The Great Global Warming Swindle was a documentary that aired in March on UK TV organized by Martin Durkin of Wag TV. The documentary purports to debunk several of the claims made by climate scientists on global warming. (Just to be clear I have not seen this documentary.)

Anyway, Roger Pielke notes that several scientists and activists have issued an open letter to the Martin Durkin protesting his distribution of the film over DVD:

We do not dispute your right to make a programme that includes different opinions about climate change. We are not seeking the censorship of differing viewpoints or the curtailment of free speech. We recognise and support the right of the programme-makers to report different viewpoints on climate change. However, we believe that it is in the public interest for adequate quality control to be exercised over information that is disseminated to the public to ensure that it does not include major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence and interpretations of it by researchers. Such quality control does not appear to have been applied to your programme.

We believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed.

Listen, having not seen the film I can't really say, but I doubt with sincerity that I would agree with much in it. However, I don't really get how the authors of this letter resolve the right of Durkin to "make a programme that includes different opinions about climate change" with asking him not to distribute those opinions. How does this not constitute them trying to stifle his speech?

Furthermore, I think that Pielke's comment on this is dead-on:

When members of the scientific community call for silencing of others in political debates, at best it demonstrates that they believe that they cannot win arguments on their merits, and at worst is demonstrates a complete disregard for democracy and the ability of the public to participate in important political debates. Positioning oneself [i]n opposition to fundamental principles of democracy is always a losing proposition.

If we can't win argument on their merits, who can? That is the purpose of the scientific enterprise: to generate facts for the construction of valid argument.

Like I said, I don't agree with this Durkin fellow, but I feel confident that accurate information will in the end prevail. Trying to shut this man up will only prolong the debate because it makes it looks like he possesses some special gnosis that no one wants anyone to know about. Stifling his speech lends credibility to his message.

These guys are shooting themselves in the foot.