By Joe Bast – Executive director, Heartland Institute via press release
OCTOBER 24 — On October 23, PBS’s “Frontline” program broadcast a special titled “Climate of Doubt.” The Heartland Institute had circulated a commentary prior to the program’s broadcast, which appears below, which said in part, “We hope the program is accurate and fair, but past experience with PBS and other mainstream media outlets leads us to predict it will be neither.” We offered some “facts to keep in mind when watching this program.”
So what did we think of the actual show? It wasn’t as bad as we had feared, but it wasn’t as good as it should have been. The following statement from Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution.
It appears host John Hockenberry spent enough time with global warming “skeptics” to know we are sincere, honest, and effective, but not enough time to learn we are right on the science. Rather than examining the scientific debate directly – “looking under the hood,” as we like to say here at The Heartland Institute – he decided to rely uncritically on the claims of a few alarmists pretending to speak for “climate science.” That choice ultimately makes “Climate of Doubt” a biased and unreliable guide to the scientific debate.
The first half of the program consists mostly of short clips from global warming skeptics and political activists who helped convince majorities of the public and elected officials that man-made climate change is not a crisis. Included in this part of the show is footage taken during Heartland’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change and interviews with Heartland Senior Fellows S. Fred Singer and James M. Taylor and the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell and Chris Horner. This part of the program is generally fair, though surprisingly light on interviews with scientists other than Dr. Singer. More than 100 scientists have spoken at Heartland conferences, nearly all of them skeptical of claims that man-made global warming is a crisis. It’s surprising and disappointing that Frontline didn’t seek interviews with any of them or even show excerpts from their presentations, except Dr. Singer.
The quality of the program starts to deteriorate at about the 20-minute mark. Notorious global warming alarmists Gavin Schmidt, Katherine Hayhoe, Andrew Dessler, and Ralph Cicerone are presented as representative of the mainstream scientific community, which they are not. Rather than use the program to put an end to the myth of scientific consensus on this complex issue, Hockenberry repeatedly invokes the discredited myth of a 97 percent consensus. Evidence in support of that claim is farcical. The issue of what role, if any, consensus should play in science is not addressed at all.
The second half of the program also speculates on the role that corporate and philanthropic funding plays in the debate … but it only addresses the funding of skeptics, not of alarmists. Once again this was a missed opportunity. Why didn’t Hockenberry end the myth, started by Ross Gelbspan but never documented, that global warming skeptics were or are currently being funded by oil companies to “sow doubt”? The Heartland Institute certainly was never part of such a plan, nor were any of the scientists we work with. Yet this libelous smear is repeated without rebuttal by Hockenberry and by the alarmists he interviews.
A third strike against the program occurs at the very end, when the off-camera voices of alarmists assert scientific confidence in predictions of an impending climate apocalypse while images appear of deserts and extreme weather events. Gone is any pretense of a balanced view of the scientific debate. This technique, typical of propaganda films such as “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The Day After Tomorrow,” cheapens and discredits an otherwise thoughtful program.
No scientist interviewed for the program offered proof that any of the climatic events shown at the end of the program were caused by human activity, nor could they. One suspects this ending was tacked on after production to address the expected criticism and disappointment of environmental activists who object to anyone in the mainstream media treating skeptics with respect.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The title of the piece should be enough to show the bias:
“Climate of Doubt.
FRONTLINE investigates how climate skeptics mobilized, built their argument and undermined public acceptance of a global scientific consensus”
Long past time to defund PBS. Not to mention Mickey Mann.
When will a genuine news channel blow the lid off the 97% lie & the “consensus” in general? Even the laziest of reporters already have all their investigation work done for them by Anthony, Steve, Ross & real scientists.
(1) The consensus is anything but a myth – multiple studies and any examination of published science shows that. If any significant fraction of scientists took ‘skeptic’ arguments seriously, there would be peers and publishers sufficient to put those papers out – the widely discussed mythical ‘Team’ couldn’t control all outlets (cf. conspiracy theories here).
(2) Funding connections between skeptics and industry _have_ been documented – see among others John Mashey’s documentation in http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/fake.pdf, including Heartland.
Joe Bast’s protestations don’t hold up.
Frontline carefully reported details of the “Oregon” statement signed by over 1000 scientists; why not a similar report on the over 1000 scientists somehow reduced to around 75 in order to arrive at the infamous 97% figure?
I agree with Joe Bast. Having just watched the Frontline piece, the folks at Frontline won’t admit the propaganda side of their program. They also won’t admit that the science has been questioned NOT because skeptics just like to sow doubt, but because there is hard evidence out there that shows the science is questionable. This program is libelous, and Heartland should consider a lawsuit, even if the standard for proving libel is high. The sheer gall of Frontline to unquestioningly accept the so-called funding source issue, along with the bogus idea of a “consensus” in the science, when the truth is quite the opposite is proof enough of malice for me.
KR says:
“The consensus is anything but a myth”
The ‘consensus’ is a total myth. The climate alarmist crowd has tried time after time to generate as many signatures as the OISM Petition Project, and they have failed miserably.
Remind me… how long has CO2 been rising with no corresponding rise in temperature? Close on to 17 years, you say? Nahhhh… no reason for Joe Average to be skeptical. [/sarc]
(And where’s my check from “Big Oil?”)
KR:
When journals and media deliberately prevent opposing views from being published, it’s no wonder there’s an apparent “consensus”. Regardless, science doesn’t work by consensus so the point is moot. Any arguments about funding are also moot; no amount of money can alter truth, and even if money was a valid argument, that alarmist movement is funded vastly more than any skeptics.
“Joe Bast’s protestations don’t hold up.”
Yours don’t hold anything at all.
KR says:
October 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Yeah? Where’s my funding money from industry? CRU’s funding ok with you then? Come back when you have a clue. Don’t be quoting a failed blog as “proof”. Everybody is funded by somebody, or do you refuse to see that?
Nevertheless, “better than you expected” is a big step by a media outlet. It is even more noteworthy coming from a “liberal” broadcaster. Of course they had to dip back into the alarmist well at the end – they have already been attacked by the most foaming-at-the-mouth representatives among them for the earlier program and they will be bracing for more. Certainly it was a refreshing contrast to the jack-booting you would have got at the BBC, CBC, NYT, Aussie ABC, etc. that some sceptics have received. I think in the future we might look fondly on the PBS’s brave gesture that marked the beginning of the serious cracking off of pieces of the orthodoxy the size of a fifty Manhattans. Watch for the CAGW media darlings to begin to shuffle, hum and haw and then turn about and march the other way, probably even casting derision on the synod of Trenberth, Mann, Jones, Bradley, Hansen, and their flock. You will see this accomplished by some retirement and fresh faces to take up new directions. You’ll probably see the same kinds of face change to turn CO2 climate bishoprics around and steer them back into science faculties, carbon bibles around and turn them into scientific journals, even politicians might take up serving the best interests of their constituents. Finally, the green establishment will need to be renewed as donations dry up. Good work PBS.
D Böehm – The OISM petition includes (if I remember correctly) a grand total of 39 people working in climatology, all motivated to express their views, a self-selected group. What percentage are they of those who actually study the data?
The IPCC 2007 report was written by and reviewed by ~2000 scientists, if you want to compare raw numbers. For percentages, the 2009 Pew study of the AAAS found that 84% agreed that climate disruption is human-caused – and the AAAS has 10 million members, perhaps 6000 in atmospheric/hydrology fields. The OISM petition represents a _tiny minority_ of active climate scientists.
The consensus is real. Heartland is following the advice of Frank Luntz: “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate…”. In other words, manufacturing doubt to prevent public recognition of the existing scientific consensus on this issue.
KR, who funds DeSmogBlog?
How would “corporate and philanthropic funding” for skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming be any more suspicious or harmful than “corporate and philanthropic funding” of PBS i.e. Frontline? Is there a process to run a counter program taking this show to task? I think skeptic organizations should approach Frontline with the idea if for no other reason than to force them to say no.
I also noticed the lack of science–the “looking under the hood”.
Maybe they were/are afraid to examine the actual science and can only rely on the failed “97% concensus”.
KR is obviously not a scientist and/or has very few aquaintances who are, otherwise he would recognize how ludicrous the claim of consensus is.
yup, another typo–“consensus”….
KR – listen – instead of being some kind of alarmist troll who can contribute no real science or valued comment you may as well scoot off back to the hole from whence you originated (think about it!). I’d like to be polite and I’m not generally one to make personal attacks, but your post is seriously misguided and ill-informed and is clearly designed as flaming and troll derived. Yes, you have had your minute of fame, and have had lots of negative responses – do you feel better now? That makes you a saddo in my book.
You are acting like a muppet and troll of the first order, and as one human to another, I’d recommend that you desist and return to some semblance of credibility……(yeah, guys, I know it will not help, but it sure makes me feel better!).
KR,
The oft referenced “consensus” is a supreme shifting of goal-posts. There may be a consensus on basic physics and observations, but there is certainly no consensus on an alarmist conclusion or a need for action..
Most people here will agree that:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
2. humans have increased its concentration in the atmosphere, and
3. there has been some amount of warming due to the additional greenhouse gases.
However, that’s pretty much where the “consensus” ends. People can agree on all of this and not come to an alarmist conclusion that necessitates policy action.
There is most certainly no consensus on:
4. the amount of natural variability underlying the human GHG forcing,
5. the total amount of feedback (net positive and negative) to be expected,
6. the time lag that those numerous feedback mechanisms operate on,
7. the total amount of warming to expect from past and assumed future GHG emissions,
8. the effects any future warming may have on diverse regional environments and weather,
9. the biological and physical impacts (both positive and negative) of those effects, and
10. the net social and economic costs of those biological and physical impacts,
11. the cost of adaptation responses and their probability of success,
12. the relative cost of abatement policies and their probability of success.
All nine remaining items need solid answers before any sort of intelligent policy direction can be taken, and every single one of them remains clouded by uncertainty at best, and controversy or obfuscation (around data and models) at worst.
So, you can’t claim a “consensus” that policy actions are needed, since this requires consensus on all twelve above items, when all you’ve got is a consensus on the first three.
KR says: October 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm
“… (2) Funding connections between skeptics and industry have been documented … ”
And this means what, exactly? Until you or anyone else is able to prove the paltry amount of funding received from industry was NOT simply because the industries liked what they heard, or until you or anyone else is able to prove the paltry amount of funding was given by industry in exchange for specific demonstratively false fabricated science papers or assessments, then your accusation is BASELESS as an excuse for the public to ignore skeptic scientists.
What part of that do you not understand?
Sorry for hijacking this thread for an off topic comment.
.
I guess it hasn’t sunk home what the Italian verdict means for predictive sciences that lack any interpretative basis .but I am certain a lightbulb will go off in somebody’s head
Scientists can’t defend the convicted ‘experts’ as it would mean admitting that ‘predictive’ sciences,up to including global warming are not certain when they have been promoting their predictions as certain and that society must act on that certainty.
You can’t make this stuff up !!!!.
“A third strike against the program occurs at the very end, when the off-camera voices of alarmists assert scientific confidence in predictions of an impending climate apocalypse while images appear of deserts and extreme weather events. Gone is any pretense of a balanced view of the scientific debate.”
=========================
No surprise.
The program starts out seemingly unbiased.
Then as it progresses, it works its way around to the storyline as intended all along.
And here we are, again, defending the bulwarks against propaganda.
Not science, propaganda.
KR,
There is no ‘consensus’ that says CO2 will cause catastrophic AGW. And you cannot cite anywhere near 30,000+ scientists and engineers that say it will. Because there is no such ‘consensus’.
You cling to your silly consensus belief like a drowning man clings to a stick. But is is only a baseless belief, it isn’t reality. And your implication that someone must be a climatologist to understand climate science is ridiculous. Any physicist, engineer, chemist or geologist can easily understand the subject matter.
I challenge you to produce a list of climate alarmists to match this:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
That is the true consensus.
KR, Funding connections between CRU and IPCC and fossil fuel and other industry have been documented, ,usual on their own web sites , so I take it you will now reject all they tell you now to ?
And the 97% fails even a basic maths terms , its really is nonsense with no real scientific bases even if its sounds right for a ‘faith ‘ based approach .
KR, I was going to reply, but Russ R said it much better. Please respond to his comment.
KR;
The IPCC 2007 report was written by and reviewed by ~2000 scientists, if you want to compare raw numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yup. And when pressed for an opinion on “Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing” they ranked the level of scientific understanding in 9 of 14 categories as “low” or “very low”.
Could you please explain to me KR, how the scientists can proclaim that their understanding of the bulk of radiative forcing is “low” or “very low” while at the same time proclaiming with certainty what the result will be?