Download 1) Bad Ideas - CBC Ombudsman - Radio

March 31, 2016
Ombudsman
CBC
Toronto, ON M5W 1E6
Dear Madam:
Re: Climate Change Denial @ IDEAS
Are programs that feature notorious climate change deniers and fossil fuel promoters supposed to be
educational? If not, what was the point of IDEAS' broadcast "Contrarians" (January 22, 2016)?
IDEAS broadcast a half-hour of spin, distortion, and greenwash originally presented at Moses
Znaimer's 2015 Ideacity event. Why is CBC giving space to climate change denial in 2016? Does deliberately deceptive programming not contravene CBC's standards of fairness, honesty, and accuracy?
If broadcasting climate change denial conforms to CBC (IDEAS)'s mandate, CBC needs to revise its
mandate.
To be sure, CBC makes allowances when interviewees/speakers are asked to state their views and
opinions:
CBC Ombudsman: It is acceptable in some cases to allow an interviewee to present
opinion and his or her point of view. It is not realistic to suppose any interviewer will be
able to challenge every assertion. And sometimes it is valuable to let the speaker have
his or her say. That would be appropriate if the purpose of the interview was to explore
1
a thinker's ideas, for example.
Here we are talking about science—a domain where uninformed opinion has no legitimacy. IDEAS'
"contrarians" are not experts. Non-experts cannot offer uninformed point of views on evolution, the
dangers of smoking, or the Earth's sphericity in contradiction of scientific consensus—and yet claim
legitimacy. IDEAS is wrong to imply otherwise.
"Contrarians" has several strikes against it:
1) Bad ideas.
a. Intent to deceive.
2) Unqualified speakers.
3) No guidance beforehand; no corrections or criticism afterward.
1) Bad Ideas
Paul Kennedy: Today on IDEAS: "Contrarians". Three people posing challenging
questions.
Challenging questions—or wrongheaded questions (and answers) intended to confuse the audience?
Patrick Moore and Alex Epstein recite the usual talking points—straight out of the denier's handbook.
Very little of their material was original. Anyone who follows the so-called "debate" has heard it all be1
"Out of Balance: An interview about a labour dispute had no union perspective", CBC Ombudsman,
May 21, 2015. Web. <http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/complaint-reviews/2015/out-ofbalance-an-interview-about-a-labour-dispute-had-no-union-perspective>
fore. Few of the speaker's claims withstand scrutiny. Their arguments have been debunked countless
1
times. Their assertions defy common sense and overwhelming evidence.
Moore and Epstein subjected listeners not only to climate change denial, but also to melting glacier
denial, sea level rise denial, mountain pine beetle infestation denial, ocean acidification denial, coral
bleaching denial; oilsands pollution denial, toxic tailings ponds denial, landscape obliteration denial,
caribou extirpation denial, wolf cull denial, fish lesion denial; oil spill denial, pipeline explosion denial,
acid rain denial, particulate pollution denial, smog denial, cancer denial, asthma denial...
If the goal was to undermine public confidence in science—and fire broadsides at the science and environmental community, IDEAS succeeded. Just whom does that serve?
Moore's and Epstein's message?
•
•
•
•
•
Scientists do not know what they are talking about.
Science is untrustworthy.
You are being lied to.
Don't worry, be happy!
Drill, baby, drill!
The premise of climate change denial—that we can increase greenhouse gases without increasing the
greenhouse effect—is absurd. To deny global warming is to deny that CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide
qualify as greenhouse gases—or that greenhouse gases (GHGs) exert any such effect.
GHGs trap (absorb and re-radiate) heat, warming the earth. More GHGs, more warming. What is so
hard to understand about that? Without GHGs, the planet would be too cold to sustain life. If GHGs
increase, what could the result be but an enhanced greenhouse effect—and a warmer planet? The
only way around this is to suspend the laws of physics. As Moore seems all too willing to do.
As for Epstein, he advises us not to worry about our footprint:
I do not believe in minimizing human impacts. I believe in minimizing negative impacts
to humans. But I believe we should make a good impact on the Earth—as big as we
need to maximize our well-being.
Canadians have an average footprint of four and a half Earths. Where are the other three and a half
Earths to come from? The world's growing population is consuming more and more resources, while
increasing pollution and waste, based on a toxic fossil fuel paradigm. Degrading our life-support systems day after day is the opposite of sustainable.
Presumably, IDEAS deemed Moore's & Epstein's "ideas" worthy of our consideration. (Otherwise, why
air them?) IDEAS did not bother to justify the broadcast to listeners. For their part, listeners likely assumed the presentation was for their benefit. Were these "ideas" really worthwhile? How did listeners
benefit? Does CBC (IDEAS) draw any distinction between good ideas and bad ones? Or are all ideas
grist for the mill? Does truth matter?
The denialists' motives are obvious; CBC's motives are much less clear. Why confuse the public? What
responsibility does CBC (IDEAS) have for the quality of ideas it presents to Canadians? What obligation does CBC have to inform its audience? What duty does CBC have to avoid confusing listeners?
What efforts does CBC make to correct the record?
Surely, the only legitimate basis on which to criticize science is more and better science—not the antiscience propaganda of Moore & Epstein. What other science does IDEAS feel entitled to maul? And
1
A rebuttal should not be necessary, but it seems necessary to impress upon IDEAS how intellectually
bankrupt and cynical these presentations were. IDEAS obviously failed to notice.
2
why reserve scepticism for one side? Where is IDEAS' scepticism towards deniers? What evidence of
global warming, climate change, and oilsands mayhem would CBC (IDEAS) need to see before abandoning its support for denialism?
IDEAS evidently saw nothing wrong—no error, no deception—with the presentations. IDEAS made no
effort to test the quality of the information it broadcast. What does that say about IDEAS' judgment and
integrity?
2) Unqualified Speakers
What authority do Moore and Epstein have to speak on climate science, the oilsands, and the impacts
of fossil fuels? What are their credentials? Does CBC care? Did IDEAS do any research at all on
Moore's track record before airing his wackadoodle claims? Did IDEAS even glance at his Wikipedia
page? No doubt Moses Znaimer knew exactly what he was doing when he gave a platform to known
climate change deniers and dubbed them "contrarians". Why would IDEAS follow his lead?
1
Does CBC care whether or not Moore (Ph.D. Ecology) is a climate scientist? How many peerreviewed papers has the self-styled "Sensible Environmentalist" published on climate science in respected science journals in the last 30 years? Has he ever published anything in a respected science
journal? Does CBC care whether or not Epstein (B.A. Philosophy) is not a scientist? Could IDEAS really not find anyone more qualified to speak on these matters? (Znaimer can invite anybody he likes to
his circus. IDEAS is under no obligation to broadcast his talks.) CBC listeners depend on CBC's judgment and integrity.
Why would IDEAS employ non-experts to cast aspersions on the research and findings of experts?
Why not consult scientists in the field? Or is IDEAS more interested in controversy than facts?
What place do non-scientists and anti-science have in scientific debate? Why put non-scientists and
scientists on equal footing? Why give dime-a-dozen denialists any credence? Why attack the scientific
consensus as established by thousands of independent scientists working in related fields in academic
institutions around the world? Why prefer denialist claims and arguments to the findings of scientists
who devote their careers to study and research? Why tolerate scurrilous attacks on scientists and science itself? IDEAS' preamble failed to address these questions.
Paul Kennedy: Ideacity brings a bunch of very smart thinkers and doers to Toronto—
some mainstream, others who are anything but.
"Very smart thinkers and doers": Presumably that description is meant to apply to Moore & Epstein.
What evidence is there that they are "very smart thinkers and doers"? IDEAS provided none. Should
we just take the host's word for it?
"Some mainstream, others who are anything but": This characterization is misleading. Moore and Epstein do not stand outside the mainstream of climate science (thought/research). They do not stand in
the stream at all. They play no part in the scientific process. They are non-members of the climate science community. As far as (climate) science goes, they are non-entities. IDEAS should have made that
crystal clear. IDEAS should have stated at the outset that neither speaker is a climate scientist. Therefore, neither can claim to speak with any authority on climate science, much less legitimately challenge
the consensus of climate scientists.
1
Moore's main claim to fame, that he was a co-founder of Greenpeace, is false. (V. excerpt from
"Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore" below. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeacestatement-on-patric/)
But that does not stop CBC Ideas from repeating the fiction, which still appears on the CBC Ideas website. Moore gets a lot of mileage out of his early association with Greenpeace. Why not ask the true
founders of Greenpeace for their views on AGW and fossil fuels? Are they somehow less credible than
Moore? Or just less controversial?
3
The only legitimate (i.e., scientific) debate is conducted in reputable science journals—not in the auditorium of Ideacity. IDEAS is wrong to imply that the denialist campaign is legitimate or credible—and that
listeners should give it serious consideration. If that is IDEAS' position, make the case upfront.
1
"Denialists" object to that name. They prefer to call themselves "sceptics". Znaimer calls his guests
"contrarians". There was no reason for CBC to follow suit. Scientists are sceptics and contrarians. If
not, they are not scientists.
Why undermine the integrity of science? Why flatter denialists and give them a credibility they do not
deserve? Why not call them by their right name: professional contradictarians, bamboozlers, deniers,
shills, or fraudsters?
If you juxtapose a non-scientist (Epstein) or unqualified inactive non-climate scientist (Moore) with scientists in the field, you cannot call the non-experts—who do not know what they are talking about and
make up their own facts—"contrarians". The big-name denialists are self-promoting mischief-makers
for hire. Anyone willing to do a modicum of research (i.e., not CBC producers) can easily find out what
company Moore keeps; his record of erroneous statements; and the causes (corporations and rightwing think tanks) he serves. Does CBC not have access to Google or Wikipedia—or has it lost its journalistic compass?
Call me a contrarian on the science of black holes—a "sensible astrophysicist". I could come on IDEAS
and discredit everything Stephen Hawking has to say on the subject. No doubt I could confuse many of
your listeners. But what would be the point?
Moore calls himself a "sensible environmentalist". Implying what? Citizens and NGOs who respect the
scientific consensus—and the scientists who sound the alarm—are fools? Are the thousands of scientists in many fields who subscribe to the fundamentals of climate science liars and conspirators—or
merely incompetent? Have Environment Canada, NASA, and dozens of national science academies
missed the boat? What other scientific community is lying to us? What other lies is NASA feeding us?
Either what denialists say is true, and the scientists who study the subject are liars, frauds, or incompetents—or the other way around. What is CBC's position? Does CBC think it is doing Canadians a favor
by polluting the airwaves with pernicious falsehoods propagated by phonies? Is this all some kind of
joke? BBC stopped giving climate change deniers (equal) air time precisely because of this kind of idiocy.
Are we supposed to believe that the thousands of scientists who study the subject are out to lunch—
while denialists who have little or no training in the field, do no research, and publish no papers in science journals have miraculous insights, if not a monopoly on truth? Individual scientists are as fallible
as the rest of us. The very notion of scientific progress implies prior ignorance and error. But what is the
probability that, as denialists claim, the consensus reached by thousands of independent scientists in
related fields is fundamentally, comprehensively, wildly wrong?
Climate-change deniers do not even agree with each other! Some claim there is no warming. Or, yes,
the Earth is warming, but it's natural. Or, yes, humans are the cause, but the benefits outweigh the
costs. Or, yes, rapid warming will have serious impacts, but we can adapt. Or, yes, everybody must
reduce emissions—except us, because, well, we're Canadian. Deniers shift back and forth between
2
these positions at will. If any of them had merit, why can't deniers agree on one? Why take any of these notions seriously when even deniers do not agree among themselves?
As the denialist positions multiply, the probability that any one of them is correct approaches zero.
IDEAS should put the following questions to deniers:
1
2
V. "Climate change 'deniers'"— Ombudsman Review (June 18, 2010) below.
For a longer list, v. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming#Denial_tactics
4
1) "What if you are wrong?"
a. Are you willing to play dice with the fate of future generations?
2) What do greenhouse gases do if they do not trap heat?
1
3) What is your alternative explanation for the observed warming? What evidence do you have
to support it?
3) No Guidance or Correction
IDEAS not only misrepresented Moore's credentials, but also decontextualized his comments. IDEAS
failed to point out that the denialist campaign is motivated not by the pursuit of scientific truth or concerns about sustainability, but by politics, ideology, and economic imperatives: the protection of profits.
Climate change denial is inarguably political. Denialism is overwhelmingly a right-wing phenomenon—
and strongest in oil-producing regions like Alberta. Most big-name denialists are neoliberal market fundamentalists working for or on behalf of big corporations and right-wing think tanks.
What qualifications does one need to speak authoritatively about climate science and the oilsands industry? How shall we decide on a reliable guide? IDEAS offered no advice.
IDEAS failed to advise listeners to take what they were about to hear with a grain of salt. By giving climate change deniers (and their sponsors) a platform, CBC (IDEAS) gave denialism its imprimatur. And
stained its own reputation into the bargain.
In failing to provide any guidance, IDEAS cast its audience adrift. In failing to hold Moore's & Epstein's
claims up to scrutiny, IDEAS left listeners twisting in the wind. By presenting this material on IDEAS—
without comment, examination, criticism, or challenge—IDEAS lent denialists an authority they do not
deserve.
Deniers take advantage of their listeners' good faith—and prey on their ignorance. The average Canadian is scientifically illiterate (a condition scarcely ameliorated by IDEAS). Some are disposed to regard
science with suspicion, if not hostility. Most Canadians (and CBC listeners) do not possess the
knowledge to judge the veracity of the claims they heard. Basic literacy in climate science requires ded2
icated study. The subject is vast. A solid science background (chemistry, physics, biology, geology,
oceanography) is a must. A discussion of oilsands issues requires familiarity with the industry's operations. To debunk sophisticated climate change denial, it helps to be familiar with denialist tactics, logical
fallacies, and the abuse of data and graphs.
Chances are the speakers left the audience more confused than ever. Chalk up a win for the denialists.
They do not have to win on the science; they succeed merely by sowing doubt. That is their goal. Even
if a scientist refutes their claims afterwards, the damage is done.
The speakers fed listeners a steady stream of disinformation. The Gish Gallop is a favorite denialist
technique: Overwhelm the audience with an avalanche of specious claims. Listeners have no way to
test these claims in real time. They would have to research each and every point.
What obligation does CBC have to provide listeners the resources they need to protect themselves
against deliberate deception? IDEAS ought to have provided a critical analysis (rebuttal) from qualified
scientists—if not that evening, then the next. Or at least provide a written commentary and links to resources online.
Perhaps CBC will reply that listeners are free to tune into Quirks & Quarks to get the facts. That sidesteps the issue. Mixed messages from CBC confuses listeners. No CBC program should mislead, deceive, or confuse its listeners. Journalists and producers who knowingly mislead listeners abuse their
1
For evidence of warming, v. "What Climate Change Looks Like"
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/type/change-visualized
2
V. the end of this document for a list of essential issues and related topics.
5
position. IDEAS ought to have known that this material was extremely dubious, misleading, and largely
false. Democracy depends on an informed public. Canadians depend on CBC to provide them with the
best available information on the key issues of the day. CBC's mandate is to inform Canadians—not
disinform them.
Conclusion
What criteria does the Ombudsman use to evaluate complaints?
The Ombudsman employs specific criteria in evaluating the merits of complaints. In
short, all information that goes to air must be fair, honest and accurate, and never false,
biased, dishonest, or unbalanced. These are key principles laid out in the CBC’s journalistic code, Journalistic Standards and Practices.
Was "Contrarians"—both the content and IDEAS' presentation---fair (to listeners), honest, and accurate? Were the talks and broadcast never false, biased, dishonest, or unbalanced?
Does CBC (IDEAS) acknowledge the existence of climate change denial? Or is CBC in denial about
climate change denial? If not, why give denialists a platform? As long as CBC's (Ideas) is peddling climate change denial, why not promote creationism, geocentrism, and the health benefits of tobacco as
well? Who needs science?
This is not the first time that IDEAS has indulged its penchant for climate change denial. In July 2009,
1
IDEAS featured Lawrence Solomon, resident climate change denier at The National Post. IDEAS
needs to come clean to listeners—and declare its position on global warming once and for all. There is
no place for denialism at the public broadcaster.
It is not as if denialists are short of outlets for their propaganda. Disinformation is available from any
number of websites, blogs, videos, books, newspaper columns, lectures, conferences, etc. The denialist campaign does not need a helping hand from CBC at taxpayers' expense.
Canadians deserve to hear the very best ideas (based on facts and logical arguments) from qualified
speakers. Instead, IDEAS gave us bad ideas (based on falsehoods and fallacies) from unqualified
speakers—without guidance or critique. IDEAS failed to correct the record. IDEAS betrayed the public
trust. Given the stakes, CBC's broadcast of January 22 was grossly irresponsible.
CBC needs to decide what it wants to be: a serious news and information source of unimpeachable
integrity that Canadians can trust—or a vehicle that serves the private interests and agendas of employees with an axe to grind.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Pounder
1
CBC and the National Post also provide platforms for climate change denier and oilsands cheerleader
Rex Murphy. Why? Who is served?
6
Essential Issues and Related Topics
*The following topics are pre-requisites for scientific literacy in global warming:
Adaptation
Aerosols
Albedo
Antarctica
Arctic
Atmosphere (structure and composition)
Biology
Carbon capture & storage
Carbon credits / offsets
Carbon cycle
Carbon Silicate Cycle
Carbon Sinks
Carbon tax / cap and trade
Climate change costs
Climate System
Clouds
CO2 Concentration
Coal
Cooling (colder winters)
Cosmic Rays
Deforestation
Desertification
Effects
El Niño / La Niña
Emissions
Evidence of warming
Extreme Weather Events
Feedbacks
Forcings
Forests
Forest Fires
Fossil Fuels
Geoengineering
GHG Concentrations
GHG Emissions
GHGs (comparison)
Glaciers
Green energy
Greenhouse Effect
Heat waves (droughts)
Human Fingerprint
Ice
Ice Age(s)
Lakes & rivers
Land Ice
Land Mass Formations
Last Ice Age
Medieval Warm Period
Mountains / Orogeny
Natural Gas
Natural variations
Next ice age
Oceans
Ocean Acidification
Ocean Circulation
Oil
Other planets
Ozone
Palaeoclimatalogy: Reconstructing the Past
Particulates
People/health/disease
Photosynthesis / Respiration
Plankton
Plants/Vegetation/Crops
Precipitation
Sea Ice
Sea Level Rise (SLR)
Solar Radiation
Solutions
Storms (weather disasters)
Denial, Controversy, Myths, & Error
Little Ice Age
Uncertainties
Volcanoes
Water
Water vapour
Wildlife
Climate change "deniers"
Review from the Office of the Ombudsman
(excerpts) | English Services, June 18, 2010
http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radiocanada.ca/en/complaint-reviews/2010/climatechange-deniers/
You may believe that the “vast majority” of
critics of climate change policy are simply motivated by a skeptical review of the science.
However, a realistic assessment of the rise of
the criticism shows clearly that many of the
early and most active opponents of the scientific consensus and the policy suggestions that
flow from it were not mere skeptics, but public
relations and “issues management” experts
funded by industries that had a large financial
interest in undermining that consensus. These
early “deniers” were, in fact, just that—some
had moved over from campaigns to undermine
the scientific consensus on the subject of the
ill-effects of smoking.
So, skepticism was not really involved, but
a carefully crafted public relations and media
management campaign to undermine the climate change consensus for business reasons,
not scientific ones.
… For those of us who are not scientists,
but ordinary citizens trying to make sense of
the world and what we can do to make it a better place, hearing the shouting from various
sides is not helpful. We rely on journalism to
present us with information on which we can
base sound judgments on public policy. Journalism must provide us with careful and accurate reporting, not swayed either by funded
agents of industries, or by possibly wellmeaning but misguided boosters of particular
social or political positions. Not an easy task in
this age of “shouting” by proponents of various
positions.
Skepticism is one of the cornerstones of
journalistic practice. Of course, it is not to be
confused with cynicism, nor with manipulation,
spin or denial of fact.
The good journalist should always view the
“accepted” with an appropriately open mind,
but not an empty one. For example, evolution
can be acknowledged as accepted science,
without closing the mind to new discoveries
that might amend the theory.
While the “theory” of evolution (theory here
being a scientific term) can be tested with actual artifacts, the “science” of climate change
appears to be a mixture of artifact and projec-
tion. Journalists should approach any kind of
projection openly, but skeptically. This is quite
a different position from those who argue
against AGW, and more in line with those who
see that the broad spectrum of scientific opinion tends in one direction but remain open to
both the historical and current data which might
suggest variations.
While there are undoubtedly “deniers” in
the anti-AGW fold—perhaps at the heart of it—
there are also those who quite legitimately
question and probe data, and policy proposals
that flow from that data. To label all who question some aspect of the AGW proposition as
“deniers” seems to me to be a less-thandisciplined use of the language.
At the same time, I have to confess that,
knowing the roots of some of the anti-AGW
proponents, calling them all “skeptics” is also
inaccurate. Skepticism is a scientific and journalistic stance, not the product of ideology or
self-interest. The challenge for CBC journalists
will be to resist easy but misleading terminology and to attempt to capture each situation as it
comes along, sharing with the audience what
we know of the people involved in order to provide useful context.
Conclusion
In order to achieve a disciplined use of the
language, CBC journalists should resist the
easy invocation of both “deniers” and “skeptics”. I would recommend that journalists use
either when clearly appropriate, but avoid the
easy shorthand when the circumstances call
for a more nuanced description.
Greenpeace Statement On
Patrick Moore (excerpt)
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpe
ace-statement-on-patric/
Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in
the media as an environmental “expert” or
even an “environmentalist,” while offering antienvironmental opinions on a wide range of
issues and taking a distinctly antienvironmental stance. He also exploits longgone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a
speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson,
usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.
While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he
abruptly turned his back on the very issues he
once passionately defended. He claims he
“saw the light” but what Moore really saw was
an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he
has gone from defender of the planet to a paid
representative of corporate polluters.
Patrick
Moore
promotes
such
antienvironmental positions as clearcut logging,
nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl)
production, genetically engineered crops, and
mining. Clients for his consulting services are a
veritable Who’s Who of companies that
Greenpeace has exposed for environmental
misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser,
and BHP Minerals.
Moore’s claims run from the exaggerated to
the outrageous to the downright false, including
that “clear-cutting is good for forests” and
Three Mile Island was actually “a success story” because the radiation from the partially
melted core was contained. That is akin to saying “my car crash was a success because I
only cracked my skull and didn’t die.”
By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace,
Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who
has seen the error of his ways. Unfortunately,
the media – especially conservative media –
give him a platform for his views, and often do
so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid
spokesperson for polluting companies.
Patrick Moore re CBC on
Twitter
Patrick Moore @EcoSenseNow
https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow
March 17, 2016
Unfortunately, the CBC has an editorial bias on
climate and environment, rejecting legitimate
alternative views.
Links
In the first article listed, real scientists demolish
Moore's misleading claims:
• http://www.theguardian.com/environm
ent/planet-oz/2015/apr/16/ask-thereal-experts-about-ocean-acidificationnot-climate-science-deniers
• http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/201
4/06/27/who-founded-greenpeace-notpatrick-moore/
• http://mediamatters.org/research/2014
/02/27/who-is-patrick-moore-a-look-atthe-former-green/198266
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_M
oore_(environmentalist)
• http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.m
sp?id=2285
9
Response from CBC IDEAS Executive Producer Greg
Kelly 15-Apr-16
I've received your note, below, and the accompanying materials a little later. To my mind, your
main objection appears to boil down to this question: why did Ideas air views about climate change
which are not accepted in the widespread scientific community? You are concerned that the airing of
these views will confuse and/or mislead our audience, and that we were, according to you, "deliberately
deceptive" by allowing "non-experts" to promote views that you believe they are not qualified to
promote.
Perhaps some context may help here: our function is to reflect currents in contemporary thinking,
even if some of those currents may strike us as objectionable. A program entitled "Ideas" must, at
times, allow space for unpopular ideas, even outlier opinions about climate change, opinions which
persist in the public realm, whether or not we like them or agree with them. Just because Ideas
featured the views of Patrick Moore and Alex Epstein does not mean that Ideas endorses their views.
We felt that the framework was clear, rather than misleading, since the title was "Contrarians": it's
implicit that theirs are not mainstream views. Our webpage for this episode made it clear that Patrick
Moore co-founded Greenpeace and has now distanced himself from his former organization, and that
Alex Epstein now writes for MasterResource, a free-market energy blog. So I don't believe that Ideas
can be said to be "deceptive" in the presentation of the speakers or their opinions. And one need not be
a scientist to critique the practices of science. Michel Foucault's critiques of medicine and psychiatry are
still resounding decades after his death, and he was of course neither a doctor nor a psychiatrist.
To be clear: I'm not defending the views of Patrick Moore and Alex Epstein. My point is that a
program like Ideas should represent a diverse range of views over time.
You may be interested to learn that most of the views we have aired on climate change reflect
those of mainstream scientific thinking. See, for example, the hour-long feature we did with
climatologist, Tim Flannery who spearheaded the first federal commission on climate change in
Australia: Climate Hope: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/climate-hope-1.2990799. We were roundly
criticized by climate change deniers, but it's their right to complain. Tim Flannery has the authority and
clarity to carry an hour of radio quite easily.
You should also know that the view that climate change is both real and caused by humans is
assumed as a starting point in each of the following programs, all of which aired or re-aired over the last
year:
•
•
•
•
•
Green Growth: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/green-growth-can-profits-help-the-planet-1.2914109
Islam and Environment: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/islam-and-the-environment-1.2914131
Killam Prize: Saving the World One Idea at a Time: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/saving-the-worldone-idea-at-a-time-1.2913693
Muskoka Summit: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/pastepisodes/2014/june/environment-or-economy-atthe-muskoka-summit-1.2664801
The Coming Zombie Apocalypse: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-coming-zombie-apocalypse1.3288762
We are also going to feature an hour with Naomi Klein in an upcoming episode in May, and
another episode will be entirely devoted Naomi Oreskes, the Harvard science historian and author of
"Merchants of Doubt" (about the history of climate change denial).
Ideas features hundreds of programs over the course of a given year. To make room in one part of
one episode to feature the views of two contrarians won't, I think, mislead or confuse our audience,
especially given the overall arch of our programming.
I hope this offers you some context and a better understanding of. We do appreciate your candid
feedback. Please know that if you are not satisfied with this response, you may wish to submit the
matter for review by the CBC Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and
impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with
the CBC's journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be reached by mail at Box 500, Terminal A,
Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6, or by telephone at 416-205-2978, or by fax at 416-205-2825, or by e-mail
at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Greg Kelly
July 20, 2016
CBC Ombudsman
CBC
Toronto, ON M5W 1E6
Dear Madam:
Re: IDEAS "Contrarians"
1
As per my complaint dated March 31 2016, I submit that broadcasting climate change denial (IDEAS:
"Contrarians", January 22, 2016) without guidance or critique contravenes CBC guidelines. In his response dated April 15 (forwarded to me May 12), IDEAS executive producer Greg Kelly left key questions unanswered—and addressed none to my satisfaction. May I request a review by the CBC Ombudsman? (Please include the following link to my reports: IDEAS Contrarians)
I
Outstanding Questions
1) Are climate change denial broadcasts supposed to be educational?
a. Who is the target audience? Who benefits?
2) What were we supposed to learn from "Contrarians"?
a. CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices: Our programs and platforms allow for
the expression of a particular perspective or point of view. This content adds public
understanding and debate on the issues of the day.
How do climate change denial and disinformation increase public understanding of
climate change?
3) CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices: We provide our audience with the perspectives,
2
facts and analysis they need to understand an issue or matter of public interest.
How do climate change denial broadcasts provide Canadians with the perspectives, facts and
analysis they need to understand climate change? Do disinformation broadcasts meet CBC's
standards of fairness, honesty, and accuracy?
4) Is the deniers' goal to clarify the science or cause confusion?
a. If the latter, why does CBC think it helpful to confuse the public?
5) If IDEAS' goal was to confuse the public about global warming and undermine public confidence in science, "Contrarians" was undoubtedly a success. Whose interests are served?
6) IDEAS assumes that the denialist campaign is legitimate—that climate change denial deserves our consideration. (Otherwise, why broadcast it?) How does CBC justify this position?
a. Are uninformed views legitimate? Are misrepresentations of the science and spurious
attacks on scientists legitimate?
7) Paul Kennedy introduced the "contrarians" as "three people posing challenging questions" (in
fact, questions the audience was unprepared to deal with).
a. IDEAS failed to identify the first two speakers as climate change deniers. Kelly fails to
acknowledge that IDEAS broadcast climate change denial. He does not even
acknowledge the denialist campaign.
b. Does CBC acknowledge the fossil fuel industry's campaign to confuse the public and
delay climate action?
8) If Moore and Epstein are not climate change deniers, who is?
1
I.e., denial of the scientific consensus that human activity is largely responsible for recent global
warming, ocean acidification, and their impacts.
2
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/reporting-to-canadians/acts-andpolicies/programming/journalism/opinion/
a. Does CBC have a precise definition for the term—and guidelines for its application?
b. Why is CBC so reluctant to call a spade a spade?
9) Paul Kennedy asserted that Ideacity "brings a bunch of very smart thinkers and doers to Toronto…"
a. What evidence does IDEAS have that Moore & Epstein are "very smart thinkers and
doers"?
b. CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices: CBC journalists do not express their
own personal opinion because it affects the perception of impartiality and could affect
1
an open and honest exploration of an issue.
Is it appropriate for CBC hosts to characterize climate change deniers in such terms?
(In his opening remarks, Ideacity host Moses Znaimer likewise spoke favorably of his
"contrarian" guests.)
c. Should IDEAS' host avoid expressing his personal views so as not to sway the audience—or is Paul Kennedy exempt?
10) What authority do Moore and Epstein have to speak on these topics: climate science, the oilsands, and the impacts of fossil fuels?
a. Did IDEAS check Moore's record before putting him on the air?
b. Does it matter that Moore (Ph.D. Ecology) and Epstein have no climate science credentials?
i. How many peer-reviewed papers has the self-styled "Sensible Environmentalist" published on climate science in respected science journals?
ii. Has he ever published anything on any topic in a respected science journal?
iii. Does it matter that Epstein (B.A. Philosophy) is not a scientist?
iv. Could IDEAS not find anyone more qualified on these topics?
11) Either what denialists say is true, and the scientists who study the subject are liars, frauds, or
incompetents—or the other way around.
a. What is CBC's position?
b. Are we supposed to believe that the thousands of scientists who study the subject are
out to lunch—while denialists who have little or no training in the field, do no research,
and publish no papers in science journals have miraculous insights?
II
IDEAS' Response
IDEAS producer Greg Kelly defends the broadcast of climate change denial:
i) …our function is to reflect currents in contemporary thinking, even if some of
those currents may strike us as objectionable. A program entitled "Ideas" must, at
times, allow space for unpopular ideas, even outlier opinions about climate change,
opinions which persist in the public realm, whether or not we like them or agree with
them. Just because Ideas featured the views of Patrick Moore and Alex Epstein does
not mean that Ideas endorses their views.
… a program like Ideas should represent a diverse range of views over time.
ii) We felt that the framework was clear, rather than misleading, since the title was
"Contrarians": it's implicit that theirs are not mainstream views. … So I don't believe
that Ideas can be said to be "deceptive" in the presentation of the speakers or their
opinions.
iii) …one need not be a scientist to critique the practices of science.
iv) …most of the views we have aired on climate change reflect those of mainstream
scientific thinking. …the view that climate change is both real and caused by humans is
assumed as a starting point in each of the following programs, all of which aired or reaired over the last year:
…
To make room in one part of one episode to feature the views of two contrarians
1
Ibid.
2
won't, I think, mislead or confuse our audience, especially given the overall arch of our
programming.
Implications
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IDEAS' mandate is to "reflect currents in contemporary thinking"—and "represent a diverse
range of views over time".
o Climate change denial is one such "current in contemporary thinking".
o Ergo, IDEAS is obligated to broadcast climate change denial.
o IDEAS would be remiss not to give a platform to climate change deniers.
Presumably, IDEAS strives to broadcast material worthy of listeners' attention.
o IDEAS broadcast climate change denial and greenwash.
o Ergo, climate change denial is worthy of listeners' attention.
Canadians/CBC listeners should take the claims of climate change deniers like Moore and Epstein seriously.
o Non-experts and non-scientists are qualified to challenge the facts and findings of climate scientists.
o Climate change deniers know more about climate science than climate scientists do.
o Conceivably, climate change deniers who do no science could be correct—and thousands of scientists could be wrong.
CBC (IDEAS) programming is a public service for the benefit of Canadians.
o IDEAS broadcasts climate change denial.
o Therefore, broadcasting climate change denial is a public service for the benefit of
Canadians.
Canadians should be thankful for CBC's public-service broadcasting.
o Canadians should be thankful for CBC broadcasts of climate change denial.
IDEAS' mandate is to reflect "currents of contemporary thinking"—no matter how "objectionable". Kelly lists no other criteria for broadcast.
o Without restriction, any idea or opinion that reflects a "current of contemporary thinking" is worthy of broadcast on IDEAS—no matter how objectionable (erroneous, illegitimate, offensive, dishonest, deceitful, manipulative, etc.).
o IDEAS has no quality control standards.
o IDEAS is exempt from CBC's standards and practices.
o IDEAS is free to broadcast material devoid of merit (i.e., garbage.)
IDEAS has no obligation to educate, enlighten, or inform.
o IDEAS has no responsibility to fact check.
o It is up to listeners to determine the accuracy of material broadcast on IDEAS.
Viewpoints need only "reflect currents in contemporary thinking".
o On science issues, non-scientific and pseudo-scientific viewpoints are legitimate subjects for broadcast—provided that they "reflect currents in contemporary thinking".
o Factual accuracy is not a criterion for broadcast—not even on science topics.
In the marketplace of IDEAS, all vendors are welcome, and none shall be excluded—no matter how fraudulent.
o Since IDEAS may broadcast material without merit, presenters need not have any
merit either.
o Credentials do not matter.
Disinformation can do no harm to IDEAS listeners, given their exposure to the facts elsewhere.
o Whereas climate change denial is known to confuse the general public, CBC listeners
remain immune.
Summary of Complaint
1) Bad Ideas / Disinformation
Kelly: …our function is to reflect currents in contemporary thinking, even if some of
those currents may strike us as objectionable.
3
Disinformation exists—therefore, IDEAS is obliged to broadcast it. Denialism is prevalent—therefore,
IDEAS is bound to promote it. Is that the best justification Kelly could come up with?
To state the obvious: Not all views have merit. What is the benefit of broadcasting material without merit? Kelly does not say. Why are Moore and Epstein worth listening to? Kelly has no answer. If denialist
material has merit, please name it.
Kelly: … a program like Ideas should represent a diverse range of views over time.
Even if those views have no scientific merit, no factual basis, no legitimacy? Even if the intent is to sow
doubt, bring science and scientists into disrepute, and confuse the public? Denialist material is widely
available elsewhere. There is no need to broadcast it on IDEAS—and no benefit.
Kelly left out a word: A program like IDEAS should represent a diverse range of LEGITIMATE views.
The only legitimate debate of scientific facts and findings takes place among legitimate scientists with
relevant expertise, as documented by respected science journals. If Kelly believes that the uninformed—people who do no science—deserve a seat at the table, he needs to explain why.
Kelly's characterization of "Contrarians" is disingenuous. Climate change denial is sponsored by the
1
fossil fuel industry. Kelly took advantage of his CBC platform to promote the interests of corporations
like Exxon-Mobil, Koch Industries, Peabody Energy (the world's largest privately owned coal company),
Southern Company (the world’s largest coal-burning utility)—and lobby groups like The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), and
The American Petroleum Institute (API)—and the front groups they sponsor. Why does CBC permit its
employees to promote corporate agendas counter to the public interest? How far up the ladder does
this corruption go?
CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices: The Ombudsman employs specific criteria in evaluating the merits of complaints. In short, all information that goes to air must
be fair, honest and accurate, and never false, biased, dishonest, or unbalanced. These
are key principles laid out in the CBC’s journalistic code, Journalistic Standards and
2
Practices.
Kelly denies responsibility for the factual accuracy of IDEAS programming. (No such disclaimer appears on the website.) The sole criterion he lists for broadcast is that material should represent a "current in contemporary thinking"—regardless of merit (factual/scientific accuracy). Is IDEAS exempt from
CBC's standards and practices?
On the contrary, IDEAS should hold itself to the highest standards of broadcasting: the best of ideas
from the best of minds—for the enlightenment, education, and edification of Canadians. Climate
change denial does not qualify. Non-experts (the uninformed) may not reasonably lay claim to
knowledge unavailable to scientists. Unscientific views on scientific facts and findings have no standing;
no claim on our attention; no need to be broadcast, and no right to be heard.
Kelly avoids the issue of climate change denial. He fails to acknowledge the goals, tactics, strategy,
and influence of the denialist campaign. Kelly omits crucial context: a) the corporate sponsorship of
climate change denial, and b) previous denialist campaigns (often employing the same methods, cast
of characters, and PR firms).
Kelly says that he does not endorse Moore's and Epstein's views—but neither does he explicitly reject
them. Merely by broadcasting denialist views, IDEAS implies that they are worthy of our consideration.
If denialism cannot supersede scientific methods of inquiry; if climate change denial has no legitimacy;
if denialist views have no merit; if there is no public benefit to broadcasting them; and if Kelly rejects
them, why air them? Cui bono?
1
2
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial-exxon
http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/faq/
4
1a) Intent to Deceive
Climate change denial is a scam. Merchants of doubt are fraudsters. For IDEAS producers to pretend
otherwise is wilful ignorance. Unfortunately, listeners cannot see through the deception unless they
make the effort to delve into the science.
Kelly: Just because Ideas featured the views of Patrick Moore and Alex Epstein does
not mean that Ideas endorses their views.
No one but a (closet) climate change denier would suppose that climate change denial has merit. No
one but a (closet) climate change denier would deny that denialism confuses the public. No one but a
(closet) climate change denier would defend the broadcast. What are the benefits of broadcasting climate change denial? Kelly could not name one.
If CBC does not tell Canadians the truth, it deceives them. If CBC does not give Canadians the facts, it
misleads them. How does this benefit Canadians? What is CBC's (IDEAS') mission?
2) Unqualified speakers
Apparently, anyone with Greenpeace (far down) on his résumé or a blog on the Internet is qualified to
discuss climate science on IDEAS. Kelly's indifference to speakers' credentials applies only to climate
change. On no other topic have the eminently unqualified received a platform on IDEAS.
Kelly: …one need not be a scientist to critique the practices of science.
No, but one must be a scientist (employ scientific methods) to engage in science. To challenge the scientific consensus, one needs expertise in the field. Kelly's "contrarians" have no expertise in climate
science.
Kelly: We felt that the framework was clear, rather than misleading, since the title was
"Contrarians": it's implicit that theirs are not mainstream views. … So I don't believe
that Ideas can be said to be "deceptive" in the presentation of the speakers or their
opinions.
"Contrarians" or "deniers"? Kelly paid no attention to my arguments for making a distinction. "Contrarians" and "deniers" are not synonyms—the terms are not interchangeable. Kelly does not acknowledge
that he gave a platform to climate change deniers. Misrepresenting deniers as contrarians is a deception—another form of denial.
Trafficking in falsehoods is the trademark of deniers, not contrarians. Kelly does not argue my point that
the goal of climate change deniers is to confuse the public, delay climate action, and protect corporate
profits. He simply ducks the issue.
1
Scientists are contrarians. They are not swayed by the consensus of their peers. They go where the
evidence leads them. Contrarians support the consensus if and only if the evidence demands it. Deniers reject the consensus regardless of the evidence. To that end, they distort the evidence and fabricate their own. Contrarians test the evidence; deniers promote fictions. Calling deniers "contrarians"
gives them a legitimacy they do not deserve. Let no one be deceived by Kelly's word games.
The very fact that IDEAS put climate change deniers on air suggests that they are a credible source,
which leads listeners to infer that their message has merit and deserves serious consideration. Hence,
the manufacture of doubt.
1
A small minority of climate scientists, many with ties to industry, challenge one or two points of the
consensus position—few serious scientists reject the consensus position altogether.
5
3) No Guidance or Correction
Kelly: …most of the views we have aired on climate change reflect those of mainstream scientific thinking. …the view that climate change is both real and caused by
humans is assumed as a starting point in each of the following programs, all of which
aired or re-aired over the last year…
To make room in one part of one episode to feature the views of two contrarians
won't, I think, mislead or confuse our audience, especially given the overall arch of our
programming.
On what evidence does Kelly base this assumption? Does legitimate programming elsewhere immunize IDEAS' listeners against disinformation? How are listeners to tell which claims are true? Wishful
thinking is not an argument. Kelly assumes that all listeners tuned into the programs he listed—and that
these programs provide the science background required to refute Moore's and Epstein's claims. Did
these programs address their arguments and assertions?
Kelly downplays the pernicious influence of climate change denial. The basic facts about global warming are not hard to come by. Yet denialism flourishes. Many Canadians are confused. Many accept
denialist views. Clearly, not everyone is immune to disinformation.
III
Discussion
1) Bad Ideas / Intent to Deceive
Kelly: To my mind, your main objection appears to boil down to this question: why did
Ideas air views about climate change which are not accepted in the widespread scientific community? You are concerned that the airing of these views will confuse and / or
mislead our audience, and that we were, according to you, "deliberately deceptive" by
allowing "non-experts" to promote views that you believe they are not qualified to promote.
IDEAS aired disinformation from climate change deniers without identifying them as such—and without
critique. IDEAS should be devoted to the best of ideas from the best of minds—not denialism from nonexperts, corporate stooges, and public mischief-makers.
Moore's and Epstein's "views about climate change" (as promulgated by countless think tanks, websites, and op-eds) are unabashed climate change denial. Denialist material deliberately confuses and
misleads.
According to Kelly, IDEAS aired "views about climate change which are not accepted in the widespread
scientific community". In fact, Moore's and Epstein's views are not accepted in the scientific community,
period. Their methods are not scientific; their views are not science. Deniers misrepresent and attack
science.
Moore's and Epstein's material is not even original. They repeat talking points found on dozens of denialist web sites. Canadians are already well exposed to climate change denial. We do not need more of
the same from our public broadcaster. What extra value did IDEAS add?
How does Kelly justify broadcasting climate change denial? It reflects a "current of contemporary thinking". Who can miss the irony? Climate change denial "persists in the public realm" in part because programs like IDEAS give it oxygen.
Kelly does not argue my point that Moore's and Epstein's material was false, misleading, manipulative,
etc. He does not defend or endorse their presentations. Apparently, IDEAS has no standards and takes
no responsibility for its material. Has intellectual integrity gone out of fashion?
6
The manufactured AGW controversy is not a matter of competing legitimate views. Only the scientific
approach is legitimate. If denialists do not base their claims on science, what do they base them on?
What are the alternatives to science? Why would we choose them? Is there ever a time when we
should prefer pseudo-science to science? Why should we pay attention to denialists? What, if anything,
do they have to tell us? How would a non-scientific approach employed by non-experts/non-scientists
yield better results than a scientific approach by trained academics with decades of experience in the
field? Why would CBC even entertain the notion?
Kelly: …our function is to reflect currents in contemporary thinking, even if some of
those currents may strike us as objectionable.
Regardless of merit, motive, and effect? No matter how inaccurate, misleading, fallacious, ignorant,
uninformed, unsubstantiated, contrived, dishonest, deceptive, mischievous, and dangerous?
Are all "currents of contemporary thinking" worthy of listeners' attention?
Climate change denial is no more a "current in contemporary thinking" than past campaigns denying
the link between smoking and cancer. (The two campaigns have employed the same spokesmen.) Is
tobacco denial a "current of contemporary thinking"—or a cynical campaign of obfuscation, obstruction,
and delay that costs lives and billions of health-care dollars? Millions of smokers do not believe they will
get cancer. What stops IDEAS from giving a platform to Big Tobacco?
After Paris summit, climate change denial is alive and well
There's a template that is deliberately used by the tobacco—and now carbon—
industries who want to avoid environmental regulation and taxation. Provide seed
money to create upstart organizations which give themselves names that sound credible. Use these groups to attack scientists with whom you disagree, and label as incompetent or corrupt. And peddle conspiracy theories about political leaders who challenge
your interests. The object isn't to build a competing scientific theory; it is rather to use
1
public relations to sow doubt and muddy the waters.
Does climate change denial really reflect a "current of contemporary thinking"? In fact, climate change
deniers do not adhere to a single, consistent view. They cannot agree on an alternative theory to explain recent warming. Deniers reject different parts of the consensus. Their claims and conclusions are
2
all over the map. They cannot even persuade one another—much less the majority of experts in the
field. Where there is widespread disagreement among factions, at most one of them can be right. Deniers hop back and forth between logically inconsistent positions at will. If any denialist views had merit,
why can deniers not agree on one? Why take any of these notions seriously when even deniers do not
agree?
You may have noticed another characteristic of contrarian climate research – there is
no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some
blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on
ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s
overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject
that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they
seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ig3
noring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.
1
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/dennis-gruending/2016/06/after-paris-summit-climate-change-denialalive-and-well
2
The reader may notice one or two unattributed phrases in my text that also appear in quoted material.
I wrote my text before consulting sources. Any duplication is accidental.
3
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-whathappens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers
V also http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic-contradictions.html
7
When most Canadians do not understand the basics of climate science and many doubt the scientific
consensus, why give airtime to deniers? When scientific illiteracy is rampant, why broadcast disinformation? How does disinformation advance Canadians' understanding of the science and the threats
we face?
Kelly: A program entitled "Ideas" must, at times, allow space for unpopular ideas…
Try replacing the phrase "unpopular" with "illegitimate":
A program entitled "Ideas" must, at times, allow space for illegitimate ideas, even illegitimate opinions about climate change, opinions which persist in the public realm,
whether or not we like them or agree with them.
A program titled "Any and All Ideas" or "Anything Goes" or "If You Can Think It, We'll Broadcast It" may
include fossil-fuel industry propaganda, fallacious arguments, anti-science screeds, and disinformation.
That is not what Canadians expect from IDEAS.
For the sake of argument, let us grant Kelly's premise. Where are the IDEAS programs featuring Holocaust deniers, white supremacists, suicide bombers, birthers, freemen on the land, anti-vaxxers, creationists, and flat earthers? Arguments can be made for segregation, apartheid, eugenics, and slavery. A
case can be made for stoning adulterers, burning witches, and honor killing.
A program entitled "Ideas" must, at times, allow space for unpopular ideas, even outlier
opinions about climate change, opinions which persist in the public realm, whether or
not we like them or agree with them.
I do not object to Moore's and Epstein's presentations because I disagree with their conclusions. I object because denialism is fraudulent. Their presentations are objectionable for the same reason that the
tobacco industry's denialist campaign is objectionable.
In the U.S. Exxon is already being investigated by four state Attorneys General over the
suggestion that the company’s misinformation campaigns amounted to fraud. A total of
17 state Attorneys General have agreed to collaborate in holding the fossil fuel industry
accountable for misinformation, and the U.S. Department of Justice has referred the is1
sue to the FBI.
For its efforts to mislead the public and investors about the risks of climate change, Exxon may soon
2
find itself in court. If climate change threatens our well-being and our children's survival, so do efforts
to delay action. Are journalists and media outlets that enable denialism not liable?
Kelly implies that climate science is a matter of opinion—and that the AGW controversy is merely a
matter of conflicting views. Scientific facts, theories, observations, and projections supported by (multiple lines of) evidence are not "opinions". Moore's and Epstein's claims cannot be weighed on the same
scale as the IPCC's reports based on scientific findings. To suggest that in (climate) science there are
no objective facts, only subjective opinions, is ignorantist. Moore commits the same error when he asserts, "[There are] many opinions about climate change."
Opinions not based on science are illegitimate. Deniers do not stand outside the mainstream of science—they stand outside science altogether. Denialism and science are opposed. What legitimate
challenge is there to scientific findings but more and better science? Moore's and Epstein's disinformation does not appear in science journals—but is confined instead to the blogosphere, right-wing publications, and pseudo-intellectual circuses. Denialist material is not publishable in science journals—
because IT IS NOT science. Fringe views without merit are discarded. Which is why deniers throw
1
http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/not-only-exxonknew-about-climate-change-itscanadian-subsidiary-im
2
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/05/exxonmobil-investigation-climate-changepeabody
8
stones from the safety of denialist web sites, online comment forums, Ideacity, and IDEAS. Scientists
are not their target audience. Deniers prey on public ignorance.
Kelly: Just because Ideas featured the views of Patrick Moore and Alex Epstein does
not mean that Ideas endorses their views… To be clear: I'm not defending the views of
Patrick Moore and Alex Epstein.
Kelly's endorsement is beside the point. The issue is that IDEAS legitimized, enabled, and empowered
the climate change denial campaign by airing denialist views without guidance or correction. Broadcasting climate change denial implies that (as far as IDEAS is concerned) climate change deniers are a
legitimate voice. Unfortunately, most listeners lack the wherewithal to judge the merits of denialist
claims. Which is why the climate change denial campaign is effective.
It matters less what Kelly makes of Moore's and Epstein's views than what CBC listeners make of
IDEAS' decision to broadcast them. Over the decades, IDEAS' listeners have come to expect the highest standards of broadcasting: the best of ideas from the best of minds. Kelly traded on IDEAS' credibility to mislead listeners.
Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University, on the pitfalls of reporting on the manufactured AGW controversy:
A New York Times, Washington Post, Time magazine, NBC or CNN reporter receives
from his professional peers and traditions no clear instructions for how to handle an illegitimate debate, meaning one that should never have arisen, because it is based
on phony selection, manufactured doubt, and highly ideological reads of the
available evidence. The louder the din, the more wary the mainstream journalist is of
“choosing sides.” But what if choosing sides is exactly what the journalist would have to
do to portray things as they really are?
The reality is it is very, very hard for a mainstream news person to say, “These people
have the facts on their side, these people are manufacturing doubt and manipulating
the case, and everyone should realize this is a phony debate—okay, is that clear?”
1
This almost never happens.
2) Unqualified speakers
a) Profiles
IDEAS posted speaker profiles on its website:
Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 40
years. He is a co-founder of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of
Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As
the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction for 15 years while Greenpeace became the world's largest environmental activist
organization. In recent years, Dr. Moore has been focused on the promotion of sus2
tainability and consensus building among competing concerns.
Alex Epstein is an expert in energy and industrial policy. His writings on energy and
energy policy have been published in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor's Business Daily, and dozens of other prominent publications. He has become the leading
free-market energy debater, having debated Bill McKibben, Greenpeace, Occupy Wall
Street, and other environmentalist groups. He is a Principal blogger for MasterRe-
1
2
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/09/20/206752/jay-rosen-on-climate-science-reporting-journalism/
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/contrarians-1.3413740
9
source, the leading free-market energy blog. Mr. Epstein's monthly podcast, "Power
1
Hour," features discussions with leading energy thinkers.
These profiles contain no hint of the controversy surrounding these two figures. Scientists reject their
2
claims and demolish their articles. Name one credible scientist not funded by industry who supports
their claims. Environmentalists consider Moore a sell-out and a pariah. As for Epstein, what makes him
an "expert" on anything?
If Epstein is the leading "free-market energy debater", he should reject fossil-fuel subsidies and promote full-cost accounting: compelling producers and consumers to pay the full environmental and
health costs of energy. Needless to say, the triple bottom line is not on the industry's or Epstein's agenda.
Who authored these profiles? IDEAS? If not, IDEAS should have used quotation marks and cited its
sources.
3
In fact, IDEAS lifted these profiles from the Ideacity website. Is Ideacity an objective source? (Moses
Znaimer's introductory remarks should dispel that notion.) What is the relationship between IDEAS staff
and Znaimer? CBC should spell it out.
Ideacity did not author these profiles, either. Epstein is founder and president of the Center for Industrial
4
Progress—"a for-profit think-tank seeking to bring about a new industrial revolution". On his original
"About us" webpage (since revised), his bio read:
Alex Epstein is an expert in energy and industrial policy. His writings on energy and
energy policy have been published in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Business Daily, and dozens of other prominent publications. He has become the leading
free-market energy debater, having debated Bill McKibben, Greenpeace, Occupy Wall
Street, and other environmentalist groups. He is a Principal blogger for MasterResource, the leading free-market energy blog. Mr. Epstein’s monthly podcast, “Power
Hour,” features discussions with leading energy thinkers. Mr. Epstein’s writings on philosophy, business, and energy have been featured in 10 books, including, most recent5
ly, Why Businessmen Need Philosophy.
The same blurb (or slight variations), penned by Epstein himself, appears on dozens of other (mostly
right-wing, libertarian, and industry-group) websites. For example, Epstein spoke to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) in 2013. There his profile reads:
Epstein is an expert in energy and industrial policy who has been published in The Wall
Street Journal, Forbes and Investor's Business Daily. He is a leading free-market energy debater, having debated Bill McKibben, GreenPeace, Occupy Wall Street and other
6
environmental groups.
Same story for Moore. His self-promotional profile appears on dozens of websites, starting with his:
Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30
years. He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President
of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As
1
Ibid.
For example, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/apr/16/ask-the-real-expertsabout-ocean-acidification-not-climate-science-deniers
3
http://www.ideacity.ca/speaker/Patrick-Moore/
http://www.ideacity.ca/speaker/alex-epstein/
4
http://industrialprogress.com/about/
5
http://web.archive.org/web/20130419014844/http://industrialprogress.com/about/
A similar blurb
appears on his "Our Team" webpage: http://industrialprogress.com/get-involved/our-team/
6
http://datab.us/dToMpirOhtg#CAPP%20Speaker%20Series%20-%20April%2012,%202013%20%20Alex%20Epstein
2
10
the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world's largest environmental activist organization.
In recent years, Dr. Moore has been focused on the promotion of sustainability and
1
consensus building among competing concerns.
IDEAS should have identified Moore and Epstein as the authors. When Kelly posted these whitewashed profiles on the IDEAS website, he abandoned all pretence of journalism. Where was his scepticism?
b) "Deniers" vs. "Contrarians"
Tonight on IDEAS, The Moore & Epstein Disinformation Hour—brought to you by Exxon, CAPP, and their friends at CBC.
Taking its cue from Ideacity, IDEAS identified Moore and Epstein as "contrarians". Are they contrarians—or corporate shills and propagandists? In my initial letter, I differentiated "deniers" and "contrarians", Kelly ignored my arguments.
Contrarianism is evidence first and contrary position after. Denialism is contradiction first and fabricated
evidence after. Unlike deniers, scientists are open to new evidence. Deniers do not care about being
correct. To succeed, all they have to do is create doubt, confusion, and delay.
Deniers do not contribute to the science or participate in the scientific debate. Deniers' target audience
is not scientists, but the public and politicians. Contrarians challenge the consensus based on their
reading of the evidence. Deniers reject the consensus by ignoring and distorting the evidence. Deniers
are not merely mistaken—they are dishonest:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
Deniers make up their own facts.
Deniers mine denialist websites for talking points, but make no effort to inform themselves on
the science.
Deniers repeat their zombie arguments no matter how many times they are debunked.
Deniers shift from one argument to another—however inconsistent.
Deniers are immune to evidence.
o They avoid and reject evidence that challenges their position.
o They seek evidence that confirms their bias.
o They resort to straw man arguments that misrepresent the science.
o They cherry-pick data.
o They are highly selective in their scepticism: If a finding supports their position, they
accept it unreservedly.
Deniers pretend to scientific credentials or authority.
Deniers often misquote scientists, quote them out of context, or otherwise misrepresent their
findings.
Deniers discredit scientists by calling them "global warming activists", "alarmists", or "warmists"
(snarl words).
Climate change denial organizations and astroturf groups (funded by the fossil fuel industry)
adopt confusing names: Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC);
Friends of Science; Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; the Greening
Earth Society; The Natural Resources Stewardship Project; Plants Need C02; Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow; Science and Public Policy Institute.
Deniers attribute to celebrities and jet-setting environmentalists (Al Gore, David Suzuki, Leonardo Di Caprio) the findings made and positions held by scientists—and resort to ad hominem arguments to discredit the science.
Deniers invoke conspiracy theories involving scientists, government, and the UN.
Deniers invent scandals—and pile on long after the "scandal" has been debunked.
http://www.ecosense.me/index.php/about
11
Kelly: We felt that the framework was clear, rather than misleading, since the title was
"Contrarians": it's implicit that theirs are not mainstream views… So I don't believe that
Ideas can be said to be "deceptive" in the presentation of the speakers or their opinions.
What IDEAS failed to say—and what listeners needed to hear—was that Moore and Epstein have zero
authority/credentials/qualifications to argue the science of AGW. While Kelly did not argue my point, he
continues without justification to call them "contrarians". Yet he shows no interest in their credentials.
That position is untenable.
Kelly does not admit to broadcasting climate change denial. IDEAS failed to identify the presenters as
climate change deniers. Kelly would be correct to call them "contrarians" only if a) they were qualified to
judge scientific evidence and b) they disagreed with the consensus position on the basis of scientific
evidence. Are Holocaust deniers and Big Tobacco spin doctors "contrarians"? Calling deniers "contrarians" gives them a legitimacy they do not deserve. Legitimization is what deniers seek. Kelly's indifferent word choice is a gift to denialists.
Kelly: Our webpage for this episode made it clear that Patrick Moore co-founded
Greenpeace.
1
A claim trumpeted by Moore—but contested by Greenpeace. What effort did IDEAS make to verify
this assertion? As indicated on IDEAS' webpage, Moore calls himself "the sensible environmentalist".
What is that supposed to imply? Scientists and environmentalists who disagree with him are dolts?
Instead of parroting Moore's self-serving claims, challenge him.
Contrarians may occasionally be vindicated. Deniers are correct only by accident—since they do not do
science. Have Moore and Epstein contributed a single iota to climate science?
Ideacity 2015 featured five climate change deniers and zero climate scientists. A denialist extravaganza! IDEAS omitted that context. Even if Moore were a co-founder of Greenpeace, that does not make
him an authority on climate science. Epstein has no scientific credentials. Neither has done a stick of
research in climate science.
British astronomer royal and Royal Society president Martin Rees discussed true scientific scepticism in
his 2010 BBC Reith Lectures:
But science is generally 'self-correcting'. Scientists are their own severest critics. They
have more incentive than anyone else to uncover errors. That’s because the greatest
esteem goes to those who contribute something unexpected and original—like refuting
a consensus. That's how in science initially-tentative ideas firm up—not only on climate
change, but—to take earlier examples—regarding the link between smoking and lung
cancer, and between HIV and AIDS. But that's also how seductive theories get de2
stroyed by harsh facts. Science is 'organised scepticism'.
When Quirks & Quarks host Bob McDonald comments on climate change, unlike Moore and Epstein
he reports on scientific finds, quotes scientists, and cites scientific reports published in science jour3
nals.
Kelly: And one need not be a scientist to critique the practices of science.
1
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/
V. my rebuttal report.
2
Reith Lectures 2010: Scientific Horizons: Lecture 1: The Scientific Citizen (Prof Martin Rees asks who
we should trust to explain the risks we face.) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sj9lh
3
For example, http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bob-macdonald-agriculture-emissions-1.3591177
12
The practices of climate science are not at issue. Moore and Epstein do not critique the practices of
science—they distort, cherry pick, and misrepresent scientific facts and findings. Are all critiques of science legitimate? Is the tobacco industry's critique of medical findings legitimate?
Only scientists working in climate science and related fields are qualified to challenge the scientific consensus. How can non-scientists and non-experts who do no science be qualified? Climate science and
related fields are subjects requiring specialized skill-sets and years of relevant training. How can deniers who lack the skills and knowledge base be qualified? Inexplicably, Kelly makes an exception for
climate science.
It is one thing to critique the "practices of science". It is another thing for non-scientists using nonscientific methods and false evidence to challenge the consensus of scientists in a particular field. Can
non-experts and non-scientists who do no research in climate science challenge the consensus position, as established by multiple lines of evidence, and supported by a majority of climate scientists
across multiple disciplines? If so, the vast majority of climate scientists are either incompetent or corrupt—just as denialists would have us believe. Is that Kelly's view?
So thousands of scientists and dozens of national science academies have got it wrong? And a few
academic (often corporate-sponsored) outliers and legions of ideologically-driven non-scientists, scientific illiterates, and self-promoting nobodies who do not even agree with each other have somehow got
it right? Explain, please. If CBC rejects this absurdity, why give them a platform? If denialism can outdo
science, why bother with the scientific method? Why do science at all? No need for experiments, observation, and measurements. Just ask denialists to share their miraculous insights.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If Moore and Epstein possess such evidence, why
not publish it in a respected science journal? The Nobel Prize awaits.
Michel Foucault's critiques of medicine and psychiatry are still resounding decades after his death, and he was of course neither a doctor nor a psychiatrist.
Michel Foucault and Patrick Moore—seriously? If Mr. Kelly's child fell ill, would he take her to a doctor,
Mr. Foucault, or Patrick Moore? Would Kelly avail himself of a "diverse range of views" on treatment for
cancer? Would he investigate "currents in contemporary thinking" on whooping cough remedies?
Would he entertain "outlier opinions" about meningitis? Or would he put his trust in the expert?
Are psychiatry and physics/chemistry/earth sciences comparable?
Kelly: My point is that a program like Ideas should represent a diverse range of views
over time.
With the proviso, surely, that those views are legitimate, credible, substantiated, honest, and informed.
IDEAS should not willfully and needlessly confuse listeners, compromise their understanding of vital
issues, or unfairly undermine confidence in science. Programming should be of public benefit. Denialist
disinformation does not pass the test. Science journals publish a diverse range of views on climate topics—but they do not publish denialism, because it is not science. While most genuine climate scientists
agree on the IPCC's main findings, they disagree on any number of details. Surely, IDEAS could find a
climate scientist (or panel) to discuss the uncertainties and unknowns in the field.
American populist rhetoric has always had a dark side of anti-intellectualism, the belief
that the common sense of the average man on the street is equal to or greater than the
expert knowledge of people who spend years studying a particular question, and that
has been on full display in recent years. Who can understand what those weird, otherworldly scientists are talking about, anyway? Somebody needs to “stand up to the ex1
perts.”
1
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/10/
i_m_not_a_scientist_excuse_politicians_don_t_need_to_be_experts_to_make.html
13
In what other field of study does Kelly maintain that non-experts and non-scientists are qualified to
comment on matters about which they know little or nothing? On what other topics does CBC prefer
uninformed to informed views?
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and
cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is
1
just as good as your knowledge."
How is Moore's and Epstein's ignorance just as good as scientists' knowledge? How just as worthy of
broadcast? How just as deserving of our attention? Kelly needs to explain.
c) Apply Elsewhere
Kelly: You may be interested to learn that most of the views we have aired on climate
change reflect those of mainstream scientific thinking.
To repeat, Moore and Epstein do not stand outside the mainstream of scientific thinking. They do not
stand in the stream at all. They stand on the distant shore, throwing stones. Whether IDEAS reflects
mainstream views is not the issue. By all means, air a range of legitimate views. Denialism by nonscientists fails the test.
Kelly: You should also know that the view that climate change is both real and caused
by humans is assumed as a starting point in each of the following programs, all of
which aired or re-aired over the last year...
I.e., if listeners want the facts, they should apply elsewhere. What the purpose / benefit is of broadcasting disinformation Kelly does not say. Broadcasting Martin Luther King's speeches would not justify one
minute of white supremacy propaganda. Broadcasting Holocaust documentaries around the clock
would not give CBC license to air one minute of Holocaust denial. Broadcasting legitimate climate science around the clock would not excuse broadcasting one minute of denialism.
Kelly: We are also going to feature an hour with Naomi Klein in an upcoming episode
in May, and another episode will be entirely devoted Naomi Oreskes, the Harvard science historian and author of "Merchants of Doubt" (about the history of climate change
denial).
The damage is done. IDEAS gave listeners no guidance, and offered no critique. IDEAS did not challenge or interrogate the speakers. How were listeners to sort out fact from fiction? If IDEAS broadcasts
denialist views, listeners assume they have merit. Otherwise, why broadcast them?
See, for example, the hour-long feature we did with climatologist, Tim Flannery who
spearheaded the first federal commission on climate change in Australia: Climate
Hope: http: / / www.cbc.ca / radio / ideas / climate-hope-1.2990799. We were roundly
criticized by climate change deniers, but it's their right to complain. Tim Flannery has
the authority and clarity to carry an hour of radio quite easily.
Kelly's point is irrelevant. (Flannery is not a climatologist.) References to other programming are an
evasion. Good programming does not give CBC license to broadcast rubbish. Good journalism does
not excuse bad journalism. Good science does not excuse junk science. If an airline pilot lands safely
90% of the time, what credit is that to him?
As for Oreskes, author of "Merchants of Doubt", I look forward to hearing what she has to say about the
pockets of climate change denial at CBC. Does she approve of giving airtime to doubt merchants and
calling them "contrarians"?
1
Isaac Asimov, column in Newsweek, 21-Jan-1980.
14
1
Check out this New York Times profile: "Naomi Oreskes, a Lightning Rod in a Changing Climate". Also, this NYT review of the documentary based on Oreskes' book: "Review: ‘Merchants of Doubt,’ Sepa2
rating Science From Spin".
Kelly: To make room in one part of one episode to feature the views of two contrarians
won't, I think, mislead or confuse our audience, especially given the overall arch of our
programming.
How could it not? Why take the risk? What possible benefit is to be derived from broadcasting disinformation? CBC should have settled the question of "false balance" a long time ago—as BBC did in 2014.
BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes
BBC Trust says 200 senior managers trained not to insert 'false balance' into stories
when issues were non-contentious
BBC journalists are being sent on courses to stop them inviting so many cranks onto
programmes to air ‘marginal views’
The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation’s science
coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose
non-contentious issues.
The report found that there was still an ‘over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on
impartiality’ which sought to give the ‘other side’ of the argument, even if that viewpoint
was widely dismissed.
Some 200 staff have already attended seminars and workshops and more will be invited on courses in the coming months to stop them giving ‘undue attention to marginal
opinion.’
“The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the
weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” wrote
the report authors.
“Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends
on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.”
The Trust said that man-made climate change was one area where too much weight
had been given to unqualified critics.
In April the BBC was accused of misleading viewers about climate change and creating
‘false balance’ by allowing unqualified sceptics to have too much air-time.
In a damning parliamentary report, the corporation was criticised for distorting the debate, with Radio 4’s Today and World at One programmes coming in for particular criticism.
The BBC’s determination to give a balanced view has seen it pit scientists arguing for
climate change against far less qualified opponents such as Lord Lawson who heads a
3
campaign group lobbying against the government’s climate change policies.
BBC admonished for giving climate change deniers equal air time - The Washington Post
Britain’s Parliament has also accused the BBC of misleading viewers about climate
change by giving too much air time to unqualified sceptics. The BBC’s “Radio 4 Today”
and “World at One” programs were singled out in a damning report published in April
by Parliament’s science and technology select committee. “Given the high level of trust
the public has in its coverage, it is disappointing that the BBC does not ensure all of its
programmes and presenters reflect the actual state of climate science in its output,”
committee chairman, Andrew Miller said in a statement at the time. “The Today pro1
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/science/naomi-oreskes-a-lightning-rod-in-a-changingclimate.html
2
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/movies/review-merchants-of-doubt-separating-science-fromspin.html
3
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10944629/BBC-staff-told-to-stop-inviting-cranks-onto-science-programmes.html
15
gramme and other BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of
1
climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight.”
To Improve Accuracy, BBC Tells Its Reporters To Stop Giving Air Time To Climate Deniers
Reporters for BBC News are being directed to significantly curb the amount of air time
they give to people with anti-science viewpoints—including people who deny climate
change exists—in order to improve the accuracy and fairness of the network’s news
coverage, according to a report released by the BBC’s governing body on Thursday.
The BBC Trust’s report was designed to assess the network’s impartiality in science
coverage, in other words, whether it is staying neutral on critical issues. In order to be
neutral when covering science, however, the BBC noted it needs to avoid “false balance,” a fallacy that occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal
value.
“Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends
on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given,” the report said.
The type of “false balance” news segment that the BBC is now actively trying to avoid
is one that is fairly common in American network news’ climate change coverage. It involves putting one person who is well-versed on climate science next to a person who
denies climate science, and having them debate.
Editorially, this type of debate makes the network look like it’s being balanced, giving
equal opportunity to opposite viewpoints. However, because 95 to 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing the planet to warm, that balance is false, giving disproportionate time to a viewpoint that is
widely rejected in the scientific community.
...But despite the BBC’s pledge to have their reporters avoid false balance in climate
change coverage, false balance is still a widespread phenomenon across prominent
American news platforms. According to a 2013 report from Media Matters on the issue,
half of print outlets used false balance to debate the existence of global warming. When
covering the U.N.’s landmark climate change report that year, CBS News gave climate
deniers more than six times their representation in the scientific community, and 69
percent of guests on Fox News cast doubt on the science.
The obvious effect of this is that viewers are being misled about the reality of climate
change and the urgency that comes with it. But the other effect is that viewers wind up
not caring about climate change altogether.
“In the case of people who watch cable news, we’ve been so conditioned to favor a
sense of certainty,” Dr. Stephen Reese, author of a 2008 white paper on how people
make judgments about journalistic balance, told ThinkProgress in May. “We want to
have our beliefs upheld. So when you introduce [climate change] as a political issue up
for debate, it’s just, ‘well okay, there they go again,’—just dismiss it as hopelessly polarized.”
When news outlets introduce false balance into its climate change stories, its audience
then thinks those stories are less pressing than they actually are, a factor which contributes to uncertainty surrounding the issue and, ultimately, apathy. A 2009 study from
the American Psychological Association confirmed this, noting that “perceived or real
uncertainty” on climate change can lead to both “systematic underestimation of risk”
2
and “sufficient reason to act in self interest over that of the environment.”
The problem is that science isn't a matter of opinion. It's not like politics, where any topic of discussion can be debated by anybody with contrary views. Airing fictions to offset
facts is not impartial, fair, or balanced. Nor is interviewing non-experts just because
they hold contrary views that deny scientific realities.
There's a big difference between actual balance and false balance. Discussing climate
1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/bbc-admonished-for-givingclimate-change-deniers-equal-air-time/
2
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/07/3456782/bbc-cuts-climate-deniers/
16
policy is another matter, where all opinions should be welcome. But creating a faux sci1
entific debate misinforms listeners and does them a disservice.
3) No Guidance or Correction
Accurate information: the foundation of a functioning democracy
To be properly informed, citizens need access to journalism of the highest accuracy
2
and the tools to evaluate the credibility of what they read.
How are listeners without a (climate) science background supposed to separate climate fact from climate fiction? How are listeners to cope with a barrage of false information? With what intellectual
toolbox and knowledge base are they supposed to sort out competing claims, objections, and arguments? Kelly does not say. Listeners needed expert guidance beforehand or scientific critique afterwards: Qualified scientists to rebut the disinformation; explain that science and pseudo-science are not
competing viewpoints; expose the deception and manipulation; and reveal the corporate sponsorship
and political gamesmanship behind climate change denial.
If, instead of leaving it to listeners to sort out Moore's and Epstein's claims, IDEAS had engaged a pan3
el of scientists to critique the presentations , Kelly could have both showcased the so-called "contrarian" view and improved listeners' understanding of climate science. There was nothing to stop IDEAS
from presenting both denialist and scientific viewpoints—and no public benefit to broadcasting unmitigated error.
Kelly: …most of the views we have aired on climate change reflect those of mainstream scientific thinking. …the view that climate change is both real and caused by
humans is assumed as a starting point in each of the following programs, all of which
aired or re-aired over the last year:
…
To make room in one part of one episode to feature the views of two contrarians
won't, I think, mislead or confuse our audience, especially given the overall arch of our
programming.
Without offering any argument or evidence, Kelly suggests that the broadcast of legitimate information
at other times immunizes IDEAS listeners against denialist disinformation. I.e., if you want the facts,
look elsewhere. Kelly abdicates from his responsibility to bring listeners the best of ideas. If IDEAS depends on other programs to give Canadians the information they need, maybe it is time to turn the
lights out at IDEAS.
Can listeners tell climate fact from climate fiction without guidance? This is the converse of Kelly's first
conceit: non-experts can challenge the scientific consensus on climate change. Non-scientists can tell
us truths about climate change that scientists cannot. Such anti-intellectual views, while they may appeal to our democratic instincts, devalue science and education.
Why should we accept Kelly's assurances? What if he is wrong? Why would he take that chance? Our
species' capacity for rational thinking is over-rated. Given the level of public doubt and confusion about
AGW, his faith in listeners, if genuine, seems misplaced. Most Canadians would fail a simple quiz on
climate science/global warming/ocean acidification. Very few could identify, much less debunk the top
ten denialist myths.
1
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/27/bbc-falsebalance-fox-news-global-warming
2
http://climatefeedback.org/
3
The third speaker, who spoke on a different topic, could have been presented on another night. Unlike
Moore and Epstein, Dr. Amy Lehman is not a denier. The implication was that Moore and Epstein are
to climate science as Lehman is to Third World health care. IDEAS misled listeners once again.
17
As CBC reported in February 2016, two out of five Canadians do not subscribe to the scientific consensus.
A study co-authored by University of Montreal researchers suggests that while 79 per
cent of Canadians do not doubt the reality of climate change, 39 per cent don't believe
1
it is caused by human activity.
Is "Contrarians" appropriate for students? Portland (Oregon) Public Schools just banned textbooks that
2
deny or cast doubt on AGW. Tom Harris, executive director of a denialist group called the Int'l Climate
3
Science Coalition, taught climate change denial at Carleton University between 2009 and 2011. After
being exposed in 2012, Harris left the university. Is it time for housecleaning at CBC?
Over the years, IDEAS has provided much food for thought. What were we supposed to learn from
"Contrarians"? Did the deniers clarify the science or create confusion? Did the deniers enlighten listeners or befuddle them? What is Moore's and Epstein's mission but to cast doubt on the science and
greenwash the fossil fuel industry?
If not a single listener was swayed, Moore's and Epstein's failure rate would be 100%. Deniers would
not persist if their efforts met with no success. I was not confused—but only because I have done the
research. Anyone who is not up on the science would be lost at sea. Without a) a science background
and b) an active interest in climate science, it is impossible to test the merit of denialist claims. Since
Kelly did not test the effects of "Contrarians" on listeners, his assurances are meaningless. The Ideacity
audience applauded both speakers. The appropriate response would have been to pelt them with tomatoes.
IV: Final Remarks
IDEAS' broadcast of "Contrarians" dripped with cynicism. Kelly's attempt to pass off denialism as an
exploration of diverse "currents in contemporary thinking" does not pass the smell test.
4
Kelly's position is absurd as well as disingenuous. On no other topic has IDEAS ever broadcast denialism. Kelly made an exception for climate change denial, which he refuses to call by name. In so doing,
he lent his signature and CBC's imprimatur to that pernicious campaign. When CBC and IDEAS compromise their integrity, Canadians lose trust in their public broadcaster. Dishing out denialism is not
what Canadians are paying for.
If Kelly believes that broadcasting climate change denial has no real-world consequences, he is mistaken. Lives and livelihoods are at risk. Ecosystems and species are in peril. This is no time for games.
What place does climate change denial have in public broadcasting? CBC officials need to decide once
and for all. IDEAS needs to come clean and explain to listeners why it aired "Contrarians"—and why
that broadcast was a mistake. CBC must assure Canadians that this self-indulgent exercise in disinformation will be the last.
1
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/climate-change-yale-project-montreal-study-1.3458142
"Portland Bans Climate-Denying Textbooks From Its Schools"
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/23/3780854/portland-textbooks-climate-change/
3
"Climate change skeptic's university course criticized"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/03/01/environment-climate-change-carleton-course.html
4
"Contrarians" was not IDEAS' first foray into climate change denial: In July 2009, IDEAS featured
Lawrence Solomon, resident climate change denier at The National Post.
2
18
Appendix
Lord Krebs: scientists must challenge poor media reporting on
climate change1
Ocean acidification is causing fundamental and dangerous changes in the chemistry of the world’s
oceans yet only one in five Britons has even heard of ocean acidification, let alone believes it a cause
for concern. Around 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is principally driven by human
activity, yet only 16% of the public know the expert consensus to be this strong.
These are just two examples of common misconceptions among the UK public on the science of climate change. When surveyed, many people report feeling unsure and confused about various aspects
of the discipline. Furthermore, they lack trust in scientists: in the wake of the IPCC’s fifth assessment
report, nearly four in ten people felt that scientists were exaggerating concerns.
…The fact that a newspaper of The Times’ standing gave coverage to such a piece of research is both
remarkable and deeply concerning. But it is not an isolated example. Instead it typifies a disturbing pattern in parts of the UK national media where there is an apparent determination to systematically undermine climate science and those conducting it – and to amplify marginal dissenting arguments even
when they come with no evidence.
2
… the established titles continue to play a very important role in perceptions of science. They form the
principal conduit through which the public and politicians access scientific information, they provide a
proxy for public debate and help set the tone – and often the agenda – for policy-making. Thus poorquality or slanted science reporting contributes, either unwittingly or wittingly, to the public misunderstanding of science.
Public misunderstanding of science can have serious consequences. In the early 1990s, The Sunday
Times persisted in denying the link between HIV and AIDs after most other publications had acknowledged reality. An editorial in Nature described its reporting as “seriously mistaken, and probably disastrous”. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, media outlets gave widespread coverage to the hypothesised
link between the MMR vaccine and autism – coverage that has since been criticised as naïve and misleading.
It goes without saying that such misrepresentations of scientific knowledge run against the interests of
society. People are unable to make informed decisions or to demand appropriate action from politicians. In the MMR case, outbreaks involving more than 2,000 cases of measles in 2012 were attributed
to years of under-immunisation following media misreporting of the MMR issue. In the case in hand,
The Times’ poor reporting on climate science has the potential to cause real harm.
… Readers also have rights – and the right to object to distorted or biased coverage is one of them. I
would argue that in the case of scientists, this extends far beyond being a right – it is virtually an obligation.
Deniers are not Skeptics3
December 5, 2014
Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term “skeptic.” The Nov 10, 2014, New York Times article “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone
Pipeline” referred to Sen. James Inhofe as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.” Two days later
1
http://www.skepticalscience.com/krebs-scientists-must-challenge-poor-climate-reporting.html
I.e., newspapers and media outlets.
3
http://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics
2
Scott Horsley of NPR’s Morning Edition called him “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress.” These are not equivalent statements.
As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical
investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.” Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on
the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed. He has never been able to provide evidence for
this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title “skeptic.”
As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who
deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is “denial.” Not
all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have
falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.
We are skeptics who have devoted much of our careers to practicing and promoting scientific skepticism. We ask that journalists use more care when reporting on those who reject climate science, and
hold to the principles of truth in labeling. Please stop using the word “skeptic” to describe deniers.
Climate-Change Skeptics Revisited1
Excerpt from "Climate-Change Skeptics Revisited", by John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), August 5, 2008
…We should really call them “deniers” rather than “skeptics”, because they are giving the venerable
tradition of skepticism a bad name…
As my original reference to “the venerable tradition of skepticism” indicates, I am in fact well aware of its
valuable and indeed fundamental role in the practice of science. Skeptical views, clearly stated and
soundly based, tend to promote healthy re-examination of premises, additional ways to test hypotheses
and theories, and refinement of explanations and arguments. And it does happen from time to time—
although less often than most casual observers suppose—that views initially held only by skeptics end
up overturning and replacing what had been the “mainstream” view.
Appreciation for this positive role of scientific skepticism, however, should not lead to uncritical embrace
of the deplorable practices characterizing what much of has been masquerading as appropriate skepticism in the climate-science domain. These practices include refusal to acknowledge the existence of
large bodies of relevant evidence (such as the proposition that there is no basis for implicating carbon
dioxide in the global-average temperature increases observed over the past century); the relentless
recycling of arguments in public forums that have long since been persuasively discredited in the scientific literature (such as the attribution of the observed global temperature trends to urban-heat-island
effects or artifacts of statistical method); the pernicious suggestion that not knowing everything about a
phenomenon (such as the role of cloudiness in a warming world) is the same as knowing nothing about
1
I strongly recommend the entire (brief) article:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18472/climatechange_skeptics_revisited.html
V also " Convincing the Climate-Change Skeptics" by the same author:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18467/convincing_the_climatechange_skeptics.html
20
it; and the attribution of the views of thousands of members of the mainstream climate-science community to “mass hysteria” or deliberate propagation of a “hoax”.
The purveying of propositions like these by a few scientists who do or should know better—and their
parroting by amateur skeptics who lack the scientific background or the motivation to figure out what’s
wrong with them—are what I was inveighing against in the op-ed and will continue to inveigh against.
The activities of these folks, whether witting in the case of the scientists or unwitting in the case of their
gullible adherents, have nothing to do with respectable scientific skepticism.
It also needs to be understood by publics and policymakers alike that, while it can never be guaranteed
that a mainstream scientific position will not be overturned by new data or insight, the likelihood of this
occurring gets smaller as the size and coherence of the body of data and analysis supporting the mainstream position get larger. The lines of evidence and analysis supporting the mainstream position on
climate change are diverse and robust—embracing a huge body of direct measurements by a variety of
methods in a wealth of locations on the Earth’s surface and from space, solid understanding of the
basic physics governing how energy flow in the atmosphere interacts with greenhouse gases, insights
derived from the reconstruction of causes and consequences of millions of years of natural climatic
variations, and the results of computer models that are increasingly capable of reproducing the main
features of Earth’s climate with and without human influences.
21
July 20, 2016
CBC Ombudsman
CBC
Toronto, ON M5W 1E6
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: IDEAS "Contrarians": Rebuttal
In my initial report (March 31, 2016), I identified the main faults of IDEAS' "Contrarians" (January 22,
2016):
1) Bad ideas.
a. Intent to deceive.
2) Unqualified speakers.
3) No guidance beforehand; no corrections or criticism afterward.
IDEAS neither tested the denialist claims and arguments, nor did it interrogate or challenge the presenters. In order to impress upon CBC the scale of the deception to which IDEAS was party, it is nec1
essary to fill the gap. This rebuttal substantiates and enlarges my complaint.
Recap
As CBC News reported, Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) recently upheld complaints against climate change denial propaganda:
Advertising watchdog says anti-abortion flyer, climate change billboards led list
of 2015 complaints
The ASC said one billboard featured the claim "The Sun is The Main Driver of Climate
Change. Not You. Not CO2," while the other said "Global Warming Stopped Naturally
16+ Years Ago."
The watchdog said it found that "the categorical and unequivocal claims made in both
advertisements could not be supported by the preponderance of current evidence on
2
the matters in dispute." It also said the ad about the sun omitted relevant information.
"Contrarians" was a forty-minute long billboard for climate change denial. ASC lowered the boom on
climate change denial; CBC broadcast it from coast to coast.
Between the Ideacity conference and the date of broadcast, IDEAS had seven months in which to fact
check the material. IDEAS made no effort whatever. IDEAS seems to believe it has no obligation to its
audience—or that it owes its listeners any duty of care.
Both gentlemen roundly abused their audiences. Typically, deniers prey on public ignorance. Epstein's
manipulative presentation is a quagmire of fallacies. But at least he shows some flair for invention.
Moore's shtick is not remotely original. Refuting his "zombie arguments" is simply a matter of factchecking. (Moore has been giving the same speech for years. Is IDEAS so desperate for material that it
1
IDEAS slightly edited the presentations for broadcast. Since the original presentations relied heavily
on graphics, I have chosen to critique the original presentations in full (on video at Ideacity's website):
http://www.ideacity.ca/video/patrick-moore-the-sensible-environmentalist/
http://www.ideacity.ca/video/alex-epstein-the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels/
2
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/advertising-complaints-1.3533538
must broadcast stale drivel?) If I can find out the science, so can Moore. He ignores the science—truthtelling is not his mission. As Greg Kelly should have known—and doubtless did know.
People who peddle climate change denial myths are climate change deniers. Not contrarians. Not
skeptics. To call deniers "contrarians" or "skeptics" diminishes these words and gives deniers a legitimacy they do not deserve. CBC needs to establish clear usage guidelines.
Setting the Record Straight
IDEAS needs to set the record straight. May I suggest a panel to critique the "Contrarians"? Possible
candidates include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
Dr. Andrew Weaver*
Dr. David Keith* (formerly Univ. of Calgary, now Harvard professor)
Guy Dauncey (ecofuturist, BC author of The Climate Challenge: 101 Solutions to Global
Warming)
Keith Stewart (Greenpeace)
Ronald Wright
For an international perspective:
o Bill McKibben (350.org)
o George Monbiot (The Guardian)
o Jared Diamond
o Dr. Tim Flannery
o Dr. James Hansen*
On the oilsands:
•
•
•
•
Dr. David Schindler (UofA)
Biologist John Smol (Queen’s).
Dr. Kevin Timoney (biologist and environmental consultant)
Dr. Mark Jaccard (energy economist, professor of sustainable energy, SFU, author of "Sustainable Fossil Fuels")
On the social costs of the oilsands:
•
•
Melina Laboucan-Massimo (Lubicon Cree First Nation)
Eriel Deranger (Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation)
IDEAS could devote an hour to critique each presentation.
Ideacity's Bias
The host is anything but neutral. Znaimer paints climate change deniers as the victims of rabid "climatists":
Znaimer: I have seen that some of the most extreme of the climatists are calling for
punishment—for firings, for jail time, even for capital punishment—for those who I think
in growing numbers are worrying out loud that those who wish to save the world typically seek to control it first."
The climate scientists and environmentalists are bent on world domination. And here I thought that it
was about protecting the planet for future generations.
1
*Climate scientist. Quirks & Quarks could suggest other candidates.
2
Znaimer is barely coherent. The rhetorical flourishes of "extreme climatists" (concerned scientists?)
hardly compare with the active harassment of climate scientists. What does Znaimer make of the hate
mail and death threats scientists receive from deniers?
The intimidation tactics have included abusive language on blogs, comparisons to the
1
Unabomber, e-mail hacking and even occasional death threats.
•
•
•
2
"Climate Scientists Face Organized Harassment in U.S."
3
"AAAS Board: Attacks on Climate Researchers Inhibit Free Exchange of Scientific Ideas"
"AAAS: Statement of the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement
4
of Science Regarding Personal Attacks on Climate Scientists"
The orchestrated campaign of lies and deceptions by the tobacco industry and high-powered public
relations firms was illegal, immoral, and criminal. Is denying climate change to protect industry profits
5
not equally immoral? Exxon's own scientists warned the company about global warming in the late
'70s. Exxon subsequently downplayed the risks of global warming and funded organizations that attack
climate science. Exxon may soon find itself in court—just like tobacco companies.
Patrick Moore
Who founded Greenpeace?
IDEAS identifies Moore as a "co-founder of Greenpeace". Did IDEAS verify this claim? Or did IDEAS
just take Moore's word for it?
What do we mean by "founder"? If we mean someone who was present at the moment of the group's
conception—and without whom the organization would not have existed—Moore does not qualify. He
was not a member of the initial small circle. He wrote a letter asking to join the first expedition, which
had already been organized. Exclude Moore, and you still have Greenpeace and its first expedition.
If all those who joined the first expedition were co-founders, then Greenpeace had 17 co-founders. Add
the shore crew, and Greenpeace had 25 co-founders.
How to Lose Friends and Make New Enemies
Znaimer: Even then Patrick Moore always seemed to be the more measured one, the
6
more rational one, an environmental realist, Patrick Moore, who has taken a lot of hits
subsequently from many old friends and a lot of new enemies because of his point of
view.
Because of his point of view? Or because of his efforts on behalf of harmful industries and bad corporate citizens?
1
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/science/a-climate-alarm-too-muted-for-some.html
V. also "Death threats fail to shake climate scientists"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/05/3235810.htm
2
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-10/climate-scientists-face-organized-harassmentin-u-s3
http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-attacks-climate-researchers-inhibit-free-exchange-scientificideas
4
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/0629board_statement.pdf
5
Bill Nye (the Science Guy) has a good take on this issue in a short video: "Bill Nye Jailing Skeptics",
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlk4Lt__Sn0&feature=youtu.be
6
For some reason, IDEAS edited out this phrase.
3
Znaimer describes the Patrick Moore he met decades ago at a gathering of Greenpeace activists as
"the more measured one, the more rational one". Here is Moore in full flight last June:
[CO2] is what we are all made of.
[Greenpeace] are against bloody well everything.
Ocean acidification is a complete fabrication and is chemically impossible to occur.
They say we should go to zero emissions. I translate that into zero human beings.
Measured and rational?
Znaimer sets up Patrick Moore to narrate his own saga: the staunch activist with scientific credentials
who left Greenpeace when they turned their backs on humanity. Moore, it turns out, was the sole humanitarian of the group. (V. below.)
What is an "environmental realist"? If Moore is a realist, what does that make biologists, ecologists, and
climate scientists? Folklorists?
Listeners were not allowed to take Moore's measure for themselves. Znaimer paints him as a martyr for
environmental realism: defending defenseless corporations from persecution by environmental zealots.
Neither Znaimer nor IDEAS mentions Moore's record as an anti-environmentalist, full-time Greenpeace
basher, and industry stooge.
And you thought math was difficult
Moore: I speak on many controversial subjects, but climate is the most difficult.
All the more so if the speaker does not know what he is talking about. The climate change controversy
is manufactured. Moore and his fellow deniers create controversy where there is little or none in scientific circles.
One less thing to worry about
[Whales] are recovering all over the world now.
•
•
•
World Wildlife Fund: "Seven out of the 13 great whale species are classified as endangered or
1
vulnerable, even after decades of protection."
2
"10 of the most endangered whales on Earth"
3
"Are endangered whales still in danger?"
Due to high contaminant levels, the bodies of dead whales and other sea mammals are sometimes
treated as toxic waste.
Who left whom?
Moore: By the time I left, Greenpeace and much of the movement was depicting humans as the enemies of the Earth.
Did Greenpeace lose its humanitarian perspective or did Patrick Moore lose his environmental perspective?
1
http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/whale
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/10-of-the-most-endangered-whales-on-earth
3
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/are-endangered-whales-still-indanger
2
4
Colleagues recall that Moore left Greenpeace over a power struggle with then executive director David McTaggart. Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter recalled that Moore
1
"burned off old buddies" and was "deposed."
What does Greenpeace oppose? Mankind—or harmful products and processes, rapacious industries,
and bad corporate citizens?
To illustrate his point, Moore flashes a picture of unidentified vandals breaking windows on screen. Are
they Greenpeace members? Stanley Cup rioters in Vancouver? Who knows? Are we to assume that
all Greenpeace members break windows? Are all Greenpeace members "anti-human"?
Ideacity and IDEAS gave Moore a platform to attack Greenpeace, but gave Greenpeace no opportunity
to reply.
Chlorine
The slide that illustrates Moore's remarks on chlorine shows a "Poison Plastic" sign for PVC (polyvinyl
chloride)—a hazardous material. PVC was the main thrust of Greenpeace's chlorine campaign. Moore
does not mention PVC.
Moore: My entreaties that chlorine was in fact the most important element for public
health and medicine fell on deaf ears—part of the anti-human aspect.
Did Greenpeace reject the use of chlorine in drinking water? In 2008, Bruce Cox, then Executive Director of Greenpeace Canada, responded:
On the use of chlorine, Greenpeace never called for a "ban" as Mr. Moore asserts.
Greenpeace campaigned against organo-chlorines like dioxin and successfully fought
to eliminate chlorine from the pulp and paper bleaching process in Ontario and B.C.
because it was polluting rivers and lakes. Greenpeace has always maintained exceptions for drinking water and pharmaceutical uses and never called for an outright ban.
Mr. Moore is alone in his recollection of a fight over chlorine and/or use of science as
2
his reason for leaving Greenpeace.
1
2
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/Dont-let-the-Greenpeace-pedigree-fool-you/
http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/cox_takes_on_patrick_moore.080520.htm
5
Former Greenpeace director Rex Weyler wrote:
Moore claims he left Greenpeace in the 1980s over a campaign to "ban chlorine"
worldwide, but Greenpeace never actually conducted such a campaign. Greenpeace
battled specific organochlorine emissions, particularly dioxins, from particular indus1
tries.
2
An online search reveals what compounds/uses of chlorine Greenpeace opposes:
•
"The poison plastic"
3
Pot, meet kettle
Moore: Science should be the basis for environmental policy—not sensationalism,
4
misinformation, and fear.
Environmental policy should be based on science, facts, and logic. Greenpeace too often resorts to myth. (slide)
So says Moore without a trace of irony.
Not all views are equal
Moore: [There are] many opinions about climate change.
Scientific findings supported by multiple lines of evidence are not "opinions". Moore's false teachings
cannot be weighed on the same scale as IPCC reports and studies published in respected science
5
journals. If there are many "opinions", not all are necessarily legitimate. Moore's "opinions" rank at the
bottom.
Not all petitions are valid
6
Moore waves the so-called Oregon Petition in the air, a document signed by 31,000 scientists claiming
"there is no evidence that we are going to cause catastrophic warming". The petition asserts that "there
is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial
7
effects…"
The US National Academy of Sciences' response:
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in
an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on
a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the
field of climate science.
The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.
•
"Doubt over climate science is a product with an industry behind it"
1
8
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/deep-green-science-andrhetoric-patrick-moore/blog/34145/
2
Google: chlorine site:greenpeace.org
3
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/detox/polyvinyl-chloride/the-poison-plastic/
4
For some reason, IDEAS edited out this statement.
5
Moore leaves the impression that he is the author of these claims. If not Moore, then IDEAS should
have made it clear that these well-worn talking points do not originate with him.
6
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM).
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
7
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
8
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/mar/05/doubt-over-climate-science-is-aproduct-with-an-industry-behind-it
6
•
•
•
•
1
"Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project"
2
"Scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project"
3
"Global Warming Denial Machine"
4
Oregon Petition (Wikipedia)
Confidence and Probability
According to the IPCC, it is "extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the
observed warming since the mid-20th century."
Moore: "Extremely likely"—is that a scientific term? And does it make it more likely to
put the word "extremely" in front of it? The report before this, they had "very likely". Now
they've changed it to "extremely likely", as if they are more certain. This is not a scientific term. It is a term of judgment. It is an opinion, in other words, when someone says
something is likely."
Moore is talking out of his hat. Most sciences attempt to describe the world as it is. Climate science is
also called upon to predict the future. Short of having a crystal ball, climate science must resort to models incorporating variables and unknowns. Since no one can predict the future of a chaotic system with
100% certainty, climate scientists can only make probabilistic statements about future climate—based
on data records and their understanding of the forces that drive the climate system. The IPCC report
defines its terms precisely.
•
•
•
•
5
"What ‘likely’ and ‘extremely likely’ really mean in climate-speak"
6
"IPCC terminology about certainty"
7
"IPCC global warming report: what do the figures mean?"
8
"Global warming: why is IPCC report so certain about the influence of humans?"
It is precisely because of real world uncertainties that the IPCC resorts to probabilistic statements and a
range of climate projections. Scientists use models to predict the future. Different models return different results. The more closely the results agree, the greater the confidence in the models. Chaotic systems, like global climate, are unpredictable.
Are Moore's claims more credible than the IPCC's? The IPCC bases its findings on evidence. What
does Moore base his opinions on?
Moore: The late Michael Crichton: "I am certain there is too much certainty in the
world"—and I am certain that he is correct.
9
After criticizing the IPCC for not being more definitive, without a trace of irony Moore quotes late science fiction author and fellow climate change denier Michael Crichton on the perils of certainty. Yet
Moore seems certain that humans are not to blame for climate change. What is less certain is whether
Moore is coming or going.
1
https://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html
3
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_denial_machine.html
4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
5
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/what-likely-and-extremely-likely-really-mean-in-climatespeak/article14564689/
6
http://www.sejarchive.org/resource/IPCC_terminology.htm
7
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/10339956/IPCC-global-warmingreport-what-do-the-figures-mean.html
8
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/globalwarming-ipcc-report-humans
9
IDEAS edited out this remark from the radio broadcast. Moore quotes not a single (climate) scientist
to support his claims. He takes his material from "Watts Up With That?" and other denialist sources.
2
7
Moore obscures the realities of climate science. The Royal Society document "Climate Change: a
1
Summary of the Science" (2010) carefully delineates its discussion of climate change issues:
1) Aspects of climate change on which there is wide agreement
2) Aspects of climate change where there is a wide consensus but continuing debate and discussion
3) Aspects that are not well understood
The evidence is clear. However, due to the nature of science, not every single detail is
ever totally settled or completely certain. Nor has every pertinent question yet been answered. Scientific evidence continues to be gathered around the world, and assumptions and findings about climate change are continually analysed and tested. Some areas of active debate and ongoing research include the link between ocean heat content and the rate of warming, estimates of how much warming to expect in the future,
2
and the connections between climate change and extreme weather events.
Deniers who demand 100% proof, predictability, and perfection ask the impossible. Moore misrepresents not only climate science, but also the scientific process itself.
Over a quarter century of reports, the IPCC has been enormously careful in its attribution of warming to
human activity. As the evidence mounts and the science advances, IPCC statements have increased
in confidence. The IPCC's latest report states with 95% certainty (i.e., virtual certainty) that humans are
causing warming. Evidence that human activity is causing warming is as conclusive as the link between
smoking and lung cancer (for which there is no "proof" either):
"What We Know: The Reality, Risks, And Response To Climate Change", The
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases. Physicians, cardiovascular scientists,
public health experts, and others all agree smoking causes cancer. And this consensus
among the health community has convinced most Americans that the health risks from
smoking are real. A similar consensus now exists among climate scientists, a consensus that maintains that climate change is happening and that human activity is the
3
cause.
•
"Climate change as certain as cancer from smoking, scientists say"
4
Snarl Words
Moore:…no evidence that we are going to cause catastrophic warming
If the Fort McMurray fire was not a catastrophe, what is?
Moore's tired rhetoric is not remotely original:
"CAGW", for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming", is a snarl word (or snarl acronym) that global warming denialists use for the established science of climate
change. A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is never used in the scientific
literature on climate.
It's not clear just when or how the denialists adopted CAGW over from the acronym
AGW (anthropogenic global warming) used by normal folk. The term was used in blog
comments at the New York Times and ScienceBlogs as early as 2008, and is likely to
1
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidencecauses/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
3
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf
4
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130924/NEWS02/709249842
2
8
have been used earlier. By around 2011 CAGW had become commonplace in denialist
blogs such as those of Anthony Watts or Judith Curry, and over the next year or two
essentially replaced AGW in such esteemed venues. Despite the qualifier, denialists
apply the term indiscriminately to anything approximating the mainstream scientific
view on climate, regardless of whether or not "catastrophic" outcomes are implied.
As for motivation, it's an attempt to move the goalposts. Denialists realized they had
lost the argument over plain old "anthropogenic global warming"—the basic physics of
the problem have been known since the 19th century, so that rejecting AGW outright
paints oneself as a loon. Adding "catastrophic" gives plenty of wiggle room for denialism. Sea level rises a foot? Just a few Pacific Islanders losing everything; no catastrophe. Sea level rises a few more feet? The Philippines get flooded out and we lose
coastal cities like London and New York. But with a few trillion dollars we can move
1
them inland; no catastrophe. And so on.
•
"Serious errors and shortcomings void climate letter by 49 former NASA employees"
2
The Times They Are A Changin'
Moore runs through a series of graphs onscreen (6:08). The second is titled "Geological Timescale:
Concentration of CO2 and Temperature Fluctuations".
3
Indeed, both CO2 levels and temperatures were much higher millions of years ago. (No scientist suggests otherwise.) The world was a different place. Species were adapted to those conditions. Today's
species are adapted to lower CO2 and temperatures. Change is now so rapid that many species will
find it difficult or impossible to acclimate or adapt.
o
Moore points out that 55 million years ago the Earth was 16 C warmer than it is today:
Moore: Here is the last 65 million years. The Eocene Thermal Optimum at the top—it
o
was 16 C warmer on this Earth then. Every one of us and all our ancestors came
o
through that. Every living on Earth today's ancestors came through that 16 C higher
temperature—or we wouldn't be here.
Given that ancient species survived, even thrived, under very different conditions, Moore assumes that
modern species can survive rapid change today. There is no justification for this belief. The recent out4
breaks of coral bleaching and loss of coral reefs due to thermal stress, pollution, and ocean acidification refute Moore's claim. The fossil record bears witness to several mass extinctions. We are presiding
over the sixth.
All major climate changes, including natural ones, are disruptive. Past climate changes led to extinction of many species, population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land surface and ocean circulation. The speed of the current climate change is
faster than most of the past events, making it more difficult for human societies and the
5
natural world to adapt.
Moore observes that "we are now in one of the coldest periods in the history of modern life on Earth
today". Moore (deliberately) misses the issue: most organisms, species, and ecosystems cannot adapt
to rapid change.
CBC recently reported on the "first mammal known to be wiped out by human-caused climate change:"
1
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming#CAGW
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/04/25/errors-shortcomings-void-nasa-climate-letter/
3
Inexplicably, Moore fails to acknowledge the implications of higher CO2 levels and temperatures. If we
increase greenhouse gases, what is the likely result?
4
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/coral-reef-bleaching-faq-1.3608154
5
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidencecauses/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
2
9
Scientists have predicted that climate change will cause some species to go extinct,
because many can't evolve or migrate fast enough to cope with effects of climate
1
change such as habitat loss.
Cherry Picking
Moore: There has been no statistically significant warming for eighteen years and six
months.
Another denialist myth. The rate of warming at the Earth's surface may have slowed down in the first
decade of this century, but the accumulation of heat did not stop. Deniers cherry pick a starting point of
1998—the year of a super El Niño.
Despite the slower rate of warming, the surface temperatures in the 2000s were on av2
erage warmer than the 1990s. (Royal Society)
… deniers only look at the datasets that match the conclusions they want to see. Classic climate denialism demands that average global temperature measurements must
be taken from the peak of the hottest year and measured to the point trough of the
coolest year. If the denialists ever picked years either side of 1998 as their start point,
the argument would sink faster than the Titanic. This is because globally, 1998 was a
3
record breaking hot year due to a very strong El Nino.
The observed warming rate has varied from year to year, decade to decade, and place
to place, as is expected from our understanding of the climate system. These shorterterm variations are mostly due to natural causes, and do not contradict our fundamental understanding that the long-term warming trend is primarily due to human-induced
changes in the atmospheric levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Even as CO2
is rising steadily in the atmosphere, leading to gradual warming of Earth’s surface,
4
many natural factors are modulating this long-term warming.
Since the very warm year 1998 that followed the strong 1997-98 El Niño, the increase
in average surface temperature has slowed relative to the previous decade of rapid
temperature increases. Despite the slower rate of warming the 2000s were warmer
than the 1990s. A short-term slowdown in the warming of Earth’s surface does not invalidate our understanding of long-term changes in global temperature arising from
5
human-induced changes in greenhouse gases.
The Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, incorporates
factors like solar variation and ocean cycles, along with man-made greenhouse gases,
into its climate models. It says temperatures have never gone up in a straight line, and
there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling. What's crucial is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met Office,
6
is upward.
•
•
7
"Global warming continues as temperatures rise, study finds"
1
"Global warming has not stalled, insists world's best-known climate scientist"
1
"Australian rodent named the 1st mammal to go extinct due to human-caused climate change"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bramble-cay-melomys-climate-extinction-1.3634296
2
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidencecauses/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
3
4
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming#Hey_look.21_There.27s_been_no_global_warming_since_1998
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidencecauses/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
5
Ibid.
6
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml
7
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-warming-continues-as-temperatures-rise-study-finds1.3100345
10
•
•
•
•
"Did global warming really slow down? Have a large injection of nuance and a side-order of
2
abuse"
3
"Did Global Warming Slow Down in the 2000s, or Not?"
4
"What is the “pause” in global warming?"
5
"Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown"
Climategate
Moore makes the mandatory denialist reference to the fabricated "ClimateGate" scandal.
•
•
•
"Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming"
7
"Weighing the evidence"
8
"Climategate scientists' honesty not in doubt, says review"
6
Scientists by any other name
Moore refers to the UK Metropolitan Office as belonging to the "warmist camp". Presumably, he means
the scientific community, which has established by consensus the scientific fact of anthropogenic global
warming as substantiated by multiple lines of evidence.
"Warmist" is not a scientific term. It is not a term used by scientists. "Climatist", "alarmist", and "warmist"
are "snarl words".
Can humans cause forest fires?
Moore: If you look at this, and look at the relationship between temperature and CO2
for the last 500 million years, I'm sure you will agree that they not that strongly correlated, never mind indicating a direct cause-effect relationship between the two.
Moore attacks another straw man when he discusses past warming episodes. Just because previous
warming episodes were triggered by other (natural) causes does not mean that humans cannot now
cause climate change by burning fossil fuels and increasing CO2. The fact that long ago all forest fires
were natural does not mean that humans cannot cause forest fires.
CO2 is not the sole climate driver. Many factors influence climate. All other things being equal, pulling
any one of the climate levers changes climate. Change any forcing, and the Earth's energy balance,
heat content, average global temperature, and climate also change. For example, increasing greenhouse gases changes the Earth's energy balance.
Past warming episodes had natural causes (e.g., orbital variations), but the warming that resulted far
exceeded the warming attributable to those causes. Feedback mechanisms, such as enhanced CO2
and water vapor levels, amplified the initial warming. (Which confirms that increasing CO2 causes
warming.) Recent warming is largely due to man-made GHG emissions. Enhanced CO2 triggers initial
warming, amplified by feedbacks: rising water vapor levels, lower albedo (as ice melts), melting permafrost, methane release, etc.
1
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/17/global-warming-not-stalled-climate
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/mar/03/did-global-warming-really-slowdownhave-a-large-injection-of-nuance-and-a-side-order-of-abuse
3
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/
4
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/02/24/what-is-the-pause-in-global-warming/
5
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/making-sense/
6
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404
7
http://www.pressreader.com/canada/ottawa-citizen/20100528/284412735310244/TextView
8
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climategate-scientists-honesty-not-indoubt-says-review-2020829.html
2
11
Scientists have carefully considered natural factors and eliminated them as the cause of recent warming. There is nothing else that could be driving the current phase of warming except human activity.
Humans are burning long-sequestered hydrocarbons, thus returning vast stores of carbon to the carbon cycle and increasing GHGs that trap heat. Hence the term anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
No more surprising than man-made forest fires, deforestation, desertification, gyres of plastic, marine
dead zones, ozone holes, mass extinction, etc.
Moore concedes that CO2 levels have risen dramatically in recent years (v. his graph "CO2 Levels in
1
The Global Atmosphere" ). Moore also concedes that there has been recent warming. But he denies
any connection. He ignores the physics of greenhouse gases.
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas or not? That is all we need to ask. Crucially, he fails to offer an alternative
explanation for recent warming. No one asks him for one. IDEAS' otherwise boundless curiosity is
dormant. IDEAS' objective, evidently, was to undermine the public's faith in (the) science. What other
conclusion could one draw?
Misreading the Graph
Moore misreads the temperature anomaly graph. The graph shows not absolute temperatures but variation from the 1961–90 average. He fails to point out that the line does not cross the zero threshold
(where point temperatures rise above the 1961–90 average) until around 1980. Before then (i.e., 1850–
1980), global temperatures remained below the 1960–90 average.
What stands out is a warming trend from 1910 onwards. Draw a trend line between 1910 and the present. The trend after 1950 is unmistakable. Temperatures did rise between 1910 and 1945, as Moore
points out, but remained below the 1960–90 average. The slope of change increases dramatically after
1970. It does nothing but climb. After 1980, according to the graph, temperatures rise for the first time
2
(since 1860) above the (1960–90) average.
1
Video 6:17. http://www.ideacity.ca/video/patrick-moore-the-sensible-environmentalist/
Graphs that show five- or ten-year running averages eliminate the "noise" (yearly variations) and
clearly indicate a warming trend.
2
12
Isolating short segments of a graph is cherry picking. Moore fails to point out that each of the last three
decades has been warmer than the previous one—as well as the warmest on record. Many statistics
confirm the trend:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Every year in the 21st century has been in the top 20 warmest years on record.
The world's 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1998—eight of them since 2005.
2015 was the 39th year in a row that the world was warmer than the 20th century average.
th
October 2014 was the 356 month in a row the world's temperature was warmer than the 20th
century average.
o February 1985 was the last time global temperatures fell below the 20th-century average for a given month.
o
The years 2011-2015 were the hottest five-year period on record, with temperatures 0.57 C
above the 1961-1990 reference period.
9 of the 10 hottest months on record have occurred since 2005.
22 of the 25 hottest months on record have occurred since 2000.
The globe has broken 37 monthly high temperature records since January 1997, including five
in 2014.
o The last cold monthly temperature record broken was in December 1916.
Global means global
Moore: It's actually cooling in the United States right now.
13
Michael Gerrard: It is a favorite tactic of those who resist climate regulation to cherrypick data from limited time periods and limited geographical areas to draw broad con1
clusions that are contrary to the overwhelming body of climate science.
Global warming means global: the Earth as a whole is warming. Global does not mean universal: not
every part of the globe will warm (or warm at the same rate). Warming varies by region. The Arctic is
warming at twice the global rate. Given changing wind patterns (polar jet stream) and ocean currents,
some regions may experience sharply colder winters and more extreme weather.
By definition, anomalies do not represent the general case. Moore ignores the general case and focuses instead on the anomaly, as if exceptions disprove the rule.
Ten years is not a long time in climate measurements. If you cherry pick the start and end points, you
can make data say just about anything. We do not see the line on either side of Moore's graph. Climate
is about long-term trends—not what happens in small intervals. The long-term global temperature is
rising.
Moore misreads the graph. Again, the graph shows the temperature anomaly: the variation from an
average. The trend line remains above the long-term average (above the zero mark).
Across the continental U.S. in the 1960s there were more daily record low temperatures than record highs, but in the 2000s there were more than twice as many record
2
highs as record lows.
Radio listeners cannot see the source of the graph (bottom right corner): WUWT is "Watts Up With
That?"—climate change denial central.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
"Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?"
4
"Local Is Not Global: Pockets of Cold in a Warming World"
5
"Can Record Snowstorms & Global Warming Coexist?"
6
"Polar vortex chills linked to melting sea ice"
7
"Research suggests warmer summers could be causing colder winters"
8
"Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming"
9
"Colder winters possible due to climate change: study"
10
"A Wacky Jet Stream Is Making Our Weather Severe"
1
Michael Gerrard, law professor and director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia
University, as quoted by Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/daily-caller-just-reminded-us-all-wayspeople-are-still-pretending-global-344262
2
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidencecauses/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
3
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99swarming-everywhere
4
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/local-not-global-pockets-cold-warming-world
5
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/can-record-snowstorms-globalwarming-coexist
6
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/polar-vortex-chills-linked-to-melting-sea-ice-1.2753522
7
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/warmer-summers-may-be-causing-colder-winters-1.753784
8
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=1
9
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-winters-idUSTRE6AF3C720101116
10
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-wacky-jet-stream-is-making-our-weather-severe/
14
Disinformation 101
Moore remarks the apparent difference in slope between CO2 emissions and temperature.
Moore: You would expect the temperature curve to go up along with the CO2 curve if
they were in a lock-step cause-effect relationship.
Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, man-made CO2 emissions have skyrocketed while the
Earth has warmed only a degree or so. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is not 1:1 or
linear. CO2 levels and global temperatures do not rise proportionately. Most of our carbon emissions
are absorbed by land and ocean carbon sinks. As the Earth's heat energy content increases, temperatures rise slowly. Due to the inertia of the climate system (vast oceans and ice sheets), an enormous
amount of energy is needed to shift the Earth's temperature even slightly. The "temperature train" is
slow to get going, but once underway it is difficult to stop.
The two vertical scales (temperature and CO2 emissions) shown in the graph are arbitrary. Flatten the
emissions scale and stretch the temperature scale—and the graph looks different. Graphs are easily
manipulated to distort relationships.
What happens in one spot in England says nothing about global trends. It's "global warming", not "central England warming". As the graph indicates, temperatures in the last three decades have continued
to rise higher than ever.
Anomaly Explained
Moore: No one talks about the Antarctic. The Antarctic has record ice.
15
A web search on the term "Antarctic ice" turns up no shortage of articles:
• Antarctic ice loss expected to swell sea levels
• Shrinking Antarctic ice shelf sparks warning
• Study suggests climate affecting Antarctic waters
• Global warming means more Antarctic sea ice
• Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite
global warming?
• Poles apart? Antarctic sea ice hits record high while
the Arctic's keeps melting
• Antarctic ice melting from below due to warming
ocean
• Antarctic ice sheet disappearing at twice the rate
predicted
• Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record... High?
• Antarctic ice has expanded!
• Huge Antarctic ice sheet collapsing
• Antarctic ice may melt more quickly than expected
• Antarctic glacial melt rate triples in Amundsen Sea
embayment
• The Great White Continent: Growing threat of global
warming means Antarctic voyages are becoming rare
• Icebergs freed by climate change decimate Antarctic
sea life
Contrary to Moore's claim, scientists have followed this apparent anomaly very closely:
•
•
•
•
•
1
"Study Helps Explain Sea Ice Differences at Earth's Poles"
2
"Does Antarctic sea ice growth negate climate change? Scientists say no"
3
"Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?"
4
"Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming?"
5
"Poles apart? Antarctic sea ice hits record high while the Arctic's keeps melting"
The Arctic Ocean is sea surrounded by land; Antarctica is land surrounded by sea. One would not expect the same climate response. Bounded almost continuously by land, Arctic sea ice cannot drift
away. Under normal conditions, it lasts for years, growing thicker and stronger—more likely to survive
the summer melt.
The net growth of Antarctic sea ice (area) and increase in snowpack (not all regions) does not mean
that Antarctica as a whole is cooling. Surrounded by ocean, Antarctica has no land barrier to restrict the
spread of sea ice. Warmer, moist air is likely to bring more snow.
Where warm ocean currents slow or cease, and stronger winds transport cold air from the South Pole,
fresh water from melting land ice caps salty seawater, and no land stands in the way, sea ice may indeed expand.
Antarctica is a huge continent. Conditions in West and East Antarctica differ. Regional climate depends
on factors such as ocean currents, winds, topography, proximity to large water bodies, cloud cover,
albedo (reflectivity), humidity, altitude, etc.
Sea ice extent is affected by winds and ocean currents as well as temperature. Sea ice
in the partly-enclosed Arctic Ocean seems to be responding directly to warming, while
changes in winds and in the ocean seem to be dominating the patterns of climate and
6
sea ice change in the ocean around Antarctica.
Moore suggests that the growth in Antarctic ice "completely offsets the loss [in the Arctic]. There is no
trend in global sea ice area on planet Earth since we started measuring it." In fact, the growth of Antarc1
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2445/
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-antarctic-sea-ice-20140830-story.html
3
https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
4
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levelsdespite-global-warming
5
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/poles-apart-antarctic-sea-ice-hits-record-high-while-the-arctic-skeeps-melting-1.2793963
6
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidencecauses/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
2
16
tic sea ice in winter does not offset the impacts of shrinking Arctic sea ice (both summer and winter).
Shrinking Arctic sea ice is far more important for global climate.
The growth of sea ice during the Antarctic winter makes little difference to the Earth's albedo and energy balance—regions below the Antarctic Circle see little or no winter sun. Growth in winter sea ice is
less significant than the loss of sea ice in summer, when there is more sun. Unlike the Arctic, Antarctica
has little permanent sea ice to lose. In Antarctica, nearly all summer sea ice normally melts, anyway.
Little change in Antarctic summer sea ice means little change to the Earth's energy balance. Loss of
Arctic sea ice is far more important for the Earth's energy balance. As the Arctic loses permanent ice,
the (darker) Arctic ocean absorbs more solar energy. Declining sea ice is causing the Arctic to warm
twice as fast as the global average.
Deniers point to every rebound in Arctic sea ice from a previous record low as a sign of recovery—even
though these rebounds are still far below the long-term average. Moore ignores the long-term trend. In
the case of Arctic sea ice, the trend is irrefutably and dramatically downwards. Arctic sea ice has been
declining at the rate of 12% per decade since satellite monitoring began in the late 1970s. Again, the
Arctic has been warming at twice the global rate.
Sea ice extent (area) is not the best measure of polar conditions. More significant is the thickness (volume) of the ice and the survival of multi-year ice.
Sample headlines since 2009:
• Sub-Arctic fuels vicious climate change circle
• Arctic ice retreats to third-lowest level
• Arctic ice meltdown remains severe: Scientist
• Arctic ice melting faster than feared: study
• Sea ice dwindles as 'ice arches' disappear
• Deep freeze caused by melting of ice sheet
• Arctic spring snow going fast
• Rate of Arctic sea ice melt heats up
• Warm weather putting Arctic climate on thin ice
• Arctic sea ice 6th lowest, but rebounds from 2012
• Arctic warming at near record pace
• Arctic ice set to retreat for sixth year
• Arctic ice meltdown nears 2007 record
• Arctic ice could vanish in 10 years, scientists warn
• Arctic ice levels to reach new record low next week
• Climate landmark as Arctic ice melts to record low
• Arctic sea ice levels hit record low
• Shrinking ice cap yardstick for scientific study
• Arctic ice 'rotten' to Pole, scientist says
• Arctic ice cracks in 'spectacular' event
• Melting Arctic ice called 'economic time bomb'
• Record heat wave bakes Canada's North
17
• Nothing cool about Arctic trends
• Arctic coastline shrinking faster than predicted
• Melting Arctic ice could nearly fill Lake Erie: Study
• Rapid melting of Arctic sea ice possibly explained
• Arctic sea ice melting at near-record pace
• Arctic Ocean to lose ice faster than predicted: MIT
• Ice retreat worries climate-change scientists
• Going, going... Arctic ice cover nears record lows
• Arctic ice cover hits historic low: scientists
• Arctic sea ice hits record low
• Arctic sea ice headed for another record melt:
Scientists
• Rowers concerned by lack of ice after navigating
Arctic
• Arctic sea ice coverage second lowest on record:
report
• Researchers: Canadian Arctic ice shelf diminishes significantly, nearly disappearing
• Climate Change Seen Leaving Arctic Ice-Free by
2050
• Alaska Hunts Oil as Arctic Damage Shows Most
Change From Climate
• Hudson Bay Lowlands show recent effects of global
warming
NASA scientists say Arctic sea ice thinning 'dramatic'
• Worst retreat of Arctic sea ice in thousands of
years—study
• Arctic melting to cost $2.4 trillion U.S. by 2050:
Study
• Summer takes unprecedented toll on Arctic ice,
prompting global warming fears
• View from above reveals critical meltdown of old
Arctic ice
• After thousands of years, Canada's 'majestic' ice
shelves disintegrating
• Global warming shines a light on the dark Arctic
winter
• Go south, Santa
• Cracks in Arctic ice help churn up mercury levels
• Arctic lakes' ice season shrinking, study finds
• Darker Arctic boosting global warming
• Vanishing sea ice creates whole new Arctic
• Arctic sea ice hits new record low
• Vanishing sea ice boosts Arctic precipitation
• Climate change eradicating Arctic's oldest ice
• Arctic sea ice loss unprecedented in 1,450 years
• 'Record-setting' change in warming Arctic: Report
• Canada has ‘more to lose than it realizes’: global
warming report on Arctic
• Canada’s Arctic ice caps melting rapidly since 2005,
according to documents
• Melting Arctic ice changing weather patterns, scientists say
• Arctic sea ice volume can bounce back during cooler
summers
• Faint hopes for Arctic sea ice recovery as levels drop
to 4th lowest on record
• Scientists gather to discuss Arctic under shadow of
changing climate
• Record warmth and retreating ice noted in annual
Arctic Report Card
• Yukon climate warming twice as fast as elsewhere,
research says
• Scientists warning Arctic sea ice approaching record
low winter maximum
• 'The heat was relentless’: Arctic ice reaches record
low during winter after 10 months of high temperatures
• Warming climate in Arctic portends major changes in
south
• 'Rapid change' of warming Arctic greatly affecting
wildlife: Researchers
• Melting ice cap will lead to extreme weather, expert
says
• Study finds climate change is making Arctic seasons
more like south
Moore points out that the ice from the last ice age melted by itself: "That's climate change. We didn't do
it. We didn't melt the ice. It went away by itself." What is that supposed to prove? No scientist claims
that prehistoric climate changes were caused by humans. Natural forcings do not preclude human
agency. As Moore well knows.
Red herring
Moore: We don't only need CO2 in the atmosphere for life on Earth, we need 150 or
more ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere for life on Earth.
CO2 is going up, not down. Pre-industrial levels were 280 ppm. We are at 400 ppm and rising. We are
not in any danger of falling to 150 ppm. Once again, Moore is deliberately misleading.
The wild card
Moore: Clouds are truly the wild card in climate change
Clouds have a mixed effect. Clouds moderate warming by reflecting sunlight and amplify it by trapping
heat. Moore observes that the net effect of clouds is uncertain. That uncertainty does not negate the
fundamental fact that human activity, principally CO2 emissions, is driving enhanced warming. Whether
clouds moderate or amplify warming is a secondary issue. (There are other feedback mechanisms besides water vapor and clouds.)
18
Water Vapor
Moore: Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas—way more important than
carbon dioxide
Yes, water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. But water vapor is a feedback dependent on
temperature—it is not a climate driver or "forcing". Humans are not increasing water vapor levels—but
we are increasing the levels of other, long-lasting GHGs. Any extra water vapor in the atmosphere soon
precipitates out. Whereas CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades, global water vapor levels do not
change unless global average temperature changes. CO2 is the main driver of current warming.
•
•
"Evaporating the water vapor argument"
2
"Water vapour: feedback or forcing?"
1
Moore's recitation of Joni Mitchell lyrics is eminently foolish.
CO2 is plant food
Moore: CO2 is the most important food for all life on Earth. This has to be turned completely on its head—this idea that CO2 is a toxic pollutant. Even the Pope's buying into
it now. It is not a toxic pollutant. It is the gas of life. It is the staff of life. It is the stuff of
life. It is the currency of life. It is what we are all made of. And every other living thing on
earth is made of. It is crazy to call it a pollutant.
What is a pollutant? Too much of any substance in the wrong place at the wrong time. If CO2 in sufficient quantity causes disruption and harm to the global ecosystem, it is a pollutant. If CO2 in sufficient
quantity impairs the biological activity of cells and organisms, that makes it toxic.
No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the
human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic. Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function
normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant,
3
despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.
Plants depend on several other nutrients (e.g., potassium, nitrogen, phosphorus)—any one of which in
excess causes harm. Plants also need water. Too much is as bad as too little.
Moore: [CO2] is what we are all made of.
How could IDEAS let such idiocy pass?
In the short term, some parts of the world could initially benefit from climate change.
For example, more northerly regions of the world may experience longer growing seasons for crops and crop yields may increase because increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have a fertilizing effect on plants.
However the IPCC has pointed out that as climate change progresses it is likely that
negative effects would begin to dominate almost everywhere.
Increasing temperatures are likely, for example, to increase the frequency and severity
4
of weather events such as heat waves, storms and flooding.
1
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evaporating-the-water-vapor-argument.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
3
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
4
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2007/8031.pdf
2
19
Moore raves about CO2 as "plant food". The "greening of the Earth" is another oversimplification. Rapid
change implies ecosystem disruption. Some species win, others lose. Instead of benefiting all impartially, higher CO2 levels will cause major shifts in the species composition of plant communities. Habitat
shift spells trouble for species that cannot pick up and move (fast enough). Biomass is not the same as
biodiversity. As ecosystems are simplified, biomass could increase even as biodiversity shrinks: species unable to adapt and compete disappear. Biodiversity, not biomass, is key to ecosystem resilience.
As someone with a Ph.D. in ecology should know.
Agricultural gains directly due to enhanced CO2 are likely to be offset by its effects: increasing heat,
ozone pollution, and extreme weather. As the Earth warms, scientists predict that wet areas will get
wetter and dry areas will get dryer (desertification). More droughts, heat waves, and wildfires. More
floods and destructive storms. Weeds may benefit more than crops do from higher CO2. Pest populations will expand (e.g., mountain pine beetle). CO2's "fertilization effect" is limited by the other nutrients
plants depend on. Rising CO2 in the atmosphere can lower the nutritional value of some crops.
The world is far more complex than Moore lets on.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
"CO2 is plant food"
2
"Uprooting the Carbon Dioxide Is Plant Food Argument"
3
"Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production"
4
"New argument from climate change deniers: global warming is a good thing"
5
"Climate change warning over food production"
6
"Climate change will reduce crops sooner than expected, says study" (CBC)
7
"Rising CO2 has ‘greened’ world’s plants and trees"
Sequestered carbon
Moore: Plants and soil contain more carbon than there is in the whole global atmosphere. Fossil fuels contain so much more. This is sequestered carbon. Talk about carbon capture and storage. That's exactly what the plants did when they made fossil
fuels.
And when vast stores of carbon sequestered for hundreds of millions of years are suddenly liberated by
fossil fuel combustion and returned to the carbon cycle (atmosphere/oceans/biosphere), there will be
no consequences? In two centuries, CO2 levels have risen from 280 to 400 ppm (a 43% increase).
Ocean Acidification
Moore: Ocean acidification is a complete fabrication and is chemically impossible to
occur.
Moore needs to explain his objections. The dissolution of shells in CO2-enhanced seawater is easily
demonstrated.
1
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/07/uprooting-the-carbon-dioxide-is-plant-food-argument/
3
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plantgrowth-and-food-production/
4
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/environment-climate-change-denier-globalwarming
5
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7310-climate-change-warning-over-food-production/
6
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-will-reduce-crops-sooner-than-expected-saysstudy-1.2575788
7
http://www.carbonbrief.org/rising-CO2-has-greened-worlds-plants-and-trees
2
20
Can IDEAS find a single chemist or oceanographer who agrees with Moore? Does he imagine that the
ocean's pH has never changed? How could the ocean's pH not vary without changes in ocean chemistry? Today, ocean pH varies regionally by up to 0.3 units (30%). How can that be if acidification (drop in
pH) is "chemically impossible"?
Moore points out that ancient shelled creatures flourished when CO2 was much higher—as proven by
their fossils and the accumulation of carbonaceous rocks in the Earth's crust. Again, it is the rate of
change and the ability of species to adapt to rapid change that is at issue. Acidification likely caused a
mass extinction of deep-sea creatures 55 million years ago.
Increased CO2 levels harm sea creatures by making their blood more acidic, which among other things
reduces the blood's capacity to carry oxygen.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"Ask the real experts about ocean acidification, not climate science deniers"
2
"What is Ocean Acidification?"
3
"Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem"
4
"Ocean Acidification – the other half of the CO2 problem"
5
"How is ocean-acidity changing?"
6
"How will ecosystems be affected?"
7
"IAP Statement On Ocean Acidification"
8
"Ocean Acidification"
9
"FAQs about Ocean Acidification"
1
Pity the poor scientists wasting their time and ours:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jim Barry, Senior Scientist. Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, USA
Jelle Bijma, Biogeochemist, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Germany
Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Carnegie Institution for Science, USA
Anne Cohen, Research Specialist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA
Sarah Cooley, Postdoctoral Investigator, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA
Scott Doney, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA
Richard A. Feely, Senior Scientist, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, USA
Helen Findlay, Lord Kingsland Fellow, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK
Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Senior Scientist, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, France
Jason Hall-Spencer, Marine Biology Lecturer, University of Plymouth, UK
Michael Holcomb, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Centre Scientifique de Monaco, Monaco
David Hutchins, Professor of Marine Environmental Biology, University of Southern California,
USA
Debora Iglesias-Rodriguez, Lecturer, National Oceanography Centre of the University of
Southampton, UK
Robert Key, Research Oceanographer, Princeton University, USA
Joan Kleypas, Scientist III, National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA
1
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/apr/16/ask-the-real-experts-about-oceanacidification-not-climate-science-deniers
2
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/CO2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
3
http://www.sciencearchive.org.au/nova/newscientist/016ns_001.htm
4
http://www.eur-oceans.eu/sites/default/files/FS7_web.pdf
5
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQacidity.html
6
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQeco.html
7
http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=9075
8
http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/ocean-acidification
9
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83380&tid=3622&cid=131410
21
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chris Langdon, Associate Professor, University of Miami, USA
Daniel McCorkle, Associate Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA
James Orr, Senior Scientist, Laboratory for the Sciences of Climate and Environment, France
Hans-Otto Pörtner, Professor, Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany
Ulf Riebesell, Professor, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences IFM-GEOMAR, Germany
Andy Ridgwell, Royal Society University Research Fellow, University of Bristol, UK
Christopher L. Sabine, Supervisory Oceanographer, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, USA
Daniela Schmidt, Senior Research Fellow, University of Bristol, UK
Brad Seibel, Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Rhode Island, USA
Carol Turley, Senior Scientist, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK
Steve Widdicombe, Benthic Ecologist, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK
Richard Zeebe, Associate Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA
Exaggerate much?
Moore: They say we should go to zero emissions. I translate that into zero human beings.
Humans survived and thrived for millennia without fossil fuels.
As long as the lights go on, what does it matter where the electricity comes from? If renewables can
keep the lights on at less cost to the environment and public health, why should Moore object?
Milk and Honey
Moore: Fossil fuels are 100% organic.
So are spider venom, deadly nightshade, and poison ivy. Fossil fuel production and combustion generate a long list of pollutants.
Over the top
Moore: [Greenpeace] are against bloody well everything.
Except for renewable energy, public transit, smart urban design, energy conservation, sustainability,
public health protection...
Oilsands "reclamation"
Moore: The oilsands are there. There's Edmonton. When are they going to reclaim
Edmonton, or Toronto, or Los Angeles, or New York—and put it back to wilderness
again? Never.
Our urban footprint is already unsustainable—so why not increase it? This is what passes for argument
from the "sensible environmentalist". Our sprawling cities do not justify the oilsands industry any more
than they justify the asbestos or tobacco industry. Expanding toxic, destructive, high-impact industries
puts sustainability goals out of reach.
Leave No Trace
Moore: Every square meter of the oilsands must be reclaimed.
Seeing is believing. Industry's reclamation record is dismal. The oil-producing provinces are stuck with
thousands of orphan wells. Contaminated gas station sites dot the country. Yellowknife's Giant Mine,
the Sydney Tar Ponds, and Reed Paper's mercury dumping upstream of Grassy Narrows head a long
list of industrial disasters waiting to be cleaned up.
22
Bitumen mines obliterate the landscape. In situ infrastructure fragments the ecosystem. Vast volumes
of fuel are burned to melt and separate bitumen from oilsand. All these processes contaminate the air,
water, soil—harming wildlife and people. Oil companies cannot re-create complex ecosystems that
developed over hundreds and thousands of years. The notion that the oilsands region will be returned
to its former, natural state with no long-term impacts is delusional.
Reclamation is not the same as restoration. The "reclamation" touted by Moore will result in ecosystem
simplification and loss of biodiversity. Wetlands and groundwater systems will be permanently destroyed, replaced by grassy meadows and tree plantations. Downwind and downstream, land and water will be contaminated. In the meantime, many species will be cut back. Some, like the caribou, will be
extirpated.
•
•
•
•
1
"Green groups attack province's 'weak' wetland policy" (Edmonton Journal)
2
"Oilsands companies might be better off not restoring wetlands, U of A ecologist says"
3
"Scientists call for a moratorium on oil sands development (10 Reasons)"
4
"Oil sands mining and reclamation cause massive loss of peatland and stored carbon"
With friends like these…
Moore: The oilsands employs more First Nations and First Nations corporations than
any other industry in Canada.
The oilsands has also appropriated their lands and resources without consultation, destroyed their way
of life, and imperilled their health. Without consent.
Sustainable Oilsands?
Moore: This is a reforested area reclaimed from active mining—and God forbid there
might be a timber harvest there one day. Good enough for me. This is sustainable. No
one has to touch it or fertilize it or do anything with it. It will grow back by itself into a boreal forest with all native species."
"God forbid there might be a timber harvest there one day:" Not if a wildfire gets there first. Tree plantations are not forests. Monocultures do not support anywhere near the same biodiversity and are more
vulnerable to fire.
There is nothing sustainable about oilsands development. Sustainability is measured by the ecological
footprint. The oilsands industry has a huge footprint. Vast amounts of energy are required to mine, melt,
and upgrade oilsands—to say nothing of the energy and resources expended on infrastructure and the
labor force. The highly toxic process pollutes every step of the way. Planting a few trees afterwards in
no way justifies the destruction of the landscape, wildlife, and biodiversity. The health impacts downstream and downwind have scarcely been acknowledged, much less addressed.
Ethical Oil
Moore: But when I saw how Canada was being besmirched in our friendly neighbours
and countries in Europe—in the capitals of those places—as being this terrible place,
where all this awful stuff was happening, when we have the best civil rights in the world,
the best human rights in the world, the best labor laws in the world, and the best environmental regulations in the world… It is not right for people to be demonizing us for
providing them with the oil for their cars.
1
N/a online. Archived in Canadian NewsStand (database).
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/oilsands-companies-might-be-better-off-not-restoringwetlands-u-of-a-ecologist-says
3
http://climateactionnetwork.ca/2015/06/10/scientists-call-for-a-moratorium-on-oil-sands-development/
4
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/13/4933.abstract
2
23
Moore takes a page from Ezra Levant's "ethical oil" argument. For "oil", read "asbestos", "tobacco", or
"land mines". The best human rights laws do not make Canada's asbestos safe. The best regulations
do not make unethical practices ethical. The best environmental regulations in the world are worthless if
they are not enforced. In Alberta, penalties for environmental infractions amount to a slap on the wrist.
Serial offenders are allowed to keep operating.
Is slaughtering wolves to slow the extirpation of caribou by industry ethical? Moore ignores the cluster
of rare cancers at Fort Chipewyan. What does it say about our human rights record that people and
wildlife are contaminated and forced from their homes?
•
•
•
•
1
"Families abandon homes near Alberta bitumen facility"
2
"Bitumen facility blamed for Peace Country health woes"
3
"Peace Country families demand shutdown of bitumen facilities"
4
"Health effects of bitumen tanks focus of hearings"
Denial 101
Try as he might, Moore cannot refute the fundamental facts: CO2 is a greenhouse gas; and GHGs trap
heat. The planet's heat energy content is increasing; and the Earth is warming. Cherry-picked data and
apparent anomalies do not add up to a coherent case against AGW.
What has Moore told us about global warming? If it exists at all, it is not caused by human activity. It
may be beneficial. In any case, do not blame Canada. We are just feeding the world's habit—like any
benevolent drug dealer.
If Moore could overturn the scientific consensus, he would win a Nobel Prize. So what is stopping him?
Why confine his "insights" to venues like Ideacity? Why not present his discoveries to climate scientists? If Moore has confidence in his claims, why not take them to the top? What is he afraid of?
Moore bamboozles his Ideacity audience with misleading graphs and factoids. The issue for CBC is
that IDEAS allowed Moore to deceive its audience. IDEAS did no fact checking. IDEAS engaged no
science panel to test Moore's claims and interpretations. (When was the last time IDEAS interviewed a
climate scientist?)
Why did IDEAS aid and abet Moore's disinformation campaign? Given the stakes, how could CBC allow it?
Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making
claims on television or the Internet. It works by scientists doing research and publishing
it in carefully reviewed research journals. Other scientists examine the research and
repeat it and extend it. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and
abandoned. Science is self-correcting. People who are not experts, who are not trained
and experienced in this field, who do not do research and publish it following standard
scientific practice, are not doing science. When they claim that they are the real ex5
perts, they are just plain wrong.
1
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2013/02/19/alberta-bitumen-peace-river-baytex.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2013/05/27/edmonton-bitumen-oilsands-peacecountry-health.html
3
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/peace-country-families-demand-shutdown-of-bitumenfacilities-1.2434503
4
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/health-effects-of-bitumen-tanks-focus-of-hearings1.2510605
5
"A Response to Climate Change Denialism", https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/1726
2
24
Alex Epstein
If you have tears, prepare to shed them now
Epstein: So when I was researching the book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, I
came upon a story that I think captures a dimension of this debate that is almost never
mentioned. So the story is about a newborn baby—the kind of baby that in the U.S.
and Canada would be almost unremarkable. It weighed 3.5 pounds, so it was a bit
premature, but using our technology that baby would be born healthy and grow up a
healthy child and hopefully a healthy adult. But the baby was not in the United States or
Canada, the baby was born in The Gambia, a very poor country in Africa.
And while in the United States or Canada the baby would have been given an incubator to grow and be healthy, in The Gambia they don't use incubators in their hospitals.
And the reason is not just because incubators are a little bit expensive. The reason is
that because incubators require something that we take for granted, which is cheap,
plentiful, and reliable energy. And in particular reliable electricity. So, an observer who
was at the hospital had to watch this 3.5 pound baby die because that baby did not
have an incubator, because that baby did not have cheap, plentiful, reliable energy.
Not to be outdone, Alex Epstein ratchets up the absurdity. First ethical oil—now the moral case for fossil fuels. Epstein invents a "story" about a premature baby in The Gambia who died for lack of electricity
to power a non-existent incubator in what sounds like a non-existent hospital. The implication? Fossilfuel industry opponents are responsible for the death of innocents.
When your argument does not stand up to scrutiny, start off with a baby, preferably expired. This fallacy
is known as the argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)—or in this case argumentum ad infantem. Cheap manipulation to sell "cheap" fossil fuels. I am surprised Epstein did not pull out a violin to
underscore his plaintive tale.
Epstein's story (sales pitch) smells fishy—and not only because it is generic and devoid of detail. What
kind of "research" on fossil fuels would uncover the death of a premature baby—an everyday event in
The Gambia? Thousands of babies are born premature in Africa and the Third World every year—and
thousands die. Did he just pick The Gambia out of a hat?
Epstein suggests that the Third World lacks cheap, reliable electricity to run incubators. (Even if The
Gambia had cheap electricity, could it afford the incubators?). On the healthcare front, is the Third
World not short of everything? Impoverished nations suffer for lack of hospitals, medical personnel,
basic supplies (never mind incubators), and infrastructure of every sort. Epstein's diagnosis and prescription (more fossil fuels) grossly oversimplify the Third World's problems. The vicious circles of poverty, especially in failed states, defy Epstein's easy analysis. Comprehensive problems require comprehensive solutions.
Why is energy not "plentiful" in The Gambia? Epstein fails to address that question—because it would
distract from his pitch for fossil fuels. The Third World lacks cheap, plentiful, reliable energy for the
same reasons that it lacks just about everything else. Epstein fails to grasp the poverty paradigm.
Fossil fuels are not cheap or practical, especially in isolated, sparsely populated regions. Fossil fuels
require costly infrastructure lacking not only in the Third World but also in remote parts of Canada. Coal
mines, power plants, an electricity grid, power lines, and power outlets imply engineers and electricians,
construction workers (i.e., a skilled workforce), an education system, a road network, communications,
basic governance, absence of war, adequate diet and housing, etc.
Epstein implies that infant mortality is higher in nations lacking fossil fuels. (Hence, the moral case for
fossil fuels.) But he could just as well have argued the moral case for food, education, and good governance. Infant mortality is higher in populations lacking calories, textbooks, and the rule of law.
25
Infants die in the Third World not because they are born in non-existent hospitals that lack electricity to
power non-existent incubators—but because they are born in poverty and strife. Millions of African babies never see the inside of a hospital. Many will not see a doctor, nurse, or midwife. Far more African
babies die for lack of basic essentials than for lack of high-tech interventions. Epstein needs to get his
priorities straight.
Epstein: Moral philosophy is all about how to think carefully about issues. …So, the
way I try to think about everything is, my goal is to maximize human well-being.
If the goal is to supply The Gambia with fossil fuels, Epstein fails to explain how to go about it. He fails
to identify, much less solve, The Gambia's urgent problems. Epstein is not advocating for the Third
World. His talk is aimed at the wealthy North Americans sitting at his feet—who do not lack for energy,
but who are starting to question the morality of fossil fuels. (Hence, Epstein's book.) His mission is to
shore up support for fossil fuels in the First World, not aid infants in the Third World. Epstein's goal is to
sell fossil fuels to us, not to The Gambia.
Lack of incubators and power to run them scarcely begin to explain high infant mortality in sub-Saharan
Africa. The first threat to premature African babies is premature birth. Why are so many infants born
premature? Why do infants carried to term also die in their millions? Epstein does not pursue that question, because it does not help him sell fossil fuels.
Incubators and the electricity to run them provide remedy after the fact. Epstein does not address the
causes of premature births. Is it not better to prevent premature births than to offer costly medical interventions afterwards? Adolescent mothers are more likely to give birth prematurely and have underweight babies. Part of the answer, therefore, is to reduce teenage pregnancies.
Epstein misses another piece of the puzzle: maternal mortality. Even a healthy newborn's chances of
survival drop dramatically when the mother dies in labour. Lack of incubators and energy to run them
does not account for the high rate of maternal deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. The solution lies in improving maternal health, empowering women, and protecting women's and children's rights. So we need to
overcome cultural practices, like early marriage, that oppress girls and women. Girls need to stay in
school.
CBC News recently published an article on infant mortality in the Third World: "Preventable maternal,
1
child deaths could be gone in a generation: report." The report addresses contraception, family planning, gender discrimination, community health workers, medicines, inadequate resources and facilities
for immunizations, as well as "child malnutrition, safer labour and delivery and treating infectious diseases such as diarrheal diseases, malaria and pneumonia". Incubators and electricity do not make the
list.
Every year over 500,000 women die from pregnancy and childbirth complications. For
every woman who dies, approximately 20 more develop infections and severe disabling problems – adding up to more than 10 million women affected each year. Access
to and use of family planning services could prevent many of these deaths and disabilities.
The pregnant adolescent is at increased risk of pregnancy complications such as eclampsia, premature labour, prolonged labour, obstructed labour, fistula, anaemia and
death.
For her baby, there is a greater risk of premature birth, low birthweight, health problems
and death.
…Delaying a first pregnancy until a girl is at least 18 years of age helps to ensure a
safer pregnancy and childbirth. It reduces the risk of her baby being born prematurely
and/or underweight. This is especially important where early marriage is the custom
and married adolescents face pressure to become pregnant.
1
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/maternal-child-health-lancet-1.3528110
26
…The younger the mother is, the greater the risk to her and her baby.
…Girls who give birth before age 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than
1
women in their twenties.
More than 1 million babies die the day they are born every year, according to a new report released Tuesday, and the 14 countries with the highest rates of first-day deaths
are all in Africa.
Improvements in access to contraceptives, maternal nutrition and breastfeeding practices will save more lives, Melinda Gates, of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
wrote in a forward to the report.
“Saving newborn lives will prevent incalculable suffering. It is also a vital piece of the
global development agenda. The long-term economic prospects of poor countries depend on investments in the health, nutrition and education of the people, particularly the
2
women and young children living there,” Gates wrote.
About 15 million babies are born prematurely every year - more than one in 10 of all
babies born around the world. A disproportionate 85 per cent of all preterm births occur
in Africa and Asia.
… no progress can be made in child survival and health if the issue of premature births
is not addressed. In fact, prematurity is the world’s single biggest cause of newborn
death, and the second leading cause of all child deaths, after pneumonia. Newborn
deaths account for 40 per cent of all deaths among children under five years of age,
which means that if prematurity were well managed, many newborn deaths would be
averted.
Inequalities in survival rates around the world are stark: The risk of a neonatal death
due to complications of preterm birth is at least 12 times higher for an African baby than
for a European baby.
Half of the babies born at 24 weeks (four months early) survive in high-income countries, but half the babies born at 32 weeks (two months early) in low-income settings
die due to a lack of feasible, cost-effective care including warmth, breastfeeding support and basic management of infections and breathing difficulties.
Ensuring the survival of preterm babies and their mothers requires sustained and significant financial and practical support. Over the last decade, some countries have
halved deaths due to preterm birth by ensuring that frontline workers are skilled in the
care of premature babies and improving supplies of life-saving commodities and
3
equipment.
"1.1 Million Preterm Babies Dying Each Year: Preterm births account for almost half of
all newborn deaths worldwide and are now the second leading cause of death in children under 5… Of the 11 countries with preterm birth rates over 15 percent, all but 2
are in sub-Saharan Africa… In many low-income countries, the main causes of preterm
4
births include infections, malaria, HIV, and high adolescent pregnancy rates.
Clearly, Epstein has missed the boat. Complex problems cannot be solved by band-aid remedies. We
need to tackle poverty and income inequality; war and strife, lack of (health) education; malnutrition,
poor sanitation, and water contamination; lack of frontline workers, medicines, and equipment; lack of
family planning services, high adolescent pregnancy rates; infections, malaria, and HIV; dangerous
superstitions, unhelpful cultural practices, and counter-productive religious doctrines.
War and strife lead to diversion of resources, destruction of medical facilities and personnel, displacement of peoples, and deprivation. Third World problems are compounded (multiplied) by population
1
http://www.factsforlifeglobal.org/01/1.html
http://globalnews.ca/news/541495/more-than-1-million-babies-die-on-day-of-birth/
3
http://www.amrefcanada.org/media-centre/news-releases/amref-health-africa-warns-that-there-willbe-no-improvement-in-child-survival-if-premature-deaths-are-not-addressed/
2
4
http://www.savethechildren.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=8rKLIXMGIpI4E&b=7942601&ct=11738717
27
growth, which increases competition for scarce resources and threatens to overwhelm development
efforts.
A 2014 Guardian article based on a Save the Children report lists the causes (and solutions) of newborn deaths in low-income nations:
More than a million babies around the world die on the day of their birth yearly and a
million more are stillborn, according to Save the Children, which argues that most of
these deaths are preventable.
Most of the deaths occur in developing countries. Some lives could be saved by simple
interventions such as handwashing to prevent infections and "kangaroo care", where
mothers "incubate" their premature babies by keeping them warm through skin to skin
contact.
The charity says there needs to be an increase in the number of women delivering with
the help of a trained midwife or health worker, as 1.2 million deaths occur during labour.
In cases of obstructed labour, mother and baby are likely to die without a caesarean
section.
Save points to the global shortage of health workers who have the skills to help. It is estimated that 7.2 million more midwives, nurses and doctors are needed.
…there are stark inequalities within countries;- in the richest fifth of households in Ethiopia, there are health professionals at 46% of births, compared with 2% among the
least well-off.
"The first day of a child's life is the most dangerous and too many mothers give birth
alone on the floor of their home or in the bush without any life-saving help. We hear
horror stories of mothers walking for hours during labour to find trained help, all too often ending in tragedy.
"It's criminal that many of these deaths could be averted simply if there was someone
1
on hand to make sure the birth took place safely and who knew what to do in a crisis."
Advice from UNICEF:
Safe Motherhood and Newborn Health
The risks of childbearing for the mother and her baby can be greatly reduced if: 1) a
woman is healthy and well nourished before becoming pregnant; 2) she has regular
maternity care by a trained health worker at least four times during every pregnancy; 3)
the birth is assisted by a skilled birth attendant, such as a doctor, nurse or midwife; 4)
she and her baby have access to specialized care if there are complications; and 5)
she and her baby are checked regularly during the 24 hours after childbirth, in the first
week, and again six weeks after giving birth.
Many women, including adolescents, have difficulty accessing quality health care due
2
to poverty, distance, lack of information, inadequate services or cultural practices.
More holes in Epstein's thesis:
•
•
Getting electricity to remote regions, poses an extreme challenge, not just in the Third World. It
is not "cheap" to provide electricity to remote regions. For remote, sparsely populated regions
in both the First and the Third World, the costs may be prohibitive. Simple interventions that
address root causes will save more lives today at less cost.
Many premature babies die, even in the First World, glutted with fossil fuels.
1
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/25/million-babies-die-day-birth-born-savechildren
2
http://www.factsforlifeglobal.org/02/
28
•
•
•
1
In terms of infant mortality, Nigeria (IMR 72.70) ranks below The Gambia (63.90). Why did
Epstein did not set his story in Nigeria? Maybe because Nigeria has lots of oil? And yet the nation is in dire straits. Plying African nations with fossil fuels is a simplistic solution.
The Third World—Africa in particular—suffers not only from lack of energy, but also from corruption, First World exploitation (e.g., overfishing, sweatshops, waste dumping), poor working
conditions, low wages, and other scourges of colonialism and imperialism.
Can incubators be powered only by fossil fuels? As long as the incubator runs, why does Epstein care where the electricity comes from?
Where resources are scarce, communities should opt for the most cost-effective solutions. As CBC
reports, solar power is distributable: you can put a solar panel on your roof. You do not need a massive
grid. For remote regions (e.g., in Canada's North), solar panels and wind turbines make more sense
than importing expensive diesel to generate electricity.
Wind, solar wouldn't cost more than diesel power in parts of Nunavut: study
Some Nunavut communities could cut their fossil fuel use by up to half with renewable
energy that wouldn't cost any more than the aging diesel generators they now use…
The figures prove that renewables can work in the isolated and harsh conditions of the
2
North...
Wind and solar systems have the advantage of being "highly scalable and distributable," the report states, making them appealing for communities of virtually
any size, with or without an existing electrical grid.
As a result, emerging economies in Latin America and Africa may follow a different development path than the West and "leap-frog" directly to renewables as a
primary energy source in a relatively short timeframe.
"Although any individual country may lack the optimal conditions for every type of renewable electricity, all countries are likely to have at least one or more options to
produce electricity from renewables that will be cost comparative or cheaper
3
than generation by fossil fuels."
If remote regions must have access to a power grid before they gain access to electricity, they will wait
a long time. Epstein's fossil fuel plan dooms remote regions to energy poverty. For that reason, indigenous communities across Canada are adopting small-scale renewable energy projects.
What does a single-occupant incubator powered by electricity cost? How many lives does it save? If
that amount were invested in basic low-tech interventions, how many more lives could be saved? Diverting scarce resources away from basic interventions to expensive, high-tech, low-yield interventions
would result in greater loss of life. (Which increases my suspicions about Epstein's story. No Third
World health expert would support his plan.) If you have a million dollars to spend in the Third World,
will you invest it in an electricity grid—or basic supplies and interventions and medical staff? First things
first.
Epstein probably gave The Gambia no more than five seconds of thought. His premature baby is just
an emotional lever. Epstein has no plan for Africa. The moral case for fossil fuels is a disingenuous flop.
1
The infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of infants under one year old per 1,000 live
births.
2
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nunavut-renewable-energy-possible-1.3610340
V. also http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/old-crow-solar-power-proposal-yukon-1.3674277
3
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-super-power-oil-decline-renewables-policy-horizons1.3601400
29
First cast out the beam out of thine own eye
We do not have to go to Africa to find inequality, poverty, and high infant mortality. Among Canada's
1,2
First Nations and Inuit, infant mortality is up to four times the national average. For decades, Canada
has turned a blind eye to Third World conditions on reserves: overcrowded, moldy, unsanitary housing;
no running water, or contaminated water; and sky high food prices. Many reserves and native communities have suffered the loss of their land, resources, way of life, and their health to out-of-control industrial "development" and pollution. Dearth in the midst of plenty. Epstein did not set his story in Canada
because it would implicate the industry he serves—not to mention his Rosedale audience.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
Almost 75% of reserves nationwide have poor quality drinking water.
4
Some Alberta reserves have been under boil-water advisories for 30 years.
5
CBC: "Bad water: 'Third World' conditions on First Nations in Canada"
6
In the Arctic, 70% of preschool children do not have daily access to nutritious food.
7
o Children forage in dumps for expired food discarded by stores.
8
Almost half the homes on First Nations reserves in Canada are mouldy.
More than one-third of indigenous people live in homes that do not meet the most basic government standards of acceptability.
Average life expectancy for indigenous people is ten years less than that of the Canadian average.
Indigenous children die at three times the rate of non-indigenous children, and are more likely
to be born with severe birth defects and conditions like fetal alcohol syndrome.
The suicide rate of indigenous people is six times higher than the Canada-wide average.
Tuberculosis rates are 16 times higher in indigenous communities than the rest of the popula9
tion, and HIV and AIDS infection is growing fastest among indigenous people.
In terms of early infant mortality, Canada, an "energy superpower", ranks second worst in the devel10
oped world. Canada ranks below Cuba, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania, Spain, and
11
the Czech Republic —none of which are energy superpowers. So much for Epstein's thesis.
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
What explains Third World poverty? Does the world not have enough to go around? Is it a scarcity
problem or a distribution problem? The world is no more short of fossil fuels than it is of food. The poverty in our inner cities and on reserves reflects economic inequity. In our system, people who are left
behind stay behind. Third World farmers grow cash crops for export—food they cannot afford. The
problem is putting resources in the hands of those who need them. If Epstein wants to help premature
1
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/early-infant-mortality-in-canada-called-2nd-worst-in-developed-world1.1314423
2
3
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2009/03/30/native_infant_mortality_rate_four_times_nonnatives_report.html
http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-action-must-be-taken-to-improve-first-nationsdrinking-water
4
Ibid.
5
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/bad-water-third-world-conditions-on-first-nations-in-canada1.3269500
6
http://www.timescolonist.com/life/global-voices-mother-hubbard-s-plight-a-reality-in-the-arctic1.330971
7
Ibid.
8
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Mouldy+homes+reserves+national+crisis+study+says/6050835/story.html
9
"The Crisis in Kashechewan: Water Contamination Exposes Canada’s Brutal Policies Against Indigenous People", http://www.socialistvoice.ca/?p=75
10
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/early-infant-mortality-in-canada-called-2nd-worst-in-developed-world1.1314423
11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
30
infants in the Third World, he should promote equity and justice, not fossil fuels. (A message anathema
to his Republican sponsors.) All the fossil fuels in the world will not help people who cannot afford them.
Promoting fossil fuels without economic justice will not power incubators in The Gambia.
The First World (a small fraction of the world's population) accounts for most of the world's resource
consumption, including energy. Epstein's moral case for fossil fuels, which focuses on energy scarcity
in the Third World, is a diversion. Who could argue against a higher standard of living and relief from
misery in the Third World? The moral case for fossil fuels in the Third World does not apply in the First
World. First World extravagance, waste, resource depletion, and disproportionately high GHG emissions come at the Third World's expense. Our problem is not energy scarcity. Our profligate use of
high-impact energy threatens the global ecosystem.
Global warming and climate change driven by our addiction to fossil fuels threatens the world's most
vulnerable with heat waves, drought, extreme weather, floods, sea level rise, pestilence, and disease.
1
As CBC reports , nearly half a billion people rely on coral reef fisheries—threatened by global warming,
ocean acidification, pollution, overfishing, and trawling. Epstein suggests that the Third World can solve
its problems with cheap, reliable, plentiful fossil fuels. Our extravagant use of fossil fuels amplifies Third
World problems—and puts solutions out of reach.
If the world cannot afford to burn more fossil fuels, that scuttles Epstein's case. The case for fossil fuels
in the Third World becomes academic if the First World's fossil fuel use precludes the further use of
fossil fuels everywhere. It is our use of fossil fuels, not scarcity in the Third World, that will seal the fate
of infants in The Gambia.
Footprint
Epstein: "And this illustrates a truth that I think goes almost completely unmentioned in
our civilization. We always talk about being green. About the ideal of minimizing our
impact on the planet. It's considered bad to have a footprint. But if you think about it,
nature doesn't give us a good standard of living. The people in The Gambia have a
very, very low footprint compared to ours. Human life requires transforming nature: improving it to meet human needs. Now in the process of that, in the process of using
technology, we will always create risks and side effects. But at least most of the time
the benefits far outweigh the risks. And that is what I believe is the case for the most
demonized technology in our civilization, which is fossil fuel energy.
"It's considered bad to have a footprint": Nonsense. What is bad is to have an excessive footprint—
beyond the limit the planet can sustain. To exceed the Earth's biocapacity. To ignore the ecosystem's
limits. To live beyond our means. To degrade our life support systems day after day. That way lies ecological collapse, mass extinction, and the end of the "civilization" Epstein is so anxious to preserve.
Ecological footprint measures our burden upon the Earth: the number of planet Earths required to sustain our way of life. One Earth is all we have. A footprint beyond one planet Earth is unsustainable. Epstein is not only unmindful of our huge footprint, but he actually seeks to increase it.
Epstein fails to distinguish between viability and sustainability. For many in the Third World, life is not
viable. Resources are scarce (or appropriated by others). First World lifestyles are not sustainable. We
overconsume and deplete the Earth's resources, especially energy in the form of fossil fuels. We need
to make enough of a footprint on the earth to remain viable—but not so large that our way of life becomes unsustainable.
Epstein's facile comparison of infant mortality in the First and Third World implies that, thanks to cheap
fossil fuels, the rich have solved the problems that still confound the poor. The opposite is true. Our
extravagance, pollution, and waste threaten global survival.
1
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/coral-reefs-dying-1.3523728
31
Another truth that "goes almost completely unmentioned" is overpopulation. As American economist
1
Jeffrey Sachs remarks, we are "bursting at the seams". We live in a finite world. The Earth cannot sustain perpetual growth: rising consumption by a growing population. As population grows, our individual
footprints need to shrink made to maintain the same global footprint. We may not exceed the Earth's
biocapacity except to our cost. What are our ecological limits? Does Epstein have any idea? Our global
footprint is estimated (conservatively) at 1.5 planet Earths. Canadians' average footprint is about four
planet Earths. The footprint of the wealthy is even higher. 40% of food (and the energy used to produce
it) is wasted. Amidst this excess, many people—in the Third World, in our inner cities, and on remote
reserves—go without.
What is a "good standard of living"? Epstein does not define the term. Does it mean a big house in the
suburbs with a two-car garage? Driving everywhere we go? Filling our mansions with mountains of
stuff? RVs, ATVs, skidoos, and motorboats? Annual trips to Mexico? The Earth cannot afford our current standard of living.
Does nature not give The Gambia a good standard of living"? Is nature to blame for The Gambia's
woes? Or are humans at fault? What role is played by colonialism/imperialism, exploitation, the slave
trade, economic servitude, political corruption, poor governance, bad resource management, economic
inequity, and the arms trade? Epstein is silent.
"The people in The Gambia have a very, very low footprint compared to ours": Conversely, we have a
very, very high footprint compared to theirs. So high in fact that it threatens the global ecosystem, upon
which both we, the Gambians, everyone else, and every living thing depends. Epstein refuses to face
the facts.
"Human life requires transforming nature: improving it to meet human needs": The experiment we call
"civilization" has failed numerous times, as detailed by authors Jared Diamond ("Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed") and Ronald Wright ("A Short History of Progress", 2004 Massey Lectures). History is littered with the ruins of civilizations that "transformed" nature past the breaking point.
Shall we follow in their path?
"Transforming" nature or bludgeoning it? "Improving" nature or wrecking it? We are presiding over the
sixth mass extinction. Signs of vandalism are everywhere: Marine dead zones. Giant gyres of plastic in
the oceans. Habitat destruction. Oil spills. Undrinkable water. Contaminated soil. Rainforest destruction.
Rivers clogged with waste. Litter everywhere. Acid rain—dead forests and lakes. Mountains of burning
e-waste in the Third World.
The result? Cancer villages. Smoggy cities. Asthma and lung disease. Mercury poisoning. Babies drink
PCB-contaminated milk. Industrial chemicals flow in our bloodstreams. Lead poisoning. Mesothelioma
from asbestos. Melanoma due to ozone holes. If "transforming" nature created this disaster, can the
solution be more of the same?
I believe we should make a good footprint on the earth, a big one, as big as we need to
maximize our well-being—and we need to look at the benefits and the risks.
Risks and side effects? What about real, lasting harm? What about measurable, observable costs (e.g.,
the sixth mass extinction)? When do the risks outweigh the benefits?
"But at least most of the time the benefits far outweigh the risks": Epstein provides not a jot of evidence.
His assertion is meaningless.
"At least most of the time." What does that mean? Sometimes the benefits do not far outweigh the
risks? Sometimes benefits and risks are equal? Sometimes the risks outweigh the benefits? Some-
1
Jeffrey Sachs: Bursting at the Seams: The Reith Lectures (2007)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00729fw
32
times the risks far outweigh the benefits? If Epstein does not take the case AGAINST fossil fuels seriously, why should we take his case FOR fossil fuels seriously?
Reducing fossil fuel use need not leave us impoverished and miserable. On the contrary, our extravagance and waste are killing us—and pushing other species to the brink. Living smarter means a higher
quality of life. Living more mindfully and less wastefully means living better. Living more equitably reduces exploitation, resentment, and misery—and promotes peace and justice.
Vaclav Smil: We have the know-how to consume, in rich countries, only half as much
[energy] as we do without lowering our REAL quality of life (REAL does not include unlimited SUVs, 15,000 sq. ft. custom-built houses etc, etc), and to provide everybody,
even in the most desperate parts of Africa with enough for a decent life. But we prefer
to waste enormously, and Africans prefer endless bouts of civil wars. This is not pri1
marily a technical problem…. This is primarily an ethical, moral problem.
Full-cost Accounting
Epstein: Now, it’s important to ask, why do we use so many fossil fuels? Is it just an
accident? I’m going to argue that it’s not. We use it for the same reason we use almost
any other technology, because it is the cheapest, most plentiful, most reliable solution
for the job. And when nuclear is a better solution, we use that; and when hydro is a better solution, we use that, leaving aside different kinds of subsidies; but most of the time,
fossil fuel energy is the way that the most people can afford the most energy and get it
most reliably.
Why do we depend so much on fossil fuels? Epstein's answer is that it is "the cheapest, most plentiful,
most reliable solution for the job".
Are fossil fuels cheap? Only if we discount (externalize) the costs. Fossil fuel producers and consumers
download most of the costs onto the public purse, the environment, and future generations. We use the
atmosphere as a free dump.
If burning fossil fuels degrades our environment and imperils our life-support systems, can we really
afford them? The price of energy should reflect its true costs. If we are to live sustainably (i.e., have a
future), the price of degrading our life-support systems must be prohibitive. If fossil fuels cost us our
future, they are not cheap, but prohibitively expensive.
Fossil fuel energy is "the way that the most people can afford the most energy"—again, only if they do
not pay the full costs. Epstein's premise begs the question. He assumes the truth of the very thing that
needs to be proved. The true cost of fossil fuels—that is the crux of the debate. If we reckon the costs
of AGW, fossil fuel pollution and health issues, landscape destruction, vanishing wildlife, and loss of
biodiversity, Epstein's argument falls apart.
Cheap energy is an illusion. What we pay at the pump represents only a fraction of the true costs. Others are stuck with the bill. If we do not pay our bills, the costs do not disappear. One way or another,
there will be a reckoning. Someone somewhere will pay. Epstein's premature baby paid with his life.
Our paradigm of cost externalization and deferral payment leads to environmental degradation and
ecosystem collapse. We are living on borrowed time.
1
Vaclav Smil, Professor in the Faculty of Environment and energy expert at the University of Manitoba,
as quoted by Andrew C. Revkin in "Imagine Everyone Was Equal, in Emissions",
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/imagine-everyone-was-equal-in-emissions/
33
Needs vs. Wants—and Waste
Epstein fails to distinguish between needs and wants. North Americans are energy hogs. We use far
more energy than we need. We waste more energy than we use. What is the moral case for extravagance and waste?
Can Epstein justify our addiction to cars? In our sprawled cities, many people drive everywhere they
go. We love our RVs, ATVs, skidoos, and motorboats. We leave the lights on. Our lawn-mowers are
hugely polluting. We are frequent fliers. Annual trips to Mexico are considered a birthright. We shop for
things we don't need and fill our homes with mountains of stuff. Everything we buy consumes energy
and resources and generates pollution and waste.
The internal efficiency of combustion engines is 20%. Eighty percent of the energy is lost as heat. Four
fifths of the emissions, pollution, and ecological destruction from vehicle use derive from fuel combustion that does no useful work.
We waste even more energy sitting in traffic jams; idling our cars; lining up at the drive-through; taking
needless trips; and driving gas-guzzling cars. Does it make sense to transport a 150-pound person in a
five-thousand pound SUV? Our freeways are clogged by long lines of single passenger vehicles all
going in the same direction. Too much of our energy use is non-essential, frivolous, wasteful, and destructive.
Et tu, Brute
Epstein: So with that in mind, I want to tell you another story about another baby. Now,
this baby was born in a much worse situation than the baby in The Gambia. This baby
was actually the baby of two friends of mine named David and Leanne, and this baby,
a baby boy was born almost three months premature. But he had an advantage that
the baby in the Gambia didn’t. He had something that thriving human life requires. He
had machines to support his life, and he had the energy to fuel those machines, and
overwhelmingly, it was fossil fuel energy. Without going into all the details, through all
kinds of miracles involving hospitals and three month stays and helicopters even, this
baby is completely healthy.
Now we almost never hear this mentioned when we talk about fossil fuels. The story I
told you does not prove that fossil fuels are good or that they should be used. What it
does illustrate though is that when we discuss fossil fuels, we don’t discuss it in a careful, morally responsible way.
"Careful, morally responsible"? Who keeps harping on about babies? Shameless manipulation.
David's and Leanne's preemie did not have an advantage—he had every advantage.
"He had something that thriving human life requires": To thrive indefinitely, human life must also respect
ecological limits. All the energy in the universe will not save us if we fail to live sustainably. If fossil
fuels—and the lifestyles they fuel—are not sustainable, the case for fossil fuels fails.
"…he had the energy to fuel those machines, and overwhelmingly, it was fossil fuel energy." In many
places, hydro projects and nuclear power provide the bulk of electricity. And the incubators are still running. Solar and wind power are expanding. Electricity is electricity.
Academic pretensions
Epstein: I came to this perspective from philosophy, my background is moral philosophy. Moral philosophy is all about how to think carefully about issues…
Self-flattery will get Epstein nowhere. Despite his education, he commits one fallacy after another. Not
all doctors are healthy; not all moral philosophers are perceptive or wise. Put three moral philosophers
34
in a room together and they will give you four opinions. If their positions are mutually exclusive, at most
one of them can be right.
Who is to judge?
Epstein: My background is in moral philosophy—and moral philosophy is all about
how to think carefully about issues; and I think there are at least three things that you
need to be clear about when you talk about the morality of anything. One is, what is our
goal? What do we consider moral? Two, what are the benefits of the thing? And three,
what are the risks of the thing? So we absolutely need to talk about any climate-related
risks, any pollution-related risks, any depletion-related risks, but we also need to be
very careful about how big those risks are and how they contrast to the benefits. Because if we don’t think about it carefully, then we won’t make the right decision.
Moral philosophy cannot claim a monopoly on cost-benefit analysis and careful thinking. Epstein's selfserving claims are unfounded.
"…we also need to be very careful about how big those risks are": Without a background in the relevant
sciences, a moral philosopher is in no position to judge the risks and benefits of fossil fuels.
"Because if we don’t think about it carefully, then we won’t make the right decision": Does Epstein suppose that thousands of scientists are incapable of careful thought? Who is in a better position to judge
the risks of fossil fuels? Scientists guided by evidence or third-rate moral philosophers promoting a corporate agenda?
The Moral Case for Extinction
Epstein: So for me the way I try to think of everything is: my goal is to maximize human well-being. I don’t believe in minimizing human impact; I believe in minimizing any
negative impacts to humans; but I believe we should make a good footprint on the
earth, a big one, as big as we need to maximize our well-being—and we need to look
at the benefits and the risks.
By all means, let us make a good footprint on the earth—as long as it is one planet Earth or less. Epstein has no concept of ecological limits. In the First World, the danger is that our footprint is too high,
not too low. The footprint of Epstein's well-heeled audience far exceeds one planet Earth.
What about the other species with whom we share the planet? Do we have any obligation to them? Do
they have any right to well-being? If maximizing human well-being (standard of living/prosperity) dooms
other species to extinction, is that acceptable? Epstein gives other species—the web of life on which
we all depend—no thought whatever.
The Moral Case for Pollution
Epstein: A good way to understand the benefits and the risks, or the benefits and the
concern of fossil fuels, is to understand what fossil fuels are.
Now, coal, oil and natural gas, as you can see in the diagram on the left, they’re made
up primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms that have very, very strong chemical bonds.
So, if you get this, you pretty much get everything both positive and potentially negative
about fossil fuels. Because what happens is, we take these hydrocarbons and we burn
them. So, when we burn something, we introduce oxygen to it. We add oxygen.
A better way to understand the risks of fossil fuels is to list the known perils of fossil fuel extraction, processing, transportation, and combustion. Which Epstein fails to do. He also ignores industrial accidents
and disasters.
Epstein sketches basic hydrocarbon chemistry, identifying (a small subset of) the elements that give
rise to warming and pollution. Hydrocarbon chemistry is far more complex and toxic than Epstein lets
35
on. Fossil fuel's perils are not limited to Epstein's simplistic analysis. We must look elsewhere for the
facts.
…crude oil is a complex mixture of thousands of different chemical components, mainly
organic compounds—hydrocarbons—which usually make up about 95 per cent of the
crude oil (however, hydrocarbon contents as low as around 50 per cent also occur).
These hydrocarbons vary in toxicity and degradability, and range from very volatile,
light materials like propane and benzene, to heavy compounds such as bitumens, asphaltenes, resins and waxes. The remaining about five per cent of the crude oil are
made up of small amounts of oxygen, nitrogen and sulphur, and traces of some fifty
1
other elements, mainly metals.
Coal ash contains "mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and other heavy metals, along with non-metals
2
such as selenium". Health effects from coal include "asthma, strokes, reduced intelligence, artery
blockages, heart attacks, congestive heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, mercury poisoning, arterial oc3
clusion, and lung cancer." Coal mining is responsible for thousands of deaths every year, not to mention injury and illness.
Epstein mentions nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides, which contribute to smog. He omits low-level
ozone, carbon monoxide, particulates, heavy metals (lead and mercury poisoning, carcinogens), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and benzene (a carcinogen). Fossil fuel production and combustion imply acid rain, habitat loss, ecosystem fragmentation,
toxic tailings ponds (which leak and trap thousands of birds), groundwater contamination, sour gas
4
leaks, oil spills (land and sea), pipeline explosions, train derailments, coal mine tailings pond failures …
Did I mention global warming? Health effects include asthma, cancer, lung disease, brain damage, and
premature death.
In the London Smog of 1952, thousands died from fossil fuel air pollution. Paris has the worst air quality
in Europe due to diesel cars. The blanket of smog and particulates over cities around the world is deadly. Urban air pollution largely derives from fossil fuel combustion. In a 2008 editorial, the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) attributed more than 20,000 deaths annually in Canada to air pollution.
Most at risk are the infants dear to Epstein's heart:
Canada can't afford complacency on air pollution: CMAJ editorial
The CMA is particularly concerned about the impact of air pollution on children.
"We see increases in admissions to hospital for respiratory illnesses such as asthma [in
5
children]".
Worst polluted cities likely don't monitor air quality well: WHO
More than 7 million premature deaths occur every year due to air pollution
Common causes of air pollution include too many cars, especially diesel-fuelled vehicles, the heating and cooling of big buildings, waste management, agriculture and the
6
use of coal or diesel generators for power.
A moral case for fossil fuels? Ask Peace River farming families forced to flee their homes due to oilsands pollution (v. p.24). Ask the residents of Fort Chipewyan, who are afraid to drink the water and eat
the fish—and whose neighbors have died of rare cancers.
1
http://oils.gpa.unep.org/facts/oil-what.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Environmental_and_health_effects
3
Ibid.
4
2013 Obed Coal Mine spill into Athabasca River near Hinton, AB:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/alberta-coal-mine-spill-heading-to-n-w-t-1.2428615
5
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-can-t-afford-complacency-on-air-pollution-cmaj-editorial1.3160142
6
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/air-pollution-cities-ranked-1.3578799
2
36
Rare Earth Minerals
Epstein: …this is one of the most dangerous mining operations in the world; it’s called
a rare earth mine. This doesn’t exist with producing oil, coal, or gas, it does exist with
producing wind turbines. In my book I have a story told by someone who went there
about people getting large amounts of cancer, about softening bones, because people
are dealing with very dangerous, radioactive materials, and the Chinese don’t have
very good laws about these things. So, that’s an indication that we have a debate that’s
not evenly focused on the risks and benefits of all technologies.
If Epstein believes coal mining is not dangerous, he is misinformed. Thousands of workers die yearly in
coal mine accidents. Coal dust causes pneumoconiosis, emphysema, and progressive massive fibro1
sis. Black lung disease has killed more than 76,000 U.S. miners since 1968.
Solar panels and wind turbines produce zero emissions. So Epstein goes after the mining process involved in the manufacture of wind turbine magnets. Given that rare Earth minerals are used in a wide
2
range of industrial and consumer products that Epstein himself uses, singling out wind turbines is disingenuous.
Wind turbines are a convenient scapegoat, but they are not to blame for China's dismal environmental
3
4
5
record: cancer villages , smog-choked cities , and severe water pollution . China's air pollution is largely due to coal-fired power plants. China's environmental regulations and enforcement are abysmal or
non-existent. Workers receive little or no protection. Corruption and criminal operations compound the
problem.
During their operational lifetime, solar panels and wind turbines result in zero human injury, morbidity or
mortality. Fossil fuels pollute and harm health from beginning to end. The impacts of solar panels and
wind turbines are strictly local; the impacts of fossil fuels are global. Is there really any comparison? If
Epstein is concerned about maximizing human well-being, he needs to face the facts.
China’s coal crisis: Air pollution is killing 4,000 people every day
China’s … coal-fired air pollution crisis…is responsible for 17 percent of the country’s
6
deaths, or 1.6 million people each year.
China's coal emissions responsible for 'quarter of a million premature deaths'
Emissions from coal plants in China were responsible for a quarter of a million premature deaths in 2011 and are damaging the health of hundreds of thousands of Chinese
7
children…
What is the cost of cheap goods imported from China? Pollution control costs money. The high cost of
low price is environmental degradation and public health disasters. In China as elsewhere, fossil fuel
companies and consumers do not pay the full costs.
1
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-23/cut-in-coal-dust-to-combat-black-lung-draws-industryfire.html
2
Rare Earth Elements (REEs) are used in hundreds of technologies: hybrid and electric cars,
smartphones and cellphones, laptops, LCD screens, radars and precision guided bombs, medical imaging equipment (x-ray machines), rechargeable batteries (including batteries used in hybrid cars and
electric scooters), hard-drives, colour TVs and computer monitors, audio speakers, lasers, magnets,
special types of glass or lenses, fluorescent lamps, and colour-additives for making ceramics.
3
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/07/china-cancer-villages-industrial-pollution
4
Air pollution is linked to 1 in 6 premature deaths, killing 1.6 million Chinese a year. "Airpocalypse,
again. With winter coming, China hit by ‘doomsday’ smog."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/09/airpocalypse-again-with-wintercoming-china-hit-by-doomsday-smog/
5
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-environment-water-idUSTRE66P39H20100726
6
7
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/14/chinas_coal_crisis_air_pollution_is_killing_4000_people_every_day/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/12/china-coal-emissions-smog-deaths
37
No one claims that renewables have no impact. If "green energy" means no impact, there is no such
thing as green energy. All energy systems have impacts. All energy use has costs. The question is,
which source is least costly? How can we reduce energy use? The answer is not to increase our dependence on fossil fuels.
•
•
•
"The price of smog in Canada: $1 billion, 2,700 lives, CMA says"
2
"Smog-related deaths set to soar in Canada: report"
3
"Deaths due to air pollution to skyrocket: CMA"
1
Not so fast
Epstein: What happens when you add hydrogen to oxygen? What does it become?
Water. And the carbon. What happens when you add carbon to oxygen? Carbon dioxide, CO2, so that’s the whole global warming concern.
CO2 is not the "whole global warming concern." Human activity has boosted the levels of other GHGs:
methane, nitrous oxides, and low-level ozone. Man-made GHGs include CFCs, HFCs, and HCFCs.
Burning fossil fuels is not the only cause of warming. Oil operations vent and flare huge volumes of
natural gas. Cement manufacture, deforestation, and wood burning generate CO2. Livestock operations, landfills, and rice paddies generate methane.
Black carbon (i.e., soot), which reduces the albedo of snow and ice, is third only to CO2 and methane
for its contribution to global warming. It is the most powerful warming agent in the Arctic.
And warming is not the only peril of burning fossil fuels.
Fool Efficiency
Epstein: To give you a sense of how inefficient these technologies are compared to
fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro…
The internal efficiency of combustion engines is 20%. Eighty percent of the energy is lost as heat. Four
fifths of the emissions, pollution, and ecological destruction from vehicle use derive from fuel combustion that does no useful work. (That does not include the energy it takes to extract, refine, and deliver
the fuel to your gas tank.)
Efficiency? What about digging up the Alberta oilsands, flying in workers from Newfoundland, importing
condensate from overseas, and shipping diluted bitumen half way around the world to China?
Subsidies
Epstein: Germany is considered the ultimate success story in solar and wind. They
have what they would call invested—I would call subsidized—more solar and wind
combined than anyone else.
According to the Int'l Energy Agency (IEA), fossil fuel subsidies are five times higher than incentives for
4
renewables. That is not counting the vast invisible subsidies: fossil fuel producers and consumers do
not pay the full costs of damage to the environment and public health.
1
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=9b344678-8d37-495b-b7f2-7c6130d53e01
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/13/us-pollution-idUSN1343168720080813
3
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/deaths-due-to-air-pollution-to-skyrocket-cma-1.740257
4
https://www.iea.org/media/workshops/2014/cop20/Merrill.pdf
2
38
1
As the IEA graphic below illustrates, fossil fuel subsidies harm the Third World infants so dear to Epstein's heart.
Catastrophes—real and imagined
Epstein: Now if the world’s fossil fuels went down, that would be a global catastrophe.
The shift to renewables will be gradual, not overnight. If the world continues to burn 90 million barrels of
oil and 8 billion tonnes of coal a day, that will be a global catastrophe.
An ounce of prevention
Epstein: Because it’s not just that climate related deaths aren’t getting that much
worse, it’s that as we use more fossil fuels, they get dramatically better. Climate related
deaths, since CO2 emissions began, are down 98 percent.
Source, please.
Correlation is not causation. How does Epstein know that the decrease is due mainly or solely to fossil
fuels? More likely, decreased mortality is due to improved construction materials and design, communications, warning systems, disaster assistance response (organization, temporary shelter, water, food,
clothing), and medical aid. Many material aspects of life have improved in the last century, not just energy availability. To be sure, energy plays a part, but it is not the whole picture. (In disaster zones, the
power supply is often disrupted or destroyed.)
Epstein downplays climate-related deaths and their predicted increase due to heat waves, floods,
storms, drought, and famine. In recent times, tens of thousands perished in heat waves in First World
nations amply supplied with fossil fuels. At least 30,000 died across Europe in 2003; 55,000 died in
Russia in 2010. The death toll of Hurricane Katrina was 1,836—in the wealthiest, most energy-rich nation in the world.
1
NB: NOT from Epstein's presentation.
https://www.iea.org/media/weowebsite/energysubsidies/ff_subsidies_slides.pdf
39
It is disingenuous to suggest that burning more fossil feels will help mankind cope with more intense /
prolonged / frequent heat waves exacerbated by global warming due to burning fossil fuels. Is it not
wiser to prevent more intense heat waves / droughts / floods / infestations / epidemics? Inasmuch as
warming contributed to the Fort McMurray fire, would it not be prudent to reduce the intensity of wildfires by addressing the causes of global warming?
Climate Change Wild Card
Epstein: Did we make the climate that much better through CO2? No. We might have
made it a little better, I don’t know how much. Here’s what we do know though. There
are three basic impacts to the world of climate and plants when we burn fossil fuels.
One is, there’s a mild warming effect from CO2. There’s a more significant plant growth
effect, but the third thing is the one we completely ignore, there’s an enormous climate
protection effect from energy.
Has CO2 made the climate better in western Canada, a region hit hard by recent wildfires and floods?
Epstein's appeal flies in the face of the science. He disregards the warnings about more warming and
extreme weather to come.
Royal Society: The impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately upon developing countries and the poor – those who can least afford to adapt. Thus a changing
climate will exacerbate inequalities in, for example, health and access to adequate food
1
and clean water.
A recent Thomson Reuters article on CBC.ca suggests that climate change will threaten power generation. Electrical power will become more expensive and less reliable. Which means less power for incubators in the Third World. Less "climate protection".
Power generation could take a big hit from climate change
Climate change could lead to significant declines in electricity production in coming
decades as water resources are disrupted, said a study published on Monday.
Hydropower stations and thermoelectric plants, which depend on water to generate
energy, together contribute about 98 per cent of the world's electricity production, said
the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Shifts in water temperatures, or the availability of fresh water due to climate change,
could lead to reductions in electricity production capacity in more than two thirds of the
world's power plants between 2040 and 2069, said the study from an Austrian research
centre.
"Power plants are not only causing climate change, but they might also be affected in
major ways by climate," said Keywan Riahi, Director of the Energy Program at the Int'l
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
"(Due to) climate change it will be increasingly difficult to provide reliable services at affordable costs," Riahi, one of the study's authors, told the Thomson Reuters Founda2
tion.
CBC recently reported the worst drought in Ethiopia in 50 years. Some 430,000 children are suffering
3
from malnutrition. No amount of fossil fuel energy can reverse drought.
Black is white
Epstein: Nature does not give us a safe climate that we make dangerous. Nature
gives us a dangerous climate that we make safe.
1
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2007/8031.pdf
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/hydro-power-climate-1.3388843
3
"Severe drought leaves millions relying on emergency aid"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ethiopia-drought-1.3532393
2
40
All evidence and warnings to the contrary. Scientists warn of increasing heat waves, wildfires, drought,
extreme weather events (storms), sea level rise, storm surges, and floods. Underlying it all—rapid
change. Just the result one would expect with more energy in the atmosphere. Most experts predict
that Third World countries will be hit hardest by the impacts of climate change. Epstein ignores the
threat.
Epstein:…the more fossil fuels we put in people’s hands, the more cheap and reliable
energy we have, the more we protect them from climate. So, when the Pope or the G7
talk about caring about the poor people, therefore, we should reduce CO2 emissions,
they’ve got it exactly backwards. If you actually want to protect those people from
storms, and floods, and everything else, we’ve got the evidence and the logic that they
absolutely need more of the best forms of energy, including fossil fuel energy.
Most scientists who study the subject, including the IPCC, vehemently disagree. Watch the videos of
Fort McMurray going up in flames.
Is global warming a threat to humans? If so, how?
Yes, health care providers and insurers alike recognize that global warming is a threat
to humans. The major public health organizations of the world have said that climate
change is a critical public health problem. According to the U.S. National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, climate change makes many existing diseases and
conditions worse, and it helps pests and pathogens spread into new regions. The most
vulnerable people—children, the elderly, the poor, and those with health conditions—
are at increased risk for climate-related health effects.
Global warming is also a threat to the economy and national security in many developing nations. Because societies and their built environments have developed under a
climate that has fluctuated within a relatively small range of conditions, most impacts of
a rapidly changing climate will present challenges—particularly as extreme weather
and climate conditions become more extreme, more frequent, and longer lasting. In
developing nations, populations are much more vulnerable to weather and climate extremes and are less able to adapt. Any climate-related impacts on scarce natural resources, food, and water are more likely to trigger humanitarian crises or armed con1
flicts that can destabilize nations, or whole regions.
Epstein's presentation is idiocy. Lucky for him that the public is scientific, energy, and environmental
illiterate. Thanks in part to broadcasts like IDEAS' "Contrarians".
1
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/global-warming-frequently-askedquestions
41
Deep Green: Science and Rhetoric, Patrick Moore's Confessions1 (excerpts)
2
Blogpost by Rex Weyler - 7 April, 2011
Once or twice a year I have a beer with my old Greenpeace colleague Patrick Moore, although we no
longer agree on environmental issues. Twenty-five years ago, Moore became a corporate consultant
and now claims – in his self-published Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout – that environmentalists
are “extremists”. He portrays himself as “sensible” and Greenpeace as “increasingly senseless”.
…Moore claims he left Greenpeace in the 1980s over a campaign to “ban chlorine” worldwide, but
Greenpeace never conducted such a campaign. Greenpeace battled specific organochlorine emissions
- particularly dioxins - from specific industries, such as Canadian pulp mills whose effluents caused the
closure of shellfish beaches. Old colleagues recall that Moore left Greenpeace over a power struggle
with then Executive Director David McTaggart. Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter recalled that Moore
“burned off old buddies” and was “deposed”.
Moore may be entitled to his subjective view of history, but he goes beyond opinion by misrepresenting
events and selectively interpreting data to support his corporate patrons.
He states “global temperature stopped rising 12 to 15 years ago” but this interpretation of the data confuses a routine fluctuation with an irrefutable trend. …when we examine a running average of temperature (as with commodity prices to gauge a trend) we see that since 1850, global average temperature
has risen from about 13.7°C to 14.6°C, with a particularly high spike in 1999. When the temperature
naturally fluctuates down from a spike, the heating does not “stop”.
…Moore tends to cherry pick data that he likes and ignore data that might call his conclusions into
question. He promotes nuclear power as a source of clean, low-carbon energy, but ignores data that
reveals the carbon cost of nuclear energy.
…Moore declares that nuclear energy can be produced “at a lower cost”, but he’s wrong on this count
as well. Nuclear power has required massive public subsidies, and budgets have spiraled out of control.
…Moore is a corporate public relations consultant. During the last 25 years, Moore has sold his Greenpeace affiliation to some of the most powerful and predatory companies on the planet. For example, he
promoted Asia Pulp and Paper, the notorious Indonesian logging company linked to dictator General
Suharto, denounced by Human Rights Watch and 35 Indonesian organizations for human rights abuses...
One of Moore’s favorite rhetorical tricks is the “straw man” attack, an argument against an imaginary
opponent. In defending industrial logging, Moore attacks “environmental groups” who believe there is
“something fundamentally wrong with cutting trees” and who want to want to “stop using wood”. But
there are no environmental groups that advocate these ideas. Moore invents this imaginary target, the
straw man, and then attacks it. For decades, environmentalists have advocated selective logging and
supported community-scale initiatives that harvest wood for energy and building, preserve forest and
allow sustained multiple use by human and wilderness communities.
…Moore claims, “Poverty is the worst environmental problem,” but he avoids the data that shows onesixth of humanity – the wealthy – using five-sixths of the world’s resources and exporting the environ-
1
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/deep-green-science-andrhetoric-patrick-moore/blog/34145/
2
"Rex Weyler was a director of the original Greenpeace Foundation, the editor of the organisation's first
newsletter, and a co-founder of Greenpeace International in 1979."
mental impact by plundering poor nations. However, blaming ecological destruction on the poor helps
him rationalize the excesses of his clients.
Moore has served as a corporate public relations consultant far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace, and he has never worked as a scientist. Scientists do primary research, confirm facts, reveal
conflicting data, cite sources, and respectfully discuss dissenting views. I work with scientists around
the world assessing environmental issues, and the best scientists appear humbled by their knowledge,
not condescending, display respect for other scientists, and avoid rhetorical tricks that distort the data.
Moore calls his book a ‘Confession’, but confesses only that his former concerns about nuclear radiation must have been wrong since he’s now been hired to take the opposite position.
…Humanity faces a serious dilemma regarding the scale of our consumption, human impoverishment
and ecological overshoot. Growing deserts, shrinking forests, drained aquifers, depleted soils, disappearing species, acidic seas, lopped-off mountain tops, a billion hungry people and a planet heating up
like a flambé speak more convincingly than rhetorical tricks promoting business as usual.
43
The following articles, which I came across or were published after I filed my request for review with the
CBC Ombudsman, may be of interest:
1) US senators detail a climate science 'web of denial' but the impacts go well beyond their borders
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/jul/12/us-senators-detail-a-climatescience-web-of-denial-but-the-impacts-go-well-beyond-their-borders
2) The War on Science will change how you see the world
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/01/the-war-onscience-with-change-how-you-see-the-world