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.
- Log in to post comments
Well, it's one thing to present a differing viewpoint, and quite another to support that viewpoint with doctored graphs...
However, since that point seems to be being lost, your final assessment is probably correct.
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a pseudo-documentary in which British television producer Martin Durkin has fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate. Movie director Durkin has willfully misrepresented the facts about global warming just to advocate his own agenda.
Much more including the less than stellar "credentials" of the "experts" that appeared in the film.
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is itself a Fraud and a Swindle
http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
The letter says they do not want censorship, and I agree. The scientists just express their opinion that the film is irresponsible and not in the public interest. Just as WagTV decided to broadcast it they can decide to not sell it on DVD, and the scientists can express their opinion.
The film does not just express opinion, it propagates plain falsehoods. For example it claims that human CO2 emissions were smaller than emissions by volcanic activity, which is easily debunked (it's on my blog). And this just the most blatant falsehood.
It seriously confuses the public. The average citizen does not have access to all peer reviewed papers, and even if they had, most people will have difficulties to understand it. So the only source of information is the media, and a propaganda piece like TGGWS does not help to get an informed view of the facts.
But not selling it in DVD doesnot help either. The film is available on the web, and not selling it will just feed the persecution complex of the AGW denialists. It's a no-win situation.
The UK has a Broadcasting Code that specifies "Views and facts must not be misrepresented". When the programme was broadcast on 8 March on Channel Four, the misrepresentations in it breached the Broadcasting Code. I have submitted a formal complaint both to the broadcaster and to the regulator, Ofcom. They have yet to rule on the more than 200 complaints that have been submitted about the programme.
However, the producers of the programme are not obliged to reflect the ruling of Ofcom in the DVD version of the programme, and are now marketing it partly on the basis that it was shown on Channel Four.
I and the other 36 signatories to the letter consider that viewers are likely to be misled by the misrepresentations in the programme whether they see it on TV or on DVD. Our letter appealed to the programme-maker to remove the misrepresentations before distributing the DVD. He has so far steadfastly refused to do so.
I have no complaints about the programme covering different viewpoints on climate change. But the freedom of speech carries responsibilities, even for programme-makers, and I don't believe it is in the public interest for them to knowingly mislead viewers.
Another Scientist who appeared on the programme, and was presented as a supporter of the programme, has complained of being 'misrepresented' and the programme of altering a graph he produced to the extent that they 'fabricated data':
http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37660#37660
In the court of science, like a court of law - you don't have an absolute right of 'free speech': you are expected to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The programme has been shown to be riddled with fabricated data, and plain and simple lies.
Bob Ward and 37 scientists simply asked that these errors be corrected, as they would be if we were talking about a paper published by an honest scientist in a peer-reviewed journal.
Unless you intended to defend lying in the name of 'free speech' Jake, I suggest its you that have shot yourself in the foot...