|
Carl Wunsch's Response to Global Warming Swindle
Fair Use Statement
<-- Return To Climate Shift
Source: MIT - Wunsch.
Partial Response to the London Channel 4 Film "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
Carl Wunsch 11 March 2007
I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost
surely has a major human-induced component. But
I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because
all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between
what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening,
is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical
excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on
being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.
The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements
are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for
which the observational record is so clear, that most
scientists would agree that they are almost surely true
(adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue
to rise,...). Other elements remain more uncertain, but
we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society
should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US
midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting
of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.
I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization
and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion
that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with
global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either
scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility
as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality. They also
are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats.
I've paid more attention to the extreme claims in
the literature warning of coming catastrophe, both because I regard
the scientists there as more serious, and because I am very sympathetic to the
goals of my colleagues who sometimes seem, however, to be confusing their
specific scientific knowledge with their worries about the future.
When approached by WAGTV, on behalf of Channel 4, known to me as
one of the main UK independent broadcasters, I was led to
believe that I would be given an opportunity to explain why I,
like some others, find the statements at both extremes of the
global change debate distasteful. I am, after all a teacher, and
this seemed like a good opportunity to explain why, for example,
I thought more attention should be paid to sea level rise, which
is ongoing and unstoppable and carries a real threat of acceleration,
than to the unsupportable claims that the
ocean circulation was undergoing shutdown (Nature, December 2005).
I wanted to explain why observing the ocean was so difficult, and why
it is so tricky to predict with any degree of confidence
such important climate
elements as its heat and carbon storage and transports in 10 or 100 years.
I am distrustful of prediction
scenarios for details of the ocean circulation that rely on
extremely complicated coupled models that run out
for decades to thousands of years. The science is not sufficiently
mature to say which of the many complex elements of
such forecasts are skillful. Nonetheless, and contrary to the impression
given in the film, I firmly believe there is a great deal to be
learned from models. With effort, all of this is explicable in
terms the public can understand.
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the
fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm,
and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that
warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic
reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film,
it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the
ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be
very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making---
which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many
different ways, some unexpected.
Many of us feel an obligation to talk to the media---it's part of
our role as scientists, citizens, and educators. The subjects are
complicated, and it is easy to be misquoted or quoted out context.
My experience in the past is that these things do happen, but usually
inadvertently---most reporters really do want to get it right.
Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics".
There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the
telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that
suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational,
and misleading. I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I
knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to
me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for
distortion and exaggeration.
The letter I sent them as soon as I heard about the actual program
is below.
As a society, we need to take out
insurance against catastrophe in the same way we take out
homeowner's protection against fire. I buy fire
insurance, but I also take the precaution of having the wiring
in the house checked, keeping the heating system up to date, etc.,
all the while hoping that I won't need the insurance. Will any of these
precautions work? Unexpected things still happen (lightning strike?
plumber's torch igniting the woodwork?).
How large a fire insurance premium is it worth paying?
How much is it worth paying for rewiring the house? $10,000 but
perhaps not $100,000? There are no simple answers even at this mundane level.
How much is it worth to society to restrain CO2 emissions---
will that guarantee protection
against global warming? Is it sensible to subsidize insurance for
people who wish to build in regions strongly susceptible to
coastal flooding? These and others are truly complicated questions
where often the science is not mature enough give definitive answers,
much as we would like to be able to provide them. Scientifically,
we can recognize the reality of the threat, and much of what society
needs to insure against. Statements of concern do not need to imply that
we have all the answers. Channel 4 had an opportunity
to elucidate some of this. The outcome is sad.
LETTER TO WAGTV
Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP
10 March 2007
Dear Mr. Green:
I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about
your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally,
I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that
was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and
subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with
the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked
to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way
the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---
in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication
in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be
so tendentious, so unbalanced?
I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because
I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable
climate-change stories in the
British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf
Stream could disappear, among others.
When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a
technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we
are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious,
and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does
not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of
the science. The scientific subjects described in the email,
and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated,
worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the
public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or
"swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have
instantly declined to be involved.
I spent hours in the interview describing
many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change,
and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get
exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially
truly catastrophic issues, such as
the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
piece of disinformation.
An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more
carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse
gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It
was used in the film, through its context, to imply
that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters
and do understand something of the ways in which one can be
misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some
of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of
complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had
an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming
Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation
has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.
At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly
with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to
its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be
taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.
Sincerely,
Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
cc: Hamish Mykura, Channel 4
EMAIL FROM WAGTV DESCRIBING WHAT THE DOCUMENTARY WAS TO BE
From: jo locke
Sent: 19 September 2006 16:22
To: Carl Wunsch
Cc: Eliya Arman
Subject: Climate Change Documentary
Dear Professor Wunsch,
Many thanks for taking the time to talk to me this morning. I found it
really useful and now have the issues much clearer in my mind.
I wanted to email you to outline the approach we will be taking with our
film to clarify our position. We are making a feature length documentary
about global warming for Channel Four in the UK. The aim of the film is
to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily
caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific
evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative
theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly
inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the
apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved,
especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting
industrial growth.
We would like to do an interview with you to discuss the notion that
there is a scientific consensus on the effects of global warming on the
Great Ocean Conveyor Belt, the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift.
It has been widely reported that Britain and Western Europe could soon
be plunged into a mini ice age, and we would like to show that it is
simply not true that they will shut down. We would like to talk to you
about the numerical models and whether they give us a realistic
perspective of the impact of climate change on the oceans. We would also
like to talk to you about the 'memory' of oceans, and how it can take
varying amounts of time for a disturbance to be readable in the North
Atlantic. Fundamentally, we would like to ask you whether scientists
have enough information about the complex nature of our climate system.
Do the records go back far enough to identify climate trends, and can we
conclusively separate human induced change from natural change?
Our filming schedule is still relatively fluid at the moment, but we
hope to be in Boston around the second week of November. Please don't
hesitate to contact me or my producer, Eliya Arman, if you have any
further questions, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours sincerely,
Jo Locke
Assistant Producer
WagTV
2d Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP
t 020 7688 5191 f 020 7688 1702
www.wagtv.com
<-- Return To Climate Shift
| 
