Bob Ward Responds – Swindle Letter
May 2nd, 2007Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
In fairness to Bob Ward, lead author of the “Swindle Letter” we thought it important to highlight comments that he submitted under that thread. -Ed.]
Click through for his comments . . .
Some interesting comments here about the letter. I thought it might be helpful to clarify a few points.
First, I would encourage Russell Seitz not to continue to spread the entirely false rumour that I was sacked by the Royal Society. It is a shame that he is using Prometheus as a platform for his personal smear campaign against me – or perhaps this is an example of him exercising his cherished right to “freedom of speech”?
Some have tried to characterise the letter as a violation of the right to free speech. It is not. The UK’s Broadcasting Code specifies that “Views and facts must not be misrepresented”. When ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ was broadcast on Channel Four on 8 March, and subsequently repeated on More 4, I believe it violated the Broadcasting Code because it contained major misrepresentations of views and facts. I have submitted a complaint to both the broadcaster and to Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator.
Ofcom and Channel Four have yet to rule on the complaints from me and about 200 other people. However, Wag TV, the programme’s producers are not obliged to reflect that ruling at all in the DVD version of the programme, and indeed it is being marketed partly on the basis that it was broadcast on Channel Four.
It seems to me and the other 36 signatories that viewers are just as likely to be misled by the misrepresentations within the programme regardless of whether it is watched on DVD or on a TV channel. We wrote to ask the programme-maker to remove the misrepresentations before distributing the DVD. He has so far admitted just one of the seven major misrepresentations, but has steadfastly refused to make any changes.
Free speech comes with responsibilities, and in the UK at least there are regulations that are designed to ensure that the media do not knowingly mislead the public. The letter does not complain about the the airing of different opinions on climate change, and I’m not arguing that the programme-maker shouldn’t be able to tell porky pies at dinner parties with his mates from the media. But I do think that programme-makers should take their responsibilities seriously and to consider the public interest.
It remains to be seen whether the confident predictions that the letter will have the opposite effect to that intended will be right. To me, success would be for everybody who is exposed to the misrepresentations in the programme to at least be aware of them.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
My response serves up a lesson in framing (a la Nisbet/Mooney):
Bob Ward began by stating in his letter that he and his co-signatories:
“object to plans by Wag TV to distribute DVD versions of the programme ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’”
The focus is on the plans _to distribute_. Ward et al. have framed the problem as the distibution of the DVD.
In his comment here he takes a more reasonable position:
“To me, success would be for everybody who is exposed to the misrepresentations in the programme to at least be aware of them.”
If that is indeed success, it is a worthwhile aim that I have no objection to, but by framing the issue as one of _distribution_ rather than _content_ it seems that Mr. Ward has succeeded only in redirecting attention from the “Swindle” to his letter, which surely could not have been the goal. His exact same points could have been made with no reference to restricting the distribution of the DVD.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I don’t particularly care about the First Amendment in this case (last time I checked the UK didn’t have one anyway), but it is an assault on free inquiry. If you set up a star chamber with final authority to determine what may or may not be properly thought and deseminated you have gone a long way to destroying science as we know it.
In fact, the letter displays a shocking ignorance of the philosophic underpinnings of the scientific endeavor (whether you adhere to Popper or Kuhn or anyone in-between.) In fact it seems to advocate the system that brought us Lysenkonism, it will just differ not in its “centralized authority” but in the way they will assure us that they are using “true” premises.
And if you question that, well, you are out of luck because alternate viewpoints are strictly verboten.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 am
Both of the comments above studiously ignore the central issue covered by the letter. So let’s be more direct.
Do they agree with the UK Broadcasting Code that “Views and facts must not be misrepresented” in television programmes. If not, then let’s hear their justification. It seems a curious democratic model in which ‘freedom of speech’ means that the media can disseminate knowingly misleading and inaccurate information regardless of the consequences.
And remember we are not talking here about different scientific opinions. We are dealing with things like the programme’s narrative claiming that volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than human greenhouse gas emissions, and doctoring a graph that was published in 1966 to look as if they apply to 2007.
And if its not OK to broadcast prorgammes that contain misrepresentations, then why should it be OK to distribute them on DVD?
Let’s hear it.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:42 am
Bob Ward’s ‘Swindle letter’ would be more acceptable if he applied the same ’standards’ to Al Gore’s alarmist propaganda film. CO2, Hurricanes, Malaria, Gulf Stream, temperature trends, paleoclimate, Europoean 2003 heat wave, polar bears, climate models etc., are all misrperesented in AIT.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:36 am
Bob- Thanks for your comments. Again, I have not seen the film, but let me take as given that it is full of assertions counter to current scientific understandings, i.e., factually incorrect. With this, a few replies:
1. On its face, the selected passage from the OFCOM code is unenforceable in practice. Who will serve as the “fact police”? This seems much more a principle of broadcasting than an enforceable regulation. Perhaps you could point to instances where the UK gov’t took action under this provision.
2. Why do you repeat the complaint about the volcanoes and the graph when apparently these specific issues have already been resolved to your satisfaction?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/313162_global26.html
3. Your own company RMS, Inc. is widely disseminating information that has no scientific basis, at least as judged by the consensus of the community (five-year hurricane predictions are not currently possible and are not sanctioned by any scientific body nor shown to be skillful in the peer-reviewed literature):
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/disasters/000781are_we_seeing_the_en.html
Should your company be sanctioned for “knowingly misleading and inaccurate information regardless of the consequences”? Should you be disallowed from advancing these claims?
Why is it OK for RMS to operate at the scientific fringe but not someone else?
Thanks!
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:51 am
Frances Sedgemore has a thoughtful comment in The Guardian’s “Comment is Free”:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2007/05/nobody_expects_the_scientific.html
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:53 am
Bob Ward-
A further question for you:
If Al Gore’s movie were (hypothetically speaking) shown to have several factual inaccuracies in it, would you call for its dissemination by the UK gov’t to be halted until those facts were corrected?
Thanks!
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:03 am
Others have already stated my main concern that the same standards will not be employed on all work. Some will earn a pass because the political message is shared by the powers that be, and those that are out of favor POLITICALLY will be gone over with a fine toothed comb. Once a letter comes out demanding that Gore’s film corrects its errors concerning equatorial glaciation, hurricane formation and intensity, and epidemiology, I’ll believe we are hearing from folks more interested in facts than in promoting their political agenda.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:43 am
Roger,
Here are some brief answers to your questions above:
1) Ofcom is a body that is answerable to the UK parliament, rather than the Government. Ofcom is responsible for upholding the Broadcasting Code and ruling on complaints. I don’t know what their procedure is for doing this, and I have never engaged with their process before. However, simialr provisions exist in the Code of Practice of the Press Complaints Commission, which is the self-regulation body for UK newspapers.
2) Durkin has admitted in an e-mail to me that the programme was wrong on the volcanoes. But he has not given me any indication that it will be corrected in the DVD version.
3) Your long-standing criticisms of RMS models goes back much farther than my history with the company and has been addressed previously by my colleagues, such as Robert Muir-Wood. Clearly we disagree with you and I don’t think there is space here for us to repeat those discussions.
4) I have seen ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ but don’t particularly have anything to say about it – the web is awash with other people’s opinions about it. I don’t think it has been shown on UK televsion yet. I think in general it should be primarily up to teachers to decide what to show their pupils, within reason, but this does not mean that broadcasters should be free to flout the Broadcasting Code.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:32 am
Bob- Thanks. A few replies:
1. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article linked above:
“Durkin acknowledged two of the errors highlighted by the scientists — including the claim about volcanic emissions — but he described those changes as minor and said they would be corrected in the expanded DVD release.”
2. Your response on the RMS model avoids the question. Clearly you and Mr. Durkin disagree. You say you have the weight of science behind you. I say I have the weight of science behind me on the RMS issue. Can you in the RMS case simply pass it off as agreeing to disagree, but have a different standard in the Durkin case? If you argue that scientific consensus should be the arbiter of thruth, should you not accept this in the case of RMS as well?
3. So, parsing your answer, if AIT were shown to have errors then you would object to its dissemination to schools using UK taxpayer monies? Is this a fair characterization of your views?
Thanks!
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
The exchange between Roger Pielke and Bob Ward suffers from an excess of trying to frame a universal principle for regulating speech. Roger’s arguments can be answered if we can trust the agency administering an accuracy regulation to exercise reasonable discretion in judging which scientific matters are settled and which are controversial and if we can trust the courts to offer reasonable oversight and relief where regulators abuse their discretion.
I have little problem with laws banning, say, Holocaust denial and libel. I have little problem holding broadcasts to standards of accuracy on settled matters of fact, such as volcanic CO2 emissions. The question, for me at least, is how regulators would manage hard cases and whether hard cases and the wish for bright lines should dominate our consideration of regulating speech.
Roger’s objections appear to constitute a slippery-slope argument with two parts:
First, Roger raises the important “quis cudtodiet” question and one could point, outside the climate debates, to such abuses as Turkey’s laws that turn this principle of accuracy on its head and stifle truthful discussion of the Armenian genocide. But neither the US nor the UK is Turkey, and it would be bad policy analysis to treat the behavior of a deviant nation as though it were a serious danger in nations with long traditions of tolerance in public discourse.
Second, Roger raises the question how an accuracy provision would apply to scientifically gray areas. There are gray areas and there are even areas where there is controversy over what’s settled and what’s uncertain. There will be hard cases, but for the most part it’s possible to err on the side of open debate and regulate only where egregious falsehoods are put forth as truth.
Censorship is not the only danger to open democratic debate. Propaganda and disinformation can corrupt the discussion as well and we need to draw reasonable balance between heavy-handed censors and allowing those with deep pockets to dominate with misinformation.
One approach would be to put the burden of proof on the censor: controversial material could be broadcast so long as it was not conclusively shown to be false (opposite of the Daubert rule where information must be demonstrated to be reasonably reliable to be introduced in court, but see Judge Pollak’s flip-flop on this issue in U.S. v. Llera-Plaza).
In such matters, I don’t see a great problem holding mass-media to accuracy standards so long as the institutions administering those standards are sufficiently impartial and trustworthy (a criterion that is in the eye of the beholder, but which can be measured by public opinion research and enforced with the ballot). Science & Technology Studies scholars can point out that there is no bright line that distinguishes settled fact from controversial opinion, but in practice most folks have no problem telling the difference between hurricane forecasts and Newton’s laws of gravitation.
In the US, the Daubert principles have brought a measure of order to the treatment of accuracy and reliability when science enters the courtroom and I think a standard of accuracy for broadcast media can be implemented with similar legitimacy.
A more interesting question arises with Roger’s third question: what magnitude of inaccuracy should be required to trigger such a regulation. For people who see Gore’s movie as largely accurate and representative of the scientific consensus, its inaccuracies are minor blemishes whereas the inaccuracies of TGGWS compromise the integrity of the entire show. Courts have long histories of managing similar questions in the context of libel and slander litigation and in applying de minimis principles to these and other lawsuits. Regulatory agencies have similar experience with de minimis. If we begin from the premise that for all its flaws, government largely comprises reasonable people and the courts offer relief when bureaucrats abuse their discretion, we can worry less about slippery slopes and focus more on the big picture.
The objection Roger raises to commercial RMS hurricane forecasts is quite reasonable, but for those of us without a horse in that race, it doesn’t have much force against accuracy standards. In the US we have commercial codes that require truth in commerce, including advertising, and if we take Roger’s objections to truth-in-broadcast rules to the extreme we’d have to ditch things like the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and open the media to all manner of snake oil pitches. I’d rather apply the principle of accuracy to RMS and leave it up to regulators and the courts to adjudicate the details of whether these are scientifically well-founded than to return to the anything-goes caveat emptor climate of the 19th century.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:56 am
Bob Ward writes, “It seems a curious democratic model in which ‘freedom of speech’ means that the media can disseminate knowingly misleading and inaccurate information regardless of the consequences.”
And he continues, “And if its not OK to broadcast prorgammes that contain misrepresentations, then why should it be OK to distribute them on DVD?”
“Let’s hear it.”
It should not be OK to broadcast misrepresentations or distribute them on DVD. So I guess we’re agreed on that.
So…are we also agreed that it’s also not OK for the government to distribute a DVD of Al Gore’s film to schools around England, if his film contains misrepresentations? (After all, innocent and naive children are probably the section of the population most likely to be misled by misrepresentations!)
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:11 am
Jonathan- Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.
I agree that seeking to define a universal principle is not a good use of our time. The climate debate is unique in many ways, and I should not be surprised to see invocation of limitations on free speech arise in this area as well. But to be honest, I prefer to see political arguments aired out in the open and stand or fall on their merits.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Tonight on BBC1 at 20:00 is a news program called Panorama.
Tonights show is: The crisis on our maternity wards
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6611213.stm
“Undercover reporter, Hayley Cutts, tells of the crisis in care she found while working as a volunteer on two large maternity units in the UK.”
Sounds like another opportunity for Mr. Ward.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Hi,
I just read my comments, and I realize I may have been unclear in them. (I don’t want to mislead anyone…especially given the subject at hand!)
When I wrote that it was not OK for the media to knowingly disseminate misleading or inaccurate information, or to distribute such information on DVD, and then asked Bob Ward if it was OK for the British government (or anyone else for that matter) to distibute Al Gore’s movie if it contains misleading or inaccurate information, I was merely seeking to get agreement on a problem.
Is it “OK” (or “not OK”) for the British government (or anyone else, for that matter) to distribute Al Gore’s movie if it contains misleading information? I’m merely asking Bob Ward if there’s a problem. If we can agree there’s a problem with the British government (or anyone else) distributing Al Gore’s movie if it contains misleading or inaccurate information, we can discuss later what the remedy would be. First, I want to see whether we agree there’s a problem with the British government (or anyone else) distributing Al Gore’s movie, if it contains misleading information.
“Let’s hear it.”
Sincerely,
Mark (“steadfast in efforts not to mislead”) Bahner
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Mark,
Nothing is perfect and no one’s proposing a black-and-white ban on anything that’s not 100% accurate. Thus, your question about Gore’s movie (and the implied comparison to the Swindle movie) should be clearer about the threshold of inaccuracy necessary to trigger action in both cases.
This is what I was trying to get at by invoking de minimis in my tediously long comment above.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
The recurrent problem in this and many other climate secience related squabbles boils down tothe fact that this is a science without “facts”.
Instead we have “stylised facts”, much the same way as the field of economics. Does anybody even know how many different global temperature measures exist in all their various forms (adjusted and revised over and over).
In such a world Bob Ward’s central complaint (misrepresentationo of “facts”) has no sound basis.
On the other hand, there is in the case of the Swindle a claim by one participant of misrepresented views. That is something which is much easier to assess and measure and even rectified by some sensible editing.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Hi Jonathan,
You write, “Nothing is perfect and no one’s proposing a black-and-white ban on anything that’s not 100% accurate. Thus, your question about Gore’s movie (and the implied comparison to the Swindle movie) should be clearer about the threshold of inaccuracy necessary to trigger action in both cases.”
No, I want to completely hold any discussion of actions until we all agree what is “OK” and what is “not OK.”
Is it “OK” for Wag TV and Martin Durkin to broadcast and distribute on TV something that contains misrepresentations or inaccuracies? Bob Ward says it is not “OK.” I agree that it is not “OK.”
NOW, I’m asking Bob Ward (and everyone else) if it is “OK” for the British government (and Al Gore) to distribute DVDs of “An Inconvenient Truth” if it contains misrepresentations and inaccuracies.
In case it’s unclear, my personal opinion is that it’s not “OK.” (I presently don’t want to discuss any actions, until we are all agreed on whether or not it’s “OK.”)
How about it, Bob Ward (and everyone)? Is it “OK” for the British government (and Al Gore) to distribute DVDs of “An Inconvenient Truth” if it contains misrepresentations and inaccuracies?
This is something on which libertarians (as I am) are constantly misunder
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
One reason for caution in limiting speech is that the self-appointed guardians of the truth sometimes are wrong themselves. This is pretty embarrassing:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1519
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Hi,
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
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Geez…I need better proofreading! (I apologize for all these inaccuracies.)
That line regarding libertarians and prostitution, drugs, smoking cigarettes, etc. should have been.
“They (libertarians) simply think those things should be punishable by law.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
“In such a world Bob Ward’s central complaint (misrepresentationo of “facts”) has no sound basis.”
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).
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:06 pm
It’s like I can’t type/read at all. One last time:
“They (libertarians) simply *don’t* think those things should be punishable by law.”
My apologies.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:46 am
“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).”
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.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:50 am
“Nothing is perfect and no one’s proposing a black-and-white ban on anything that’s not 100% accurate. Thus, your question about Gore’s movie (and the implied comparison to the Swindle movie) should be clearer about the threshold of inaccuracy necessary to trigger action in both cases. ”
Which still gets us nowhere. Who are the international “Truth Squad” (TM Steve MacIntyre) who decide where that threshold lies?
May 4th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Hi Paul,
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
May 6th, 2007 at 5:36 am
I for one look forward to Bob Ward complaint to succeed. There can be no greater result than to establish that OfCom can and should regulate the distribution of DVDs which contain significant errors, that Bob Ward is solely interested in censoring documentaries for commercial interests (his own), and that the “scientific consensus” is engaged in censorship (which isn’t exactly news).
Of course Durkin would take Ward and OfCom to court and would win hands down.
May 11th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Bob has changed his tune. From banning the DVD, to ‘correcting mistakes’. But Bob regards anything which disagrees with his own passionate belief in man-made global warming as a ‘mistake’ to be ‘corrected’. For the record, Bob and I exhanged emails about this, at the request of The Scotsman newspaper, which I shall post on our hastily assembled web-site, globalwarmingswindle.com.
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?