So New Zealand finally got to see climate-skeptic “documentary” The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired on Prime. There’s really nothing I can add about the programme itself, with its cherry-picked, debunked science and straw-man arguments (see also Grist’s comprehensive How To Talk to a Climate Skeptic). I find it incredible that anyone can take it seriously when it makes the quite ridiculous claims that our current concern about climate change arises out of a) Margaret Thatcher’s attempts to weaken miners’ unions, b) evil, money-grubbing scientists duping governments in order to get more research money and c) a conspiracy by environmental groups to halt development in poor nations.
The studio debate afterwards was interesting. I thought David Wratt and Martin Manning did a reasonable job of pointing out the programme’s flaws and deflating some of the piffle being put forward by Leighton Smith. Reading some of the comments on other blogs, though, it seems that what you got out of the programme and subsequent discussion depended entirely on your prior opinion. I suspect that for most people who had no strong opinions one way or the other, it would have just ended up confusing them further. As the panel discussion got further into technical scientific details, panelist Cindy Baxter made the point that this type of programme only really serves to further the impression that there is a debate, thus playing into the hands of the skeptics and delayers.
When it previously aired overseas, The Great Global Warming Swindle attracted considerable controversy and complaints to broadcasters. Some claimed that it shouldn’t be broadcast at all, with others saying that although it represented a minority view to ban it would be tantamount to curbing freedom of expression. Should climate skeptics have a voice in the media? I would say a guarded yes, if put into their proper context. Two of the BBC’s environment reporters wrote an interesting piece on how to report on climate skeptics:
We do not need consistently to ‘balance’ the reports of the IPCC. When we broadcast outlying views we should make sure we do not over represent them and we should keep a rough balance of views from either side of the IPCC. If we do not, we will distort the issue and risk misleading or confusing our audience.
We must also be more savvy about the way we treat outlying views – and we should make it clear to our audience when an interviewee holds a minority position.
I think that skeptic viewpoints can be reported with several provisos:
- the affiliations of sources are made clear
- they are put in the context of the weight of scientific evidence
- they are not over-represented, or used as an automatic counterpoint to the mainstream view
The Great Global Warming Swindle fits none of these, as it is a polemic built around a preconceived idea with facts distorted or fabricated to suit.
Mainstream news media have, on the whole, been getting better at reporting on climate change, with most reports, at least in Australasia, not acknowledging the skeptic position. If there is to be a public debate about the causes of climate change, it should be in the context of the affiliations and credibility of the various parties involved rather than getting into scientific details. These aren’t understood my most journalists, let alone the general public, and it is far too easy for the debate to get hijacked and unnecessarily prolonged. Many of the scientific arguments in TGGWS sound credible to the lay observer (I include myself here); it is only when they are put into a broader context that they begin to fall apart.
Tags: climate change, skeptics
