Archives for July 2008

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!

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.

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