Criticism of The Great Climate Change Swindle continues. George Monbiot keeps up the pressure in the Guardian today:
Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited – such as Durkin. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the controversy.
If only climate change provoked the same emotional response as casual racism – we’re shamed by the latter, annoyed by the former.
2 responses to “"Balancing" climate change 2”
Glad you saw Monbiot’s piece. I was just about to point it out to you, as he does a great job skewering it.
While you’re right that we’re not as good in debunking global warming denialism as, say, eugenics, I think we’re a lot better at it than, for example, addressing Iraqi deaths denialism, as seen in a recent article from the London Times, which cites all sorts of people… except epidemiologists. The only epidemiologist specifically cited is Dr. Richard Garfield of Columbia University, who is on record as supporting and defending the findings of the Lancet Report.
I don’t expect the Lancet Report estimates to be spot-on… they are estimates, after all. But the thing is, the data was gathered using an established scientific method; the same kind of method we depend on everyday in the medical industry for our safety. Indeed, their methodology was specifically adjusted after the first Lancet survey to specifically address and rule out many of the complaints (such as “Main Street” bias) that were brought forward in the recent Times article.
Some of the reporter’s claims just don’t hold water. I know firsthand that the doctors at Johns Hopkins responsible for the Lancet Reports are responsive, because they replied back and answered some of my questions. They’ve also given numerous interviews, and have testified and taken questions under oath before the U.S. House of Representatives.
Many of the questions brought forth by the article were specifically addressed in prior public statements by the Johns Hopkins team. I’ve even cited several of these statements in previous oomments I made awhile back to Larry Lessig.
I find it pretty contradictory that the British media can loudly, clearly critique and rip to shreds the debunked claims in The Great Climate Change Swindle. They can’t, however, find the time to respond to a poorly balanced and researched article which is tanamount to a holocaust denial, with a body count well on its way to Armenian genocide proportions.
In fairness to the response the Times piece didn’t come with the PR fanfare and hullaballoo of the Channel 4 primetime documentary. C4 Science were on BBC Radio 4’s Today this morning mounting a rather puny defence of the piece.