Swindled!

March 23, 2007 4:53 PM

A contrarian documentary on climate change produced by UK Channel 4 called "The Great Global Warming Swindle (Google Video) has been making the rounds in the internets. Prominent among the scientists featured in the documentary is one of the most highly regarded physical oceanographers active today, Carl Wunsch (MIT). Unlike his colleague Richard Lindzen, though, it seems that Prof. Wunsch is not exactly pleased with being cast as a global warming skeptic. It turns out that selective editing made him seem to be saying exactly the opposite of what he was hoping to convey. Wunch is pissed.. Also, reviews of the documentary: Real Climate, The Guardian (Monbiot).
posted by bumpkin (37 comments total)

Someone posted about this on a board that I lurk on a few weeks ago. They have a "healthy" debate site which encourages people to debate politics, religion, and science. The current big debates that are getting the most traffic are global warming and the Iraq War. Sadly, the debate on the Iraq War has shrivelled to a tinkling noise and the "skeptics" who argue against global warming are constantly trying to come up with new and better arguments that it's a big liberal conspiracy to steal their god given right to pollute the atmosphere. I love watching them squirm. It's like watching a Creationist try to argue against Dawkins or something. Create schadenfreude.
posted by daq at 5:02 PM on March 23, 2007

Oh dear, in my haste to post, I neglected the juiciest chestnut of them all. Global Swindle producer Martin Durkin, responding to criticisms of the documentary by Dr Armand Leroi (Imperial College), and Simon Singh (pop. sci. author), by telling them to go go and f*(& themselves. Is it just me or is it getting hot all of a sudden?
posted by bumpkin at 5:04 PM on March 23, 2007

Mr Durkin replied to both later that morning, saying: “You’re a big daft cock.”

Good God I despise Martin Durkin and his long history of appalling, wrong and damaging documentary-making. But... but... that made me laugh.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 5:08 PM on March 23, 2007

daq writes "Someone posted about this on a board that I lurk on a few weeks ago."

Someone posted about this on this board a few days ago.


It was deleted.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:17 PM on March 23, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I learned a new term from that Times of London site that I love and which I am:

eco-worrier.
posted by jamjam at 5:19 PM on March 23, 2007

Indeed. LOL OPPONENTS - there's enough good stuff out there without trotting out wingnuts to play-argue with.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 5:19 PM on March 23, 2007

daq: Dawkins rocks.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:27 PM on March 23, 2007

"Someone posted about this on a board that I lurk on a few weeks ago."

Someone snarked about that just now.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:29 PM on March 23, 2007

It's so bizzare these guys, who basically belive that the entire scientific community could really just cover something up. Global Warming "Skepticism" is about as intellectually tenable these days as believing in UFO cover ups.
posted by delmoi at 5:32 PM on March 23, 2007

Guess the problem is not if GW is happening and what is causing it, but how stupified , superficial and distracted we are on average.

Some partisan hack will say YES , the other NO and meanwhile the temperature is increasing, whatever the cause...if it is natural and outside our control, then we should try to at least limit the effects. If it is a human caused phenomenon , that is actually "good"...maybe we can reduce or invert it.

Real problem: when you touch status quo interests they will do anything to contain whatever looks menaceful, including funding organized denial. Others will spend money on PR capitalizing on how evil the other will look.

I'd rather have these funds invested in research about what is really going on and how.
posted by elpapacito at 5:59 PM on March 23, 2007

Global Warming "Skepticism" is about as intellectually tenable these days as believing in UFO cover ups.

I wonder how many members those camps share in common.
posted by IronLizard at 6:00 PM on March 23, 2007

delmoi: Global Warming "Skepticism" is about as intellectually tenable these days as believing in UFO cover ups.

Daniel Davies comments: Have they not noticed that this debate ... is a bit like the Berlin Wall--people are only going from one side to the other in one direction?
posted by russilwvong at 6:01 PM on March 23, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

This is a considerably better post than the one that got deleted.
posted by Kattullus at 6:58 PM on March 23, 2007

The irony is that the scientists fomented their diabolical plans in a smoke-filled backroom, which is bad for the environment.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:00 PM on March 23, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Denial and cognitive dissonance.
posted by Brian B. at 7:31 PM on March 23, 2007

Don't ask for a lift in my paddleboat when the ice-caps melt, babe.
posted by Dizzy at 7:33 PM on March 23, 2007

You got a paddleboat, Diz? I only have a dinghy.
posted by wendell at 9:13 PM on March 23, 2007

Metafilter: LOL OPPONENTS
posted by JHarris at 9:39 PM on March 23, 2007

Between this and the Big Brother debacle, Channel 4 sure ain't doing well in the public relations department.
posted by dw at 10:03 PM on March 23, 2007

The documentary makes a handful of good points, albeit based on the queer point-of-view of the director.

At one point they refer to environmentalism as the new morality. This is so, so true. Environmentalism has become a method for people to attack others based on what they do and believe. What better definition of morality than you have than that? Vis. I am better than you because I cycle to work. You are a worse person than me because you don't use biodegradable soap suds.

Typically human. Religion might be dying but we're very able to find replacements for it.

The point of the documentary, even if it's a flawed piece of work, was not that global warming doesn't exist. It questioned human contributions to global warming. So there's no liberal conspiracy here, or coverup. Just questions.
posted by humblepigeon at 1:59 AM on March 24, 2007

Since this piece came out, I've read some fascinating material on Durkin and his comrades, late of the RCP -- one of the more peculiar Trotskyite groupuscules on the British scene.

This Nick Cohen piece was very good and this piece on GMWatch was extremely thorough.

Interesting how they all have lots of different names. Presumably Revolutionary Communists have to conceal their true identities from the oppressive state?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:39 AM on March 24, 2007

It's so bizzare these guys, who basically belive that the entire scientific community could really just cover something up.

It was not until three hundred and fifty years later, in 1992, that the Vatican pardoned Galileo and officially admitted that he had been right all along.


"In particular the greatest challenges to the grand narrative of the history of science are surfacing as a result of the micro historical work now being done by historians of each of these cultural sciences. And as is always the case, micro history has a direct bearing, and at times a devastating effect, on the general schematics of theories of history or theorizing about history, if for no other reason than that micro history sometimes produces stubborn facts that are by their very nature impossible to explain away no matter how great is the amount of theorizing employed. More specifically as these historians try to explore the boundary issues that used to be discussed under such rubrics as the transmission of science, the influence of one cultural science on the other, or under the various schemes that were devised for diffusion of science and technology, simultaneous discoveries, indebtedness, etc., these same historians are beginning to discover that the old analytical categories are no longer adequate to explain the kind of facts that their investigations are producing. The boundaries are blurring and the very defining characteristics of cultural sciences are beginning to lose their meaning, and yet no new theoretical framework has proven to explain sufficiently well what is taking place."^

Scientists have not always been on the cutting edge of truth.
posted by sluglicker at 2:47 AM on March 24, 2007

A better way to have said that would have been the scientific community has not always been on the cutting edge of truth.
posted by sluglicker at 3:20 AM on March 24, 2007

Between this and the Big Brother debacle, Channel 4 sure ain't doing well in the public relations department.

You don't need to be liked to be watched. They lost a few sponsors, but the viewing figures for celeb big brother were enormous once the controversy broke. That translates into more viewers for the next series, more eyeballs on the promos for other series some of which will convert to more viewers, etc. While all controversy all the time probably wouldn't work, monthly or even weekly jolts of shit-stirring are probably good for the channel overall. Good public relations and a desire to avoid offending leads to things like the washed out version of PBS we have in the States these days.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 4:56 AM on March 24, 2007

Environmentalism has become a method for people to attack others based on what they do and believe. What better definition of morality than you have than that? Vis. I am better than you because I cycle to work. You are a worse person than me because you don't use biodegradable soap suds.

This is just an elaboration of J.S. Mill's harm principle. It is fine for you to have an SUV and power your massive, inefficient house with coal, up to the point where it starts harming other people. We are now discovering the extent to which normal economic activities are rife with externalities. As such, it becomes far harder to assert that 'private' aspects of your lifestyle cannot be subject to public scrutiny, since the public is paying a price for your profligacy.
posted by sindark at 5:03 AM on March 24, 2007

The improbably named Intelligence Squared, in partnership with PBS - has the audio of a decent, reasoned debate on this very subject. The arguments on both sides are interesting and well made. The result may surprise you - have a listen.
posted by grahamwell at 5:34 AM on March 24, 2007

A very convenient truth.
posted by darkripper at 6:52 AM on March 24, 2007

This is just an elaboration of J.S. Mill's harm principle... We are now discovering the extent to which normal economic activities are rife with externalities.

But morality has always been about people believing that what you do in private harms the greater good. Only forty years ago it was believed that, if you were sexually promiscuous, you harmed society as a whole!

The fact is that environmentalism, as the new morality, is a way for people to try and control others, just like moralism was before it. The desire to control others is innate in humanity, for better or worse.

Why is this worrying? Well, our political leaders have just woken up to environmentalism. You might have noticed that environmental laws are always about prohibiting your freedom to do certain things. These 'things' are often related to essential freedoms, such as the ability to travel when/where we want, and our freedom to purchase goods (ie the free market that makes society possible).

If controlling us by fear of terrorism doesn't work, they the politicians can control us by environmentalism—don't leave your home unless you absolutely have to because you'll be wasting fuel! What better way to bring about a police state?

A bad wind this way blows, I tell you.
posted by humblepigeon at 9:24 AM on March 24, 2007

Only forty years ago it was believed that, if you were sexually promiscuous, you harmed society as a whole!

AIDS
Syphilis
Gonorrhea
Hepatitis
HPV
etc.

I'd apologize for bursting your bubble, but it must be made of carbon nanotube reinforced Kevlar, at least, so, instead, 'Hey! Your bubble broke my burster! Who's gonna pay for that? Hunh?.'
posted by jamjam at 10:25 AM on March 24, 2007

Kudos to humblepigeon. Something else for your consideration. One puzzle for those following the debate is why the European and now the US Government are singing the song so enthusiastically - given that the task is impossible and the expense truly fantastic.

The reason is simple. The coming carbon regulatory regime is a way to tax everyone on the planet - through increased fuel bills. The beneficiaries of these taxes will be the high-tech industries of California and the Thames Corridor. This is very attractive indeed.

Who cares if it's true or not?

We'll be the winners. The losers will be those in the developing world who don't have electricity yet. Many of them are sitting on huge quantities of coal, but they won't be allowed to burn it, not until they've purchased a huge and expensive filtration system. Made in America - and utterly useless.
posted by grahamwell at 10:36 AM on March 24, 2007

humblepigeon writes"Why is this worrying? Well, our political leaders have just woken up to environmentalism. You might have noticed that environmental laws are always about prohibiting your freedom to do certain things. These 'things' are often related to essential freedoms, such as the ability to travel when/where we want, and our freedom to purchase goods (ie the free market that makes society possible).

I've never noticed anything of the sort. I have noticed environmentalist laws that say people should pay the real economic cost of the resources that they use. So if you're going to create all manner of harmful crap, then you have to expect to pay to clean it up because the land/river/air that you're polluting doesn't belong to you -- it belongs to all of us and so someone who pollutes it steals directly from *me* (and the rest of us.)

"If controlling us by fear of terrorism doesn't work, they the politicians can control us by environmentalism—don't leave your home unless you absolutely have to because you'll be wasting fuel! What better way to bring about a police state?

Ah, but that's just a cunning plan. They're really Trotskyite revolutionaries, who believe that these repressions will reveal to the proletariat the corrupt and undemocratic nature of the state, thereby leading to mass outbreaks of class consciousness followed by revolution and the socialist utopia!

George W. Bush is actually a communist. Why else do you think he has all those supposedly ex-Trotskyite neo-cons on the payroll? In reality, it's just a subtle piece of political entryism, as explained by Trotsky's essays on the French Turn
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:38 AM on March 24, 2007

A few colleagues were commenting on this show the other day. I hadn't watched it but they seemed to be disputing that climate change was caused by humans, which disturbed me somewhat. I didn't realise this was actually open to debate?

OTOH, humblepigeon's comment also rings a little too true. Over the past 6 months it seems to have been front page news in the UK newspapers whenever there isn't a Government balls-up (cash for peerages, Iraq again, etc.)

We already have the eye of Big Brother on us in the UK (so many cameras...) but I don't believe this is actually a grab for more control. It seems to me to be the 'issue of the month' (Guns? Gangs? Knives? Paedophiles? Drugs are so old hat now) that party politicians can argue about.

I walk just about everywhere so I haven't actually experienced much restriction on my life from parking/congestion charges or other 'green' taxes. YMMV.
posted by 999 at 2:57 PM on March 24, 2007

grahamwell's link also has a transcript of the debate [direct link to PDF]. It's really good.
posted by teleskiving at 7:53 PM on March 24, 2007

It's true that the puritanical impulse is a common mental mode of both 'liberal' and 'conservative' advocates. The liberals want to ban trans fat. The conservatives want to ban pot. The conservatives want to ban gay marriage. Some liberals *and* some conservatives want to ban strip clubs (parts of liberal feminism has long had an unholy alliance with right-wing moral-values firebreathers when it comes to things like pornography.)

Sooo my point is, sure, public legislation of morality is not the exclusive preserve of the 'right wing'. We're all human after all. A good standard to put laws that attempt to do so to is the—damn, it's been a while since Intro to Cons. Law class, but there's a 'class' of rights (free speech, privacy, etc.) that are treated as more precious by the courts than things like the right to interstate commerce etc. And laws attempting to infringe those rights have to have (a) a compelling societal interest (b) be the least interventionist way of asserting that interest (which, I realize, doesn't solve anything because you get back to the semantics of what is really a panic-worthy societal interest.)

jamjam: so what's your point? That the conservatives were right in saying that promiscous people are bad people who're harming us all? Should 'free love' have been banned?
posted by Firas at 8:03 PM on March 24, 2007

Environmentalism has become a method for people to attack others based on what they do and believe. What better definition of morality than you have than that? Vis. I am better than you because I cycle to work. You are a worse person than me because you don't use biodegradable soap suds.


So? According to your concern we finally have a morality that has a basis in reality.
posted by Brian B. at 9:08 PM on March 24, 2007

grahamwell, thanks for the PBS debate link. Very informative and entertaining.
posted by sluglicker at 11:10 PM on March 24, 2007

so what's your point? That the conservatives were right in saying that promiscous people are bad people who're harming us all? Should 'free love' have been banned?

Firas, what do you think would have happened if AIDS had gotten loose in the human population 100 years ago, if they had had the sexual mores of today but the biological sophistication of 1907?

I am not sure, of course, but I would guess that the prospect of population outrunning resources might be quite remote here in 2007. We are able to have our sexual freedom without catastrophe (we merely have major disaster) because of our greater understanding. In rerospect, it does look to me as if repression and conservatism were the wisest course for those ignorant times.
posted by jamjam at 12:41 PM on March 26, 2007