Summarising a large area of contentious science and making it into engaging TV is not easy. Budgets and deadlines are tight. Mistakes will sometimes be made. We made some very minor ones and have corrected them for future transmissions and the DVD. But these do not alter in any way the argument of the film. And it is this that Bob Ward really objects to.

What I find sinister in all this, is that the case against the theory of man-made climate change has been, or had been, very effectively silenced, by people like Bob. The film caused such a stir precisely because few people amoung the general public had heard these arguments before. That, surely, is not right.

There is no government gagging order as such. But broadcasters know that people like Bob, and his ‘establishment’ signatories, will deluge regulators like Ofcom with complaints. The regulators pay attention to the Royal Society and others. And broadcasters genuinely fear the regulators. The ’soft censorship’ involved is barely less effective than the other sort.

Given the countless hours of TV programmes on global warming, the deluge of press coverage warning us about the catastrophy round the corner, is one dissenting film so damaging to Bob’s cause?

Of course Durkin would take Ward and OfCom to court and would win hands down.

You wrote, “The recurrent problem in this and many other climate secience related squabbles boils down to the fact that this is a science without ‘facts’.”

I responded, “”That’s not *entirely* true. I think anyone who knows anything about the science knows that volcanoes don’t emit more CO2 than human combustion of fossil fuels.

And there are a few others that Bob Ward complains about in which he has a pretty strong case (i.e., most people who know about the subject would agree that he’s right, and “Swindle” is wrong, or at least pretty misleading).”

You respond, “First thing to remember is that there is “error” then “misrepresentation” and then “disagreement”.

In Bob Ward’s letter and in your objections there is a clear bundling of error and disagreement into the same “misrepresentation” basket.”

Let’s stop right there. You wrote that climate science was “without facts.” That was clearly false, as I demonstrated very clearly with the humans-versus-volcanoes CO2 fact.

Now, what you said could be called any number of things. An “error.” A “misrepresentation.” An “approximation” (i.e., “climate science has only a few true facts, and is mostly stylized facts.”)

But the main thing is that your statement was wrong. Just as the main thing is that Martin Durkin was wrong about CO2 from volcanoes versus humans.

The question I have for Bob Ward (and you and everyone else) is, “Is it ‘OK’ to broadcast or put on DVD something that is inaccurate or misleading?”

And my personal answer is, “No, it’s not OK.” Therefore, *I* say it’s “not OK” for Martin Durkin to put his “Swindle” show on DVD and distribute it, unless he first corrects ALL the inaccurate and misleading information.

And I *also* say it’s “not OK” for Al Gore to distribute HIS film unless he first “corrects” ALL the inaccurate or misleading information. (Where “corrects” could simply be a statement at the end: “I/we said blah blah. That was incorrect (or misleading). The truth is blah.” Or even as a slip of paper with the DVD that states that information.)

I’d like to see if everyone (or anyone) agrees with that assessment.

Is it “OK” or “not OK” for Michael Durkin and Al Gore to distribute their DVDs, if their DVDs contain inaccurate or misleading material?

Best wishes,
Mark

Which still gets us nowhere. Who are the international “Truth Squad” (TM Steve MacIntyre) who decide where that threshold lies?

And there are a few others that Bob Ward complains about in which he has a pretty strong case (i.e., most people who know about the subject would agree that he’s right, and “Swindle” is wrong, or at least pretty misleading).”

First thing to remember is that there is “error” then “misrepresentation” and then “disagreement”.

In Bob Ward’s letter and in your objections there is a clear bundling of error and disagreement into the same “misrepresentation” basket.

For example:
1. As Roger clearly points out here by recognising that the program was changed upon notification of obvious errors.

2. Ward’s first claim of misrepresentation essentially centres on the Hocket Stick debate (in its wider multiproxy study sense). I think it would be generous to me Ward to identify that as a “disagreement”. (especially generous on my part given his use of the NAS panel as some sort of support for the efficacy of the various multiproxy reconstructions conducted over recent years!!).

3. Other various complaints all depend on what data you use. How much did the global average temperature fall between around 1940 and 1980? Many different data set give different answers and that doesn’t even begin to address the problem that we had thought at the time (reference National Academy of Sciences 1975 – Understanding Climate Change) that there was a 0.6 degree fall. Only data manipulation of one sort or another has altered that “stylised fact”.

Mr Ward is using a quasi legal institutions to ensure people remain “on message” as determined by him (a clearly conflicted individual). We aren’t talking about mispresenting facts in a legal case, nor are we talking about misrepresenting facts in a peer reviewed academic journal. Nor is this a government or official body using this as a basis for policy prescription. We are talking about general media in which we gain the benefit of all manner of interesting but flawed (potentially misrepresented) output, which profliferates everywhere, can be judged on its merits, most often passes into distant memory as it fails to prove sound, or in some rare occurance gets revisited and reappraised in a more favourable light as some point in the future.

Mr Ward exhibits all the hubris of a self appointed deity in his claims to be able to sift through all this fog.

“They (libertarians) simply *don’t* think those things should be punishable by law.”

My apologies.

That’s not *entirely* true. I think anyone who knows anything about the science knows that volcanoes don’t emit more CO2 than human combustion of fossil fuels.

And there are a few others that Bob Ward complains about in which he has a pretty strong case (i.e., most people who know about the subject would agree that he’s right, and “Swindle” is wrong, or at least pretty misleading).

That line regarding libertarians and prostitution, drugs, smoking cigarettes, etc. should have been.

“They (libertarians) simply think those things should be punishable by law.”

Oops! Sorry about that last line. I was going to distinguish between things that are “not OK” and things that require government action.

I was going to point out that libertarians do NOT think prostitution or taking drugs (or even smoking cigarettes…or advertising for them) are “OK.”

They simply think those things punishable by law.

But back to the real question…is it “OK” for the British government (and Al Gore) to distribute DVDs of “An Inconvenient Truth” if it contains misrepresentations and inaccuracies?

I say it’s not “OK.” But I want to see whether we all agree, before we discuss any appropriate actions.

Mark

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1519