and politico-economic arguments dealt with in The Great Global Warming Swindle, it was not materially misleading overall to have omitted certain opposing views or represented them only in commentary. The use by the programme makers of commentary, interviews and archive footage in an attempt to demonstrate the mainstream view on balance, in Ofcom’s opinion, fulfilled this requirement.

In summary, Ofcom considered most viewers would have been aware that the views expressed in the programme went against the scientific consensus about the causes of global warming and were only espoused by a small minority – not least because of the overwhelming amount of material broadcast in recent years based on the consensus view that human production of carbon dioxide is a major cause of global warming.

While unfairness to participants has been found (failures to give an adequate opportunity to respond and the unfair presentation of views), Ofcom does not consider that, overall, these failures led to material being transmitted which was so misleading that harm would have been caused to viewers.

Channel 4, however, had the right to show this programme provided it remained within the Code and – despite certain reservations – Ofcom has determined that it did not breach Rule 2.2. On balance it did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence.

Extremely weird point that I discussed above and Monbiot caught: “Ofcom concluded that for most of its 90 minute duration the requirements of due impartiality did not apply to The Great Global Warming Swindle. This is because for the first four of its five parts the programme did not deal with a matter of political or industrial controversy or matter relating to current public policy. However, in Part Five of the programme Ofcom noted that the discussion moved away from the scientific debate about the causes of global warming, to consider the policies alleged to result from the mainstream scientific theory being adopted by UN and Western governments and their consequences (see below). It is Ofcom’s view that Section Five of the Code did apply to this final part of the programme.”

And then “In Ofcom’s view the link between human activity and global warming also became similarly settled before March 2007. We are confirmed in this view by noting for example a conclusion of the Stern Review, commissioned by the UK government, which was published in October 2006 and stated: “An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climate change is a serious and urgent issue. The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities.” (Our emphasis) As a result of this review the then Environment Secretary said the Queen's Speech would feature a climate bill to establish an independent Carbon Committee to "work with government to reduce emissions over time and across the economy.” This view of human activity as the major cause of global warming does not appear to be challenged by any of the established political parties or other significant domestic or international institutions. Therefore, in this case, Ofcom considers that the subject matter of Parts One to Four of the programme (i.e. the scientific theory of man-made global warming) was not a matter political or industrial controversy or a matter relating to current public policy. Having reached this view, it follows that the rules relating to the preservation of due impartiality did not apply to these parts. It is important to note that by simple virtue of the fact that one small group of people may disagree with a strongly prevailing consensus on an issue does not automatically make that issue a matter of controversy as defined in legislation and the Code and therefore a matter requiring due impartiality to be preserved.”

Part Five of the programme therefore breached Rules 5.11 and 5.12.

Presentation of the argument that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is promoted by environmentalists as a means to reverse economic growth

Complainants objected that both the programme’s narration and the comments of some of those interviewed in the programme implied that global warming had been used by those from the political left as part of an anti-capitalist agenda. The programme as a result, argued the complainants, also implied that such Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 114 21 July 2008

17 views were representative of the opinions of mainstream environmentalists, economists and political scientists.

Ofcom does not believe that the presentation of this section of the programme or the omission of the views of certain environmentalists was misleading to the viewer. This sequence of the programme consisted of a brief historical examination of the environmental movement in the late 1980s before it had become mainstream. These were clearly views of a small set of people who took a particular position on the political motives of these campaigners. In line with the right to freedom of expression, Ofcom considers that the broadcaster has the right to transmit such views and the audience would understand the context in which such comments were made. The content was therefore not misleading.

Rule 5.12 requires that where a major matter of current public policy of international importance like this is being considered in a programme “an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.” In this part of the programme, and on this specific issue, no such wide range of views was included. Ofcom also found that the programmes referred to by Channel 4 in the cluster of programmes editorially linked to The Great Global Warming Swindle were not sufficiently timely or linked to satisfy the requirements of Rule 5.12. Nor could the requirements of due impartiality be satisfied by the general and wide ranging media output about anthropogenic global warming over recent years (including print media output) that was referred to by Channel 4 in its response.

The Committee found that the programme makers failed to properly inform Professor Wunsch that the programme was a polemic which would claim that the consensus on the theory of man-made global warming was based on
unsound science. The Committee found this resulted in unfairness in the programme as broadcast.

· The use of Professor Wunsch’s contribution in the programme was likely to have left viewers with the impression that he agreed with the premise of the programme. Such an impression was inconsistent with the views Professor Wunsch expressed during his full untransmitted interview. This was unfair.

· The editing of Professor Wunsch’s comments about the presence of CO2 in the ocean did not result in unfairness.

In reaching a decision about this element of the complaint the Committee took account of Practice 7.3 which includes the following:

“Where a person is invited to make a contribution to a programme (except when the subject matter is trivial or their participation minor) they should normally, at an appropriate stage: be told the nature and purpose of the programme, what the programme is about and be given a clear explanation of why they were asked to contribute.”

In the Committee’s view Professor Wunsch made clear in his full unedited interview that he largely accepted this consensus and the seriousness of the threat of global warming (albeit with caveats about proof) and therefore found that the presentation of Professor Wunsch’s views, within the wider context of the programme, resulted in unfairness to him.

Comment from Tom: if only this standard was applied when climate realists were being interviewed, how nice that would be!

Posted by jennifer at 02:12 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

Scientific Controversy Between Freedom of Expression and Censorship: Some Quotes via Benny Peiser

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.
--John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our e-mails, at our peril, risk and hazard.
--Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764

Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.
--Margo Kingston, 21 November 2005

We value freedom of expression precisely because it provides a forum for the new, the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox. Free speech is a barrier to the tyranny of authoritarian or even majority opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of particular doctrines or thoughts.
--Yale University, Freedom of Expression Report, 1975

The primary function of a university is to discover and disseminate knowledge by means of research and teaching. To fulfill this function a free interchange of ideas is necessary not only within its walls but with the world beyond as well. It follows that the university must do everything possible to ensure within it the fullest degree of intellectual freedom. The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of the right to state unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen to those views.
--Yale University, Freedom of Expression Report, 1975

By broadcasting programmes that appear to manipulate and even fabricate evidence, Channel 4 has impeded efforts to forestall the 21st century's greatest threat. For how much longer will this be allowed to continue?
--George Monbiot, The Guardian, 21 July 2008

It is arguable that it is not the Great Global Warming Swindle that has bred public scepticism, but the desire of some environmentalists – evidenced by the identikit complaints orchestrated against the film – to stamp out dissenting voices. This intolerance undermines confidence in the rightness of the cause. As does Monbiot's selective reporting of Ofcom's ruling.
--Hamish Mykura, Channel 4's head of documentaries, 22 July 2008

TV companies occasionally commission programmes just to court controversy, but to misrepresent the evidence on an issue as important as global warming was surely irresponsible. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' was itself a swindle.
--Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, 22 July 2008

As for the factual inaccuracies not causing offence, well, I get hopping mad when I see a pack of lies presented as the truth. Does that kind of offence not count? Clearly not. What's more, with its advertising revenues falling, Channel 4 is currently campaigning to get its hands on part of the BBC's licence fees. What a horrifying prospect. In my opinion, if Channel 4 carries on producing programmes like The Great Global Warming Swindle, the sooner it goes bust the better off Britain and the world will be.
--Michael Le Page, New Scientist, 22 July 2008

I do feel strongly that the current wave of climate blasphemy that seems to be popular among prominent scientists involved in the climate issue is one day going to be looked back upon as a low point in this debate. Climate change is important, but so too are other values, and freedom of expression is among them.
--Roger Pielke, Jr., Prometheus, 22 July 2008

There are no perfect human institutions, but some of us continually strive to make them as fair as possible. If Wikipedia can't reform itself, then the first social networking model that achieves significantly improved fairness will eventually sweep Wikipedia into deserved obsolescence.
--Tom Van Flandern, CCNet, 23 July 2008

Wikipedia had my birthdate in 1944. I corrected it to 1950. That stood for one day and then it was turned back. John Christy has told me he simply stopped putting in corrections because they were overwritten or disregarded.
--Pat Michaels, CCNet, 23 July 2008

The diverse groups of critical analysts and researchers will need to develop alternative infrastructures and media outlets if they wish to provide open-minded science writers and policy-makers with judicious evaluations of disaster predictions and a genuinely impartial assessment of evidence. Given the evident biases of the mainstream science media and environmental journalism, there is growing demand for more balanced and even-handed coverage of climate science and debates. Scientists and science writers who are concerned about the integrity and openness of the scientific process should turn the current crisis of science communication into an opportunity by setting up more critical, even-handed and reliable science media.
--Benny Peiser, European Parliament, Brussels, 18 April 2007

The above quotes were first published by Benny Peiser in CCNet 118/2008 - 23 July 2008.
Thanks Benny.

Posted by jennifer at 02:06 PM | Comments (17) | TrackBack

Australian Government's Green Paper Full of Errors: Bob Carter

The Government's advisory channels are clogged with rent seekers, special pleaders and green activists who have misadvised the minister.

CLIMATE Minister Penny Wong published an astonishing green paper in response to what she perceives to be the threat of global warming.

The first sentence of the opening section of her paper, entitled "Why we need to act", contains seven scientific errors — almost one error for every two words.

Here is the sentence: "Carbon pollution is causing climate change, resulting in higher temperatures, more droughts, rising sea levels and more extreme weather."

And here are the errors.

First, the debate is not about carbon, but human carbon dioxide emissions and their potential effect on climate.

It makes no more sense for Wong to talk about carbon in the atmosphere than it would for her to talk about hydrogen comprising most of Sydney's water supply.

Use of the term carbon in this way is, of course, a deliberate political gambit, derived from the green ecosalvationist vocabulary and intended to convey a subliminal message about "dirty" coal.

Next, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere.

For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods.

There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even treble those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise.

Indeed, a trebled level is roughly what commercial greenhouse tomato growers aim for to enhance growth.

As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain — literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet.

To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science.

Third, that enhanced human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming ("carbon pollution is causing climate change") is an interesting and important hypothesis.

Detailed consideration of its truth started with the formation of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988. Since then, Western nations have spent more than $50 billion on research into the matter.

Despite all the fulminations of the IPCC, 20 years on, the result has been a failure to identify the human climate signal at global (as opposed to local) level.

Accordingly, independent scientists have long since concluded that the most appropriate null hypothesis is that the human global signal lies submerged within natural climate variability. In other words, our interesting initial hypothesis was wrong.

Fourth, the specific claim that carbon dioxide emissions are causing temperature increase is intended to convey the impression that the phase of gentle (and entirely unalarming) global warming that occurred during the late 20th century continues today.

Nothing could be further from the truth, in that all official measures of global temperature show that it peaked in 1998 and has been declining since at least 2002.

And this in the face of an almost 5% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1998. Spot the problem?

Fifth, sixth and seventh, the statement that human carbon dioxide emissions will cause "more droughts, rising sea levels and more extreme weather" is unbridled nonsense.

Such confident predictions are derived from unvalidated, unsuccessful computer models that even their proponents agree cannot predict the future. Rather, a model projection represents just one preferred, virtual reality future out

of the many millions of alternatives that could have been generated.

Complex climate models are in effect sophisticated computer games, and their particular outputs are to a large degree predetermined by programmers' predelictions. It cannot be overemphasised, therefore, that computer climate projections, or scenarios, are not evidence. Nor are they suitable for environmental or political planning.

Moving from virtual reality to real observations and evidence, many of the manifestations of living on a dynamic planet that are cited as evidence for global warming are, at best, circumstantial.

The current rates of sea-level change, for example, fall well within the known natural range of past changes.

Should we adapt to the rise? Of course. Should we try to "stop climate change" to moderate, possibly, the expected sea-level rise? Of course not; we might as well try to stop clouds scudding across the sky.

The first sentence of the "Why we need to act" section of the green paper is followed by five further short paragraphs that are similarly riddled with science misrepresentation and error. In essence, the section reads like a policy manual for green climate activists. It represents a parody of our true knowledge of climate change.

Never has a policy document of such importance been released in Australia that is so profoundly out of touch with known facts of the real world.

It is a matter for national alarm that the Government's advisory channels should be clogged with the rent seekers, special pleaders and green activists who have so obviously misadvised Wong on the content of her green paper on climate change.

Time for some due diligence, Minister.

Professor Bob Carter is a geologist who studies ancient environments and their climate, and is a science adviser to the Australian Climate Science Coalition.

Accordingly, independent scientists have long since concluded that the most appropriate null hypothesis is that the human global signal lies submerged within natural climate variability. In other words, our interesting initial hypothesis was wrong.

Fourth, the specific claim that carbon dioxide emissions are causing temperature increase is intended to convey the impression that the phase of gentle (and entirely unalarming) global warming that occurred during the late 20th century continues today.

Nothing could be further from the truth, in that all official measures of global temperature show that it peaked in 1998 and has been declining since at least 2002.

And this in the face of an almost 5% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1998. Spot the problem?

Fifth, sixth and seventh, the statement that human carbon dioxide emissions will cause "more droughts, rising sea levels and more extreme weather" is unbridled nonsense.

Such confident predictions are derived from unvalidated, unsuccessful computer models that even their proponents agree cannot predict the future. Rather, a model projection represents just one preferred, virtual reality future out

of the many millions of alternatives that could have been generated.

Complex climate models are in effect sophisticated computer games, and their particular outputs are to a large degree predetermined by programmers' predelictions. It cannot be overemphasised, therefore, that computer climate projections, or scenarios, are not evidence. Nor are they suitable for environmental or political planning.

Moving from virtual reality to real observations and evidence, many of the manifestations of living on a dynamic planet that are cited as evidence for global warming are, at best, circumstantial.

The current rates of sea-level change, for example, fall well within the known natural range of past changes.

Should we adapt to the rise? Of course. Should we try to "stop climate change" to moderate, possibly, the expected sea-level rise? Of course not; we might as well try to stop clouds scudding across the sky.

The first sentence of the "Why we need to act" section of the green paper is followed by five further short paragraphs that are similarly riddled with science misrepresentation and error. In essence, the section reads like a policy manual for green climate activists. It represents a parody of our true knowledge of climate change.

Never has a policy document of such importance been released in Australia that is so profoundly out of touch with known facts of the real world.

It is a matter for national alarm that the Government's advisory channels should be clogged with the rent seekers, special pleaders and green activists who have so obviously misadvised Wong on the content of her green paper on climate change.

Time for some due diligence, Minister.

Professor Bob Carter is a geologist who studies ancient environments and their climate, and is a science adviser to the Australian Climate Science Coalition.

First published in The Age as Wong's Climate Paper Clouded with Mistakes on July 29, 2008. Republished hopefully with permission.

Posted by jennifer at 08:26 AM | Comments (114) | TrackBack

July 28, 2008

The Strange Death of the Tory Climate Crusade - A Lesson for Rudd from the UK

With less than two years remaining until the next general election, Britain’s Conservative Party has surged to an historic 22-point opinion-poll lead over the incumbent Labour Party. This turnabout has followed an energetic campaign by the Tory leader, David Cameron, to wrench the party out of its ideological comfort zone and overhaul its public image. Cameron has indeed handled many issues deftly. However, his initial attempt to spark a bidding war over climate alarmism backfired enormously, and it should serve as a warning to other Western political parties that are trying to burnish their green credentials.

From the moment he was elected Conservative leader in 2005, Cameron was eager to woo the upper-class voters who had shunned the party in the post-Thatcher era. He chose to make environmental policy the focus of his stylistic revolution, and he commissioned Zac Goldsmith (a fellow Eton graduate and director of The Ecologist magazine) to chair a “Quality of Life” policy group. Goldsmith, an heir to a billion-dollar fortune and well-known green activist, claimed “an invitation to be radical.”

Goldsmith’s policy group soon unleashed a fury of impractical ideas. It proposed placing prohibitive taxes on landfill and big cars, halting investment in air and road infrastructure, taxing parking at out-of-town malls, and even mandating that car advertisements include emissions statistics. The Conservative MP Tim Yeo, who chairs the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, declared that domestic plane flights should be taxed out of existence. (Yeo boasted that he now travels to Scotland by train “as a matter of conscience.”)

Without doing much to appeal to suburbanites interested in clean rivers and parks, the new Tory agenda threatened the low-cost flights that had only recently made European travel affordable for millions. It also confirmed the suspicion of many working-class voters that the Conservatives were rich elitists who cared little about job loss.

While many of the Tories’ environmental proposals were harmlessly ridiculous and had no real prospect of enactment, the empty rhetoric proved very costly. The Labour government, refusing to let the Conservative Party claim the mantle of environmental champion, swung left on the issue. The failure of environmental taxes to change behavior was taken as a sign that those taxes should be raised even further. Big increases in annual road taxes were rolled out; drivers of Honda Accords will owe over $500 per year by 2010-11. Taxes on gasoline went up, forcing motorists to pay nearly $9 a gallon. Meanwhile, taxes on plane flights were doubled, despite evidence that such a change may actually increase emissions.

British leaders have long struggled to convince the public that significant resources should be allocated to fight climate change. Yet the burgeoning global warming industry—a motley assortment of activists and NGOs—has relentlessly driven its agenda through bureaucratic and legal channels that are cut off from democratic accountability. Further insulated from political attack by Cameron’s green posturing, the climate change alarmists were able to set the terms of the debate.

While most peer-reviewed cost-benefit analyses of climate change tend to find that the costs of global warming do not merit a radical and immediate shift away from carbon-based fuels, moderate anti-carbon policies have failed to satisfy the demands of climate activists. In response to the inconvenient economics, the Labour government decided to base all its policymaking on a Treasury study by Nicholas Stern. The Stern report used an extremely low discount rate to grossly magnify the future environmental costs of climate change.

Yet, far from rebuking this folly, the Conservative Party’s Quality of Life policy group criticised the Stern report for tolerating too much planetary warming. As the Labour government advocated a 60 percent reduction in British carbon emissions by the year 2050, the Tories shot back with a demand that the nation roll back 80 percent of its emissions by that time. This merely upped the ante. The third-party Liberal Democrats responded with a call for complete decarbonization—a 100 percent reduction in emissions. No matter how hard the Tories tried, they could never “out-green” their rivals on the left.

The popular press were less indulgent of such nonsense, and many media outlets lampooned the proposed climate initiatives. Voters did not like having wealthy politicians lecture them on the demerits of prosperity, and every green policy that the Tories promoted was greeted with derision or worse. When the Tory Quality of Life group’s disastrous report was eventually released in September 2007, the Conservatives were in disarray. They were so far behind in the opinion polls that Prime Minister Gordon Brown even considered calling an early election.

Cameron had no choice but to change tack. The recovery that saw the Tories rise to their present poll lead began with a call to significantly reduce the inheritance tax. This was followed by proposals for comprehensive school choice and welfare reform. The Conservatives also suggested some tough new anti-crime initiatives. The idea that proved most useful in de-stigmatizing the Tory brand was a plan to rebuild poverty-stricken communities in disadvantaged areas.

To be sure, the Conservatives have also benefited from a complete collapse of popular support for the Labour government. Indeed, this has been perhaps the biggest factor in the Tories’ resurgence. The British economy has faltered, and voters have become less tolerant of fiscal extravagance. They are especially angry about an increase in the annual car tax, which was sold as a green measure. In a recent YouGov poll commissioned by the TaxPayers’ Alliance, 63 percent agreed with this statement: “politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes.” When a recent Mori poll asked voters to name important issues facing Great Britain, only 7 percent cited the environment, while 42 percent named immigration and 35 percent said crime.

None of this is to say that conservatives should neglect the environment. Over the past few months, Cameron has been trumpeting a more holistic environmentalism, arguing that being green is “not just about the stratosphere, it’s about the street corner.” He stresses the need to eliminate graffiti and cut crime in local parks. While there is little public appetite for raising energy taxes or overhauling the British economy to deal with climate change, there is widespread support for boosting investment in green-friendly technologies, and the Tories are well-placed to advance this.

The recent success of the Conservative Party has owed little to quixotic environmentalism, and almost every Tory attempt to play the green card has been a disaster. The party seems to have learned its lesson, and is now embracing a results-driven conservation policy that defends green spaces and promotes the development of efficient clean-energy technologies. While the climate debate is often dominated by clamorous activists, ordinary voters tend to favor a more pragmatic approach. If the Tories want to maintain their huge lead over Labour, that is the type of approach they should endorse.

Matthew Sinclair is a policy analyst at the London-based TaxPayers’ Alliance. Chris Pope is program manager of the National Research Initiative at the American Enterprise Institute.

Paul Biggs is a member of the Taxpayers' Alliance West Midlands Council

TPA website: American.com: Matthew Sinclair and Chris Pope: The Strange Death of the Tory Climate Crusade

Posted by Paul at 08:14 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

History can be undone - Remove the Barrages and Save the Coorong: A note from Peter Martin

The installation of the barrages across the bottom of the Murray River is the greatest single change that has adversely affected the health of the Coorong.

Prior to 1940 Lake Alexandrina, at the bottom of the Murray River, was a mix of seawater and freshwater, and was under tidal influence through the Murray mouth, and fully connected to a much healthier Coorong.

The Murray River barrages were completed by 1941 and separated the Coorong from Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert.

Before the barrages, fish could move between the lakes and the Coorong. Lake Alexandrina was an important fish nursery for replenishing the Coorong. After the installation of the barrages the Coorong was cut off.

The barrages have shut off 90 percent of the tidal effect, and as a result have made the Murray mouth much more prone to closing over.

The barrages have caused much greater deposition of silt above and below the barrages, and have caused a sand island called Bird Island to form directly in front of the Murray mouth on the landward side.

The barrages were designed to hold Lake Alexandrina up to a maximum of 75cm above previous levels, and as a result shoreline erosion has accelerated. The higher level of Lake Alexandrina has prevented an enormous quantity of fresh water reaching the Murray mouth.

But now, because of the drought, sea level is 45cm above the level of the lake with plenty of sea water leaking into the lake despite the barrages.

The salinity at Goolwa is currently around 20,000 EC units. This is very high. The sea is about 45,000 EC units and the upper limit for drinking water is just 800 EC units.

In short, the barrages were designed to turn a saltwater lake into a freshwater lake, but they weren’t successful.

At best Lake Alexandrina remains brackish, with current salinity at Milang which is about the centre of Lake Alexandrina is about 4,000 EC units.

Furthermore, the barrages that were meant to hold Lake Alexandrina at a higher water level, have resulted in a requirement of up to 1,000,000 megalitres annually just to cover the evaporation loss. This loss has to be supplied from Hume and Dartmouth Dams and at times from Lake Menindee. If the barrages were to be opened, this quantity of water would be immediately saved annually.

Whether our climate scientists are correct or not, the need for this quantity of water to cover evaporation is simply unsustainable.

The value of that water to irrigation at the end of last season was in the order of $400 million.

The South Australian government should now open the barrages, particularly the Goolwa barrage, which is responsible for regulating 70 percent of the Murray River flows, and the Mundoo barrage which is responsible for 10 percent, as these two barrages would have the greatest impact on keeping the Murray mouth open, and improving the health of the Coorong.

In summary, just because the barrages were put in does not mean they have to stay there. It is wrong for South Australians to keep demanding the upper states of Victoria and New South Wales empty their dams to unsuccessfully keep a saltwater lake fresh.

Peter Martin
Finley, NSW

Posted by jennifer at 11:19 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

July 27, 2008

Ecology and Ethics (Part 2)

When a man says "this is good in itself," he seems to be making a statement, just as much as if he had said "this is square" or "this is sweet." I believe this to be a mistake. I think that what the man really means is: "I wish everybody to desire this," or rather "Would that everybody desired this." If what he ways is interpreted as a statement , it is merely an affirmation of his own personal wish; if, on the other hand, it is interpreted in a general way, it states nothing, but merely desires something. The wish, as an occurrence, is personal, but what it desires is universal. It is, I think, this curious interlocking of the particular and the universal which has caused so much confusion in ethics.

The matter may perhaps become clearer by contrasting an ethical sentence with one which makes a statement. If I say "all Chinese are Buddhists," I can be refuted by the production of a Chinese Christian or Mohammedan. If I say "I believe that all Chinese are Buddhists," I cannot be refuted by any evidence from China, but only by evidence that I do not believe what I say; for what I am asserting is only something about my own state of mind. If, now, a philosopher says "Beauty is good," I may interpret him as meaning either "Would that everybody loved the beautiful" (which corresponds to "all Chinese are Buddhists") or "I wish that everybody loved the beautiful" (which corresponds to "I believe that all Chinese are Buddhists"). The first of these makes no assertion, but expresses a wish; since it affirms nothing, it is logically impossible that there should be evidence for or against it, or for it to possess either truth or falsehood. The second sentence, instead of being merely optative, does make a statement, but it is one about the philosopher's state of mind, and it could only be refuted by evidence that he does not have the wish that he says he has. This second sentence does not belong to ethics, but to psychology or biography. The first sentence, which does belong to ethics, expresses a desire for something, but asserts nothing.

Ethics, if the above analysis is correct, contains no statements, whether true or false, but consists of desires of a certain general kind, namely such as are concerned with the desires of mankind in general - and of gods, angels, and devils, if they exist. Science can discuss the causes of desires, and the means for realizing them, but it cannot contain any genuinely ethical sentences, because it is concerned with what is true or false.

From Science and Ethics By Bertrand Russell, In Religion and Science (Oxford University Press, 1961)
see http://www.solstice.us/russell/science-ethics.html

Via a comment and link from Wes George at 'Ecology and Ethics (Part 1)'
see http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003277.html#comments

Posted by jennifer at 11:52 PM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

Anti-environment & Anti-tourism Policy in the Daintree

The ratepayers’ association for the Daintree Cape Tribulation area has called upon the Queensland Government to adopt a new policy for the provision of electricity, which protects the environment to the greatest possible extent and overcomes the contradictions of hundreds of concurrently running engine generators.

In response, Mr. Phil Reeves MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier of Queensland, has referred to advice from the Minister for Mines and Energy, the Hon. Geoff Wilson,

“The aim of the Government’s policy is to protect the rainforests in this World Heritage area and to safeguard the aesthetics of this unspoilt region.”

From Minister Wilson’s Office,

“We’re not about to bulldoze through ancient rainforest to put in power lines north of the Daintree River. We’re talking about world-famous, world heritage-listed rainforest and everyone would want it to stay that way.”

Such a response has born false witness, inflaming public opinion against the custodial community. Bulldozing World Heritage rainforests was never proposed; the mere suggestion is as mischievous as it is unethical.

Mr. Reeves MP, has admitted,

“The Government has not changed its position of discouraging development north of the Daintree River…”

This admission, in itself, is appalling, except for its candour. Members of the local community have long suspected that such a position was at play, but can now deal with the formal acknowledgment from the Office of the Premier.

Development in the Daintree is heavily regulated by the Queensland Government, under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and to an even greater extent through the Iconic Places of Queensland Act 2008.

Development in the Daintree is already more rigorously constrained than probably anywhere else in Queensland. So the ‘development’ that the imposition of prohibitively expensive, polluting and aesthetically contemptuous electricity specifically ‘discourages’, can only be existing development; that being the only development that exists.

Despite the Queensland Government having previously promised freehold landowners within the World Heritage Area, that they would be helped to implement the Wet Tropics Plan to the maximum extent, the impacts of the Government’s discouragement of existing development is manifestly anti-environment and anti-tourism.

Posted by neil at 11:51 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Dumped! Real Investigative Australian Television Journalism

There is only one mainstream Australian television news program that has made a real attempt to explain the situation along the Murray River and there is only one mainstream Australian television news program that has made a real attempt to present the climate skeptics perspective. I am of course referring to Sunday on Channel 9.

On Friday, Channel 9 announced that it plans to axe the program.

Journalist, Darren Devlyn writing for News Ltd explained, “There is no question that in its 27 years on air Sunday was at times at the forefront of ground-breaking television.”

But according to Channel 9 boss John Westacott, 'Today's realities impose much tougher cost and performance benchmarks across the media industry than those of the past, and sadly there is not sufficient economic appeal for a loss-leader like Sunday, as good as it has been for Nine and television journalism.”

What is it about the public and television executives that they fail to get behind journalists and producers who really seek to make a difference.

How can it be that with so much information available in so many different forms, that the television viewer has become less rather than more discerning?

Perhaps the average news watcher just doesn’t have time to be challenged any more, or is the issue that we don’t want to really think at all. We just want to be entertained?

On a News Ltd blog site Robyn writes: “This program set the agenda for many other news programs with ethical and confronting journalism, which served not only the purpose to entertain, but also informed people about what was really happening … Why would Channel 9 make such a bloody mistake. Damn fools!”

My sincere thanks and congratulations to investigative reporter Adam Shand and guru producer Nick Farrow for making a difference and making us think with their recent cover story on Sunday entitled ‘Questioning Science’ screened on June 29, 2008.

And my sincere thanks and congratulations to investigative reporter Ross Coulthart and again to guru producer Nick Farrow for critically examining many of the popular claims about the Murray River in ‘Australia’s Salinity Crisis: What Crisis’ screened on May 26, 2006.

May you continue to entertain and inform us – even if it is not with 'Sunday'.

------------------

1. Questioning Science
June 29, 2008
Reporter: Adam Shand
Producer: Nick Farrow

The theory of anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming has become an unchallengeable fact, a piece of black letter law almost unique in the world of science.

Proponents of the theory say the time for scientific debate is over. It would irresponsible to fund any further research into counter views on the relationship between elevated levels of carbon dioxide and a rise in temperatures since the mid-1970s.

It's regarded as career suicide for scientists to advocate any counter view of the causes of global warming, let alone deny the orthodox consensus view as adopted by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

However, there is a school of thought that our knowledge of climate systems is as yet insufficient to be so conclusive on the causes of global warming.

Today Sunday examines the political consensus building that has portrayed global warming as the most urgent crisis humankind has ever faced.

Skeptics point to the gaps in the knowledge base and the flaws in the measurement of vital climate and weather data upon which the consensus is based.

Social researchers also highlight the dangers of conducting science as a form of religion, divided into believers and deniers.

They warn that as governments prepare to make expensive policy decisions, such as carbon emissions trading schemes, this consensus may not reflect the best science.

Watch the program here: http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_2493.asp

2. Australia's Salinity Crisis: What Crisis?
May 28, 2006
Reporter : Ross Coulthart
Producer : Nick Farrow

This week on Sunday, reporter Ross Coulthart takes a look at the real threat posed by salinity — and finds things are going badly wrong in public science.

As Coulthart reveals, some of the claims being used to support calls for billions of dollars to be spent on fixing a "looming salinity crisis" are simply not true. Salinity is a problem. But it seems nowhere as bad as we've been told by environmental groups, government departments and many in the media.

Claims that an area of land twice the size of Tasmania is under threat are false. The reality is a fraction of that. Even top scientists now admit the predictions of a disaster have been exaggerated.

They say this may be because the theory about what causes salinity in non-irrigation areas is flawed.

Worse still, scientists suggest a cheaper and easier solution for salinity problems is being ignored — for very unscientific reasons.

"It's a disaster for science. It's a disaster for farmers," one former CSIRO scientist tells Sunday.

Taxpayers have now given Government scientists billions of dollars to spend on efforts to understand and tackle salinity. But how solid is the science behind it?

Watch the program here: http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1991.asp

Posted by jennifer at 11:50 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

More Comment on Official Complaints Against 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'

According to Miranda Devine, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday: "There is something odd about the ferocious amount of energy expended suppressing any dissent from orthodoxy on climate change. After all, the climate cataclysmists have won the war of public opinion - for now, at least - with polls, business, media and Government enthusiastically on board.

So, if their case is so good, why try so fervently to extinguish other points of view? There is a disturbingly religious zeal in the attempts to silence critics and portray them as the moral equivalent of holocaust deniers.

Take the British Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired on the ABC last year with an extraordinary post-show panel of debunkers assembled to denounce it. The one program which actually questioned the consensus on man's contribution to climate change, it has been singled out for condemnation and forensic dissection in a way no other program has, least of all Al Gore's error-riddled An Inconvenient Truth.

This week, the British communications regulator, Ofcom, published a long report dealing with 265 complaints about perceived inaccuracy and unfairness in Swindle.

Read more of Miranda Devine's opinion as published in the Sydney Morning Herald here.

Ofcom is the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries, with responsibilities across television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services.

The actual ruling with respect to complaints against 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' was published in
Broadcast Bulletin Issue number 114 on July 21, 2008, as follows:

The Great Global Warming Swindle
Channel 4, 8 March 2007, 21:00

Introduction

On 8 March 2007 Channel 4 broadcast The Great Global Warming Swindle. This programme sought to challenge the theory that human activity is the major cause of climate change and global warming (also described as the theory of anthropogenic global warming). The programme included contributions from a wide range of scientists and other commentators who variously argued that the current consensus on the causes of global warming was based on unsound science and was politically motivated.

The programme was narrated by film maker Martin Durkin. He also wrote and directed the programme. The narration stated:

“In this film it will be shown that the earth’s climate is always changing. That there is nothing unusual about the current temperature and that the scientific evidence does not support the notion that climate is driven by carbon dioxide, man-made or otherwise. Everywhere you are told that man-made climate change is proved beyond doubt.

But you are being told lies.”

“…This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology…it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of science…it is the story of how a political campaign turned into a bureaucratic bandwagon…”

Elsewhere the programme narration stated:

“Global warming has gone beyond politics, it is a new kind of morality”; “...as the frenzy over man-made global warming grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the theory is crumbling”; “It is a distortion of a whole area of science”; “….the global warming alarm is now beyond reason”.

Ofcom received 265 complaints about the programme from members of the public. Ofcom also received a substantial complaint 176 pages long from a group of complainants, some of whom were scientists (“the Group Complaint”). In summary, the complainants were concerned that the programme was not presented with due impartiality and that as a factual programme it misled the audience by misrepresenting “facts”. The Group Complaint also offered a very detailed and critical analysis of the programme.

Factual Accuracy

The complainants questioned the factual accuracy of the programme, suggesting that it:
(a) presented facts in a misleading way; and
(b) omitted facts, issues or alternative views.

Overall, the effect according to the complainants would be that viewers would be discouraged from undertaking action to help prevent climate change.

The complaints set out numerous alleged instances of the way in which facts included in the programme misled viewers. These included the alleged misrepresentation of data, graphs, scientific literature, historical events, press articles, and film footage. Channel 4 in its response defended the programme in respect of all of these issues and Ofcom considered all of the alleged instances of factual inaccuracy in reaching the conclusions contained in this finding. Ofcom is not a fact-finding tribunal and its obligation in this case was to reach a fair and reasonable decision on whether The Great Global Warming Swindle breached the requirements of the Code. Given the ambit of Ofcom’s obligation as regards adjudicating on the complaints, however it was in Ofcom’s opinion impractical and inappropriate for it to examine in detail all of the multifarious alleged examples of factual inaccuracy set out in the complaints.

After careful deliberation, Ofcom therefore chose four particular aspects of the programme to examine as part of its overall assessment of whether the programme materially misled the audience. These were: the use of graphs; the alleged “distortion” of the science of climate modelling; presentation of the argument that the theory of man-made global warming is promoted as a means to limit economic growth; and, not giving an accurate and fair presentation of the expertise and credibility of various contributors. These particular areas were selected because they featured in a large number of the complaints, and in Ofcom’s opinion were reasonably illustrative of the key issues and different types of alleged factual inaccuracy in the programme. Each of these four areas is set out below.

a) The presentation of facts in a misleading way

• The use of graphs in the programme

Complainants stated that the programme contained “falsification or serious misrepresentation of graphs or data”. One graph that was shown in the programme purported to be a representation of changes in world temperature over the past 120 years and the information it contained was attributed to the National Aeronautics and Space Admin istration (“NASA”). Relying on the graph, the programme narration suggested that most of the warming in the twentieth century actually occurred before the post-World War II industrial boom. The Group Complaint stated that the original source of the graph is unclear so it was incorrect for the programme makers to attribute it to NASA. It also suggested that the graph presented in the programme was misleading because the original graph that the figures were based on actually ended in the mid-1980s. The Group Complaint asserted that the producers of the programme had re-labelled and extended the time scale on the graph to give the incorrect impression that the data on the graph in fact extended to the present day (i.e. 2005). As a result the Group Complaint said that the graph in the programme did not reflect a 20 year period (ie mid-1980s to 2005) which the Group Complaint argued was a period of unprecedented global warming. The Group Complaint said the programme makers had later admitted that the time scale of the graph in the programme was incorrect. The Group Complaint said that a cursory glance at up-to-date temperature records from NASA would have revealed that, contrary to the programme’s claims, most of the warming in the twentieth century occurred after the World War II industrial boom.

• The “distortion” of the science of climate modelling

Complainants objected to the programme's suggestion that climate models, used to support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, are inaccurate. For example, the programme narration stated "Climate forecasts are not new, but in the past, scientists were more modest about their ability to predict the weather" (emphasis added). This, complainants argued, incorrectly confused 'weather' with 'climate', both of which are subject to different constraints (climatology - the study of climate - involves the analysis of long-term processes, whereas meteorology - the study of weather- is the study of shorter term weather processes and forecasting).
The complainants said that the public is much more familiar with weather forecasts - and their uncertainty - than with climatology. The complainants said that, because the difference between weather and climate may not be well known among the general public, the description of climate models as unreliable could have misled viewers about the ability of scientists to predict climate: because viewers may have understood climate models to be the same as weather forecasts.

Complainants also said the programme’s narration, coupled with various statements made by interviewees, suggested that some recent climate models were based on certain assumptions. The claim was that the climate models put forward by those who support the theory that global warming is caused by human activity to support their position were composed in a way that exaggerated the actual extent of global warming. This, said the complainants, misrepresented the way climate modelling is undertaken in practice and undermined its credibility.

• The presentation of the argument that the theory of man-made (or anthropogenic) global warming is promoted by environmentalists as a means to reverse economic growth

Contributors to the programme also presented the view that global warming had been used in recent history by those from the political left as part of an anti-capitalist agenda. According to the complainants, the programme in its narration and by the inclusion of various comments by contributors implied that such views were representative of the opinions of mainstream environmentalists, economists and political scientists. In fact, the complainants argued, these environmentalists, economists and political scientists are mostly not anti-capitalist and, in fact, believe that climate change can be mitigated with current and future energy technologies. Complainants pointed to the following comment made by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson:
“The left have been slightly disoriented by the manifest failure of socialism and indeed, even more so of communism, as it was tired out; and therefore, they still remain as anti-capitalist as they were; but they have to find a new guise for their anti capitalism”.
It was argued that the inclusion of comments such as this and the exclusion of alternative views was designed to imply that environmentalists are predominantly anti-capitalist extremists.

• The credibility of contributors to the programme

It was argued that the programme’s narration did not make clear the links which, according to the Group Complaint, contributors to the programme had to the fossil fuel industry and associated lobby groups. The Group Complaint therefore argued that viewers were misled into giving much more weight to the interviewees’ statements than they would have given them otherwise.
Related to this argument complainants also said the programme “greatly exaggerated” the credentials of some of the contributors, by implying, either by on-screen captioning or by descriptions by the narrator, that the scientists on the programme were climate experts when almost all of them were not.

b) Omissions from the programme meant it was misleading

There were also complaints that the programme was fundamentally misleading because it failed to represent adequately the views of the scientific community who say that global warming is anthropogenic. Viewers were therefore not given sufficient facts about the issue.

Due Impartiality

In questioning whether the programme was duly impartial about the issue of the primary causes of global warming, the authors of the Group Complaint emphasised that they were not attacking the right to free speech. They stated, however, that they did not believe this “right” allowed what they saw as the “systematic deception” which they believed the programme represented.

In summary, the complaints stated that the programme was not impartial and presented incorrect, misleading or incomplete opinions and facts on the science of global warming. In particular, the Group Complaint stated that:
• the experience of contributors was exaggerated and/or inaccurate so that viewers were misled;
• contributors had conflicts of interest which were not disclosed;
• there was no series of programmes to which this one was linked so as to provide balance; and
• the programme maker, Martin Durkin, had an inappropriate personal interest in the documentary which was not properly disclosed.

Ofcom therefore wrote to Channel 4 and asked for its comments on how the programme complied with the Code. In particular it referred to the following rules:
• Rule 2.2, which states that “Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience”;
• Rules 5.11 (due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political controversy and major matters relating to current public policy), and
• Rule 5.12 (in dealing with such major matters, an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.)

Response

General

Channel 4 said that The Great Global Warming Swindle was clearly identified as an authored polemic of the kind that is characteristic of some of Channel 4’s output. As a public service broadcaster Channel 4 has a statutory obligation to commission distinctive programmes which appeal to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society.

The channel said that the programme sought to present the viewpoint of the minority of scientists who do not believe that global warming is caused by the anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide. The programme sought to examine the debate over the cause of global warming, outline possible alternative causes and give a voice to the minority who question the prevailing orthodoxy and its possible motivations.

Factual Accuracy

Channel 4 disputed that the way facts and views in the programme were presented misled the audience. For example, in relation to allegations that the programme could undermine or dissuade people from taking action to help prevent climate change, Channel 4 emphasised that the programme did not in any way advocate that the audience should not protect the environment, nor did it advise people to use energy unwisely or inefficiently. In short, Channel 4 argued that the programme did not advocate complacency or inaction of any kind with regard to climate change, which the programme had not denied was taking place.

Channel 4 addressed each illustrative aspect of the complaints on factual accuracy in turn.

(a) The presentation of facts in a misleading way

Channel 4 said that the programme informed the audience of the existence of credible, alternative but under reported theories and thus challenged the theory that global warming was man-made. It did not discount the mainstream theory which was repeatedly referred to within the programme as the dominant theory in the scientific community.

• The use of graphs in the programme
In relation to the question of whether graphs used in the programme were misleading, Channel 4 made the general point that graphs of past temperature are always based on data sets derived from a variety of complex sources and are open to argument and debate. In relation to the graph purporting to show world temperature over the last 120 years (the graph referred to in the Introduction above), Channel 4 said that the programme used a highly stylised animated effect. D uring the production of the programme graphics, an error on the graph occurred. The effect was that the graphic showed the timescale as 1880-2000, instead of 1880-1990. Channel 4 said this was a genuine error which was immediately corrected for the repeat of the programme on More4 on 12 March 2007 .
Despite this mistake, Channel 4 said that the graph which contained the error did not alter or contradict either of the main points made in the narration with reference to the graph and so was not misleading (i.e. that the rise in temperature in the first half of the twentieth century exceeded the rise in the second half; and that during the period of increasing carbon dioxide emissions known as the Post War Economic Boom, temperature fell).

• the ”distortion” of the science of climate modelling
Channel 4 said that the programme examined the effectiveness of climate modelling as a means of predicting the effects of climate change. In relation to the allegation in the Group Complaint that the programme deliberately confused the concepts of “weather” and “climate”, Channel 4 said this was untrue.
The narration, said Channel 4, clearly separated the two concepts stating that those who have modelled weather are sceptical of those who attempt to model climate. Channel 4 pointed out that, although the complainants disagreed with the points made by the contributors in this section of the programme, they did not allege that the statements were factually inaccurate.

• Presentation of the argument that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is promoted by environmentalists as a means to reverse economic growth

Channel 4 said that this section of the programme consisted of contributors commenting on the shifting politics within the environmental movement of the late 1980s, which at that time was by no means as mainstream as the movement has become today. The contributors in the programme expressed opinions on these matters and they were extremely well placed to do so as they had observed these events first hand.

• The credibility of contributors to the programme
Channel 4 said t he programme consisted of interviews with leading scientists, experts and commentators in their relevant fields. The manner in which these contributors were portrayed was not misleading. This was because each contributor was clearly captioned on screen and, where appropriate, further information about their credentials was given in the voice-over. Channel 4 said that the allegations that most contributors were “linked to the fossil fuel industry” were incorrect and based largely on misinformed internet-based comments. It said that the contributors were established, reputable and in many cases very distinguished scientists. Their scientific work, said Channel 4, which often flies in the face of the prevailing view of global warming, is properly published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

(b) Omission of views and facts in a way that was misleading

Channel 4 did not accept that views or facts were omitted from the programme in a way that was harmful or offensive as alleged by the complainants. On a purely practical basis any requirement to include every detailed counter argument to each point would have drastically reduced the scope of the programme.

Channel 4 argued that far from misleading its audience by ignoring or not acknowledging that there was, and is, a majority scientific and journalistic consensus in support of man- made global warming, a whole section of the programme was devoted to this fact. The programme explained that this viewpoint had developed into an international and powerful political lobby which has great influence on governmental policy worldwide and on scientific funding.

Channel 4 also pointed out that a number of leading anthropogenic global warming theorists were approached to participate and all refused. Accordingly the programme sought to include the mainstream theories by other means such as in commentary and archive footage. Channel 4 argued that if, in order to avoid misleading viewers, the programme maker is under an obligation to include contributions from individuals or organisations who are highly opposed to the content of the programme, this in effect gives those individuals and organisations a power of veto over the programme being broadcast.

On a general note Channel 4 said that any programme subjected to the degree of concerted hostile scrutiny as The Great Global Warming Swindle would be revealed to contain some inaccuracies. However Channel 4 said its review of the programme undertaken for the purposes of its response to Ofcom found very few inaccuracies. Crucially, said the broadcaster, none of these materially affected the argument of the film in any way.

Due Impartiality

Channel 4 said the programme must be considered within the context of the ubiquitous media coverage of the global warming issue and so, in addressing the question of due impartiality, Channel 4 presented an extensive list of programmes over recent years across all the main channels, including Channel 4, which accepted the view that the principal cause of global warming is man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.

As a result of this coverage, Channel 4 did not consider that it was appropriate to give the mainstream view on climate change equal space in this programme, although it said the mainstream view was represented throughout the programme. This was done by referring to mainstream views in the context of presenting the scientific evidence. A number of references were made to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) , to the views of Al Gore (the American politician and leading climate change campaigner), and to human produced carbon dioxide as the commonly-understood cause of much global warming. This amounted to an appropriate range of views within the programme.

Channel 4 said that the programme was one of a cluster of editorially linked programmes on the subject broadcast by the channel in March 2007 which had formed part of the channel’s 2007 Year of the Environment. The broadcaster also pointed out that on-screen presentation announcements as well as advance publicity for the programme (which was considerable) made it clear to the audience what to expect from the programme, in terms of both its controversial content and its polemical approach.

Channel 4 also commented on Part Five of the programme which examined the controversial effects that reducing carbon dioxide emissions would have on developing nations. It suggested that many large environmental groups have urged developing countries to adopt sustainable sources of energy rather than develop conventional fossil fuel based sources. The broadcaster in its response also briefly discussed one specific and controversial policy adopted at international level to help combat climate change clearly based on the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Channel 4 described this policy as a “key element” of the Kyoto treaty - the Clean Development Mechanism (“CDM”) - and said it has adverse effects on development of developing nations. By means of the CDM, Western countries are encouraged to purchase ‘carbon credits’ from developing nations and then ‘offset’ their emissions by investing in sustainable energy projects in those developing countries. This mechanism, according to Channel 4, therefore acts as a “powerful disincentive to investment in conventional power sources”. Channel 4 said that the views on these topics expressed in The Great Global Warming Swindle “are honestly and legitimately held by experts in this field interviewed in the programme.”

Decision

General

The Communications Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) requires Ofcom to draft and enforce the Broadcasting Code in light of the right to freedom of expression. This encompasses the broadcasters’ right to transmit and the audience’s right to receive creative material, information and ideas without interference but subject to restrictions proscribed by law and necessary in a democratic society. This right is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Viewers expect to be adequately informed about matters in the public interest, including of course minority views an